Evolution
Posted by JJ J on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Did you know, that contrary to popular belief, events in the Bible HAVE been proven scientifically. Yes, science can and does support the Bible.
For instance, take that of biblical creation. Evolution is the greatest challenger of creation, is it not? Evolution is indeed one of the reasons why people turn to secularism, after all it gave them a logical basis on which to base their secular beliefs on. So, what's this big proofs we have to show you? Well, join us as we embark on the series called "Journey of Proofs".
A trip towards God beckons. Will thou follow suit and accept the invitation?
"But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is!
-Romans 1:19 (MSG)
~~~
The beauty of this Earth is all evidence to the great glory of God. The snow capped mountains, the dense jungles and rain forests, the hot savannas The beauty of this Earth is all evidence to the great glory of God. The snow capped mountains, the dense jungles and rain forests, the hot savannas, everything! It is there when you stare out at the sapphire blue seas, it is there when you stargaze on a clear night. Do you seriously believe there was a big bang and all just poof-ed into existence? Throughout nature, one can find traces of perfect order. Order among chaos, perfections amidst imperfections...one famous example is as follows.
The Golden Ratio (1.1618) can be found in the human body, in DNA, in physics, in space! So many 'coincidences' whether it's even possible not for it to be planned. This leads us to take the theory of creation seriously, because the Bible says that God, the author of life, created everything in the universe according to His perfect plan. And there is no such thing as 'coincidences' in His meticulous sight.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
-Genesis 1:1
~~~
WHY IS EVOLUTION ILLOGICAL?
Unproven ideas:
According the the evolution theory, we are just another species of animals. Following that logic, how come we are expected to be a class over the rest of the animal kingdom and be deemed as 'superior beings'? Cannibalism is observed among several animal species, but conversely a human eating another human is labelled just wrong. We have brains, not to mention morals and a conscience. Let's face it, the whole concept of us being a superbly evolved form of monkeys is hilarious.
Here is a trustworthy quote by Professor D.M.S. Watson.
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent
evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
We got snippets of excerpts from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
"There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information."
" Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection..."
"2. The DNA code barrier...If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm."
"Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward – and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn't help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don't observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species."
So in the end the theory of evolution just doesn't make sense to us, even if you look at it 'scientifically'. Supporters of evolution has argued saying that we discount their argument just by 'harping' on 'baseless religion' but here through the very evidence that is supposed to support evolution, it instead proves the opposite.
For instance, take that of biblical creation. Evolution is the greatest challenger of creation, is it not? Evolution is indeed one of the reasons why people turn to secularism, after all it gave them a logical basis on which to base their secular beliefs on. So, what's this big proofs we have to show you? Well, join us as we embark on the series called "Journey of Proofs".
A trip towards God beckons. Will thou follow suit and accept the invitation?
"But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is!
-Romans 1:19 (MSG)
~~~
The beauty of this Earth is all evidence to the great glory of God. The snow capped mountains, the dense jungles and rain forests, the hot savannas The beauty of this Earth is all evidence to the great glory of God. The snow capped mountains, the dense jungles and rain forests, the hot savannas, everything! It is there when you stare out at the sapphire blue seas, it is there when you stargaze on a clear night. Do you seriously believe there was a big bang and all just poof-ed into existence? Throughout nature, one can find traces of perfect order. Order among chaos, perfections amidst imperfections...one famous example is as follows.
The Golden Ratio (1.1618) can be found in the human body, in DNA, in physics, in space! So many 'coincidences' whether it's even possible not for it to be planned. This leads us to take the theory of creation seriously, because the Bible says that God, the author of life, created everything in the universe according to His perfect plan. And there is no such thing as 'coincidences' in His meticulous sight.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
-Genesis 1:1
~~~
WHY IS EVOLUTION ILLOGICAL?
Unproven ideas:
Nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang’
Non-living matter gave rise to life
Single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms
Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates
Ape-like creatures gave rise to man
Non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality
According the the evolution theory, we are just another species of animals. Following that logic, how come we are expected to be a class over the rest of the animal kingdom and be deemed as 'superior beings'? Cannibalism is observed among several animal species, but conversely a human eating another human is labelled just wrong. We have brains, not to mention morals and a conscience. Let's face it, the whole concept of us being a superbly evolved form of monkeys is hilarious.
Here is a trustworthy quote by Professor D.M.S. Watson.
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent
evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
We got snippets of excerpts from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
"There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information."
" Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection..."
"2. The DNA code barrier...If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm."
"Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward – and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn't help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don't observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species."
So in the end the theory of evolution just doesn't make sense to us, even if you look at it 'scientifically'. Supporters of evolution has argued saying that we discount their argument just by 'harping' on 'baseless religion' but here through the very evidence that is supposed to support evolution, it instead proves the opposite.