"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0208200337.29a30cef at posting.google.com...
> >
> > The term "evolution" REQUIRES that speciation occurred, which means that
it
> > cannot include "God guiding" that process. The only "evolutionists" on
this
> > poll are the 12% who are stupid enough to think: " God had no part in
> > process".
> >
> >
>> why does speciation preclude God's involvement? Not that I actually
> believe God was involved but some of the proponents of evolution
> reconcile their religious beliefs (christian or whatever else) with
> the notion that God had a hand in directing evolution. I challenge
> you to prove that God did not direct evolution (which requires a bit
> more than simply saying so)
Let's use a simple example to demonstrate the absurdity of the belief that
God "guided" or "directed" speciation (speciation being the transition of
one species across the statistical barriers to another species).
There are 170 separate and distinct breeds of dog. If there had been no
statistical limits on each breed, then they would have been able to
interbreed with each other for thousands of years, and there would now be
more inter-breeds than there are breeds. How many more? The factorial of
170 is 7.3 x 10^306. That's a 73 followed by 305 zeros. That's how many
inter-breeds there would have been. But there aren't that many, are there?
The breeds actually outnumber the inter-breeds [read: mutts], don't they?
This is an example where it's known that two different "brands" can
inter-breed with each other. And just with this simple example, if
inter-breeding created viable mixed "brands", then there would be 4.3 x
10^304 TIMES as many inter-breeds as there are breeds.
Most species can't even inter-breed like this. But if they could, these
inter-breeds would have "wedged out" [to use Darwin's term] ALL of the other
original species a LONG time ago.
Why would God "guide" such a process in the first place, when the objective
was obviously to *restrict* inter-breeding (and when the only viable forms
of life could exist only if such inter-breeding was never permitted)?
A horse can breed with a donkey, and the result is a mule. But that's the
end of the line for this inter-breeding, because a mule can't breed with a
mule. The only way to create mule is to breed a horse with a donkey. Does
this give you a clue about how these statistical boundaries work?
"Evolution" cannot occur without inter-species transitions. A lower life
form can't "evolve" to a higher life form (or vice versa) without crossing
these statistical boundaries. Because niggers and Whites can inter-breed
doesn't mean that niggers and apes can, nor does it mean that any of the
species of monkeys can.
We have not one single example, right now, today, of a species of anything
that appears to be "speciating" to some other species, do we? Yet if this
was a common occurrence, there would be almost no original species, because
they all would have been "wedged out" by the inter-species.
So let's assume this is something that happens only once in a million years.
Do we have a single example of any such species, for anything on the planet?
No. Just because you can take three different monkey skulls from three
different species of monkeys and set them side by side and notice some kind
of "evolution" doesn't mean that they "speciated". It only means that the
three different species looked similar enough that you think they might have
a "common ancestor". WHAT possible anamoly could come along and upset the
status quo so much that it would cause a species to "speciate" into another
species, though? Nothing. Except God, but why would God do that?
Gallup intentionally restricted the questions so that people could provide
only three responses (plus "no opinion"). This is an incredibly biased way
to set up a "poll". One of the responses required people who believe that
God created life to eliminate it if they believed that God created life MORE
than 10,000 years ago, which left them with only one other response, which
is "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process".
All three questions are contrary to what the Holy Bible has taught 264
million Christians in this country. The "poll" is a setup. They did
everything in their power to try to get people to respond: "Human beings
have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God
had no part in this process", yet still only 9% of Americans responded this
way.
The whole point of this thread is that Gallup is such a biased organization
that they forced people were to select "Human beings have developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this
process", whether or not they believe in "evolution".
What do you "think" would have been the results if the "poll" had been
objective? What do you think the answer would be to:
1) God created life.
2) Life evolved with no help from God.
3) Dunno.
John Knight
