James Harmer

    *Note*I uploaded new pics to my Flickr, and there are new Webpolls that need voting.  If you notice annoying Adds on the way to the site, it’s because so many people have been coming to the site lately, that I have used up all of my Monthly Bandwidth.  I didn’t think that was possible 4 days into December, but it happened.  So if you click on comment, you may see a ten second ad, but it will go away.  It’s to pay for the extra bandwidth.  By the way… you should get a Flickr, it not only makes you look better, it makes you smell better too!!!*Note*

---

ENTRY/RANT BEGINS HERE:
    I know what some of you are thinking… “James… aren’t you a Young Earth Creationist?”  It doesn’t matter… it doesn’t change the fact that many creationists are retards and don’t know anything about science!!  Evolution is the most logical(Scientific) World View for Atheism to embrace, so cut them some slack.  Think about it, it’s all that they have really…  do you think that everything just exists?  It didn’t come from anything?  We just….  are?  With Evolution you have an explanation for the origin of Life on Earth(And the Origin of the Universe if you embrace the Big Bang Theory.)  The only thing that you have no explanation of is the origin of Time, Space and Matter.  The way I look at it…  you either believe in Eternal Matter or an Eternal Creator of some sort who is outside of Time and Space.  In this entry I will(as fast and simply as I can) refute many stupid Creationist arguments(that turn off any person who knows anything about science) and put forth a much more logical proposal of why Creation is not illogical(Although Creationists quite often are.)

    First thing first, Darwin never recanted his theories or “repented on his deathbed”.  That has long been known to be a rumor started by his wife who was worried about his reputation and she later admited that it was not true.  His daughters were letting everyone know that he lied about it, and she finally admited that it was true.  Besides, when he came up with his theory there was not real scientific evidence for it.  So for him to recant his views would not be significant at all.  We are dealing with the evidence today, not what someone decided to do then, because it really doesn’t matter.  Second, “Java man was renounced as a ‘mising link’ by Dubois(the man who found it) and said to be a Giant Gibbon”.  Yeah, he did say that, but then he changed his mind, and modern science has shown that it was not a giant Gibbon due to Cranial size.

    Third, “If we evolved from Apes, why wouldn’t they exist today?”.  Well, if you know anything about the Theory of Evolution, you would know that it doesn’t say we came from Apes, it says we share a common ancestor with them and that common ancestor is dead.  They believe that we split paths at that time and were isolated to develope separate charictaristics in separate environments.  Fourth, “Women have one more rib than men”.  It’s simply not true, ask any Anatomist.  Fifth, “Archaeopteryx was a fraud” simply is not true.  It is a genuine bird, but that does not mean it was a missing link.  Sixth, “There are no beneficial mutations.”  Although the chances are less than one in a million(literally), beneficial mutations have occured occasionally(it makes sense because of the several Billion organisms on this earth.  But a benefical mutation does not add anything new, it just rearranges the genetic information that is already there.  And Frame Shift mutations sometimes produce beneficial new trates(but not new information) such as the nylon beetle.  “No new species has been created”.  This is another… simply not true.  Many new species have formed, but it is always just a rearrangement of existing genetic information, or a loss of genetic information(both can bring forth a limited amount of new traits.) 

    How about Darwin saying that the possibility of the eye evolving is absurd?  Well, that was taken out of context and he then went on to explain how he thought it could have happened step by step.  It was not him “Admiting an error”, but simply stating how he felt before he looked into it.  He says “At first glance” before he goes on.  Or how about “We believe in Micro-Evolution, but not Macro-Evolution”?  Well, that one is a strange one because it seems to make sense at first, and I used to believe and try to use that one… but the problem is that it all depends on your definition of “Micro” and “Macro”.  There are very big diferences that have occured and even formed new species, but there are no changes that involve the spontaneous generation of new information(even if they are “Macro” changes), so it is in a flawed argument unless you have a rubber ruler and change your defenition of “Macro” and “Micro” which is not a good idea.

    So what are we left with?  I did a debate once online and got an E-mail that said “GreatBongChicken, you are destroying our best Evidence(emphasis mine) for Creation.  I think you do us more of a diservice than a service”.  I think this is rediculous, if you want to use false information do convince ignorant people that creation is true, than you are the one doing a diservice when these people encounter an intelligent person who has studied this indepthly.  You see I emphasized the word “Evidence” in regards to creation, because there is no such thing as “Evidence” for Creation(and no need for it either.)  There also is no such thing as “Evidence” for Evolution.  We all have the same evidence to deal with, it’s just that we interpret it different views, and sometimes one side claims that there view is the only reasonable way to interpret the evidence.  There also is only one Theory here, and it is Evolution.  Creation is not a Theroy, it is Concept that is the alternative.  No Scientist thought up Creationism, people just used reason to determine the existence of a God.  Scientific finds that make Evolution impossible are the things that Verify the Concept of Creation.  I will now show a simple way to show that Evolution is quite impossible indeed(Unless you have a lot of faith.)

