- This topic is empty.
- Posts
A Massive Logical Hole
If millions of chance mutations are needed before one truly beneficial mutation can emerge, then what becomes of those mutations that are not immediately fatal to the organism and are passed on to the next generation?
Such deleterious mutations would, from a statistical standpoint, far exceed the number of supposedly beneficial ones. Thus their inevitable entry into the gene pool would result in the progressive deterioration of a species and its eventual demise.
If Dawkins, Gould and the others were right, then the very mechanism that they were using to explain evolution must lead inexorably, not to the creation of a new species, but to the destruction of existing ones! Even if this were the only logical problem with this so-called science, it would destroy it completely. But there are many others.
In fact, the theory of evolution contravenes so many well-established principles of physics, chemistry and mathematics that it is difficult to understand why so many otherwise rational men and women continue to believe in it. This paper tells the story behind the story, the true nature and purpose of the elaborate pseudo-science known as Evolution.
The Rat’s Nest
The theory of evolution would be easy to defend if it were truly scientific, but because it is fundamentally irrational it must be reinforced, reinterpreted and reinvented almost continually. In addition, all kinds of distractions are employed by its most radical adherents in order to deflect attention from a rat’s nest of embarrassing facts.
Here are just a few of these facts:
1. Salt-polluted oceans. The evolutionary process needs millions of years to operate successfully. However, even if the earth were just 10 million years old – a small fraction of the time required for ‘evolution’ to take effect – the oceans of the world would be so heavily laden with salt and other soluble mineral deposits that they would be as lifeless as the Dead Sea.
2. Total erosion. By the same token, at existing rates of weathering and erosion, the great mountain ranges of the world would have completely worn away and the earth’s surface would now be a soil-depleted wasteland. Furthermore, the accumulation of alluvium from the world’s rivers over such a long period would have covered the ocean floors with a uniform carpet of silt several miles deep. Since obviously neither is the case, we know that the earth must be thousands, not millions, of years old.
3. The radical gap between life and non-life. It has never been demonstrated that life of any kind can emerge from inanimate chemical constituents. Scientists have not even developed a theoretical model of how this might be achieved. In the so-called Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 a number of amino acids were synthesized from a mixture of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen using high-voltage discharges. This rudimentary chemical reaction did not produce life of any kind, so the argument that it ‘came close’ or that a life-forming mechanism had been identified was pure humbug.
4. The deliberate trivialization of complexity. Life cannot develop except in the form of a living cell, the smallest possible self-sustaining, self-reproducing organic unit. The early evolutionists, including Darwin himself, regarded the cell as a fairly simple structure, rather like a tiny protoplasmic clockwork device.
This allowed them to employ a concept of ‘life’ that could be explained in fairly primitive mechanical terms. Of course, an evolutionary explanation is much easier to sustain if the fundamental components of life are defined in a trivial way. Scientific advances over the past 100 years or so have confirmed that the cell is many millions of times more complex than the simple mechanism that Darwin and his contemporaries had imagined.
Even the most primitive cell is now known to contain dozens of types of organelles which move around in a highly structured manner performing an amazing array of intricate functions. The cell is in reality an immensely complex chemical factory, with hundreds of discrete processes taking place at the same time. Among its many highly sophisticated components are DNA, RNA, cytoplasm, ribosomes, enzymes, mitochondria, proteins, locomotive cilia, and an elaborate system of cytoplasmic membranes, sacs and vesicles.
In addition, the mitochondria are known to possess their own DNA and RNA, which is completely different from the DNA and RNA found elsewhere in the cell. And since they are self-replicating, they are produced only by an earlier generation of mitochondria – the cell nucleus itself cannot produce them. Thus, in order to function properly, a cell must contain an energy-producing organelle which cannot survive outside the cell and which the cell itself cannot produce!
To believe that something this complex could have arisen by chance is disingenuous in the extreme. Statistically it could never happen, no matter how much time was allowed to elapse.
5. The complete absence of intermediary forms in the fossil record. For a new species to evolve gradually over a long period of time, it would have to pass through a number of intermediary stages before a fully functioning, survival-enhancing attribute could be added to its genetic code. Dozens of transitional body forms would conceivably be required before this new state was attained. These in turn should appear with great frequency in the fossil record. Evolutionists in the 19th century, who lacked fossil evidence of this kind, were confident that such intermediary forms would soon be identified, but this never happened. All species – whether they are fish, crustaceans, reptiles, mammals, marsupials, insects, or birds – appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed, without any intermediary stages whatsoever. In a proper scientific discipline an anomaly of this magnitude would quickly consign a theory to the trash heap, but in the strange world of evolution – where principles like causality, proof and evidence are applied only when they support the outcome one is seeking – such an obvious outcome is not even considered.
