Friday, February 6, 2015

Why evolution is as ridiculous as it sounds

    There is no topic throughout all of science itself that stirs more little emotions and feelings as well as political agenda's than the topic of evolution. Slip-short lunch box answers to the very questions that matter most. The same questions one would ask if they woke up in a ditch: who am I? where did I come from? what happens next? I believe we all have a right to look at the data ourselves and make our own decisions without having the so-called experts, or scientists telling you we all came from apes with startling research now showing we may in fact have come from monkeys who inbred with aliens. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results. I believe the same can be attributed to a faulty belief system. The more you research, the more you will find that the universe is far more complex than our feeble minds could ever entirely wrap our brains around. Starting with mathematical improbability-- odds of over 1^10 to the 50th power are considered "impossible" by statisticians. The odds of a single bacteria forming from pre-existing ooze, have been estimated to be at least 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power. It reminds me of that Jim Carrie Movie; where Jim's dumber character asks a beautiful lady what she thinks the odds are of the two of them getting together. She replies not a little sarcastically "about a million to one" (hugging himself) "So you're telling me there's a chance?!" 

   Science is finding that there is a language, a language similar to human languages, which is embedded in every living thing, and it gives very intricate instructions to the cell concerning, reproduction, cell growth, formation, the exact timing of these processes and everything else concerning the cell. Now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, it's a bullet evolution can no longer dodge. Bill Gates even commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." It is proof that someone with infinitely higher technical ability than ourselves, is responsible for implanting a DNA message into the cell of everything alive. When Darwin began proving his idea that the world could be explained by naturalistic means, the view of the cell was that it was as simple as a Hostess Ho Ho; chocolate icing on the outside, chocolate cake on the inside and a creamy filling. A thing that might arise by accident --either the single cell or the HO HO. 

    In 2006 archaeologists were floored, completely mesmerized by the discovery of the first hybrid human-ape bones in archaeological history. They found it, they've done it. This is the missing link. They termed her "Lucy". Now of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of bones that should exist we've got one dead monkey in the middle of Africa? Okay fine, lets look at one dead monkey---the knee bone came from a mile away, and I'm not making that up just because I think its ridiculous, this is how we're dating things this is how we're putting together our reconstructions, I got a no hands, no feet dead monkey that came from a mile away, and in the middle of Africa and this is science and I got this in a golden box like the light of the glory of God should come out, because this is our evidence, that for millions of years of transitions? you've got to be absolutely out of your mind. The prototype within the genomes does not change, it can make a big dog, it can make a fluffy dog, it can make a chihuahua, it can make a great dane, but what it cannot make is a turtle. Macro evolution is unobservable that is why you are seeing scientists manipulating data and spreading it out into millions of years, the catalyst is time, and lots of it. Also, space, in it's immense vastness certainly the probability for intelligent life exists? When we are talking billions and billions of light years and stars combined with solar systems, true, but that doesn't mathematically account for biological life, and a single cell under the right conditions even defying the odds, is just a single cell. We have multi-universe theorists out there who think elvis is still alive in another universe, I mean, look it up, I'm not just saying this, maybe he is right now? belting "I'm just a hunk of burning love!" and we're missing it because we're in the wrong universe. Now, back to the cell, If macro evolution is objectively unobservable then we need lots of space and time and  to create a version of cultural justification to suit your own subjective version for your identity. Micro evolution is the only objective observation that lends to analysis for genetic mutation within the genome. Now anytime you have "copies upon copies" of anything--as in a photo-copier machine--you will have distortion, defects will begin to magnify and the product will never be the same quality as the original prototype as we are seeing in the DNA molecules of the genetic world today

     Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate last February on  the validity of Creationalism vs. Evolution. I wanted to share some of the erroneous points Nye made. Now without further adieu, I plunge on into the reasons Mr. Nye gave for the validity of evolutionary processes: Nye's points for an old earth are as follows: He claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for, alluding to the Old Tjikko tree in Swedan which he claims to have been 9,550 years old. He mentions dendrochronology: (a method of counting the tree rings to determine a trees age) yet, you will also find many secular textbooks alluding to the 'joshua tree' as the world’s oldest tree which lives 10,000 feet above sea level in the Inyo National Forest, Calif. at 4,700 years old. Once again Nye should have done more research, because the age of this "Tjikko Tree" was not calculated by counting tree rings as he said but through the very unreliable methods of carbon dating of the root system. Even if Nye was correct dendrochronoly is a very crude and not exact science where there can allow for more than 1 growth ring per year, further planting his stance as an unstable one. 

    Furthermore, another point Nye made was an ice core that was procured after drilling into the Antarctic continent. Based on the strata of thawed ice it was dated to 680,000 years. For one, unless you were a penquin/polar bear you would have no idea how many times in a year the ice thawed and refroze, but for precision purposes I can describe how this occurred, I won't go into O16 and O18 isotopes as I don't want to bore you with the specifics, but basically the supposed annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the core are subannual layers, In Nye's scenario, ice sheet layers would remain relatively the same over several million years. But, based on a Flood–Ice Age model, assuming significant post flood climate instability, rapid accumulation of snow and ice incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity, annual ice layers would be on the order of meters toward the bottom allowing for hundreds of layers.. So they manage to ‘squeak out’ 680,000 years of ‘annual’ cycles by using several narrow parameters. However, the cycles can be produced by subannual oscillations. Thus, the creationist young-Earth model, including a rapid ice age, is just as viable if not more so.

