July 13, 2007

"Evolution" proves Theory of Evolution Wrong - Again

Heh. Scientists are crowing over "new proof" of evolution -- which once again proves that evolution isn't what Darwin's theory claims.

In the article, scientists point out that a butterfly developed a gene to resist a parasite in less than one year -- 10 generations. They're claiming that evolution occurred in a "flash" instead of over billions of years. But what they're not noticing is that the evolution occurred so that the butterflies could remain the same. In other words, these new, evolved butterflies are not bigger, better, strong, or indeed even different -- they're the same butterfly. They didn't evolve to change. They didn't evolve into another species. They didn't evolve into humans -- they evolved to stay the same.

That's evolution -- species adapting to survive. It's not evolution into something different. It's not a dog changing into a monkey. This is NOT what Darwin's theory teaches -- Darwin claimed that species evolved into other species -- and there's simply no evidence of that happening.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

August 31, 2006

Darwin & Hitler

Cao has an excellent post about the connection between Darwin and Hitler. While some people are just going bananas trying to defend Hitler and claim that Hitler didn't believe in Darwin, just pause and think for a minute.

If you fully accept everything regarding the theory of macro-evolution, then there is no absolute truth. There can be no such thing as right or wrong. In fact, if you accept everything this theory proposes, then not only should I be able to kill anyone I want to at any time, I am required to!

If "survival of the fittest" is how all life came to be, welfare should be abolished because that's in opposition to macro evolution. I should take as many women as I can, by force, for reproduction of my genes -- and I should destroy anyone else who I can, who I deem weaker than myself.

Now "civilization" may be the reason why I can't do that, but then that's in opposition to evolution, too -- and if there is no absolute truth, then who are you to claim that your so-called "civilization" is better than might makes right?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

June 06, 2006

Too Much Time, Too Many Causes

Here's a new one for you. Indian Cowboy has started up a new group because apparently there were too many causes and political groups in existence. He's started a group called Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. Okaaay.

The group exists to

to give a voice to Republicans, Independent Conservatives, and Libertarians across the country who stand opposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ and other forms of creationism in the classroom.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure why a group needs to exist to oppose teaching a certain type of teaching. And if they want to join an already existing group that's well-funded (with endless taxpayer dollars) that's vehemently opposed to intelligent design, there's the ACLU.

I'm with Dangerous Liberty where he responds with A little Depth Would Be Nice:

Indian Cowboy reveals the astounding ignorance of what ID proposes which is sadly so common among those who oppose it, especially those who do so because they consider it a "perversion of science".

The real reason that appears to be behind those who oppose teaching ID is a vehement opposition to anything resembling religion. Of course, there's a real simple solution that would completely and totally end all this discussion and all these groups -- which is why it won't happen: get government completely out of the education business.

Why does the government have a monopoly on education? If everyone were free to make their own decisions regarding their own education without any government interference, each family could decide for themselves if they wanted ID, creationism, or evolution taught in whatever manner they wanted. But there's few people interested in freedom these days.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

December 15, 2005

A Creation Story

For those who simply cannot stand Christmas and Christians (hello, ACLU), Joe Carter has posted a nice little creation story for the materialist. It starts out like this:

In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

September 27, 2005

ID in Schools

A self-proclaimed "expert" from Duke University, with all the usual "holier than thou" attitudes and ivory tower proclamations has declared, with an expected immediate deference to his much-more-knowledgeable-than-you ruling, that mentioning that evolution might not actually be 100% correct is unconstitutional.

This is just another liberal who has decided that he knows better than you and should be obeyed at all times. He claims that mentioning anything other than his one, true religion, materialism, in government-run schools is a violation of his right to free speech because his religion (naturalism) is correct and all other religions should not be allowed in any government institution.

In a related, but underreported lawsuit, an unnamed individual has sued the state of North Carolina, demanding that the laws against murder be repealed because they are very clearly an unconstitutional infringement on religion and an establishment of religion.

"The Bible clearly states that 'Thou shall not murder,'" says the lawsuit, filed today in Loon County, "so the state simply cannot have that law. It is an obvious attempt by Christians to enforce their own moral and religious rules on the rest of society."

The lawsuit continues, "In addition, this prohibition on to what many deem to be a sacred religious right, murdering infidels, clearly prohibits law abiding citizens from exercising their own religion. If one person's religion deems that murder is required by their god, who is the state to tell them their religion is wrong?"

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on both lawsuits simultaneously, as the ruling in one lawsuit will most certainly be expected to be applied to both.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:04 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

September 26, 2005

Naturalistic Faith

If you believe in naturalism and evolution as presented by today's scientists, there are a number of things in which you must have faith. I don't have enough faith in random chance to believe that our entire existence is a cosmic accident.

In this posting, which will be rather long, I'll point out a few of the absolute requirements for just matter to exist -- not even mentioning how much more complex the requirements are for life. Then I'll illustrate the mathematical probabilities that these few conditions can exist via random chance. I'm not presupposing any conclusion -- just read and view the facts of physics and draw your own conclusion. more...

