It is reality, every bit of it seen and unseen.
Ugh. I never thought I'd say these words, but Tom is absolutely right. The newest advances in bioinformatics will pound the last nails into Darwinian evolution's coffin. I do believe in a flexible creation in which organisms have been programmed with a capacity to adapt to their environments more quickly and efficiently that Darwinists ever suspected possible. I don't reject evolution, but I do believe we understand less about it than we think. I guess, if I had to categorize myself, I would call myself a proponent of intelligent design.
Did you know that scientists recently discovered that neutrinos affect decay rates over time, thereby calling into question the results of all radiometric dating? That is HUGE! Why do we not hear about these discoveries? Most scientists are so attached to the Darwinian paradigm that they will persecute anyone who legitimately questions the data to the same extent as the church once persecuted earnest scientists! Many scientists are waking up to all the flaws in classic Darwinism, but they dare not say a word for fear of being ridiculed, losing tenure, or getting stripped of their scientific credibility. In a book I read concerning bioinformatics, one engineer succinctly stated that in practice, they must defer to notions explored in ID, but they never admit it explicitly because it would set the Darwinists on a rampage.
Darwinian evolution was a useful paradigm in that it emancipated scientific inquiry from the tethers of the church, but as a theory, it cannot hold up under the newest discoveries on the cutting edge of science, particularly within the fields of bioinformatics and quantum mechanics.
No, I don't. You have no idea how many blades af grass there are and thus no concept of exactly how improbable it is to land the ball on one of them.
Creationists love probability because there really are an infinite number of ways to perform the calculations. The problem is that the things you are trying to quantify are inherently unquantifiable. There is no way to calculate the probability of an eye, for example, evolving over the course of million of years of evolution by natural selection.
The same goes for the Junkyard Tornado argument. From wikipedia: "The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the 747 is not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits."
http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability-evolution.html
http://www.earthage.org/intro/odds_of_evolution_by_chance.htm
The book from this-
http://www.icr.org/article/493/
This and the first are from a creationist site, but I can't find any evolutionist sites that defend this improbable factor...because they cannot.
Here's an article exploring the topic in Popular Science
And an excerpt from Science Daily:
Aug. 13, 2012 — Researchers may have discovered a new method to predict solar flares more than a day before they occur, providing advance warning to help protect satellites, power grids and astronauts from potentially dangerous radiation.
The system works by measuring differences in gamma radiation emitted when atoms in radioactive elements "decay," or lose energy. This rate of decay is widely believed to be constant, but recent findings challenge that long-accepted rule. The new detection technique is based on a hypothesis that radioactive decay rates are influenced by solar activity, possibly streams of subatomic particles called solar neutrinos. This influence can wax and wane due to seasonal changes in Earth's distance from the sun and also during solar flares, according to the hypothesis, which is supported with data published in a dozen research papers since it was proposed in 2006, said Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue University professor of physics.
Fischbach and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer and director of radiation laboratories in the School of Nuclear Engineering, are leading research to study the phenomenon and possibly develop a new warning system. Jenkins, monitoring a detector in his lab in 2006, discovered that the decay rate of a radioactive sample changed slightly beginning 39 hours before a large solar flare. Since then, researchers have been examining similar variation in decay rates before solar flares, as well as those resulting from Earth's orbit around the sun and changes in solar rotation and activity.
The new findings appeared online last week in the Journal Astroparticle Physics.
Want some fries with those shorts, God? :)