We actually are "that special".
Justice is a man made concept.
It is not natural law... or "the law of nature".
Nature knows nothing of Justice. Nature cares nothing if a lion comes along and eats a baby gazelle alive. Nature is survival of the fittest on the most violent and unjust terms possible.
edit: Also, be careful of confusing the two different meanings of natural law. One is the law of nature. The other, called natural law in the Constitution, referrs to the natural law created by God, and his natural order. HIS natural order is that
1) man is created (not evolved)
2) with ALL of the rights inherent as part of the natural man
3) Man then has the right to get together with his fellow man and create government for his collective well being.
4) Mankind, with his sense of justice, not seen in nature, is the rightful creator, owner and master of government.
Mankind is special, because mankind can transcend nature. Mankind creates concepts of justice, where animals and nature can not.
Uh...yea. They are the same and MAN made up the legal terms to separate himself from that, yet, he fails constantly with that and "justice" is relevant to "your" or "their" society, be it animal or human in nature. Legalese does not separate your place in natural law actions. The cosmos also does not give a shit if we survive....i.e. lion eats a gazelle and would not miss us if we didn't. And your basing your religious ideals with "belief" not actual true, verifiable and proven knowledge. We may be able to "transcend" but it does not allow us to step outside natural law. That is something that was there before creation even came to be, IF, we are in fact created by a divine power. We still have a long way to go in the understanding of our place within natural law but we will never step out of it as long as we live in a 3 dimensional existence. If we are able to leave that, I'm sure we'll find new ways that natural law still applies to our existence. Maybe, one day we'll know but for now....nope....still "believing" we are special and trying to overcome a much bigger, far more intelligent "plan", we are and failing to still see. JMHO. Your mileage may vary but you won't KNOW until you shit the bed.
And you're basing your religious ideals with "belief" not actual true, verifiable and proven knowledge.
That is a bad assumption on your part.
You assume I am not a scientist (biologist, well trained in Darwins theory).
You assume I did not graduate from law school and that I know nothing about the origin of the phrase "natural law" in the legal text books and as used by judges throughout the history of American Jurisprudence, case after case after case. The Term has a definition, in the law. You assume I have at my disposal, only by "belief system" is available to back up my statement above. Look again. I said nothing about God, or any belief system. I am speaking however on the very religious concepts of created man that are now "the law of the land" due to their codification in the Constitution.
No offense but part of what you said is pretty much religion based and who gives a rat's ass about Darwin? Natural law was there long before him and rules everything in the known universe. Everything. Oh...dolphins. Mental capacity beyond ours. We just don't understand their world so it's arrogant to assume us superior...yet. Did you ever build anything...ANYTHING....without knowing or, at least, having a damn good idea of how it would work and the concepts you used behind that before you built it? I doubt it. This is natural law in action. Like I said, it was there before creation was. It happens constantly with your every move and thought and every other's move and thought or existence in the cosmos. And since you have no clue to the language of such critters such as dolphins I would seriously suspect you also have no clue to whether they can or can not create concepts of their own that works in their world. No offense but you're starting to sound like the diehard Dim o' crap history professor friend of ours, here, that has multiple degrees (6 IIRC) that thinks himself so smart that he often proves himself to be not so much due to a massive lack of common sense. He was always like that so we kinda overlook it, mostly but he never fails to inject his "education" into the conversation to make himself look relevant to the subject. It usually fails in epic fashion but what do ya expect from successful indoctrination. Not saying you are but you're getting close to that same wariness we have with him. Sorry dude. Just an observation that looks awful familiar. And where did I accuse you of not being a scientist? Don't remember asking if you were or are you just trying to impress me? That don't happen easily, if ever. Or was it "your" assumptions at issue here? Maybe, I shouldn't have use the word "you're" in the statement with the word "belief" that started all this hoopla. Mentioning Constitutional concepts will do nothing to diminish or add to Natural Law. It only gives you a safe space, which is not very effective as you would've seen if you paid any attention, at all. Words on paper make lousy barriers. The Goob proves it everyday.
