http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/themes/desk-mess-tripled
 

Creation: Micro-Evolution=Changes Within Kind

Posted by Gregg on Oct 25, 2009 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |

GreggA guest post today from my brilliant husband, Gregg.

A quick review of the 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, pointing out the 5 types of Darwinian evolution, and speaking to the significance behind putting them all under one blanket. The types of “evolution” most often loudly preached today are:

  1. Cosmic evolution
  2. Stellar evolution
  3. Chemical evolution
  4. Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
  5. Macro-evolution

And then the type of evolution that actually takes place:

  • Micro-evolution

Summary of what each theory claims:

cosmicEvolution

Cosmic evolution

Cosmic evolution is the theory of the origin of the cosmos. The current theory, the so-called Big Bang theory, posits that a large quantity of nothing (yes, nothing at all) decided to pack tightly together (that is nothing packing tightly, not something) and then the nothingness got really hot, and then somehow exploded, and then somehow– and this is key — nothing become hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through “frictionless space,” which is somehow undertsood to be distinct and separate from “nothing,” and it is also “frictionless,” so the outflowing gas can neither stop nor slow down, yet it did — somehow — to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, moons, and organized systems. Really. That is the scientific theory. I’m not kidding.
stellarEvolution

Stellar evolution

Steller evolution is the theory of the origin of stars. All of the theories of how stars are born are pretty crackpot, but I’ll detail them later. The fact is that, with one notable exception, we have only ever witnessed stars dying. Furthermore, we can see the scant few death shrouds of novas and supernovas in our galaxy . There seems to be a nova or supernova about every 30 years. If the universe were billions of years old, our galaxy should be chock full of them, but I digress.

The fact is that, in all of recorded history, we have only witnessed the birth of one star. Just one. About 2000 years ago, a single star formed over a town called Bethlehem.

Chemical evolution

Chemical evolutionChemical evolution is the theory of the origin of heavy elements. It is based upon the notion that stars can fuse elements heavier than helium, which cannot and does not, and never will happen. It has been theorized that fusion beyond the nuclear 4 gap can occur in the super dense heat of a supernova. It has also been theorized that if a star exploded twice it could fuse past the nuclear 8 gap. Of course, stars never explode more than once but it looks good on paper.

AbiogenesisAbiogenesis—Life from non-life

Abiogenesis is the theory of the origin of life from non-life, also formerly called spontaneous generation.  This is the opposite of biogenesis, the observed scientific fact that all living things were brought forth from a living parent or parents.  This is the notion that rocks and chemicals can become living organisms, just add time, chance, and possibly water, as if rocks and raw chemicals were merely plant seeds and seamonkey eggs.

Abiogenesis is a retread of the centuries old ignorance that stated “If I leave my flour out, it spontaneously generates mice and if I leave my stew out, it generates flies!” Louis Pastuer proved all of this wrong before anyone reading this was even born.
Macro-evolution

Macro-evolution

Macro evolution is the explanation of how slime dreams of a better life, and wishes really hard, and transforms into a fish. Or a fish decides it doesn’t like the water environment for which it was perfectly designed and takes a stroll on the beach despite the fact that it would suffocate.  Once it magically transforms from a fish to a salamander, it gives birth to baby lizards. Or lizards lay bird eggs, or a banana tree grows some pears, or an ape transforms into a human being. Or a host of other utterly bogus things along these lines which simply won’t, don’t, can’t, have never, and will never happen.  Blind zealous faith in the myth of macro-evolution is foundational doctrine for Darwinists.

There is such a thing as a “genetic barrier” that cannot be bridged. One species simply cannot transmute or transmogrophy or transform or “suddenly mutate” or even “gradually change over millions and billions of years” into an entirely different species.  One kind cannot bring forth offspring of another kind.  In addition to just being plain common sense, Gregor Mendel empirically proved it in the early 1800’s and the fact remains today.

Micro-evolutionMicro-evolution, the type of “evolution” that is actually science.

In plain English, micro-evolution is what happens when, say for example, dogs interbreed and make a different breed of … dog. Or when corn pollinates and makes slightly different corn in the next generation of … corn.   Or when human beings have human babies or apes have baby apes. In other words, it isn’t even evolution. It is simply modification, variation, or change within kind.

This type of “evolution” was co-opted by Darwinists and labeled “evolution” because it actually occurs while the other 5 types of Darwinian evolution, to speak plainly, do not.

By referring to all of them under the single umbrella term of “evolution,” Darwinists can fallaciously claim that ALL types of “evolution” are factual, that “EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT!”  I can certainly agree that gradual changes, variations, and modifications within a single, specific kind occurs over time down through generations. However, no one with any common sense can say that this process proves or evidences any of the other grand claims made by Darwinism.

tomatoesDarwinists are great at coopting meanings. Note that the first three types of Darwinian evolution most commonly found in today’s biology textbooks have absolutely nothing to do with biology. What do you think the intent is there and what do you think it means? Notice, also, the emphasis, in biology, on “species” instead of on kinds. This is an important distinction.

Biblical Definition of KIND

There are many different species of tomatoes. There are cherry and roma and heirloom and beefsteak to name just a few. Every species is all some KIND of tomato. There are many different species of pears. There are bartlett and d’anjou and comice and bosc and the list goes on. They are all some KIND of pear.

Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its KIND, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its KIND, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its KIND. And God saw that it was good.

Likewise, in the animal kingdom, there are several different species of birds. There are giant ostrich and tiny hummingbird. There are delicious goose and less tasty crow. There are hundreds or thousands of subspecies of birds. They are all different KINDS of bird. There are several different species of fish and every species of fish is some KIND of fish.

