Friday, April 25, 2008
Human Race Nearly Went Extinct--News Story
Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Society has discovered that the human race nearly went extinct sometime in the past. The few people remaining were able to repopulate the earth. See story at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
But--we already knew that. The account is in Genesis ch. 6-9. Oh, and it was a flood, not a drought--sorry Mr. Wells.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hello,
I thought it was interesting to find out - in a court of law - DNA matching which reduces the probability of a match to 600 billion to 1 is enough odds to send a man (or woman) to jail for life. Odds such as these exist in even larger magnitudes pertaining to the probability of evolution - yet - is it scientific to accept these odds as irrefutable proof of evolution - when odds of a less degree have sufficient legal merit to send someone to jail for life, or even the death penalty?
In a court of law, a DNA match is considered as verfitable fact if the odds of any other match cannot be found: i.e. the odds being 600 billion to 1.
If in the court of law we can send a man or woman to jail for life, or even the death penalty over such convincing odds; why do the odds of evolution even occuring - which even exceed 600 billion to 1 - be counted as irrefutable scientific proof? This seems illogical and unscientific to say the least. Why are so many people persisting in their denial of the obvious reality of the evidence?
The odds again evolution happening are overwhelming. Many years ago, Fletcher Coppedge wrote a book dealing with the mathematical probablities of matters related to evolution. His conclusion was that evolution could not reasonably be expected to have happened given even the most "optimistic" time frame.
Evolution is, logically, a "non-starter" any way you look at it.
Why do you think they defend so rigorously as "scientific" ? Where are the great minds in Science to give a formal denounciation to it?
Some people speculate that the scientific community clings to evolution because they don't want to admit to being morally responsible to God. They use evolution as a way to hide from God. This may be the case, at least subcounsciously, but I don't think it is the whole story.
Evolution provides scientists a way to explain the universe in entirely empirical terms. It is "scientific" even though it is not logical. Scientific thinking has trained them to reject any explanation that requires the supernatural. This is something left over from the Enlightenment Era.
Someone once called evolution the "Creation Myth of the Twentieth Century." Will it last through the Twenty First? The Intelligent Design Movement and other scientific efforts raise the hope that the answer may be "no."
I think they defend it as "scientific" because it is the only explanation they have that does not include the supernatural, or space aliens of something like that. They WANT it to be true, because it is purely naturalistic. There bein no other serious naturalistic alternative, they cling to the only life raft they have in a stormy sea of implausibility.
Hi Fred,
I totally agree with your comments on evolution. They are holding onto their ideology with a zeal only rivaled by some of the most out of touch cults.
Incidentally, I have started my own blogspot blog. Just click on my profile name "Yeshuan" you should find a link to the blog. Please feel free to comment!
Have you heard about or seen this movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Goes right along with this post. There's a website--www.expelledthemovie.com
Carl!
Laverne and I have seen it. It is a good documentary, although it wanders off topic a couple of times. It makes the point that some people have been excluded from the academic world solely because of their agreement with Intelligent Design.
I think the movie will help discredit some of the worst abuses that happen in the "hallowed Halls of academe" much like Bernard Goldberg's book a few years ago helped establish that the new media really is a liberal as the conservatives had been saying. Let us hope so anyway.
Post a Comment