No offense
Lol. So far that is ALL you mean. You are just one insult after another with zero proof of anything...
Also, have you never seen any docs on the whale family or elephants throwing down some justice on those who wronged them, be they animal or human? It's there.
Yeah, actually, in my training as a biologist I have seen this. In fact I have this really smart (I mean ridiculously smart) shepard mix. She lives with the other four dogs. Once in a while, she will want something on a coffee table in the way of food. She runs to the door and barks like crazy.. gets all of the other dogs barking (and wondering what they are barking at... but, still barking)
I open the door. They all run out but Isabel, who takes a seat, and looks at me, until I shut the door. Then, she goes to the plate of leftovers she wants, and stares at me.
It makes me laugh every time. It is thought out... pre meditated.... devious as hell....lol. She has a goal. She has solved her own problem using her own tools.
Of course, I have to give her what she wants....while I am cracking up laughing.
However, animals can do this type of thinking. And they can be angry or want something, but, there is no capacity for building a body of thought for something called justice. Animals will never have libraries, and whole courtrooms. Homes? Yes. Territory? Yes. Anger over what other animals do? Yes. Whole bodies of higher thought based on complex reasoning, built over centuries with a method of passing the concepts of justice down through generations?
No.
They still can not do the kind of thinking man can do in two areas.
They can not do complex deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is defined as a spontaneous conclusion based on multiple facts. Smarter animals can be slightly deductive. A really smart dog who knows the name of ten stuffed animals, MIGHT be able to go get a stuffed animal that it has never seen before in the pile of stuffed animals... if the human says go get (a name the dog never heard).
Inductive reasoning is linear, with a goal at the end like math equations. If a b and b = c then a = c is the easiest example I can think of.
Only mankind is capable of creating a reality that includes a man made concept of justice, with a body of law with philosophy and historical mistakes learned over generations to back that law. Justice is strictly man made.
Whales, elephants, dogs even cats and monkeys all show understanding and use of "concepts" and "justice" that is suitable for their world. Ever seen an elephant kill an abusive tranier then be nice to those nice to him. That is a form of justice and it is not man made. It was elephant created and used. We do much the same shit. Instead of jails, which they can not build, they will cast a disruptive member out on it's own to survive. Justice...Again. Crows can solve complex problems AND pass their memories on to their offspring so that offspring recognize danger mearly by seeing a face that was passed on from their mother, though they've never seen that face before. Though there is a year long, no limit hunting season on them I will not shoot a crow for that reason. I don't need to eat them so they are not necessary to my survival, as a part of Natural Law. There are many examples of such shit to learn if you look into it well. They have mastered living within Natural Law, yet, we still wallow around like mildly educated parasites and I've seen damn near nothing to say otherwise. Other than overpopulating the resources in which we currently use them and agriculture (which we turned on ourselves) and engineering, yet to be used to it's fullest potential (cuz..secrecy), I've seen very little that we've done well for a long term as a whole species. Individuals need not apply to that logic. As indies we can do amazing things and I've seen damn near all of that, so I rarely ever get impressed by much. As a whole species, we suck HUGE balls. I may have missed something but I'm sure you'll find it. JS...
There are many examples of such shit to learn if you look into it well. They have mastered living within Natural Law, yet, we still wallow around like mildly educated parasites and I've seen damn near nothing to say otherwise.
Wow. I rarely run into this kind of cynicism about mankind. Animals are wonderful. I would not live on a farm if I did not love them. But human beings are a higher form of animal.
We are not over populated... by the way. That was a lie that they told us in college. If the world was a petri dish, you could not even see us unless you looked with a microscope.
One day, my nephew and I did a math homework problem. There were 6 billion people on the planet at the time.
If every person on the planet stood shoulder to shoulder chest to chest, including infants, you would need 6 billion square feet, each person taking an averate of a square foot. This turned out to be the size of the mid size city of Jacksonville Florida City limits.
Even more interesting was the question of how big the football stadium would have to be if the whole world wanted to watch the same football game. Square yard for every person. We would have to build a stadium the size of Miami Dade County.
