It's not my fault that atheist ideologues setting themselves up in science to "prove" that the intelligent intent of the Creator is, as they so breezily like to think, "unnecessary" to explain how life first arose on Earth and, as they also like to think, elsewhere in the universe have hit on exactly what disproves the legitimacy of their effort, that they can't filter or strain out the intelligent design they necessarily put into their experiments. It is an absolute certainty that they cannot use science to do what they want to use it for, as absolutely certain as any of the facts demonstrated with science are.
Such atheists are always trying to use science for what science cannot do. Certainly not science as it's supposedly done.
Take for example the claim made by one of the most popular of the pop-atheist scientists Carl Sagan who once claimed that as soon as contact was made with "other life" that that would be it for religious belief.
Well, the problems for that start with the fact that during Sagan's lifetime and today have no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe, the one and only one we have in evidence, not the jillions and jillions of others which the only evidence we have shows reside in no where but the self-interested, ideological holdings of their fellow atheist-ideologies who took up physics and cosmology instead of the far more complex life sciences, . . . we have no evidence of life anywhere else except on Earth so that is the only line of life that can be honestly treated with something alleged to be the methods of science.
It's not my fault that the very methods of science and its requirements leave the atheist-ideological use of things they pretend to be science up a creek without a paddle. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE THEORIZED ORIGINAL ORGANISM (which, by the way I believe probably is the origin of life but, unlike them, I admit that is a belief and not knowledge) THEY DON'T HAVE THE VERY SPECIMEN OF LIFE IN THE PAST THAT THEY MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THAT ORIGIN FROM. I say "might learn" because it would have to be resolvable enough to know the details of its structure to understand how those MIGHT and that's a very big "might" have arisen from non-living matter and not as all subsequent life did, from life.
Anyone who believes that scientists will, someday, have that precious, unique fossil of the original Eve-Adam ancestor of us all would more rationally believe in just about anything because its recovery and identification - before you get to it being intact enough to yield knowledge - would be more miraculous than most of the Biblical miracle stories. Any atheist-materialist ideologue who claimed to believe that would happen is very silly, but so are the many-universe theorists and they get big bucks to make up stuff like that, too.
I think abiogenesis like the field of "exobiology" invented by Carl Sagan is a rather obvious ideological scam which does not have what they need to make their speculations into science. Only abiogenesis has no prospect of having the one thing it would need to get anywhere whereas exobiology in some very far fetched speculation might possibly someday have an example of "other life" though the odds on that don't presently seem to be much greater than finding that original organism that uniquely arose from non-living material.
Arose or was intelligently constructed. It is not my fault that lacking the one thing that they would need to make abiogenesis seem like it wasn't a total con-job they have stumbled on the one thing that, even more certaily, is a hurdle that these scientist-ideologues will never, possibly overcome, they can't disprove intelligent design was not needed to produce effects that they produce with intelligently designed (though not intelligently interpreted) experiments that create molecules or other things. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, INTELLIGENCE, CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM ANYTHING THESE SCIENTIST-IDEOLOGUES DO, YOU CANNOT USE THEIR EXPERIMENTS TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN BEING A PART OF IT. You would as easily prove that carbon was not needed to produce organic molecules when their presence defines every bit of organic chemistry.
That they lack what is, literally, a first-week of a first semester logical analysis in their decades, centuries, now, long quest to dispose of God in explaining the origin of life on Earth, is also not my fault. But they having done that and gotten away with it in the culture of science, science funding and modern universities isn't anything I'm under any obligation to pretend isn't going on right in front of our noses. And I'm not under any obligation to not present it with all the sarcasm that such a hypocritical effort deserves. Abiogenesis is as bogus as science as Ken Ham's bogus Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky is to legitimate Old Testament studies. It has nothing to do with real theology. Both entirely miss and both are expensive piles of crap. Neither should get public money that should go to real science, neither has a legitimate place in a university.
No comments:
Post a Comment