    Think about this, I’m sure most of you have heard the statement about the mathematian who came up with the proposal that for everything in the Universe to come about by chance is 10^40,000 or one followed by 40,000 zeros.  In fact, the chances of it happening are not as likely as a Typhoon blowing through a Junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747(that has been mathematically calculated as well.)  But, contrary to what Creationist will often say, this does not disprove the possibility of Evolution, it simply makes it highly unlikely for it to happen.  Now, this is not a threat to Evolutionists, because if Space is infinite, than it is logical to conclude that everything that could possibly happen must be happening an infinite amount of times.  There is a mind blowing concept…  according to the laws of probability, that is true. 

    But, the thing is, we want to deal with something more solid than probability…  we want to deal with possibility.  Is it possible?  Well, if the Earth is several Billions of years old, than even though it is incredibly inprobable… it is slightly possible, and if it happened, of course we would realize that it was incredibly improbable and probably wonder how it happened.  But, that is the problem… they absolutely need the Billions of years for it to be Possible!!  Now..  do they have it?  That is another question.

    There are many ways that we measure the age of the earth, but the main way we do it is with Fossils, and the age that they are Carbon dated.  Many people say that Carbon dating must not work because of all of the times it has been proven that it didn’t work(Examples like carbon dating a freshly killed seal at seven million years old.  It is true, many times Carbon dates are thrown out or not mentioned in Sceintific displays because they don’t support the view of millions of years, but they often have an explanation for why it didn’t and won’t work on certain organisms.  Frozen Mamoths preserve the Carbon 14 in there bodies and it is released much slower because of the Ice it has been preserved in.  But the fact that sometimes it doesn’t work does not mean that it never works, and just by dating fossils we have no way to know how long ago they actually lived.  But what is it about C 14(Carbon 14) dating that makes people think it’s going to be reliable?  I can’t fully explain it without taking up another fifty paragraphs or so but I will give you the general idea.

    C 14 enters the atmosphere at a certain rate, and leaves at a certain rate.  If you fill a barrel of water with water, but it has holes in it, there is a certain point where it will stop unless you increase the intake, or decrease the outake.  We know the intake and outake of C 14 on our planet.  It is in us too, as long as we are alive, and the amount that is in us is the same amount that is in the atmosphere.  When we die, we start to lose C 14, and the way that it leaves is that every 5730 years the amount of C 14 in the object is decreased by one half.  They call that a half life(every 5730 years, although there are many different estimates, they are all within 50 years of this one), and because it decreases by halfs, it never goes to zero, but just keeps on dividing by two.  Makes sense right?  Well, this all relies on some big assumptions.

    The major assumtion is that the amount of C 14 has always been the same and stays the same.  If it is still increasing than we have a big problem.  Objects would definately date much older than they actually are, and we would not be able to get any solid dates.  Remember what I said about the barrel with the holes in it?  That point where it stabilizes is called Equilibrium.  Well, the Earth has C 14 entering at a certain rate and we know what that is, and it is leaving at a certain rate, we also know what that is.  We also know the current amount that is in the atmosphere.  But has that amount always been the same?  Has the Earth reached Equilibrium?  The individual who came up with this dating method wasWillard Frank Libby, and he found all of these things out, he calculated how long it would take and found that it was roughly 30,000 years.  So if you took a brand new planet Earth and set it in rotation around the sun and left it spinning just like ours, than it would take 30,000 years to reach Equilibrium.  Well, he found this and thought himself, Since the Earth is Billions of years old, we must be at Equilibrium already.  The problem?  He had not found absolute proof that the Earth was indeed Billions of years old, so He was not able to make such a claim.  The entire thing is based on an assumption.  An assumption that has recently been found to be wrong indeed.

    That measurement was made in 1949, right before 1950.  We have gotten all of our C 14 Dates since then from those estimates and never  questioned the possibility of him being wrong, until recently…  a group of Scientists in 2000 did another measurement of the C 14 levels in the atmosphere and found that they had indeed increased, quite a bit also.  Then in 2003 they did it again and found that it even increased since 2000 by a small percentage.  I’m still waiting for the next C 14 estimate to happen, but it hasn’t.  If the level of C 14 is still increasing, than the Earth can’t be 30,000 years old, and it also can’t be 4.6 Billion years old, and Evolution is indeed inpossible to happen within those years.  The Geologic Column does not exist anywhere in the world, it was constructed entirely based on the C 14 dates that Fossils have shown.  And we have Petrified Trees standing upright going through several layers of strata in the Grand Canyon…  going through several layers of strata that are supposed to be Millions of years old.  So there is no Evidence that can logically be interpreted to support the Billions of Years model.  So if you want to believe it, that’s your Religion and go get a private school and teach it to your own kids instead of making us pay for it to be in all public schools thankyou.

    Back to the origional point….  do you believe in Eternal Matter?  Or an Eternal God?  Cause they are the only logical ideas.

-James’