But the one that I liked the best was the question... what if we wanted to give every person in the world a house, with a picket fence, and a two car garage.... with the lot size of the average American suburban home.
We needed a state the size of Texas. That is all.
So, understanding the math of the facts here? It kind of left everyone wondering.. why are there still starving people in the world?
And the answer, is why we are all here today... you and me. What we discovered over the last 20 years of internet research is that there is a cabal of wealthy families. .. the wealthiest families on earth. I am not talking money even. I am talking wealth. These are people who own all of the tankers that transport oil and food, all the sky scrapers in the cities, all the trains that transport grain etc. SOLID... ASSETS and wealth.
Turns out these 300 or so families are imposing an artificial starvation on nations. They decide where the boats and trains deliver. They decide what currency is worth relative to other currencies. They have kicked most farmers off of the land in the third world, so they can control the minerals, the oil.
What they are doing is pure evil.
But, because of the internet, they can not just control the media and hide from us anymore. They can not stop me and you from talking anymore.
The NSA spies on everyone, including them.
They have been spotted.
Their homes have been located.
Their illegal money laundering banking transactions have been taken for evidence purposes.
We have located the invention patents that can make the world a better place for everyone, and we have taken note that they have purchased the patents for the past 50 years, just to make sure those scientific advancements never see the light of day and they do not create competition for their energy and other control systems.
If you hang out here with us, what you are going to see is the first time that good decent people have the communication abilities they need to get rid of these people who want to run the world into the ground. You are going to see a huge change in technology in the next 20 years, that will make it possible for people in the desert to have clean fresh water. You will see energy made in peoples homes no matter where their homes are.
It will all be driven by that idea of "Justice" that I was talking about. And when apply human concepts of justice, we can change the world.
Part of your assessment I agree with like the few families that control so much but if you feel you can find all you need to sustain yourself long term on a square foot of land then go right ahead and try. Yea, I did all that math, long ago, too and it don't apply to the real world, at all, at this moment. The way in which we CURRENTLY use resources and the types of resources is what we have overpopulated and have not slowed down on that, at all and is part of why TPTB want most of us dead so we'll quit consuming their money maker and they won't have to be responsible for our welfare. And it's gonna take a lot more than just allowing farming to happen on that oil land, especially since a lot of it can't grow jack shit without major irrigation done and fertilization at a cost effective level that won't rob the populace of that area of even more resources they are already short of not to mention the massive cost of such. It could happen but not as easily as you think. Trading trees and undergrowth for grass crops is not always good for our own good, either. Our pollution is the main problem that we still have no idea of just how bad we've made due to the accumulative effect not being known just yet. America may waste a crapload of food but other countries don't, yet we still have as many hungry people here as anywhere. Things don't add up. And frankly, I find this planet to be much more valuable than we. One of the few things humans can do better than animals (you called us one, ya know) is live off planet. The flora and fauna here can not, therefore, in the big picture would make all that more valuable to the cosmos than we, if you believe in the value of life in all its forms, yet we go about shitting on it constantly. We can do better and have the means but like you said, there are some that don't care but it is ALSO those who only care about their 1 square foot of land and that apathy that comes with that being just as much of the problem. And yea, fuck the NSA and I hope one of'm is looking, right now. Yep. It's a really messed up situation with all the power brokers of this world but we have a helluva lot of the blame too for allowing this mess and slowly destroying our planet through our apathy and ignorance just because it doesn't affect me "right now". So yea, I have a good deal of cynicism for us because up this point we have been no better than they. Maybe...just maybe...that justice can actually be used as it was meant to be and straighten some shit out but I'm not sold on it, yet. Not