Now I'm starting this off by laying down a few basic things.
Firstly, I never expected the response that I got to the first blog I made on evolution. Actually I didn't think anyone even cared to look at my blog. I wasn't doing it to upset anyone or make anyone mad, but the content matter already causes that.
Secondly, I do not belive in evolution. As I tried to state in my last blog there are reasons for this. I'm just trying to show that there's holes and these holes have lead me to the conclusion that evolution is highly unlikely and essientailly impossible. I will explain.
Thirdly, yes I am a Christain. While that may fuel some of my argument I do not use it as a fact. Meaning just because it says in the Bible that God created the world in seven days I don't neccasirly belive it. One of my problems is that I question everything. My questions have just happened to lead me in the direction of a god.
Fourthly, don't insult me or anyone else who may comment because we may think diffrent then you. Just because I belive a certain thing dosen't make me ignorant or blind to the truth. And please no religion bashing. I realize that with the concept of creation/orgin of life that God always comes up, but please kept it civil. I've spent alot of time on these blogs.
Fifthly, I don't know how I'm going to go about responding to comments on here. I may and I may not. On my other blog people kept posting and posting to the point where it just became overwhelming so just bear with me on that.
Okay, here we go.
I'll do this blog mostly by purposing questions.
Evolution. As defined by change over time I agree. As defined as a change over millions of millions of years, I tend to not. I'll start off by addressing some of the points of my last blog that I don't think where ever fully addressed.
ONE
The Geologic Column.
Now evolution scientists have said that the Geologic Column was formed over millions of years. The bottom layers are obviously the oldest and the top layers should have the older fossils.
If this is true though, why do we find things in one section of a column that should be in another?
If this is tree why do we find huge things such as a tree in four diffrent columns? Meaning that a tree would have to have been sitting there for millions of years until the first sedimentary layer was down. Then it would stay there for another million years until another layer was done. Then another. And so on. That dosen't make much sense.
I've heard one explination that does though. It's from a poster on the other blog. He wrote:
I believe that I might have an answer for the fossil record. *clears-throat* First of all, if there was a global flood all animals would be struggling to swim for their life. Evolutionists say, "If that was true we'd find human bones beneath dinosaur bones, and other 'modern animals'." It was because of this 'evolutionary evidence' that I came up with this theory. The theory of primeswimmers.
My theory states that animals lower in the fossil record were not well suited for swimming. It makes sense. I can't imagine a 75,000 pound Apatosaurus swimming, can you? The animals higher in the fossil record are more suited for swimming for longer amounts of time. The mammals are above the dinosaurs. Like the mammoths. Mammoths are in the elephant family right? And elephants can swim pretty well right? But despite their better efforts than reptiles, they too drowned.
Evolutionists could argue, "Well, how could the aquatic reptiles drown?" To be honest, I don't believe they all did. When the earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused that tsunami back in 2004, a large variety of undiscovered sea creatures were found washing up on beaches in that area. Also Chinese fishermen found a corpse of what looks like a Mosasurus. However, evolutionists are claiming it was nothing more than a decaying bull shark. There is also the famous legend of the Loch Ness Monster. Laugh at me if you must, but it does resemble a Plesiosaurus. The main reason scientists have written it off as a hoax is because it doesn't fit together with evolution. (The main reason. Not the only reason.)
It makes sense dosen't it? We do tend to find the animals that would have been worse at swimming on the bottom. I just think it's really intresting to note.
Point? It would tend to be hard to belive that the entire Geolical Column is a perfect example of evolution.
TWO
There should be a lot more transitional beings then we've found. Just the example of a fish going from water to land. One tries to come out of the water everytime to get on land. Eventaully according to evolution that fish should become some sort of half lizard half fish to put in lamemens terms right? They would have to be a little diffrent everytime. This is what I mean by the fact that we should notice something, anything. Even if it is such a painstaking long process.
So if evolution where true we should see this half creatures everywhere.
But when does evoltion stop? It's suppose to be a painstaking process but surely we should have seen something, anything. Humans haven't really changing just adapted.
THREE
This is one think that I had though of recently. The entire theory of evolution is nothing but well set up luck, coincidences, and ideal conditions.
For example, Earth. We have an ideal location in space. Not to close to the sun, not too far. We aren't perfectly round but just right. Look at Mars. People say that there could have been ideal location for life. But there isn't. Earth isn't in a place where it's constantly hit with comets. Earth isn't in a place that' doing to get sucked in a black hole. Earth itself is highly unlikely.
Then there are things on the earth. Like water. I'm still kinda confused how an empty hunk of rock can somehow get water and devolp oceans and than oxygen.
Then there's another ideal condition for evolution. One that's not really all too talked about. A single celled organism. See, Evolution dosen't work without a start. There has to be one single speck of life for evolution to occur. So where does this speck of life come from?
Some scientist have actually said that it was put on Earth by these other beings. This would be intellegent design by the way. But I digress.
Main point I wanted to make. There are so many diffrent variables to go in to evolution. Main point where's it start? Where does that one cell that has to keep divideing come from? Aliens? The future? Crystals? It dosen't make sense.
For now that's all I seem to have. I can think of more, but it's really late and I'm going to bed. I hope to kept this blog going mostly with comments. There is alot to this debate going on. Just please don't ever stop asking questions.
Feel free to check out the rest of my blog by the way. This is just a blog documenting my senior year. Somehow evolution got involved and with evolution came theology.
Alright, thanks for reading.
Posts
12 comments:
Well put Doug. Thank you for quoting me as well. I've got a few things to say about Erasmus his post from the other blog.
Erasmus talked about the age of the Earth. Scientists say the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it. Sounds logical, except how do they know how old the formations are? The most 'accurate' method is the radiometric dating method. Scientists estimate how old fossils and rocks are based on what stage of decay the radioactive isotopes are at. Most scientist agree that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
I on the other hand, believe it is only 6,013 years old (as of 2009), as Archbishop James Ussher suggested that it was created in 4004 BC.
The problem with radiometric dating is to date rocks based on the stage of decay they are in, you must first assume that the decay rate is constant. Evolutionists often ridicule at Creationists if this is ever brought up saying, "What could possibly accelerate the decay rate?" Indeed. What could speed them up to millions and billions of years? There is a possibility that decay rates were increased by some astronomical catastrophe, such as the supernova which created the Gum Nebula. The supernova would have showered the earth with many different kinds of radiation that could have excited the nuclei of atoms and led them to decay much faster. Before someone debates this I need to add that scientists have estimated the Gum Nebula to have affected earth about 11,000 years ago. "But Mr. Denton. I thought you said you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old." Indeed, however all facts are based on the conclusions of experiments, and all experiments must be repeatable or they are no longer coherent. If scientists have made it fact that it's 11,000 years old then I would gladly repeat whatever experiment they preformed to come up with this and see if I get the same results. In fact there are many famous experiments that I would like to repeat to see if they really worked, such as the Miller–Urey experiment.
As for the movie Expelled, I have seen it. The National Center for Science Education attempted to disprove well, pretty much every detail of the film, right down to criticizing Ben on making a connection between the holocaust and evolution. They used many opinions rather than actual facts such as, "The thought that anyone could herd them together to conspire against anything – even intelligent design – is laughable. One may as well conspire to herd a roomful of cats." Any information to back up their claims didn't have credible evidence supporting it. "Ultimately, intelligent design’s lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community." Whilst Ben gathered information on people who were, in fact, fired for talking about Intelligent Design. The NCSE tried to prove that the 'expelled' were expelled for different reasons. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez didn't receive tenure because of his views on intelligent design. The NCSE said that, "Gaining tenure at a major research institution is never easy. The stakes – employment protection from dismissal without due cause – are very high, and it is appropriate that candidates should face intense scrutiny." Most of the 'facts' according to the NCSE were about how he just couldn't get tenure, and that it had nothing to do with his beliefs, but it says nothing about what Dr. Hector Avalos of Iowa State University said, "What we wanted to stop is the use of the name of ISU to validate Intelligent Design. And we did succeed."
I'm not going to go to far into that because I'm way off track now. All I was stating was that I wouldn't give credit to the NCSE for their poor attempt at disproving pure evidence.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be blasted for this... fire away evolutionists! Arr! ...No really, please be critical but gentle!
So... Doug. Monkey's an Typewriters? The creation week lasting millions of years? Sound like you've played 3-D Dinosaur adventure. Am I right?
I don't think so, I might have at one time but I don't recall 3-D Dinosaur adventure.
The monkeys randomly typing Shakesprear? I don't remember where exatly I heard that. I think I read it in a book once?
As for the week of creation lasting millions of years I've gotten that from other Christians. They say that whole thing about a day for God could be millions of years for us. Then someone mentioned that they way the creation story in the Bible goes kinda flows in order with the evolutionary theory. Obviously I disagree with these people. I kind of feel that they are compromising their own faith to adjust it to fit evolution when it should be the other way around. Though I see why the world would see otherwise. When you hear something your whole life, for example what happened to the dinosaurs, you kind of get this preprograming that isn't exactly easy to get rid of. If that makes any sense at all.
Ah, well I've heard it from 'Christian Evolutionists'. I've been e-mailing one recently on the subject. Strangely, s/he doesn't seem bent on defending evolution. S/He seems open to the idea and is all for anyone who can prove evolution wrong. Not to stray from the subject of this blog, but I do find it completely bogus that God would basically lie. It's putting words in God's mouth is what it is.
I have recently found more about dating fossils. Does anyone here know how they date fossils? They don't use radiometric dating. They date the fossils based on the geological strata they are in. Right? Any paleontologist will tell you that. So how do you date the geological strata? Ask any geologist and they'll tell you we date the strata based on how old the fossils in them are. What the 'ell?! "Get real Mr. Denton!" That's the truth. And the only time they ever use radiometric dating, the radioisotope method is based on unproven assumptions anyway! Some people say that radioactive elements are the property of an isotope and can't change anymore than an element of the periodic tabel can into another element. And to that I say, "So how do they decay into stabel elements?" Alright. And someone say something this time. Where've you all gone?
