First a link to the article about the 10 Common Myths About
\nEvolution:<\/p>\n
http:\/\/thelogicofscience.com\/2015\/08\/31\/10-common-myths-about-evolution\/<\/a><\/p>\n I approach this article from a different slant, I am an \u00a0<\/b>In the beginning God I look at God as a conscious energy that like energy always While I agree that Myth 2:\u00a0<\/b>We evolved from monkeys\/apes<\/i>– This I agree with also, the idea without Myth 3:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution conflicts with the second My point on myth 4 is often it Myth 5:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution isn\u2019t science because it Myth 6:\u00a0<\/b>Individuals evolve<\/i> \u2013 This is true to a point, but is a silly Myth 8:\u00a0<\/b>Some systems are too complex to Myth 10:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution is faith based<\/i> \u2013 Again their comments are true, without an outside The problem I have with First a link to the article about the 10 Common Myths About Evolution: http:\/\/thelogicofscience.com\/2015\/08\/31\/10-common-myths-about-evolution\/ I approach this article from a different slant, I am an engineer with a bunch of science training, but not a \u201cscientist\u201d which in this circle almost immediately negates my comments. Second, I am a theist and believe Genesis 1:1 when … Continue reading “Comments On Science Article”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nengineer with a bunch of science training, but not a \u201cscientist\u201d which in this
\ncircle almost immediately negates my comments. Second, I am a theist and
\nbelieve Genesis 1:1<\/a><\/b> when it says God spoke the universe into existence:<\/p>\n\n
\ncreated the heaven and the earth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nwas and will be. So with that lets look at each one and their arguments. Myth
\n1:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution is just a theory<\/i> \u2013 While the lay person will argue this, science\u2019s definition of theory
\nis more that they are facts until proven wrong. A theory can be proven wrong
\nand has over time, a simple Google search will reveal a few theories that have
\nbeen rejected. When the lay person hears the word \u201cfact\u201d they assume scientific
\nlaw and their definition of \u201ctheory\u201d is actually a scientific hypothesis. So
\nthis is very true we are talking different languages. <\/p>\n
\nevolution is the most logical scientific theory that explains the origin of
\nlife, I have problems with it that can be explored on this blog so I will not
\nreiterate the whys here, but I will say that although the article says macro
\nand micro evolution are the same, one can be considered almost a scientific law
\nwhile the other is still more in a hypothesis state. Again you need to read my other
\nblog post on this subject since they are long to explain my why\u2019s right now.<\/p>\n
\nGod is the only explanation on how we got here. Also, we cannot dismiss God as
\nan agent but must realize that God being supernatural is not testable by
\nscience which is a study of the natural. Am I saying definitively man can from
\ndust and was spoke into existence over evolving from a common ancestor of apes?
\nNo, but saying it is possible and science seems to be proving the oldest human
\nbones seem to originate from the middle east near where there could have been a
\ngarden.<\/p>\n
\nlaw of thermodynamics<\/i> \u2013 I have no argument
\nwith this, they make the point well. Myth 4<\/b>:\u00a0<\/b>We haven\u2019t
\nfound any \u201cmissing links\u201d <\/i>\u2013
\nThis is also true, when assuming God is not in the equation. At the same time
\nmost \u201ctransitional\u201d species are really the same species which has adapted to
\ntheir environment. The only specific trans-species mutation mentioned are Archaeopteryx<\/i>,\u00a0Confuciusornis<\/i>, and Jeholornis<\/i> and while it\u2019s a
\ngreat argument we can also point to say Draco Volans which has vestigial wings
\nand cold have been the evolutionary path versus birds. <\/p>\n
\ntakes a vivid imagination to create the creatures that appear to be
\ntransitional or missing links. <\/p>\n
\nhasn\u2019t been observed\/repeated <\/i>\u2013 This
\nis truly a myth since in observable history we have seen species adapt and
\nevolve to the environment. They have adapted in may instance to create new
\nspecies. Again these major transitions have not been observed in nature and you
\nwill need to review my older blogs for details, but one needs only look to
\nfossil record to see transitional species outside genus has not been seen other
\nthan assumed aves evolution.<\/p>\n
\nmyth since it\u2019s rarely used to debate evolution in the circles I have observed.
\nMyth 7:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution has a direction or goal<\/i> \u2013 While I agree
\nwith this to a point I have been sucked into the \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d world not
\nfrom the internet but actually dealing with people who have been programmed
\nthrough project Bluebird using MK Ultra techniques. So when it\u2019s known Darwin
\nhas Masonic roots, I question the bias of his theories which also assume myth 6
\nis true.<\/p>\n
\nevolve<\/i> \u2013 Darwin even said in On
\nthe Origin of Species that the eye provides a difficult dilemma for the theory.
\nNo one can really explain how it evolved. Also, one can look at many species,
\nlike the woodpecker, to see evolution would destroy the final product unless it
\njust happened. Again, this is long but can be explored in my blogs about this
\nsubject. \u00a0Myth 9:\u00a0<\/b>Evolution
\ndescribes the formation of the universe\/the first cell<\/i> \u2013 This is true also,
\nat the same time evolutionists ignore this since it points directly to God.
\nNature shows spontaneous generation as improbable since nothing observed has
\nbeen spontaneous, it all has required an agent \u201cspeaking\u201d it into existence.
\nEvolution is a design feature to help this world continue. God knew this was
\nnot a stable system he made and species needed to adapt. Also, I am not
\ndismissing that God said start and it was from a single cell the he spoke this.
\nIn the end the argument is not how we came to be, but is God real. <\/p>\n
\nagent of God this is the ONLY logical and proven explanation of how we got
\nhere. Again micro vs macro is the key and the big picture may change in the
\nlong run. Just read Walter Veith\u2019s stuff since he IS a PHD biologist who is a
\ncreationist to understand the possibility of God is there for all to see.<\/p>\n
\nthis debate is the rhetoric where someone who may logically disagree gets
\ngrouped in with those who are unscientific Bible thumpers. That is a classic
\npropaganda technique call transfer where my arguments are dismissed as
\nbackwoods and hick-ish. The transfer is to a stereotype of a loon and not a
\nperson with true scientific questions, remember as an engineer I must make what
\nscience \u201ctheorizes\u201d work in the real world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"