Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Do Recent Fossil Finds Support Evolution?

If the conclusion is that Evolution is being further supported with each new find, then it would appear that there is not much evidence to support this position, even more specifically that there is NO primary evidence to support the theory (that is, all intermediate fossils, progressing from less to more complex, which give rise to interspecies variation, are completely absent from the fossil record; additionally, there is no Precambrian evidence that properly addresses the apparent Cambrian Explosion from an evolutionary standpoint; in fact, the Cambrian Explosion is better explained by Theistic Evolution, of which I disagree, than Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium, of which I also disagree). If the conclusion is that Creation is being further supported with each new find, then it would appear the evidence of polystrate fossils, no Precambrian simple to complex fossils, and preserved dinosaur soft tissue is much more indicative of a global flood approximately 4,000 years ago.

It would appear that much speculation is occurring to support Evolution. The fossil record is of significant importance to the evolutionist. One interesting point addressed by the RATE team is that the geologic column, from which the evidence of the fossil record comes, does not actually exist. Similar strata can be found in different places of the world, but the geologic column, as presented in textbooks, is not found anywhere on planet Earth. This seems to be further complicated by polystrate fossils and the supposed stasis found by both hermit crabs and other sea life (such as sharks, etc.). These evidences are much more supportive of a worldwide flood than a series of random events leading from a single-celled organism to the complexity of life we see about us today.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Biblical Worldview: Ancient Superstition or Viable Scientific Mindset?

The idea that evidence does not interpret itself seems to be the most appropriate when approaching the question of origins. To review evidence that supports either the presupposition of “millions of years” in accordance with evolutionary biology or the presupposition of “In the beginning God” in accordance with Biblical theology, we should always be able to free the evidence from any presuppositional biases of the interpreter. While most evolutionary biologists and other scientists influenced by these pretend that they have no presuppositional bias, the complete avoidance of the question of God and manipulation of data findings to support their own preconceived conclusions makes it painfully obvious that this is just not the case. When considering the age of the earth, finding evidence that supports an age approximate to 6,000 years in accordance with the Biblical account is not unusual at all. In fact, it would appear that dating the age of the earth beyond this time frame is done only as an attempt to reconcile the worldview of secular humanism with the propaganda of evolutionary biology. The leap of faith that must be undertaken in order to create links between missing information, exaggerated hypotheses, and an aversion to the authority of a divine Creator is critical for the promotion of a secularized evolutionary agenda that attempts to remove the responsibility of individual sin.

Looking to some of the response to the previous question, it seems more surprising that many more scientists do not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, rather than questioning why any do at all. While the systematized silencing of any voice of opposition to the theory of evolution seems more dogmatic these days than the forced conversion found in Islamic countries, the promotion of “professional suicide” for scientists opposed to evolutionary biology and the ridicule of individuals such as Richard Dawkins of those supporting Intelligent Design/Creation Science should not ever hinder the minds of those who are more interested in the truth than the brainwashing of secular humanism. With both the circular reasoning (evolutionary biologists who support “millions of years” because other scientific fields document “millions of years” because evolutionary biology teaches “millions of years”) and immature response of supposed brilliant minds (Richard Dawkins can be seen answering the question of “What if you’re wrong?” with the question, “What if YOU’RE wrong?” on websites such as YouTube), it is no small feat of ignorance to simply disregard a literal Genesis based solely upon an individual’s presupposition that “there is no God”. I am amazed at the “creationists are stupid” rhetoric thrown out by evolutionists incapable of hearing any criticism to their methods or demonstrating a capability to see beyond the tips of their own noses.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Movie Review: March of the Penguins

Although March of the Penguins is a documentary of sorts distributed by National Geographic Feature Films, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the feature itself had no major evolutionary overtones. Even the introduction mentions the penguins’ mating pattern as an event occurring for thousands of years (which is possible in consideration of a creationist worldview and post-flood animal activity). While the narrator, Morgan Freeman, does reference the continent (Antarctica) as having floated further away from the others toward the South Pole over time, and this likely to support the idea of Pangaea (the theory that the continents originally all were connected and floated apart over time [which is absurd, because if you removed the waters from the Earth you would find the continents are still connected and any continental shifting or rearrangement can be accounted for by the Flood]), he does not dwell on this point, but rather quickly moves on. While this is the case for the feature film, one of the special features called Of Penguins and Men has a massive amount of propaganda supporting both evolution and global warming. As most will likely not watch this, I can at least be satisfied with the feature itself (March of the Penguins).Looking over the different elements of a penguin chick’s survival beyond their first year, and propagation of the species in general, there are several factors to consider:

An adult Emperor Penguin’s ability to survive the long trek from the sea to the mating grounds

The capability of the adult to find a suitable mate

The transferability of the fertilized egg from the mother to the father

The mother’s ability to survive the long trek from the mating grounds to the sea to feed

The mother’s ability to survive predators during feeding to make it back to the mating grounds

The father’s ability to survive the sub-zero temperatures, frozen winds, and dark winter

The father’s ability to starve and wait for the mother’s return to the mating grounds

The transferability of the chick from the father to the mother in the frozen climate

The father’s ability to repeat the sequence the mother has regarding food, survival, and return

The chick’s ability to avoid predators

The father and mother’s ability to take turns feeding the chick while he grows

The chick’s ability to feed and avoid predators for the first 4-5 years in the sea prior to mating

The chick’s ability to repeat the mating process over the next 15-20 years until death

Considering the preceding list, it is easy to identify the factors that are associated with "luck." Predators, accidents occurring during transfer of the egg/chick, and the timing of both parents in making the long trek back and forth between the sea for feeding and the mating grounds all play a part in whether or not the chick will survive.

If we are to consider how natural selection plays a part in the successful survival of the egg/chick and continued propagation of the species, the point is that nature is doing the selecting for the fittest to survive. This means that issues which are really factors related to luck (“wrong place at the wrong time”) are under normal conditions considered elements of natural selection. This would include predators, aging, surviving the weather conditions, finding a mate (with nearly every male coupling due to an outnumbering by females this does not seem to be a major concern), etc. It seems that the survival of the egg/chick relates to behavior and "luck" more than it could to genetics. The choices of when to travel, how much practice to have to prepare for egg/chick transfer, how much the parents eat in order to battle loss of body mass and starvation (females lose 1/3 of their body weight by the time the egg is laid while males lose ½ of their body weight prior to the mother’s return from feeding after the winter), how the parents and chick avoid predators, etc., all have a much more apparent effect on the survivability of a new penguin than anything else. While these factors can be attributed to either instinct or learned behavior by modeling other penguins, it does not seem that they are directly influenced by genetics. The overarching theme of survival for the Emperor Penguin seems to be God's hand in the breeding habits and "luck" of factors in individual penguins lives.