Friday, January 26, 2007

Trapped in a Mental Prison: Evolutionists Again Unable to See What the Evidence is Screaming At Them

In the middle ages and beyond, men thought the Sun and all planets revolved around the Earth. This view of the universe was picked up from the Greeks and seemed to make sense. After all, it was clear to them that the Earth stood still, so it was the Sun and the planets that had to be moving. For fourteen centuries this view of the world fit all known observations, though near the end things got messier and messier. More and more little pointless little circles of movement had to be worked into the model to make it fit with increasingly accurate observations.

Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church adopted that Greek model, even though it was one of their own monks, Copernicus, who hit apon the truth. When Galileo invented the telescope he turned their view of the universe upside down, and the church persecuted him for it. Not for saying something against what the Bible said, but against the ideas of the Greek philosophers which the church had adopted.

Today the shoe is on the other foot. The "church" is the high faith of Natrualism, which says that the natural universe as we now know it is all that exists. No element that we would now consider "supernatural" can be contemplated, regardless of the evidence. It is a view that has hijacked science, and is now suffocating it. It does so because it refuses to allow scientists to ask the right questions in order to find explanations for observed phenomenea.

The subject is macro-evolution. And like the learned men of the day who could not free themselves from the idea of an earth-centered universe, modern naturalists posing as scientists cannot free themselves from the confines of evolutionary thinking. The latest example (I can't keep up with them all) is from this study which looked for common ancestral larval genes in two diverse groups.

(continued- click FRIDAY below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down.)


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Dartmouth Professor Kevin Peterson and associates checked to see if Urchins and a mollusk called an albalone, shared genes critical to their larval stages. In each case, the larvae look nothing like the adults.

They found that in sea urchins there are two genes crucial in directing the development of an organ found only in larvae, whereas the equivalent genes in abalone have no such role. They said this showed that "The larval stage must have evolved independently in the two groups after their divergence".

Well, no. That leaves off more likely options that they are not willing to consider, lest like Galileo they incur the wrath of the powers that be. It makes NO sense that each phylum independently evolved a larval stage after their alledged "divergence" from one another. We have fossils of larvae from very early times, close to the Cambrian explosion. Here multicellular organisms show up with such abundance, diversity, and suddeness that it already makes evolutionists do contortions in efforts to explain it away.

So it leaves a very narrow window, geologically and evolutionarily speaking, between the times these organisms show up in the fossil record and the time that we find larvae. If they "evolved a larval stage", however you do that, then they must have "evolved" it mighty quick. If that much change happens quickly enough, it is indistinguishable from a miracle.

The scenario that both groups developed larval stages later independently has another serious problem in that it also requires each group's members with the original configuration of no larval stage to have gone completely extinct or to have each subgroup to have eventually and independently evolved a larval stage.

The possiblity that dare not speak its name is that the creatures never did share a common ancestor. Both group's original members were created by an intelligent Designer with a similar but differently-constructed larval stage. That idea is only hard to believe if you rule out in advance the possiblity of a creator. If your mind is open, then this is the kind of result you would expect to find with a "designer hypothesis".

Eyes, flight, and larval stages are pretty huge changes. Since they can't demonstrate changes of such scale evolving now even though they expect us to believe that each of such changes occurred repoeatedly in the past, it takes no less faith to believe that it did than to believe a Creator God designed such novelties. Which you choose to believe says more about who you are than the nature of the evidence.

3:08 PM, January 26, 2007  
Anonymous secret admirer said...

good job mark

6:47 PM, January 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think you are wrong.

3:11 AM, February 07, 2007  
Anonymous Miklogik said...

There are many other possibilities ... 1) the research was flawed, 2) everything is created in the mind at the moment of observation - we are the creators, 3) a not so intelligent creator - why use two designs when one will do/is more efficient, 4) we will argue whether or not there is a creator until we have successfully destroyed each other/the end of time , without definitive proof either way, because our minds are limited.

11:33 AM, July 12, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home