Convergent Evolution: a convenient twist to an old lie December 13, 2012Posted by #4 in Everything but the kitchen sink, It's all one big lie.
Tags: Apostle Paul, beneficial mutations, Charles Darwin, Convergent Evolution, Evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Transitional fossil, transitional species
add a comment
I don’t believe that when Charles Darwin wrote his famous book on evolution, he had any idea that the theory would become an all-powerful deity. The powers of evolution today are absolutely astounding; evolution can do anything regardless of mathematical and scientific impossibility, even at the cellular level. Not only can evolution create life from nothing, but it can create massive physical changes in a species all at once and it can take two or more unrelated species and separated by continents and oceans and develop them so identically that only until recently were scientists able to tell the difference.
You see, when Darwin first wrote his book, he believed evolution to be a slow (really slow)(really really slow) process where beneficial mutations brought on by environmental challenges could change a species into a completely different species over time; like the ability to breathe air instead of using gills, the ability to walk upright instead of down on all fours, the ability to make powerful computers instead of killing things with rocks. If given enough time, he believed, evolution could explain all the variety of life we observe on the earth. But he also knew that if the fossil record did not support this premise, i.e. showing transitional species, his theory would not hold water. This frustrated him because in his day, the fossil record showed no transitional species ( you won’t be told this, but there are still no transitional fossils – they don’t exist; but you didn’t hear that from me).
But the all-powerful evolution was not about to let down it’s high priest. It simply came up with a solution. It would simply change species into something else entirely and do it really fast ( I mean really fast) (I mean really really fast). Of course Darwin can be forgiven for sticking to his slow slow slow process – evolution forgives him. It simply waited for a guy named Stephen Jay Gould to evolve so that he could propose Punctuated Equilibrium as an explanation for all those species that stubbornly refused to evolve even after millions of years and then suddenly evolved into something else. It was a master stroke of convenience. Now all those pesky Creationists could shut their pie-holes over the severely lacking fossil record.
But then another frustrating problem popped up. Scientists started discovering that species they thought were the same but living in completely different locations and environments but looked exactly the same or exhibited the exact same characteristics, were now, oh horror of horrors, not the same at all but different species. This prompted even the famed evolutionary crusader Richard Dawkins to complain, “For just the same reason, it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be traveled twice. And it would seem similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same endpoint from different starting points”.
Have no fear, Mr. Dawkins, the all-powerful evolution has come to the rescue. This can be easily explained and easily named (conveniently so). It is called Convergent Evolution. Just like Punctuated Equilibrium can explain those pesky missing transitional fossils, Convergent Evolution can explain how two different species can look the same or act the same but not be the same (how stupid of us to think they were the same).
What is interesting about the sea snakes article is that while it talks about how the two snakes look the same, DNA shows that they are different species. This is a sneaky way of trying to make you think the snakes are different (really different)(really really different)(just a shame that they still happen to be snakes). It is also interesting to note that the same antivenin will work on bites from either snake (reality check). Why is all this interesting? It’s interesting because of all the verbal gymnastics that scientists and authors go through to convince you that what they are telling you is true.
They do the same in the frog article when they are referencing the frogs ability to eat poisonous ants and use the ant poison for their own froggy defense; which is cool because the frogs don’t produce poison on their own. They marvel that these separated frogs do the same thing. Evolution is truly a master creator of ingenious innovations in critters. The verbal gymnastics reveal themselves in phrases like, “Then the frogs had to develop a resistance to the alkaloids–instead of spitting out the ants or passing the alkaloids through their systems, the frogs became able to keep their ant dinners down. Then they evolved to make use of the alkaloids themselves.” Sounds suspiciously like those darned frogs had this thing figured out all along and knew what to do.
It amazes me when reading all this rubbish the lengths that the proponents of evolution will go to in explaining a failed theory. They continually steal language from the Christian camp; words like: create, designed, invented, and use sentences that read as if evolution is actively engaged in the design of it’s created invention. The organisms themselves are described as being active participants in their own development.
It amazes me that so many still cling to the theory of evolution even after it has been scientifically proven that evolution cannot work at the cellular level(see here), and it cannot overcome the problem of mathematical probability. Simply adding a few more millions or even billions of years to the equation is not scientific or even intelligent. The numbers of probability needed to even explain the Big Bang are so large they can’t be written out.