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1271 words, total size 8 kb.

September 15, 2005

Macro- vs. Micro- Part II

A few days ago, I wrote a post about micro- versus macro-evolution. As you might imagine, it stirred up quite a debate regarding creation and intelligent design. That wasn't my purpose. I was simply trying to come to an agreement on what some specific terms mean.

However, Contagion said:

Who said anything about separating the two, personally I think there is no difference. It's all part of the same process.

This is one of the ideas that I'm trying to point out. They are not the same.

I'll put details in the extended entry for those who just aren't all that interested... more...

Posted by: Ogre at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

September 13, 2005

uniformitarianism

According to Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past

This is the basis of much of today's physical science. It is presented in most basic geology and physical science classes, often as one of the first laws of science. In my experience, there is little discussion about this word.

However, even the basic definition given above is flawed. It claims that uniformitarianism is "observation" -- but then it applies that observation to the distant past. That's not possible.

Uniformitarianism says that everything you see happening today has always happened. In other words, it say that the rate at which water flows downhill is constant and has never changed. It presumes all physical laws, such as the speed of light, are what they are and have never been different. It presumes that gravity has always been at the exact rate it is today.

Now this rule certainly seems simple. In your lifetime, I'm sure that you can observe the same physical rules happening over and over again. You can observe the sedimentation rate of sediment in a stream. You can easily make predictions of ocean currents, rates of erosion, and many other related observations.

This is what modern science has done -- made observations and tested them to see if they hold true. They have found many laws that apply to various physical characteristics that always hold true -- as long as they are tested. The same experiments always give the same results because the rules do not change.

To me, I see this as rather self-centered. Just because physical rules have not changed in your lifetime, or even in the last hundred or two hundred years of observation does not mean they have never been different. Consider for a moment, what if this rule isn't true?

What if all the currently discovered laws of physics haven't always been true? What if, at some time thousands of years ago, gravity was different? What if the laws of thermodynamics have only applied for two thousand years? What if gravity didn't exist 5,000 years ago?

ALL of today's science is based on a complete and total belief in uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything?

Now there's no direct evidence that refutes uniformitarianism -- just as there is no direct evidence that uniformitarianism is true. It's just presented and accepted as fact, without debate. But what if it's wrong?

There actually now are some scientists that claim that this may be the case. They describe that the speed of light -- the basis of much of physics -- might not actually be constant. What if all the physical processes we see today were actually different at some time in the past?

Posted by: Ogre at 02:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

September 12, 2005

Micro- vs. Macro- Evolution

Evolution is a lot of things to a lot of people. Darwin's theory of evolution is what most often comes to mind. At the same time, few people understand what it is that was actually proposed. Darwin proposed that all living creatures, and by extension, matter itself, had come from previous, simpler substances. He failed to address where this endless cycle began.

However, today there are various facets of evolution. One area in which people may become confused is when comparing macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution can be observed today, while macro evolution is a theory that simply cannot be observed.

Micro evolution is the idea that all species experience mutations and can have genetic adaptations. However, micro evolution, as observed, shows that the mutations and adaptations only occur within a species. Each mutation and adaptation is designed and works to keep the species the same as itself.

In other words, when a dog mutates, it will change and adapt, and it will remain a dog. No matter how many adaptations and mutations occur, it will always remain a dog, and will never sprout wings or gills. All current mutations and adaptations observed fit into that category of evolution.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, says that adaptations and mutations exist, occur, and allow new species to form. This sort of evolution proposes that the DNA in individual animals and plants change from one creature to another -- from a dog to a bird, for example.

Macro evolution has never been observed in any way, shape, or form. However, when speaking of science in schools and teaching evolution, this is the type of evolution that is addressed. Darwin's theory of evolution is this type, and it is still taught in schools -- despite zero observation or true scientific evidence.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:01 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
98kb generated in CPU 0.0495, elapsed 0.1291 seconds.
93 queries taking 0.1059 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

  • Cazbogrq G'end of day generic+cialis ADIPEX ; Diazepam -- Tramadol ,- accutane :cry: entry
  • Yxikselt comments5: Xanax# xzlj.. 091 fioricet Levitra adipex Hydrocodone- 20184 :m-sad: entry
  • Nebwtrrq Very interesting tale cockoosnest pyggzi entry
  • Ojizxydi Punk not dead whitewifefuckingblackcocks enowt entry
  • Zvhgjaqm Jonny was here the colonial center discount tickets %-O entry
  • Wacxckvx Best Site Good Work sexunderwater 232 entry
  • Szckbfpw Very Good Site ">pussys pmdjte entry
  • Rjzwlhjc Thanks funny site portland oregon ozzy tickets %-) entry
  • Pfounmem Gloomy tales marriott manhatten discount tickets broadway >:DD entry
  • Diuaxvbw this is be cool 8) wichita state ticket office 8))) entry

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 18075
  • Files: 185
  • Bytes: 299.4M
  • CPU Time: 36:08
  • Queries: 1531273

Content

  • Posts: 3282
  • Comments: 19803

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0