Let's try this again. It's not that complicated.Answer me this:
Do you believe that cells evolved into mankind?
Let me refresh your memory.
The problem with deception is that it is so often based in redefining basic terms so as to coerce a conclusion.
For example, evolution was taught to me in school as rock-to-cell and then cell-to-man evolution. As this became clearly absurd (to many academics at least), the definition of evolution changed. Not only that, but processes within the theory changed as well, like abrupt appearance; This being nothing more than an attempt to explain away deficiencies in earlier parts of the theory.
Today, even though rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution continue to be taught to children the world over, the "new" definition is the most watered down version yet.
"Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."I say this to make sure we're always talking about the same thing because so often discussions like this devolve into a mass of misunderstandings because no definitions have been established.
Nevertheless, the best I can do to respond to your question is to repost a previous statement that I made.
In this light, I believe it's important to realize that there is an inherent system of morality in any belief system, and this is no more true anywhere than in the theory of evolution.
My contention in this regard is that concepts like "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" justify social behavior that end in killing, lying, or other harmful behaviors.
[color:"brown"]
Following is the post I made reference to...[/color]
Evolution is possibly the grandest social deception ever devised. I cannot express how amazed I am that anyone—anyone at all—believes this ridiculous and completely illogical idea.
- Virtually ALL genetic mutations are harmful and destructive, not beneficial. This alone should give thinking persons an idea about how incredibly unlikely—virtually impossible—evolution really is.
- The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics.
- If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now.
- Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages.
The real reason for the promotion of evolution is to create a social climate for the centralization of power and the promotion of certain, otherwise, unethical activities. For these morally deplete power brokers,
evolution solves all kinds of problems. It legitimizes:
- Killing weak and "undesirables" like unborn children or elderly persons (natural selection [survival of the fittest])
- Genetic engineering (If nature is a series of errors, we can certainly do better. However, if nature is by intelligent design, we better not mess with it.)
- Immunization (Again, they promote the idea that natural methods are not enough since they are the product of a series of "errors". Intelligent design says we can solve these issues with existing "natural" technology, like enhancing the immune system via diet and supplementation.)
- Democracy (rule—or government—of man. Hey, if there is no "Intelligent Designer", who else is going to rule or set the standard of morality?)
- Communism & socialism (Same)
There is much that can be said about that vastness of this deception, but one thing is certain:
It is not the depth or integrity of the idea of evolution that extends it's life, it is in fact, the broad and unrelenting promotion of the deception coupled with the human tendency to follow.To accept that evolution is false is to—by implication—accept that there is a conspiracy (a group of people working together) to conceal the truth, and this is, by itself, the reason most cannot overcome the evolutionary absurdness. Americans have been well conditioned to believe that usage of this word (conspiracy) itself undermines credibility. It takes a leader to take a stand against common misconceptions, no matter how farcical.
A simple mind conducting a little research would find that nearly all of the mass media in the United States (and most other industrialized nations) are owned by a handful of God-hating elitists with no morals and no accountability, and it is these who so actively promote the evolution theory.
"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers."Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118
"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them...Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46
Mutation looks like a mole; Unorganized, shapeless, useless and destructive. However, intelligent creation displays very highly organized symmetry which is absolutely impossible to explain by mutation (and therefore evolution).[color:"brown"]
And this for our new friends, via Linda.[/color]
I thought I would make an addendum to my previous post to help people understand the fundamental problems evolution has in dealing with symmetry.
There is no good argument to explain how an organism can evolve, and this problem is no more apparent than when you deal with the problem of symmetry. Simply put: How do we explain the idea that organisms can become perfectly symmetrical through mutations?
The concept of "cell-to-man" evolution involves the idea that small changes over a long period of time eventually caused the development of extremely complex structures, or machines. This idea has serious fundamental problems explaining the development of the eye, for example.
The eye consists of many parts that work together. There are rods and cones that detect light. There is a lens that focuses the light onto the rods and cones. There are muscles and an iris that control the amount of light that reaches the rods and cones. There is a nerve that connects to the rods and cones to carry the electrical signals that they generate to the brain. There are muscles that allow us to quickly position our eyes in sync with each other so they can provide stereoscopic vision. There is also an inner fluid and a cleaning system, plus a wiper system that lubricates and cleans the eyes, not to mention a myriad of other parts that enable the eye to work.