Yet evolution is all-powerful and able to accomplish amazing feats.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that you do not buy the lie at face value when reading these silly articles. Do some investigation. Find out what the science really says instead of what the author says or what the artist paints. Try to ferret out the nuggets of wisdom that tell you snakes are snakes and will always be snakes and have never been anything but snakes regardless of location and environment and snaky differences and science hasn’t shown they used to be anything else but snakes. Evolutionists have tried valiantly to use dogs to support evolution when any random moron knows we have the variety of dogs around us due to specialized breeding and not evolution. Dogs have always been dogs and nothing else but dogs. Fossil records actually prove this.
Convergent Evolution is just another convenient lie sold to the unsuspecting masses to cover up inconvenient problems to the theory of evolution. There really is no mystery to the variety of life on earth. The mystery is why so many willing choose to ignore the evidence and continue to choose the lie. Seems to me the Apostle Paul had it right all along. . .
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 1: 18-25
- How biological convergence falsifies Darwinian evolution (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
Famed atheist says he isn’t February 26, 2012Posted by #4 in Everything but the kitchen sink, It's all one big lie.
Tags: agnostic, atheist, Blind Watchmaker, Christianity, Dawkins, Existence of God, God, God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins, the much lauded and esteemed champion of evolution has long been thought to be an atheist. An article written for the Christian Post drops the bomb that, by the way, Dawkins isn’t an atheist, he’s an agnostic. Here is the article.
My reaction to this revelation can be summed up in two words: so what
Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist who continually makes headlines – not for the promotion of evolutionary theory – but for his insistence that there is no God. He expounds on this believe in his last two books: The Blind Watchmaker (1986) and The God Delusion (2006).
So what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
From my perspective as a born again Christian, absolutely nothing.
If you want to split hairs, then atheists believe there is no God and agnostics don’t believe it’s possible to know one way or the other. Where the two are similar is that in the end, both will not acknowledge a creator God in spite of overwhelming evidence to support his existence. Dawkins is no exception to the rule when he joins the masses of evolutionists who constantly tell us that, by the way, there certainly appears to be no other way for us and the universe to exist unless there was someone responsible for it because, by the way, it is incredibly complex and ordered, but we refuse to believe in spite of this preponderance of the evidence. Dawkins has made many admissions that the complexity of life certainly appears to show the signature of intelligent design.
Where the real issue is concerning people like Dawkins, is their influence. The world is full of people who either lack the capacity or the desire to find out for themselves, so they happily lap up what ever dish Dawkins happens to be serving. By the way, the same can be said for countless televangelists. People should not allow their faith to be dictated by the influence of others. They need to seek for themselves.
The Apostle Paul tells us in Philippians to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”. The Bible also tells us in Deuteronomy that if we seek God with all our heart and all our soul we will find him. The key here is to seek him. People like Dawkins are not interested in seeking him but in avoiding him completely. The last thing they want is God. The easiest way to avoid him is to say he doesn’t exist. In a way this is rather ironic because that is a childish behavior, something Dawkins has accused Christians of many times.
So why am I picking on Dawkins? Because he promotes himself as a scientist and philosopher and an intellectual of higher order. Yet in spite of his intelligence he routinely makes moronic statements and wavers on what he really believes. In the movie Expelled, he admitted to Ben Stein that he believed that life on earth could have been seeded here by aliens. How stupid is that?
The other reason is his vehemence in denying God. If he really didn’t believe in God, absolutely didn’t believe, he wouldn’t waste his time arguing about it. Why is he fighting against Christianity so much? Even more so than other religions?
Because Richard Dawkins is not only lying to you and me, he is lying to himself. Deep down, being suppressed, he knows the truth. There really is a creator God and it is getting increasingly difficult to deny him. The Bible says in Romans 1: 20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,”
And based on that Dawkins has no business trying to influence anyone about the existence of God.
If you want proof positive about the existence of God, the only way to have it is to seek him. The reason Dawkins and his ilk won’t seek God is because they know they will run smack into him and that is the last thing they want; an extremely sad scenario because in the end they will be standing before him to give an accounting. What a waste.
God loves us so much he has provided innumerable clues that he is there. And he also provided a way for you to be with him.
I don’t know about you, but I would much rather spend eternity with someone who loves me so much he himself made it possible through his death on the cross for me to be with him – than to be separated from that love forever simply because I was stubborn and refused to seek. Einstein was wrong about insanity. What is insane is turning your back on your maker and denying he exists. That is insane and tragically foolish.