Saturday, April 21, 2012

You Won’t Believe What’s Going On Inside of You

Great thinkers from all lands and throughout all of history wanted to see this, but could not. Now, this accurate animation provides an accurate and profound picture of what is going on inside of you.


This just has random mutation written all over it. Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

9 comments:

  1. Warning to neo-Darwinian atheists; While watching these following videos please keep repeating to yourself;
    NOT DESIGNED!, NOT DESIGNED!, NOT DESIGNED!,,,

    video - Journey Inside The Cell – Stephen Meyer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

    DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video
    http://vimeo.com/33882804

    'Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.' - Francis Crick - co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953.

    further notes:


    A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s - “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp
    Excerpt: There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.
    - Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter
    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

    Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177)

    ReplyDelete
  2. - Misrepresentation of evolutionary theory by appealing to a specific level of reductionism, i.e, evolution is merely random,: check.
    - Argument from incredulity: check.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I didn't realize the Designer was purplish ,that is Him in the background, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no, no. The whole thing arose by itself ...

      Delete
  4. It is fascinating and wonderful to behold. All that going on inside of me and I don't feel a thing!

    I must say I hadn't realized that the interior of the cell is so well-lit or that the components were all handily color-coded. The only thing wrong, I think, is that I held my hand to my ear but I still couldn't hear the industrial sound-effects you could hear in the video.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evolution is such a pathetic mountain of crap that only liars, gutless swines and asteroid orifices with hidden agendas would promote it as a viable scientific theory. ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Bible says that nothing is impossible with God. Evolutionists say "Nothing is impossible with evolution."

    Seriously, I don't think it matters what kind of evidence we show them. No level of complexity is too incredible for the wonders of evolutionary magic and the faith of it's adherents.

    Scott simply accuses us of the argument from incredulity and so conveniently writes it all off without ever having to try and explain how this kind of thing could be possible with evolution.

    When the Bible says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'", it certainly seems accurate at times like this. They laugh at us for believing in a God who does miracles while they choose to believe in the miracles of the god of chance. Intelligence as a cause makes much more sense than chance as a cause. It is the evolutionists who seem a bit irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TokyoJim: Seriously, I don't think it matters what kind of evidence we show them. No level of complexity is too incredible for the wonders of evolutionary magic and the faith of it's adherents.

    What would be magic is if the most complex forms of life appeared at the same time as the least complex. It would also be "magic" if life appeared in the order of most complex to least complex.

    If we had observed either of these things, we would need a completely new explanation for how the knowledge used to build the biosphere was created.

    So, it would seem that you misunderstand the theory of evolution itself or the position that I hold.

    TokyoJim: Scott simply accuses us of the argument from incredulity and so conveniently writes it all off without ever having to try and explain how this kind of thing could be possible with evolution.

    I was brief because I've made detailed arguments in regards to these points in the past, which have gone unanswered.

    The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via a form conjecture and refutation. Specially, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    This is a variation of the explanation for how we, as people create knowledge. However, unlike evolutionary processes, people are universal explainers. That is, we can create descriptive explanations that represent assertions about what's going on, in reality, that can alone result in a particular outcome. We then use these explanations as a criteria to determine which possibilities we should test.

    Since evolutionary processes cannot create explanations, they end up testing all conjectured genetic variations. This is non-explanatory knowledge.

    TokyoJim: When the Bible says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'", it certainly seems accurate at times like this. They laugh at us for believing in a God who does miracles while they choose to believe in the miracles of the god of chance. Intelligence as a cause makes much more sense than chance as a cause. It is the evolutionists who seem a bit irrational.

    Actually, I'm suggesting that creationism, as well as the current crop of ID, suffers from the same flaw as all pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge. In both cases, the origin of knowledge is irrational, supernatural or completely absent.

    In other words, creationism is misleadingly named in that it's a means of denying that creation actually took place.

    For example, if a designer created the world we observe 30 minutes ago, then Darwin didn't actually author evolutionary theory. Rather, the author of evolutionary theory would have been this supposed designer when it created the world we observe 30 minutes ago. This would also be the case for all scientific theories older than 30 minutes.

    In the same sense, creationism denies the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was actually created.

    God, having always been all knowing, would have always had the knowledge to build anything logically possible, including the every organism in the biosphere. And an abstract intelligent designer has no defined limitations, such as not always having known how to build every organism in the biosphere.

    So, what's in contention here is the role knowledge plays in adapting the features of organisms and if that knowege was created.

    In my view, human beings do not make progress because "that's just what a designer must have wanted". We make progress due to the process of conjecture and refutation, which creates knowledge where none may have ever existed in the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “You Won’t Believe What’s Going On Inside of You”

    Indeed:

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    William Shakespeare – Hamlet

    Hillsong United РFrom The Inside Out (legendas em português) Рmusic video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hWy2TRF31s

    ReplyDelete