Genetic Drift as shown at Wikipedia:
Natural Selection of a mutation:
I Love Elon Musk
1 day ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Those who find evolution convincing need to rethink it a lot more carefully because the evidence is really not there to the extent you think it is. I suspect you are accepting as evidence all sorts of assumptions, speculations and hypotheses that are not evidence, and are taking most of it on faith in spite of yourself.
2 Peter 3:3-7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
My other blogs
MOST IMPORTANT BLOG POSTS
There's something very wrong with the thinking of a Christian who is more worried about being "fooled by God" in an erroneous judgment about, say, a radiometric dating conclusion than he is about being "fooled by God" in the Bible, very wrong because Christians supposedly believe the Bible to be inspired by God, but science is done by fallible human beings.
===========================
===========================
You want me to respect science. How can I respect Geology when it accepts the idea that a worldwide stack of different kinds of sedimentary rock represents different time periods of millions of years each, and that the bazillions of catastrophically tossed and tumbled dead things contained in them, often in batches of their own kind, represent particular life forms that lived in each "time" period -- all while smugly proclaiming "there is no evidence" for a global Flood. This is so stupid it is amazing that it was ever entertained, but there it is, today's Dogma of Geology. I'm sure they do solid science in spite of it of course, kind of around and under and between it.
EVOLUTIONISM IS A STRONGHOLD TO BE SPIRITUALLY TOPPLED
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
PRAY IT DOWN!
PRAY IT DOWN!
About This Blog
What I want to do here is try to do my best job of stating my own favorite arguments against evolution. There are a couple I think really, logically speaking, ought to bring the whole system crashing down but of course it isn't that easy, human stubbornness being what it is.
There's the geological argument which is basically that you can see with your naked eyes that this world once went through a global Flood, as the Bible reports. That takes care all by itself of the whole Old Earth theorizing that evolution depends on.
And there's the biological argument: It is known that genes DON'T increase although evolution depends on increase. The MORE evolved a species the LESS genetic capacity to evolve it actually has. Breeders certainly know this; and conservationists also know this because genetic depletion in highly specialized species (such as the cheetah) makes them vulnerable to extinction rather than candidates for further variation.
I hope to post on these and other arguments as time permits.
==========================
Ah heck, Mr. Dawkins, we CAN TOO imagine macroevolution by natural selection, same as you can. We can follow out the same Rube-Goldberg sequence of improbable events, acting in a homologically graded series of imaginatively fleshed-out fossils, events that have never been observed in living reality, to the same preconceived conclusion you come to. Our problem is that we know it flies in the face of probability, reason, logic and any other law of rational inquiry and science that may exist, AND that there is no evidence for it, whereas design OBVIOUSLY implies a designer -- obviously, intuitively, rationally, logically, reasonably and probabilistically -- and I'd add "absolutely" if I could get away with it.
There's the geological argument which is basically that you can see with your naked eyes that this world once went through a global Flood, as the Bible reports. That takes care all by itself of the whole Old Earth theorizing that evolution depends on.
And there's the biological argument: It is known that genes DON'T increase although evolution depends on increase. The MORE evolved a species the LESS genetic capacity to evolve it actually has. Breeders certainly know this; and conservationists also know this because genetic depletion in highly specialized species (such as the cheetah) makes them vulnerable to extinction rather than candidates for further variation.
I hope to post on these and other arguments as time permits.
==========================
Ah heck, Mr. Dawkins, we CAN TOO imagine macroevolution by natural selection, same as you can. We can follow out the same Rube-Goldberg sequence of improbable events, acting in a homologically graded series of imaginatively fleshed-out fossils, events that have never been observed in living reality, to the same preconceived conclusion you come to. Our problem is that we know it flies in the face of probability, reason, logic and any other law of rational inquiry and science that may exist, AND that there is no evidence for it, whereas design OBVIOUSLY implies a designer -- obviously, intuitively, rationally, logically, reasonably and probabilistically -- and I'd add "absolutely" if I could get away with it.
========================
Thinking about the implications of the Biblical creation can sometimes draw you close to God in a way that has to be described as worship. That's the main reason for doing it I think.
Thinking about the implications of the Biblical creation can sometimes draw you close to God in a way that has to be described as worship. That's the main reason for doing it I think.
