I was debating an atheist the other day and they left a link to a site where they were doing a long-term experiment. He said that because they were able to get 50,000 generations out of E coli, that proved evolution. In which I responded: You still don’t get it. After 50,000 generations was the E coli still E coli? Of course he knew where I was going with this and refused to address the question.
Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.
The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.
- If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
- Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.
Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.
Example: Light speed for years has been claimed to be a constant. The problem is that we live in a gravity environment, and light does not always travel under the influence of gravity as travels in space. So we don;t know if light changes speed when there is no gravity around. But recently science has been able to:
- Stop light: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html
- Slow down light: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
- And make the speed of light infinite: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23050-light-hits-near-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html#.U1osB6IVCzw
So all this means is that the speed of light is no longer constant. This puts into question every book, paper, theory etc…. That is based on the speed of light being constant. All of this is because some people wanted to make an assumption about light when they did not have all the facts. And because that assumption fits nicely with the theory of evolution and brings into question the Biblical creation. But now since all that’s in question the tide has turned and everything science has assumed on the speed of light being constant is now in question.
Some of what this puts into question are:
- How far stars and planets are away from us.
- How old stars or planets are because a light year no longer applies when the speed of light is no longer constant.
- Theories based on this no longer valid.
- All papers and books based on this no longer valid.
All because someone decided to assume. Now the question is: How long until science decides to admit to being wrong and correcting all this? From what has been witnessed with evolution and correcting mistakes there, I suspect it won;t be in our lifetime. 50 plus years is the norm for evolution.