Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Foolishness of Evolution Theory:

THINK!  What matter would it be to us, the nature and origins of the universe if life did not exist, if we were not alive, if we did not possess cognition.  The importance of the origin of the universe pales in comparison to the simple question, "from whence LIFE"? "from whence our own cognition"? Did it really crawl out of the primordial ooze?


Let us accept the mental straight jacket, the diminution of reason that is the confines of the philosophy of "naturalism" which is merely extreme materialism.  And so, let us talk strictly about material things, inside that "naturalist model."  Let us talk about the origins of living organisms from inert matter. 

Cells of course are the basic building block of every living organism.  Contrary to the Evolutionist Mythology that existed for over a hundred years and dominated the biology text books that there was some intermediary substance between inert matter and a living cell, fostered by the scientistic hoax that was perpetrated by Thomas Henry Huxley, his supposed discovery of the Bathybius Haeckelii, which provided the “primordial soup” that the spontaneous generation of life from inert matter requires . . . (Darwin himself did not teach this spontaneous generation of life, but the New World Order charlatans who surrounded him and used him for a useful idiot DID.) Sorry, there was no primordial soup, made up of pre-cell living matter that “organized.” In fact there was no primordial amino acid ooze wherein a simple protein might be formed.  As it turns out and was proved and accepted by the British Scientific Society (a major New World Order Player) it was only gypsum in sea water, which Huxley claimed was alive. No, it was completely inert.

You may read a watered down version of the scandal at this link and hundreds of thousands of other links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathybius_haeckelii

Yet, knowing and acknowledging the “mistake” by Huxley, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, after publishing and greatly touting, the “discovery of the Bathybius Haeckelii," (the missing link between inert matter and living cell) never published their acknowledgment of the (FRAUD) “mistake” leaving it to linger in the text books and scientific literature for decades. I remember reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine where this myth was the basis for the article in the mid-1970s, one hundred years AFTER it was proved a hoax. 

What is the implication of this? 
What does this mean politically and theologically. It means that a great portion of culture, faith and understanding of "things as they are" were distorted and subverted, based upon the false underpinning of this popular pseudo-science? I could write a book about that.  Books have been written about that. But let us leave politics out of it and just focus on what the absence of non-cellular life means and concentrate on the creation of the simplest cell.

The simplest cell is an “organism.”   
This is important to note, because contrary to the false understanding of the science of Biology for many decades, there are no simple cells.  The so-called simplest cell is massively complex. This is the lesson taught us by electron microscopes.  That simple cell is rather a complexity of organization. That is an admission on the part of biology intended or not, since the word “organism” implies “organization” both words sharing the same root word. ὀργανισμός, 

What is the “organization of the simplest living cell”?  It contains proteins.  There is a single protein cell, produced in the process of putrefaction but not in the generation of life. But we will use this simplest of cells as our example.  That single cell holding a single protein has a DNA structure. What makes it a DNA structure is not the fact that it contains amino acid subunits (molecules), but rather that each amino acid subunit is properly formed in a most complex way. 

So let us begin.  
Let us “pretend” we have inert matter present together, and for some strange reason, which we do not know, it is composed SOLELY of Amino Acid Molecules, containing every amino acid needed for composing the complexity of a protein.  In reality removed from this Darwinist fun, there are MILLIONS of types of molecules present in any square foot of earth space, in fact probably millions of different types in an inch block of wood.  But I am giving the Evolutionist a “gimme,”  the closest thing to “primordial ooze” nature could ever provide. I want you to picture it in your mind a soup of nothing but the Amino Acid Molecules needed to produce the protein for the simplest cell. And remember that the protein is just one of the factors necessary for the construction of this simple cell.

A DNA structure requires “binding by Proteins.”  The simplest protein has around 100 amino acid subunits. 
http://psb.stanford.edu/psb-online/proceedings/psb01/DNA.pdf

So first let us talk about Amino Acids, a subset of a subset of a DNA strain. 
For a protein to function in LIFE, in a living cell, there are certain conditions the proteins must have.
(1) The amino acid molecules must be bonded together with ONLY Peptide bonds.  Amino acids bond in inert matter in several ways, but only half the time in peptide bonds.  So doing the odds,  on that 100 amino acid strain, just like the mathematicians doing the Vegas Book, the mathematicians calculate this at 1 in 10 to the 30th power – that it could “naturally occur” “happen by happenstance” “spontaneously self-construct.”
This means the chance is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
  
Your personal chance of wining the mega-millions lottery is better by factors of millions.  

