Christianity has lost another one. You make it sound as if Science comes first. I'm here to tell you that no, that's not the case. An all knowing all seeing deity comes first.
Christianity is about salvation. Not about scientifical facts. If God had wanted to speak to our rationality, he could have done it. Jesus, as the Verb of God, could have proved scientifically everything he said is true. But he didn't. Why?
Because Christianism has absolutely nothing to do with sciences. Just like Jesus doesn't speak about quantum physics, quantum physics don't speak about God.
I don't say that science is more true than religion. I just say that young earth creationism disguised in a pseudo-scientifical way is a lie.
Oh dear. Not the last time I checked. You see, evolution relies on mutations in the cells of the body. And according to most science texts I've read, mutations cause information in the genes to be lost.
Those books are wrong then. A mutation is a change in genetic infomation. There are three basical kinds of mutations: the ones that are just a change of the of bases within a gene, called genetic. These are responsibble, for example, of the sickle cell disease, caused by the substitution of a glutamic acid into a valine. The second type of mutations is the one caused by the changes on a whole gene. Those mutations are called "chromosomic" For example, the "cri du chat" sindrom. And there is a third kind of mutations, which is teh one that affects the number of chromosmes, such as Klinefelter's syndrome.
You might be saying that all the examples of mutations I gave you cannot result in evolution, because all of them are bad for the one who suffers them. That is why I will show you some examples of the good ones:
-Sickle-cell disease. Yes, this disease
is good. It has been observed taht this disease is fairly common in populations where malaria si common. How is this justified? This disease is just suffered by the people with
both mutant genes. But it has been observed that the people with a mutant gene and a normal one are more resistant to malaria. Thsi people are better adapted than normal people and than teh people with this disease. What does tghis result into? That the places where having a mutant gene is an advantage are the places where that gene appears most.
-
Biston betularia. Yes, this example is classical. These moths used to be white and became black. I am sure you ahve heard this a million of times. That is why I am not going to explain it.
-Domestication of plants and animals. Just look to the domesticated races and the wild ones. For example wolfs and the many dog races. Or wild corn and domestic one. There are many examples of those. If we, humans, have been able to provoke such big changes in animals and plants just by breeding them in such a short time, why is it not possible for nature?
Allow me now to pull out some Creationists view on the whole subject. You've probably read these before, but...it's pretty much true.
Here ya go.
I seriously wished I hadn't read that. It's a total waste of time. Those arguments are ridiculous. Anyway, I am going to counterargument:
"It should be clear that the claim for an inherent evolutionary increase in entropy and organization is based on an arbitrary model which shows signs of having been constructed simply to yield the desired result... There is nothing in evolutionary or developmental biology that justifies their assumptions that a successful mutation (which seems merely to mean a selectively neutral one in their model) is always associated with an increase in some global measure of phenotype.
Look at the global distributions of malaria and that kind of anemia I wrote about. There is a direct relation between the advantages of that phenotype and the distribution of it. This disease is only common where it's a successful mutation. That is why it is so common in Afrika.
Nor is there anything to support the assumption that new species arise as the result of single gene mutations and are initially genetically uniform. If these assumptions are removed, the whole edifice collapses.
The evolutionary theory doesn't say a new species appear out of a single mutation, but out of many mutations. But a new species can be created through mutations. Last I checked, wolves and dogs were different species.
Mutations with drastic phenotypic effects are overwhelmingly likely to cause disorganization of development, as a glance around a Drosophila lab will convince anyone."
Drastic changes are normally nothing good. But small changes have been observed to be good for the animal. Just like the colours in
Biston betularia.
But there are examples of beneficial changes caused by drastic mutations: look to our chromosome 2. It is teh only chrmosomic difference we have to our most related species. It seems very likely taht our ancestors suffered a very drastic mutation resulting in the fusion of two of our chromosmes in one. Because monkeys have 24 and we have 23, and our second chromosome is the only one we have that they don't.
Mutations usually cause a decrease of information, to change from one type of animal to another "higher on the evolutionary tree" would require an increase in vast amounts of information. Only intelligence generates information. Hence there is no way for "chance" to produce evolutionary changes.
Firstly: where did this people get the idea that mutations are the loss of information from? Because, even if information is lost sometimes, most times it is just changed, or even new one is produced. All of these phenomena have been observed.
And there is no such thing like levels in the evolutionary tree. We don't have vast amounts of information. We just have for example, three times the ammount of genes of a bee. And that ios ignoring that only about 30% of our genes are truly genes, i. e. only 30% of our genes are transcribed, and therefore show as a phenotype.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME, even if long ages time frame was valid
" for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." -Exodus 20:9-11
Very scientifical. Quoting a book from the 1st milennium before Christ inn a "so called" scientifical article. Did you know that authority arguments are not valid in sciences and philosophy?
Most chronometers (ways to date earth's age) point to relatively "young" earth, that is in the range of thousands as compared to millions or billions of years. The few that allow but don't require an ancient earth (the radiometric chronometers) are based on questionable assumptions that can be shown to be false.
And canyons, mountain ranges and oceans can be formed in 6000 years? Right. If there are so many chronometers, why don't they show examples of it?
Anonymous, "The Disappearing U.S., " Scientific American, vol. 211 (October 1964), p. 58. "The question of how fast the U.S. land mass is being washed into the sea has been given a new answer by two Princeton University geologists, Sheldon Judson and Dale F. Ritter. They calculate that solid and dissolved material carried by the rivers of the U.S. is sufficient to lower the average land surface by 2.4 inches in 1,000 years, a rate about twice as high as previous estimates.
"The authors conclude: 'Taking the average height of the United States above sea level as 2,300 feet and assuming that the rates of erosion reported here are representative, we find that it would take 11 to 12 million years to move to the oceans a volume equivalent to that of the United States lying above sea level. A this rate there has been enough time since the Cretaceous to destroy such a land mass six times over'."
Have these people never read about tectonic plates?
An interesting exercise is to look up the following topics in old encyclopedias and textbooks (1940's and 1950's) and then see what is being said about them in more recent years. Although these were given as proofs of evolution in school and college textbooks you will find them missing in most present day textbooks though still to be seen in some textbooks and still used as examples by some unknowing teachers. You will find retractions by famous evolutionists in their "professional journals". Sometimes you will also see denials of the retraction in the popular media this because they admit among themselves what they deny to the general public. Some of the following examples have been shown to be frauds or hoaxes. All are at least faulty examples for evolution:
Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Feathered dinosaur, Recapitulation theory, Peppered moths, Mars meteorite, archaeopterix, coelacanth, transitional fossils (which should be numerous turn out to be only a few which are questionable), and the "horse series".
Except for Piltdown man, none of thpse (as far as I know, because I don't know about all those cases) have been proven to be frauds. And what do coelacanths have to do with evolution?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in the physical universe all processes are running down, being depleted or wearing out. That is everything is "going "downhill". Although this downward trend can be delayed or postponed, but it can do so only with the input of energy and information. Eventually everything will wear out, decay, or become depleted. In an effort to avoid this "law" some evolutionists will try to make a distinction about "open" and "closed" systems. The distinction "doesn't wash" because whether open or closed the 2nd Law can only be overcome if there is an input of information as well as energy. Chance alone does not provide information! The theory of evolution postulates the opposite of this universal law! For a more detailed discussion of this topic see Dr. Menton's are "There Ought to be A Law and There Is".
The second law of themodynamics says nothing about information, but about energy. And of course we have an input of energy. It's called sun and it shines above us.
Honestly, those arguments are utterly ridiculous
Jesus was a man. That's the key element that makes him our savior.
But he was as well a God. And the Holy Communion is his greatest act of love. Feeding us with his very flesh and blood.