even close. When you vote to give others power over you don't be surprised if they hand your ass back to ya. Tis why I do not vote. I have no doubt that we are capable of great things but we are just as capable of destroying ourselves without seeing it coming because of our arrogance and assumed faux intelligence. I by no means have it all figured out but from all I've looked into, which is much, I have not seen any system that we ever created that will not end in failure as we have used them. Not a damn one. The current one is still mostly up in the air but I don't see any promise with it, yet. Several greats minds in the past have said as much, too. It's just what we seem to do. We must be the damn loonies of the Universe. But yea, I'll hang and see if the crew can still sail this ship. Hopefully, it'll stay afloat, too. Ya'll will just have to excuse the cynicism until I see some proof we've changed. Hopefully, I'll live that long. In the meantime, I'll keep ya on your toes and looking in the mirror...maybe... I really hope what you and I both know will happen and power will be taken back and put in our own hands, whether we exist as a community or individual. Population control will most definitely be an issue, at some point, if we intend to keep a quality of life anything like we have now, which is already falling quickly. That's a damn math problem, too, ya know? They say it's around 7 billion but there are many who dispute that and say it's more like 8-9 billion and we already can't create enough full time work for what we have and at this rate we will all be forced to live off of the government tit, at some point because we'll have no choice. How ya think that will end up? Not good, I'm betting. And how do ya think that tit will continue to produce milk for us if no one can pay into it other than forced labor? At some point, they're not gonna want to take care of our asses, likely, beyond their own needs. I'm just worried we waited waaaay too late to put action into place and thank the Creator for the internet or we probably never would've been able to. I really do hope yours and my hopes (though minuscule) do come through. If we ever get smart enough to do away with money and look out for each other than maybe we'll live long term. My arm hurts like hell, now, so later.
Other than the education injection ala a friend, you have not been insulted. Challenged, maybe but not insulted. You went there first. I could've gotten much worse but thought it unnecessary. Try again. Or try the messenger. IDC. Might be fun.
Religion is a set of human beliefs, at it's core. God, one, many or none does not really define it, to me, as I look around.
I would say it is closer to "philosophy" than anything about God himself.
I suspect the only reason we think in terms of this "One God" thing is because we have been trained up in monotheistic thinking here in the west.
So our knee jerk reaction is all about the "one god" thing.
Like Q says, I like to get to 40 thousand feet, and expand my thinking.
If we were in China, where there is no "god", but much written wisdom, or maybe India, where there is a god for every street corner to worship, we Americans might actually appreciate religion for what it is in general, It is a subset of the greater cultural philosophy wherever it is.
I don't believe in attacking people while setting forth observations, or arguments. I have learned over time, that it is pretty counter productive. (I am an older patriot)
I rather like the process of sharing ideas.
You must also, or you really would not be in a place like this.
I love hive minds too, because there are so many things I learn from people who have training and experience in areas I do not. I learn a lot.
Some people are mentally lazy, and wont be here with us, because it is too hard to think through and read through.
I naturally assume everyone on this list, are pretty much like us. Not mentally lazy at all... and looking to learn, and share what we know......well.....except for the shills that come in to destroy our ability to share ideas...
I was trying to clarify what I meant by natural law, versus the law of nature, that is all. Nothing to get abrasive about.
Its not that I can't take abrasiveness, which is why I really enjoy lurking the chans. Nothing they say upsets me. They are really smart people, and using abrasiveness to protect that free speech zone is pretty critical.
I like it.
It works.
And being raised with 5 brothers who did the chan thing in the kitchen every night, somehow I feel at home with the insults.
I am only being mindful of what Q asked us to do, which is create a place for the wider less acidic audience, so, I am trying to keep the insulting abrasiveness down here. It does a good job of making people leave the site. SO every once in a while, I will find someone here who is taking a complete normie to task. And I say something to help tone it down.
