The Roaring Lion Defeated

1 Peter 5:8.
“Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."


What We Should Do In Order That We May Overcome This Adversary?

Seek to obtain a clear knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel, and then get a good grip of them. Be ready to die, sooner than give up a particle of God’s revealed truth. This will make you strong. Then take hold of the promises of God, which are yea and amen in Christ Jesus. Know that to every doctrine there is serve opposite promise. Have ready for every attack some strong word commencing with “Is it written?” Answer Satan with “Thus says the Lord.” — “Stedfast in the faith.” Remember, all the water outside of a ship cannot sink it. It is the water inside that perils its safety. So, if your faith can keep its hold, and you can still say, “Though he slay me yet will I trust in him,” Satan may batter your shield; but he has not wounded your flesh.

The conflict may be long, but the victory is absolutely sure. Oh poor soul! do but keep near to the cross and you are safe. Throw your arms around the dying Savior. Let the droppings of his blood fall on your sins, and even if you can not see him, still believe him. Still say, “I know that he came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief,” and I will cling to the sinner’s Savior as my only hope and trust. Then let Satan roar, he cannot hurt; let him rage, his fury is vain; he may but show his teeth, for he certainly cannot bite. “Whom resist, stedfast in the faith.”

Thoughts on Justification Theology

I have been thinking a lot about Justification recently after a sunday school class, so I thought I would write out my thoughts and stuff via my blog world. TheDarvSpot. I have noticed contentment with sin being on the rise in my heart, so I am trying to battle it as much as possible by trying to overwhelm myself with the Truth. It would be cool to hear feedback, but I don't really expect it.

James 2:21-26 and Romans 3:28, 4:5
( I have included more to these for context, so that we don't simply copy/paste words and not understand the context.)

Faith Plus Works 
"21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:21-26)



Grace through Faith
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28 ESV)
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness(Romans 4:5 ESV)

(my interpretation)
The inspiration of the Word of God is like the incarnation of the Son of God. When the Son of God became a human being he became vulnerable to abuse and death. When the Word of God became human language, it became vulnerable to ambiguity and misunderstanding. When Paul teaches in Romans 4:5 that we are justified by faith alone, he means that the only thing that unites us to Christ for righteousness is dependence on Christ. When James says in James 2:24 that we are not justified by faith alone he means that the faith which justifies does not remain alone. These two positions are not contradictory. Faith alone unites us to Christ for righteousness, and the faith that unites us to Christ for righteousness does not remain alone. It bears the fruit of love. It must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith and does not justify.

The glory of Christ in the gospel is not merely that we are justified when we depend entirely on Christ, but also that depending entirely on Christ is the power that makes us new, loving people. Depending entirely on Christ is how we are justified and how we are sanctified. Paul struck the one note. James struck the other. Both are true and together they bring Christ the glory due his name.

(my thoughts)
The problem I have with this is that, this idea of Jesus + works = salvation is saying the cross by itself doesn’t save; it means to me that not only in this view is Jesus not enough for our salvation, but it implies that Christ did die for our sins, but he didn't do a good enough job, making it where we have to pick up the ball where he dropped it. If God is all powerful, all knowing, and etc then how could he fail? Jesus Christ is incapable of failure just the same way that God the Father in incapable of sin.

I would love to know what you all have to say. Comments and refutations are encouraged.

When a Blogger Mudlogger drinks a Lager

There is something to be said when you work in a niche type field like a mudlogger. I noticed after having a beer with some fellow lagers that onlookers to our conversations must seem strange and perhaps even concerning. Take the following conversation in consideration.

Logger 1: Hey, what did you do all night?
Logger 2: Oh, man. We were tripping out all night; it was awesome.
Logger 1: That's awesome. I love tripping out.

This kind of phrasing is pretty common amongst youth today, but in a very disturbing manner. So, I realized after drinking a beer with the guys that onlookers were giving us some funny looks, but I didn't think much of it because I figured it was just because we were obviously strangers to town. We continue  our conversation nonetheless.