Now I admit the math is beyond me, and I am depending solely on the mathematical calculations of  “experts”, but it is not hard for me to picture a hundred “bonds”  as BLOCKS in a row, with each bond having to be (a) or (b)  (peptide “white”  or all others “red” ), a 50 percent chance of being one or the other, spinning the hundred block wheel and expecting a solid line of color to appear.  Remember I'm picturing a simple mechanism of a hundred slots, which nowhere existed in nature.  

(2)  But we have just begun. As it turns out each amino acid is “laevus” (left handed) or “dexter” (right handed) mirror images, like left and right shoes and gloves.  And oddly, in living things, all the proteins are composed of amino acid subunits of the laevus “L” form.  Yet L and D forms of amino acids appear in nature equally.  So to get a chain of 100 L-form amino acids, the odds are identical, 1 in 10 to the 30th power.  
1 chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(3) So then the odds with “two variables” of getting a chain of 100 amino acids with all peptide bonds and all L-form would be 1 in 10, to the 60th power. 
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(4) Even if all the amino acids are peptide bonds and L-form, there is another obstacle.  They have to be in a particular sequence to be a functioning protein.  This pushes the odds to 1 in 10 to the 65 power, which is a number equal to the ATOMS in our galaxy!  

We all know what a long shot is.  A horse given 20 to 1 odds – were it to win, it would be a very rare thing. But it happens.  The odd for the spontaneous generation of “living matter” from “inert matter” are more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 to 1. 

And really this is being kind to the evolutionists, who believe in the spontaneous generation of life from inert matter, because we have only described the odds of one simple protein “self-organizing.” And we provided for the picture image an IDEAL situation that has/had no correlation in being. 

Darwin existed in a technologically primitive time, as compared to existential science of today. The realities of the complexity of atoms, molecules and DNA structure, simply rule out the possibility of spontaneous generation of life from inert matter, and without life climbing out of the “primordial ooze” nothing else in the Philosophy of "Naturalism" has any basis.  Darwinism records in the fossil record, the coming and going of specific species inside the confines of the "kind."  For instance we know by common sense that Mammoths, Mastodons and Elephants are of the same KIND, but are different species.  But the trail of ANY ensouled creature back to primordial ooze is a TOTAL MYTH, which both the fossil record and the complexity of D.N.A. dismiss as 19th century mythology.  

When I wrote a list of the instruments of the MIND WAR, and included “Education” as one instruments, any honest Micro-biologist, Molecular-biologist, or any other discipline of the science of genetics knows that the spontaneous generation of “living matter” from “inert matter” IN TIME, is pure foolishness, pure fiction.  Privately they will admit it. Yet, the education system keeps teaching the mythology, the lying textbooks keep reprinting the mythology.  That is not “science,” that is not education, that is “ideology” and "ideological conditioning."   

Now think about the atheistic MIND WAR and the darkness presented in it, (and by darkness I mean “uncomprehension.”)  
Example:
One of the great atheists of our time, Richard Dawkins, who is an evangelist for the "philosophy of naturalism" whose training is in zoology and animal behavior, in his book “The Blind Watchmaker” proposes the funniest example of “random combinations” by using random combinations of letters compared to a target sequence that forms an intelligible grammatically correct sentence.  In his “computer process” is programmed an algorithm where those combinations of letters that come closest to a meaningful target sequence are preserved, whereas those that depart from the target sequence are rejected. After a certain number of runs, the computer produces the target sequence. Dawkins takes this as proof that random combination of chemicals could by natural selection gradually produce biologically functional proteins.  


Do you see the glaring FLAW in this reasoning?
(1) While claiming to prove the non-existence of God, the non-existence of DESIGN in the universe and in nature, which was his ultimate goal, his experiment assumes the existence of a complex computer, which we do not find in nature.
(2) Second he assumes a “target sequence” (which by another name is design) as if the random particles know where they are heading and what form to which they are to form themselves!
As you see, the analogy of computer algorithms and nature hold no kinship whatsoever, unless you intends to picture the creator was the computer and his creative design as the “target sequence.” 


