6 Days, 6,000 Years Ago
71A subtle attack
The theory of evolution contends that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry. All life forms can have their origin traced back to a primordial soup and the first living single cell. Add in billions of years to make it more plausable and you have an "airtight" position to explain life. This theory has been taught to our children as fact. It was taught to me as fact when I went to school over 30 years ago. There is not one shred of evidence to back it up.
The Bible says that God created everything that exists in the heavens. It also states very clearly that He created man on the 6th day. Tracing the recorded geneologies in the bible and adding 2011 years to it gives us an age for the creation of about 6,000 years.
The attack on faith has it's roots in the position of "billions of years". Supporters of the theory of evolution know that if they can cast doubt on the creation account, the foundation for what creationists believe and teach, will crumble. If doubt is cast on the very first verse of Genesis, how will the rest of the words that follow stand up to scrutiny? Teach kids that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, and that life slowly emerged and evolved over millions and millions of years, and what you will have is a very weak belief in God at best.
Why is this being taught to our children at taxpayer expense? What is the agenda of those who are responsible? Are they just doing what they believe is right? Or is there a more sinister purpose behind it? Is the theory of evolution "science" or is it a belief system? Can everything be explained in terms of 6,000 years? Or has the evidence proven that the Earth is billions of years old?These are only a few of the questions I will address in this series.
Clash of worldviews
If you believe in billions of years, you are conceding that death came before sin. This is not what the bible teaches. The bible teaches that creation was cursed as a result of the fall of Adam and that because of his sin, death had entered the picture and Adam was cast out of the garden so he could not eat of the tree of life and live forever in a fallen state. Sin can only exist if God exists.
The theory of evolution makes no room for right and wrong nor can it. Without a supreme being to make the rules and hold us accountable, there cannot exist moral absolutes. If a monkey ripped the arm off of a human, would the monkey be committing an act of immorality? Or would it better be defined as committing an act of impulse or instinct with no sense of right and wrong? What does a wild animal know about right and wrong? Would we expect they should know the difference? Is there truly such a thing as right and wrong? What is it that makes possible absolutes such as right and wrong? If there is no God to determine these absolutes, who determines them? You? Me? Someone else? Without God, why should I adhere to anybody's concept of right and wrong? If we die and what follows is extinction, oblivion with no account being given for what I did in this life, what is to stop me from doing what I feel is right for me even if it harms another, as long as I can get away with it? The theory of evolution teaches that we are highly evolved monkeys.It's no wonder there is so much violence in the world. It's no wonder that there is so little discipline in this generation. People are being taught that they are evolved animals. Without God we could come up with a set of rules to protect society but would they be based on moral absolutes or just simply survival? There is only one way moral absolutes can exist, there must be One who possesses SUPREME authority to establish them. God is that SUPREME authority! This is a subject that I will cover in greater deatail at a later date, but for now, I just want to contrast sin with moral relativism to reveal the agenda of those who strongly support the theory of evolution. Their agenda is this, if we come from monkeys, we are accountable only to ourselves, we can make up our own rules.
This is where the clash of worldviews reaches it's most explosive encounter. Believers say, God made man, God owns all that He created. God alone has the authority to make the rules. Evolutionists say there is no God, there is no right and wrong, we are accountable only to ourselves.
Theory in crisis
Charles Darwin published his book "origin of Species" in 1859. It was an attempt to explain life without the need for a creator. In his explanation of the beginnings of life he states that the earliest life forms were single celled organisms formed by a primordial soup of chemicals that occurred from billions of years of rain falling on rocks. Statisticians will tell you that if anything has a chance of happening of less than 1 in10 to the negative 50th power, (that's 1 in 10 with 50 zeros) it will never happen. Scientists concur that the odds of a simple protien to occur through natural means is 1 in 10 to the 191st power (that's 1 in 10 with 191 zeros). And that is still a long way from life. They concur that the odds against even a single cell forming by natural means is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 in 10 with 40,000 zeros). There is no problem accepting that matter all by itself could produce rain, or lightning or weather patterns since this does not require information to produce. However when you think about the complexity of even the simplest forms of life, much information (contained in DNA) is required. In his book "In The Beginning Was Information" engineer professor at the German Institute of Physics and Technology, Dr. Werner Gitt wrote " There is no law of nature, no known processs, no sequence of events which can cause information by itself in nature" (pg 108)
Even IF life could occur in this manner, to suggest that the abundant variety of species shares a common ancestry to these single cells has no support of real science. There is no evidence of any species giving birth to an entirely new species. Single cells produce single cells. Fish produce fish. Reptiles produce reptiles. Monkeys produce monkeys. Dogs produce dogs. Each after it's own kind. No one has EVER witnessed otherwise.
What evolution teaches is that small mutations occur over long periods of time until a new and better suited species is evolved. Is there any scientific evidence that this occurs? NO! What is a mutation? Is it an occurrence that improves a species? Is it an occurrance by which information is added to the DNA code? NO! A mutation occurs when information is lost, producing offspring that are different as a result of lost information in the DNA code. There is no proven instance by which it has been observed that information was added to the DNA code of any living thing that produced a superior organism.
A better explanation
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that exists in them. His word clearly states that He did this in 6 days and on the 7th day He rested. It happened around 6,000 years ago. About 4,600 years ago there was a worldwide flood. All life was wiped out except for those on the ark God told Noah to build. This explains the fossil record. It is also the key to unlock many of the mysteries of what we see today. Everything can be explained in terms of thousands of years. Things such as fossil fuels, the formation of coal and diamonds, variety of species, the supposed different races of humans, distant starlight, can all be explained in terms of 6,000 years. The purpose of this writing is to hopefully open a dialogue in the comment section and to spur future hubs that address these matters in more detail. As Christians, we need not fear science. Science points to God! We can take on the critics and their best arguements against faith and turn their arguements upside down. We can see the same evidence they look at and explain it in terms of creation and thousands of years. The problem isn't the evidence... it's the interpretation of the evidence. We have the same evidence, we simply have a different worldview by which we explain it. A worldview that exposes the myth and explains the truth. That Almighty God made all that exists. That creation (including us) belongs to Him. That He has given us rules to live by and His own Son as a substitute to take our punishment for not living by His rules. The truth that destroys the fallacy that we came from rain on a rock and that monkeys are in our family tree.
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed"
John 3:19,20
This is the reason for the attempt to explain life without the Creator of life. Each produces after it's own kind. We are descended from Adam...not monkeys!
CommentsLoading...
Fred,
I love this line--"There is not one shred of evidence to back it up" referring to evolution). How true! I marvel at how people with a differing viewpoint try to criticize and degrade rather cough up the "proof" that supposedly exists.
Merlin-Since you seem to BELIEVE that my conclusions are incorrect or as you so eloquently put it "laughable" you MUST have something more plausable. Something like oh maybe... rain on a rock? Is it because of your superior education that you have chosen your words as you did? If you have anything substantive, I invite you to engage me in a debate. If however, all you have is sarcasm and an inability to spell "yesterday", I expect this will be the last of it and you can go on in your ignorant bliss. The choice is yours. I welcome all civil discourse.
Lifegate- So good to see you! All reasoning scientists reject the plausability of spontaneous generation of life from non living chemicals. Many have stated this outright. Those who continue in their atheism or agnosticism do so because they don't wish for there to be a God. Let me give you an example (one of many that I have) Professor G.A. Kerkut of the University of Southampton (London) expressing his conclusion regarding the underlying attitudes of many scientists on the subject of evolution states "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.
In other words, forget about the scientific evidence, just believe in evolution as a matter of faith because the evidence is not available.
As I said, there are many examples where evolutionists in their own words have said that the evidence to support it just doesn't exist but the alternative is a Creator and many are not willing to accept this despite the fact that the evidence does in fact support this conclusion.
Thanks Pastor for helping this debate get started!
voted up and beautiful! Amen and Right on, brother; and in answer to the first gentleman's remark, I suggest Romans 1:22 to be a proper reply...
Great hub...I've taught a layman's evolution/creation debate class amd used these same points...andd will be writing on the topic as well...as to Merlin, like your namesakes power...evolution is a fantasy...
In the beginning God...
I wonder if some educated sub normal genetic groups would accept Evoloution more easily if it had been written by an American ?
And Mitch.... At least I recognise my name sake as a Myth yet you cannot make the same leap about the Bible !
I don't make the "leap" because it would be a fools leap..I came from a place of agnosticism in my own life...I dug deep and tried to logically disprove the Bible...Truth prevailed...
What is your BEST scientifically proven fact for your belief in spontaneous generation?
What is your BEST scientifically proven fact to deny the Genesis account?
Mitch,
Why do you and other Creationists always ask the same tired old questions when you know full well you will deny any answer that doesn't agree with your own ?
The creation of the Universe and Life is something so complex it is way beyond the comprehension of the average human being, me included. However because it is beyond our current comprehension does not mean that something that big could only be the work of some God...
Science cannot be used to disprove something that didn't happen hence no one is, as far as I am aware even trying to disprove the Genesis version of Creation.
Most people is the scientific community are happy and content that the creation of all that there is could not have happened the way it is explained in the Bible.
Nor is it feasible to accept the notion that the Universe along with the Earth and all life was created in only 6,000 years.
Not to mention the fact that the figure of 6,000 is only a loose mathematical back calculation based upon the ages of characters mentioned in the Bible...
Then there is the Genetic impossibility of the entire population of the World stemming from an original source of two. Which is repeated for all know animals after the supposed flood.
I see little point in discussing Noah and his ark... You don't need science to debunk that story... simple mathematics will do that for you. But if you need help here’s a clue; An Elephant can eat up to 700 pounds of food per day, now multiply that by 150 days on the ark…. That’s just for one animal…
I could go on and on and on…. But see little point I can hear you and Fred going “LA La La….! Talk to the Hand ‘cos the ears aren’t listening…..” from here !
No, actually I am listening...that's why I asked the question...
And, as usual I received the answer I expected, a non-answer...there are facts to discuss and good scientific debate to be had...if you are willing to engage in it from that direction...but, if you are not that confident that your BEST points on each question can not withstand scrutiny, then I understand your tactic of trying to deny my willingness to use logic and science, when you can't...I am more than willing...
It is also a false assumption to believe that all or even most, buy into the macro-evolution mythos...
Mitch I'm not sure someone else's Hub is the right place for you and I to debate anything... It's rude if nothing else.
I'm sorry you think my response is a non answer I gave you three very good logical points that would debunk the Genesis version of anything why do you ignore that ?
PS I'm British and only understand English can you explain what the hell "macro-evolution mythos..." means !
But not here if you want meet me on common ground and let's leave Fred in his own little world...
Fred, would you prefer this debate stayed here or be moved before I address what Merlin claims are his BEST arguements against the Biblical account of creation and his lack of a BEST reason to believe in spontaneous generation and macro-evolution?
I will respect your wishes, as it was you who started the debate here...
Mitch and Merlin- It is such a beautiful day here at the beach and I plan to spend it outside with my family. I regret that I won't be joining in the debate until tomorrow but welcome you both and any others to continue right here on this forum. This is EXACTLY why I wrote and published this hub. BTW Merlin, Noah didn't take the biggest animals, he took the babies, they take up much less room and eat much less food. He just had to make sure he took a pink one and a blue one because that would come in handy later!
Merlin, your information is outdated and inconsistent with reality...whether it be genetics, geology or astronomy, the science always catches up to the truth...for theories change, but truth is constant.
This quote "All humanity shares common ancestry in the last few thousand years" is one of many made by modern scientist, who are seeking truth. It was made by Joseph Lachance, Graduate Program in Genetics, Dept. of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University in November 2010. It is found on the NIH (Nation Institute of Health) website at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC276066
Genetics, Geology and Astronomy, when looked at objectively and not throught the prism of wanting there to be no God, always comes back to the Creator.
It was Huxley who said of his embracing of evolution, "I suppose the reason we leaped at 'The Origin of Species' was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores". It was not the science, but the outcome that held it in high esteme. With evolution, no creation...with no creation, Creator...with no Creator, no trandscendant right or wrong...
Do you believe that murder, the taking of innocent life without cause, is inherently wrong? or is it just illegal?
OK Mitch,
Your last point first, What do I Think ?
I think the taking of ANY life without cause, is wrong !
I have served in the military and I could never understand how the any Church could reconciled itself with the job we had to do, even praying that we returned home unscathed from our missions.... What about the other Guy, or is God an American or British White Guy ?
This is just one small problem I have against your God and his servants. I am assuming you are a Christian of sorts... There are so many splinter groups it's hard for us Pagans to keep up.. but if you are how can you so blindly accept and justify the worldwide slaughter in his name and that of his supposed father ?
From what little I know of Christianity and the original message Jesus is supposed to have given if I called myself a Christian I would live in fear of the second coming because if it ever happens he will condemn you to Hell....for the atrocities committed in his name over the last 2,000 odd years.
Anyway back to Creationism and Reality you want me to watch your video I will but please promise to watch mine. As I said earlier I am no expert in the fields of science involved here. I listen and read with interest the biased one sided attacks aimed at Charles Darwin as if this were something he and he alone came up with one fine day. His papers and books were based upon years and years of study and observation taken over by countless scientists all over the world and proven to be true and correct.
The statement that Darwin ever set out to prove the non existence of God is a malicious lie spread by those hell bent on destroying his great works and his many , many achievements. Even if you cannot accept his version of evolution you must surely acknowledge his contribution to the knowledge of mankind.
This video http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vw49d is from one of those men, someone I greatly admire who has devoted his entire life to the study of life. A gentler soul you will not find and a great teacher. I have followed this guy ever since he first appeared on TV, someone who admits when he’s wrong and marvels at the wonders around him
Please; if as you say you view things with a truly open mind then watch this man and grant him that opportunity as I will watch the link you have sent me. We can compare notes later..... Can I be fairer?
Actually, anyone killing in the name of Christ is going against Christ, His teachings and the purpose for which He came...and more poeple have been killed in the name of atheistic neo-Darwinism. Hitler, Stalin and the like...
The Bible teaches to share the message of the Gospel, to pray for those that have not accepted the FREE gift of salvation through Christ and to love one another...We are not called to kill unbelievers...The second coming brings no fear for the believer at all...I look forward to it...it is those who reject Him and His free gift of salvation, those still under the penalty of sin, that will find fear...He does not what that for ANYONE and so He offered, and offers, Himself to pay that sin...
As to the link, it does not play here in America for some reason, but I familiar with him from my youth and television...
Question: How can murder be WRONG, not just illegal or not "nice" to the person being murdered, but inherently WRONG if there is no transcendant law that superceeds man's laws? I wrote a Hub on just that topic and would like an athiest's view. (I was an agnostic for the first half of my life)
Like all words Murder is subjective : In today's society murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought."
But what about the circumstances, during a war or law enforcement where in many cases there maybe a degree of premeditation ? Is murder alright as long as you’re one of the good guys ?
You ask if there is no law that supersedes Man’s Laws... What about your God’s Laws. “Thou shalt not Kill !” Yet he did...! Quite frequently as I recall, is that not murder ? Or is it alright if you’re a God ?
Are you asking if there was something before the laws of man or your God... then the answer is yes, there was.
You see the difference between you and I is that you cannot see a time further back than your Bible, you believe it to be true so therefore mentally you stop at whatever date is set by those rules. Rules set by other human’s eons ago.
I on the other hand refused to be bound by those rules, they are a barrier to free thinking and no man has the right to prevent me from asking Why ? My world is dominated by the statement “ I do not know !” and it challenges me to seek out the answers.
I am not an atheist nor am I an agnostic, I firmly believe and have proved to myself that there is No God or Gods other than those created by man thousands of years ago to help him comprehend what was beyond his capacity to understand.
Mankind has a history far, far older than your 6,000 years in fact you could add quite a few more zeros just to get close. However there are many other things that you would have to accept that is contrary to your Bible teachings and one of those is to understand that mankind is just another animal species on this planet. Once you accept that simple fact then you can understand a backward evolutionary process.
Then see man at his absolute weakest; alone, naked and without weapons or the skill to use them, reliant purely upon his size, speed and strength to survive against all the other animals. As a species it’s a wonder we made it at all.
Animals kill to live and survive, they will kill to defend themselves and their offspring. They will fight for the right to breed and yes in the case of the Alpha male this may lead to the death of the old leader or the young challenger... Is any of that Murder ? Or is it the survival of the fittest by natural selection.... the simple law of the jungle, the strong survive !
Pack and herd animals create societies and those societies have rules, in some of those societies rule breakers maybe banished from the pack... lessening that individuals chances of long term survival... is that murder ?
In the animal kingdom only man Murder’s, only Man kills for fun or pleasure, only man has driven other species to extinction out of greed, selfishness or stupidity. Only man needs Laws to tell him it’s wrong which in most cases he ignores....! No other animal save man is dumb enough to poison and destroy his own environment and endanger everything he needs to sustain his own life.
For me to understand who I am I need to know and understand where I came from, the story of evolution shows me that path in a way that Genesis never could... Genesis cannot look far enough backwards because the humans who wrote it did not have the wherewithal or the opportunity to do so.... We do yet you challenge that ability and say everything discovered is wrong and untrue ! I would say that is arrogance on an unprecedented level.
Does science have all the answers...? Of course not.... Is science always right...? No ! Should that stop us looking, or asking questions ?
There are many men throughout history, men with vision who have opened doors and shone a light into dark corners... It is our duty to follow where they point.
Otherwise we would still be that weak creature standing naked and alone half a million years before anyone ever thought about writing a book !
I hope that answers your question, not from an atheist but someone’s whose beliefs predate anything in your Bible by a lot more than just a few years.
By your own definition you are an atheist..."a" as a prefix means "no"...atheist means "no god"...
The actual commandment uses the word for MURDER and not kill...So, that being said, do believe that MURDER, the killing of an innocent person is inherently wrong?
As to the 6000 years, I am not "married" to that specific time, but through a lot of study have found, through geology, astronomy and other scientific disciplines that the earth can not be millions or probably even hundreds of thousands of years old...If you do the "asking" you claim to do, as I do, you can find that many discoveries have been made in the past decade or two that support a relatively young earth.
Also, genetic mutations cause a loss of information and not an increase.
You did not discuss the article I sent, so I'll assume you took your pre-conceived atheist views and dismissed it without reading it.
I started my journey of faith by, with an open mind, trying to disprove the Bible...The deeper i dug into science the more I realized that a lot of what is taught in schools is blatantly slanted by evolution as a preconceived starting point, rather than a place that is arrived at by following the fact...The same thing many atheist claim believer are doing, is in fact what has been done by those same atheists...
If you are truly seeking truth and not just a way to support what you "want" to be true as Huxley did, seek it...You will be surprised at what you find...
Mitch,
I read your article but thought my response was already long enough for me to go into it. In principle I couldn't see a lot wrong in the theory but there again I don't feel qualified to argue one way or the other.
I would question the qualifications of your teachers both past and present, evolution is not the bee and end all of all science merely one tiny part.
I worked in the Oil industry for over 25 years alongside many Geologists and other scientists and I have studied what it takes to create coal, oil and gas. At their hands I learnt about plate tectonics the formation of mountains, volcanoes and earthquakes. By design of rock formations it is possible to travel backwards through time millions of years so anyone who tells you differently is I'm afraid lying to you.
I’m sorry to belabour the point or argue with you but this pre conceived notion of yours that the Bible is factual and the only possible source of information in reference to creation of everything is not only wrong it borders on delusional.... In fact what you are saying is that mankind has learnt or achieved no understanding of anything whatsoever in 5,000 years.... which is laughable and why so many people treat all Creationists with contempt and refuse to discuss anything with you.
You and Fred try to argue that the Universe as we know it was created in 6,000 years. By that if we accept this explanation that means this scruff little planet of ours is the centre of the Universe and everything in the Universe is as far away from us as it could travel in that time frame ? I’m no astronomer but even I can see the flaws in that argument.
This is the problem you face with people like me, I like to use Logic, Reason and Common Sense in my discussions and I’m sorry to say that I get a little annoyed when people challenge my intelligence with ridiculous points like this.
I have no idea what you and Fred are looking for, is it that if you accept the bible is just an old book written a long time ago by people like us trying to make sense of the world around us then this somehow diminishes your faith in your God ?
In my mind I am satisfied with the conclusion I have reached that tell me Man created the Gods and not the other way around. I am happy with that, for me it fits all the facts.
You and Fred on the other hand do not seem at all happy with the information you have. If you were why would you seek out people like me to argue with ? You know it will change nothing or is it that you are still not sure who is right ?
I have no idea where your notions come from or who your teachers are but I will say this to you to pass on, Not all Science is Wrong ! Think about it...
I already said I'm not married to the 6,000 years...as to the article, it explains what you argued initially couldn't be true...and now you are the one denying science because you don't like the answer..also, oil, coal and diamonds need heat and pressure, not time...can be created in a lab...the pressure and heat exist in the earth's crust...no surprise, it's science...If you learned anything from your geology encounters, then you understand about the ability of quick and massive movements the can cause mountains to rise, massive earthquakes etc...this again science...I assume you also learned about clam fossils on some mountain tops...which means they were once below sea level...non of this, nor the myriad of scientific fact come from the Bible, they merely support it..
As to the astronomy, you might wantt to research a little more...you are woefully misguided on the immensity of our universe or don't understand the science behind it...
You have not used fact, logic or insite to make your point...vague references and categorical denials of both science and the Bible is not logic, but the denial of it...you reject science if it supports the Biblical world view...that is not logic...you have, seemingly, not research the topic, but simply decided to pit science against the Biblical account rather then studying the science in depth without a preconceived notion...I started as an agnostic who decided to dig as deep as I could and found that when the raw facts are laid out, not prepackaged to sell a side, the conclusions are clear...that lead me to take another look at Genesis. Not the other way around...
Believing Genesis was my CONCLUSION and not my starting point...you start with premise that Genesis is false and go from there...my way is much more honest and logicl...
