Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Progressive's Fealty to Evolution and the Required Leaps of Faith

Faith is requisite to embrace evolution. Faith is a word bound tightly to religion's ethos, and, as such, should prompt evolution's adherents to intuitively strike any act(s), or mention of faith from evolution's core principles. Evolution should be able to stand on the three legs of every theory's supporting stool: factual evidence, logical integrity, and reason bound assertions analogous with, and tempered by, the Scientific Method.  Any support that betrays / fails the theory's primary assertions invalidates the theory. Evolution fails marvelously in all three areas. Having faith in evolution is more than a reflexive emotional response that every scientist seeking credibility must control.  Eliminating faith based requirements from any credible theory is as essential as hydrogen is to water - one of the primary molecules required for life.

Pope John Paul commissioned a book on the topics of Science, Theology and Philosophy. It is a wonderful read.  The book is philosophically and emotionally neutral and fixated upon the requirements of the scientific method.  However, a fundamental scientific allegiance must recognize the gaping chasms contained in evolution’s several theories and evolution's essential “enabler”: The Big Bang.

If one embraces evolution and the central precept - there are no controlling authority(s) in our universe.  Then there must be a moment where the universe came into being - sans any sentient external impetus - (Gods or the current vogue idiom “Intelligent Design”).  So eager and committed are evolution’s adherents to mock and murder God or ID they strap on 7-League Footwear and confidently march past the point of the universe’s essential question – what is / was the uncaused first cause?  From Where, What, or Whom may we attribute the first matter used to produce the Big Bang and its several environmental associates – space and time being two.  This is a quantum leap of faith that ignores the very same requirements evolution adherents demand from any scientist, or evidence used in supporting God or ID.   Every first year science student is taught the foundation of theory requires validating the core components of the theory.  “Approved” former and accepted facts in evidence may be used, but if that tactic is applied, it threatens the former work of others.  Should the new theory fail, it will cast an indubitable shadow upon the theories adopted for the new theory's premise. It is practice frought with dangers to credibility and associated theories. This practice is Strang Verbotten for God or ID, but heartily supported for evolution – a curious double standard that violates other scientific standards. 

SO... where DID all that Big Bang matter originate?  What produce the uncaused first cause.  All the matter in our universe had to first be “created” or exist and be put in motion to effect the singularity – infinite gravity holding infinite matter.  For now, let us ignore science has yet to identify what causes gravity, and ignore evolution's unwillingness to address the uncaused first cause, and address the first problem.  Hydrogen molecules must form from the singularity of matter.  That hydrogen occupies the first position on the table of elements does not assure one of the pieces of matter that exited the Bang was hydrogen. 

The next problem is one with a probability so low it defies billions of years – the Big Bangers inform us the age of the universe is less than 15 billion years.  Random elements transforming into a living organism is an enormous problem.  Using the term enormous does not accurate define the scope problem.  I doubt a word exists that will accurate define this problem.  SCIENCE concludes for life to originate happenstance it requires an 40,000 exponential applied to the number 10 to accurately factor random events that MAY lead to matter becoming alive.  Fitting that 40,000 exponential into this document requires over 12 pages just to hold the places for the zeros in the exponential in this document’s format.  Further complicating matters is the happenstance and time required to create suns, planets, indeed the universe itself.  The placement of suns and planets required to foster life also requires water/H20 per our knowledge and conjecture.  Energy must, by happenstance, be introduced in the exact amounts and properly placed to enliven the elements used.  The proper mixtures required to spontaneously ignite life must be present in the exact location and proper quantities.  Matter must specifically be prepared and able to receive the energy dispersed.  In addition, a plethora of other factors - specific: times, distances, quantities, and the several random events required, must be produced for the opportunity of life to erupt. 

Other problems with evolution include the central premise for evolution's causality - environmental pressures and niches.  Ostensibly, according to Darwin's postulates, environmental pressures presuppose, drive, and support mutations that ostensibly dooms the ubiquitous specie that produced the mutation. These environmental pressures defy logic and the accepted evidence available. 

Take for example the amoeba...  the amoeba still exists.  So do many other other single cell creatures.  What prompted them to confederate to form a more complex organism?  If envornmental pressures were causal, then how did the amoeba survive?  Apply this to any species.  For Darwin's postulate to hold integrity - in theory - as species mutate due to environmental pressures, the organism that bred the mutation should die out.  Happenstance has no little value in the scientific method.  

