Quid Diceo?
Wow, it's been almost two weeks since I last posted...and I still don't really have anything to write about! I have been rather busy lately--it seems like I have basically been studying, sleeping, and eating. Staying inside all day isn't really difficult though, considering the temperature outside.
One thing I have continued to be irked at recently is the double standard of evolutionists--they yak (sp?) on and on about how the scientific method is the only way to prove things scientifically (true), then go on to say that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proved by the scientific method (also true), then conclude by saying that the theory of evolution is basically scientifically proven (not true). This is absurd! Natural selection can be demonstrated by the scientific method--if you place a fish that eats large guppies but not small guppies in a pond of guppies, then it will eat the large guppies, the small guppies will survive, and will pass their genes on to their offspring. Pretty soon you will have a pond full of only small guppies. So natural selection--or microevolution--has taken place. But, notice: there was no new mutation, in fact, if anything, the guppies lost genetic information. Now, there can never again be large guppies. If a new fish that only eats small guppies comes along, the guppies will die out. Natural selection has not improved the guppy species, it has only prolonged its survival. The guppies have not become better and stronger over time, they have actually lost genetic information and become weaker as a group. I think that I can safely say that every observed case of natural selection has resulted in the degradation of the species.
My question is, how can evolutionists take cases of natural selection (the loss of information by preserving a select few) and assume that it is capable of first assembling irreducibly complex single-celled organisms from goo, then transforming those into each irreducibly complex species that exists today? The theory of evolution is an insult to science, and the biggest farce of the past two centuries.
So can evolution be true? I would say no. Just look at the world, or pick up a biology textbook. Some intelligent (but misguided) people would say it could be true. Anyone who says it definitely happened and has been proven is either ignorant or blind.
It also irks me when people treat the theory of intelligent design like bigfoot. Just look at any website dealing with evolution. I have yet to find a site that reasonably discusses the evidence of evolution. I have only seen sites filled with scornful, vitriolic hatred of creation; never do the authors of these sites try to prove their own position or disprove creation. Many leading creationists are extremely well-educated, even by secular standards, but to read these sites, one would think that creationists are a bunch of drooling bumpkins in overalls with the collective intellect of a party of drunken chimpanzees. So if creation is so stupid and obviously wrong, why do these evolutionists spend so much effort trying to deride it? Ever hear the quote about protesting too much?
One thing I have continued to be irked at recently is the double standard of evolutionists--they yak (sp?) on and on about how the scientific method is the only way to prove things scientifically (true), then go on to say that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proved by the scientific method (also true), then conclude by saying that the theory of evolution is basically scientifically proven (not true). This is absurd! Natural selection can be demonstrated by the scientific method--if you place a fish that eats large guppies but not small guppies in a pond of guppies, then it will eat the large guppies, the small guppies will survive, and will pass their genes on to their offspring. Pretty soon you will have a pond full of only small guppies. So natural selection--or microevolution--has taken place. But, notice: there was no new mutation, in fact, if anything, the guppies lost genetic information. Now, there can never again be large guppies. If a new fish that only eats small guppies comes along, the guppies will die out. Natural selection has not improved the guppy species, it has only prolonged its survival. The guppies have not become better and stronger over time, they have actually lost genetic information and become weaker as a group. I think that I can safely say that every observed case of natural selection has resulted in the degradation of the species.
My question is, how can evolutionists take cases of natural selection (the loss of information by preserving a select few) and assume that it is capable of first assembling irreducibly complex single-celled organisms from goo, then transforming those into each irreducibly complex species that exists today? The theory of evolution is an insult to science, and the biggest farce of the past two centuries.
So can evolution be true? I would say no. Just look at the world, or pick up a biology textbook. Some intelligent (but misguided) people would say it could be true. Anyone who says it definitely happened and has been proven is either ignorant or blind.
It also irks me when people treat the theory of intelligent design like bigfoot. Just look at any website dealing with evolution. I have yet to find a site that reasonably discusses the evidence of evolution. I have only seen sites filled with scornful, vitriolic hatred of creation; never do the authors of these sites try to prove their own position or disprove creation. Many leading creationists are extremely well-educated, even by secular standards, but to read these sites, one would think that creationists are a bunch of drooling bumpkins in overalls with the collective intellect of a party of drunken chimpanzees. So if creation is so stupid and obviously wrong, why do these evolutionists spend so much effort trying to deride it? Ever hear the quote about protesting too much?
posted by Chris Emlyn at 3:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home