Proof of God 4: Proving God with science- or, What does the Number Five Smell Like?

If you’ve admitted in the public space of social media that you are a Christian, you no doubt have been attacked by the filthy pests of social media which I call Roach Clowns in an exchange that sounds something like this (once you remove the profanities and name calling):

Roach Clown: You believe fairy tales! I’m a man of science! I only believe things which can be proven scientifically with 100% mathematical certainty!

You: You can prove atheism to be true then?

Roach Clown: Uh…I don’t have to prove anything! Don’t try to push the burden of proof on me! You’re the person believing in fairy tales! I only believe things which can be proven scientifically with 100% mathematical certainty!

You: You mean, for example, evolution?

Roach Clown: Evolution is a scientific fact! We don’t need to prove it, we KNOW It’s true!*

You: With 100 % mathematical certainty?

Roach Clown: Evolution denier! Heretic! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!

measuring the five

Roach Clowns all the time be demanding “Scientific Proof” for God’s existence, which to me is just another way they prove how much they don’t know. In this case, they are admitting that they don’t understand the nature of God or science. You’ve got to hand it to the Roach Clowns. They cover all of their bases. Read more of this post

Evolution 101- part 22: Half Way to Flatworm

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (Battle Cry: “Stop Asking Questions!”)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

Looking at complexity: Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

 frog bird etc
Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.

Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.

OK, I’ve got it! “Evolution did it!” Send that to everyone and let’s go to lunch. Oh, and let’s make fun of the creationists for claiming God did it.

Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye.

Note the use of the phrase “must have evolved” in the place of actual evidence. This is a statement of faith, not of science. Also, there are MANY examples of biological systems which are irreducibly complex- meaning we know through study and observation that they need multiple specific parts all at once for the system to work AT ALL. Like a machine, these systems, organs, organelles, chemical pathways, and protein machines could not have formed through small steps and gradual accumulations, but must have had all of their necessary parts immediately. They will gloss over this fact in the following section.

But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection? [Editor’s Note: Produced by Natural Selection? Keep this question in mind.]

There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

  • Advantageous intermediates: It’s possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is “half an eye?” A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.
flatwormA Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.

Michael Behe covers this well in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. While the arguments against this evolutionary cartoon are valid, a better argument is an examination of the irreducible complexity of light sensitive cells which turn light into sight (And the chemical cascades which do the job of making sight possible). These cells, like all cells, are very complex, but unless they are fully functional, they do the organism and themselves no good, and thus would be weeded out by natural selection. Building these cells one piece at a time is impossible, not merely unlikely, as they depend on multiple parts and processes to function at all.

And do I have to point out that, even after THEY explained that Natural Selection only selects from what is already in the population- meaning it takes AWAY genetic information- they again want to give credit to Natural Selection as being able to produce the ability to see? Remember when they said this back in Part 14? “Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.” So, sure,  those flatworms which can see may survive better than those that can’t, but that doesn’t do anything to explain where the complex machinery of sight came from.

  • Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is “half a wing?” Even if it’s not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.hairy dino

Once again we are skipping the actual, observable complexity of real feathers for some dark streaks which we will declare to be feathers. First problem- fossils of modern birds have been found in rock layers older than this. Secondly, these dark fibers have also been found on fossils of an ichthyosaur- a dinosaur which is a lot like a dolphin. Either these dark lines are, as some have proposed, protein strands from the decay of the dead animal as it fossilized, or a fish like dinosaur was also growing feathers. And third, even if this is a lizard with feathers, so what? That no more proves it was evolving into a bird than the beak proves birds evolved from turtles or parrot fish. That leap is based, not on the evidence, but on the evolutionary bias used to color the interpretation of evidence or maybe an odd species.

