Ya gotta have faith
I have to say as I was dialoguing with a commenter, that it occurred to me that the creation side of the evolution/creation debate doesn't give Darwinists enough credit for one thing. Faith.
While I am being questioned about how Kangaroos made it to Australia, I am thinking suddenly about this whole idea of faith. Both sides are the same! Eureka, I have a greater understanding! We both darned well believe in what we say. Right?
I knew it all along, just didn't say much about it. But you sure have to have a lot of faith to believe that an organism, a self-replicating creature of even the simplest form, just kind of happened. As Wickersham once said, it is akin to believing a tornado went through a junk yard and assembled a working 747. Fueled, with crew, ready for takeoff. It is an amazing concept, but Darwinists believe it because "we are here."
Go ahead and give me three paragraphs about nested this and punctuated that, the bottom line is that you have absolutely no clue at all about how the first life ever could have happened, you just have faith that it did. Faith. With as much evidence as Darwinists have about the beginning of life, they might just as well believe that storks really do bring babies,
Logically, the idea of a Creator God makes much more sense. You have cause and effect, you have a reasonable explanation, the only thing is you have to allow for the supernatural. No, but that isn't really the problem. I will go to a Darwinist's blog and see stuff about astrology, or looking for space aliens, or Edgar Cayce, etc. So it isn't always an aversion to the supernatural but rather to God Himself. I have to realize that no amount of words, or reasoning, or evidence is going to change someone with that much faith.
Then I turn it towards myself. I am convinced that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of creationists, that the Darwinists are fighting a losing battle in the sciences and that over time the so-called theory will be more and more in dispute until it is finally discarded. You see, I began as a Darwinist myself and was kind of surprised to find that the evidence is not there for evolution.
Darwinists run away from the explanation of the beginning of life. They hate the fact that Darwinism is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and I have shown this to be true. They hate that it is against the Law of Abiogenesis. They hate the fact that the idea of macroevolution is shown to be impossible by the laws of statistics.
Don't get me wrong, there are long-winded explanations concerning those three things that I just asserted but they strike me as being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
So give up the whole Kangaroo thing and the "4,500 years isn't long enough to repopulate the earth and start up the ancient civilizations" stuff. It is kind of on the edges of the discussion anyway.
The population? Like I said, the earth's population is what you would expect to have if one family began it all 5,000 years ago. The math says it, it is logical and makes a lot of sense. It makes no sense that man has even been around one million years, for we would have people standing on each other's heads by now. It cracks me up when Darwinists say something about catastophes keeping the population down, because I just say, yeah, one big one called the Flood did that trick.
Kangaroos? A world-wide flood, people! Ice sheets from the poles all the way up to and for a time deep into the temperate zones. Mud-rock being carved like a cake all over, likely land-bridges between islands readily available before the ice sheets, the glaciers, had done much melting. The violent weather, lots of earthquake activities and other likely effects of such a calamity make for a world that, other than near the equator, would be an incredibly difficult and very dynamic environment for a few years. It is no big deal to imagine a land bridge to Australia, or a shifting the the very probably newly-formed continent.
But Darwinists? Life from non-life? This is the big one. Hauling a kangaroo from the Canaan to Canberra is a piece of cake compared to making a reproducing living thing out of "stuff." I have yet to see anything written that is more than a fairy tale with all sorts of jargon mixed in to make it sound scientific.
Darwinists like to make fun of creationists and yet this is their deal-breaker. I would just love to see a Darwinist submit a paper that truly came up with an explanation for this. No, I am not going to hold my breath. I do not believe you can do it.
Meanwhile, I am going to review where we were on the basics of creationism so we can move on. I have research to do on water salinity so that I can present something that makes sense as I move on to the next area, which is the Flood itself. What was life probably like before it, and what was life probably like shortly after it had receded. That is a worthwhile endeavor and it will be my next project in this field.