Now, if most any of these parts were missing, the eye would not function and would be basically useless.
For example, if the eye did not contain rods and cones, there would be no way for the eye to convert light into electrical signals for the optic nerve to carry to the brain. If there was no lens, there would be no mechanism for focusing the incoming light. Without the optic nerve, there would be no pathway for the electrical signals generated by the rods and cones to make it to the proper area of the brain. In fact, if nearly any single primary part of the eye were missing, it would be basically useless and would only be another body part that the rest of the body is burdened with nourishing and supporting with no benefit to the host organism.
This concept--that no single primary part can be removed and still allow the system to work--is called "Irreducible Complexity". In simple terms, you cannot reduce the complexity of the system and have the system still be useful. All (or most) of the individual parts are necessary for the whole to function.
Evolution teaches that small mutations caused extremely complex systems--such as the eye-- to form over long periods of time. These mutations, when they were beneficial to the organism, were somehow "remembered" in the organism's DNA to be passed along to its offspring.
When you consider the eye, it's impossible to form any single component of the eye and call it "beneficial" over a long period of time.
For example, let's say a single rod formed that detects light and converts it into electrical signals. (Of course, this formation of a rod would be a miraculous task considering the sheer complexity of one of these devices. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument we will continue.)
Without an optic nerve, there is no place for the rod to send its electrical signals. Without interocular fluid (the fluid inside the eyeball) and the outer structure of the eye, there would be no protection for this delicate component of the "future" eye.
Because this complex component has no useful function, it would only be about as useful to the organism it is attached to as a mole. Since evolution states that useless parts are burdens to the host organism and that these organisms that have these burdens die off as part of natural selection, then how could evolution ever get an eye to form when hundreds of other extremely complex structures have to form to make this rod functional. Again, without nearly all of the parts of the eye, most any individual component would be a harmful mutation and causes the organism to be at a disadvantage and to die off through natural selection.
Just to dig a little deeper, we have to consider how intricate and mind-bogglingly complex a single rod is. The internal structure and the way it converts light into electrical signals that are perfectly calibrated to be understood by the brain is a miraculous feat indeed.
Not only this, but the way rods are connected to the optic nerve and to the structures around it would be considered a feat of engineering genius by today's standards.
Now add to this the eye's structure, a fluid and fluid pressure regulation mechanism, a lens assembly, a cornea, the eye's "windshield wiper" (the eyelid), the lubrication system, the optic nerve, and countless other parts that make the eye functional.
Furthermore, consider that evolution claims that two eyes formed in perfect symmetry and that the muscles and the complex mechanisms in the brain that enable stereoscopic vision all came together in perfect harmony as if designed by a master craftsman using technology far beyond what mankind is capable of today. Even the simplest cell is a sophisticated machine that rivals the capability of modern technology.
When you put these facts together and look at the human eye as a whole (or even in parts down to the cellular level) the sheer engineering and design complexity of this system makes it difficult if not impossible for any logically-minded human to imagine that this type of structure could form by itself from small changes over time. When you add to this that evolutionary theory itself states that non-beneficial parts are eliminated by the die off of the organism, you can clearly see how evolutionary theory contradicts even our own clearly visible observations about the eye.
Now let's take a look at the fundamental faults in the explanation given for the symmetrical formation of the eye in one of the previous posts. This explanation states that signaling molecules were used to carry information between the two structures to aid in their synchronous design.
I already explained how this claim makes the overall feasibility of the formation of the eye even less reasonable because of its increased complexity, but it may be unclear to some why increased complexity reduces the likelihood of speculated evolutionary processes.
We must first realize that the formation of complex structures--such as human cells--through mutation is astronomically low, but without going into the math involved (you can easily find these calculations on the Internet), we will explain why increased complexity depletes this virtual impossibility further.
To understand this, we must first grasp some fundamentals.
First, we have to understand that all structures in the universe (as far as science currently knows) act in a predictable (repeatable) way under a given set of conditions. In other words, all matter and energy follow a set of rules. The purpose of science is to discover these rules.
For example, we know that atoms may contain an electrical charge. We know that there is a rule stating that atoms with opposite charges attract one another just as the opposite poles of a magnet attract each other. This attraction under these conditions is a rule. In this particular case, it is a well-known and scientifically sound rule.
Now that we know how this rule works, we can utilize it for our own purposes. For example, we may design and build an electrostatic air purifier that uses this rule to clean our air.