Labels
- AA (4)
- AAA Best Post (1)
- Alfred Russel Wallace (3)
- Allele frequencies (14)
- Angular unconformities. (4)
- Are scientists stupid? (1)
- Argument from Homology (2)
- asteroid impacts (1)
- atheism (2)
- biased labels (1)
- Burgon (2)
- Cheetah (3)
- Christopher Hitchens (1)
- continental drift (1)
- course in geology (2)
- Creation model (1)
- Creationism in the schools (1)
- Darwin (6)
- Darwinism (1)
- Dawkins (5)
- Day-Age Theory (1)
- Debate (2)
- dehumanization (1)
- education (1)
- Erosion (2)
- Eugenics (1)
- EvC (6)
- evidence (1)
- Evolution (1)
- Evolution against morality (1)
- Evolution defeats Evolution (18)
- Evolutionist incivility (3)
- Eye (2)
- Faith and science (2)
- fake science (2)
- Falsification (2)
- First Amendment (1)
- Flood (1)
- Flood bottleneck evidence (3)
- Flood timing (1)
- Flood-caused geology (27)
- Forensics (1)
- Gap Theory (1)
- Genetic Entropy (3)
- Genome (3)
- geologic cobweb spinning (1)
- Geologic time table (6)
- Geological Timescale (1)
- Geology (3)
- God's Word (1)
- Gradualisim (1)
- Gradualism (2)
- Grand Canyon (12)
- Grand Staircase (6)
- heterozygosity (4)
- History of science (1)
- Hitler (2)
- Hutton (4)
- Information (3)
- Intelligent Design (4)
- interpretation treated as fact (1)
- Irreducible Complexity (1)
- Jerry Coyne (1)
- junk DNA (8)
- K-T boundary (1)
- Kaibab Plateau (2)
- Kenneth Miller (1)
- Lyell (3)
- Machen (1)
- Margaret Sanger (1)
- Micro vs Macroevolution (4)
- Microevolution (2)
- mutations (4)
- Natural Selection (3)
- naturalism (1)
- Nazism (1)
- Old Earth (1)
- Old Red Sandstone (1)
- planets (1)
- plate tectonics (2)
- polystrate tree fossils (2)
- Population Genetics (7)
- Prehistoric Lakes Missoula Lahontan Bonneville (6)
- Punctuated Equilibrium (1)
- racism (1)
- Reduced genetic diversity (12)
- Ring Species (5)
- Roman Catholicism (2)
- salt (1)
- Science vs God (4)
- Scientific Method (4)
- Second Law (1)
- Siccar Point (3)
- Special Creation (2)
- Speciation (9)
- Spurgeon (1)
- Steve Austin (1)
- Strata (12)
- Super genome (5)
- tectonic movement (3)
- Test Proposal (2)
- The Fall (1)
- Theistic Evolution (1)
- Transitionals (2)
- Unconformity (1)
- uniformitarianism (1)
- Variation (2)
- volcanism (2)
- What Is Evidence? (3)
- Word Magic (5)
IT ISN'T FOR LACK OF EXPOSURE TO SCIENCE
A description of my own experience in answer to the usual denigrating assumption that creationism requires ignorance of science -- not that I claim any scientific sophistication of course, merely a basic understanding of some basic facts and principles.
Before I became a Christian I absorbed a lot of the thinking about evolution and tried my best to understand it. Even then I was often frustrated that evidence trails could just about never be found or followed out to any kind of certainty and I found that I always had to give up trying to follow them and just take the conclusions of the scientists pretty much on faith. I definitely had an interest in understanding evolution. I believed in it; I wanted also to understand it, but I found my desire thwarted by the lack of evidence. I read the Origin of Species, I read lots of stuff by Stephen Jay Gould, very entertaining stuff, I read Skeptical Inquiry regularly, and so on. I investigated the science claims for evolution about as far as the average intelligent non-scientist can be expected to.
It was only after I became a Christian that I got into studying the creationist answers and took seriously my earlier experience of frustration with the lack of evidence for evolution. I strongly wish that those who find it convincing would rethink it a lot more carefully because the evidence is really not there to the extent you think it is, I suspect you are accepting as evidence all sorts of clever speculations that are not evidence, and are taking most of it on faith in spite of yourself.
Before I became a Christian I absorbed a lot of the thinking about evolution and tried my best to understand it. Even then I was often frustrated that evidence trails could just about never be found or followed out to any kind of certainty and I found that I always had to give up trying to follow them and just take the conclusions of the scientists pretty much on faith. I definitely had an interest in understanding evolution. I believed in it; I wanted also to understand it, but I found my desire thwarted by the lack of evidence. I read the Origin of Species, I read lots of stuff by Stephen Jay Gould, very entertaining stuff, I read Skeptical Inquiry regularly, and so on. I investigated the science claims for evolution about as far as the average intelligent non-scientist can be expected to.
It was only after I became a Christian that I got into studying the creationist answers and took seriously my earlier experience of frustration with the lack of evidence for evolution. I strongly wish that those who find it convincing would rethink it a lot more carefully because the evidence is really not there to the extent you think it is, I suspect you are accepting as evidence all sorts of clever speculations that are not evidence, and are taking most of it on faith in spite of yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment
PLEASE just register somewhere, there seem to be many options. A Google account is easy. And give SOME kind of pseudonym at least. THANKS!