a few things you might not have known:
- fact 1
- zebras, donkeys, and horses can all mate together to produce fertile offspring
- fact number B
- coyotes, dogs and wolves can all mate together to produce fertile offspring
- fact two squared minus one
- tigers, lions, panthers, leopards (etc) can all mate together to produce fertile offspring
significance? that makes them all the same biological species. but really, what is the significance? think noah's ark.. all you need is basically one dog/wolf/coyote pair and that could lead to today's dogs, wolves, and coyotes.. same goes for zebras/donkeys/horses and tigers/lions/leopards.... not just that, but now think of all those animals your biology teacher said were different species.. suddenly the amount of actual species drops by a bit (in the above example, by at least 67%) imagine how many of the actual "unique species" in existence today (as classified by the omniscient scientists) are actually just variations of another species.. ie, not so unique after all.. think of it this way, have you ever heard a criticism to noah's ark that goes something like this "how could noah fit all the millions and jillions of different animal species onto the ark?" well.. the answer is that firstly, there wasnt jillions of species.. it was in the order of thousands if at all.. cuz we forget all the amphibian/aquatic animals (which would obviously have no need to board the ark) and other types of animals that could survive the flood without the ark. secondly, we also dont generally think of it that way, but, you seriously
think noah had to load the ark with adult
animals?? they couldve been newborns at the independent survival age.. what about the poopies?? well, bears hibernate.. so why not all the other animals aboard the ark?? more sleep, less food necessary, less poopies to scoop! this also means that the lions wouldnt have gone to eat up everything on the ark when they got hungry.. (by the way, pretty much all animals are able to eat plants for nourishment.. i ran a quick search and couldnt find any examples otherwise).
so there ya have it. noahs ark explained.. the religion of science fails us once again. man, if only people were able to understand that science is NOT reliable.. since its ever-changing and correcting (ie, always wrong, and never 100% right)
so, i was thinking about how stupid evolution is (again) and how it actually requires an intelligent, capable
force to even work.. you know, since evolutionists claim that these organisms can "learn" these new traits (or at least acquire them, and "know" which ones to keep) so then i started wondering, what then, is the word that is defined by: "the ability to learn
"? my first thought, obviously was "intelligence".. but im biased, so that doesnt count.. hmm.. so i ran a search in google, ' define "capability to learn"
' and i got this interesting response
Intelligence is the ability to apply meaning to stimuli.
Accuracy or consensus regarding the meaning of a particular set of stimuli quantifies the level of intelligence.
Level of intelligence is a sliding scale which allows the application of new meanings from the addition, combination, or recombination of stimuli as well as the recognition of minds that process the meaning of stimuli in a more efficient manner.
some other guy there also said that the definitions he's found so far for intelligence mostly include "the ability to learn" as part of the definition. so, let me break it down with a few definitions that at least I
- the ability to solve problems
- all the facts accumulated by a system (ie, all the stuff you "know")
- the ability to interpret the meaning of facts or information
- the ability to make correct decisions based on knowledge, understanding and intelligence (obviously this includes the ability to give advice on how to make these decisions.. which is the general connotation of the word)
these are the definitions ive been using for these words for a while now.. hence why i ask myself which word is defined, or can
be defined as "the ability to learn".. lets go a bit further..
so, we have knowledge, understanding, intelligence, wisdom.. but, the ability to learn? how can we break it down into the different elements we have here? how about we say that "the ability to learn
" can be expressed as:
"the ability to store the interpreted meaning of facts and information"
interesting, huh? so, we see knowledge as the first requirement, understanding as the second, but not necessarily wisdom.. and it has a bit of implicit intelligence to it.. but not necessarily. unless we factor in the "problem" of storing and interpreting.. so we could say that for understanding we do need intelligence. in other words that intelligence is a requirement for understanding. kewl.
so, "the ability to learn" hinges on intelligence, whether we define intelligence as it or not. which is good enough for my original point i was looking to make.
