Just thought I would share my latest three arguments against evolution...
1. The Gallopogos Island Ecosystem...
2. Ring Species...
3. The Scientific Method...
1. This is my new favorite pet argument...
Balanced food supply versus animal life...
A variety of wildlife co-existing...
No observable variation to these conditions, both presently and archeologically (or however that is spelt)...
Kind of opposes the evolutionary theory that there is always change going on (Uniformtarnism) and Natural Selection producing New animals...
2. Speaking of Natural Selection and New Animals... This just in... Ring Species...
I just was informed by an evolutionist that I should read up on ring species and see what I think... So I did, and you know what? I love ring species... God is so smart...
So what is a ring specie? Simply put... You had one animal, which interbreeded with a neighboring variety of that animal, which produces a new variety... This process is repeated over and over... Eventually the animal that is produced will not be able to interbreed with the original variety of that animal...
So what does this have to do with God? The Bible teaches that all living things reproduce after their own kind... This prevents something known as genetic overload, by mixing the genetics of different animals... Ring species show that there is a limit (imposed naturally in nature) to interbreeding)... And even the animal at the beginning is still the same animal at the end, just a different variety (examples? Finches at Gallopogos or the Gull - You can look that one up at Wikipedia)...
3. The Scientific Method... Something must be testable with observational support...
What about it is observable? We can see bacteria evolving into more bacteria... We can see life producing life... We see a tree make a tree and a rabbit produce a rabbit... We can see Natural Selection in action...
What about it is testable? Dating of fossils? --Problem is that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of these findings... Archeological digs? --Have never disproven the Bible, only supported it... Artifical Selection? -- That plant is still a plant, and wow, we made the snake less venomous, it still is a snake...
I wanted to share these now and spread the news before these arguments go the way of poor Pluto... What do I mean? Well in the past year Pluto was starting to be held up as an evidence against the Big Bang Theory... And see what happened? A bunch of "pop"-scientists decided it was not a planet and so the argument is no longer valid...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, dwarf planets are still planets. You are far from alone in this conviction. The decision to demote Pluto was made by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in a process that violated their own bylaws. It was immediately opposed in a petition of an equal number of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto and a leading authority on Pluto in the world. You can find the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/ and an article by Stern explaining his position here: http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/38770/title/Debates_over_definition_of_planet_continue_and_inspire
The “plutoids” decision was even worse, as it was done not at an IAU General Assembly but by a tiny committee without input from any other planetary astronomers.
Both IAU decisions are problematic in that they state that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and because they define objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either.
These IAU definitions are therefore unlikely to stand. The broader definition based on roundness is better because when an object has enough self gravity to pull itself into a round shape, it becomes geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, like the bigger planets, and develops the same geological processes as the bigger planets, processes that shapeless, inert asteroids do not have.
You can find here more about this ongoing debate from audio and video transcripts of the Great Planet Debate, a national conference held in August 2008 on this issue at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD, here: http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/index.php And you can write to the IAU advocating the inclusion of dwarf planets as planets. Contact information can be found at http://www.dwarfplanetsrplanets2.com
Post a Comment