Friday, February 11, 2011

Another Hole in Creationism... (a short blog post)

When God created Man, and everything that IS, (according to creation science), He did so PERFECTLY.

But what is interesting to me is this...according to creationism, man brought sin into the world, which is "why" we have diseases such as malaria, cancer, etc...

So when i thought about this for a moment, a question entered my mind..."why do humans have immune systems"?  (if in fact we were originally created perfectly without the fall of "sin" aka "diseases". Did God plan for us to fail? Why create us "perfectly" If he already predetermined us to fail?

Think about that guys :)


Thursday, February 10, 2011

The DNA evidence REFUTING "Noah's Ark"

The DNA evidence refuting Noah’s Ark



In the biblical account of the Worldwide Flood, God goes to a man named Noah and tells him that Man has become too evil and must be destroyed. Apparently God favored Noah, considering Noah's relatively clean lifestyle. God chose him and his family to repopulate the earth. So to be brief God tells him that he must build a boat large enough to fill 2 of every kind of animal on earth so as to repopulate animal life when the flood is over. Unfortunately, if this were true then we would see low genetic variabilities in almost all animals.

Take for example the cheetah, the cheetah at one point in its history went through a bottleneck. This means that a large population of cheetah were some how destoyed and only a few remained. When a species trys to rebuild from a population of a few hundred it faces extinction, why? Because there is low genetic variability to ensure survival. This also explains the extremely high sperm count in the cheetah. It is obvious that the pressures of low genetic variabilities made the need to procreate more often so as to ensure the survival of the species. Now if the earth were 6 thousand years old and the flood happened, lets say 3000 years ago, then that would not be enough time in evolutionary terms to repopulate all animal life and have high genetic variabilites. When we can see that the cheetah went through a bottle neck 10,000 years ago that is not enough time to ensure high genetic variabilities.

Obviously considering that there are only about 2500 cheetahs left on this planet. There are 6 billion humans. Which do you think has a wider variety of variabilites in their genome? Let us also consider that humans went through a bottleneck 70,000 years ago, leaving about 10,000 left to repopulate. That gives humans more time and numbers to have a wider variety of variabilities. That partly expains our large population and that shows why we all have so many different features, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, hazel, ect...Im still not finished. Let us also look at the different skin colors of humans. It takes more than 6000 years to make a black skinned human white. So if this transition of skin colors never occurred, does that mean that God made all the skin colors seperate? Is God racist? From the biblical account it says that Noah and his family were from the middle east, they would be neither black or white, more a mix. But 6,000 years is not going to create a darker race of humans. The human genome clearly shows that humans migrated out of africa.

Researchers compared 650,000 genetic markers in nearly a thousand individuals from 51 populations around the globe. They all tracked back to a small population of people living in the southern part of Africa. Along with fossil evidence, this tells us that humans began their way out of Africa some 100,000 years ago. Therefore, humans must of went from dark skin to light in a period of 100,000 years. This happened because when one goes up north above the equator, the need for darker skin deminishes thus loosing skin pigement and becoming "white". Thats why Northern Europeans have lighter skin than that of Africans. Now remember you only see this evolutionary transition in a population, not an individual so a black person will not turn white if he heads north or south. To conclude, I will leave you with this, nowadays with DNA and fossil evidence we scientists can unravel any mystery of how we are the way we are. Thankyou.

  i wrote this article 2 years ago when i use to use myspace lol :) i wanted to show it to you guys!


Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The Missing Link

Hello Thinkers!        ( Missing-Link) - Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. (sourced from Wikipedia)

I feel like talking about the subject of the so called, "Missing Link". So it's familar yes? Of course, It's a very common term used quite ubiquiously in todays' society. You see it in television shows, advertising, and yes...creationist refutes. 

Well Im here today to explain to you why there really is NO missing link. Its very simple, and here is what you need to know:

The so called "Missing Link" DOES NOT EXIST.  As you can see in the definition i provided you above, A missing link is nothing more than a transitional fossil which is used to illustrate evolutionary transitions. So if we are looking at all of the transitions on record in the Genus: Homo, we will see several intermediate fossils that continuously branch off and split and change until it eventually ends with Man. Creationists argue that we could not have evolved from these prior specimens because we can not provide them "The Missing Link".      wow....really guys? REALLY? we have hundreds of fossils that represent our Genus. Even more than MOST species that have been filed and categorized. What do you mean when you ask us for a "missing link"? what are you talking about?

Ex: If i took a photo of myself every day until i was 90 years old, and gave you all but ONE photo, would you not believe I came from the photo number: 6,935 (19 years old)...EVEN though, there is visual evidence that in all the other photos BEFORE and AFTER that photo?

Point being guys, 1 missing fossil, if it may be missing at all, does NOT disprove our evolutionary origins.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Fatal Straw-Man...

So the common Creationist comes up to you and poses you with this argument:

 "a clock is simply too complex to not have a designer, if there is design, their MUST be a designer"

 Yes...I realize that you might not know what to say at first, it is a bit blunt, to say the least. Well my friend, the best response is to go back to your philosophical roots. You don't even need science to argue it! 

They say "design" implies a "designer". Well why does it have to be design anyhow? Who's to say there is even "design"? what qualifies as "design", and why does that indicate a "designer"?  This argument would in fact work in a human society. But to quantify design OUTSIDE of the human exterior is simply pure ignorance. This is because we KNOW we design. We have NO evidence that ANYTHING in the universe was/is designed or has design for that matter.

So the next time a creationist pulls the clockwork straw-man on you, just ask him...Why? He/she will NOT be able to refute you or hold their ground for that matter.

Good Luck Thinkers!


Monkey Talk 101

Hello Everyone!

Welcome to Monkey Talk 101!

        Here, I will post intellectual lectures about the wonders of Evolution and how it applies to our every day life. I will also post counter arguments to help you refute those pesky pseudo-scientific straw-men falacies claimed by the creationists!

So be sure to Follow for awesome Monkey Talk!