24-3-2007

Further limits in Evolution.


The step forwards in the last 50 years or so by science into their search and research of the natural evolution, are enormous. Searches to the early beginning, the dating, and the accuracy has progressed
fast. Science has more research possibilities to investigate more and more visions of our past.

However, we have to realise that the search and the research of the natural evolution is only just standing in his infancy. They realise that the way forward will be difficult and full with obstructions, the creationist being one of those obstructions. However, unlike them the natural evolution scientist does not have to clamp straws of hope to progress.

While the Creationist do clamp straws, launcher distorted figures and stories in the hope to proof for which there is no proof, so that all is left is to obstruct investigations. They ridicule researches in the hope to avoid that the natural evolutionist comes nearer to the truth.
The evolutionist attempt to proof their conviction, their believe, in natural evolution. The creationist should try to do the same, search and research and find the proof other then”it is in the bible” to show the existence of that creator. Instead, they standing still, while using the result of digs in the Middle East as proof for their point of view only using what they think can support their view and rejecting the rest. That part they kept is done launched as proof.

The simple version of looking closely at nature has never crossed their mind, other be used as critic on the scientist in natural evolution.

The creationist answer will be we do look at nature and who other then a great brain and great designer could have designed that. This proof the great designer existence.

The evolutionists retort with if the great designer e.i. God exist then who created God. The answer they know already as it is repeated over and over again, God was always there, which is the first clause thesis. However, this leaves them open for a critical view by the evolutionist, because if God was always there, it also says that after the creation life was always there, and therefore there was no place for natural evolution.
The natural evolutionist would say that the first complete evolved cell was always there.
However, this answer would be qualified by the creationist as absurd. It is in principle the same as the evolutionist said about the creator position. He was always there.
In both cases there is and would be no proof.

The creationist therefore use to days state of research as an end factor in the hope to proof that they are right. However, they realise that to days research is not the end. This research is seen by the natural evolutionist as the beginning not the end
The creationist claim that they know exactly what was existing on that primitive earth billions of years ago. And they claim because of that knowledge they have the evolutionist are lost. They do realise that they have only the bible to relay on, to avoid questions they publishing the same distorted statements from years ago, over and over again.
They persist in saying that there is not such a self-creating/replication molecule and could never have existed. However, they fail to put forwards any proof.
When questioned they fast pass over the questions, the facts that the water/heat levels and the energy levels could have been completely different from to day’s values. They fail to see or do not want to see that such an altered combination of water, heat, and high energy could have supplied a steady input of organic radicals. With this the thesis of the creationist that such an occurrence never could have taken place in an early ocean or anywhere else for that matter, is void.

The natural evolutionist also do not know the facts yet, however, they have the imagination that if those different values were available at that time an different structure could have been in place in favourable circumstances of the early oceans. For the creationist to deny that there could have been a possibility that the evolutionist could have been right is ignoring the Imagineering possibility.

The creationist is therefore shielding them selves with outdated figures and statements and placing themselves at the same level as a newfound tribe. A tribe who for the first time see an aeroplane, identified by them as a silver bird and as such entered into the folk’s tale.

Instead of search and researching all possibilities to proof their right, they use all possible to proof the evolutionist wrong. While both sides should work together.

Science can have a first line observation to find a research to discover the origin of life and universe.
Those discoveries are standing at the beginning of a long journey. There is still a long way to go before a natural evolution supported by evidence of science can be proven; it will take time to search and to research the matter, pointers, and evidence on that journey.
Both sides it is believed can benefit from obtained and still to obtained evidence, even when the evolutionist are in a better position. They still have an open mind, while that of the creationist is obscured by the word in the bible and therefore being stuck on the principle of faith. There is no proof of faith only belief.

The main problem is that the evolutionist is trying to explain the origin in natural evolution. The creationist have only their faith and based on that faith they criticise the evolutionist. They should put forwards their own observations to proof their point, a simple “you have to believe” will not do nor is it scientifically convincing. However, we should not forget that they are masters of negative criticism,
Although failing to produce any acceptable evidence. Their proof of the case is simple, belief, however this is a non-scientific proposal and therefore unacceptable. An other negative point of criticism is dragging old statements, some over 100 years old to support their case. What they should be doing is to stay up to date with the latest possibilities and daily research. They now try to defend the indefensible which is support for their faith and to belief in that only.

Creationist also complain that scientist will not give them credit for their research to their God.
It will be obvious that, and we have respect for their convictions, it is rather difficult to give credit to a believe in a folks tale, no matter how good, how well written but without any acceptable proof.

We do believe that the story had a beginning, we do believe that the ones who made the store and the ones who left out and added to the story were good man, who believed in the many Gods available in that time. They no doubt believed the stories, however this does not proof the stories were correct.
The same stories are all over the Middle East although with differences in time and names and locations. The story of God is not proven in any form, yet.
It is therefore for the creationist an out of place habit to ridicule scientist. They do their out most to find the answer. We realise that this will be probably not in our lifetime but time will learn.

The unfounded criticism of the creationist although ridiculous only hides the insecurity of them, in the knowledge that they never will be able to proof an intelligent design, unless they will take the research
Serious and add their knowledge to it. The creationist instead of being negative should try to get some evidence to put them on a similar footing as the evolutionist, but they still want the honour for nature to be given to their God, without supplying any proof.

Without displaying any disrespect, it rather laughable that such a rambling on can even be accepted for print. This kind of display does not do the creationist any good, they do not support science, however, they want to be seen as such, they come with arguments good for a first year student unknown in this field. It is sad to see how good man can be turned into rambling puppets with nothing to proof then their own ignorance and arrogance, and can only utter the words, believe.

Image that such a man find a pool of water looks in it and sees a face, telling others afterwards I have seen God, ridicules yes it is but not unknown. If you been in a audience man a man of God on stage then you realise how ridiculous it is, worst of all they are believed by the majority of the audience. They are willing to give their last cent to the man of God on stage.
It is a show, and the show shows that intelligent design does not exist but is merely a tool of a salesman to cash in. It is believe make belief, reality not included.