The Theory is Broken

Continuing with the discussion for intelligent design from the previous post, here is a documentary I watched and highly recommend.  "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"  It takes you through it step by step very thoughtfully. I really enjoyed it. Leave me a comment and let me know what you think.

In the movie caption area/description there is a linked list of all of the sections of the documentary; they're about 9-10 minutes apiece. (These were posted back when YouTube had a 10 minute limit on films, which they've done away with a few years ago.) The third and forth 'movies' are the most convincing sections of the intelligent design argument in my opinion. It's a building argument, though, so make sure you watch the whole show and not just a few parts. The scope of the argument will leave you awestruck and then dumbfounded as to why exactly we're still arguing about this with all our technological prowess today. 

The scientists interviewed acknowledge there are religious implications for intelligent design but they don't dwell on it or try to beat you over the head with it. They're concerned with the study of molecular biology and the origin of the simplest forms of it. 

The source code for DNA is a given difficulty for those Darwinians who want to state a simple view that it all just arranged itself through chance or some built in(who built it??) magnetism. But 'irreducible reductionism' is really the very heart of the issue. Darwinians want to say that things are 'borrowed' from other sections or previously existing varieties of the type of machine present today in the cell. But where did those previous machinations come from? Who told them to change? If something happens slowly then how does it survive in the meantime with a changed environment which is demanding those changes for survival now? You can only break components of a machine's parts down so far before the argument is moot. You can't build something out of nothing! And I think that last part is what makes Darwinian's crazed. They want to say you can put a bowl full of mud with all the basic amino acids and proteins, add ... something(?!)... and voila! There will be life. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it'll never work. People have tried zapping mud with electricity quite a few times. 

This is the most simple break down of the argument in it's all it's complexity:

"Without DNA there is no self replication. But without self replication there is no natural selection. So you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing you're trying to explain." ~Stephen C. Meyer

This is why David Hawkins will never move beyond anything but screeching at the masses about how 'illogical' the God theory is: The burden of the theory of origin lies with the previously existing machine, not the one we have today. We don't know where the previous one came from but surely that one had a progenitor with the same parts somewhere in it's makeup. We think. We're pretty sure. We're not even sure where 95% of those other parts came from but.. whatever. Oh and the nucleus? The first cells probably didn't have them or need them. (I think my brain just did a 180 and came to a screeching halt with that asshat argument. With no instructions then who or what tells the cell to make changes?!)

Yeah, it's a pretty narrow lensed scope Darwinians are looking through. If it doesn't fit, toss it! But that's how they say natural selection occurred. If that's the case then where did all those billions upon billions of potential choices come from? Something inside the cell decided these things. What is it?  

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."      ~Charles Darwin

Holy cow. Really? Isn't that rather ironic in the context of the argument being given about something as simple as the bacterial flagellum(tail/propeller) which is necessary for all life on our planet?

I ask the following question for all those in education or who have children being educated: why are we still teaching this?
 

Dawkins and the "Banana Man"

*~~~*~~~Note~~~*~~~ *

I am posting this article fairly soon after the last. Make sure you scroll down to read the last post as it ties in with this one.

One can see an awful lot of militant atheism on YouTube. Thankfully, there are a handful of people out there who aren't afraid to jump into the fight. Both sides are hardly even in number, what with the DMCA's getting slapped on people left and right. It's cowardly, for sure. If you can't think of a good counterargument- scream copyright violation, right?!

This video of Dawkins is a puzzling piece of work. I mean, what exactly is a "cousin" if not an ancestor, anyway? A cousin is still part of the family construct, is it not? Last I checked it was. So is he saying that these "cousins" all-- every single one of them!! -- suddenly up and disappeared in EVERY genetic way and there is no hope of ever reconstructing what their DNA may look like?!! That does not make any kind of logical sense. Why would an entire branch of a family DNA sequence disappear? Under what circumstances could/would this occur? (maybe GOD?!! No, I'm not giving this idea serious consideration. Just giving you an idea of the dead ends Dawkins doesn't like to think about.)

The man seems to tremble at being called on to give an example of the very hypothesis he shouts so loudly about and tries to convince us of. But then again, this flaky interview didn't garner him any book sales so.... I suppose this only makes him a propagandist. And a bad one at that.

Oh, and here's a point to ask your friendly neighborhood biologist: aren't alligators and crocodiles considered "cousins" of dinosaurs? These two beasts are modern and yet haven't changed much since the last evolutionary era. And what about the mighty cockroach?!! In all it's shapes and sizes over the millennia surely the cockroach can be studied as one of those amazing scavengers(like crocodiles!) which has the genetic heartiness to trace its origins back to whatever evolutionary era scientists might like to examine.

But in Dawkins' mind, that just doesn't work. We can't study something from the past, says he. We have to look at what we have NOW in front of us to give us the answer about if there is a God. *shakes head* Man, you can't have it both ways. You scream that science will prove there is no god and then proceed to preach exactly what ways we shouldn't use science to find answers. Confused much? I know I am. I keep hoping for a straight answer from this guy but I haven't heard one from him yet.

And this next video is just an example of the way Dawkins wiggles out of debating. Yes, Kirk Cameron is strange little puppet. Yes, the debate would have been excruciating and this is probably why Kirk dropped out. But it appears as though Dawkins would rather be a stand up comic than a serious scientist. I just can't take anyone seriously when they're so busy slapping names on their opponents like, "banana man." Honestly, it just makes me hungry. Or want to go to the zoo. Not listen to a supposed "serious scientist" blather on and on about bananas and monkeys.

Pay careful attention to the expression on his face and the nervous twitch of his hands. He's a bit unsure of himself and how his stand up act will be received. I imagine this to be about the same level of nervousness a white man showed the first time using the term "African American" instead of the more profane descriptive used in the past to denote color or race.

So you have to ask yourself- what do militant atheists think of everyone else who does not share in their disbelief?