Logger 1: While we were tripped out all night, I just sat around, slept, and played Diablo II in the trailer. What do you do when you trip out?
Logger 2: I usually just wander around aimlessly and smoke cigarettes.

I guess this would seem even more misleading. I Just thought some conversations about basic mudlogging phrases would be funny, so I took 3 minutes to type it up.

Confessions of a Mud logger

I just took a job as a mud logger early September. All throughout school I thought to myself, if only I was graduated I wouldn't have to go to school anymore and move away. It is a harsh reality that takes place when you graduate and you realize that most people that graduate with your degree have to get a masters or they will be doing practicly the same job for years and years. Mud logging is not one of those jobs that you would really desire to have for that long. It is not a hard job by any means. If you took an introductory geology class and remember the material you could do this job. When you take a job like this there are certain pros and certain cons. Pros could be that you get paid (pretty well) to do a job that practicly any moron could do while in down time (which is more often than not) you can watch movies, sleep, read, etc... You can do a lot of things except for leave the site! Cons would be that you have a very rough work schedule and you are always away from family and loved ones. The work schedule could be that you only get 5 days off in a month; on top of that, you are so far away from friends and family that it would take you an entire day to drive to where you want to go, so one day to get there and one day to return makes for really 3 days of time that you can spend in rest and relaxation.

I would encourage anyone who is interested in this field to speak with someone who has been there. There is usually a dying inside me that wants to have someone know my heart and speak to it. Life on an oil rig is much like that of a hermit if you permit it to be so. Most mud loggers remain in their trailor and just watch movies: I guess we do it because there usually is nothing better to do. I love to read and I love to learn, so reading old textbooks, the bible, and biblical commentaries are some of the things I occupy my time with now. Another thing about being out on an oil rig is that you come to find out who really cares for you; when I say that I mean that some people still remember you and still desire to be a part of your life. Let's face it, nobody wants to feel alone. At the innermost core of all loneliness is a deep and powerful yearning for union with one's lost self. The lost self seeks reconcilation that seems to be something only to be seen, not felt.

I will end this blog with hope. As with my life I have a hope that this temporal life will end with a new beginning to a life that is eternal and everlasting in the presence of Christ in all fullness.

Conservation or Preservation?

This is a note to discuss more optimistic views on how our world is going in the world of conservation as well as possible solutions to our problems. I am not crazy about environmentalism like I used to be, so know that I am not exactly a treehugger, yet I feel as though we have a stewardship responsibility to maintain our world to the best of our ability while giving our children the notion that we really wanted them to have a world in which it is worth living.


            Photo Courtesy of Derrick Arnold
Anthropogenic causes are obviously very strong when it comes to the environment. A part of me would like to say that I value human life over the other existing lifeforms, but I do understand that there are symbiotic relationships that we have with other organisms. Ethics are somewhat the way to look at environmentalism whether one believes it or not.There are three main issues pathocentrism ,anthropocentrism, and Biocentrism. There are others, yet they aren't the prominent ones, so I will discuss the prominent ones. If you prefer the minor ones, write a note and tag me in it.
Anthropocentrism is the stance that humans are the most sole measure of value or the most important in the entire universe. When it comes down to the life of a monkey, a dog, or a human, then we are to choose the Human. No questions asked according to anthropocentrism.

 Photo Courtesy of Derrick Arnold from Derrick Arnold's Novel "Bloom"
Pathocentrism is the stance that says that just as humans have intrinsic value, so should other creatures with intelligence. The animals that can feel empathy. So, I used to adopt this ethical stance when I was vegan saying "I can't eat anything if I could be friends with it." I became a vegetarian because I applied this code of ethics to not eating meat, but not towards fungii or plants; I had to eat something, right?

Biocentrism is the view point that all forms of life have the intrinsic right to exist and that it is immoral for people to cause extinction. This is extreme. This view has pretty much become a religious view point called deep ecology.

I would like to say these arguments need not be mutually exclusive. I hope if anyone reads this that they won't get offended, but it would be encouraging to hear ideas about your own personal reflection on this.