Brother Fred I must have skipped that class or fallen asleep in it for fortunately I was never taught it and even if I had been I would never buy into it.
Mitch- You have done more than admirably in defending the faith! I was very skeptical of the accuracy of the Genesis account. I was always taught billions of years as fact and beyond scrutiny. I had to re-evaluate the Genesis account in light of it. I had to reconcile the 6 days of creation with the billions of years I had been taught. I looked at the 6 days as 6 ages. That's not what the bible teaches. Each "day" is prefaced with evening and morning which leaves no room for my interpretation. The bible teaches that they were in fact literal days, not ages. Later in Genesis when God gives Moses the 10 commandments, God refers back to the creation account when He instructs us to remember the sabbath. I have spent MUCH time researching the idea that God's account was accurate. All of the things that scientists of many disciplines say took millions or billions of years can in fact be reconciled to thousands of years, especially when you bring a worldwide flood into the equation. I witnessed with the world the power of water a few weeks ago when the images came in from the tsunami in Japan. This event pales in comparison to the flood of Noah. As you stated oil and coal and diamonds do not require time as we were taught. Heat and pressure are what is really needed. You did a fantastic job by pointing this out. I applaud you for your search for faith. Most people inherit their faith from others. Not many truly find it through logic and reason, though they easily could since all indicators point to a Creator. God bless you my brother! Fight the good fight!
Brother Dave! So nice to see you! They certainly do teach the theory of evolution as fact in the public schools even though it can only be supported by lies. It's not science. It's a belief system. They teach kids they are nothing special (not teaching them they are created in the image of God) that they are simply evolved animals. Is it any wonder that there is so much violence and disrespect?
Thank you so much for taking time to comment!
Sir Francis Bacon said (paraphrased) the reason we can study nature is because it has order...
"A fool says in his heart 'there is no God'"
How exactly am I denying science if I say I don’t necessarily understand something, the article you placed on hear is meaningless to me as it is not my area of expertise. The numbers look sound, we are all related and share some common elements within our DNA, What’s to argue with ? You start off with a relatively small number of people and you end up with 7 billion odds on we are all related somehow ...
However you are wrong about Geology, OK yes you can duplicate heat and pressure in the lab, but how do you explain sedimentary rock ? Oil and gas are the decomposed remains of billions of tiny sea life trapped under thousands of layers of sediment that takes time and a lot of it. The movement of the Earths plates causes the earthquakes and the pressure of their movement causes the mountains, this is why the Himalayas, Alps, Rockies and the Andes are still rising while other areas of the world are sinking back into the earth’s core.
There are fossilised sea creatures on most mountains... I have seen the skeleton of a whale and collected sharks teeth in a desert 2,000 feet above sea level and know how they got there... So what ?
I AM misguided on the immensity of our universe or don't understand the science behind it???
The most recent measurements reveal that the Universe is at least 150 billion light-years in diameter.... without billions of years of TIME how do you suggest it got to be so big ?
Believing Genesis is a personal choice for you..... I am happy if this satisfies you but please don’t put the scribbling of a bunch of nomadic Arabs from 5,000 odd years ago and try to compare it with what we know today. That is just ridiculous and is an insult to my and many other peoples intelligence.
For starters they thought the earth was flat and the whole of heavens rotated about us, which it you lay on your back in a field looking up is pretty much what it would look like.
Their entire world was how far they could walk and see.... Even the more civilized and educated in the region only knew about one third of the world’s mass. To believe Genesis means that man and the Dinosaurs must have walked the face of the planet at the same time yet they never get a mention. Noah only took Baby animals on the ark to save space.... that’s not a fact in evidence... besides if he did, did also take milk to sustain them.... which would have gone off faster than anything else.
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg... There’s is not one scientific truth in Genesis and you are deluding yourself to believe there is.....
I am not denying Science.. I state it does not have all the answers which is a fact.... I stated that it is likely that some of the things we thing are true today maybe proved wrong tomorrow. That is the very nature of learning...
Science starts from “I Do Not Know...!” and builds from there, you are wrong to suppose or suggest that any scientific study starts with a preconceived solution and work backwards to prove it. It doesn’t work in science... it may work for Creationist trying to cling to whatever facts give you hope, but please don’t offer it as science !
The Bible does not teach of a flat earth, but of a round one...science played catch up...
Working backwards (or circular) is exactly how we "determined" the ages of rocks...dig a little deeper...It started with the premise that millions of years are needed for evoluton since we don't see it happing now...then arbitrary dates were placed on rock layers (which Mt. St. Helens but down in a short period of time) based on how far down they were...then the fossils were given those same dates and viola...millions of years old fossils...The dating systems are inacurate, especial C-14 at those ages...
But anyway, as you have said, you have not done the leg work and compaired the facts with the theories...I used to be where you are...So, I understand...
"What we believe does not change what IS, but what IS should change what we believe"
Merlin- I have read all of your comments and would like to start out by saying thank you for a spirited debate. I don't write to "preach to the choir". I write to spark critical thinking so that when all is said, people can reach their own conclusion after careful consideration of what is presented. As I said to Mitch, most people inherit their faith from parents or because it's what they were always taught. My hope in writing this was always to attract a thinker who disagrees with my position so we could reason together and let the chips fall where they may. For me, it all came down to this. Do all species really come from a common ancestor, or did we come from an Intelligent designer? I have consulted with some of the best resources on both side of the debate and it became very clear that the creation position was the only position that made any sense. What makes the most sense to me is that there would be NOTHING. Absolute eternal boundless NOTHING. But as we know, that is not the case. Which begged the question haunting mankind for millenia, "Where did I come from?" This is what sparked my search for truth. I examined the possibility of naturalist cause. No answers were forthcoming. Feeble explanations for spontaneous generation of life through naturalistic causes left me wondering why people could believe such utter nonsense. Rain on a rock? Billions of years of single cells turning into complex organisms? Fish turning into reptiles turning into mammals? Monkeys turning into humans? Has ANYBODY EVER witnessed such a thing? Even a single celled organisms DNA contains a vast ammount of information, could this information have occured by chance without a Designer? I am certainly not alone in concluding it could not. As I mentioned in my hub qouting Dr. Werner Gitt "There is no law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter" If there is no rational explanation in nature, why not consider the alternitive? Information can ONLY come from Intelligence. That being the case I decided I would follow the evidence and see if it made more sense in the light of Creation. What I found overwhelmed me. Science points to God! Biology, astronomy, cosmology, the fine tuning of the universe, our precise orbit, the tilt of the Earth on it's axis, the speed of it's rotation, the magnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the composition of the atmosphere, the tensile strength and make up of water, the fact that anything on the periodic table of the elements past iron cannot be explained through naturalistic means all work together to show me the precise care given by an all powerful being that tailored it all to support the existence of man on this tiny blue marble. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibility. You accuse me of many things, being closed minded among them, as you point your finger toward me, remember there are 3 more fingers on your own hand pointing back at you. You can find truth if you seek it.
Best wishes my friend.
I'm here if you have questions or comments.
Fred
spontaneous generation...'nuff said...
I'm gone.... There is no point in continuing if you two are happy with the answer God Dun It ! Then I am happy for you but I will waste no more time debating it.
We refuse to deny the scientific facts, that's all...
Indeed you do but whose science ?
Facts are facts...the article I shared is not from a "creationist" group...the raw data that I've studied is not "slanted"...do some deeper digging with presupposition... an open mind...not with a Huxleyan
Merlin- Not sure if you read my comment to you. I thought I was very clear in respecting your position and inviting you to engage in debate. You have yet to provide any clear reasoning for what you believe and why. It is certain that you believe in a naturalistic view of existence. Do you have any evidence to back up this reasoning? If so please present it. Let me help you out a little. Distant starlight, dating methods that point to an ancient Earth, dinosaurs, different races of people, etc... pick one or pick all, or pick some other reason for why you believe what you believe and we can present a counter and we will see together what makes the most sense. Don't call names and then run away. I welcome your input. I don't deny the scientific facts, I embrace them. They are a foundation for my faith. It is a wrong interpretation of the evidence that I wish to counter. It is you that appears to be covering their ears and shouting LALALALALA. Let us continue to come with eyes and ears, and minds open.
Hello Fred Allen + everyone else :)
I found your hub interesting, but also frustrating, I'm afraid.
I have no problem with people believing in God and belonging to the Christian religion, but they should be careful what they say about other people and their beliefs, opinions, etc.
For example, I think that it is unfair to imply that science teachers have an agenda, when all they are doing is teaching their subject.
Yes, the theory of evolution does, indeed, contend that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry ~ but there is, actually, plenty of evidence to back it up.
Actually, 'to suggest that the abundant variety of species shares a common ancestry to these single cells' definitely does have 'the support of real science'.
Yes, 'People are being taught that they are evolved animals' because that is what we are. We are animals.
And, yes, 'the Bible says that God created everything' ~ including 'man on the 6th day', but 'there is not one shred of evidence to back this up'.
If we 'teach children that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, and that life slowly emerged and evolved over millions and millions of years', we will have children who are knowledgable about scientific discoveries ~ and what they have taught us.
There is nothing sinister about teaching schoolchildren and students about science. How could that be?!
Science is about study, discoveries, facts, etc. It is not about sin, or beliefs, or religions or worldviews. It is separate from all of that.
The theory of evolution is nothing to do with right and wrong. Scientists can accept evolution without accepting immoral behaviour.
I have already posted most of my views on the subject ~ I have just been involved in a discussion on God and morality on Mitch Alan's hub 'Can Murder be Wrong if there is no God?' and I have taken part in a lengthy discussion on morality, evolution, etc, on James A Watkins's hub 'Darwin and Evolution'. I have also submitted a few of my own hubs on the subject, which explain evolution and my thoughts on the matter.
~ 'Is there truly such a thing as right and wrong? What is it that makes possible absolutes such as right and wrong? If there is no God to determine these absolutes, who determines them?'
This is exactly what we discussed in Mitch Alan's hub.
Philosophers would probably agree that there is no ultimate right and wrong, but most humans do have a moral compass ~ a conscience ~ and can feel what is and is not morally acceptable. When Christians do this they think that it is because of the existence of God ~ but atheists can do it too, so ....
~ 'Without God, why should I adhere to anybody's concept of right and wrong?'
Yes, that's what we discussed.
And, as I said there, atheists cannot fathom this sort of idea, because their moral compass works even though they do not believe in God.
Furthermore, there are many Christians who accept the truth of evolution ~ so it is not true to say that 'Evolutionists say there is no God'. Some evolutionists say that; others do not.
There are a number of myths ~ untruths ~ that are posted on the Internet by certain Christians:
~ One is that atheists have no morality.
~ Another is that evolutionists believe that monkeys give birth to humans, etc, etc.
~ a third is that all evolutionists are atheists.
~ another is that atheism is a religion.
Monkeys do not, and never have, given birth to humans ~ and evolutionists have never believed that this happens.
And atheists are perfectly able to be moral individuals.
Not all evolutionists are atheists; evolution is not an evil theory; evolutionists are not evil; Darwin was not evil; atheists are not evil.
We are not descended from monkeys; we are, though, descended from a type of ape. We are more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to monkeys, but we all have a shared ancestor.
The idea of 'spontaneous generation' is not, currently, part of the theory of evolution ~ as far as I know.
I am sure that there are many evolutionists who believe that it is possible, but there are also evolutions who believe that God created life.
Trish- I am very grateful that you have joined in this discussion. Your comment was well thought out and respectful. I wanted to respond as soon as I read it. I will be busy for the rest of the evening ,but will address your points thoroughly and with great respect in the morning. Again, thank you for joining in this discussion. I look forward to hearing your take on my response when I give it tomorrow.
Excellent hub with great thoughts to ponder on. We did not come to life here on earth by merely chance as what Darwin's Evolution Theory proposes. We are fearfully and wonderfully made by a loving God. It is man's depraved mind that keeps him from believing the truth of Creation. Thank you for speaking out these great truths in this beautiful hub. Remain blessed always. Best regards.
I look forward to reading your comments, Fred.
Trish, (good to "see" you again)
To some of your points...
~ One is that atheists have no morality. I never said that...I said that it is realitive morality and can change at a whim...
~ Another is that evolutionists believe that monkeys give birth to humans, etc, etc. No one i know thinks that...but, with the FACT that mutations are a loss of information and never the increase of valuable information macro-evolution can not occur...
~ a third is that all evolutionists are atheists. I don't believe this...but, evolution and special creation and true Christianity can not both be true...
~ another is that atheism is a religion. It is a belief system and a world view...
As to, spontaneous generation...life from no life, without an outside cause, is impossible...spotaneous generation is necessary for evolution, because you need life to exist in order for it to evolve...
Ex nilo, nilo...
Trish- Good morning. I want to adress each of your points beginning with your concern over me accusing science teachers of a sinister agenda. I was not clear on who I was suggesting of having a sinister agenda. Let me put your concern over that to rest. It is not the teachers that I question. You are right. They are just doing their jobs, teaching what they are told to teach. Who I question as far as motives go, are the creators of the textbooks and those who implement the lessons teachers should teach. They print lies to support their ridiculous theory. Maybe it is out of ignorance, but there is a distinct possibility that their ignorance is willfull. Not wanting to be beholden to God. Wanting to destroy the faith of those who believe or would believe if not for this indoctrination.
Let me give you an example, in a 2000 textbook it says "Evolution is fact, not theory. Birds arose from non birds, and humans from non humans. No person who pretends any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts." My question is "Has ANYONE EVER actually observed such phoenomena?' The answer is NO! Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species states "It is a truly wonderful FACT thal ALL animals and ALL plants throughout ALL time and space should be related to each other." I don't know about you but I feel quite comfortable saying that is utter nonsense. I am not related to blades of grass. They date the rocks by the index fossils they find in the layers. and then they turn around and date the fossils by the layers of rock in which they are found. That in my opinion is absurd. If the geologic column was as they say formed ove billions of years, why are there so many petrified trees in the upright position all over the world going through millions of years of layers? I can't think of any example of a dead tree staying upright for that long while all these layers form around it. Some of them are upside down in the vertical position. I think a more plausable explanation is 4,600 years ago there was a worldwide flood and the power of the water rising and receding caused the layers and the fossil record. They teach my kids that the Grand canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river. Not possible. Where the river starts north of the canyon it's about 2800' above sea level, inside the canyon it is 1800' above sea level. The height of the canyon wall ranges from 6900' to 8600' above sea level. Let me ask a question, "does water flow uphill?" I used to be a roofer and was told there are only 2 things I need to know, water flows downhill and payday is on Friday. I'm not intentionally deriding anybody, I'm just pointing out fallacy. Science is observable, this is not science, it's a belief system. No one has ever observed what they are claiming as fact.
As for athiest and morality, their morality is optional and relative. While there are many atheists with a moral compass, is there a true north on that compass? The Christian has one. There is MUCH to be said about this issue and I plan to adress it at a later date on a hub dedicated to it.
I am grateful that you have questioned my conclusions. It is feul for a reasoned debate. You come across as bright and educated. Your comments well thought out and well phrased. I see the same evidence you see, yet we reach completely different conclusions. We each have a completely different interpretation of the same evidence. I hope you will be open enough to look at the evidence from a different viewpoint and reach whatever conclusion your heart and mind cause you to. I will do the same. I have a question for you You said there is evidence to back up your belief that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry, would you please share some of this evidence?
cristina- It is always a blessing to me when I see you have visited and left a comment! God bless you dear sister. You are rmembered in my prayers as are all of my hub friends.
Hi Fred :)
When I referred to the sinister agenda, I was including everything ~ the teachers, what they are teaching, the text books, etc. It is science, not lies ~ and it is only right and usual for scientific discoveries to be taught in schools. I see nothing wrong with this at all.
Indeed, when I was working in a school ~ a faith school ~ I felt very uncomfortable in lessons where the Bible was assumed to be correct.
As far as my reading informs me ~ and I have looked into this a lot, especially as I have just written some hubs on the subject ~ evolution is a fact. Yes it is classed as 'evolutionary theory' but a 'scientific theory' is, to all intents and purposes, a fact. (I have writtten about this in my hubs)
Actually, there is evidence of people evolving to suit their environments, even today ~ and lots and lots of evidence to show that this has happened in the past.
I certainly believe that I am related to blades of grass. Our DNA indicates this.
Dating fossils by the strata in which they are found makes perfect sense. It's a bit like archaeology. A world-wide flood would have made a mish-mash; not the layers that we see today.
As for the Grand Canyon, where the river is, now, and where it was thousands of years ago, may not be comparable, but I am absolutely 100% convinced that the Grand canyon was formed by the Colorado River.
I think that morality is optional for everyone ~ regardless of beliefs, or lack thereof.
Thank you for responding, but you are completely correct in saying that we have very different opinions on these matters. I have looked at the evidence from different viewpoints and am happy with my conclusions.
I would, though, ask you to read my evolution hubs, if you get the chance, and see if you cannot find the logic there. That is where I have written about the evidence you mention.
Here are their titles:
'Evolution and Creationism - My Take On Them and How I Arrived Here'
'Evolution - The Human Difference ~ Chimps and Men (and Women)'
'Evolution - Creationists Right and Darwin Wrong ??!!'
'Evolution - Could the Creationists Have Got It Right ??!!'
Hello Mitch :)
I wasn't accusing you; I was simply stating that I see these and similar comments, posted by Christians, all over the Internet.
Many Christians seem to believe that morality, without Christianity and / or God, is an impossibility.
A number of Christians think that evolutionists are silly enough to believe that apes either gave birth to, or turned into, humans.
I keep reading that evolutionist are atheists, but the Pope accepts evolution, as do a number of English Protestant bishops ~ and many more Christians besides.
I also read many assertions that atheism is a religion, which it simply cannot be, by definition. If people cannot find any proof or evidence of God's existence, then that cannot be a religion.
I don't think that evolution has to rely on 'spontaneous generation'. Christians, who are evolutionists, believe that God created life ~ and then it evolved.
Trish,
Simply because some within the the "Christian" house believe or accept something doesn't make it true. The Catholic Church teaches amny things that are un-Biblical.
Evolution based on millions of years of death and suffering prior to the advent of man does not line up with the Biblical view that death and suffering entered the world through the Fall.
As to morality without God and His word, there is then only a personal choice that can change on a whim. If the Word of God is the truth (I believe it is) then it is not subject to a person or persons person choice as to if it is right or wrong. The person, through free will, still has the choice to obey or disobey, but not to decide if it is or isn't true.
Explain, using known science, how self replication cells could come into being without God...spontaneous generation? Life out of no life without God?
Hi :)
I don't know where, or how, life originated.
Scientists are still working on that one ~ and I am not a scientist.
As I said, lots of people believe that God created life, in its most basic forms ~ and that it then evolved. That is one possibility.
Trish- Your contention that you are related to blades of grass is NOT based on observational science. It is a faith based position. You contend that similarities in genetic code prove common ancestry, I contend they indicate a common Designer. Both are "faith" statements. Yours takes more faith than mine since no one has EVER observed this type of macro evolutionary change. As I stated in my hub, scientists concur that the possibility that a single cell could be generated by purely naturalistic means is 1 in 10 to the negative 40,000th power. Statisticians say that if something has a chance of happening of 1 in 10 to the negative 50th power it will NEVER happen. I did read you hub "could the creationists have gotten it right?" and did not see ANY scientific examples of how evolutionary theory could be supported, only biased claims with nothing to back them up. Why are you so opposed to the possibility that we are a special creation? Why would you prefer meaninglessness? I think that in your heart of hearts, you KNOW that you did not come from rain on a rock. You were fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God. With the ability to think and reason, and love to a degree far greater than you currently do. If you were to acknowledge God and therefore purpose, everything would take on new meaning. You would see His hand in all of creation. In the light of creation and the Creator, love would blossom as never before for you. Each person, precious in God's sight would be seen in a different light. They would all begin to matter to you more than ever before. Without God it's "How does this affect me?" with God it becomes "If it matters to Him, it matters to me" We become part of something far greater than ourselves. You are NOT the product of rain on a rock!
Hello Fred :)
I have tended to steer clear of 'Christian' hubs, unless they seem to specifically invite the thoughts of others ~ in one way or another. This is partly because I do not want to get into unpleasant arguments, but also because I respect that others are entitled to their beliefs and opinions and I don't see it as my place to attempt to change their minds. However, as a teacher, I do feel the need to place the information that I have looked into where it is available ~ hence my hubs on evolution.
I believe that all of life on Earth is related and that our DNA illustrates this. I suppose I have to take on faith that the science I read is correct, but I don't just accept any and all theories, willy nilly. I only accept what makes sense to me. I have had a very good education and I study a lot, so I feel that I can judge reliable from unreliable reasonably well.
Most scientists believe in evolution. However, scientists know that they have not discovered the ultimate origins of life. I think that evolutionary science is fully supported and I cannot understand why other people do not see it. I really felt that my hubs clarified this ~ especially: ''Evolution and Creationism - My Take On Them and How I Arrived Here''
I have never said that I was opposed to Creation by God. I accept that life may have been created by God. I do not believe that the Biblical creation story is literally true ~ but, then, neither do a lot of Christians.
Would I 'prefer meaninglessness'?
I do not understand.
Meaninglessness? What is meaningless about the wonders of life, the universe and everything?
They are ~ mostly ~ amazing and wonderful. It matters a lot to me. People matter a lot to me.
But I do not actually 'know'' whether God exists or, if 'he' does, what 'he' is like, or what 'he' wants. That is why I am agnostic. It means that I do not know. I do not see the Bible as the word of God. As a historian, I see it as a fascinating set of ancient documents.
But I agree that we are all part of something greater than ourselves ~ I do not need to belong to a religion to know that. :)
I have enjoyed reading your work and discovering different viewpoints.
Trish- I am thankful to you for engaging in a civil debate with me over the most important topic there is. What we think about "Where we came from" shapes so much of who we become. I could continue to pour out statements to challenge your position, but it is clear that you are firmly entrenched in your position. Like you, I am amazed at how people could look at the same evidence and reach 2 completely different conclusions. It astounds me that people could believe they came from rain on a rock. I can't fathom how in defiance of logic people would call "science" something that has NEVER been observed. That people could believe that all life came from primordial soup and we share a common ancestry with grass... but there are many who embrace that kind of thinking. To me it is quite clear that each has always brought forth after it's own kind. That is observational. That is science. That is logic.
I wish you the best and hope to see you again on my hubs.
Hi :)
I don't know where your 'rain on a rock' idea comes from, but I assume that it is your metaphor for evolution ~ because I have said, several times, that neither I, nor scientists, know where or how life originated ~ and that Christian evolutionists believe that it started with God and then evolved ~ which is a possibility.
Yes, I accept that evolution is true ~ but 'entrenched' seems to imply being unwilling to look at all possibilities. I do look at possibilities.
I feel that it is more likely to be the Christian fundamentalists, who are 'entrenched', because most are completely unwilling to accept a position which does not include God as creator. Thus they cannot help but be, automatically, biased.
The evidence for evolution has been observed. (I've gone into this in my hubs.) However, the evidence for a woman being crafted out of a man's rib has never been observed.
That is the kind of logic that I cannot fathom.
However, I am not here to attempt to convert ~ though I think that you seemed to be 'ministering' to me earlier :)
Each to his own. The world would be a boring place, if we all agreed on everything ~ though it might also be a more peaceful one.
All the best :)
WOW!! You sure know how to start a conversation Brother Fred!
I just always wonder: to those who believe in evolution--why are we not seeing any "evolving" of animals today? You would think that thousands and thousands of such "specimens" would be in a state of continuous flux. Half dog, half cat. And why did evolution stop at humans--is this the highest echelon of sentient beings--or do we have evidence of half man, half angels walking around?
Where is any tangible evidence to prove evolution? Frankly, anyone who insists that they come from monkeys--I say...you may be right buddy!
I much prefer knowing that I was created by Almighty God, in His image!
Anyway--I LOVE this hub Fred, you Glorify God so well in it! =)
Evolution is a slow process, so it is almost impossible to identify in action, but it is going on today. Some people have evolved to be able to live at very high altitudes without becoming ill, for example.
Creatures would change so slowly that it would have been difficult to notice that change. Half-cat-half-dog creatures would not have been obvious, even if they existed.
Humans may yet evolve further.
There is plenty of tangible evidence for evolution ~ mainly DNA and fossils, I would say.
Most reputable scientists accept evolution as true.
The Pope also accepts it as true, as do many Anglican bishops.
Laurie- So good to see you again! I knew it would spark debate. I wanted to show "the emperor has no clothes!" There are some who continue to insist that there is evidence of evolution, while there truly is not. I guess some will refute the existence of God even when they see Him face to face. These are the same people that call evolution "science" even though NO ONE has EVER observed what they claim to be fact.
As always, I treasure your comments!
Trish- I would say that evolution is sooo slow that it doesn't happen! The only thing fossils attest to is death. DNA is filled with information. Information does not occur without intelligence. Most reputable scientists question evolution. The Pope is wrong!
Hello Fred :)
As far as I was aware, as I said, most reputable scientists accept evolution as true, so I would be interested to know why you feel that 'most reputable scientists question evolution'?
There really is sufficient evidence for evolution. Fossils and DNA really do provide support for it.
Hi Trish- Fossils ONLY indicate something died. DNA contains INFORMATION. All the information thst makes you what you are is contained in your DNA. If you can disprove the following statement you will give credibility to your arguement. "There is NO law of nature, NO known process, and NO known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter" Dr. Werner Gitt
German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
Evolutionist D.M.S. Watson admitted, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternitive- special creation- is clearly incredible." I could quote MANY such statements from evolutionists and creationist scientists alike. The growing concensus is that evolution has no credible evidence to support it. It is continued to be held by many simply because to believe otherwise is to admit a Creator. This would have tremendous implications that are unwanted by many. To be held accountable to God is not an easy thing for many to be reconciled.
Hello Fred :)
I disagree that fossils only indicate that something has died. They also indicate what has died; when it died; where it died; in which stratum it can be found; in what context compared to other creatures that it died; etc. etc.
I am not a palaeontologist, so what I can say on the subject is limited. However, experts can provide further information on the value of fossils in the study of evolution.
I have written more on this in my hub.
DNA can tell us a lot about our ancestry and our relationships with other life on Earth ie about evolution.
I have also written more on this in my hub.
You think that 'most reputable scientists question evolution', but you only quote one ~ and he doesn't seem to question evolution; he just rejects creationism. This is fair enough, because there is no evidence for it and scientists like evidence.
I would like to know who all these reputable scientists are, because I haven't found many ~ if any.
I read that a few Christian fundamentalists chose to get a PhD, just so that they could try to discredit evolution, but that is a different matter.
To the best of my knowledge, the growing consensus is that evolution is true.
What is more, 'evolution' does not even claim that there is no creator God. This is another myth. Many evolutionists may not believe in God; but many do.
There are many Christians, who can and do reconcile God's creation with evolution.
Trish- The point is I could quote many respected scientists, evolutionists. I Type slowly and it becomes tedious after a while to qoute the entirity of what is said so it can be seen in context. My point which you seem to keep skirting around is summed up i9n the quote from Dr. Werner Gitt. My point is summed up in the impossibility for matter to become filled with information. My point is that life has NEVER been observed to have arisen from non life. Believe what you will. You have NOT adressed these issues. You just seem to refuse the possibility that creation makes better sense than rain on a rock or being related to blades of grass.
As far as the fossil record is concerned, I contend that it can easily and better be explained by a worldwide flood, this would also explain the supposed geological column and the trees that are found in the upright position through these supposed millions of years worth of layers. And whi marine fossils are found on mountaintops.
I have addressed the life from non-life issue a few times.
Evolution is not about the origin of life it is about the evolution of life.
Christian evolutionists believe that God created life and that it then evolved.
Atheist evolutionists may believe something different, but that is not what evolution is about.
Specific fossils are found in specific strata, so a world-wide flood cannot be responsible for this. Such a flood would cause a mixed up set of fossils.
I thought that I had addressed this, too.
Marine fossils are found on mountain tops because of plate tectonics.
Dr Gitt is an evangelist creationist. This makes him biased.
Mutations happen. They have been observed.
The fact that you are ignorant of these things does not negate the theory of evolution.
If it's a big problem to your belief, then go and study DNA and how it mutates and evolves. Then maybe you will have a little more understanding of the topic that you dismiss simply because it is contradictory to your belief in a god which has no evidence.
According to you, evolution has no evidence (which it does by the way) but then neither does christianity.
Thats a bit of a doozy you created huh?
Thank you fred for an awesome true hub of encouragement and enlightenment, Thank you so much for sharing the good news. I agree with you 100%. Godspeed. creativeone59
Trish- Sorry it took so long to respond. I've been busy. The fossil record is far more mixed than evolutionists would have you believe. There is evidence of humans throughout the geologic column. Marine fossils are on mountops because of the worldwide flood. We are all biased. I came to be biased after careful examination of the evidence. Creation makes the most sense.
hippy- Love your picture! Your comment lacks substance. There is no evidence that a mutation adds information to the DNA code. A mutation is a copy error, information is lost. The fact that you are ignorant of these things proves that you would rather wander in the dark, thinking you came from rain on a rock. Where is this evidence you speak of?
Faye- I always feel blessed when you appear on one of my hubs. Your face brightens my day!
Thank you!
Sorry Fred, but, in my opinion, you are wrong about this.
Marine fossils are found on top of mountains as a result of of plate tectonic movement.
Mutation results in change. Change can be positive or negative or neutral.
There is plenty of evidence ~ seek and you shall find :)
@fred allen
Actually yes there is evidence that mutations can add information to dna. In fact, the very first recorded case of it was this year. It had been predicted and explained how it could happen and funnily enough, it happened.
A copy error does not mean information is lost. It means that different information is created from the original.
The fact that I am already aware of these things shows that I am not ignorant of what you claim I am, in fact YOU are ignorant of my knowledge.
Do you think I would debate such a topic without the information needed to discuss it? How insulting.
As for you asking for proof, how about you go to an information source that is unbiased instead of the typical talk origins nonsense that is flooding the internet with lies and refutable nonsense.
Trish- Seeking is one of my strong suits. I have looked at the evidence from both sides instead of drinking the kool aid put in front of me. I have always been willing to follow where the evidence leads. The problem has never been the evidence but the interpretation of the evidence. There are many who interpret the evidence with bias. I was not among them. I gathered evidence from many sources, different sciences. Cosmology, astromomy, micro biology, the study of consciousness, history, geology, fossil records, the fine tuning of the universe etc. What really concinced me was the totality of the evidence interpreted from an evolutionary view, vs. a Creationist view. It overwhelmingly convinced me that we didn't happen by accident. Please read my next comment.
hippy- I am glad you are informed on the subject of DNA. Just for you, I will write a hub concerning this very subject and how it is proof of a Creator. It deserves more attention than a response to a comment. I like that you get fired up. I look forward to a spirited debate. I'm sure I will get one from you!
@fred allen
Be sure to let me know when its published, I'll definately share my knowledge on the topic. I wont bother sharing opinion of course as that is pretty much useless when you have facts.
I'll look forward to it, too :)
I am overwhelmingly convinced that we evolved :)
hippy- Just so you know, evidence is not the problem on either side of the debate. It has always been interpretation of the evidence that divides us. I am sure you most certainly WILL voice opinion. That is how your interpretation of the evidence is formed. I will express why I believe the evidence points to a Creator, and I am certain you will voice your OPINION on why it points to blind chance. It may take me a couple of days since I still have a job to do. I look forward to our next encounter.
Wow! Quite the conversation here. As you know, I agree with you. Why are these theories about the origin of life and humanity taught? That is an easy one. The "father of public education" in America, John Dewey, was a communist and atheist. He preached that public schools should demolish Christianity so it could be replaced by Secular Humanism, a religion that makes the State into a god.
Your article is tremendous! You are spot on. Thank you for trying to illuminate the darkened hearts that abound in our midst, so in love they are with evil.
I am not at all surprised that James and Fred are in agreement :) ;)
But which are these 'darkened hearts that abound in our midst, so in love they are with evil'?
If an atheist or agnostic said such things about believers, all hell would break loose!
It's very insulting.
Brother James- Whenever you grace one of my hubs with a comment, I am honored. Your compliment humbles me. Your assesment is accurate. It, I know was not meant as an insult. People are willfully ignorant because to have eyes open would mean that a life change would be in order. It is the sin problem that causes some to fall to their knees and some to whistle past the graveyard. We are all victims of sin. I hate my sin. So called athiests ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. While there are many athiests that live a more morally upright life than those who claim Christ, the believer will hate their falleness. The so called unbeliever could easily be described as "loving their life of seperation from the authority of almighty God". I don't expect an "unbeliever" to not take offense even when none was meant.
Keep up the good fight of faith my brother!
Trish- I understand your sentiment. I, like James, consent to the authority of God's word. There is much said about the reason for unbelief. The bible sums it up like this "This is the verdict, light has come into the world but men loved darkness. They refuse to come into the light for fear their evil deeds will be exposed" In the end, I believe this is the heart of the matter. No offense to you is meant at all. I think Shinedown captured it brilliantly in the lyrics of one of their songs. "The more the light shines through me... I pretend to close my eyes. The more the dark consumes me... I pretend I'm burning, burning bright." If you truly are open to truth, whatever that may end up being, I believe you will find it. Evolution is not truth. You are not descended from rain on a rock. You are created in the image of the almighty God you are denying. I am so very thankful that you have come here to hear another viewpoint. You are cherished by the God you deny. I will always welcome your input even if it forever remains in opposition to my message.
I find it amazing that so many people can deny such obvious evidence, but they can, and they do. I don't hold it against them; I just don't agree with them. :)
Trish- The whole point is there is NO evidence to support evolution. True science is observational. It's testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Evolution only fits the last criteria. It is NOT testable. It is NOT repeatable. NO ONE has EVER observed it occur. No one has ever witnessed a kind bring forth a non kind. Dogs give birth to dogs always have always will. That is observable. That is testable. It has NEVER been falsified. That is OBVIOUS evidence.
There is not much point in us both repeating the same arguments, ad nauseum, so I will not repeat that there is more than enough evidence to support evolution :) :) :)
Trish-I re-read your comments. You have not once brought forth ANY evidence to support your belief. I look forward to seeing you on my next hub. You were my inspiration for it.
I have written up all of the evidence that I have collected in four long hubs on the subject. I couldn't possibly fit it all in a comment or two :)
Fred,
Concerning the age of the earth, it is interesting you reject the validity of hard objective data such as carbon-14 dating but accept the validity of a subjective narrative because "it was written by ancient Jews".
You acknowledge belief in the reliability of ancient writing, but can you produce any objective evidence that the earth is 6000 years old or that a worldwide flood occured 4000 years ago?
If there is no such objective evidence to be found, then what do you propose happened to that evidence?
Fred,
I wonder, have you actually read my hubs, yet ~ or, indeed, anything else on the subject that is not biased against science?
There is evidence ~ why not, at least, give it some objective consideration?
Dear Fred,
In case you were not aware, this is bias: (direct quote from Discovery Institute's Wedge Document:
However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy.)
You see, Fred, those Discovery Institute "scientists" are not trying to convey any scientific data; they are trying to sell a non-materialistic narrative.
Winston- Good to hear from you again. I understand what you are contending. At the heart of the matter lies the only question from which all others flow. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" This is where the debate starts. For materialists, the answer is either matter is eternal, or it all started with a big bang because of a non caused quantum fluctuation. For creationists, the answer is that there is indeed a noncaused first cause, but that it is not a non living non caused first cause. As a creationist, I embrace science, it strengthens my faith. Observational science reveals that each brings forth after it's own kind. Observational science shows that ONLY life has EVER been seen to bring forth life. Observational science shows us information comes from intelligence. My question to you is "Why is it that you look at the SAME scientific evidence and reach a conclusion that is NOT backed up by the data?" No one has EVER seen a reptile bring forth a bird, yet by FAITH, you believe it to be true. There is Nothing inherent in matter that could by itself, with no outside intelligence at work produce information, much less the complex information contained in a single strand of DNA, yet, by faith, you believe that is precisely what happened. There is NO observable scientific data to back that CLAIM. Quite the opposite. I know you enjoy debate, I do too. I'm just wondering is it for debates sake that you try so hard to convince others of their godless existence? Or is it because you wish to enlighten them? To what end? So they can feel as if their life has no meaning? If we are in fact, just re arranged pond scum, why would it matter if they believed a lie? At least it would give them a moral compass and purpose. I have watched many of the videos on the "Answers in Genesis" website. I have watched Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking. I've watched National geographic. I have concluded based on the evidence and the presentation of it, that creationist views are the most plausable and require the least ammount of faith. They represent a far more believable interpretation of the evidence.
Trish- Please read my response to Winston. I have infact read several of your hubs, and watched a good number of "experts" proclaim their views on the matter. You entreat me to take an objective look, have you? If so, I ask you as I asked Winston, "What do we see when we observe the world? Do we see the things evolution claims or do we see reptiles bring forth reptiles? Has ANYONE observed a living cell form from naturalistic means? Or do we see life bring forth life? That is an objective view of the evidence. It baffles me how you call what I have "faith" while you insist that something NO ONE has EVER observed and CANNOT be scientifically backed up, as fact, or even science.
Winston- I want to make sure I don't dismiss the other questions you asked, such as carbon 14 dating and worldwide flood. If carbon 14 dating is an accurate way to establish age, why do we find traces of it in diamonds that are supposed to have taken millions of years to form? Mt. St. Helens produced new rocks that carbon 14 dates at thousands of years old! If we can't trust the accuracy of this method on rocks of KNOWN age, how can we trust it as valid on rocks of unknown age?
There is evidence of a worldwide flood. Aquatic fossils are found at the peak of Mt. Everest. The Grand Canyon could not possibly have been formed by the Colorado river because to my knowledge, water has NEVER been observed to flow up hill. A worldwide flood and recession of the vast ammount of water required for a worldwide flood would better explain the topography of the terrain. If you witnessed footage from the latest tsunami, you are well aware of the power of water.
Hi :)
It is true that the question ~ "Why is there something instead of nothing?" ~ is a fascinating, vital, pivotal question.
I do not know the answer. No-one knows.
The creationist suggests ~ believes ~ that the answer is God. This is a possible answer.
For a scientist, though, that is as difficult an answer to the enigma, as having no answer at all, because it simply leads to more questions ~ questions about the scientific qualities of God: Where might he have come from? How could he have come from nothing? Where is he? What is he made of? Does he exist outside the laws of science and nature?
Any power that resides outside the laws of science makes no sense to a scientist.
So God is a possibility, but not a proven solution. It is a belief taken on faith; there is no scientific reason why God should be the answer ~ except that we have not, as yet, found any other answer.
This is where God has always resided in science ~ in the gaps. When no-one understood thunder and lightening, the answer was believed to be God ~ whether it was Yahweh or Thor. Just because this is what we are told, or what we believe, or what clerics suggest, does not make it so.
The truth is that we do not know. Scientists may have hypotheses, and Christians may have faith, but no-one actually knows how everything ~ how life ~ first came into being.
The human mind has trouble grasping abstract ideas like nothingness, eternity, infinity, etc, but it always tries to fill in the empty gaps and explain away the mysteries.
Let us imagine that the answer really is God, why should this be God as described in the Bible? There is no reason. An abstract creative power that we may term God does not have to be the Old Testament character, or the incarnate messiah of the New Testament.
Just because we do not know the answer does not mean that the answer is God ~ and even if God is the answer, it does not have to be the God who is presented to us in church, within the pages of the Bible, or in any other ancient text.
What about evolution?
It is not faith that causes someone to accept evolution, except in the sense that we have to accept that some people are experts and are telling us the truth about their research.
In various circumstances, we all have to rely on experts ~ eg our medical doctors and our university professors. We cannot live a life, where we trust no-one. Humans cannot live like that.
So, we check their credentials, and their findings, and how one lot of results tarries with that of another scientist. It becomes clear that some are highly intelligent, highly educated and highly knowledgeable.
It then becomes clear that their findings make logical sense.
You are correct ~ 'No one has EVER seen a reptile bring forth a bird' ~ but has anyone suggested that this has happened? You claim that ~ 'by FAITH, you believe it to be true' ~ but who believes it to be true? Evolutionists? No! This is a myth spread through the extreme creationist community by other extreme creationists.
Evolutionists do not believe this.
Evolutionists accept that small changes occur, over time, in the development of living things. Sometimes change happens relatively quickly; sometimes extremely slowly.
We know that change can occur, because of the way animal and plant breeders make it happen. Given the amount of time that life has existed on earth, these small changes can build up ~ and they have built up. This is clearly an obvious, simple, logical consequence. That is how creatures might change, generation upon generation. It's not magic. It's not a religion. It's not based on faith. It is an obvious continuum.
Evolution does not explain the origins of life and it has never claimed to, though it may have posited some suggestions.
And evidence exists for it ~ in the very DNA that you describe, and in fossils, and in the life around us. It is definitely backed up by science.
Personally, I don't consider it my place to convert anyone to atheism. I do enjoy debate and I enjoy broadening my own mind and the minds of others. As a teacher, I also feel called to educate. I also like fairness and it is not fair that lies and myths are spread about evolution and evolutionists.
I am not an atheist; I am agnostic. I don't know the answer to what happened 'in the beginning'. No-one knows.
Christians don't know the answer to life's beginnings. Scientists don't know. But at least, for the most part, the scientists are objective and logical in their search. Most of them question and examine; they don't just give the easy answer that 'God did it'.
What is more, most of them would never suggest that making a woman out of a man's rib makes more sense than any other possibility. How can anyone criticise the scientific logic of evolution and then suggest that this idea makes more sense?
Hello again Fred )
The riddle of the Grand Canyon.
Many creationists state that, since rivers do not flow uphill, the Colorado could not have formed the Grand Canyon. It's formation is a mystery ~ so it must be proof of God's creation.
That is very simplistic and unsatisfying.
In my opinion, if we cannot see an obvious answer to an enigma, then we should look harder, not use the easy option answer 'God did it'.
Rivers don't flow uphill ~ unless, I imagine, they have nowhere else to go and are being pushed by another force, perhaps? ~ Maybe something like that happened.
Or maybe the river used to flow in the opposite direction?
Or maybe there is another answer.
We know that valleys and chasms are eroded by rivers, ice, etc, and when we look at this canyon, it certainly looks as if it has been made by river action.
How can it be explained?
And why should we immediately stop thinking, and seeking solutions, and just give up ~ saying God did it.
I found an alternative possibility:
"... that the present Colorado River achieved its course by a combination of headward erosion and stream capture. ... This process can be seen today in the eastern Grand Canyon ..... According to the stream capture theory, around 70 million years ago what is now the upper Colorado River east of the Grand Canyon actually flowed in the opposite direction, fed by the Little Colorado River."
More here:
http://www.grandcanyonguide.net/geology/river.html
The riddle of aquatic fossils on Mount Everest.
This is not a mystery. It is the result of the movement of tectonic plates. When 'India' hit the Asian continent it caused land to move, buckle and to be pushed upwards. This was, of course, coastal land ~ with aquatic creatures living on it ~ and it was pushed up into mountain ranges. Amazing, yes, but there was nothing miraculous or mysterious about it.
Worldwide flood
Was there ever a worldwide flood?
Maybe there was.
At the end of any ice age, there will have been a lot of melt water.
When meteors hit earth, or volcanoes erupt, there are tsunamis ~ and some may have been massive!
Huge floods must have occurred in the past and it is not surprising that they were recorded in ancient stories ~ or that they were attributed to God. Even today they are known as 'acts of God'.