6. Recourse to circular reasoning. Some of the key concepts in evolutionary theory are actually based on circular reasoning. For example, evolution is meant to guarantee the survival of the fittest, but the fittest are never defined in any meaningful way. They are simply the individuals who survive! This kind of reasoning is depressingly silly, but it is quite common among the Darwinian elite who dominate the biological sciences today. We have already seen how a cell cannot function without the mitochondria that supply it with essential energy, but its own DNA cannot produce the necessary mitochondria. No cell, no mitochondria; no mitochondria, no cell. Such interdependent relationships cannot be explained in evolutionary terms – unless one resorts to some form of circular reasoning. Let’s take another example. The age of a fossil is determined by the rock stratum in which it is found, but these strata in turn are assigned a position in the geological column by reference to the fossils they contain. If you are not already familiar with the strange world of evolution, you may think I am making this stuff up, but incredibly I am not.
7. Conflict with other branches of science. All branches of science – with one exception – recognize and accept the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that all orderly processes in the universe are continually moving into a less ordered state. In short they are decaying. The most obvious example is progressive heat loss. Every object, large or small, terrestrial or interstellar, is losing heat through radiation. This can never be recaptured in its totality, which means that every ordered system will eventually lose heat and die unless more is added from another source. This law commands respect in every branch of science except evolutionary biology. Why? Because it refutes a f
undamental tenet of evolution, namely, that an ordered system can advance, purely by chance, into a more ordered state. In short, the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes known as the law of entropy, guarantees that nothing can ever evolve. Therefore, unless several other branches of science are seriously defective, the so-called science of evolution is completely bogus.8. Uniformitarianism. Since evolution needs hundreds of millions of years to take effect, the fossil record must reflect this. The sedimentary rock strata in which fossils are embedded must therefore have accumulated in an extremely slow, uniform manner across all regions of the earth’s crust. If changes in rock strata took place over a short period of time, then any fossils they contain must have ‘evolved’ over an equally short period of time, which would conflict with the theory of evolution.
For this reason the sister science of geology has postulated that all transformative processes on the earth’s surface for eons past have been very slow and very gradual, much like those we see today. This completely excludes the possibility of a catastrophic event which may have radically altered the profile and composition of rock strata across large parts of the earth’s crust. This assumption – for it is nothing more – is known as uniformitarianism.
Even though there are countless geological phenomena that cannot be explained satisfactorily in accordance with a uniformitarian mechanism, it continues to dominate the science of geology. These include the formation of the Grand Canyon in Colorado, the existence of truly massive boulders in locations far removed from their place of origin, and the radical misalignment of rock strata which supposedly accumulated along uniformitarian lines on a continental scale over millions of years.
Uniformitarianism is such an orthodox dogma of geology that it has remained virtually immune to criticism for nearly two hundred years. Despite extensive evidence that the earth’s crust has been subjected to significant upheaval in the recent past, the possibility is simply dismissed.
9. The geological column. Uniformitarian principles require that rock strata develop slowly over long periods of time, with layers of distinct morphology and composition accumulating one on top of another. The logic of this model requires that the sequence be consistent on a continental scale since otherwise no meaningful conclusions could be drawn about the time epoch in which they were laid down. All layers of the same type should therefore denote the same segment of geological time. Geologists have analysed these layers in a wide variety of locations around the globe and compiled what is known as the ‘geological column’, a kind of universal timepiece for determining the age of each layer. We have already noted a major problem with the geological column, namely that the age of each layer was initially calculated by reference to the fossils that it contained, while the age of the fossils was determined largely by reference to the layer in which it was found. But there is another remarkable problem with the geological column – it doesn’t actually exist! Not one extant example of the column may be found anywhere on earth. Furthermore, in many places where segments of the alleged column do exist, the sequence of layers differs from the one ‘approved’ by the scientific community. Given that each layer was meant to have accumulated along uniformitarian lines over millions of years, it is difficult to explain how even one layer could appear out of sequence.
10. Fossilisation.. There is no doubt that an astonishing variety of species, many of which are now extinct, may be found in the fossil record. Their authenticity is not disputed. But a truly unusual fact is often overlooked, namely that uniformitarian model has no way explaining how they got there! The natural world has an abundance of species which live off carrion, which scavenge for dead and dying animals, and which leave no respectable remnant to be fossilised. Even those few fragments that escape the scavengers are shortly thereafter consumed by insects, bacteria and a multiplicity of micro-organisms.