I will present what I believe should be the way to approach the subject and let you give any feedback or insight. I believe I can break it down to 3 laws, kind of like the three laws of Robotics by the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov.
I believe that human life is vital and must be preserved at all cost
All intelligent life must be preserved at all cost, unless if it conflicts with human life
Preserve all life as long as humans and all the species in which humans empathize the most are not at risk from such preservation.
I, however, hold to if there are ticks and mosquitos... I will kill them. I am pretty cool with a lot of life, but these parasites... ew.. they disgust me.
Let's say there is an island nation and they have no means of food except for the fish that surround them. Do we let them fish? Of course, but what if they fish beyond the sustainable yield and some people die? (USTAINABLE YIELD in a simple defintion is a yield of extraction without destroying the population of these fishies)  This is ultimately a question of which is more important to preserve the lives of fishes or of humans. By eating at a sustainable yield humans can continue to live, but cannot indulge in overeating; this gives the ecosystem a chance to remain in balance. Evolution has seen predation like this since the predator/prey relationship began, but it hasn't experienced a capable of not only eradicating many forms of life, but also the world as well. It is because of the indulgent behavior of man that mankind may be the sole cause of the 6th exinction. You think there will be a Captain Planet to save the day? I doubt it, amigo.

Keeping in mind these nuances, what are the best ways to preserve biodiversity?
First I would say that we need to protect first and foremost Biodiversity hotspots around the world. If you are unfamiliar with this term it is a  region with a significant amount of biodiversity that is under threat from humans. These places are defined by having at least 1,500 endemic vascular plants that only live there, and also the environment may have lost over 70% of the original habitat area. Most people don't realize that 60% of the world's plant and animal species are endemic to these regions alone. Any concentrated conservation efforts should be here to protect biodiversity. As far as money goes to contribute to conservation, this would be the wisest decision.Next would be to conserve the forests of areas in or around these regions. We need to save the frontier forests beyond the hotspots themselves. Some places for example are the Amazon Basin, the Congo, New Guinea, and also places like the temperate forests of Russia, Finland, and Scandanavia.The next step is to stop logging all old growth forests. These obviously will have some overlap as some of the frontier will be in the hotspots and old growth forests, and well you get the point. The big deal is that the more forests we preserve, especially tropical, the more species we keep on our journey around the sun.

The next step is to preserve lakes and rivers of the world. At the present time have the highest percentage of endangered species to area occupied to any ecosystem. Then comes the ocean. We hardly even understand the ocean and all of its facets; what this means is that we do not even know the hotspots for marine regions. So, not only do we not know where they are for the most part, we don't have much intention on trying to preserve it. We know right now only of the coral reefs because they seem to be the majority hotspots when it comes to marine regions because they display the greatest amount of diversity being like a tropical rainforest of the sea. Our energy should be focused on preserving these regions when it comes to marine biology.

Next would be the complete mapping of biodiversity. This is just getting started via the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL.ORG). They plan on have a page listing for each species of biodiversity by 2017. E.O. Wilson wrote in his book "The Future of Life", looking at the totality of life, the poet asks "who are gaias children?". The ecologists answers," they are the species, we must know the role each one plays in the whole to manage the earth wisely.The systamatist adds," then lets get started, how many species are there? who are they? what are their genetic kin?"  This is when Wilson proposed EOL to catalog life and characteristcs of each species. This is a great way to commit to cost effective preservation efforts, and if you are into conservation this is a great way to steward your money. Besides committing to mapping out specific species, a great thing for us to do would be to use remote sensing to survey biodiversity regions and hotspots. It would help in so many ways its crazy. It would help for biodiversity ranging and changing and biogeochemical make ups of the regions as well.This will help when it comes to getting financed from companies interested in funding conservation because it will narrow the view to what is the most important. In stating this, we need to make conservation profitable. Otherwise, we as selfish douschbags won't desire to do it. Using biodiveristy wisely is the biggest thing, if we can get big companies to profit from it than it will be 100% easier to preserve our biodiviersity.

