Welcome, ברוך הבא, Welkom, Добро пожаловать, Bienvenue, Bienvenido, 歓迎, υποδοχή

This site is dedicated to those who are serious about what Christian life is all about. This is a place to discuss modern Church and life issues. You can leave an anonymous comment if you feel the need. All comments are moderated. All posts will be answered. No requirements are needed.

If you want to study Biblical lessons click here http://ideasoftimbible.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution

A thesis is a statement that needs to be proven.  An antithesis is a word or phrase that shows a negative connection between two things, to err is human.  A theory is an explanation that has been tested and has shown a connection between facts and guesses.  If these are all true then that means evolution is an antitheory; an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.  Now this (antitheory) of course  is not a real word (anti theory of something though is real) but nevertheless is a real concept.

Here is a little math lesson for you to help explain the whole concept.
  • 1+1=2  and   2+1=3  and   3+1=4  and   4+1=5  and  5+1=6
And so on.  One should get the picture.   There is a progression, a natural progression, to get from one number to the next by adding the same element.  You can not get from 1 to 6 in progression by going straight from 1 to 6.  There are steps in between.  Evolutionists find 1 and they find 6 very easily.  They may even find 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well with research and artifacts.  But they forget there may be infinite rational numbers in between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3678, and 1.976544324565.  All fall in between the two whole numbers of 1 and 2.  Evolutionists find the whole numbers only and say that the theory of evolution is the only reliable collection of facts there are.

In other words, they have been searching for the "missing link" or should we say "links" since the study began.  They think they have found all they need because they have 1-6.

Here is the problem in reality:  they may have found different species that look like they were once related, but they didn't.  They have only found the "whole numbers".  For evolution to work and become a law of nature each stage of evolution has to be found.  Each and every minute mutation has to be found.  And they are not.  There are only bits and pieces of one species and bits and pieces of another completely different species and then they try and connect them.

If evolution was real here is what it means.  Two species have an offspring.  The offspring either picks up a recessive gene or for some unknown reason has a brand new gene, a mutation, that no other specie has had before.  Now this offspring will find a mate and have an offspring of its own.  Somehow this recessive/mutated gene gets passed on to where it eventually becomes the dominant gene or the mutation becomes the norm, not only in its own family line but apparently other family lines.  This single mutation, which is now a common characteristic, makes a new species and the process starts all over.

Over after millions of years and mutations do we finally get modern man.  We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  But where is the 3.2?  Evolutionists have only found the "complete" stages of the process.  They have not found all the intermediate stages to fill the gaps.  Oh, some will say they have by claiming they have transitional fossils with the truth etched in them.  Or they will state that they have found groups of species with the same mutation to prove that communities of these species flourished and not just a fluke, thereby proving the evolution process.  They will usually tend to leave out that there are still way too many gaps. Donald Prothero, professor of Geology at Occidental College, said that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species.  95% is of unknown origin.  (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html)  And by the theory of Darwinism, as defined by http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html, Multiply by "budding" into  new species.  Budding of course meaning one species splitting into a new species by retaining as many characteristics as the original species while developing something different to make a new species (1, 1.1, 1.2...).  However, is there evidence that shows how an amoeba became a man with every step of mutation/evolution accounted for by budding?  No.  Why?  Because it isn't the answer.   
Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
Now none of this is saying that two people with blond hair as a dominant gene can not have a baby with dark hair to where eventual dark hair will become dominant.  But they are still people, not another species.

Evolution is a antitheory, an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.

12 comments:

hawkssong68 said...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and

<>

there was light.


20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. (Link 1)

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Link 2)

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.(Link 3)

The bible not only leaves out 1.1, 1.2 and pi, it also leaves out 2,3,4 and 5 to get to 6.

Science tries to explain it.

It's the same story.

That is all.

Hugs!

Gozreht said...

Ahh...but you picked up one of the most important points.

Point #1 See Evolutionists start with what they have (artifacts, fossils)and has tried to work its way backwards and then explain how we got to where we are. The Bible starts AT THE BGINNING and works its way forward. Not saying that this is what proves the Bible. But if you start in the wrong place you won't have the full truth.

Point #2 Actually there is no 1.2 and stuff. I said "for evolution to work" there would have to be those in bewteens, which there is not. There would have to be those stages of where one species, piece by piece, is shown to be changing into another species, and there is not. You would think that if we have been here for billions of years and man has been around for millions of years that there would be those signs, but there are not. The Bible shows that there was no 1.2 and all. It does show there is only 1s' and 2's. Each species is separated from the rest. It proves science. We have amphibians, reptiles, birds, and fish and mammals. Man is separated from this creation. Yes we share a common physical trait but not spiritual for no animal has a spirit.

Point #3 Science tries to explain it. But it can't. that is why there are so many holes in this theory. This is not a shot at science. Science should be used but if you go back and understand the steps of science, evolution can't be done.

I will continue on next comment so word count does not get me.

Gozreht said...

continued point #3...

