Sunday, January 10, 2010

Evolution? Really? That’s the best you could come up with?

Last night I was watching one of those shows - I think it’s called Scientific Frontiers - with Alan Alda. All through the show, they were saying stuff about the age of certain things, or how long ago such and such version of man was alive. 600,000 years ago, 1.8 or 1.9 million years ago, etc. All kinds of numbers were being thrown around.

At one point, some so-called scientist said that there’s no evidence that one form of man and the next form (such as Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, but I really didn’t catch which exact versions they mentioned) - had gotten together and reproduced.

Wow! So, I’m supposed to believe that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, while simultaneously believing that two different, fully formed versions of man existed at the same time. Furthermore, I’m supposed to buy into the idea that while two types of man existed - at the same time, and at the same place - that they never intermingled. And they must have been at the same time and place, or the question of whether they ever got together procreationally would never even have come up.

At another point in the program - and I think “program” is an entirely appropriate word, given what this crew is trying to accomplish - Alan Alda brought up the question of why the human spark is absent from the rest of creation - er, I mean evolution. That’s what this particular show was about, by the way, the uniqueness of humans.

The question was worded something along the lines of, “In all the millions of years of evolution, why is it that only humans have this spark?” I’m not kidding - that was the gist of the question. I guess it never occurred to anybody that they just mounted evidence against their own theory. If organisms evolve for the sake of improvement to the species - in other words, if the strong and smart and more suvivability-related metamorphoses carry on, and those which aren’t for that purpose die off - then why are humans the only ones to have this so-called spark? The very nature of the question runs completely counter to the entire theory. {By the way, the answer to the question is because it’s not evolution. It was a divine spark given to us by God!}

Then, of course, we have my own personal favorite question. If we evolved from apes, why do apes still exist? Some people poo-poo this question, saying perhaps that humans and apes both evolved from the same root ancestor. Whatever. I would refer such nonsense back to the last paragraph regarding the whole purpose of evolution in the first place, and with that in mind, try reconciling the fact that there are numerous different kinds of apes but only one kind of human. If man truly evolved - and if it takes millions of years to evolve (with different levels of evolution presumably co-existing), then why are we the only ones here? Doesn’t make sense.


  1. I sort of agree with you but.... there could be another reason for mans developement and the reason we are here. How about the posibility that we came from a species that evolved from another planet?

  2. Well, that would require two separate and distinct occurrences of evolution - and on two different planets with different atmospheres, gravities, etc.

    If you sort of agree with me, hoe can you say in the same thought that we came from a species that evolved from another planet? Either you believe in evolution, or you don't.

    People who believe in evolution and ridicule people of faith fail to account for the fact that it takes more faith to believe in millions of years of chance and random changes, than it does to believe in an intelligent creator. To believe in that happening TWICE goes beyond anyone's wildest fantasy.

    Do you want to talk about statistics - that's what all these scientist types like, right? It's already SO statistically unlikely for evolution to occur in the first place (in the manner that they claim it occurred), that it would not be beyond reason to call it statistically impossible! Twice? NO WAY!!

    Besides - that doesn't answer the question of where this other, extra-terrestrial race came from. Are we to just continually chase the evolutionary chain from one planet to the next? That, in itself would be impossible, since you've offered no suggestion regarding which planet you're referring to.

  3. Hahahahahahaha. I figured I was going to argument the case of science over fiction (or religion, if you prefer), but I also figure you're an extremist Godsucker who doesn't really listen to anything anyway.

    One thing though.. You question the holes in science, but how would explain ice cores, fossils etc. dating back millions of years? Where did the "intelligent creator" then come from?
    The statistical unlikely hood of random events? Actually random events are a statistical guarantee. That we turned out the way we are now, is coincidence. There are infinite possibilities of how the world could be today, but it had to go one way. If it had gone another, you'd probably ask your bad questions anyway.

    I know I said no arguments, but well, I lied. I skipped the longer, more convincing arguments, because if you actually did research the subject, you can find everything online. Also, as mentioned, you'd probably not even listen anyway.

    I recommend watching Zeitgeist, while not facts, it's interesting viewing on the subject.
    I'll leave you with this:
    It works in the same manner that you did regarding science, so perhaps you may learn something.

  4. I came upon this website and figured I'd navigate back here to allow other readers to read it as well.

    Sincerely, Anonymous Mar 31, 2012 10:29 AM.

    P.S. I will not be coming back anymore.

  5. I went back and forth whether or not to even respond to your incite-ful - as opposed to insightful - message. I’m not sure what the cause is for your obvious bitterness, but clearly, your only purpose for writing was to elicit a response and hopefully goad me into an emotional brawl. That’s not going to happen.

    Ultimately, I have two reasons for responding. One is because I’m certainly not going to roll over and leave my readers think that I had no response, and secondly, because, although you say you won’t be back, you most certainly will. You’ve already admitted to being a liar, and we all know that the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.

    To clear up a misunderstanding that seem to have, I don’t question the holes in science (so called). I question the very validity of science as it is currently practiced, and merely use the holes in their own theories as examples of why they’re so illogical. And you might want to investigate for yourself, if you think you could possibly be objective, the growing number of scientists who refute the validity of carbon dating, just for one example.

    On your next point you were actually a little right and a little wrong. Yes, random events ARE a statistical guarantee. Absolutely correct. And when that happens we have chaos, not order. The “coincidence” that it turned out the way it did is so astronomically unlikely that nobody could possibly take it seriously.

    I’m glad that you skipped the “longer, more convincing arguments” gleaned, by your own implication, from the internet, because anyone who is intellectually honest understands that the internet is, by far, the least reliable source of information. Yes, I use it, too. But I use it as a tool which I understand has its limits. You might want to try reading some books.

    And on that subject, I feel supremely confident that I have, in fact, read much more science than you have of the Bible. Here’s some friendly advice: if you wish to pretend to debate with someone, it might help if you take a little time to understand their argument. Otherwise you help to prove it for them.