|Not much is more complex than DNA|
Intro to Mass Media - I already knew a lot of the material, and the stuff I didn't know previously is pretty easy to understand.
German 101 - I took German for three years in High School, so it's practically a no-brainer.
Christianity 101 - While I do get some of the dates mixed up, my parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, and my own daily Bible readings have greatly prepared me for this class. It's no walk in the park, but it's definitely an easier class.
Stagecraft - I get to work with power drills and table saws. Enough said. =D
But the class I'm really, really going to have to study for is Biology 101. You'd think that after taking two years of Biology and one year of Anatomy that an Intro to Biology course would be a breeze for me.
But it's not. Science and math have never been my strong suits. I'm a Literature/History/Grammar/Media/Arts sort of person. Math and science are my kryptonite because my brain just refuses to work that way.
History dates? No problem. Famous literary works? No problem. Correctly editing the content, structure, and grammar of literally anybody's paper? Bring it on!
But the Quadratic Formula?
Yet even though I can't seem to wrap my head around mathmatical and science concepts, I do understand and remember many cool things about science.
Like, here's something I learned in lecture not too terribly long ago:
According to scientists, we never see animals, people, plants, or anything else in this world gaining genes. They only lose genes. In fact, with every generation the human species loses 1% fitness.
So if everything living on this planet has only been losing genes, then it begs the question: how did we ever gain enough genes to evolve?
We couldn't have. If you only lose genes - and all you and your species has ever done was lose genes, as is the case on earth - then you are physically incapable of gaining genes and therefore physically incapable of evolving. You literally can't do it.
And since the theory of Macroevolution states that life evolved, then we should be seeing proof in living things today and in living things in the past that genes were gained. Because that's the only way you can evolve: by gaining genes.
But scientists have never found proof for that. They have never found one living thing that has ever gained genes. We have only lost genes, and we will only continue to lose genes.
That's incredibly interesting, isn't it? And it's another layer of facts that point towards a Creator and debunks Macroevolution even more.
Another thing I learned in science class yesterday concerned DNA. Those who believe in Macroevolution also believe that our DNA is continuing to evolve, making us better and better than the preceeding generations.
But you want to know the facts? Scientists have never seen DNA improve. And whenever DNA has been adjusted or messed with (either through drugs or via genetic defects in birth), there are only problems.
Birth defects are usually (if not always) an instance when someone's DNA has mutated or changed even slightly. If such issues had made the baby somehow better than most humans, we would call that an improvement, right?
But every instance, the changing of DNA has never resulted in improvements. Only lifetimes of pain, mental issues, loss of vision, destroyed and non-functional organs, missing limbs, and other such things. It's no wonder we call them "defects."
And yet if Macroevolution is a real phenomenon, then we should be seeing it still acting today, right?
Yes, you could argue that Macroevolution takes millions of years. But even so, it's still a process that happens over time. Shouldn't we be able to look back to historical records and find that the human species has changed even a little bit in appearance or in how their internal organs functioned? If Macroevolution is real, then you should be able to look back and see some sort of minute change, see DNA improvements, and genes being added to living things.
But we don't see any of that. Scientists have found nothing to support Macroevolution. And many of the things they discover now and yell, "See? Macroevolution is true!" are further studied and years later it is discovered that their "proof" actually better supports the belief of Creation.
I find facts like the ones I mentioned above so very interesting.
After all, what is the most accepted belief of how the world came into existence? The theory of Macroevolution.
And what is the most ridiculed belief of how the world came into existence? Intelligent Design, otherwise known as Creation.
Yet when you look at the facts - and there's waaay more than the two I mentioned in this post - it can't help but make you wonder....
Well, I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers with this post. I'm not ridiculing Macroevolution nor am I attacking anyone who believes it. But, y'know, topics like this do have to be brought up. Discussions are good, especially those that make you think and reflect on not only what you believe but why you believe in it. Being challenged helps you to learn more about truth, your beliefs, and even yourself sometimes.
God did give us brains, after all. We might as well use them! =D
- Edessa, signing off