To further understand how the universe works, we need to understand that there are design patterns that occur.
One design pattern that we find involves "layering".
Layering is the concept of placing a set of rules in a "box" and combining it with another "box" to achieve a desired outcome.
For example, we might combine the rule that charged particles attract one another with the idea that clean air improves human health and derive the following "derived" rule:
Ionic air filtration improves health.
This becomes true now because of the combination of more than one rule to create another "higher-level" rule.
This layering of rules is used in human engineering of all kinds.
For example, computer programming has a "low-level" set of rules that define how numbers in computer memory affect the microprocessor (or CPU). This is called "machine language".
A higher set of rules define how a C-language compiler takes commands that were typed in using the C language "syntax" (rules) and converts them to low-level machine language.
An even higher set of rules define how a PERL-language compiler takes commands that were typed in using the PERL-language "syntax" (rules) and converts them into machine language using the C-language syntax (rules) in the interim.
This layering is a useful and universally-employed method of managing complexity throughout man-made technological systems, whether it be electronics, software, or other types of engineering.
Not ironically, we see this same method of managing complexity in design patterns found in nature.
For example, we see physics, where charged particles participate in chemical reactions according to rules of chemistry. This happens in mystical complexity inside individual cells of the liver. The liver--being made up of many of these cells--provides well-defined functionality within the body, but this functionality, that is, the rules it follows, are ultimately defined by the processes that take place in the individual cells which is ultimately defined by molecular chemistry.
So you see a complex chain of ever-decreasing complexity as you move down into each deeper set of rules.
In working to understand our universe, we are really attempting to be able to predict the future. How? We are trying to learn more of the rules of "nature" so we can predict how they will react under certain conditions... in the future.
This knowledge of these rules allows us to design buildings and computers and cell phones.
For example, we might build up silicone-based physics (rules) to make a transistor. We build upon the operating rules of the transistor to make an integrated circuit. We build upon the rule set of the integrated circuit (defined in the IC's "data sheet") to make a circuit board. We build upon the proprietary rule set of the circuit board to make a cell phone. We build upon the well-defined rule set of the cell phone to make a call, which communicates through a network of technologies all based on rules (in communications, these rules are call protocols).
Because the work of science is to discover these rules (usually so we can put them to use for our own purposes), we must discover and catalog the rules beginning with the most simple rules and progressing up to the more complex ones.
For example, if we discover a repeatable (predictable) rule that says that a magnetic field will actually move electrons through a conductor, then we have the knowledge we need to build a generator.
If we now discover another rule that states that electricity changing direction in a wire (called "alternating current") produces a magnetic field, we now have the knowledge we need to build a transformer.
If we combine the rules related to transformers with numerous other rules related to electronic components, we can eventually build a radio, and then a cell phone.
The point here is that the continued discovery of rules that build upon previously-discovered rules enables us to control more and more physical attributes of our universe. For example, using a cell phone, your voice can be heard clearly thousands of miles away.
As science discovers more and more rules, we have to remember that each of those rules are based on previously known rules until we reach a point that we discover a set of rules in which we don't understand why the rule works the way it does. Nevertheless, we can still utilize the rule because it is predictable.
This set of rules we are amassing in science is a continuous chain that begins with the most simple, low-level, fundamental rule to increasingly complex rules based on all the rules below them.
Evolution is not exempt from this requirement if it is to be accepted as a viable rule set.
To explain this more clearly, evolution should--if it is true--lead us down an unbroken path of ever more simple low-level rules until we reach rules that we know are true. As we test the predictability of each successive rule, we can then test the next lower--more simple--rule in the chain until we reach a point where we have proven that evolution is predictable (repeatable).
For this reason, it is not logical or even useful to explain a theory by expecting that the rules that govern one of its subprocesses will be more complex than the theory itself. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is taking place by attempting to explain theoretical evolutionary symmetry with signaling molecules. In this explanation, you are explaining a subprocess (rule set) using a process (rule set) that is more complex than the process in question.
Although in nature there are processes that enable other processes, and in some cases the dependent processes are more complex than the original process, in this case, the proposed process (signaling molecules) that supposedly enables the process in question (eye formation) is so vastly complex, irreducibly complex, and disconnected yet interface-able (contains very complex disconnected parts working together and communicating with each other) that it cannot be explained as being formed through known natural processes at any level.
