Thoughts of the day: Evolution. True and false?

For the last couple of months I have been revisiting my study of Evolution vs. Creation. It is very interesting how both sides look at the same evidence but come to completely different conclusions. Both sides have made errors. Both have made good points. Both sides have made assumptions. Both also have very convincing arguments to support their sides. Convincing in the sense that many have been convinced. Millions believe in Evolution and billions believe in Creation.

As a Christian, I am trying to find answers to the important question of where we came from for two reasons. The first is to make sure what I believe is right. The second is so that I can defend what I believe. I am not someone who is overly troubled with doubts concerning Christianity because even if Evolution was an irrefutable fact, it wouldn't automatically make the Bible false. Although I personally believe the two are separate, they are not mutually exclusive. This is of course, a completely different argument. My goal is not to find, "If evolution is true, could God still exist?" My end goal is to simply discover, "Is Origins Evolution even possible?"

Now, you might notice that this time I called it "Origins Evolution". That extra word is very important. The reason being there are different types of evolution. Evolutionists tend to put them all under the same label. However, there are major differences in classifications, types, and forms of evolution. Origins evolution refers to where we came from and how it is possible that we share ancestors with monkeys and how every living thing evolved from a single-cell organism? 

Did you know that there are only several small genetic
differences between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane? 

I have found myself coming back to the topic of Origins Evolution a lot. Evolutionists like to have us believe that all Evolution can be accepted as truth. But this is not the case. Most changes in the Hypothesis of Evolution are the cause of changes to DNA. And there really is only two different forms of genetic evolution. These two forms of evolution are called Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is "any change that occurs below the species level". An example would be the differences in dogs. Dogs are all of the same species and 80% of their differences can be attributed to just 6 or 7 possible variances in the genome. Meaning that there is only up to 7 relatively minor genetic differences between each dog breed that determine most of their physical differences. The genetic differences amongst dog breeds is considered Micro-evolution because in the end. no matter how many of these changes occur, it will still be a dog. Creationist acknowledge the existence of Micro-evolution because it is possible to observe it in nature and in labs. It also occurs on a regular basis. Micro-evolution most commonly occurs because of environmental changes. A very good example of this is the beak size difference in the Galapagos Finches that Darwin based his hypothesis on. Finches with bigger beaks survive better during droughts. So, during drought years Finches will produce young with larger beaks. The ability to increase beak size is already built into the Finches genetic information. Since Darwin's original observation of the Finches, we have also observed this change happen. Genetic changes do occur amongst an entire species, but when they do they are never random. All the information necessary for that change is already built into the DNA. No mutations or increases in genetic information is occurring. The main point is that the finches are still finches. The dog is still a dog. No matter how many small changes occur, the species is not changing. 

Illustration of beak size differences in the
Galapagos Island Finches.

Now onto Macro-evolution! This form of evolution is any change that happens "at or above the species level". Meaning, when one species makes a big change and turns into a completely different species (or kind). For instance, when a fish evolves legs or lizard sprouts usable wings. Evolutionists commonly refer to Micro and Macro as the same thing. The only difference they see is that one occurs over a short amount of time (Micro) while the other occurs over a very long time (Macro). They often forget to read the definition of the words themselves. As I stated previously, Micro is any change below a change in species and Macro is any change at or above a change in species. So, obviously they are different in that on is small changes that occur regularly and the other is huge changes that occur very rarely.

The problem I have with Origins Evolution has come down to the definition of these two words and the requirements necessary to see these changes. Micro-evolution does not require any new genetic information. All the changes are either the result of available information in the genome or the loss of information. Nothing is ever gained. In order for Macro-evolution to occur nature would need to provide new genetic information. However, If the information doesn't exist, it cannot be created out of random chance events. No mechanism is nature exists to randomly create genetic information. 

Proof evolution is a fact! 

For those of you who are not "scientifically inclined" the best way to explain this is to say that, "Animals do not develop new physical traits that didn't previously exist in their DNA." (Eg. legs, hair, wings, gills, scales, feathers, ect.) It doesn't matter how much time you give it, a lizard will never develop wings, fish will never develop legs, and humans will never gain x-men like abilities (This is the only reason I wish evolution was true). The fact of the matter is, if the information isn't built into the DNA there is no natural way to introduce that information. It never has and never will be possible. If it were possible, evolution would be close to impossible to refute. This is why so many scientists are working year-round to find an example of any kind of animal turning into another. This is why they spend countless hours looking for changes in a species that prove nature can add information to a genome. Of course there common excuse that is "takes too much time to observe in nature." And that fossils and other natural evidence are enough to show that it has happened. Problem is, fossils don't do anything in the way of supporting evolution. In fact, they do quite the contrary. But that discussion is all for a later day. However, even if fossils did "support" Evolution, if genetics don't than its not a fact and shouldn't be portrayed as such. In a court of law when 5 things seem to prove a person guilty, but one piece of evidence proves them innocent, they are innocent. You can't ignore one piece of the evidence just because most of the evidence points on direction. That's called denial. You can tell when someone is in denial when they get overly defensive. Which is exactly what evolutionists do when confronted with the facts. 

Remember to subscribe and please feel free to share the link to my blog.
And last but not least, please press the little "+1" button right below this post!
Thanks for reading and God bless!

Thought of the day: Genderless baby?

Is it a boy or girl? This question is being asked by many people across the globe right now. Why? Because the Canadian parents of a 4 month old baby have yet to disclose the gender of their latest addition to the family, decisively named "Storm". At face value it seems very odd that they wouldn't want the majority of their close friends and family to know baby Storm's gender, but it gets very weird and borderline insane when one takes a close look at why they made the decision to keep Storm's genitalia a secret. 

There reasoning is, they want to let their child "decide its own gender." Yes... thats right. They want their child to decide for itself which gender it will be. Including, how it will dress itself, how its hair is done, and of course -- its sexuality. The picture to the left is of the baby and its brother. That is not a typo... that is a boy hugging the "it". Disturbing? Yeah, just slightly. Its sad to see a society where people actually believe that gender is subjective. We see people going against nature in more way than one in society. People make such selfish decisions in the name of being progressive and modern. I want you to take a close look at that picture. That is "its" older BROTHER. I can hardly stand looking at that picture. It upsets me to know that there are parents out there who train their kids this way. It makes me want to have even more kids so that mine outweigh in number all these poor kids who will be raised with a lack of guidance and understanding. Obviously, parents have the right to raise their children as they choose. However, this is borderline neglect. Instead of raising their children to be a good, positive influence on society these parents have decided to turn parenthood into a social experiment. A selfish decision that will negatively effect their children for years to come. Its not how these kids will react to this "experiment" that is the problem. Its how other will respond to these kids. These kids will be confused by and ridiculed by their peers. The world can be a mean cruel place and these parents have willfully subjected their kids to be outcasts in society. Yet these parents see themselves as wonderful people for removing social norms.

I don't know where else to come with this one... 

I can only pray God help these children!

Thoughts or comments?

Remember to subscribe so you don't miss any of my rants!

God bless!