New Age Movement

I have heard of the New Age Movement; some people call it universalism or unitarianism. This note will speak of how this movement is contrary to Christianity. I have a new life in Christ and I have a responsibility to speak with my friends and family about the glory of the gospel.



Revelation.
New Agers believe divine revelation has been expressed not only in Christianity, but also in other religions including: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism. Such a claims contradicts the facts. Consider the doctrines of God. The Bible teaches of the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Qur'an denies the trinity, the Hindu Vedas teach pantheism and polytheism, Zoroastrianism teaches religious dualism, and Buddhist writing teach that God is essentially is irrevelant. Since God is the most fundamental doctrine of any religious system, the claim that these religions teach the same "core truths" is a false claim. Christianity is exclusivistic at its core. Jesus said he is uniquely and exclusivley humanity's only means of coming into a relationship with God.
( Jesus said to him" I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6)
His excelusivity caused him to warn against false teachers who contradict his teachings.

God.
New Agers hold on to a pantheistic, impersonal view of God.
A. God is a personal being who hears (Ex: 2:24)
(And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham with Isaac, and with Jacob.)
B.God is a personal being who sees. (Gen. 1:4)
(And God saw that the light was good. And God seperated the light from the darkness.)
C. God is a personal being who knows. (2 Tim. 2 :19)
(But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: The Lord knows who are his, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart in iniquity.)
D. God is a personal being who has a will. (1 John 2:17)
(And the world is passing away long with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.)
E. God is a personal being who communicates. (Ex. 3:14-15)
(God said to Moses," I AM WHO I AM."..."Say this is to the people of Israel,'The Lord has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.)

F. God is a personal being who plans. (Eph. 1:11)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been presdestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

G. God is a personal being who expresses emotion. (Gen 6:6)
(And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth and it grieved him to his heart.)

Jesus Christ
New Agers claim that Jesus was a human vessel who, as an adult, embodied the Christ or attained enlightenment. Jesus is viewed as the prototype for the rest of humanity, since all people can embody the Christ. However, Jesus did not become the Christ, for he was and always will be the one and only Christ from the beginning. Jesus even made his identity as the primary issue of faith on at least two different occasions. (Matt 16: 13-20 and John 11: 25-27) When Jesus was acknowledge as the Christ he did not say to people that "you, too, have the Christ within you"; however he warned that other would come falsely claiming to be the Christ. (Matt 24:4-5 23-24)

Humankind
New Agers hold that human beings are God and therefore have unlimited potential. if this were true one would expect humans to have the same attributes as God.
God is all knowing while man is limited in knowledge. (Heb 4:13)
God is all powerful while man is weak in power. (Job 38:4)
God is holy whereas we as humans have fallen and are as filthy garments before God. (1 John 1:5)
This illustrates the affirmation by Paul in Romans 3:23 stating that "for all fall short of the glory of God."
Humans are mere finite creatures and have fallen in sin.

Sin and Salvation
New Agers say humans do not have a sin problem but an ignorance problem. All they need is enlightenment regarding their divinity. Then through reincarnation, the human soul can eventually reach a state of perfection and merge back with its source (the pantheistic God).
Christian morality begins with a personal God who makes moral requirements of his creatures. WHile moral terms like right and wrong may not have an relevance to a impersonal, pantheistic god, they do have relevance to the God of the Bible, who calls us to obey his moral commandments (Ex. 19:5 John 14:21). Because humans have failed to do this, they stand guilty before God. (Isa. 53:6)
Jesus did not teach that humans have an ignorance problem, but a grave sin problem that is altogether beyond their means to solve (Mark 7:20-23; Rom 3:23/6:23). He also taught that salvation is found not by enlightenment but by placing faith in him who is the Light of the world. Trusting reincarnation will not suffice, for scripture affirms that each person lives once, dies once, and then faces judgement. (Heb. 9:27; Rev. 20:11-15) There are no second chances following death.


These movements can't be considered a valid Christian denomination because they deviate from the gospel. By believing in such docterines demonstrates the incompability of trusting in Jesus Christ for your salvation that comes from God's grace alone.