evolutionists make fun of creationists (or other non-evolutionists) for the idea of "intelligent design
" which is a two part scientific premise that proposes that the universe and life (in terms of the evolution context, mainly life) shows design, ie, that everything that exists displays purpose and meaning and yes, even creativity. and the second part says that that design is actually one that exhibits intelligence is behind it. ie, that the design is not random
.. as evolutionists claim. however, there is one lovely contradiction they love to overlook.. darwinian evolution, also known as "survival of the fittest", we all know is a destructive process (hence the "survival" part) so how do they reconcile that with the fact that they need it to be a creative one (so that there is more variety/species than before instead of less
)? well, they make up these great stories, where one group of the species is separated and then put in a different environment and over millions and billions and jillions of years, suddenly they are different! how did that happen? well, the ones in the isolated group had the "less fit" ones die off, leaving the "fittest" alive. what does this mean? well, to an evolutionist, this is evolution.. the new population is now able to survive. to an intelligent person, this is just "survival".. and demonstrates that indeed members of that population were originally able to survive (ie, no acquired traits) and hence they survived! the difference? creationists state that the inherent ability was there from before, whereas evolutionists say that the ability "came about" from nowhere.. (if they are indeed that extreme.. this is also called lamarckian evolution
, which by the way is rejected by most evolutionists in the first place..) the other evolutionists just ignore this small huge
little thing.. if the information was already there, how did it originate?? creationists know.
but thats only point number A.. lets entertain the idea for a moment and say that indeed these traits come about, from mutations or whatever (even tho, when was the last time you saw a useful mutation
? or even the same useful mutation occur more than once.. or being passed down a generation?? ever
?? and you know what we call cells that mutate? cancer!!
but whatever, we're entertaining the idea, remember?) so lets say theres enough of these "useful" mutations going around, and that they are then passed on to the next generations.. soooo... what is it that we call the storage of information? knowledge
. and what if that information is useful? what do we call something able to pass down the useful information, selectively
?? (*cough*naturalselection*cough*) let me rephrase.. how do we call the ability to tell what is useful/good or not? understanding
. and so, again, what do we call the ability to make correct/good decisions based on stored information? wisdom
. so this "natural" system of selection is actually a highly highly developed system of wisdom
!! its not just intelligent
, its wise
!!! so evolutionists require this "randomness" to be wise
!! forget "intelligent design".. they are talking "random wisdom
"! but not just that, nono.. this system also requires the ability to do things, it cant just be information storage, it has to be able to put it into action.. so this randomness has to have the ability to "do". what do we call "the ability to do"? "potential"? "power"? "might"?
so, these evolutionists, (who by the way are basically atheists, or atheist indoctrinated ignorants (not that theyre stupid, but that they "ignore" the facts, or truth.. ie, they dont know them.. though not necessarily by choice) believe in this mystical magical "force" which has the "wisdom" and "power" to enact the series of useful modifications at sub-cellular level (ie, genes.. DNA) to all living organisms such that from a single-celled organism (and we havent even gotten into abiogenesis
yet.. you know, the idea of life coming from sterility.. or, life creating itself.. or, self-creation of life-- which by the way is a violation of basic logic) you can get all the multitude of species and living organisms we see today.. "over millions and billions and jillions of years" of course! (remember, "jillion" is that magical number at which anything, no matter how illogical, is possible)
yeah, that just about makes sense, dont it?
and its the fact that theyre atheists that makes it even more ironic.. since they say they dont believe in God.. and yet, they require exactly that for this process to even be possible!!
kinda makes you think, huh?
and not just that (i was about to click on submit) but the whole idea of "occam's razor
" gets violated!! occams razor states that you should not keep adding entities to a premise. its also simplified as "the simplest solution is usually the correct one
".. well, if for both we need a capable, wise/intelligent force to bring about life and everything we know.. then.. isnt creation much much much simpler than evolution?? isnt evolution, which requires (literally) an infinite number of changes within the system, incessantly adding entities? creation was a single event (which according to the bible lasted 6 days) after which everything existed in a perfect state.. and after sin enters, everything started falling apart.. which makes sense given the rise in disorder (newton's second law of thermodynamics.. aka, "entropy
" or the law that states that a closed system is most stable when it is in greater disorder.. ie, things tend to get disordered, or more chaotic.. ) and increase in diseases, etc.. but naaaaaahhhh.. a single, all-powerful, loving, creator God
is way waaay more complex
an idea than millions and billions and jillions of small useful
(nevermind the non-useful ones) changes to each individual organism within the system leading to the variety we see today... right atheists?