Evolutionist declares debate closed on topic.
In another of our continuing thread of proving that Liberals are psudo-erudite and their theories are flawed, we move along to a writer who claims his book closes the door on the Evolution Theory (I must give him credit for admitting that Evolution is a theory) and Intelligent Design Theory debate.
While claiming to close the door on the debate, in fact, he doesn't even open the door for debate. Instead of taking a long and considered look at Darwinism, and it's all too obvious flaws, and complete lack of evidence supporting it, he announces that his work is in fact, demonstrably true because, well he says it is and you should too unless you want him to categorize you as a Theocratic nut who wants Armageddon. His technique in chapter one is simple, use akido and conflict resolution to deal with problems, if you fight, you automatically lose. He states that akido is the best system because it takes no energy to defend yourself and defeat the enemy. He also whips out the tired old lie that the pen is mightier than the sword. Akido is a fairly effective martial art, unless it is faced with another martial artist with roughly equal training. It should also be noted that other Martial Arts, from the same societies that spawned Akido, do use more aggressive and I would argue effective techniques than Akido does. I won't get into a debate on the most effective, or best art. Suffice to say that a Master of any art, be it Hapkido, Shotokan, Jujitsu, or even Tai-Chi is someone you don't want to bother if you have the opportunity to avoid the situation. (I could spend some time demonstrating how this type of training belies the claim from Liberals about "dangerous weapons" and proves the point of "dangerous people" but why bother confusing Libs?)
I say tired old lie because the pen isn't mightier than the sword, it's the authority of the pen. For example, in the Evolution Theory versus the Intelligent Design Theory, it wasn't a debate, with points scored based upon scientific proof, and evidence that "settled the debate" but the order of a Judge. The Judge ordered that the debate was settled, and so our children are taught one theory, as gospel, and never mind the complete absence of evidence supporting Evolution. The Police enforce the Judges orders, as required by law, with the sword. It is the pen that controls the sword that is mightier than the single sword, or single pen.
Our dear Ezra mixes theories on his plate like he is picking his favorite dishes off of a buffet line. Taking the idea that Giraffes have long necks to reach the food, there must have been at some time in History Giraffes that had short necks, and Evolution weeded them out. OK, where are the short neck Giraffe fossils? Don't have any? Oh well, no worries, I am sure your theory doesn't need proof, it just sounds good.
Ezra, the author of this piece is purportedly an Engineer by training, if not predisposition. Yet, he ignores the mathematical in favor of his belief. Sir Fred Hoyle, the Cambridge astrophysicist ran the numbers, and determined that the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random process to be miniscule. The odds of the correct combination were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. To put this probability in context, the odds of winning the "Mega Millions" lottery are 1:175,711,536. In other words, you would be more likely to win the Lottery half a million times in a row than the random collection of enzymes would combine to create life by accident. I won't even try and guess at the huge improbability that would exist to take us from single celled organisms to complex multicultural organism. Let's for the sake of argument agree that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:Infinity-1 I find it astounding that the proponents of Darwinism would ignore the huge mathematical improbability of this of no interest, yet they don't hear it. Like children, they jam their fingers in their ears, and chant until you go away and then file a lawsuit to make sure you don't ever say anything like that again.
Now, despite the complete absence of fossil evidence of any evolution existing, our author believes in it more strictly than even the most Fundamental Christian believes in Creation. What does our author say about discussing this issue, about a true debate? From his page on "permission to quote me" he says " If you quote me with the specific intent to undermine my efforts, make me look bad, and/or mislead your audience to my intentions, I reserve the right to sue the life out of you.
Ezra seems to be ignorant of the fact that even Darwin could not explain how a complex organisms like the eye came into being. Ezra seems even more ignorant about the complete lack of fossilized evidence, or scientific evidence, to support Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's own standard of disproving his theory has been met, yet Evolutionists refuse to admit the theory is flawed in the slightest. Darwin stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organisms existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would abolutely break down".
Yet despite all the evidence from among other things, Microbiology, that complex oranisims within the body could not possibly have evolved one small step at a time, Evolutionists still demand that we worship at the alter of Darwin and his asinine theory.
I am not saying that the Bible is literally correct, I haven't taken a stand on anything except that Darwinism is wrong. Yet, when the Liberals read this, you can rest assured that they will inevitably declare that I am some sort of Religious nut, who wants a theocracy, and believes in a flat earth. To those folks I have one response, would my beliefs have any effect on the complete lack of evidence to support any assertion by Darwin?
