Science has pretty much proven ID!

I was stunned to see the headlines that scientists will be able to create "artificial" life within 3 to 10 years. What is stunning about this is not so much the creation of life but the fact that once again the Darwinists refused to recognize the very basic fact that they have just shown Intelligent Design is the best bet for creation and evolution.

Think about this. NEVER has any part of Darwin's theory been demonstrated in a controlled setting. Matter-of-fact, it has been shown to be false under controlled settings and yet these people continue to insist that there is no possible way I.D. is possible but Darwinism is.

Let's take a look at the most dramatic demonstration of Darwinism failing; Selective Breeding. How is it that we can breed and breed and breed but not get a NEW species? Look at dogs as the best source of proof of this. Over the centuries dogs have been selectively bred to bring out the desired traits but there has never been a new species come about. In other words, they are still dogs. Try as we might, we can not create a new species through selective breeding and yet Darwinists will insist that by totally random changes to the genetic code, not just new species have sprung up, but new phylum, families and so on. How is this possible? It isn't.

On the other hand, humans have shown that we can create new forms of things such as sweetners. You see it labeled as "artificial" but how is that? Is it a sweetner or not? Yes it is. It is just man-made. So substitute man-made for artificial. BUT it takes intelligence and it takes design. So if humans can do it, why can't some other being that is vastly superior to us in technology and scientific knowledge?

By creating life in a laboratory, scientists have driven the final nail into Darwinism and yet they refuse to see it. They have now, through their own devices, shown that Intelligent Design is the best theory going, and yet they refuse to acknowledge it. As such, they remove themselves from the realm of science into that of religion. They are not scientists, they are acolytes.

What is Darwinism?

For most people, Darwin's theory of evolution can be summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest". This is pretty much what it does say but not exactly. I will quote Allaboutscience.com
here:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

So what exactly does this really mean to us in searching for the truth? It means that there are random events happening that do damage to the cells in the reproduction mechanism of a specimen and this damage is passed on to the next generation. If it is a "good" change, then it continues, if it is a bad change, it is "selected" out. But this is supposed to happen with no guiding hand or anything like that. Of course when a Darwinist dispenses with "god" they are really just trying to do away with the Judeo-Christian God and replace Him with their own goddess, Mother Nature.

Yes, the "miracles" etc that must happen for this theory to work are far more extensive than even the Christian theory of evolution and creation. Giant leaps of faith are required to believe this can actually be occurring.

Instead of "survival of the fittest" there is a different principle at work; Survival Of The Luckiest. That's right. A baby can be born and have the latest and greatest change to the genome that will make it the best at surviving and then along comes the big bad wolf and eats it before it ever has a chance to reproduce. There is no such thing as natural selection that "favors" certain characteristics over others. What there is is the luck to survive to maturity and reproduce. Even then, most changes to the genetic structure are shown to cause serious side affects that inhibit the survival of the organism. Damage builds in the genetic sequence and does not bring forth "good" qualities. If this was not true, then why is inbreeding so damaging?

Now think about that for a second. If inbreeding is so bad, how will the new trait be passed on? Who will be most likely to have the trait also and ensure it is passed on when breeding? This is of course if two are required for reproduction. Well, the SIBLINGS of course. So this good trait will be passed on and so will all the bad traits caused by inbreeding. Self-defeating.

So Darwin's theory is already showing massive cracks and is ready to crumble. Why then is it touted as fact then? Because the Darwinists are a religious cult. Plain and simple.

5 Legged Lamb

I'm taking a break from the basics to show a classic case of scientists speaking out both sides of their mouth and twisting evidence to try and "prove" Darwinism. A few months back a dolphin was discovered with 4 flippers. This was hailed as proof that they used to walk on land with 4 legs. Well, anybody with half a brain cell operating would realize it was proof of no such thing. It was proof that freaks occur in nature.

Now a lamb is born with 5 legs. Is this seen as some evolutionary throwback to when all sheep had a 5th leg to help climb (or something)? No it is correctly labeled as a "freak". Notice the difference in what is said about each based on whether or not the speciment fits with what Darwinists believe. This is proof of only one thing. Darwinists will distort anything and everything to fit their fantasy.

This is also evidence supporting something that will be discussed in more detail later, that "add ons" due to natural causes are something that is already present. In other words, this lamb did NOT have a brand new organ or anything else, it is just an abnormal leg. So the genetic code is already in place for a leg, it just got confused about where to put one. The leg appears to be non-functioning too, so we see that anything out of the norm will probably not work because the rest of the "wiring" is not in place. Changes such as legs coming from nowhere just are not possible because there is so much more involved than just a leg showing up. This goes beyond irreducable complexity to impossible complexity. This will be discussed more in future posts.