According to the evolutionary theorists we are expected to believe, not just that intact carcasses can remain untouched for many weeks or months, but that they can retain their integrity for such long periods that soil and other debris have sufficient time to accumulate and entomb them.
Even scientists who explore the ocean floor in regions rich in marine life are unable to find even a vestige of the material that would be needed to form a fossilised carcase or skeleton. In short, organic matter cannot survive long enough, either in the soil or in the sea, to be amenable to the ultra-slow process of fossilisation – yet another glaring flaw with the uniformitarian model and the theory of evolution.
11. Fossil abundance. If the earth is as old as the evolutionists maintain, and fossilisation proceeds in accordance with the uniformitarian model, then one ought to find an abundance of fossils in all sedimentary rocks – without exception. A hundred million year is a truly enormous period of time, during which virtually every square mile of the earth’s surface should have accumulated hundreds, if not thousands of tons of fossilised material. But fossil troves are relatively rare and the widespread distribution that one would expect is simply not found.
12. Fossil graveyards. Evolutionists play down an intriguing (and anomalous) aspect of fossil deposition, namely the frequency with which they are found in ‘fossil graveyards’, large aggregations of the fossilised remains of a wide variety of species. Many of these ‘graveyards’ – also known as bone beds or lagerstätten – contain a bewildering diversity of animals. For example, the Maotianshan Shales in Yunnan Province, China, has 185 different species among its fossilised fauna, comprising an amazing 15 phylums.
It’s as though several sections of a large zoo had been frozen in time. The rate of fossilization was so rapid that even the antennae and other soft body parts of the trilobites were preserved. A process of slow fossilization could not have achieved either of these outcomes. Soft body parts would have decayed long before detail of this quality could have been preserved, while the statistical probability that so many different species should come together seriatim in this one location over thousands, if not millions, of years and just happen to get fossilized, is are sounding nil.
The phenomena observed at Maotianshan could only have resulted from a short traumatic event which killed all of the specimens at the same time, perhaps even the same day, and embalmed them in mud. Furthermore, the diversity of the species found in the shales would suggest that many of them had originated across a wide geographical area and were transported to the ‘graveyard’ in a massive flood of some kind. In short, fossil graveyards offer no evidence of evolution and make a laughingstock of the uniformitarian model.
13. Human population. According to the evolutionists, mankind evolved in the Great Rift Valley in north-east Africa about 200,000 years ago. Now let’s consider for a moment the severe practical implications of this. If we assume that the rate of population increase among early man was broadly similar to the rate obtaining today – a little over 1 percent – and if we assume that the total human population of the earth 200,000 years ago was a mere 100 individuals, then it would have grown to several trillion (not billion) in less than ten thousand years!
Perhaps a global annual rate of increase of 1 percent is too high. However, even if we use a lesser rate, we still get an astronomical expansion in the population in just a few thousand years. For example, some historians reckon that the population of the planet as a whole at the time of Christ was around 100 million. Based on a current (2012) world population of 7
billion, this represents a long-run annual increase of slightly over one fifth of one percent (0.212%). If we apply the same annual rate of increase to our Rift Valley population, it would have grown from 100 individuals to 157 billion in just 10,000 years. After a few more millennia, there would have been no space on the planet for even one more person.As you can see, the Great Rift Valley theory is sheer nonsense. It should not even be dignified with the epithet ‘theory’ .
If we extrapolate backwards from today’s population using only as lightly higher (but still very conservative) annual growth rate – 0.302% instead of 0.212% – we find that a starting population of 100 people would have increased to seven billion, the current population of the world, in about 6,000 years. This is fully consistent with the timeframe found in the Bible.
14. Simultaneous evolution of sexual opposites. Evolutionists regularly rhapsodize over the ingenious way ‘nature’ has achieved optimum genetic diversity through cross-pollination and sexual reproduction. But they give little attention to the serious problem that this poses for evolutionary theory. The actual transmission of genetic material from the male to the female is a remarkably complex process, both chemically and behaviourally, in a vast number of species. For example, in many species the male must emit certain chemical triggers to which the female must respond in a very specific way. Unless his signal and her response are exactly right, they will not mate. But, according to the theory of evolution, the reproductive mechanisms in both the male and the female must have evolved independently. Therefore evolutionists actually believe that the genes which enable these two highly complex, complementary processes to operate just happened to evolve in exactly the right way at exactly the same time in exactly the same location.
Of course, this is utterly impossible – a complete fantasy. But it is fairly typical of the evolutionary mindset, where an astronomical series of improbably accidents is deemed to occur, not once but twice, and produce two perfectly adapted, sexually compatible organisms of dazzling complexity. It’s as though eons of time were a kind of pixie dust that can bring order out of chaos.