The scientific method
1. State the problem---where did we come from
2. Research, collect data---fossils, carbon dating and decay ratios, laws of nature such as speed of light, motion, and human nature as well.
3. Hypothesis---an accident developed out of nothing (http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2009/12/xlv-dark-side.html) and throughout billions of years we exist they way we are today but minute changes, mutations, and adaptations.
4. Experiment---test your data
5. Analysis---record the findings
6. Conclusion---develop a theory

But the facts are incomplete, it takes appraently millions of years to actually do any testing, and most of the hypothesis is biased and far fetched.

Point #4 It's not really the same story. Evolution is about making educated guesses with flawed information and a starting place. The Bible is straight up and starts at the beginning.

I have more but it's not relevant right now. I am sure if others (all of those expert microbilologists who read all the blogs instead of finding cures for diseases) read this then it will be. Until then...

hawkssong68 said...

Hey, what happened to my "BANG"? All I see is < and >! >:(

Anyway.

Let's go straight to the big, white mastodon in the room (get it? Instead of elephant, I wrote "mastodon"...I'm so funny!) The dinosaurs.

No part of Genesis (the beginning) mentions dinosaurs. Yet, we have evidence of their existence. Notice, I did not say proof. I said evidence. Either they existed, or it's all a big hoax. Either the fossils are actual bones (great big bones) or someone is fabricating them and placing them in strategic places for others to uncover.

If you believe they existed, then there is a discrepancy of biblical proportions in the bible. They are not mentioned or accounted for in the least. Yet, we have physical evidence they were here. So, either they weren't here and it's all a big joke, or they were here and the bible just leaves them out. They're "missing", so to speak. They are the 1.2.

And, if they're missing, one might ask, "What else is missing?"

Was Genesis just the "highlight reel"? The CliffsNotes for creation?

Who knows?

Perhaps you just believe they were a hoax. Plaster and ground up reptile bones kilned for our pleasure. If that's the case, then the bible story is complete and there is no room for argument. But, you then have other creation theories to encounter. About one per religion. Granted, they are basically the same. One creator makes it all. Out of nothingness, somethingness happens.

Bang.

Smootchies!

Gozreht said...

You already mentioned "dinosaurs" in your first comment: And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.


The term dinosaur is not a specific term for any animal, nor is it a real scientific class of animal. It just means "monstrous lizard". In other words a huge stinking reptile. Well, isn't a reptile something that moves along the ground? Didn't God create them? Yes.

Have you ever seen the similarties between a kimono dragon and those old bones. Even mammals of today look like bones of yesterday. As you have said elephant and mastedon, but also triceratops and a rhino.

Were they here? Yes. Where did they go? Extinction as science has said. Why? Uh...not as science has said. More than likely due to man and/or nature. In about 50 years unless we do something the last of the tigers and the gorilla will be wiped off the face of the earth. The tiger, top of the food chain will disappear. Just like the "dinosaur". Many also think that the largest of the kinds were wiped out in the GLOBAL flood since they would not fit on the ark. I sort of believe that. I happen to think most were gone by then. Let me continue...

Gozreht said...

continued...

Some may have disappeared after the flood. If they were around they were on the ark but probably as babies. Due to the nature of man we hunted them as food source and/or they were in competition with other animals and eventually the large ones died off.

And others think that the Bible does mention them by generalizations such as in Job it talks about a leviathan, and other places a behemoth is mentioned. Modern translations might change those to fit modern like animals. I wouldn't agree with that because why would there be another name? They wrote what they saw or were inspired. We are the ones who mkake such a big deal about dinosaurs though. The writers of the Bible would not have made such a big deal if they saw these things all the time.

But in line of "the Bible doesn't mention" idea, I wouldn't go that route. The Bible doesn't mention cocaine, it's real. The Bible doesn't mention humans have a liver, but we do. The Bible is not exhaustive in its description, yet explains it all at the same time.

Other creation stories (which atheists and the like will say the same for the Bible) were created by man. But with exceptions, many are very similar; distorted truth, if you will, because they have holes every where.

Gozreht said...

PS. Forgot to add, you have to remember the flood was 1600 years after Adam. So a whole group of certain animals most assuredly had enough time to be extinct.

And water can really add pressure, cut, move stuff, bury stuff, and remove stuff more than a lot of other minerals and junk.

hawkssong68 said...

Then you believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed?

Gozreht said...

Coexisted as in same time periods? I would say that is a high possibility. Interacted with each other? Maybe not. Or maybe man slaughtered them. I do not believe in carbon dating being accurate due to many variables, so to me that would not be a deciding factor.

travel2gether said...

Unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out. And perhaps that evolution one of his ways.

God loves you all.

Gozreht said...

Greetings and best wishes to the Czech Republic.

I have often given thought to what you have said. But there are too many holes that evolution can not fill. One verse basically says it all--Mark 10:6, But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. Well if we use evolution that says man was not around in beginning, that it took 4 billion years for man to appear then that is not exactly the beginning, making Jesus a liar. If Jesus is a liar then we are all doomed.

Science says that the earth came after the sun. But the Bible says God was the light for the earth and the sun was created later.

Evolution says we develpoed from ape. God says we came from the dust and made in His image, and He breathed life into man.

These are just a few. I thank you for your comment. Maybe I wil follow up this with another thought based on your question. You are always welcomed to leave a comment.

Gozreht said...

PS...

Your site has some fantastic pictures. I would have read it but I can not read Cyrillic. It looks neat!

Follow by Email