I GOT TIRED OF ARGUING WITH ATHEISTS because they generally don't know much about what they want to argue about, at least the ones who troll me are like that. I'm sure there are smarter atheists, just not at my pay-scale. Luckily, the atheist fad of the 00's is passe and its major figures largely (self)discredited and unfashionable so I don't get as much of that these days. Even their fellow semi-pro atheists like Rebecca Watson are tired of them.
I'm not interested in arguing about the "existence of God" because, like a belief in just about anything, belief is a matter of choice, in the end. Your choice to believe in Darwinism (which, as I never have to stop pointing out to you idiots is not "evolution" but the theory of natural selection, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AND WHICH IS NOT IN ACTUAL EVIDENCE, SO ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN IT HAS TO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT), is a choice. My disbelief in Darwinism, however, is far more based in the fact that there has never been and never can be a scientifically observed instance of "natural selection" leading to the natural evolution of a new species in nature. Nor, by the way, has there been one observed in artificial selection which, being artificial and a product of intelligent design by scientists, could not prove what you claim it does. I think it is, as it was when Darwin found his inspiration for it in the putrid economics of Thomas Malthus, a thoroughly ideological dogma, one which was grasped onto by atheists because, as Darwin's major continental representative, Ernst Haeckel claimed, it "gave the final triumph to materialist monism." Which was absurd when he said that and is far more absurd now when the post-Darwinist period is dawning.
I have a more interesting question. Here's a short video in which the eminent physicist - and a self-described "hard-core agnostic" Eric Betzig, talks about why present day cellular biologyis a "hallucination," because cellular biology is incredibly complex and known only in a few tiny details.
"it's by far the most complex matter in the known universe. We understand the interiors of neutron stars far better than we understand the interior of cells."
I like the example of the youtube cartoon he mocks because it is typical of that kind of stuff in biology, especially the supposed biology dealing with the vastly more complex topic of evolution of species.
And you brought up a favorite topic of mine, the "origin of life." We know absolutely nothing about the origin of life on Earth, nothing, nothing whatsoever because we don't have any physical evidence of what that origin of life was or what it was like AND NO "ABIOGENTIC" EXPREMENT CAN GIVE US THAT INFORMATION. You have to have the actual physical evidence of whatever organism it was that was the first organism of life on earth and that will never be had.
It's imagined to be an extremely simple organism - again, of no knowable character - for the ideological purpose of imagining that it assembled by accident out of whatever materials were available to it. The "simplest" examples of organisms we have are on the order of complexity that Betzig describes and even one "half" as complex, a tenth as complex, as that would be enormously complex.
My question is what if all life everywhere it occurs is ALWAYS that complex, that what is needed to maintain the functions of living and life and reproduction IS ALWAYS ON THE ORDER OF COMPLEXITY WHICH IS ALL WE KNOW OF WHAT LIFE IS? What if the first organism in the line of life on Earth was that complex? What does that do to the imagined probability of it assembling out of the available molecules and physical structures made of molecules by random chance as opposed to comprising evidence for the design of that organism? Including whatever mechanisms of inheritance and internal PURPOSEFUL modifications and manipulations THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAPPEN IN THE GENETIC MATERIALS OF ALL ORGANISMS NOW.
I'd say the more we find out about the actual chemistry and physiology of cells the less plausible the old random chance with chance modifications dogma of science will seem to those who bother to keep up.
I think at some point the implausibility of the old explanation will have to accommodate those who find that evidence supporting what is now considered heretical. That it was by design. I'm sure the atheists will insist it was some extraterrestrial organisms that had done that instead of God, though that only puts off the question as to what was the origin of those, certainly, extremely complex physical objects, the imaginary ET scientists who ideological scientists like Francis Crick grapsed onto like a tortured lab monkey to a wire and terrycloth "surrogate mother," tortured "for science" by sadistic psychologists and ethologists. You can see some of that in the furious, pubescent response of ideological atheists like Jerry Coyne to the science of such non-believers as James Shapiro and Denis Noble.
Compared to the ever less plausible random-chance model of the evolution of species, an information based belief in intelligent design, certainly among the lay public, is more respectable, these days. Though science might never modify its rules to talk about it, there's nothing to keep us laypeople from reading the science and drawing our non-scientific conclusions from that JUST AS THE FANBOYS OF DARWINISM -SUCH AS YOURSELF - AND ITS ABSURD, UNEVIDENCED LORE AND CARTOONS HAVE DONE. Everything from the "descent of man" and "evolution of the horse," 1001 tales of the "cavemen," to the later stuff like "The Kallikak family," "peppered moth evolution" (it wasn't evolution and it didn't explain what was claimed for it), ""selfish genes," The Bell Curve" neo-eugenic scientific racism, "Darwinian economics" and the rest of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment