Creation/Evolution Q&A

[sub_zer0]

Hey all. This is my speciality so I figured I would try to let people in on some of my knowledge I have gained through expierence in dealing with this topic. It is awesome that the Bible is as relevant today as it has ever been, not only in prophcy, but the age of the earth in the Bible, essentially my main point is that nothing scientifically or I should say within evolutionary science contradicts the word of God!

Of course, science started with Bible-believing people (Isaac Newton, Boyle, Bacon) who knew that if you study creation you get closer to God! But the past hundred years or so, the biggest gift to all things anti-Bible is evolution.

I say to you, evolution isn't what Christ taught, it isn't what is taught in the Bible and if you believe in evolution over what the Bible and Christ taught, you are not leading a Christian life.

Having said all that, does anybody have any problems with what they think contradicts the Bible within evolutionary science?

[Salty Skipper]

I'm not too scientifically minded , but for what it's worth...evolutionary science is just bad science.

I have a MAJOR problem with so-called science textbooks that treat the evolution theory as though it is fact, right down to the silly little cell to human chart. (I don't know what it's official name is.) One of the very first priciples of science I learned in the fourth grade was that a theory is only a theory until it is proven. They, meaning the schools of science, have been trying to PROVE evolution for years and years and years. They can not prove cell to human theory, but they base entire textbooks upon it.

[grace2all]

Having said all that, does anybody have any problems with what they think contradicts the Bible within evolutionary science?

Nope. Not me. I believe in Creation....Just wanted to chime in.

Aloha,
Janell

[bchandler]

Evolutionary Science isn't just bad science... a lot of it is out right acedemic fraud.

Macro-evolution via genetic mutation is a fallacy and a fraud.

The rules science uses for speciation are a fraud.

even starting to discuss it makes me angry... I have a very analytical mind and to call evolution science "science" is in my opinion one of the greatest offenses against real science.

Any time someone starts telling me how old the earth is and how we evolved i ask them to explain 2 things.

How granites formed with polonium halos, and how coals formed with polonium halos... in some cases double polonium halos... 1 squashed and 1 round.

Were talking about an unstable element with a half life of seconds, and a total decay period of about 4 months existing in structures that science says takes millions of years to form...

When they can answer that question with scientific honesty... then and only then am i prepared to listen to anything else they have to say.. because until then... they are just perpetuating an academic fraud perpetuated for/by/on generations.

[Salty Skipper]

[sub_zer0]

Evolutionary Science isn't just bad science... a lot of it is out right acedemic fraud.

Macro-evolution via genetic mutation is a fallacy and a fraud.

The rules science uses for speciation are a fraud.

even starting to discuss it makes me angry... I have a very analytical mind and to call evolution science "science" is in my opinion one of the greatest offenses against real science.

Indeed, evolution (primate to man or reptile to amphibian) changes have never been seen through genetic mutations or any natural process for that matter. This is a damaging fact to evolutionary theory.

In other words:
A mutation occurs once out of every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10^7) that is pretty rare, since our bodies contain about 100 trillion cells on the other hand it isn't that rare. The problem occurs for evolution when you need a series of related mutations, not even beneficial related mutations (which is very rare) but just related.

The odds of getting two related mutations is the product of two seperate probabilities: 10^7 x 10^7 or 10^14 (a hundred trillion). This is only two mutations thus far, how about three? That is one in a billion trillion (10^21), suddenly the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria so that you could find a bacterium with a series of three related mutations. Evolutionary changes like mentioned above need thousands if not millions of related mutations in some cases, it is just impossible!

Any time someone starts telling me how old the earth is and how we evolved i ask them to explain 2 things.

How granites formed with polonium halos, and how coals formed with polonium halos... in some cases double polonium halos... 1 squashed and 1 round.

Were talking about an unstable element with a half life of seconds, and a total decay period of about 4 months existing in structures that science says takes millions of years to form...

When they can answer that question with scientific honesty... then and only then am i prepared to listen to anything else they have to say.. because until then... they are just perpetuating an academic fraud perpetuated for/by/on generations.

Most definately, plutonium halo's researched by Robert Gentry and RATE scientists is seriously damaging the credibility of dating methods by evolutionists.


Praise the Lord, what encouraging replies considering I debate online everyday to extremely vulgar and distasteful atheists mostly. I hope I am making a change in some of their lives.

