Observational Science: After Their Kind
by Does ANYTHING in observational science contradict animals reproducing "after their kind"? No, proponents of evolutionary theory are good storytellers though.
Do I, as a Christian, believe organisms adapt?
Yes, this is observable in nature and can actually be well accounted for in a Creation worldview in that God (with His intelligent foresight) programmed organisms with great flexibility to survive.
That does not however show evidence that molecules to man evolution is possible, nor has molecules to man evolution ever been observed.
What about speciation?
Regardless of speciation, kinds are kinds. There are several variety of dog, from pitbulls to doberman pinchers, but that just shows variety, and still fits well within a Creation worldview. It offers no evidence that molecules to man evolution is possible either.
While atheists often set up a strawman saying “creationists don’t believe in change” I don’t know of any creationist that denies change, we just acknowledge that those changes are limited, something many atheists aren’t willing to admit.
What about Fossils?
Fossils are dead organisms, and while it is often possible to tell what a fossil is/was if it is complete, there is no way to definitively prove if a particular specimen of a dead organism gave rise to any descendants, unless they were pregnant @ death (in such a case though obviously, the descendant is just as dead and thus can’t propagate.)
If I took human bones to a scientist, the bones in themselves would not be able to tell you about the descendants of the person. Furthermore there is nothing within observational science that gives us reason to believe an organism would give rise to something other than its kind.
Don’t computer simulations help prove evolution?
No, computers are intelligently programmed to spit out the wanted result, after all the programmer has foresight. According to proponents of evolutionary theory, evolution is supposed to be unguided,purely naturalistic, (meaning:no foresight)
What about similarity within organisms?
There are similarities within a lot of things,doesn’t mean they’re related. Many paintings from the great artistic Master Leonardo Da Vinci bear similarities, that doesn’t mean one evolved from the other. They had a common designer.
Human engineers don’t need to create entirely new mechanisms if the ones they’re using are working just fine. Likewise,God used features He knew worked well for what He had in mind, the fact that some are similar to others just tells me He saw no imperative to go “back to the drawing board” and draw up entirely new blueprints.
He created each kind/min of animal to reproduce “after its kind” and it has throughout the whole span of observable history. Proponents of evolutionary theory are good @ creating fascinating speculation,drawings, & stories, but I’ll stick to observable science.
Thanks.
As a P.S. The ONLY way evidence is valuable in the first place is because we are created in God’s image (who is Eternally intelligent.) Naturalism cannot account for human intelligence. In fact, if we came from a purely naturalistic process, an unintelligent primordial soup, we’d have no reason to trust that our minds were capable of perceiving reality accurately @ all.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
Post CommentStephen J. Ardent
On December 27, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Indeed.
But expect to be deluged by the evolutionists decrying your understanding of evolution and stating that the theory of evolution does not speak to the origin of life. (Although how talk about one-celled organisms becoming animals and plants relates to the origin of life for them, I’m not quite sure. Most likely grasping at straws for their failing position.)
An excellent proof against evolutionary theory is something called the silver fox experiment that was conducted over the course of 40-50 years. They took silver foxes, and provided a selection feature, only one, that of their aggressiveness to humans. They chose and bred only those who showed the least aggressiveness to humans. After only 40 years, the result were that these “foxes” had changed shape, and become dogs. Their ears flopped, their tails went up, their body shape shifted, they started barking like dogs, and acting like dogs.
No evolution, just a new dynamic in the expression of already existing genes.
People forget that all the labels that have been put on things, like “species”, “phylum”, etc. Have been put there by humans.
There is nothing observable in nature that would suggest anything other than that like produces like.
J.N.R Dutton
On December 27, 2010 at 9:13 pm
I have heard many tired evolutionary proponents arguments, I have investigated both sides actually, and found naturalism lacking, to say the least. I find all too often, the evolutionary proponents recourse is to insult the intelligence of dissenters.
The reason so many people buy into evolutionary bunk is because “the textbook told them so” or some website w/an anti-creation bias told them so.
I think, and ask that any readers do as well before leaving comments…..I say to them use the brain God blessed you with.
awesome11
On December 28, 2010 at 3:28 am
Nice write dear ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Hi
On December 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
Stephen, I suspect that the evolutionists try their hardest to separate abiogenesis from evolution out of embarrassment (though there may be other reasons.) It is quite fascinating that some still cling to a theory that was debunked scientifically in 1668.
All of observable science tells us life produces life, and like produces like.
Evolutionists often say “evolution has to do with the development,not the origin” but the two (abiogenesis & evolution) are inextricably linked unless a person concedes that creation is the means of origin.
Admitting that abiogenesis is impossible leaves only creation, if they concede creation is true,they must then admit there is indeed a Creator.