While claiming to close the door on the debate, in fact, he doesn't even open the door for debate. Instead of taking a long and considered look at Darwinism, and it's all too obvious flaws, and complete lack of evidence supporting it, he announces that his work is in fact, demonstrably true because, well he says it is and you should too unless you want him to categorize you as a Theocratic nut who wants Armageddon. His technique in chapter one is simple, use akido and conflict resolution to deal with problems, if you fight, you automatically lose. He states that akido is the best system because it takes no energy to defend yourself and defeat the enemy. He also whips out the tired old lie that the pen is mightier than the sword. Akido is a fairly effective martial art, unless it is faced with another martial artist with roughly equal training. It should also be noted that other Martial Arts, from the same societies that spawned Akido, do use more aggressive and I would argue effective techniques than Akido does. I won't get into a debate on the most effective, or best art. Suffice to say that a Master of any art, be it Hapkido, Shotokan, Jujitsu, or even Tai-Chi is someone you don't want to bother if you have the opportunity to avoid the situation. (I could spend some time demonstrating how this type of training belies the claim from Liberals about "dangerous weapons" and proves the point of "dangerous people" but why bother confusing Libs?)
I say tired old lie because the pen isn't mightier than the sword, it's the authority of the pen. For example, in the Evolution Theory versus the Intelligent Design Theory, it wasn't a debate, with points scored based upon scientific proof, and evidence that "settled the debate" but the order of a Judge. The Judge ordered that the debate was settled, and so our children are taught one theory, as gospel, and never mind the complete absence of evidence supporting Evolution. The Police enforce the Judges orders, as required by law, with the sword. It is the pen that controls the sword that is mightier than the single sword, or single pen.
Our dear Ezra mixes theories on his plate like he is picking his favorite dishes off of a buffet line. Taking the idea that Giraffes have long necks to reach the food, there must have been at some time in History Giraffes that had short necks, and Evolution weeded them out. OK, where are the short neck Giraffe fossils? Don't have any? Oh well, no worries, I am sure your theory doesn't need proof, it just sounds good.
Ezra, the author of this piece is purportedly an Engineer by training, if not predisposition. Yet, he ignores the mathematical in favor of his belief. Sir Fred Hoyle, the Cambridge astrophysicist ran the numbers, and determined that the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random process to be miniscule. The odds of the correct combination were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. To put this probability in context, the odds of winning the "Mega Millions" lottery are 1:175,711,536. In other words, you would be more likely to win the Lottery half a million times in a row than the random collection of enzymes would combine to create life by accident. I won't even try and guess at the huge improbability that would exist to take us from single celled organisms to complex multicultural organism. Let's for the sake of argument agree that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:Infinity-1 I find it astounding that the proponents of Darwinism would ignore the huge mathematical improbability of this of no interest, yet they don't hear it. Like children, they jam their fingers in their ears, and chant until you go away and then file a lawsuit to make sure you don't ever say anything like that again.
Now, despite the complete absence of fossil evidence of any evolution existing, our author believes in it more strictly than even the most Fundamental Christian believes in Creation. What does our author say about discussing this issue, about a true debate? From his page on "permission to quote me" he says " If you quote me with the specific intent to undermine my efforts, make me look bad, and/or mislead your audience to my intentions, I reserve the right to sue the life out of you.
Ezra seems to be ignorant of the fact that even Darwin could not explain how a complex organisms like the eye came into being. Ezra seems even more ignorant about the complete lack of fossilized evidence, or scientific evidence, to support Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's own standard of disproving his theory has been met, yet Evolutionists refuse to admit the theory is flawed in the slightest. Darwin stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organisms existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would abolutely break down".
Yet despite all the evidence from among other things, Microbiology, that complex oranisims within the body could not possibly have evolved one small step at a time, Evolutionists still demand that we worship at the alter of Darwin and his asinine theory.
I am not saying that the Bible is literally correct, I haven't taken a stand on anything except that Darwinism is wrong. Yet, when the Liberals read this, you can rest assured that they will inevitably declare that I am some sort of Religious nut, who wants a theocracy, and believes in a flat earth. To those folks I have one response, would my beliefs have any effect on the complete lack of evidence to support any assertion by Darwin?
posted by Max Conservative at 11:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home