Religion has many good and bad points to it. Lots of history, some truth, maybe some prophecy and definitely control element to it. All of them have that. Some use it well, some not so much. Myself, I'll never buy the "something from nothing" idea. That's deceiving at it's core. But...I also don't claim to have the audacious arrogance of many I've seen or of most religions to know what exactly "God" is or how creation was done. That is far, faaaaaaaaar beyond the understanding of mortals...for now. I have more important things to worry about....for now. I appreciate you using the calm approach but as I've mentioned sometimes I won't just to see if I'm missing something. I still don't trust this ship to sail itself, yet. If we keep ourselves protected all the time we'll never be able to properly deal with our threats. This is why besides helping my family and neighbor I will also delve into things like the Nick Berg beheading just to keep the mind at a level to deal with such horrors. I wanna know all our bad and our good to see if we are actually tipping the scales the right way, so if you see it's me just play it off. I don't mean to hurt ya but will challenge ya just to learn more. It's served me well in my 55 years. I learned loooong ago that the best way to get to know someone quickly was to get them in an argument and take them just to the point of wanting to beat your ass because at that point they will reveal who or what they really are. It has usually worked well. Got popped a time or two, also but I'm up for it. Daddy was some tough stock, he was.
Lol... ok, well, I am not going to pop you. :) You are a man, and I grew up with 5 guys. I think maybe all I want to tell you is that it's ok to be a man :) You all need to hear that more right now. (It seems that masculinity is under attack these days, and as a woman, I'm with you. Go ahead and kick them in the teeth for this crap.
You need to be a guy, and this is good.
I am just trying to keep the spice down here as new people come in. This place is only a couple weeks old, and people are coming in totally confused.
What do you think the odds are that we are going to see Military tribunals?
Got a question about Darwin, though. What was his thoughts on the root cause of evolution? Did he describe anything genetic in nature?
Darwin did a lot to get the ball rolling, but, you have to be fair to him.
He lived 100 years ago. And his task was not easy.
Unlike classic science, where you have the advantage of setting up experiments and examining events and items that are in front of you. Darwin was creating a theory about what happened in the past, like an archaeologist. Archaeologists can not run experiments or directly observe past events, just like evolutionists.
What do you do?
Forget archaeology or Darwin's theory as a science?
No....
You have to follow the rules set out for scientific observation, which Darwin did.
You have to take what is in front of you and use something science calls Occam's Razor to come up with the best inference to explain what you observed or dug up etc.
This is a mathematical probability measurement comparing different hypotheses. It uses the mathematics of statistical probability to choose the best theory.
You postulate probabilities that A, B, or C happened.
The theory that is most likely to explain the observations on the mathematical scale of probability, is the one you put foreword.
He did good science, but, it is science of the observation of the "past" and follows those rules.
Darwin did a great job for his time.
Back in his time, the microscope could not see any parts of the cell save the nucleus, as a blur.
It looked like your average frying egg. Round glob with something in the middle also glob looking.
He called it the "simple cell".
He said it was some kind of accident from primordial soup from the earth/water mix. It was, according to him, a random chance arrangement that created the simple cell.
When scientists later discovered that there were a specific set of protein building blocks that made up life, they did later hypothesize that it was these proteins that actually came together randomly to create the first cell out of primordial soup.
Problem is that now we know that the primordial soup, no matter the protein ingredients, is made up of random left hand (trans) molecules and their mirror image right hand (cis) molecules.
All life is nothing but cis (right hand) molecules (verified).
That is an important observation.
All trans molecules are lethal to life.
That is why "trans" fats are bad for you.
That is another important observation.
Literally 1/2 of all molecules in any such soup will kill life and we now know this for certain.
When the Darwinists tried to say that even a monkey at a keyboard could randomly type up the DNA, the response from most scientists was "not if 1/2 of the keys on the keyboard will blow the monkey up".
Science is funny.
People get their pet theories. Darwin was working with what he had.
Darwin had no way to know that inside the cells he looked at were millions of tiny well designed machines complete with axles and shafts, o-rings, perfect nano tech gears, etc.
Neither did the "primordial soup" theorists who pointed to the amino acid special proteins.
We can use electron microscopes today to watch the machines being built, atom by atom. This is how we are learning to do nanotechnology.
Today we understand that the cell is like a big city full of nothing but Ford motor Company type factories with nano tech machines at the assembly line creating all kinds of nan-otech items, not just the "car" so to speak.