But all who both agree and disagree, allow me to mention that I already have entries coming in to the Darwin is Dead Carnival and I do remind everyone that entries will be accepted from both sides of the fence.
While I am being questioned about how Kangaroos made it to Australia, I am thinking suddenly about this whole idea of faith. Both sides are the same! Eureka, I have a greater understanding! We both darned well believe in what we say. Right?
I knew it all along, just didn't say much about it. But you sure have to have a lot of faith to believe that an organism, a self-replicating creature of even the simplest form, just kind of happened. As Wickersham once said, it is akin to believing a tornado went through a junk yard and assembled a working 747. Fueled, with crew, ready for takeoff. It is an amazing concept, but Darwinists believe it because "we are here."
Go ahead and give me three paragraphs about nested this and punctuated that, the bottom line is that you have absolutely no clue at all about how the first life ever could have happened, you just have faith that it did. Faith. With as much evidence as Darwinists have about the beginning of life, they might just as well believe that storks really do bring babies,
Logically, the idea of a Creator God makes much more sense. You have cause and effect, you have a reasonable explanation, the only thing is you have to allow for the supernatural. No, but that isn't really the problem. I will go to a Darwinist's blog and see stuff about astrology, or looking for space aliens, or Edgar Cayce, etc. So it isn't always an aversion to the supernatural but rather to God Himself. I have to realize that no amount of words, or reasoning, or evidence is going to change someone with that much faith.
Then I turn it towards myself. I am convinced that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of creationists, that the Darwinists are fighting a losing battle in the sciences and that over time the so-called theory will be more and more in dispute until it is finally discarded. You see, I began as a Darwinist myself and was kind of surprised to find that the evidence is not there for evolution.
Darwinists run away from the explanation of the beginning of life. They hate the fact that Darwinism is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and I have shown this to be true. They hate that it is against the Law of Abiogenesis. They hate the fact that the idea of macroevolution is shown to be impossible by the laws of statistics.
Don't get me wrong, there are long-winded explanations concerning those three things that I just asserted but they strike me as being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
So give up the whole Kangaroo thing and the "4,500 years isn't long enough to repopulate the earth and start up the ancient civilizations" stuff. It is kind of on the edges of the discussion anyway.
The population? Like I said, the earth's population is what you would expect to have if one family began it all 5,000 years ago. The math says it, it is logical and makes a lot of sense. It makes no sense that man has even been around one million years, for we would have people standing on each other's heads by now. It cracks me up when Darwinists say something about catastophes keeping the population down, because I just say, yeah, one big one called the Flood did that trick.
Kangaroos? A world-wide flood, people! Ice sheets from the poles all the way up to and for a time deep into the temperate zones. Mud-rock being carved like a cake all over, likely land-bridges between islands readily available before the ice sheets, the glaciers, had done much melting. The violent weather, lots of earthquake activities and other likely effects of such a calamity make for a world that, other than near the equator, would be an incredibly difficult and very dynamic environment for a few years. It is no big deal to imagine a land bridge to Australia, or a shifting the the very probably newly-formed continent.
But Darwinists? Life from non-life? This is the big one. Hauling a kangaroo from the Canaan to Canberra is a piece of cake compared to making a reproducing living thing out of "stuff." I have yet to see anything written that is more than a fairy tale with all sorts of jargon mixed in to make it sound scientific.
Darwinists like to make fun of creationists and yet this is their deal-breaker. I would just love to see a Darwinist submit a paper that truly came up with an explanation for this. No, I am not going to hold my breath. I do not believe you can do it.
Meanwhile, I am going to review where we were on the basics of creationism so we can move on. I have research to do on water salinity so that I can present something that makes sense as I move on to the next area, which is the Flood itself. What was life probably like before it, and what was life probably like shortly after it had receded. That is a worthwhile endeavor and it will be my next project in this field.
But all who both agree and disagree, allow me to mention that I already have entries coming in to the Darwin is Dead Carnival and I do remind everyone that entries will be accepted from both sides of the fence.