The state of the MIND WAR, has the people believing in Evolution, who by FAITH dismiss the  “impossible odds” of spontaneous generation of life from, inert matter, thinking themselves rational and intelligent, because the “experts” (read = psycho-political controllers) have told them evolution is a FACT. That is the only evidence they can muster.  YET,  They chide the people who hold knowledge of the impossibility of spontaneous generation of life from inert matter, calling them silly and primitive, “flat-earthers” “ignorant” “mad” “stupid.”  And when you expose that they are “programmed by the MIND WAR” they will call you insane.  Why? Because facing what is existentially true, in the physical sciences, causes the entire humanist house of cards to implode.  They will argue the most illogical things like drowning men reaching for straw.      

Here is an example of men reaching for straw, claiming that "viruses" instead of the fraudulent Bathybius Haeckelii meet the criterion of some stage between "inert matter and living matter."  The article in Scientific America is sophisticated sophistry, since each virus contains its own D.N.A. and is thus vastly complex, and requires the construction of proteins just as this single "protein cell" I describe above. He has only describe a microscopic parasite with the ability to lay dormant for thousands of years, but containing its own life. That D.N.A. structure says it is designed for its purpose, even when dormant. 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/

Here is a highly technical overview of the "spontaneous generation of life" from inert matter and despite its sophisticated technical jargon adds absolutely nothing to the debate, nor reduces the impossibility as I have outlined.  The author cleverly uses the term "abiotic" substances/compounds as opposed to "inert" compounds and talks of "pre-biotic" compounds, which is quite a smoke screen. He states ending his overview, saying:

"Today, the experimental road for the study of the plausibility
 of the transition from chemistry to biology focuses mainly on two aspects: the biophysics of artificial membranes and vesicles of a simple character and the chemistry of
self-replicating RNA polymers. The final goal is the building of a system of self-reproductive vesicles containing catalytic RNAs that are able both to make more copies of the same RNAs (self-replicative) and catalyze the synthesis of the boundary components from simpler chemical substrates. A legitimate
philosophical question would be whether this supra-chemical Origin of Life, Theories of constructs should be considered alive or not. This is one of the reasons of the renewed interest on defining life."  He is speaking of chemical process in the laboratory and man made compounds. What is produced by this process is 'chemistry' not biology. 

http://www.uv.es/cavani/genevol/pdfs/Pereto_EncycGenet.pdf


Please do not take my words for this. Research it deeply, discover for yourself the fact that the MIND WARRIORS NEED for YOU to believe in the God-eliminating philosophy of "Naturalism" the radical materialists form of Evolution.  Why? To make you easier to mentally and morally control, to condition, and to destroy.
Some deeming themselves more "spiritual" like the American New Agers and Eastern Pagans, talk of the universe of matter, spontaneously generating life by mutual attraction created by “LOVE.”  Even some Christians have become so indoctrinated with eastern philosophy and mythologies of voodoo science that they have become Christian Evolutionary Deist, and no longer Christian.  It is a Wonderful New Age Picture and not new at all, since the idea is shared by Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, and Christians.  But the New Agers, just like their Pagan counterparts in the East, fail to define what LOVE is.  Better yet, what mechanism love is, since they are giving Love a mechanical function - that is the construction of sequences of amino acid molecules forming proteins and the construction of the complexity of D.N.A.  They never discuss if this LOVE might have Personhood, consciousness, cognition and actually be a person, with a personality, and not merely a thing.  "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."   1 John 4:7-8 (King James Version) 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the knowledge of the LOVE that was the mutual attraction that created everything.  We have far more proof of this in the centuries of human experience of the Gospel than we have of spontaneous generation of LIFE from late 19th century mythology.  We are left to learn this testimony or assume all previous centuries of Christians were insane.

Prayers for the opening of minds to the marvelous potential all of us have in Christ Jesus.
Archpriest Symeon Elias





Berlinski was willing to expose the fraud of Darwinism, yet he accepted the fraud of Relativity. As always happens in every era, the most brilliant men are about to be proved fools.  We are experiencing a paradigm shift in Cosmology, a shift in which Einsteins theories will be dead and subject to much humorous anatomizing, exposing error after error, fraud after fraud.  Berlinsky claims there is something called, "Evolutionary Physics" and that it can be substantiated by computer. This is a big a lie and any lie told by evolutionary biologists.  Name an "evolutionary step" exposed and proved by physics, that may be modeled, observed and reproduced. There is not such animal. 



 Just how embarrassed are Physicist about to be?

Just how embarrassed are Physicist about to be?

















No comments:

Post a Comment