Mutations are most often a happenstance, random event and the mutation is an impefect copy of the pair producing the mutation.  Mutations are typically a flawed example of the specie creating it.  Most are so flawed they do not live long enough to reproduce.  Being flawed, the organizsm further lacks the ability to attract a mate - in more advanced species.  

Let's examine this doozy of a problem.  Fish...  Fish that breathe oxygen with lungs.  Fish whose gills are replaced by or coexist with lungs.  We still have an abundance of fish species.  Some are said to be hundreds of millions of years old.  Some breathe oxygen with lungs.  They remain fish.  Few fish designs have died out.  The fossil records proves this. Fish remain fish-like in design. The KT boundary, the asteroid impact that killed all the dinosaurs, appears to have had zippy impact upon fish - ditto  many other land animals. (How was it only the dinosaurs were killed by the KY impact?  How could other species survive?  How did crocodiles, a member of the dinosaur group survive?)

More to the point, what prompted a mutated fish to leave the comfort of the waters to seek an unknown new life on land (and vice-versa)?  Making matters more improbable is the need for a breeding pair of the mutations, capable of breeding, that share a dislike of the waters, possess lungs, and the pair act to leave that environment together; at, or near, the same time and physical location.  They must then to find a sexual attraction for breeding purpose. AND... this breeding pair must instinctually know; even when they have no experience in the new environment, what food types exist on the land, where to find that food, to sustain life.  If the pair fed upon certain plants poisonous to them, they die.  If the pair are unable to locate and ingest ample food to sustain them, they die.  They must find shelter from the elements on land that do not impact life in the waters as severely, or die out.  The mutation will not possess legs, arms or opposable thumbs - requisite for optimal life on land. The mutation will have mutated fins. The mutated organism must be able to move about to find food and shelter.  Walking on mutated fins and breathing with mutated lungs drives the probability of survial downwards.  The breeding pair must sustain themselves long enough to create offspring.  The offsprings must further adapt/mutate to improve life on land - all by happenstance!  Mutations are not typical and do not occur regularly.  The term mutation suggests irregularity and unorthodox morphology.  

An important aside - Mutations are not typically the most vibrant examples of the species that produces the mutation.  Most often, the mutation is a weak, malformed specimen, ordinarily possessing physical and mental traits incompatible with their evironment or a long life.  Those weaknesses lead to the organism's early demise. Human mutations include: Downs Syndrom, malformed limbs and organs, congenital morphological dysfunctionality, and other traits that limit the offspring's ability to survive in the environment where it is born - even when artificially cared for and their defects synthetically ameliorated.  Presuming mutations are vibrant and vigorous examples of the species that produces them has few, if any examples, in the species/specimens we know to exist and study.  The malformed, weak mutation is the norm. 

More on fish...
Presupposing the breeding pair of fish managed to negotiate the troubles facing them on land, and overcame the inordinate problems in that pursuit.  Hypothetically - accept the pair adapted to exist upon the land.  When Darwin's "pressured" causality is next applied - inexplicably these mutated fish were again pressured by the environment to return to the environment where life were so difficult the fish had no option but to leave those waters in the first causality!  Reverse all the above water to land adaptation problems, and overlay a land animal returing to the waters.  The probability problems get worse. What environmental problems were so consequential they pressured a breeding pair of land animals forced to return to the sea?   The earth remains populated with an abundance of land animals.  What was so bad it prompted land animals to return to the waters?  The environmental or another external pressure reasoning is more than specious.  This "reasoning" is dubious, defies logic and evidence, ignores copious data, and cast a dark shadow over Darwin's motivations in developing his "Theory". 

Was it what Darwin found in his travels that prompted his theory? Or, did Darwin have a specific theory/outcome he wanted and worked to substantiate that outcome?  The latter seems the more probable motivation because Darwin's reasoning for evolution's causality is severely flawed and requires faith to remain an accepted theory. Darwin's searching for hand picked evidence that supported his conjecture does not follow one of science's basic premises.  Truth is, Darwin inverted the scientific process. 

Life in the Gallopagos is uniquely adapted to that environment.  But that adapted life does not comport universally; as Darwin's pressure theory collapse quickly once one investigates further, or considers why the original organism that produced the mutated offspring still exists, or the necessary requirements for adaptation into a new environment are fully entertained.

Niches do not necessarily need filling. Unless the person examining the niche chooses, for unscientific reasons like personal gain, to fill them, they will remain unfilled and life around the niche will not suffer accordingly.  