The blindness of open mindedness

When I speak of openmindedness in this note it is in reference to how many people believe it to be today culturally. To have an open mind means to be willing to consider or receive new and different ideas. It means being flexible and adaptive to new experiences and ideas. Openmindedness for me is much different than what most of society may view it. I asked my friend Alicia what openmindedness truely entails and she stated and reaffirmed many of the statements I made previously about openmindedness in regards to its cultural view of it. She said that it is a willingness to be open to new possibilities; it is the openness to admit that you can be wrong to in your knowledge whether it be spiritual, physical, or emotional. Openminded people are more proficient to adapt to change, to philosophy, religion, and etc.
 
Many say that minds are like parachutes and only function when open. Openmindedness is a common topic amongst many people my age; one must be open to new religions, new philosophies, new drugs, new cars, new cell phones, new cultures, new gods, new fashions, new foods to eat, new foods to not eat, and etc. Today if you have an open mind you are to be consider a wise person;  many people believe that if you are not open minded then you leave yourself vulnerable and limited to the knowledge that you may come to know spiritually and intellectually. One must seek to be openminded for better equipping oneself for expansion of intellectual capability, problem solving, and spiritual development.


 


     People who are open Minded:

• Are more accepting of others and have fewer prejudices
• Are more optimistic and make the most of life
• Have less stress because they are more open to change
• Have better problem solving skills 
• Want to learn more, therefore are more interesting

It's "generally" acknowledged that open-mindedness is a virtue. But there is some confusion as to what it actually involves. Too often, people confuse open-mindedness with indecisiveness. They think that open-mindedness requires that one abstains from drawing conclusions. The trait of open-mindedness is best understood as a disposition, rather than an occurrent state of mind. It's not about what beliefs you actually have, but how open you are to revising them in appropriate circumstances. It requires the true humility of self-acknowledged fallibility. It requires that our minds be open to new evidence. This is something very different from suggesting that we should be equally accepting of nonsense as we are of sense. That's not open-mindedness; it's gullibility, or perhaps stupidity.


The virtuously open mind is not wide open, indiscriminately accepting of any and all viewpoints. Rationality must remain as a filter or else you will leave yourself open to ignorant concepts. We should be open to accepting good reasons of which we are currently unaware, but this doesn't require us to take recognizably bad reasons seriously. Open-mindedness means that we will acknowledge the possibility that new evidence could in future lead us to change our mind. But it doesn't preclude our drawing reasonable conclusions in the present. As far as I am concerned, one may have a virtuous and open mind, yet still see the self-evident truths of the gospel.

Those who say that they have an open mind and are not open to Christianity, are you really open minded? Are you willing to say that you do not have it all figured out? I thought I had it all figured out at one point. The gospel does a great job for me in humility; it always points to Christ, leading me to be more God-centered than self-centered. If you consider yourself to be an open minded individual, but have not been open to the Bible then I would like to encourage you to read the gospel of John in the Bible. It is our option to whether or not we choose to claim open mindedness.

Evolution n' Theology

 

Many of us will say you can believe in Christ or Science. However, whether one would like to believe it or not; there are athiest and Christians I know that believe in evolution for the same reasons. My friend told me the other day, "If one believes in evolution then you may not believe in Christ". I am writing this blog as a repost from facebook. Many don't understand how I can be a Christian who believes in evolution and the geological view of the age of the universe and the earth. I will simply as possible address evolution. Geological views deserve a blog by itself, but I may or may not depending on response.  Note that I am not a writer, so expect so grammar mistakes.

 For years Christians have been in every aspect of science; whether it is biology, geology, chemistry, etc... Science deals with the natural world, looking for natural causes for natural phenomenon. It's not a perfect system, yet it is the best means that we have to find the true nature of nature. In science, we like to say that we will try to prove something by running sets of tests,analyze data,  so on,and  so forth (you get the idea). The term prove comes from the latin "probare" meaning to probe. Thus, we probe the truth in search of truth: we are very aware of our perceptive faculties, and our flaws, so you may often see error bars in science . These bars will give an approximation to maximum error, but not the actual error. As I stated earlier, science isn't perfect, its simply the best proposed mechanism we have. The central dogma of science is that there is no central dogma, because the outcomes from scientific studies can be overturned. Uncertainty and doubt are essential to science. It accepts that we as humans have flaws and addresses it correctly. All advancements come from previous advancements. Until I knew the rock of ages, I only knew the age of rocks. I simply desired to explore my geological environment.