[Abiding in His Word]

Praise the Lord, what encouraging replies.....

1Th 5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.

[OBXBob]

Hello sub_zer0,

If you would be willing to address a new topic every few days, that would be awesome! I'd love to get an understanding of the research you've done!

Blessings,

Bob

[taylor777]

I just learned that you can have genetic mutations and not believe in evolution.
Like I guess that there are these cave fish that have had a genetic mutation that has caused them not to have eyes.
Never once has genetic mutations resulted in a new species.

Another thing to be watchful for. Many times science articles say "this proves evolution" (the recent information about the finches comes to mind).

Keep in mind that this is adaptation and not evolution. The finches are not turning into turtles or anything else. Somewhere in there genes they had to have the information for both long and short beaks.

Keep up the good work sub_zer0!

I guess you can tell I am a six day creationist.

One other thing, if any of you have kids, I would invite you to get these to listen to, they are packed full of information!!

http://www.jonathanpark.com/

[bchandler]

Taylor777,

What you are speaking of is Micro-evolution, AKA adaptation.

This is a natural part of the genetic code. God created us with the ability to adapt over long periods of time. (short periods by evolutionary standards)

Dogs are a perfect example... imagine... we have created thousands of varieties in a few hundred years through deliberate selective breeding. But that doesn't make a Chiuaua a different species from a Great Dane. They can still breed and produce firtile offspring.

The forces that created Darwins finches is just that... a natural selective breeding program. It's slower than deliberate human manipulation.... but it works presicely the same way.... Natural environmental pressures select and continue only those genetic lines that have the ability to survive under the existing conditions.

However this doesn't make these selectively bred finches a different species of finch.... in fact genetically, you could still breed these finches back to any other finch and they would still produce fertile offspring.

evolution science says something is a new species if it prefers to breed only with its own type, as opposed to it's own kind. That would be like calling white supremacists or black supremacists a different species of human because they prefer to breed only among their own type, as opposed to their own kind... human!!

This approach to speciation is fraudulent. These finches are different races, created by environmental pressures, but they are still finches and can never change into anything but finches... they are constrained by the limitations of the very genetic code that allows their adaptation.

Another perfect example of these limitations... take a donkey and a horse... genetically able to produce offspring... but the offspring are sterile... because they are close enough genetically to reproduce... but because they are actually different species... they don't match up genetically enough to produce fertile offspring.

These same self limiting mechanisms built into DNA would prevent any naturally occuring genetic mutation from being perpetuated. Further it requires members of the opposite sex to carry the same genetic anomolies, it requires such mutations to not be fatal... and beneficial... and sustainable... all of which are so statistically improbable as to approach infinity.

Yet academics tout this non-science as fact. And perpetuate both the fraud of macro evolution, and the fraudulent method of speciation upon generations of people.

What do you want to talk about next.. the fraud of piltdown man, the fraud of Java man, the fraud of deliberate jaw dislocation in models to create a false ape like appearance in skulls?

These pseudo scientists disgust me, and should have their so called academic credentials stripped form them. If for no other reason than that they are unable to tell a lie from the truth.

BTW, it is polonium halos, not plutonium. Polonium is a decay product of Uranium as it decays into lead... it has a half life of seconds which means in a sample of Uranium as it passed through the polonium stage, it would take about 4 months for all of the sample to pass through the polonium stage and on to the next decay chain byproduct.

If Granites take millions of years to form, these polonium halos could not exist in them. If coal beds took millions of years to form, these polonium halos could not exist in them, and the fact that double polonium halos exist in coal beds indicates that these plant materials were silted over, and compressed within a period of 4 months, which is required in order for these dual halos to exist in coal. 1 halo squished into an oval shape by the compression of the material, and a second perfectly round halo that formed after the compression event.

[proparent]

I too am a 6-literal-day creationist, and a Biology Major/ Clinical Laboratory Scientist, who had evolution crammed down my throat while in school. I came away from my college days even more convinced of God's trueth in His Word concerning His creation as told in Genesis. Evolution is a lie, pure and simple. Mutations always lead to a loss of information, even if it is beneficial to the organism at that time.

Love, In Christ,
Lisa

[taylor777]

Taylor777,

What you are speaking of is Micro-evolution, AKA adaptation.

I know I just have always used the term adaptation because I don't like the term "micro-evolution".

Just because of the evolution conotations. Maybe it is just my little brain trying to keep everything strait.

