Friday, February 18, 2011

i don't believe in atheists, Pt 2

annoying reason #2:

let us just assume that evolution occurs exactly as the Darwinians like to believe... so what?... that disproves nothing... all that shows is there are facts which were not included in the teachings of religion... that's like complaining that the Dr. Seuss books never discussed quantum mechanics... all they ever did was discuss the merits of verdant ova and fillet of sus domestica... the example i like to use is, if you have a child ask you, "Why is the sky blue?" do you tell the kid about light wavelength, Rayleigh scattering, and the relative particle size of our nitrogen atmosphere?... at the end of such a dissertation, you will have brought your child, if not to tears, to a state of confusion... so, to point at a Bible (or other religious text) and claim it is false because it does not encompass all of creation, that is an ad hominem argument and should be dismissed by any reasoning person... (not that many atheists are reasoning, but to their credit, they are often more reasoning than many theists.)

i'm not saying that ancient religious texts are equivalent to children's books... but consider the context... travel back 6,000 years and attempt to explain mitochondrial DNA... explain why some people are immune to "diseases" while others die by the thousands... find a dinosaur fossil and try to explain it to Noah... i think a lot will get lost in translation.

as for evolution, having micro and macro evolution take place does by no means negate the existence of a creator... as i see it, it actually tells how incredibly powerful God truly is... follow the "evolutionist" logic back to its origin...
men evolved from primates who evolved from mammals who evolved from reptiles who evolved from fish who evolved from vertebrates who evolved from invertebrates who evolved from algae who evolved from multi-cellular organisms who evolved from single-cell organisms who evolved from protein chains who evolved from amino sludge...
and evolutionists are okay with this... but let's look at their origins... non-living compounds gathered in such a way as to produce the effect of reproduction... reproduction is one of the fundamental qualities something has to have to represent "life"... otherwise, it falls into two categories: random happenstance or immortality... if random, when it ceases functioning (e.g. dies) only another random occurance will produce similar results... if immortal; well, the evolutionists will dismiss this immediately, as do i.

anyway, a non-living compound begins to reproduce... it "evolves" for no reason whatsoever, as it has no reason to... it is a jumble of compounds, but by evolutionists, it is life... through random selection, this super-amino produces enough other super-aminos that resources for reproduction begin to thin... randomly, better amino chains form which reproduce better and more efficiently than other amino chains... there is no reason for this, according to evolutionists... it just is... take it on faith, if you will.

eventually, these super-aminos have evolved to a point that they begin to make decisions... decisions like, where to travel, how to travel, what to "eat", and who to reproduce with... (sounds like the first single's bar)... now, evolutionist have no trouble with this, either... but some will begin to disagree on details... details like free-will... you see, either you have free will or you don't... and at some point, random amino jelly, with no free-will, magically becomes live organisms with free-will... there is no evolutionary step which grants free-will... to an evolutionist, it just happens... again; on faith.

the point is this:  evolution does not disprove anything... it only raises more questions.

No comments:

Post a Comment