Even at the time of recent tsunamis, some suggested that they are God's work ~ punishment for man's sin. But most of us can understand how and why floods occur and that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural about them.
Just because ancient people, ignorant of modern science, geology and geography, believed that God sent a flood does not make it so.
Fred,
Let me clarify instead of nitpicking your response, which could be done but would produce no useful dialogue. Instead, I repharase: Why do you choose to believe that the subjective writings of a few ancient Jews is a more reliable guage of reality than the objective data produced by engineers, mathematicians,and scientists?
Hi Winston- To answer your question...I trust the Bible because it authenticates itself in so many ways. I won't pretend that I never have doubts. There are many instances that cause me to question the truth of scripture and the God described in them. In many ways, I'm still searching for truth. This is precisely why I sought out both you and fatfist. Truth is what I seek most. Follow the evidence, no matter where it leads. After much research and careful consideration of the evidence, I have concluded for myself that there MUST be an uncaused first cause, and that this uncaused first cause was intelligent. I cannot imagine that this intelligence would put existence in motion and completely abandon it. I know this is overly simplifying matters but, every religion I have ever heard of speaks of how man can reconcile himself to god. The Bible is unique in that it is the only account of God taking the initiative to reconcile man to Himself.
Trish- Your reply was well thought out and precisely worded to convey the strength of your position. I applaud you for your conviction and resourcefulness. I still disagree on the grounds that evolution is NOT backed up by any real evidence. Observational science more accurately backs up the creation account that says each brings forth after their own kind. Also because abiogenesis is a mathematically statistical impossibility. And because there is nothing inherent in matter that could account for the generation of any information, much less the complex information contained in the DNA of even the most simple of species.
Fred,
Sorry, but when statements are made that are flat wrong I am compelled to refute them lest they become a type of urban legend.
Abiogenesis is not a statistical impossibility. The probability of occurence cannot be calculated until the processes required are known.
Unless you plan to live a few billion years on earth, you won't see observational evidence of the type of evolution you require perfect eveidence of. Until then, you have to rely on the mountains of evidence provided by the fossil records and DNA.
The information generation is a strawman that has nothing to do with biology.
Hi Winston- I have seen several sources quote the same statistical probabilities. They are as follows.
1. If something has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10 the the negative 50th power, that event will NEVER occur.
2. The odds of an amino acid forming through random chance occurrences are 1 in 10 to the negative 141st power
3. The odds of a single cell forming by random chance occurrences are 1 in 10 to the negative 40,000th power.
This is enough to convince me by itself that life is not the result of random chance plus time. When factored in with information not being inherent in matter, I say case closed! Add all the billions of years you want, you will never get a working watch!
Fred,
Try to understand this. You cannot know the chance of something occuring until you know the mechanisms of occurence. Think of it this way - until you know that occurence Z can only happen if w, x, y align and are then hit by a lightening bolt you can never know the chances of this naturally occuring.
You keep putting your faith into Discovery Institute propaganda instead of real math and science.
Hi Winston- I completely understand what you are saying. Question for you,... Is it real science that concludes there is nothing inherent in matter that could produce information? I don't care how many billions of years it rains on rocks, the odds of an amino acid forming by random chance are so incredibly low it would never happen. An amino acid is still a loooooooong way from life. Oxygen in the atmoshere would prevent it from happening. There is no explanation sufficient to make me believe life formed by randonm chance.
(There is no explanation sufficient to make me believe life formed by randonm chance.)
Fred,
The above is the key sentence. It describes confirmation bias - something we all have as part of our human nature. I can tell you from personal experience it is nearly impossible to overcome confirmation bias of the magnitude required to hold onto fundamental Christian belief - the magnitude of self-deception and the evasion of honesty necessary to hold onto the irrational beliefs makes it impossible to do anything other than reject any sane and sober reality-based objection to the belief.
That you wish to believe this is OK with me except for the areas of public concern. I find it troubling that you might vote for Rick Perry simply because of his religious beliefs or you might cause social unrest by trying to promote religion by the name of ID in the classroom.
(Is it real science that concludes there is nothing inherent in matter that could produce information?)
The problem, Fred, is again in definitions. Information is a concept - an active event. DNA, for example, does not "store" information. DNA replicates by chemical reactions that reproduce itself, occasionally with flaws.
You keep "begging the question", as do all the other IDers who write this crap. To call it information means there had to have been a reason for it to be stored in the first place, so simply calling it information storage "begs the question" (requires) that intelligence started the process.
This is also known as circular reasoning. It is fallacious. In other words, bogus, a crock of shite.
Now, you can probably find someone with a Ph.D. who refutes what I wrote, but if you look at the totality of the arguments you will find a massive preponderance on my side and only a couple of oddballs arguing the ID/information side.
(1. If something has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10 the the negative 50th power, that event will NEVER occur)
Fred,
The Discovery Institute and their followers are notorious for misapplying probabilities and mathematics. Here is a good example of a refutation of a probability strawman:
Fred, you don't seem to acknowledge the information that is put forward, except where it supports, or appears to support, your beliefs.
The Grand Canyon argument has been dealt with. The shells on Mount Everest have been dealt with.
Do you now acknowledge this?
DNA is amazing, but AKA has explained that it is not stored information in the sense that a brain had to come up with the information or that a brain decided to store it. It is as it is.
Lots of aspects of life and the universe appear to be miraculous, but science is, nonetheless, able to explain most of them and is continuing to work on the mysteries.
Since you state that 'There is no explanation sufficient to make me believe life formed by random chance', then, self-evidently, your mind is closed to any other possibility. Thus, no argument; no information; no proof will ever change your mind.
You refuse to see the evidence for evolution and simply repeat that this evidence doesn't exist. Yet it does. Is that healthy?
Trish- I appreciate your concern, if that is what you are expressing. You state that the Grand Canyon and the marine fossil evidence on mountaintops has been explained, I agree. Both explanations are plausible, the question is which is more plausible. By your reasoning, the very computer I am writing this on could have several explanations for it's existence. I have never seen one manufactured. I know with good reason that it was built by man. Let's assume for the sake of reasoned arguement that there may be a different explanation for it's existence. If all the materials that it is composed of are naturally occuring, isn't it possible that it's sum total of a working computer is the result of naturally occuring events? It's far less complex than a living cell (which man in his vast intelligence cannot manufacture). If this working computer requires more than matter plus time, why is it different than something far more complex?If we were to gather an infinite number of working parts and place them in an ideal environment and add an infinite ammount of years would we ever get a working model? That's the same likelyhood that life came from non life. That's the same as saying that matter, plus random chance plus time is responsible for living matter. There are MANY examples in creation that cannot reconcile random chance or evolution with what we observe.
Goood morning Winston- What you are asking me to believe is that a random alignment of atoms just happened to produce DNA. That working DNA just happens to perform as it does by mere random chance. You want me to replace information with random "just works out that way". This entire debate hinges on likleyhoods to expain the existence of what no one has witnessed, the emergence of life from matter, with or without intelligence being the cause for it. It presupposes from your perspective that matter always existed without beginning at best, or at it's weakest probability, that matter itself came into being randomly from nothing. My perspective seems a bit more plausible to me. I read the information contained in the link you sent. Even if I were to abandon the number probabilities in favor of "that's just how it worked out" it doesn't make the question of "How?" go away. We are left with probabilities as the only way of effectively answering the "How?" question. The answers are effectively reduced to 2. With or without the aid of intelligence. I believe "with" to be the ONLY reasonable answer, based on what we know and can see.
Fred, this has been an extrodinaire hub. I find the discussion facsinating. I will say that I am in your corner. You seem to be able to apply much common sense with your discussion.
Great hub and great job in standing for your belief.
Chris
Hi Fred :)
I really do think that it is unhealthy for a social sub-group to simply reject the findings of learned experts. Creationists often not only disbelieve scientists, but also despise and deride them. Yet these scientists are knowledgeable, educated experts and the creationists may not be highly educated in the subject at all.
Of course they have the right to believe whatever they wish and, if they have good reason to do so, to conclude that the scientists may be wrong ~ but they really should have very good reason. They should not simply dismiss, or ignore, evidence, or claim that it doesn't exist. This is morally wrong, in my opinion ~ insulting to the scientists involved and unfair on the youngsters, who could be learning from them.
I agree that we do not understand the origins of life ~ but 'evolution' does not cover that, anyway.
I also accept that the origins of 'life, the universe and everything' seem to be pretty miraculous. But, as I mentioned before, much of the evidence, which once apparently supported God's existence, has now been explained by experts ~ thunder, rainbows, tsunamis, the Grand Canyon and shells on Mount Everest.
One important point, which I have already noted, is that even atheists acknowledge that, in the absence of other explanations, 'God' might be put forward as a possible explanation for life's origins.
But what do they mean by God?
Possible a force, or power; abstract rules of science and nature, perhaps. Something beyond our ken. They do not mean the supernatural folk hero of an ancient tribe.
This is an important point, because many creationists do not allow for an amazing, unknowable, abstract force, at the beginning of time, but, rather, they seem to think that God was a lonely man in the clouds, who moulded a man out of clay and a woman out of a man's rib and then punished these brand new adult 'babies' for exploring ~ as they were created to do, and later annihilated thousands more of his human offspring for various petty reasons.
Can the amazing power that is greater than time, the universe, infinity, eternity and life, itself, really be equated with an ancient tribal super-hero, who ordered new babies to be split apart with the side of a sword?
The truth is, we don't yet know how life began. Maybe it was the result of 'God'. Maybe, one day, scientists will make an amazing discovery, which will explain it all. For now, we don't know. No-one knows ~ not scientists and not Christians. But I really do not think that Christians should dismiss scientific discovery, simply because it does not fit with their interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible was written by ancient people, who did not have the knowledge and information that are available today. They were obviously clever and educated, for their time, but they did not know what we know ~ and we still do not know about the origins of life.
When they said that it was 'God', this was based on their culture and belief system, and some facts ~ but not on all the facts now available.
As with us, today, God, then, seemed to be the only possible answer ~ but it was their ancient interpretation of God ~ which does not have to be ours.
(This entire debate hinges on likleyhoods to expain the existence of what no one has witnessed, the emergence of life from matter, with or without intelligence)
Fred,
This is one of the most reasonable responses I have ever seen you give, and you are right. The ultimate debate for a creationist is whether or not a supernatural being created something from nothing or if it came to be by natural methods.
That question has nothing to do with evolution, though, so it seems a bit like mixing metaphors to attack evolution. My problem with your explanations is that you do not seem to understand some of the terms and methods and have therefore reached invalid conclusions. First and foremost, evolution is not random. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Simply because it did not follow a blueprint to become a flagellum does not mean that natural selection accidentally made the flagellum. Wrong conclusion. Same with your probability arguments. Wrong conclusions based on bad input data(from people with an agenda, the Discovery Institute)
I don't care if you want to believe in creation. No one knows how life began.
Evolutionary theory does indeed say we all are linked by a common ancestor, but evolution does not address how that first bit of life came to be.
Catholics and most middle-of-the-road Protestant religions have no problem combining the science of evolution with their beliefs in god, assuming that god used evolution as the vehicle for human life.
