Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Evolution, no positive mutations can be identified, so that makes it all about science....

Story telling and fables.

by StFerdIII

 

Evolution is not about science. It is about dogma, story-telling, grant money, power, privilege, sustaining an atheist-naturalist world view [the Nazis also promoted such a world-view]; and often times hatred of the human [evolved pond scum are not special, according to most of within Darwin's cult].

 

Abiogenesis, nothing created everything, information ordered syntactically in a complexity that baffles....these and a million other objectives exist to Evolution. But they are never taught, discussed, or debated. Naturalism which most atheists in the main support; is the theology of both the state and the education systems. If you are against naturalism, and abiogenesis, or random chance mutations taking a tulip and creating a teacher; than you are anti-science – so say the zealots from the Church of Darwin.

 

The Holy Trinity Church of chance, time and mutations [which only degrade and do not improve, eg 4.000 diseases]; claims everything supports evolution. Ask an evolutionist for evidence of positive mutations in the real world – something concrete. You won't get an answer, just hand-waving. Any evidence which contradicts evolution is magically co-opted to support it. Soft Dino tissue, which can't be more than a few thousand years old, is magically mixed with iron and the cult intones that yes indeed, soft tissue will last 78 million years.

 

In this vein we have the following oxymorons, with a heavy emphasis on the last part of the word;

 

-Evolution design

-Evolution engineering

-Directed Evolution

 

So a random chance process based on mythical natural selection [selecting from what, how and why ?]; is now turned into purposeful engineering.....mindboggling. Who or what exactly is doing the design ?

 

'Natural selection is so misleading a term, Darwin later chose “survival of the fittest” as closer to what he meant. Some evolutionists picture the environment as a selector. Others view survival as a selector. These are both logical fallacies. Neither the environment or survival can select, because neither has foresight, mind, or goals. Whatever happens, nobody cares. Norman Macbeth wrote in 1971, “A process that operates invisibly, with an intensity that cannot be observed and with no ability to explain specific problems, an impersonal process that is continually given personal qualities—this sets my teeth on edge” (Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, p. 46).'

 

How can chaos select ? Why would a gene 'select' to mutate [which 99.9% is either negative or neutral] to 'survive' ? Why would a scale want to turn into a feather, or a lemur into a hominid ? How would the environment drive an antelope to become a giraffe ? Wouldn't the antelope just be happy being an antelope ?


Evolution is all rhetoric and no reality. You can't design something artificially in a lab, and then declare that 'natural processes' somehow did the designing. Where is the natural soupy pond full of chemicals waiting to be electrocuted and turned into complex cellular creatures ? Why would a single cell bacteria want to 'naturally select' to become a baboon ?

 

Junk science is heavy on the junk, light on the science.