Monday, May 14, 2007

Evolution and Presidential candidates

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my last post, I posted a columnist’s article about Iraq and said I would more fully comment on it in my next post. I’ve changed my mind. I do intend to comment on it. However, a column in the Peoria Journal Star in relation to belief in evolution and the Republican Presidential candidates led me to postpone those comments. I was going to eventually write about this. Now seems a good time since I can use the column as a starting point.

First however, as you may have guessed, I have written about evolution and/or creation before. I checked my previous posts since 2005 when I began writing and came up with the following blogs. This may not be complete but it is probably close to all of them. You might want to check them out. A note of warning. The titles should be correct, although not all posts were titled, but the dates may not be totally accurate. I dated the posts based upon when I wrote them which is not necessarily the same day that they got posted. However, it should be approximately the correct date. From oldest to the newest posts on evolution and/or creation:

“Creation” Tuesday, August 9, 2005
“Teaching about creation” Saturday, October 8, 2005
“Evolution or GOD” Saturday, October 29, 2005
“Evolution and GOD, part 2” Monday, October 31, 2005
“Evolution and GOD, part 3” Tuesday, November 1, 2005
“Untrue headline” Saturday, November 12, 2005 (This is not an actual column on creation. I had told someone that I would try to find some sources and this is a short listing of those sources dealing with evolution and/or creation. I believe mostly on creation.)
“The Case for a Creator” Wednesday, November 16, 2005
“References for GOD created the universe” Tuesday, April 25, 2006
“References for GOD created the universe, part 2” Wednesday, April 26, 2006
“Missing link found” Wednesday, June 21, 2006
“Evolution, today’s alchemy” Thursday, June 22, 2006
“Evolution vs. evolution” Thursday, July 27, 2006
“Ignorance: thy name is evolution” Friday, July 28, 2006

First, we need to define evolution for these writings. This is what I wrote in “Evolution vs. evolution”: “I don’t know of anyone although there are possibly a few, Christian or non-Christian, who does not agree that a species can alter to a limited extent over time in that specific species.

For example, man probably has grown taller on average over time. Man probably has grown fatter on average over time. Is growing fatter over time an evolutionary change to provide for the survival of the species? Is growing fatter a sign of the survival of the fittest?

However, there are some claims that I don’t believe Christians would accept as true. I believe we would argue against man every having a tail, for instance. I don’t think we would accept an argument that man at one time universally walked on all fours instead of upright. However, I think almost everyone would accept some evolution, i.e. some modified change, within a species. Yet, the fact is: the finch is still a finch!!!

Science writer Randolph Schmid should realize this as well. What Christians do not accept as true is species evolution. They do not accept it because it has never been shown to be true and it is contrary to the WORD of GOD. There is no factual, scientific evidence to support the theory that species A evolved into species B which evolved into species C which evolved into species D which through continuing species evolution eventually over millions and/or billions of years evolved into man.

That theory has never been demonstrated scientifically to be true! That theory in fact can not be demonstrated to be true without first proving how nothing became something. Then, how that something which did not have life; suddenly and miraculously became alive?

Two other questions that evolutionists ignore. They ignore them because they can’t possibly answer the questions scientifically. When the first whatever evolved into man, how did the man reproduce? Did the first woman also miraculously evolve at just that exact time? Did evolution occur at numerous points where there were a flock of men and they didn’t have to reproduce for awhile? If so, why did that process stop and reproduction become necessary?

This is a problem not just in relation to man. What of all the other species that require a male and female for reproduction? What a miracle. The male and female must have evolved at just the same time!!! Miraculous!!! But then, Darwin’s theory needs a lot of miracles!!!!!

Also, why did evolution stop at man? Our science fiction writers think up superior species all the time. We even make movies about them. Yet, none of them exist. We are all just men and women? Why? What stopped the evolutionary process?

You know the evolutionist rationale don’t you? ‘Well, we need a couple of more millions of years for that to happen.’ Of course, they won’t be around to know if it happens or not—at least not in their present physical bodies. Just like the global warming alarmists, they seem to think they can predict the future.

And they claim to be scientific!!! Not a chance. It is all speculative garbage when they claim man evolved through the centuries from a beginning single celled thing. Garbage!!! And they teach that garbage in schools as truth!!!”

Here is a qualification on what I had written above. I may have used the term “species” somewhat incorrectly. I confess it has been a while since I’ve had a science class and my concept of “species” may not be the same as used in science classes. The idea is correct though. Never has any scientific data shown that a tiny single celled creature changed to another “kind” of creature (I’m currently reading Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D. with Mike Matthews and he asserts creationists should use the term “kind”, which is the biblical term, instead of “species”.), which changed to a different “kind” of creature, on up the ladder to some “kind” of creature—monkey or whatever—which changed into a man. NEVER!!! Nor will it ever scientifically be proven because it is not scientifically possible!!!
I checked what Encarta ® had to say about evolution. It listed 96 articles, 2 Photos & more, and 1 web link. This is the beginning comments about “evolution.” “Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.
Evolution provides an essential framework for studying the ongoing history of life on Earth. A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor. Species that are closely related share a recent common ancestor, while distantly related species have a common ancestor further in the past. The animal most closely related to humans, for example, is the chimpanzee. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is believed to have lived approximately 6 million to 7 million years ago (see Human Evolution). On the other hand, an ancestor common to humans and reptiles lived some 300 million years ago. And the common ancestor to even more distantly related forms lived even further in the past. Evolutionary biologists attempt to determine the history of lineages as they diverge and how differences in characteristics developed over time.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.
The key aspect of these two paragraphs which Christians know to be both untrue and unscientific is: “A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor.” We know that statement to be untrue and we know that evolutionists can not now nor will they ever prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor. It will not be proved because it is scientifically impossible. The problem is that evolutionists assume that it is true and therefore declare their invalid assumption to be scientifically correct.
Obviously, I have not read all 96 articles. Also just as obvious, not one of those 96 articles proves scientifically that all living organisms share a common ancestor. Here are some of the things that are declared though:
“A mutation in the gene responsible for producing hemoglobin in the blood causes a disease known as sickle-cell anemia. In this disease the structure of the oxygen-carrying protein in the human bloodstream is severely altered. The mutation changes the structure of red blood cells to a slender sickle shape.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Note: it changes the blood but it is still blood (not water or something else) and more importantly, the man is still a man. This does not even attempt to prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

