Evolution - All it Takes is Faith
My bent is to take the bible literally. When I see people in the Bible read the scripture they always take it literally. When Paul gives instructions to I believe it is the Corinthians on how to interpret a section of the old testament he tells them they are to take it figuratively. This leads me to believe that a figurative interpretation is the exception not the rule.
When I read genesis I tend to take it literally rather than figuratively or possibly literally first then figuratively second. I would consider myself a young earth creationist. I regularly check the latest scientific periodicals an am constantly amazed at how much faith it takes to believe in an old earth or in evolution as Charles Darwin outlined it. I ran across a couple of articles that illustrate a couple of problems I keep having with evolution.
"Fossil frogs yield soft tissues" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5214798.stm
Here we have a frog fossil, supposably 10 million years old. In which scientist claim to have found soft tissue including viable DNA. Later in the article they reference a fossil t-Rex that also had soft tissue and possibly DNA after 65 million years. Practically I can't keep a piece of chicken in the fridge for two weeks or in the freezer for six months let alone millions of years. How do they expect tissue to be viable after that length of time. Traditional evolutionists will tell you fossils take a great deal of time to form. A dead frog on the banks of a hot steamy swamp. Time you don't have, that baby is going to be maggot fest in minutes. The chances of this croaker becoming a fossil are slim enough let alone with soft tissue(also called edible) intact.
The fossil also gave them a great insight on the physiology of these ancient amphibians. They found these primitive amphibians produce blood in their bone marrow not in their spleans like modern amphibians. Hold it, don't humans and higher order animals produce blood in there bone marrow? So were these ancient amphibians more complex or more evolved than the modern counterparts. Or maybe modern amphibians are more evolved than modern humans. Sounds like evolution in reverse to me.
My bent is to take the bible literally. When I see people in the Bible read the scripture they always take it literally. When Paul gives instructions to I believe it is the Corinthians on how to interpret a section of the old testament he tells them they are to take it figuratively. This leads me to believe that a figurative interpretation is the exception not the rule.
When I read genesis I tend to take it literally rather than figuratively or possibly literally first then figuratively second. I would consider myself a young earth creationist. I regularly check the latest scientific periodicals an am constantly amazed at how much faith it takes to believe in an old earth or in evolution as Charles Darwin outlined it. I ran across a couple of articles that illustrate a couple of problems I keep having with evolution.
"Fossil frogs yield soft tissues" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5214798.stm
Here we have a frog fossil, supposably 10 million years old. In which scientist claim to have found soft tissue including viable DNA. Later in the article they reference a fossil t-Rex that also had soft tissue and possibly DNA after 65 million years. Practically I can't keep a piece of chicken in the fridge for two weeks or in the freezer for six months let alone millions of years. How do they expect tissue to be viable after that length of time. Traditional evolutionists will tell you fossils take a great deal of time to form. A dead frog on the banks of a hot steamy swamp. Time you don't have, that baby is going to be maggot fest in minutes. The chances of this croaker becoming a fossil are slim enough let alone with soft tissue(also called edible) intact.
The fossil also gave them a great insight on the physiology of these ancient amphibians. They found these primitive amphibians produce blood in their bone marrow not in their spleans like modern amphibians. Hold it, don't humans and higher order animals produce blood in there bone marrow? So were these ancient amphibians more complex or more evolved than the modern counterparts. Or maybe modern amphibians are more evolved than modern humans. Sounds like evolution in reverse to me.
posted by Asphalt Prophet | 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home