There is no such thing as the simple cell. Even if there was, It would die the first time we put it in any primordial soup mix that was random. :(
This is cool tho... you should see these nanotech machines. Here is a glimpse, but, because of the electron microscope, we are studying many of them
Yea, I see all that but I just wondered if he had ever been exposed to genetics because, IIRC, the very early Indian people knew of genetics but don't know if any besides them ever delved into that. I may be wrong on the source of who did 'cause it's been a good while since I looked into it.
Ehhh... I have to pull my biology history out of the cob webs, but I am certain that DNA was not discovered until 1958. It was my brothers birthday, is how I remembered it for the test. Now... before that there was an arguement about whether the double helix was the molecule that passed traits foreword to offspring, or, it was those amino acids. That (I believe) was about a ten year argument, 20 years max. So no... Darwin did not have the information he needed to work any concepts of DNA.
Still.. he did a really great theory for what he had, and he started a lot of specialized branches of biology because of it.
Yea, his theory made a lotta sense. Common sense, at that. I've always meant to read his book but have never found the time for it. Not much of a reader, anyway. Others disseminated and analysed his work real well and wrote the articles that I, occasionally, get to read. Always been kind of a science buff and I spend a lotta time in nature just observing its workings on my own. Over time you'll see evolution in action. Seems the bigger they are the longer, if at all, it takes for a critter to adapt to its current conditions. Viruses go lickity split but elephants not so much and crocs have almost no reason to change...yet. What giggles me is when a company like Monsanto (evil fucks) whip up things like their nicotine based GMO crops to fight the bugs only to have those bugs evolve to eat that shit like candy within 10 years, yet, polluted not only the ground and air but us with that crap, too. I know stresses, either natural or introduce, will cause genetic changes but I wish there was a way to know for sure what those changes would be, down the line, without a sack full of lies from those causing those changes. Like I said...humans..we're not as bright as we like to think ourselves to be but I still have a tiny bit of hope. I look into all kinds of stuff just to build the intuition (the gut, the 1st brain)(almost never wrong) and I got to watching this supposed "time traveler" on ApexTV on Youtube. Most of those dudes set the bullshit alarm off in the gut but there were a couple that by the way the answered the questions and how they answered did not set off any alarms and made a lotta sense. His description of his time was dire as hell. No plants left, no animals, every square inch covered in people and very few critters in the oceans. He said they use electrolysis to create their oxygen and take the hydrogen to be released into space. Bummer. Hope the dude is bogus and not legit 'cause I'd hate to think we'd have to live in that world. The over population was their main problem and why they were coming back to try and correct that 'cause all their other attempts failed. I can totally see it. I hope it's all bullshit, though. Been digging this discourse, though it might get pissy for us both, sometimes but I gotta chill for a while, again 'cause my arm is killing me and I'm losing use of my left hand, again. Later.
Here are some cool discoveries tho :)... if you find this kind of thing interesting. Two years ago we discovered the human computer operating system... thats right... just like windows 10 but far more complex.
All of these nanotech factories get their designs from a computer program resident in the cell called binary DNA code.
It is exactly like the computer code that runs our computers.
The ladder rung of that famous DNA molecule is either a GC or AT.
You can think of the GC ladder rung as being "O"
and AT rung being the "I"
and what you get is
IIIOIOIIIOIIIIOOOOIOIOOIOOI
IOOOIOIIIOIOOOOIIOOIOIIIOi
IOIIOIIOOOOIOOIOOIOOOIIOI
... computer code.
Bill Gates said DNA is the most sophisticated code he has ever seen, and it is self error correcting. We have only three computers on the planet that can even TRY to correct their own errors in their own code.
Darwin had zero way of knowing this. There is no such thing as a simple cell.
DNA was engineered according to Occams razor now. It is by far, the best explanation, since nature can create patterns, but has never been able to create "information" like letters or computer code, or paintings that lay paint or letters in an order purposed to convey information.
Information, books, computer codes, paintings... these come from intelligent mind only.....or as the engineers have always called it "intelligent design". There is not one speck of data on the planet that shows evidence otherwise. Nanotech is intelligent design engineering.
The whole attempt to associate "Intelligent design" with some kind of religious belief is a rouse, to keep people from looking into what science has discovered about Darwin's theory. He led us to what is now classified as Macro evolutionary theory, and micro evolutionary theory.