Your right about the skulls. They are either human or some ape thing. It is artists who make the apes skulls appear more human and the human ones more ape like.

[Lookfortruth]

Evolutionary Science isn't just bad science... a lot of it is out right acedemic fraud.

Macro-evolution via genetic mutation is a fallacy and a fraud.

The rules science uses for speciation are a fraud.

even starting to discuss it makes me angry... I have a very analytical mind and to call evolution science "science" is in my opinion one of the greatest offenses against real science.

Any time someone starts telling me how old the earth is and how we evolved i ask them to explain 2 things.

How granites formed with polonium halos, and how coals formed with polonium halos... in some cases double polonium halos... 1 squashed and 1 round.

Were talking about an unstable element with a half life of seconds, and a total decay period of about 4 months existing in structures that science says takes millions of years to form...

When they can answer that question with scientific honesty... then and only then am i prepared to listen to anything else they have to say.. because until then... they are just perpetuating an academic fraud perpetuated for/by/on generations.

BRAVO! I might add that conditions each day add variables to the whole equation! My biggest answer to those who want to prove evolution is that the scientists have no witnesses, we do!!!!!!!!

[sub_zer0]

I too am a 6-literal-day creationist, and a Biology Major/ Clinical Laboratory Scientist, who had evolution crammed down my throat while in school. I came away from my college days even more convinced of God's trueth in His Word concerning His creation as told in Genesis. Evolution is a lie, pure and simple. Mutations always lead to a loss of information, even if it is beneficial to the organism at that time.

Love, In Christ,
Lisa

That is awesome, thank God your faith was strengthened and not weakened as is done to students when they go to college most times.

Indeed mutations, the fundamental mechanism of evolution, is actually causing devolution not evolution.

[MChat]

I had the religion of evolution shoved down my throat in high-school as well. It wasn't until after I got out of the Army and I watched the Dr. Dino (Hovind) DVD's that I realized that evolution was a myth.

One thing to note about Origins "science:" It is not a true science. Science is based on Empirical Evidence, Theories (which must make a prediction) and Hypothesis which use repeatable tests to prove the theory.

Origins "science" is more like investigative journalism than it is true science. And I'm sure we're all aware of how "Investigative Journalists" tends to spin the story to fit their agenda.

[David L]

Your right about the skulls. They are either human or some ape thing. It is artists who make the apes skulls appear more human and the human ones more ape like.

I agree with your words in regards to the drawings or sculptures. However, concerning the actual bones I had the following to say in another thread posted HERE about the 'existence of Neanderthal..'

tduncun, I am wondering how you explain the existence of Neanderthals.

Through the field of medicine, real 'science', has proven that throughout one's life bones constantly change through the common process of absorption and formation.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons calls this process 'remodelling.' The bones themselves are reshaped into a new form.

LINK

Dr. David Kahn, a plastic surgeon, in an article published for the Plastic Surgery community had this to say about bones:

Facial bone structure, size, and condition change with age, according to a recent study by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS).

Facial bones and soft facial tissue change over the years. Decreased collagen production and epidermal thinning of the skin causes the loss of skin elasticity. Gravity, muscle movement, and fat loss contribute to wrinkling, skin folds, deep lines, and a sagging appearance of the face. Bone changes also contribute to the aging appearance we see in our faces over the years. Today attention is increasingly being paid to the changes that occur in facial bones.

LINK

Moreover, Paget's disease (a disease of the bones), has been described in the following:

Paget's disease of bone is a chronic disorder of the skeleton in which areas of bone undergo abnormal turnover, resulting in areas of enlarged and softened bone.

In Paget's disease, both osteoclasts and osteoblasts become overactive in some areas of bone, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt (bone remodeling) in these areas increases tremendously.

LINK

Where am I going with all of these known 'scientific' facts? Genesis 6 tells us that Adam lived 930yrs, Seth 912yrs, Enosh 905 yrs, Cainan 910 years, Methuselah 969 years, etc., etc. and so we know that in a post-fallen world that death and decay began to steer it's course through our genetic make up resulting in 'loss of information' and not the 'increase of information' required for "Neanderthal" to have ever existed in the first place.

It's quite simple really, "Neanderthal", is just one of Adam's decendants whose bones were discovered under several layers of rock sediment after the results of Noah's Global Flood. Of course, "Neanderthal", really isn't his name.