     In addition to this Nye pointed to thick limestone strata, formed through compaction of dead marine organisms in the grand canyon that radiometric dating techniques have measured to be 1.5 billion years old as further proof of evolutionary processes. Yet as Ham put it the fossil records show “billions of dead buried by water all over the Earth" If you aren't convinced based on that vague blanket sweep of a statement, because of radiometric dating, please note, they measured sandstone strata in this same canyon to be 1.5 billion years old and the layer above to be 500 million years old, okay, there is 1 billion years of sedimentation separating 2 rock layers right on top of ea other? This isn't even a fault line where new sand could be thrust up. Alright, just an attempt to wrap my mind around the amazing inaccuracy of radiometric dating. Furthermore Dinosaur bones are found alongside all kinds of human bones in the fossil record, as well as, thousands of trees (pyrostrtat fossils) standing erect through claimed millions of years of strata all over the place, under the ground, on the planet Earth….(erm) Evolutionists try to explain it with, “We don’t know yet, but we KNOW it WASN’T the result of a catastrophic global flood!” (In other words, we know we sound stupid, so we’ll just stop making up stuff, but were not going to yield and admit that there could have been a great flood. If these strata represent billions of years, how did all the trees around the globe survive long enough (without rotting) to mysteriously stand up while claimed millions of years of strata built up around them? Mr Nye also gave a shoot-from-the-hip explanation for something Ken Ham brought up. After Ham described a basalt flow enclosed some woody material, the basalt had an age of something like 45 million years, while the incased organic material gave a carbon-14 age of approx 40,000 years. Nye suggested that this could be explained by thrust faulting, where one layer slid horizontally over another, one would not invoke thrust faulting without good field evidence. There are better explanations for such situations. I shoot from the hip sometimes, and often it does not go well.

    Lastly, seashells have been discovered in the upper regions of Mt Everest. Human thigh bones measuring 5 ft in length are being unearthed in Asia, evolutionist are turning a blind eye to these discoveries as the presence of 'giant' bones is in-congruent with evolutionary systems of thought. Unexplained technological findings are now being found buried deep below ground, indicating mankind had once achieved a level of technology beyond what we have achieved today. Think about this, if mankind lived for hundreds of years back then, they were smarter than we are having been but a few generations from perfection (Adam and Eve), when you have copies upon copies upon copies of something, in this case human reproduction and the DNA strand, the copies are going to appear less perfect than the original archetype. For example, a photo copy is going to appear less clear than the original, which is what we are seeing with the human species. They would've been developing a technology not dependent on fossil fuel (which was not formed until after the flood) and the reason fossil fuel is so prevalent in the world today is due to large amounts of biological matter being squished under intense pressure--in this case a global flood. you can break it down chemically and find out oil is the product of highly pressurized organic matter. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). If we hold to science and archaeology to form our opinions on the age of the earth shouldn't we hold to the majority of the evidence which all points to flood like strata and proof of a young earth as paramount? No, of course not that would be too logical. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced. One refuge is time--vasts amount of it. This appeal to time is supposed to solve all the logical problems new discoveries present. They have no concept of impossible--no matter how high the odds, they believe that they can be overcome it. As Bill Nye said "With human ingenuity and engineering nothing is impossible"

     Another example I want to bring forth is when Nye mentioned the earth is a not a closed system which means it is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states in a closed system "entropy increases" basically which means things tend from order to disorder. yet he says the earth is an "open system" okay... where is the evidence for this? In my view its both but according to thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. Sunlight is energy not matter, in this regard the earth would be a closed system, the whole universe would be actually because observably we are sensing that yes things deteriorate over time, contrary to evolution where we're becoming more sophisticated and "self aware" I laugh because its funny, you have to be pretty ignorant and narrow minded to refute that we are losing genetic material as well as species by the thousands every few years, this is so in-your-face-simple: But... for the fun of it , lets pretend it wasn't. I'll humor you. Everything deteriorates over time.. Every single area of science confirms this basic observable fact and the only "group" that "ignores" that is, coincidentally, those pushing evolution. After making it clear that life cannot form by chance, Nye adds yet another "power support" to the long list of futile Darwinism ideas (which btw have all been proven false) by saying that "everything is the work of natural selection. Okay Natural selection means the survival of those individuals best suited to the natural conditions around them. In a herd of gazelle menaced by lions, the fastest running gazelle will survive. But the survival of the fastest gazelle does not mean that they will subsequently turn into a different species, "cheetahs" for instance. Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs. There is no logical explanation for the creation in matter rooted anywhere other than a big explosion, and where in our history has chaotic explosion initiated order? Help me understand, well we split an atom once, look at hiroshima and nagasaki..I applaud you all, so much order came from that:). A Boeing 747 getting made by a hurricane is an extremely poor example but its analogous to evolution....and a single cell makes a clunky airplane look like sheer foolishness..... And, going a step further, a DNA strand makes the software NASA uses to get a rocket to Mars look like primitive cave scribbles.....And this is with everything deteriorating, even language itself is getting weaker.... just like the genetics in our bodies are declining..... the genetics which are coordinating every cell, every system, and every organ in your entire body (all accidentally of course), time just does that kind of thing. "Well all you really need is rocks, water & time and you get people....Correct? And, they also come out male & female with parts they need to make babies (that's a neat trick). Consider me not convinced 

Sincerely,  -Kyle

No comments:

Post a Comment