Evolution and Creation are both fact

To begin the journey back into the light of science within this topic, there must be a discussion of the terms involved. Primarily "creation" and "evolution". The words are overused in the wrong context thus confusing the entire issue. To begin, both are facts. There is a creation and there is evolution. However, these in themselves do not explain HOW they occur or how they are related to each other. Most people hear these words and assume one is religion the other science. This is simply not true.

What most people call "creation" is the Biblical version of the beginnings of all things. On the other hand, "evolution" is mistakenly thought to be Darwinism. This is quite deliberate and part of the massive fraud that many in the scientific community have thrust upon the public. They can rightly say evolution is a fact and then mislead you into believing Darwinism is a fact. It is not. Quite the opposite. Darwinism is a flimsy theory as to how evolution occurs and to what extent. Just as the Biblical version of creation is a THEORY of creation. There are many theories of creation.

First thing we must do is establish boundaries to limit the discussion. This is done in any good scientific endeavor. For if we look at the "big bang" theory of creation and the whole universe for evolution, the Earth is but a drop of water in the ocean. If we are wanting to study the Earth, we do not look at the universe except in context.

Creation and evolution overlap and it is hard to distinguish the dividing line sometimes. For instance in the universe, the creation of a new star isn't part of the creation of the universe, but the evolution of the universe. However, it is the creation of the star as far as the star is concerned. But then where does the creation end and the evolution begin?

Creation is the start, the beginning of something be it a universe or a grain of sand on the beach. Once it is created, it will evolve; change. My car was created in a factory and once it rolled off the assembly line, it began to change. A scratch here, a scented pine tree thingy there, new tires, tune ups and so on and so forth. So it had a creation and an evolution and that is the way it works.

Under creation there is the theory of abiogenesis. However under abiogenesis is a multitude of hypothesis, thus showing that science has not revealed how life started on the Earth, but some scientists are positive that no intelligent design was involved. Does that sound like solid science? Absolutely not. All possibilities must be considered until reasonably ruled out. In later posts I will show how science actually has proven intelligent design is the most likely scenario, but for now, just try to get your brain around the change in what the humanists are feeding you about evolution and creation being different sides of the same coin.

Why must I post?

I was raised in a very scientific family. My dad has a PhD in chemistry and his other degrees over the years total more than you can shake a stick at. He always taught us to question everything that sounded wrong and don't believe something just because an "expert" said it was true.

With that in mind I grew up believing Darwin was right. The Leakys were my heroes and I was an atheist. But over the years things didn't add up. I looked at the science behind "evolution" and realized it was so full of holes it was painful to look at. So why is it that "science" clings to this horrible theory? It has to do with religion. Not Christianity or any "creationist" religion, but humanism. That's right, Darwinism is part of a humanistic religion and it falls together with global warming. Another horrible bit of science.

How do these 2 go together? First, Darwinism basically states that man is the ultimate being. Second, global warming says that we have control over our planet. So humans ARE god. Or at least will become gods eventually.

More about my background. I was a computer science major in the early 70's and got tired of school. It was too easy. BUT I was not about to be drafted and go to Viet Nam. So I joined the Navy and volunteered for submarines. I took the toughest academic schooling in the world; Navy Nuclear Propulsion. It is basically a BS in Nuclear Engineering in 6 months. Physics, math, electrical, chemistry. I was an Electricians' Mate.

Then for the next 13 years I lived and breathed science on board submarines. Training all the time, learning what made things happen and how they would happen. There were questions like "if the seawater temperature increases 1 degree Fahrenheit, with no human intervention, what will reactor power do?" We had to figure things like this out. We had to learn to use our brains for more than just a way to keep our skulls from collapsing.

So this got me looking at Darwinism and seeing that it was nonsensical and a piece of garbage as far as a theory went. Nowhere else would this theory stand up, but since it is a part of a religion it is surviving. If this evidence was put forward for any other theory, except global warming, it would be laughed off the planet.

Now I will come out, over time, with the destruction of Darwinism as science and put it into the proper realm of religion. Maybe a judge or two will take note and ban it from schools too as part of separation of church and state. THEN maybe we can work on finding a theory that really works.

In closing with this intro, let me point out that this is NOT a dissertation on "creationism". Destroying one theory does NOT prove another. This is an attempt to shake loose the strangle hold so called scientists have over true scientific methodology when it comes to creation and evolution.