15. Mutation of Fruit-Flies. Evolutionists insist that a series of random mutations must eventually give rise to one which somehow confers an actual or potential advantage on a species, however small the change may be. In their determination to provide experimental evidence of this, they have bred countless generations of fruit-flies (drosophila melanogaster) under controlled laboratory conditions and induced random mutations in their genetic code through irradiation and other methods. Since the fruit fly can produce a new generation every two weeks or so, scientists have been able to observe the outcome across hundreds of generations. So how many new species have been produced by this process? How many new proteins? How many new enzymes?
The answer: Not one.
We could cite many more jaw-dropping anomalies in evolutionary theory, but these ought to be sufficient. The list is long and getting longer as more and more scientists are beginning to regain their sanity and asking fairly obvious questions about this absurd pseudo-science.
Many scientists who reject evolutionary theory have a background in mathematics, informatics, chemistry or engineering, where convenient assumptions are anathema, where experimental rigour is essential, and where woolly reasoning is ruthlessly exposed. They also understand such basics as the laws of probability, the second law of thermodynamics, and the destructive effect of chance events on organised systems. They also tend on the whole to be more intelligent – one doesn’t need to be all that smart to collect rocks and insects for a living .
Why do so many scientists continue to believe in evolution?
It should be apparent by now that one must be willing to make a great many assumptions in order to believe in evolution. A well-developed ability to ignore unpalatable facts is also a great advantage.
Having said that, most of those who accept evolution are sincere and well-meaning in their convictions. They have been taught the ‘science’ at mainstream academic institutions and have no reason to doubt the integrity of their professors. Should some aspects of evolutionary theory appear less than convincing, diligent students are expected to find solace in the knowledge that such a powerful explanatory paradigm must of necessity have elements that are difficult to understand. Besides, if everyone else believes it to be fundamentally true, then it must be okay. After all, the only real alternative is to believe that God created everything –which, in an age of rampant scepticism, is a step too far.
Evolutionists have used a wide range of tricks down the years to deceive and beguile the unwary. We have already discussed one of them – the Simple Cell trick – which trivializes complexity and conceals the very phenomena that evolution is supposed to explain.
Another is the Endless Time trick which, when all else fails, allows any problem to be solved, no matter how intractable, by simply immersing it for millions of years in the mystical pool of pure chance. The following table lists some of the most common swindles employed by evolutionists to circumvent the laws of logic:
1. The Simple Cell Trick – Dramatically understates the incredible complexity of the living cell.
2. The Big Number Trick – Disguises or ignores the reality of statistical impossibilities.
3. The Order-out-of-Chaos Trick – Ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that order can never increase by chance.
4. The Pig’s Tooth Trick – Draws major inferences from trivial data and assumes non-existent connections. [So called because evolutionists once argued for a new species of hominid using a pig’s tooth!]
5. The Similarity Trick – Assumes that things which look the same really are the same, whether structurally or functionally.
6. The Endless Time Trick – Assumes that, given enough time, virtually anything can happen.
7. The Circular Reasoning Trick – Uses A to prove B and B to prove A.
8. The Rat’s Nest Trick – Ignores uncomfortable facts and contradictory evidence.
One of the most popular Darwinian parlour games is the Big Number trick which exploits the common inability, even among experienced scientists, to comprehend the magnitude of really large numbers. We can all form a mental picture of a collection of ten thousand objects, for example the total number of seats in a football stadium. This figure (10,000) can be expressed another way, as 10 to the power of 4 (which may be denoted as 10*4). This is 10 multiplied by itself 4 times [10x10x10x10 = 10,000].
But we run into difficulty when we try to come up with similar mental pictures for much larger numbers. For example, how would you envisage 10*100 grains of sand? As a long beach, perhaps, or a huge quarry? An astute individual might opt for an object as large as the earth. But even he would be way off the mark. Physicists have calculated that the total matter in the universe – over 80 billion galaxies – contains approximately 10*80 atoms. This means that not even the universe itself could contain our pile of sand!
We call these tricks rather than fallacies because they have been exploited shamelessly for decades by atheistic materialists to deceive their victims.
Is deceive too strong a word? Well, if a set of known logical fallacies are continuously exploited in a systematic way to achieve a particular outcome, then we are talking about deception. Not bad science, not ideological bias, but deception.
Stolen from http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2012/science-tricks.htm, unless your name is Jeremy James, and rudely posted in a big slab of text.
Not that what was apparently stolen has any reportable value, or the manner of its posting will encourage anyone to read it.
