Wednesday, August 16, 2006

More to Come Soon

So today I was reading a blog talking about an apologetic argument using the perception that Christians are persecuted and put down the most as a proof of its truth. Though this is interesting, I find it highly unprofessional. Many other religions are put down and have been oppressed just as much as Christians. Here in America, Christians have more perceived freedom and advantages than any other religious group in this country. They do have a point when looking at other countries where Islam oppresses Christianity, but they also oppress their own people and religious groups there. Overall, I think this argument has little to note or to merit even a backwards glance from someone who is not in the faith. Though this can make a Christian feel "warm and toasty inside" as it was put (which i think is lame and an odd sentiment), I don't think it is something that anyone should take out in a serious debate.

On the flip side, I was also reading a blog that was detailing a response to a classical argument of a 747 being assembled at random by a hurricane. The person refuting this argument did a good job of pointing out the role of natural selection in evolution. This is often a major problem with a creationist's response to any kind of an evolutionists argument. However, in the case of the response to the argument they talked about the correct pieces staying together because they were beneficial. However, who is to say that the wrong pieces wouldn't have joined at one point and would have stuck together. Remember, there is no intelligence in the plane. It doesn't care if it gets put back together the right way or not. Also, who is to say that the next hurricane doesn't rip the correct pieces apart. Now, lets apply this to a salamander that has just mutated to having a photo-sensitive cell on its head. Being that we all acknowledge the salamander lack of higher thought, how would the salamander learn to cope with the extra information it is now receiving? When did the instincts develop to tell it the difference between light and dark. The likelihood is that the brain doesn't yet have a place to process any kind of data from the new cell, or an optic nerve to connect the brain. This salamander would be as helpless as a salamander without the photo cell on its head. If this salamander dies before passing on this trait, it is the same as the hurricane passing through and tearing apart part of the correctly pieced together plane.

Now, lets suppose that a salamander happens to mutate with a photo-sensitive cell on its back or tail... This is the same as two wrong pieces sticking together. Since the salamander still cannot use any information, nor is it likely aware of the existence of the cell, what is to say that the salamander wouldn't have passed that trait right along till we ended up with eyes on our backs, or lost eyes all together when tails disappeared. Here is my question, what are the odds of that cell on the forehead of a salamander developing into eyes as opposed to anywhere else on the body of the salamander? Give me a reasonable answer to this... I am genuinely curious. I think that these are valid questions and even if the answers are simple, or these questions are poorly thought out and you will tell me that, but leave me some feedback here.

Friday, August 11, 2006

The first of many, though much shorter than others

This is just going to be a quick post as i am at work, but i wanted to get this thing up and moving. I am starting this blog because of a series of debates that I have had at work this year with a very informed coworker regarding Creation and religion. I am a creationist, just so you all know. Anyways, I must run now, but more will be coming soon.