Genesis 1:21-22 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their KIND, and every winged bird according to its KIND. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

And there are lots of different species of cow. Lets call them the cow kind. There are several species within the insect kind, the spider kind, the grub kind, and the worm kind.

Genesis 1:24-25 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its KIND: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its KIND”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its KIND, cattle according to its KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its KIND. And God saw that it was good.

Being of a kind simply means that members of that kind can bring forth. “Let [all created things] bring forth…according to [their] KIND.” Darwinists mock the use of the word “kind” because, unlike nearly everything within their idiotic theory, the word kind is accurate. Accurate terms and facts tend to threaten to destroy the foundation of fallacies upon which Darwinists base their religion of secular humanism worshiped through the dogma of methodological naturalism.

Kinds vs Species

greatdanepoodleAll dog kinds, for example, can bring forth, uh, more dogs. Now, I grant you that a poodle and a great dane might have some mechanical issues to overcome should they attempt to bring forth, but they are genetically compatible members of dog kind. Likewise a shetland pony and a clydesdale would face some geometric challenges, but they are still two species within the kind of animal we call horse and they can bring forth.

In terms of kinds, there is a very real genetic barrier that prevents species of different kinds from bringing forth with species of different kinds. My point being, this barrier is far more than a simple mechanical problem. There is a very real genetic barrier that prevents species within a certain kind from magically producing some completely different kind.

For example, Darwinists are sure to trumpet how “many genetic similarities” exist between the DNA of humans and apes.  This is actually incorrect in terms of codons.  By way of analogy, the collected works of Edgar Allan Poe and the latest New York City telephone book share 100% of alphabet letters, punctuation, and arabic numbers in common.  They do not, however, share even one complete sentence in common.  They are not the same kind.  Likewise, genetically, human beings and apes genetically are not the same kind.  Nor has it ever been shown that humans and apes can or could ever bring forth.

Darwinists have a real burden of proof. They have to convince people that all life sprang forth from a rock.  Then that first “simple” single celled organism somehow decided that having two independent sexes provided a clear evolutionary advantage over asexual reproduction, and “evolved” into every living thing that now lives or has ever lived. In order to get there, you have to believe that the very real genetic barriers that separate and make distinct every living thing within each KIND does not exist.

Bad news for Darwinists. Those very real genetic barriers exist.

So how to Darwinists convince you? By shifting the burden of proof. They proclaim, “Because Darwinism is true, one kind simply must have been able to produce a different kind at some point in the past. Prove me wrong.” This can keep people busy for years and removes the burden of proof from them to provide evidence that their fairy tale resembles reality.

RNATo be conned into believing Darwinian theory, one must be very, VERY gullible. One must accept that dirt and rocks and water can assemble into a living organism, complete with perfectly aligned protiens made of thousands upon thousands of amino-acids arranged in perfect order, chromosomes and ribosomes ready to service them, messenger DNA, RNA, and DNA packed with enough information (all of it absolutely accurate) to fill the New York City Library thousands of times over, perfectly tuned fully assembled interdependent life saving processes , sensory functions, and instinctive instruction sets. One must accept that this can take place in less than a scant few million years and all by unguided and completely random processes. One must accept that this single celled organism then crossed every known genetic barrier to become the “common ancestor” of every living thing and every thing that ever lived on the earth. One must accept all of this without question and blindly ignore any doubts that things like unpleasent facts and the laws of nature might introduce.

So-called “micro-evolution,” or what is more accurately called changes within kind, unquestionably has taken place since the Cambrian Explosion, continues to take place today, and will undoubtedly take place in the future. But there is not one shred of evidence that any other type of “Darwinian evolution,” has ever taken place, takes place today, or could possibly take place in the future. That includes macro-evolution where one kind of living thing can bring forth a completely different kind of living thing.

When people used to tell stories about how frogs turned into a prince, our common sense told us we were hearing a fairy tale. Today, people with letters like BA and MS and PH and D after their names believe these same kind of fairy tales. The difference is that a magic wand has been replaced by the magic of time and chance. And based on that magic, some of those otherwise very intelligent people even worship at the alter of those same fairy tales.

The Truth:

The truth is that simply saying “millions of years ago, Darwinian evolution must have occured” does not make it factual. You may as well say, “A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” You are not presenting evidence. You are setting the foundation for a fanciful lark.

dinosaurboneThe truth is that generational changes within a single kind have never been shown to produce any different kinds. The truth is that finding a dinosaur bone in the dirt tells you exactly one thing — that it died. It doesn’t tell you where it died, only where the corpse ended up. It doesn’t tell you when it died, only that it happened sometime in the past. It certainly doesn’t tell you if that animal, when living, ever even had any children at all — much less whether any children it had when living were magically a completely different kind of living thing.

When shamans used to interpret mystical meanings by reading bones, it was accurately called cleromancy or sortilege. It still happens in the field of paleontology today. One can choose to believe (e.g.: have faith), based on a bone found in the dirt, that the bone reveals all kinds of things outside of the few facts it presents. But that “revealed knowledge” is born of an interpretation of scant facts and based largely on a favored worldview. That kind of interpretation amounts to mystical religious divination that is nearly as accurate as reading palms or tea leaves. It certainly does not amount to scientific or verifiable fact. In the case of Darwinism, those same religious interpretations that lie so very far outside of facts are just part of the construct of the very large fairy tale.

The truth is pretty clear and actually explained in very simple and easy to understand terms in God’s holy word. Life is not an accident. All life was created by God, He who made the heavens and the earth, the sky and the seas, the universe, and every living thing.

God bless you and yours. Gregg

Resources:

Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It
Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from HalleeTheHomemaker.com.

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.