If you want to engage, and pick one point, then I'm sure you will generate discussion. But your plagiarism and use of the Gish Gallop speak volumes about your attitude. I'll lay money you have little clue what any of your plagiarised text means. So much for honesty.
Stuart
Thanks for showing me the words Gish Gallop.
The brilliance of Gish Gallop, is that even if you, Stu, attack a couple of his points, in the mind of the reader, they can dismiss these, since there are so many other points. It really is a clever method of persuasion.
QUOTES FROM A VERY INFORMATIVE SITE I VISIT: ENJOY!
Who’s Playing Your Gene Piano? 05/12/2011
May 12, 2011 —Is your genetic code a library or a musical instrument? Scientists have long considered it to be like the former, a genetic code. Now, however, a new metaphor is emerging: a piano.
Discoveries in epigenetics (beyond-the-gene), processes that determine which genes are played or silenced, are tending toward the new interpretation.
In Medical Xpress, a headline reads, “Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano.” It features the work of Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya who studies genes as if watching a performance: epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” he said. “Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce,” the article described. “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.”
His work has only identified one note on the piano so far: DNA methylation, a process that silences genes by having an RNA attach a methyl group to them. After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano.” Perhaps, though, the piano is just one instrument of a larger work. “The symphony has only just come into view,” Dr. Mitsuya said. “We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.” His team’s work, published in Science today,1 did not mention pianos or music, but did not discuss evolution, either.
1. Watanabe, Tomizami, Mitsuya et al, “Role for piRNAs and Noncoding RNA in de Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1 Locus,” Science, 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 848-852, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203919.
OK, who’s the pianist? Who’s the conductor? Metaphors can be misleading, and should not be pushed too far, but this one causes trouble for Darwin while it fits neatly into intelligent design.
The environment cannot be the musician; it is oblivious to the needs of the organism. Heredity cannot be the musician; it has no foresight to read or comprehend a collection of processes organized into a work.
Function (the requirement of an organism to survive and reproduce) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the origin of the information required to produce function.
Darwinists: don’t give us that line, “If it hadn’t evolved, it wouldn’t be there.” Science is supposed to seek efficient causes, not just-so stories or appeals to chance based on circular reasoning.
The alternative explanation, intelligent design, is the only explanation with a known cause sufficient to produce functional information: intelligence.
The article referred to a NOVA special that called epigenetics “The ghost in your genes.” Just when neuroscience thought they had exercised the ghost in the machine of the brain, another shows up in the genetic code. Ghosts have a way of coming back to haunt the overconfident.
Hi David,
Evil = Fool
It is the 'anything' but God theory.
Since they reject God they will grasp at
anything to remove their accountability to him.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ April 22 2012,16:33) Thanks for showing me the words Gish Gallop. The brilliance of Gish Gallop, is that even if you, Stu, attack a couple of his points, in the mind of the reader, they can dismiss these, since there are so many other points. It really is a clever method of persuasion.
You are welcome David.It's great isn't it!!
I had trouble finding the name of the author to that brilliant informative post….besides Stu's typical angry response and accusations, i thought it obvious that it was a cut & paste job!
Obvious enough that even Stu spotted it! LOL.
You see i copied and pasted it a few weeks back but didn't record the author…my mistake…nor bookmark the page, (taken care of now) http://www.zephaniah.eu (The shameless fraud known as Darwinian evolution..by Jeremy James)…
It is a huge paper he has written, and that was just part of it…if that particular information was taken from Gish Gallop…i commend his work.
I intend to post the rest of James' paper bit by bit….it's quite a good read!
Cheers.
Hi Devolution,
It's easier to read in “bite size” pieces.
Meaning: most don't read L O N G posts,
no matter how good or informative they are.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgCONTINUED:BY JEREMY JAMES.
T H Huxley, who was probably the most ardent public advocate of Darwin’s theory in the period following the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), had no qualms about exploiting both the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. During some of his famous public debates he claimed that, given enough time, a team of 100 monkeys typing on a 100 typewriters, day and night, without stopping, would eventually type out Psalm 23.
To most of his audience this seemed a fairly plausible proposition. After all, if the monkeys just keep hammering away they are bound to get there eventually –aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look. The whole question is one of probability. Just how long would they have to keep typing to produce the intended outcome? Psalm 23 (in the King James Version) contains 461 characters (For the sake of simplicity we’ll ignore spaces and capitalisation. We’ll also be kind to the monkeys and give them typewriters with just 26 keys).
The probability that the first monkey would strike the letter ‘t’ on his first stroke is 1 in26. The probability that he would strike the letter ‘h’ on his second stroke is also 1 in 26. The same probability applies to each of the 461 letters in the psalm. However, the probability that he would do this for 461 successive strokes in the required sequence is not 26 x 461 but 26 to the power of 461 (26*461).