One of the best reasons for this dino to bird theory is fossils like Archeoraptor being put forth by magazines like National Geographic. You need to see the facts behind this amazing fraud for yourself. Here’s a spoiler-  they were told MONTHS BEFORE they published on it. They had been shown (By a pro-evolutionary lab who examined the fossil) that archeoraptor was a fraud made of several different animals in several different kinds of rocks. Even so, National Geographic shrugged it off and published it as fact anyways, KNOWING it was a fruad. Watch the story here.

I love science, kids. I love Biology, and I love studying all kinds of living things. But I can tell you one thing from observation: If Natural Selection was anything to shout about, these kinds of science frauds would have gone extinct many years ago. Even the flatworm can see that I’m right.

Join me next week for part 23 (The Big Finish!).

Evolution 101- part 16: The Mystery of Iguana Island

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (with special guest star Charlie Sheen!)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

Defining microevolution: Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

I think you’ll find it means further applying the term “Evolution” in a place it doesn’t belong. Here’s a metaphor: Getting rich is merely the result of differentiating your financial income. Remember when your boss cut your Christmas bonus in half? That was an observable difference in your financial income. It’s proof that you are getting rich!

And now, on with the show: Read more of this post

Evolution 101- part 10: Mutants- Yes, Ninja Turtles- No.

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (Ironic Mascot: Ken Ham)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

So, what are the sources of genetic variation?

Genetic variation

Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

“Some.” Did you get that? So, in a world of clones, other mechanisms of evolutionary change apparently could happen. I think they didn’t proof read this stuff.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

  1. Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
  2. Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
  3. Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

Genetic shuffling is a source of variation.


Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism’s DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism’s DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Just to keep you on your toes, some scientific fact which doesn’t contradict itself. Enjoy it while it lasts. Read more of this post

Evolution 101- part 9: Hope, Change, and Lethal Mutations

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (now serving the tri-state area!)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

Mechanisms of change

Each of these four processes is a basic mechanism of evolutionary change.

A mutation could cause parents with genes for bright green coloration to have offspring with a gene for brown coloration. That would make genes for brown coloration more frequent in the population than they were before the mutation.Or a pre-existing recessive gene. A change in the frequency of a trait does NOT equate to a change in the genes of the individuals. Besides, in the example given, the beetles already had genes for brown. This has no bearing on the story above unless it is meant to explain why brown beetles exist in the first place, which, in the paragraph above, they do not attempt to do.
Some individuals from a population of brown beetles might have joined a population of green beetles. That would make genes for brown coloration more frequent in the green beetle population than they were before the brown beetles migrated into it.Do I need to say how this doesn’t represent new genetic information? Let’s all take a second and remember that Evolution is supposed to explain the process by which bacteria became wolves and cabbages.
 beetles migration

Read more of this post

Evolution 101- part 8: Here Come the Beetles!

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (aka: Evo-Event Staff)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

Descent with modification

We’ve defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change.

They’ve got the last part right- long term change is what matters, but their definition is still paper thin and an inch tall. A Change in Gene Frequency is not good enough. It needs to be an INCREASE in genetic information, not merely a change in the frequency of genetic information which is already there. This is like saying “I know where this candybar originated! I can prove that this chocolate bar used to be a gum recipe because I found a label on one that says, “Now 20% bigger!”” Which is delicious but nonsensical. Also, I know America has forgotten this, but CHANGE can mean decay, or other forms of getting worse. If enough of the right genes go away, the species dies. Extinction is not evolution, even if they do appear on the same page of your glossary. Read more of this post

Evolution 101-part 7: Rocks for Jocks and the Snooze Bar

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (2004 CosPlay Team of the year)

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

Stratigraphy provides a sequence of events from which relative dates can be extrapolated.

This I where the biologists say, Proof of evolution? Sure- the geologist have it! And the geologists say, not us! The chemists have it! And the chemists say, why would WE have it? Ask the biologists! Much like the radio dating methods, these are based on a PILE of assumptions, the first being that the earth is billions of years old. Again, the problems with this branch of pseudoscience would take pages, but let me sum up a few key points: Read more of this post

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.


Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: