Saturday, 9 November 2013

Rev Blunt repeats what he has been told by people he trusts, the question is . . .

. . . when will he realise they have been lying to him?

Here is his full letter but this is the Creationist graveyard of long dead arguments he still presents as if they had any credibility at all.
1) The laws of thermodynamics and in particular the second law. This law states that isolated and undirected systems of matter or energy become less organised with time. Thus the physical, chemical and biological processes operating within the universe tend to disorder. Yet the theory of evolution tells us that the universe began in a state of disorder (being the result of an explosion) and developed, by itself, into the orderly, complex and beautiful universe we know today.
No Rev. Blunt - The Earth isn't an isolated system - look at the sun.  The universe began in a state of order and is winding down.  Who told you this and why do you believe them?
2) The principle of biogenesis, which means that life can only come from life. 
Who told you that this has anything to do with evolution?
3) The nature of mutations, which is that they represent a loss of genetic information. 
Again this is simply untrue, who told you this?  Why haven't you checked up on it and why do you still trust them?
One might add to the above the absence from the fossils of any undoubted transitional forms. 
Just go to a museum.  Again, who is telling you this stuff and why do you believe them?
In the last analysis both creation and evolution are theories which can only be accepted by faith.
An empty assertion.  The key point for me here is how a person in a position of trust within this church can take such rubbish at face value without fact checking any of it?  The Rev. Blunt seems to be living in a world where the huge majority of Christians and Scientists are involved in some kind of massive conspiracy theory, or they are all stupid not to spot something so obvious that he is pointing out.  You would think he would at least want to check into his own arguments a but first wouldn't you?  Otherwise what kind of example is that to set?

1 comment:

  1. "the absence from the fossils of any undoubted transitional forms." Weasel words. Which really mean that because creationists ALWAYS doubt any claimed transitional (extinct) species therefore there are 'no' undoubted ones thus there are 'none' and scientists are deluded or lying.