The members of Huxley’s audience had absolutely no idea that they were dealing with numbers of this magnitude. The truth is that 26*461 is so incredibly large that an event contingent upon such a probability could never arise. The monkeys would never succeed in typing the psalm correctly, no matter how long they spent at their typewriters.
In fact, they wouldn’t even manage to type the first two sentences correctly! Statisticians usually take 10*40 as the point beyond which an event is impossible. In other words, if that is the number of random iterations that are needed to achieve the outcome in question, then it simply cannot happen – ever. Please take careful note of this crucial fact. It is science, hard mathematics, and not the childish make-believe that passes for science in the field of evolutionary biology.
Countless scientists in our modern industrial and academic communities – men and woman of learning and intelligence – have been taken for fools. They too have fallen for the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. Perhaps the tricks are being packaged in a more sophisticated manner than they were in the days of Huxley and his crew, but they are still fundamentally the same tricks.The college textbooks also take care to omit the Rat’s Nest of anomalies that we noted earlier.
Their presence would only prompt the more perceptive students to start thinking for themselves. If they did, they would soon come to realize that the so-called science of evolution is built, not on tangible evidence, consistent logic and causal progression, but wishful thinking, pixie dust, and a cult-like avoidance of unpleasant facts.
The psychology of mass deception
The psychology behind all of this has been known for centuries. If a sufficient numberof people can be induced to believe that something is true, especially if it is presented as such by someone in authority and supported by seemingly legitimate scientific evidence, it can be very difficult thereafter to shake their belief. The story of Sam Loyd and the Fifteen Tile puzzle is a graphic demonstration of this.
Sam Loyd was both a skilled mathematician and a pioneer in the field of puzzle composition in the 19th century. For many years he ran a popular column in a leading American newspaper. Some of his puzzles were so challenging that he often received hundreds of letters a day from his readers. He once published a tile-sliding puzzle, known as the Fifteen Tile puzzle which, he said, “drove the entire world crazy”:
The goal was very simple, namely, by sliding the tiles back and forth, to rearrange them in numerical sequence 1-15. This meant reversing the positions of tiles ‘14’ and ‘15’ in the initial position. As an added inducement, Loyd offered $1000 – a truly magnificent prize in those days – to the person who submitted the first correct solution. Naturally, since the prize was so generous and the puzzle so easy to understand, the competition excited enormous public interest and the response was overwhelming.
Thousands of his readers were convinced that they had cracked the problem. Doubtless, many of the proposed solutions were ingenious and flattered both the intelligence and diligence of their authors. But Loyd didn’t need to open and examine a single entry. Why? Because the puzzle has no solution. The Fifteen Tile puzzle is known to mathematicians to be solvable in only half of all starting positions. All the rest are impossible. Loyd simply chose one of the impossible positions, where the tiles were teasingly close to the correct sequence, and invited his readers to torture themselves to the point of madness trying to solve it.
Perhaps it was not entirely fair of Loyd to set a puzzle that couldn’t be solved, but his readers didn’t suspect a thing. After all, the problem was easy to understand, the prize was immensely attractive, and Loyd enjoyed a sterling reputation. Contemporary scientists continue to believe in the Theory of Evolution for very similar reasons: It has been put together and promoted by people of high reputation; it is not too hard to understand; and the prize – a comprehensive explanation of life itself – is immensely attractive. The only drawback, of course, is that – like Loyd’s puzzle – it is nothing more than a slick piece of chicanery.
Quote (Ed J @ April 22 2012,18:30) Hi Devolution, It's easier to read in “bite size” pieces.
Meaning: most don't read L O N G posts,
no matter how good or informative they are.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,I understand this, but sometimes big IS better.
You see, certain people we must deal with have crafty methods of diverting one away from the subject matter at hand.
Insults and accusations are a popular method to divert ones focus away from the subject matter at hand, a method used to lead one away from said matters and attempt to drag one down into a quagmire of tit for tat engagements.
Thus hoping to relegate the hard to answer facts secondary to their preferred, easy way out, first priority, of personal insult tit for tat engagement used as a cloak of diversion away from said information.
Thus freeing them from facing such facts in a honest productive debate which inevitably would lead them down a most uncomfortable path…a path that would have them question the border that comfortably frames their world view, a world view which allows them to justify their every action/deed with carefree impunity…
Thus making them, in their own minds, masters and captains of their own destiny/existence, answerable only to themselves, without that nagging bothersome alternative known as Divine intervention, which by their own measure, would certainly be a hindrance to their preferred path of so called enlightened humanistic individualism, which, by the way, is a basic occult tenet.