Truth does not contradict truth.God is not a deceitful God; "Why should God be so clear in the Bible,and so obscure in the world?"- Carl Sagen. If the God you believe in works by deception, maybe you should re-evaluate what type of God you are worshipping. Is this the God who the Bible says is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)? Or would this be Satan as Christ addresses? (John 8:44)

John Burroughs, a writer and naturalist, once said "A stone teaches more than it preaches. There are no sermons in stones. It is easier to get a spark out of a stone than a moral." . We have to realize some important things in regards to religion and science. Science addresses the natural things that may be tested naturally. Religion address the supernatural. Another way to say it could be that religion tells you how to go to heaven while science tells you how the heavens go (heavens meaning sky for all you nitpicky people). Thus, it cannot test things that are supernatural, so the "creationist" science is actually not science at all. Science approaches the world with reason. Religion approaches the world with faith. I realize that some Christians may give me crap about this, but in science you have to have faith as well. Science is from the latin "scientia"  meaning knowledge. It is roughly the process that organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses. That is the big reason why "creation science" is not science.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the logical fallacies that I have seen when people address evolution. I love to hear about the many ways to come to address situations like evolution, religion, and etc. The problem that I hear a lot is that as soon as someone hears something they don't like such as evolution, then the logical fallacies fall like hail from the sky. A logical fallacy is roughly an error in logical reasoning. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. Now, I say these things, yet know that I am encouraging others to respond to me and reveal to me any logical fallacies that I may have not previously seen. By far the most common logical fallacy that I hear of when evolution is addressed is the logical fallacy of personal incredulity otherwise known as the argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how evolution can happen",or "I don't understand your mechanism, so your proposed mechanism is wrong. I will replace your proposed mechanism with (whatever), because I can understand or I like (whatever)." Just because you can't understand something that happens doesn't mean that it can't happen. If you are one of those people then I would encourage you to think about this. Saying evidence isn't there is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The evidence is substantial, so just because there are some things that aren't understood that doesn't mean that the whole concept is false. If you do this you throw out the essential and the inessential. This concept is an act of misleading vividness in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. These types of arguments simply hold up. 

A large part of the reason why many creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. They wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished when they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. There are four common misconceptions on evolutions. The misconceptions build on another logical fallacy known as the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is roughly an argument that is based on a misrepresentation of an opponents position. This sort of reasoning is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. So, if you hear anyone making any of these, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

1. Evolution hasn't been observed.

2. There are no transitional fossils.

3. Evolution is all random and completely by chance

4. It's only a theory. It hasn't been proved.

Evolution hasn't been observed... take 1...

Most of the argument is due to that our public isn't well informed about it. Evolution can be simply defined as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. We see this today with the bedbug outbreak. If you don't believe me just google it in order to see further details for yourself. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

There are no transitional fossils... get jealous...

To speak from this argument, I would assume people do there homework on fossils, but I am afraid not. To state this argument is simply false. Through paleontology we have come a long way since Origin of Species was published. We have a much more extensive fossil record, but I must also state that the fossil record is incomplete due to the conditions neccessary to provide fossilization. You need optimal conditions and times of deposition and not erosion. That is precisely why we don't have dinosaur bones around Louisville. We have devonian and silurian age rock here. All of the cretaceous age rocks were eroded away. In the geological record we know this happens. For fossils, before I go into a long speech about rocks, consider the evolution of the whale. I have provided a picture below as a reference point. If you don't believe me further look up more information on facts.  I still have to cover more points.

Evolution is all random and completely by chance (seriously?)