Does evolution exist? Yes - within specific species and environments.  Darwin's Finches are a good example.  The Finch changed - adapted to its environment.  However, the Finch remains a Finch and belongs to a groups of animals called birds.  Why did the original Finch remain?  What possible reason/pressured causality explains why a supposedly superior Finch mutated due to pressures, but the original, supposedly inferior Finch responsible for the special evolution, persists - thriving?  

There are thousands of bird species.  Could an "Adam and Eve" breeding bird pair be responsible for all the bird species?  Perhaps, improbable, but possible.  Evolution derails at several junctures.  Evolution derails when a specie morphs into a new specie.  It derails when the original single celled animal chooses to confederate. It derails when matter assumes life by happenstance.  There are example heaped upon example of why specieal evolution is improbable  - and impossible. 

Modern science has specific reasons for wanting evolution adopted as the basis of their several conjectures.  The reasons are codified in human behaviors and human ambitions - not scientific evidence or the scientific methods. In this practice, they share Darwin's professional behaviors and ambitions, and those behaviors are purposeful.

Most likely, Darwin had a predetermined outcome and went looking for evidence to support it.  Darwin only used the evidence that advanced his theory.  Darwin chose to ignore evidence surrounding him - evidence that other scientists knew and suggested invalidated Darwin's "sans sentient causality" and any associated theory.  Darwin was no different than any other man.  His nobility is neither enhanced or sullied by his choices.  Like most of Darwin's examples, he faced environmental pressures - the pressures of living.  Darwin needed all the requisites of life - food and shelter.  But man has additional needs to survive - his large brain and intellect drives man to make other choices - some antithetical to his optimal life.  Darwin wanted fame as a scientist.  Darwin not only studied animals and their behaviors, he studied man.  Darwin knew the richest and most powerful people in his day were the aristocracy.  The aristocracy had trouble keeping God's commandments.  If Darwin could murder God - PROVE no God existed, he would gain fame and profit handsomely.  

Evolution renders God dead.  God never existed - per evolution's conclusions.  If there is no God, Science assume the mantel of God as the respository, and giver, of all knowledge.  Science then structures morality and directs human behaviors to their benefit(s).  In Darwin's time and before, the aristocracy of Europe, and others, wanted God officially, scientifically, dead - to better enable their lacivious desires and behaviors - freed from moral restraint.  The modern Left, Progressives, desire the same God-less universe for the same reasons.  They want no controlling authority over their behaviors, AND...  they want to be GOD! 

I cannot, will not, believe the Stromatilites in Shark's Bay are my ancestors.  Specieal change requires purposeful sentient intervention.  Dynamic designs must exist.  Trial and error will complicate the results and the contort the processes used to accomplish these changes.  

Organized religion complicates evolution and provides fodder for scientists and those with a limited intellect who are easily confused and led.  The majority of organized religions refuse to confront the Bible and believe absolute faith is a commandment.  So is "Ponder the Scriptures" - but that is a forgotten commandment.  Idiotically, refusing to address the gapping chasms in man's creation and Man's time on earth (which is a calculation based upon suppositions of factors found in the Bible) gives science enough evidence to make religion look foolish and incompetent.  Since science is driven by self serving ambitions, mocking religion provides them entertainment and command of the facts.  Religion appears rigid and unwilling to confront the several shortcomings in their Biblical interpretations.  

Man's creation - including all the details and failures to so do - may not be thoroughly articulated in the Bible - oh well.  The previous post on the Book of Enoch provides evidence of this causality and the sources of the causality.  The Gods - plural - were responsible for the intervention required for specieal change and other changes upon the face of this earth.  There were specific reasons for the God(s) actions. The time referrence for these Gods is not known - exactly.  The time space continuum, the inherent questions/inconsistencies that remain unresolved in Quantum mechanics, dimensions, and many, many, other factors all weigh upon God's time - i.e. what is the exact relationship between God's day and man's day/month/year,decade; et al?  

Who and what are the Gods of the Bible?  Could they be extra-terrestrials with little religious connotation past ordering man to keep a record of his activities, and, provide man essential rules of behaviors - to hopefully delay the time until mankind self annihilates?  

I can trust an unseen God more than man/science's suppositions and conjectures that were specifically crafted to enable the worst of human behaviors and transfer authority.  God's plan for life upon the earth and the information / commandments shared with man improved mankind.  Admittedly, man has not always used God's gifts well or for good purposes.  That is a man problem - not a God problem.  Conversely, mankind has worked miracles of goodness using God's commandments.  

The opposite is true after man assumed Darwin's Theory / God's mantel.  We will continue to suffer and witness society collapse until manking reverts to believing in Gods. 

No comments:

Post a Comment