What's the difference between adaptation and evolution?
Adaptation is like African elephants. There are Savannah living ones, jungle living ones, and even desert living ones. They are the same species but they have different habits which make them well suited for their environment. Evolution, is the slow process of animals changing to become well suited for their environment. Most scientists believe that fish became amphibians which became reptiles. I personally don't believe that, but it's an example of an animal evolving from marine living to terrestrial living. Hope that clears things up.
So an individual can adapt but not evolve.
I also disagree with the fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile theory. Since this is something that could not happen by conscious thought, the fish didn't decide to become an amphibian, and the amphibian didn't decide to become a reptile. Even if the fish had the intellect to make such a choice it is not possible simply by choice. So I ask what would be the reason then. Why did the fish turn into an amphibian, and then again why did the amphibian become a reptile even after so many generations would have passed there would have to have been a need to change. And since fish amphibians and reptiles still exist today at the same time we know they are capable of living just the way they are so again why change?
"mud puppies" have a sack inside their bodies that holds water. When they are about to go on land they fill that sack with water then make the jump, taking the water with them. Not unlike a human taking a deep breath of air before diving into a swimming pool. some would argue that the sack for holding water could evolve into a lung. But why, he's fine how he is, perfectly suited for the environment he lives in. Also there would have to be a stage in which the sack could contain both water and air. Part of the missing link argument. Also if the mud puppies sack is going to turn into lungs are humans lungs going to turn into gills? If we came from water could we go back would we go back and one more time why?
Well sir/ma'am, you're absolutely right. In fact if fish could become air-breathing, why can't air-breathers go back to breathing the oxygen in water? Scientists believe whales and dolphins are descended from land living mammals, and that they were adaptable enough to become sea going. But if they were so adaptable, why couldn't they go back to breathing water? And about the missing links, there's more missing links that should be extant that aren't There's the group of tetrapodomorpha, which are supposedly the missing links between fish and amphibians. No living species. There's the group of reptiliomorpha, which are supposedly the missing links between amphibians and reptiles. No living species. There's the synapsids, supposedly the missing links between reptiles and mammaliaformes. No living species of either. I could go on about extinct groups of diverse animals but what point would it make? I already know the "explanations" of why these creatures went extinct, and quite frankly, I don't find them very convincing. I've been called blind, hard-hearted, and even in denial because of this. But hey, that's the scientific community, am I right?
Stephan,
Although you claim to believe in evolution, it seems you more aptly believe in adaptation. As for common descent, I think all too many use it interchangeably with evolution so you may want to distinguish your beliefs more clearly.
As for whales and dolphins, could they not have been amphibious at one time? Odd that we think some land animals today evolved from sea creatures, while some sea creatures evolved from land animals. We seem to tell the story to fit the need.
Alright, I'll make it as clear as I can. When I say I believe in evolution, I mean that I believe things are changing slightly. I do not believe that everything has descended from a common ancestor. I believe that the earth and the universe were created at the same time. Like few Christians, I have also considered the idea of God using evolution to create all the animals, however the idea doesn't make any sense to me. (I can elaborate on that.) I suppose it is possible that some animals have gone through the process of evolution that are descended from the ones God made, however I don't believe they have changed much, if even at all. Hope that clears up my personal beliefs and philosophies.
Thanks. I like the answer you gave on the other blog and I think it's worth repeating my reply here for these readers. I don't mean to contradict a single word of what you said... BUT... yes, God could be the power and force behind evolution. God can be/do anything He wants and it's not like we can constrain Him. That said though, why would He? It suggests He had no ultimate plan and just set things in motion, guiding them to where He wanted things to end up and then stopped the process (since we don't have evidence of ongoing evolution.) To a Believer, that really makes no sense. As I struggled with creationist evolution years ago, I realized that God didn't need billions or millions of years to achieve His purposes. That's why many of us believe in a young Earth and add that God created a fully mature world. It would have appeared as a fully formed, growing, and vibrant world--not some primordial mud puddle with single-cell organisms waiting to evolve into higher life forms. That in itself makes no sense anyway--that lower life forms evolve into larger and more complex organisms and varied species. I would prefer to acknowledge that God "could" but then present an argument as to why He probably did not. While the world challenges us on how we can know the mind of God, there are some characteristics of His being that we can at least surmise from what He has revealed to us in His word. That said, it would seem unlike the God who has revealed Himself to us that He changes His mind or His plans. With the exception of mercy for those who repent or wrath for those who do not, we serve a God who is steadfast from the beginning of our time and beyond. So along those lines and before someone else asks, yes, God can create a boulder so large and heavy that He cannot lift it, but then (1) why would He and (2) He would have to give up being God since there is nothing He cannot do. In other words, it is so outside of the character of God as revealed to us that we know that He could but would not stoop to a silly test of man to prove himself.
Post a Comment