 This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Simply stating this argument most likely means you have no clue what evolution speak about. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance may be in the form of mutations, providing  genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with, but from there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Some mutations may be favorable and some mutations may be unfavorable. Less favorable mutations are selected out or weeded out. By this process you do not randomly select traits, but rather the best traits are chosen and are used.

The theory of evolution has not been proved.... really?

The actual definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. They are not exactly the same thing. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

I figured I would throw a last little picture of something you can see on artificial evolution. The domestic dog like my picture of my old dog Sage when he was 7 weeks (Canis lupus familiaris) compared to a gray wolf (Canis lupus) which was the original domesticated animal that yielded the cross breeds that we now enjoy and play fetch with today.

Intelligent Design

Just to verify. When I say that Intelligent Design has been disproven; it is implied that it is disproven as science. It could very well be true, but it is neither able to be proven nor disproven. Therefore, it is not science. It is a theol...ogical view not a scientific view.

If you are curious about the irreducible complexity issue then I would check out when Michael Behe was on trial. Check out the testimonies from both the plaintiff and the defense. You will see that Behe says that there are structures that are so complex that if you try to take away any part of them then they will fall apart and wont work. So how could you get there by gradual process? (this is a cut and dry example of personal incredulity)

He says that by irreducible complexity, I mean a single system that is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex cannot be produced gradually by slight successive modification of a precursor system since any precursor to any irreducibly complex system is by definition non-functional. Then he talks about the motor flagellum of bacteria or the immune system invertebrates.

It’s interesting in the court case he was involved with because he was asked if he had read any articles about precursors to the flagellum or the immune system by which a pathway can be seen to get the supposedly irreducibly complex systems through a natural selection process. His response... no He hadn’t read any of them. Now these are scientific journals writing on the very thing that he is saying can’t be explain, and yet in the journals it is being explained. There are 3 things that he is overlooking. There may even be more than that, but remember I am not brilliant. You can make things that seem irreducibly complex through a gradual process if certain things happen.

Improvements become necessities. I.e. Given system needs A, or it will die without A. Then a mutation happens causing B, B causes the system to work more efficiently than A alone. Now they work together. You can live without B, but you can see the value of it. Therefore, it will spread through the population through natural selection thus adding new biochemical components. There may also be removal of a function. If it’s deleterious then natural selection will of course knock it out. Let’s say a mutation occurs that removes the component that A has to do the job alone. This isn’t a problem. It’s so valuable it spreads through the population due to its value. For natural selection the 2nd mutation is considered neutral. Through neutral drift all the members of the given population will inherit it. Now, A and B are both essential, so the system is now irreducibly complex. This is one way to get an irreducibly complex system, and this process is can be multiplied. It will eventually appear to appear as a Rube Goldberg apparatus.

I could speak further about the Bola spider in production with moth pheromones to attract moths, but I will not speak too much about it. There is enough information out there to find information on these things. I would encourage anyone looking at the topic of irreducible complex systems to look at scientific journals. If you don’t look carefully then you will find articles that mainly Christians put out that are filled with logical fallacies. I am not trying to belittle my Christian brothers, yet encourage them that if you are going to interpret science you should at least try legitimate scientific journals.

Another thing that Behe overlooks is what I will call scaffolding. You can think of an arch, if you take away a piece of the arch then it will fall. It is irreducibly complex. To build the arch, you first build a scaffolding. The arch is built over the scaffolding. Remove the scaffolding and the arch will stand. Nature does this. It happens over and over again. We can see this with the first creature to ever have an air bladder. A fish in the water didnt use it for breathing, but for bouyancy in the water. Through time they must have gulped extra oxygen using less and less of their gills eventually there were a spiecies that didnt even the the scaffolding here the gills. The air bladder slowly turns into lungs. 

Duplication and divergence is another thing. A gene can make a copy of itself, and that copy of itself can drift of into new forms. Gene A makes into gene A’, but A or A’ can drift away from one another because A or A’ is nailing down the job that was originally designed for this biochemical. This new gene can begin toexplore new design space with new innovations that enable it to work even better.

Irreducible complexity is an intellectual bankrupt idea SCIENTIFICALLY. It’s not testable. It’s not science.