It could've been Bob, or Melchorizabethashalmenatizadech, but I haven't decided between the two, not yet anyways.

The belief that millions of years of death and suffering brought about what God Himself called 'very good' in Genesis 1 is not consistant with a God of love.

[bchandler]

Many of the bone structural changes that occur with age are seen in neanderthal... and in fact... if a human lived to be 500+ years old, as we did before the flood and shortly there after... their skulls would look precisely like neanderthal.

Neanderthal man are the remains of pre-flood humans who had reached or surpassed 500 years of age.

[Jerry]

Speaking of creation, I believe in the Big Bang Theory.

God said it...

BANG!!

It happened!

[Salty Skipper]

Speaking of creation, I believe in the Big Bang Theory.

God said it...

BANG!!

It happened!

EXACTLY!

[keithareilly]

Intersting Topic.

I am not a scientist and can not comment on these things but I have some questions and other perspectives which I think are interesting.

Bchandler,

What is your background, you seem knowledgeable about this subject and while I have heard that genetics is the strongest argument against evolution, I am not sufficently educated in that area.

Can you give supportnig evidence on your statement about neaderthal being an aged human?

Thank you in advance bchandler,


My observations,

I am a computer specialist so I evaluate things from that perspective.

It would not be incorrect to say that computers have evolved significantly since their begining back with vacuum tube computers of the World War II era.

What is interesting about this, is that if your look at the various models of computers over a long period of time you see the changes in them that from the present backwards could be described as the evolution of computers. In this perspective the evolution describes a process not a cause. When I see the changes made over the years to computer systems, I observe the same changes in computers Darwin observed in biology. I find this fascinating.

If evolution were defined as Darwin described the biological changes instead as Atheists define it as the cause, then we could comfortably say evolution exists as a process not a cause. The fact is evolution as a process does exist. If I were God I would create adaptability and I would make changes to my creation so long as I was interested in its existance and prosperity. Over time this would be perceived as the evolution of creation just as we see the evolution of computers.

From my perspective, evolution, as a description of historical change, exists both in computers and bilology. So when I hear a person saying evolution does not exist then I have to remeber that they are not saying that biological creation has not changed, they are saying selective processes are not the cause of the evolvement of incompatable species.

Nevertheless it is hard for me as a christian to agree with either perspective. I previously read an article in discover Magezine describing a program that simulated evolution. While the author toughted this a proff of evolution versus creation many said it is proof of creation since the entire program adn the computer on which it ran are created things.

I find this interesting because this program the article described is the only working model that truly described evolution as a process of creation. Think about it. A program was created to model the evolutionary process. This is facsinating because it implies that evolutionary forces as described by atheists are in fact a a result of a created environment whereby selective processes are part of the tools used to obtain a result. In effect this means that selective process is a tool of creation and we can see it on an ongoing basis.

Bchandler, I would apreciate your thoughts on this.

Keith

[water]

Here is a link you all might find interesting:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/tnrtb/index.shtml

[David L]

Keith,

You must understand that when we speak of 'evolution' we are referring to 'molecules to man' (i.e. 'goo to you') evolution as defined by the secular humanists.

Evolution in the form of natural selection is not molecules to man evolution but as I stated 'natural selection' which is how the genetic make up found in dogs is able to produce wolves, st. bernard's, and chihuaha's.

Dogs always have produced dogs, cats have always produced cats (lions, tigers, etc.), and humans have always produced other humans. The fossil record shows absolutely no evidence whatsoever about a transition between whales and land animals, back to whales, and eventually to humans.

The belief that someday I will become the next Wolverine or Magneto is absolutely ridiculous yet evolutionists would imply that perhaps billions of years from now it could be so....

[water]

Yes, there is goo-to-you, microevolution, and macroevolution.

Goo-to-you is beyond ridiculous, logically, mathmatically, and otherwise.

Microevolution is observed and proven (such as strains of bacteria becoming more resiliant to chemicals over time).

Macroevolution is the apes-to-man and sponges-to-batman stuff, which is as valid as goo-to-you.

You science-buffs like me will love this:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

[David L]

I recommend the following about Hugh Ross and his public teachings.

The Great Debate

[bchandler]

What is interesting about this, is that if your look at the various models of computers over a long period of time you see the changes in them that from the present backwards could be described as the evolution of computers. In this perspective the evolution describes a process not a cause. When I see the changes made over the years to computer systems, I observe the same changes in computers Darwin observed in biology. I find this fascinating.

Um computers are creations... they never evolved... we just created bigger and better and newwer technologies. ust because someone uses the term evolution to describe the changes doesn't mean it vhanged all by itself.

If evolution were defined as Darwin described the biological changes instead as Atheists define it as the cause, then we could comfortably say evolution exists as a process not a cause. The fact is evolution as a process does exist. If I were God I would create adaptability and I would make changes to my creation so long as I was interested in its existance and prosperity. Over time this would be perceived as the evolution of creation just as we see the evolution of computers.

Well first of all God did design Adaptibility into his creation... into the DNA of every living being. This adaptability, which Darwin saw in his finches, is not and never has resulted in speciation and is often refered to as micro-evolution... but would be more appropriately termed forced-adaptation. Forced either by environmental or human manipulative forces.

This leads us to look at what atheistic evolutionists claim is speciation:

They basically say that if a variety of animal prefers to breed only with members it's kind that look like they do... they are different species.

This argument is subjective, and not subject to any scientific crieteria.

If however one of darwins specialized finches were given no alternative mate except an ordinary house finch. It would still be able to reproduce and their offspring would be able to reproduce... We see this for example when canaries escape into the wild finch population and cross breeding occurs.

On the other hand we see sterile cross breeding when two relatively close but different species mingle, such as a domkey and a horse which results in a sterile mule.

No forced adaptation has ever resulted in changing the base pairs of an animal into a new species... especially in such a way as to add genetic information and create a mutation that is:

Benneficial
Not fatal
Occurs in both sexes at the same time
Doesn't result in sterile offspring
Isn't auto-corrected out of the genes durring inital mixing of genetic materials from the parents.

I previously read an article in discover Magezine describing a program that simulated evolution. While the author toughted this a proff of evolution versus creation many said it is proof of creation since the entire program adn the computer on which it ran are created things.

As a computer person yourself you shouldn't have such difficulty understanding the problem here.... The programer started with a supossition... that such genetic mutation and recombination is actually possible... He then designed the rules of his simulation to ALLOW this to happen.

Now... How did God DESIGN DNA? He gave it automatic self correcting, error controlling mechanisms that essentially exclude this supposition of beneficial mutation from even being possible.

Darwin's finches are NOT mutations... they are adaptations. That is the essential difference between creation and evolution.

God made his creations resiliant and adaptable at a genetic level... but that doesn't mean that a finch can mutate into somthing besides a finch.

[OBXBob]

Wonderfully stated, bchandler!!

Blessings,

Bob

[getoffthetrack]

I was glad to see water put Hugh Ross's web site up. www.reasons.org
Anybody else read Hugh Ross's books or visit his site? I really enjoyed his book, BEYOND THE COSMOS. The website is loaded with thought provoking and faith building articles.

[water]

getoffthetracks...in case you missed it, here is ross speaking:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

[Rte66]

evolution science says something is a new species if it prefers to breed only with its own type, as opposed to it's own kind. That would be like calling white supremacists or black supremacists a different species of human because they prefer to breed only among their own type, as opposed to their own kind... human!!

This approach to speciation is fraudulent. These finches are different races, created by environmental pressures, but they are still finches and can never change into anything but finches... they are constrained by the limitations of the very genetic code that allows their adaptation.

Another perfect example of these limitations... take a donkey and a horse... genetically able to produce offspring... but the offspring are sterile... because they are close enough genetically to reproduce... but because they are actually different species... they don't match up genetically enough to produce fertile offspring.

Reading this brought this Scripture to mind. . .

11 Let the earth bring forth grassc, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.  21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I was surprised to see how many times God used the phrase "after his own kind". ..think He's trying to tell us something?

I am homeschooling for the first time this year and am teaching my daughters the Bible for history. In order to prepare for this I read a great book called, The Long War with God, by Henry Morris. I highly recommend it. He demonstrates that the theory of evolution has been around a lot longer than Darwin and may have its roots in the rebellion of Satan. Have you ever wondered how Satan could even think that he could overpower God, if he is so intelligent and presumably believed that God created him? Morris entertains the idea that Satan believed that God may have "evolved" which would have given Satan the idea that overpowering God was possible.

I am very much into the creation vs evolution debate becasue I believe it has done more to undermine the authority of God than any other of man's "brilliant" ideas.