Do you think they would even understand that truth?
That their mindset is actually very old and in no way modern nor enlightened?
Adam & Eve ring a bell?
And the true author of their “enlightened mindset”?
Why, Satan of course!
Hence the wheel keeps turning…
and truth?…truth is but bumps best ignored in their wide road to nowhere.Cheers.
Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,17:31) QUOTES FROM A VERY INFORMATIVE SITE I VISIT: ENJOY! Who’s Playing Your Gene Piano? 05/12/2011
May 12, 2011 —Is your genetic code a library or a musical instrument? Scientists have long considered it to be like the former, a genetic code. Now, however, a new metaphor is emerging: a piano.
Discoveries in epigenetics (beyond-the-gene), processes that determine which genes are played or silenced, are tending toward the new interpretation.
In Medical Xpress, a headline reads, “Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano.” It features the work of Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya who studies genes as if watching a performance: epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” he said. “Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce,” the article described. “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.”
His work has only identified one note on the piano so far: DNA methylation, a process that silences genes by having an RNA attach a methyl group to them. After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano.” Perhaps, though, the piano is just one instrument of a larger work. “The symphony has only just come into view,” Dr. Mitsuya said. “We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.” His team’s work, published in Science today,1 did not mention pianos or music, but did not discuss evolution, either.
1. Watanabe, Tomizami, Mitsuya et al, “Role for piRNAs and Noncoding RNA in de Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1 Locus,” Science, 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 848-852, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203919.
I'm right, aren't I. You have no idea what any of this means.There are two kinds of creationist; moron creationists who are god deluded and replay creationist canards with no comprehension, and lying cretin creationists who know they are lying about science. The morons have the excuse of their ignorance, although t8's sig line tells the rest of that story.
I think you are in the moron creationist category. Your blunder in mentioning DNA methylation in a creationist context indicates you are not even an amateur.
Stuart
Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,18:40) CONTINUED:BY JEREMY JAMES. T H Huxley, who was probably the most ardent public advocate of Darwin’s theory in the period following the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), had no qualms about exploiting both the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. During some of his famous public debates he claimed that, given enough time, a team of 100 monkeys typing on a 100 typewriters, day and night, without stopping, would eventually type out Psalm 23.
To most of his audience this seemed a fairly plausible proposition. After all, if the monkeys just keep hammering away they are bound to get there eventually –aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look. The whole question is one of probability. Just how long would they have to keep typing to produce the intended outcome? Psalm 23 (in the King James Version) contains 461 characters (For the sake of simplicity we’ll ignore spaces and capitalisation. We’ll also be kind to the monkeys and give them typewriters with just 26 keys).
The probability that the first monkey would strike the letter ‘t’ on his first stroke is 1 in26. The probability that he would strike the letter ‘h’ on his second stroke is also 1 in 26. The same probability applies to each of the 461 letters in the psalm. However, the probability that he would do this for 461 successive strokes in the required sequence is not 26 x 461 but 26 to the power of 461 (26*461).
The members of Huxley’s audience had absolutely no idea that they were dealing with numbers of this magnitude. The truth is that 26*461 is so incredibly large that an event contingent upon such a probability could never arise. The monkeys would never succeed in typing the psalm correctly, no matter how long they spent at their typewriters.
In fact, they wouldn’t even manage to type the first two sentences correctly! Statisticians usually take 10*40 as the point beyond which an event is impossible. In other words, if that is the number of random iterations that are needed to achieve the outcome in question, then it simply cannot happen – ever. Please take careful note of this crucial fact. It is science, hard mathematics, and not the childish make-believe that passes for science in the field of evolutionary biology.
Countless scientists in our modern industrial and academic communities – men and woman of learning and intelligence – have been taken for fools. They too have fallen for the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. Perhaps the tricks are being packaged in a more sophisticated manner than they were in the days of Huxley and his crew, but they are still fundamentally the same tricks.The college textbooks also take care to omit the Rat’s Nest of anomalies that we noted earlier.
Their presence would only prompt the more perceptive students to start thinking for themselves. If they did, they would soon come to realize that the so-called science of evolution is built, not on tangible evidence, consistent logic and causal progression, but wishful thinking, pixie dust, and a cult-like avoidance of unpleasant facts.
So, are you going to explain what this has to do with evolution by natural selection?You don't know where to begin, do you. You're full of it.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,00:20) Hi Stuart, Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You don't have any idea, either Ed.This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,00:41) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,00:20) Hi Stuart, Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J
You don't have any idea, either Ed.This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart, NO GO!Quote you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
That is what you said; I said the opposite.