The roulette wheel issue clearly comes into play here.
It must be realized that the chances for hitting any "beneficial" number on the wheel this size are astronomically small, and when you combine this with the fact that a huge number of successive numbers would have to be "hit" in order to form something complex that would be a workable complex machine, the probability of this complex machine forming through natural processes spins down firmly into practical impossibility.
The most commonly overlooked factor in this diminishing probability is the fact that, each time the roulette wheel is spun, there is the same astronomically-low chance that it will hit a "beneficial" number. Most evolutionists fall into the same trap as a Las Vegas vacationer by falsely believing that the second time the wheel is spun, the better the chance that a "beneficial" number will be hit. Any statistician will gladly admit that this simply isn't true, although every casino firmly counts on humans to falsely believe that it is true.
So again, combine this with the probability that a "beneficial" number will hit twice, three, or twenty-thousand times in a row, and probability moves multiplicatively towards the negative and quickly takes on exponents in the negative-tens (10^-27 is one mathematician's estimate).
If there is some attempt at an explanation for the formation (evolution) of this signaling molecule system available, it would make for good entertainment as evolutionists that create these theories in an attempt to solve an ever-deepening pit of illogic dig some of the most interesting, fanatical, and unscientific holes that have ever been created.
The net result here is a man-made religion that requires so much speculation and faith in spectacularly improbable events that any logically-minded person would be ashamed to be associated with it. However, the incessant promotion of the misrepresentation that "most" scientists believe evolution plays upon the human tendency to follow and the inability for "most" to accept a very real scientific fraud, so these persons choose to accept the more emotionally-comfortable and socially-safe notion that extremely-complex machines form out of rocks given enough time so they can bask in the mass-media-created perception that there is safety in numbers ("I won't look so dumb if it turns out to be false because everybody else believes it too.").
When we see this type of (ill)logic being employed, it should send flags up that someone is trying to tie our logic up in a loop. They are not moving to connect the chain of ever more simple rules to known processes, but instead, they are attempting to confuse an issue and/or render it as an unsolvable problem.
The prudent person should continue asking "how" to these continued mazes of explanations until they can tie a process to a known and well-established process. Of course, moving backward in this chain only makes explanations more difficult and are a symptom of an attempt to confuse an issue rather than to solve it.
Again, this all comes down to political maneuvering and not a process of scientific discovery... a common debate tactic that attempts to prolong the debate rather than breaking it down to its component parts. This tactic is common in politics and among sociopaths.
For example, someone might ask why a senator voted a certain way on an issue. If there is some special interest at work that the senator does not want you to know about, they may claim that the issue is complicated in an effort to prevent ever having to explain it to you.
When we look at the explanation of symmetry as being a system of molecular messaging that is more complex than the eye itself, we have to conclude that someone is not interested in allowing us to find the connection between rules governing evolutionary theory and the simpler lower-level rules that are already established. Instead, they are interested in sending us in the other direction; the direction of complexity.
Nevertheless, if we are to play the game and continue to follow the evolutionary line of logic that signaling molecules coordinated the synchronous design of complex components (such as the eye), then the next logical question is:
How did this complex and sophisticated system of signaling molecules come to establish an encoding mechanism, a decoding mechanism, a suitable medium, and a protocol (a language of communication understood by both the encoder and the decoder)?In conclusion, if we analyze evolution by breaking down the rule sets in the direction of simplicity, we find that evolutionary claims simply don't connect with the established rules of science. Evolutionists simply attempt to provide the appearance of science by increasing the complexity of rule sets, which only serve to confuse and impress an easily "dazzled" audience. This entire charade is not unlike a magic show, complete with distraction, misdirection and fanatical claims.
It would be more intellectually feasible to believe in a new and evolving theory such as panspermia (the implantation of humans on the earth by aliens) than the development of rocks into highly-complex machines.
In fact, don't change the channel now...the next show in this line-up of global magic will be the promotion of aliens seeding human life on earth, which will become the next "accepted" "scientific" theory to explain life on earth.
This will conveniently solve the evolving mass of tangled illogic created by evolution that is finally being seen for what it is by a growing number of people. This will be the deus ex machina that entertains the masses while they wallow in their inability to grasp the illogic of it all for the next hundred years.
The show must go on.
---
Our Solor SystemThe Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast