I recently had a decent conversation (which I hope continues) with a friend of mine. He asked 5 or so questions (sparked by TV shows he recently saw I think) and the conversation didn’t last long enough to cover ground so I wrote him an email about my thoughts on the topics. (I think my friend considers himself and atheist, but I not a strong one. That might just be how I see it though.) Anyway, I thought I’d post some of my thoughts up sorry if it gets long…
Q. Did dinosaurs roam the planet with man? What wiped out the dinosaurs?
A.To say that man never walked with dinosaurs is definitely not accurate if only because their are still dinosaurs walking/swimming today. The real question is when did they get wiped out by comparison to mans existence and then what did it. As for the devastation of the dinosaurs, I do believe in the flood and geological morphing recounted in the Bible as well as many other texts from other cultures that back it. Even within the ranks of archeology their is support for such a devastation to dinosaurs as opposed to the fiery meteor approach. It is also a solid premise in terms of geology as has recently been discovered. So instead of saying we didn't exist apart I would say that between ancient texts and the lack of solid backing in the "dating methods", man and dinosaurs did and in fact still do roam the earth. Both survivors of a once apocalyptic event.
Q. Is the earth millions of years old or is a “young earth” possible? (Dating methods, etc..)
A. Ever notice how very different the time-lines are from scientist to scientist? Their is a good reason. It is very inaccurate for two basic reasons. Reason 1 is that all calculations are based off of what is going on now. The chemical makeup of things, atmospheric conditions, and so on. Simply put, the world didn't grow in a peatry dish and so science can't be accurate in its tests without recreating what was really there then. They can't do that because they don't know. They might be able to guess what a tree is composed of but they can't guess what it went through over its life and then the years of its death for instance. Reason 2 is much like using the "align" command in CAD. We've all lined up something in two spots and then zoomed out to realize that the farther we get from our aligned points the more off we are in accuracy between the base map and the aligned mapping. It's the same with gaging things. A subtle difference in sample A might cause it to read as 1000 or even millions of years younger than it's neighbor all because of a near imperceptible chemical difference. Of course their are other dating methods also, but they fail in much the same way.
So for my two cents I don't trust any time-line given, because in my researching I have seen numbers (for the beginning of all things) that range from 5 trillion years to 10,000 years. While the later number is what choose to believe (based on other things) it is not something I can trust while the "science" is so random.
Q. Evolution, is it real? Is it trustworthy?
A. I don't subscribe to evolution basically for 5 reasons and I'll just list them briefly...
1. If we go back to the start of evolution we would need to see one cell sparked into life (which is bordering on the impossible) and that cell would need to hold all the dna "blueprints" for all things we see today (which is far more impossible). This is very unrealistic in real world terms while evolution requires that a simple life form grows in dna information and then chooses it's information based on it's needs as time progresses. I say this is impossible because the scientific community has already discovered empirically that dna does not evolve, it does mutate and degenerate of course, but nothing is ever added to it unless from an outside source. So a one celled amoeba as we know it today is not a candidate for evolution as we are often lead to accept. They simply don't hold all the information and can't create more info, unless an outside source was there to grant them said info or better yet create fully functional life forms, which would in turn skip the need for evolutionary process altogether. In this way evolution in terms of "man from fish" and "fish from amoeba" is false. Evolution in terms of adaptation however is a proven fact as it only states a change in dna, a lateral or backwards shift, as opposed to the spontaneous creation of additional information.
2. The "missing link" as they call it. It is not one creature that is needed, but an observable and testable set of missing links. While every now and then you'll read an article claiming to have found a missing link the truth is that their exists no middle state of evolution, to date. All the strange creatures (for the most part anyway) are the way they are for a reason. Fish that walk on land or fly. Birds that dive and have walk. Mammals that fly by way of sonar in the dark. These are all oddities but all are functional in their environments. Yet their is not in between to be found for them or the regular birds, fish, etc.
3. Mathmatically it is ridiculously improbable. It is actually mathematically more probable that a deity made everything than it is that something can spark on it's own in that way and survive to lead into what we know.
4. The agenda driven nature of it's proponents in the scientific community. Granted all other groups/communities have agendas, but science (by definitions and principle) is not supposed to and yet that is very much what has been revealed over the last several decades. Only that which is desired is exposed to the public and so the public who want another way accept it as a fact when it isn't more than a theory to date.
5. The principle of evolution is that of another creation style, it was born for that very purpose, but to do that it needs a start, a creation of some sort and evolution does not answer that. It only supposes that we are reduced to animals when we clearly are not. Since nothing can't evolve into something, their must be something to allow for evolution to occur, but even the "Big-bang" is a weak attempt to do so when scrutinized. Most debaters don't even bother with it anymore in conversations. So it can't even account for it's own existence and I find that to be a large flaw in it's construction.
Reason #6 would be faith in God's Word over anything man can generate. Simply put a belief in the Bibles account of creation and lack of support for evolutionism.
No comments:
Post a Comment