“The color change that English peppered moths underwent during the 1800s is a classic example of directional selection. Before the Industrial Revolution took place in England in the late 1700s, light-colored English peppered moths that blended with the lichen-covered bark of trees were far more prevalent than dark-colored English peppered moths. However, pollution from the Industrial Revolution killed the lichen on trees, leaving their dark bark exposed, and the contrasting light-colored moths became easy prey for birds. The dark English peppered moths, camouflaged on the dark bark, soon became far more common than the lighter varieties in polluted areas.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Again, the color may have changed on the peppered moth but it is still a peppered moth. Again, this does not even attempt to prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

This is what Refuting Evolution 2 says in part about the peppered moth situation based upon an experiment to prove the above claim as presented in Encarta ®. “However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day. (Why is this important? The color of the moth was supposed to be why some died off and others flourished. But at night, would the contrast between colors be noticeable?—my addition)

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the Day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively wrote: ‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time…. In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car hood.

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’” (Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Mike Matthews, © 2002 by Answers in Genesis, Australia, pages 204-205.)

“When a geographic barrier, such as the Grand Canyon, prevents members of a population from interbreeding, the groups evolve independently of one another and may eventually constitute two or more species. For example, although they descended from the same original population, the squirrels on the south rim of the Grand Canyon now belong to an entirely different species than the squirrels on the north rim. By comparison, birds and other animals capable of crossing the divide continue to interbreed and so remain members of the same species.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) This is an example of Encarta using the term “species” differently than I have used the term “species.” However, note what is not different—the squirrels on the south rim are still squirrels and the squirrels on the north rim are still squirrels. The squirrels did not change into something other than squirrels. Again, this does not even attempt to prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

“A horse can mate with a donkey to produce a mule. The two do not blend into a single species, however, because mules are sterile—they cannot pass their hybrid genes to another generation. Strong and good-tempered, mules are used worldwide in agriculture and as work animals.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) This is a reproductive function. IT IS NOT an example of evolution! Again, this does not even attempt to prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

“The fourteen species of finch that inhabit the Galápagos Islands are believed to have evolved from a single species resembling the blue-black grassquit, Volatinia jacarina, abundant in Latin America and the Pacific coast of South America. The ancestral finch, with its short, stout, conical bill specialized for crushing seeds, probably migrated from the mainland to the Galápagos Islands. Its descendants, free to exploit the resources they would otherwise share with warblers, woodpeckers, and other birds, adapted to the available range of habitats (tree, cactus, or ground) and food (seeds, cactus, fruit, or insects). The size and shape of their bills reflect these specializations, an example of adaptive radiation.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Again, a finch is a finch is a finch. Changes within the finch but NOT evidence that all living organisms share a common ancestor. Again, this does not even attempt to prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

“Structures that are similar due to evolutionary origin, such as the forearm bones of humans, birds, porpoises, and elephants, are called homologous. Structures that evolve separately to perform a similar function are analogous. The wings of birds, bats, and insects, for example, have different embryological origins but are all designed for flight.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Obviously, this is just a statement made by evolutionists that certainly does not prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor. However, this is what I find interesting. The use of the word “designed.” The question must be asked: DESIGNED BY WHO? Just as anything created must have a creator. Doesn’t anything designed also need a designer? How was a car, a boat, an airplane, a house, a prison, a castle, a “wing designed for flight” designed if there was no designer!!!

“How Did Life Originate?
Scientists are forming a better understanding of what the earth was like four billion years ago and how life might have originated under these conditions. Paleontologist J. John Sepkoski examined current theories about life's origins in a December 1996 article for Encarta Yearbook.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.)

Notice the following in this short paragraph. It assumes that the earth has been around for four billion year. However, they do not know that and they also can not prove that. They want the earth to be four billions years old because they then try to claim that evolution can occur over such a great time span. Yet, if you and I can’t fly today without aid, I can guarantee you that we will not evolve into being able to fly. It doesn’t matter if the earth is 8,000 years old, or four billion, or four trillion years old. If a one celled blob can’t evolve into a man, a one celled blob can’t evolve into a man regardless of the time span. That which is scientifically impossible today was also scientifically impossible four billion years ago.

Notice the words “might have originated.” That which is not alive can not become alive by any scientific process no matter how long the time span. If scientists can not bring about life using all their brainpower and trying to create the same, please tell me how it is possible scientifically by chance? They must believe we are idiots? They claim to be scientific and then disregard anything remotely resembling the scientific method!!!

Paleontologist J. John Sepkoski can examine all the current theories about life’s origins he wants. NONE OF THEM ARE VALID!!! This is the only valid explanation for life coming from that which did not have life. AND GOD CREATED!!!!!!!



Post a Comment

<< Home