The terms adaptation and evolution are not
interchangeable as your perception suggests?Example #1: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his adaptation skills are phenomenal.
Example #2: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his evolution skills are phenomenal?
Definition #1 Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Definition #2 Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,04:43) If we extrapolate backwards from today’s population using only as lightly higher (but still very conservative) annual growth rate – 0.302% instead of 0.212% – we find that a starting population of 100 people would have increased to seven billion, the current population of the world, in about 6,000 years. This is fully consistent with the timeframe found in the Bible.
Hi Devolution,I don't recall any 6,000 year timeframe,
can you please show me where it is found?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,03:29) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,04:43) If we extrapolate backwards from today’s population using only as lightly higher (but still very conservative) annual growth rate – 0.302% instead of 0.212% – we find that a starting population of 100 people would have increased to seven billion, the current population of the world, in about 6,000 years. This is fully consistent with the timeframe found in the Bible.
Hi Devolution,I don't recall any 6,000 year timeframe,
can you please show me where it is found?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi EDj.My prodigal brother.
Today is the year 5772 on the jewish calendar,we are approaching the end of the year 6000.
The year 7000 is coming soon; the 1000yr rest,which is the 1000yr kingdom on earth.(yr 7000 is the rest).(sabbath).Jesus will reign on earth from yr7000 to yr8ooo.
wakeup.
BY:JEREMY JAMES
The Real Agenda behind the Theory of Evolution
In light of all this we must ask why a theory that contravenes so many principles of mathematics and sound reason could have been propounded in the first place? If it was not designed to satisfy our appetite for scientific integrity, then what was it designed for? The answer is human pride, the age-old desire of rebellious, fallen men to assert their independence from God. Evolution is not a science but a religious conviction, a determined effort to account for life on earth without reference to a Creator.
Many of its pioneers despised Christianity. The vast majority of its original proponents were Atheists, Humanists or Freemasons. While pretending to be scientists engaged in the impartial and objective pursuit of truth, they rejected from the outset an explanation that reflected a Biblical perspective. This is the mindset that dominates the scientific establishment today. All observable phenomena must be interpreted and explained without any reference whatsoever to a Creator.
Please think carefully about this, dear reader, since it is crucial to understanding what is really happening in our world today. Science, as constituted by the people who control our colleges and universities, must always exclude God. This is the core principle and defining characteristic of contemporary science. It was first established by the Royal Society in England in 1660, most of whose members were either Rosicrucians or Freemasons, and by the French Academy of Sciences, which was dominated by Grand Orient Freemasonry, an intensely anti-Christian brand of paganism.
Of course, many scientists do believe in a Creator, but they are not allowed to express this dynamic in their professional lives. A well-argued paper by a reputable scientist which tried to show – or even suggest – that God is at work in the universe would be dismissed as ‘religious’ and rejected by the editor. It would never see the light of day.
A remarkable example of this pernicious mindset may be found in a review by Richard Lewontin in The New York Times Book Reviews, 9 January 1997. Professor Lewontin, who has held several prestigious academic posts during his illustrious career, is a staunch advocate of evolution and highly regarded by his peers. The opinion that he expressed in his review is endemic today among evolutionary biologists, most of whom gloat over the dismissal of God from all scientific discourse
[Note: The italicised words were in the original]:Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our apriori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
We are grateful to Professor Lewontin for revealing, perhaps unwittingly, the true motivation behind the evolutionary agenda. He states plainly that he and his atheistic colleagues hold to absurd constructs because of their prior commitment to materialism. It really doesn’t matter to them how ridiculous a scientific proposition may be as long as it excludes God, “for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” As he boasts, “materialism is absolute.” And that, dear reader, is what it’s all about.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 23 2012,11:47) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,03:29) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,04:43) If we extrapolate backwards from today’s population using only as lightly higher (but still very conservative) annual growth rate – 0.302% instead of 0.212% – we find that a starting population of 100 people would have increased to seven billion, the current population of the world, in about 6,000 years. This is fully consistent with the timeframe found in the Bible.
Hi Devolution,I don't recall any 6,000 year timeframe,
can you please show me where it is found?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi EDj.My prodigal brother.
Today is the year 5772 on the jewish calendar,we are approaching the end of the year 6000.
The year 7000 is coming soon; the 1000yr rest,which is the 1000yr kingdom on earth.(yr 7000 is the rest).(sabbath).Jesus will reign on earth from yr7000 to yr8ooo.
wakeup.
Hi Wake-up,Then you agree with that this timeline is not written in “The Bible”, right?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