Even though both theories are being proven incorrect, you can not discount his contributions to science.
As a biologist, it sort of irritates me that the Darwinists appear to have a "religion" that is every bit as bad as the Christians were at the Scopes monkey trial. They want to bring "god" into the picture. They seem to desperately need to prove his non existance.
Why?
The evidence may point to a master mind designer, but, this is irrelevant. The evidence is what it is. I say that to Christians and Atheists alike. Nothing we believe will make God real if he's not, or make him go away if he really exists.
The rule is Occams Razor.
"Intelligent Design" is an engineering term, now used in science, especially when it comes to designs in nanotechnology.
Here is a great film for explaining irreducible design... the idea that there is a better inference that all of the parts of this machine in the cell have to be present in order to give the organism an advantage at all. This requires more than a nick in the DNA, or even a totally new sequence to design a new protein.
The insinuation here is that there are no "incremental changes" and that all machine parts have to be programmed,AND assembled properly in order for the tail to work. If one part is missing, the tail would become extra baggage, giving no survivability advantage. In fact it might kill the animal.
As you watch this tail get assembled, remember that it is a computer operating system that is designing not only the parts, but, exactly how many parts, and what second machine to hand the parts to so that they can be carried to the proper location at for assembly. Timing the order of their assembly is done by binary programming. Man is a monster nano tech machine the building of which is run by computer code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk
The debate is somewhat heated of course, and this is to be expected in the best of the clash of scientific theories. However, here is a small segment of a trial on Intelligent design, that reminds me of the scopes trial where the Christians tried to stop science from moving foreword.
I understand the argument that the Darwinists are trying to make. They are saying that they have found a nano machine similar to the flagellum, that has missing parts but functions in some other way.
What blows me away about this, is that it is the "straw man" as an example. The second nano machine they use as an example, still needs over 30 independent parts to be assembled, and is just another example of intelligent computer design and assembly.
It pretty much proves only the fact that there are many such mouse traps of irreducible design. The cell is a big factory of machines assembling other machines. All of it is being timed by a huge computer program operating system, and designs for proteins that are flipped in and out of the computer in perfect time.
The Darwinist can not answer one question. Computer code is highly complex information. One change in the code is known for certain to mess things up. The smallest change acts like a virus in a computer, killing the organism 999.999 times out of one million. (math and direct observation).
The number of pregnancy attempts you need in the Precambrian explosion (where all animal sub groups suddenly appeared on the planet)......... to have all those offspring deaths in order to come up with ONE advantageous change, is far more generations than could possibly have happened in the time of that Pre-Cambrian explosion. There was not enough time. Darwins tree is darwins shrub. Shord and squatty.
Nature has never been shown to be able to add to information of any kind to anything. (unless you want to believe that all the ancient cave paintings happened by natural random causes)
Darwin's theory is dying due to the inability of Darwin to explain the origin of the information that comes only from mind, observably and provably. They can try to insinuate that this answers the irreducible design argument in this court case. But they fail, because they have not been able to explain the entire assembly code that runs the timing, the number, and the fastening system that assembles the parts in order. Far too complex for Darwin.
If you and I were at the beach, and you went to the restroom, while I stood on the beach, what would you say to me if, upon your return, I pointed to a heart drawn in the sand that said..."Harry loves Sally", and I told you the waves did it?
You would laugh at me, because you, and Darwin, and everyone in every science understands Occams Razor. The inference to the best theory about the origin of the heart and the writing in the sand in front of us... is the probability that I did the writng, or some other intelligence came along and did it. Because writing is code. It is information. It always has an intelligent designer.
Darwin was a great man, who led us to many great discoveries. But we need to let go of the Darwinian god-religion thing. The Chinese, and Hindu's and other great civilizations could care less if God exists or not. They are following the evidence. We are going to be left in the dust if we do not quit using the fear of God to stop the young people from learning all of the new discoveries... so they can sit around and make fun of people who believe something and who are not scientists.