This Just in - Stingray Boots Cause Rain

As Rachel Lucas is currently doing, I have gone round and round with atheists at one time or another. I largely refuse to get involved in these discussions anymore, because it's pointless and worthless. I would like to highlight one point that I've come to time and time again.

I have stated on multiple occasions that I don't believe in coincidence. This is a blanket statement. It's like "I've never met a man I didn't like" or "There are no atheists in foxholes." Sure, there are occasions in which things just happen at the same time, seemingly without correlation, but the vast majority of perceived correlations are correlations indeed. I believe in cause and effect, action and consequence. I believe in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I observe the world around me and how it works. I observe sociology, climatology, chemistry, biology, and other otherwise formal studies. I like seeing how things work. I like how a horridly loud exhaust on a car will make some people smile and others get angry, whereas a quiet vehicle goes unnoticed by the masses. I enjoy learning about creatures and plants that I didn't previously know existed. I love that scientists decoded the Platypus' genome to determine whether it is truly more of a mammal, reptile, or bird; only to discover that it is kind of a bird-reptile-mammal. Frankly, I don't know whether that supports the belief in evolution, or in creation. I know for sure that the results of the genome project are humorous regardless of personal beliefs. I like to observe things that cannot be readily explained by any type of science that I understand. Not being a scientist of any kind, I do run across these things from time to time.

I have a pair of stingray hide cowboy boots that were made in Texas. They are wild-looking. The first time I saw stingrays in the western store, I couldn't imagine wearing a pair! I stumbled across a pair that were on clearance because the size was mis-marked, and I could not resist giving them a chance. I've found that I wear them a whole lot more often that I initially thought I would. They are sparkly and black, and look wonderful with a suit when I go to a Christmas party. They look equally good with a pair of jeans. It seems like there is a correlation between me wearing my stingray boots and rainy weather.

I don't literally believe that there is a correlation, as I believe that it is my perception that it rains when I wear these boots. I wore them yesterday, and there was flooding in much of the Okc metro area. This has become something of a little joke to me, but it doesn't rain every time I wear that pair of boots, nor do I wear the boots every time it rains. If it were otherwise, I might believe that there was something to it. If it rained every time I wore the boots, and it did not rain unless I wore them, I would have cause and need to formulate a hypothesis. The hypothesis might be that my boots cause it to rain, or it might be that the incoming rain causes me to wear the boots.

I know that people are sensitive to forces on a subconscious level that they don't necessarily perceive in their conscious minds. For instance, my subconscious mind may perceive a barometric pressure and humidity level that is indicitave of incoming rain. It may be that the first couple of times I wore the boots it was rainy weather. Therefore, my subconscious mind draws a correlation between the perception of incoming rain and the normality of wearing those particular boots in wet weather. Or, it could be that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

My point is that because a man's DNA is however many percent similar to that of an ape does in no way indicate that men were once apes. It does indicate that we came from the same source however. I don't see how it could be possible that we came from any source without an intelligent designer. Perhaps Carl Sagan is a lot smarter than me, or perhaps he's a self-loving, God-hating humanist that will grasp at straws to justify his sin, and lean upon his intelligence and persuasiveness as a crutch to comfort him in his spiritual rebellion. I don't know, and I'm certainly not here to judge.

But the evolutionist's point is that they are being called out by nay-sayers to explain things.

If the teaching of weaknesses is mandated, a textbook might be forced to say that evolution has an “inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion,” according to the group Texans for Better Science Education, which questions evolution.

I understand the question on the Cambrian Explosion, but I'm more concerned about evolution's inability to explain the origin of species, or even more importantly, the origin of life.

Look at my post on The Male "Species" if you need to better understand what makes a species. In order for a new species to occur according to Darwinian theory under sexual reproduction, at least two viable examples must exist, and be genetically diverse enough from their predecessors that they cannot produce fertile offspring with the same kind as their predecessors, and yet can produce fertile offspring with each other. This new type of creature must be able to multiply and survive. I don't buy it. With asexual reproduction, it's a different story as whatever offspring splits off could survive and split off with whatever mutation that made it what it is. But in the previous example, what are the sheer chances that this would happen enough times to create every species known to man?

I have seen it argued with parallel universes, that with infinite possible parallels, there arguably must be at least one in which anything and everything is possible, no matter what the odds, by the very definition of the odds. Ok. So, what is the evidence that there are parallel universes? Well, we are here, aren't we? By that rational, if it rained each and every time I wore my stingray boots without fail, and there was never even a drop of rain when I was not wearing them, it is still coincidence by the rational that we just happen to be in the right parallel universe where it has worked out that way.

Origin of life? It just happened. The artistic, precision engineering of a complex life form that the collective intelligence of man has not been able to match in the culmination of the history of man? It just happened. There were amino acids that turned into viruses that turned into the first cells. The cells turned into other stuff, then came sexual reproduction, fish, lizards, monkeys, and finally you and I.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'll give the origin of life a head start. Let's take my stingray boots, composed of many complex proteins. Let's put my boots in the "ideal" conditions, separated from life, and see what happens. Let's take some bets on how long those amino acids in the hides, glues, and lemon pegs finally combine and come to life. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that order eventually settles to chaos. History will show us that the rapid extinction of species that are not being replaced by new species at a similar rate proves the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do species eventually become better and stronger as their lines move forward and their genotypes are trimmed and edited by their phenotypes? No. They become inbred. Look at the California condor. Look at the panda. Look at man. Ouch, I went there!

But I digress. The reason Theological Creationists get bent out of shape on the whole evolutionary eduction argument is that it is not scientific. The theory of evolution is no more scientific than spontaneous generation or alchemy. Granted, when spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis was a commonly accepted fact (as evolution currently is), little was known about science by today's standards. And in their defense, those involved in alchemy included some brilliant minds such as a little-known man by the name of Benjamin Franklin or another obscure character known as Sir Isaac Newton.

I'm not at all saying that evolutionists are not intelligent. I am saying that they are zealots of their own religion, trying to force it on others. Here's what bothers me about that: If you think I'm dumb because I believe in God, the worst that can happen to me is that I'll be ignorant. The worst that can happen to you if I'm right is that you will go to hell. Yes, I'm going to share my views. Yes, I'm going to share my beliefs. I don't want anyone to suffer because of my lack of trying. Am I going to force it down your throat? No. All I ask is similar courtesy. Let's keep ALL religion out of the classroom - the theistic kind AND the atheistic.