I, personally, don't accept that as I don't accept creation ex nihilo as possible, and I do not believe in the impossible.
What you wish to believe about abiogenesis is fine, as there is no answer to the question of how life began. At the same time, there is a multitude of evidence of how life evolved after it began.
You don't have to use bad arguments to support your case, Fred, because your case ultimately comes down to the beginnings of life and what you believe.
Why don't you just say so instead of trying to disprove what is so obviously proven?
Good morning Winston- Both you and Trish claim that origin of life is not linked to origin of species and the evolution debate, I disagree. If you can't get the seed to sprout, your tree of evolution would never grow. In reality, though avoided by evolutionists, the entire theory hinges on abiogenesis. It really IS what the debate is all about. You claim creationists ignore the evidence, you claim we ignore the "science". We embrace the evidence, it supports our claim! Your "science" is based on opinion, not fact. It is how you view the evidence. We view the evidence and reach different conclusions. Observational science does not support your view. You look at evidence and conclude that whales came from cows. We look at the same evidence and conclude that cows come from cows and whales came from whales. Observational science supports our view. Yours relies on conjecture, wild conjecture at that. How is that proven science? That life came from life seems far more possible than that it came from rain on a rock.
Fred,
Dumb. You were doing so well, too, until you made this post.
What the hell is "observational science"?
So god could not have started life and used evolution as a mechanism - then he ain't very omnipotent, old pal. Funny how only a handful of Christian fundies know this and all the other Christians are either wrong or not real Christians.
Yes, we continue to claim abiogenesis is separate from evolution. We continue to do this because it is and we are right, regardless of how moronic you wish to sound.
See ya, Fred, and do us all a big favor, please - don't vote. Thanks.
Hello again :)
May I just add that no-one thinks that whales came from cows. This is exactly the form of untruth, or myth, that I was talking about. It is wrong to tell the young and uneducated that this is what evolution is about ~ wrong as in immoral, and wrong as in incorrect. Why say it? Evolutionists do not believe this nonsense!
They may believe that cows are related to whales; they may believe that they have a common ancestor, but that is not the same thing.
And who actually is it ~ apart from fundamentalist Christians ~ who claims that life originated with rain on a rock? Life is a lot more complex than that ~ and evolutionists know it.
Evolution is about how life evolves; not how life began. I admit that the two are related, but they are certainly not the same thing.
Winston- You were doing so well until you let your emotions stand in the way of reason. I had more respect for you than I guess I should have. It doesn't shed light on anything to call names and berate, this is a sign of weakness on your part. If you have no reasoned arguement I can understand why you would resort to such childishness. If you had a solid refutation it would make much more sense to communicate that. Again (and this is where you oviously are at a loss for proper refutation) if you can't get the seed to sprout, your tree of life could NEVER grow. It does indeed hinge on abiogenesis. That is precisely why evolutionists must admit that their theory is not backed by what we observe. We have never observed life coming from non life, nor have we ever observed fish bring forth non fish. Observational science is science that can be tested. You further weaken your stance by pretending what we observe has no relevence.
Trish- 2 things. First, if we are simply re arranged pond scum, why does any of this matter? If we are evolved monkeys, how would it hurt you if I taught my kids that we answer to God and it is His standard we are accountable to? It would give them a compass that leads to compassion for others and a sense of hope your BELIEF could never give. How is that immoral? In your world view, morality is relative. Is your standard for morality better than mine? Is it better than anyone elses for that matter? If so, what makes it so?
Second, all I did was quote what noted evolutionists have stated about whales. Let's give you the benefit of a doubt. Whales and cows share a common ancestor. Really? What you are saying is that this common ancestor became mother and father to whales AND cows. That's quite a trick! Think about how udderly absurd that sounds! Got nothin but love for you though!
Fred, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Or evolution? Or science in general?
If humanity matters, then it matters ~ regardless of whether you believe that God made us out of clay or I accept the science which indicates that we evolved from simpler organisms.
Why do you think that life would matter less, if you accepted the truth about our ape ancestors?
I really do not understand you and your logic. We humans exist. That is a simple fact. But you think that we only matter, if we exist because of God? If God didn't make us, then, even though we would still be the same people, we would no longer matter? Is that what you really think?
I don't ~ I respect and cherish life, regardless of its mysterious origins. If my ancestors were pond scum ~ and they probably were, ultimately, something like that ~ then I would still be me and you would still be you and I would hope that people would still respect and cherish life.
If you want to tell your kids that you believe in God, then that is none of my business ~ though I do think that youngsters should be left to make up their own minds ~ but it is wrong to tell children lies that will affect their conclusions. Even the Bible says that it is wrong to lie, so don't blame me for agreeing with that particular commandment. Lying is usually immoral.
Evolutionists have never said that whales give birth to cows, or vice versa, or anything similar ~ yet Christian fundamentalists keep saying that this is what evolutionists think. They talk about chimps turning into humans, or giving birth to humans, and they say how ridiculous these ideas are, and how foolish evolutionists must be. They keep spreading this nonsense ~ these lies and myths ~ and that is morally wrong.
I said that there was a creature that would have been the common ancestor of whales and cows ~ not that the 'common ancestor became immediate mother and father to whales AND cows'. That would be absurd, but it is not what I said and it is not what evolution is about. But here you are again ~ deliberately misunderstanding the facts, just so that you can deny and mock the science.
It is impossible to discuss this matter seriously, if you are going to (deliberately) misread and misunderstand the science to your own ends.
Fred, I commend you for speaking up for the truth. Your hub is very informative and right on with God's Word. You can argue forever with these people who choose to reject God. There is no point in it. You won't convince them because their hearts are hardened and stubborn. They will lose in the end. We can speak the truth and plant the seeds but only the Holy Spirit can change hearts and He doesn't do that unless the heart is willing to change. Be Blessed!
Fred,
It is not emotional to call a scorpion a scorpion or a frog a frog. If someone continues to refute facts with unadulterated hogwash it is not emotional to say those responses are dumb.
Once again, evolution does not rule out god - this is your strawman only. If you don't understand strawman argument, look it up. There are millions of Christian believers who assume that god initiated life but have no problem with the idea that he let go after that and allowed evolution to happen or that he used evolution as his vehicle for change. After all, an omnipotent god could instill a soul at any point along the evolutionary chain.
But that doesn't fit with your belief in the bible as literal, now, does it?
Where you keep bumping your head into the wall is with the 100% ignorant assumption that the biblical generations prove that the world is 6.000 years old and that Genesis is a literal account of what happened during creation. Geez. the religious don't even believe that, anynore. You have to be a fanatic to believe a literal bible. These two assumptions are the basis for all the gyrations you have to go through to try to hold onto your beliefs.
The bible was written by humans. It has been rewritten over and over. There have been translation errors. What books to include were chosen by vote. In other words, the bible is not infallible nor is it inerrant. It is totally a human concoction and to rely on its stories and chronologies as a histgorical aging method is laughably naive and again, dumb, so much so that it is like sticking one's head into tte sand up to his navel while the legs are left waving in the air..
Here are the facts. God and evolution can be harmonious. Fundamental evangelical young earth nonsense and evolution cannot be harmonious.
You are not arguing against evolution - you are arguing that the bible is literal and right,and that is an argument you can never win as you have zero evidence for your beliefs.
Fred,
Here is the chain of transitional fossils for whales - it is not cows but hippos that are related.
(1. The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.
a. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
b. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).)
If creationsim is correct, when were all these intermediate species created and what was their purpose other than to become extinct?
Hi,
I believe that I have images of the whale hippo connection in one of my hubs.
Pretty much everything that I have learned about evolution, and how I have drawn my conclusions on evolution, are in my evolution hubs, so Fred, my arguments are there ~ and they are the logical arguments that I have learned from expert scientific works. Why not have a read ~ objectively and without bias? :)
Kristeen, who doesn't know me, and knows nothing about me, has decided that I am hard-hearted and and stubborn. As I mentioned to someone else on this site, who was saying similar things, I consider this sort of comment to be insulting ~ and, though I will argue points objectively, I don't tend to make personal comments of an insulting nature. Why do some Christians think that it is okay to do so?
Hello again to both of you. Winston has given a record of ancestry that looks possible if evolution were a fact. I applaud you for your effort and your persistence. I even understand why you call a young earth nonsense. I cannot make the horse drink, I can only lead it to water. The same evidence you use to support your beliefs is what we use to support ours. While it is true that many in the community of faith also believe evolution, that fact alone does not make it true. Everything CAN be satisfactorally explained in terms of thousands of years when a worldwide flood is taken into account. The extinction of species can be explained in harmony with the post flood biosphere. It will never suprise me that there are many who will never embrace these concepts. I would be among them were it not for the problem of abiogenesis. I would be as wholeheartedly supportive of evolution as being viable if I could become convinced that life originated from non life. I would abandon hope for eternity, I would look at my fellow man as still being valuable (for reasons different than I do now) and I would teach my children to cherish life for simply the wonder of existence. The only problem with that is, looking at the evidence, I cannot reconcile your belief with what I see and what I know. Life brings forth life and each brings forth after it's own kind. (Where did I see that before? Oh! I know! ... the Bible!) There are many examples in life where a symbiotic relationship cannot be explained by evolution, from cuckoo birds to pepsis wasps for example. Cuckoo birds are not parented by their mothers. The adult spies out other birds nests as they are laying their eggs. When the adult birds are away, the cuckoo will knock one of the eggs out and leave her own. When it hatches the other birds feed it as their own. The first time they leave the nest the hatchling knocks the rest of the eggs from the nest so it won't have to compete for food. How would the hatchling know to repeat this process since it was never parented by it's own kind? Check out the reprodutive cycle of pepsis wasps. They are immune to tarantula venom. They have a venom that renders tarantulas immoble. They then lay their eggs inside the spiders and the offspring feed off the spiders as they mature and hatch. How can such a reprodutive system involving 2 different species be explained as being developed through random mutations? I digress... I see what you see, I just reach a different conclusion. I feel the wonders of the universe are the product of infinite intelligence rather than random chance. Call me stupid, but I embrace the hope of eternity and it makes sense in the face of an eternal Creator. Life coming from life. Each bringing forth after their own kind. More later....
(More later....)
Fred,
Please, don't bother. I've got better things to do than read your regurgitations of Discovery Institute talking points.
Quote Fred Allen:
"It will never surprise me that there are many who will never embrace these concepts. I would be among them were it not for the problem of abiogenesis."
Watch this!
Trish,
That is a terrific video presentation. It goes to show why chemists claim all biology is chemistry.
It is good ~ and so clearly presented :)
KEEP SPREADING THE TRUTH! There will be those who will come against you, but that's all right because God isn't coming against you and that's all that matters! VOTED-UP! and AWESOME!!! When you have time, come visit me. GODB BLESS!!!!
Merlin Fraser 13 months ago
It's is a pity you didn't post this yeaterday then everybody might have seen it as an April Fools Joke.
I can only hope that if you paid for the education that lead you to these laughable conclusions then it is not too late to get your money back !