Tuesday, August 30, 2005

A very reasonable argument

Which I would agree with if not for certain little details.

Much of grade school is taught by rote. One time I failed a math test in the seventh or eigth grade. I checked my answers (it's math, I didn't need anybody else to do it for me!) and determined that every single question was answered absolutely correctly. At that point I brought this to the attention of the teacher. She agreed that I answered 100% correctly. So what happened? What I didn't know was that the test had answers in the back of the book (what a concept) and the book was wrong in every answer to this particular test. Every other student got 100%... with book answers.

I stopped asking questions in that class soon after (the last straw was when I asked a question regarding division by zero to which the teacher reacted badly.)

My personality is INTJ, sometimes refered to as the scientist. I'm a lover of truth and real pain in the neck because I want the details to come out right. Have you ever read the Cuckoo's Egg, written by a character with more ants in his pants than any I've ever observed? He discovered and tracked an international spy because of less than a dollar accounting error. Sometimes small things matter!

I'm a great fan of Martin Gardner and quite skeptical myself. I remember some of Evolution theory as was taught to me in high school. What I was taught was verifiably wrong... pepper moths and giraffe necks. This was the fifth grade. Doing this at that age is nothing more than propaganda. It certainly wasn't science.

The fact is the word evolution is used as a slight of hand trick. The details of evolution are definitely so (as far as basic science produces data) the problem is when these details are used to assert the idea that new kinds of animals are created. Yes, you heard me right, 'evolution' is true and never produces any new kinds of animals. Most people would consider that a contradictory statement, but only because the details regarding evolution are often/always muddled when people argue about it.

Do mutations occur? Yes, evolution requires it to be so... the only problem is that mutations occur more rapidly than evolution can account for. So what gives? Even with the multitude of mutations, we don't get beneficial changes which leads to...

Survival of the fittest which works to keep animals pure. Unlike what we've all been taught, it works directly against the common understanding of evolution. Mutated animals are less fit and die. They generally don't reproduce and so the chain of mutations that might produce a new kind of animal never occurs. It doesn't matter how long you give for it to happen. Ok, if you bother to apply some statistics you discover that in a few zillion ages of the universe you might in theory have one animal turn into another. That's the definition of impossible, folks!

I believe in science. I believe in truth. I hate religion, but I believe in a loving God (which sounds like a contradiction to many, but I would not believe it if I didn't clearly see the evidence that it were true.)

People are hypocrites and many are loony toons. Me, I'm just me (with a different drum.)


Post a Comment

<< Home