[water]

I am very much into the creation vs evolution debate becasue I believe it has done more to undermine the authority of God than any other of man's "brilliant" ideas.

Aside from false religions, I totally agree. Then again, one could argue that false religions are from Satan's ideas, not man's.

[bchandler]

Um... evolution is a religion. I believe that has been supported even in court cases here in the US.

[Rte66]

6 results for: religion
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

I'd say I have to agree with Chandler, belief in the theory of evolution seems to fit certain requirements for a religion.

Exactly how does an evolutionist define evolution?

[water]

I'd say I have to agree with Chandler, belief in the theory of evolution seems to fit certain requirements for a religion.

Exactly how does an evolutionist define evolution?

First, evolution is defined in varying ways because there are varying levels of evolution.

One face of evolution is the "goo to you" theory that states that lifeless matter sat around long enough doing what lifeless matter does...which is nothing more than basic chemical reactions...that one day a living organizm was generated...a very simple cell. These simple cells somehow figured out how to reproduce and after 80 brazillion years you have presidents and astronaughts trying to figure out where they came from. This is sometimes called macro evolution and has never been observed in nature or created in a lab...ever.

Another type of evolution is sometimes calld micro evolution, and it is described as variation in a species...like I have brown hair and you have blond, I am tall, you are short, etc. This type of evolution is a fact and we see it demonstrated all around us every day.

Now since micro-e is observed and true, the general theory of evolution says that first there was cosmic soup (inorganic molecules...that is lifeless dirt), and after some large period of time there was a organic material...the building blocks of cells, like proteins, amino acids, etc. Next these building blocks arranged themselves into a simple living organism...like a cell. Finally, these living organims underwent so many micro evolutions, all of these small changes built upon one another until one day we have sponges becoming fish, fish becoming lizards, lizards becoming mammals, and so on and so on until we have people.

The problem is that macro evolution, changing from one species to another species has never been observed and there is no evidence to support the theory sufficienty to move it from being a dumb idea to a fact, or law.

So, when people say that evolution is true, it is a belief not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore no different than religion.

[Rte66]

Oh I like that. .."Goo to You". .

Thank you Water. So do evolutionist differentiate between macro and micro evolution?

[water]

Thank you Water. So do evolutionist differentiate between macro and micro evolution?

Technically yes, they do; however, the problem is that they teach the general theory of evolution, that is all of it together, as if it is all equally valid.

I think all of the creationists/intelligent design supporters would settle down if the universities and public schools would be more clear about the FACT that the theory of evolution is a theory (and a bad one at that).

There are so many lies in our text books these days, it simply boggles my mind.

Are you familiar with Dr. Kent Hovind? That is a man after my own heart, LOL!

Here, he has some free videos online:

Google List of Hovind Movies

I would highly recommend watching this one first if your time is limited:

Lies in textbooks

[proparent]

Wait! There's more............


It's "Goo to you via the zoo".


Love, In Christ,
Lisa

[water]

Wait! There's more............


It's "Goo to you via the zoo".


Love, In Christ,
Lisa

ROFL! "Goo to you via the zoo...and it's 'true.'"

[Rte66]

Thank you Water. It seems to me that if and whenever we enter into debate with an evolutionist that we should make that clear at the beginning. . .Are we talking macro or micro evolution? Before any debate takes place terms have to be defined.

I have heard the name but I can't recollect if I've read anything by him. Yes, I am fully aware of the textbook scandal. In my research to homeschool I read several books that touched on the subject. It is so sad that kids are taught evolution as if it is fact. And now with this stuff going into CA textbooks. . .its so blatant the social programming going on in the public school system of America. But I try not to lose heart. I believe that if a person truly desires the truth that God will lead them to it, even if it takes them a lifetime to find it.



Rte66

[Rte66]

I have a question for any evolutionist. ..

How did the sexes come about according to the theory? Why bother to have two separate mammals to procreate. ..wouldn't evolution have taken the shortcut by just making us be able to procreate by ourselves. In the beginning, according to evolution, did female and male just happen to develop simultaneously with the requirement that they have to mate to produce offspring? Or were male and female both in one creature? and if so then why the separation?

Has anyone ever heard an evolutionist's explanation for this?

[keithareilly]

Hi Bchandler,

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you for a while. I’ve been busy.

My observations about computers evolving was designed to point out that
Darwin made the same observations about biological beings.

To point, computers are man made things; the fact that from a historical
perspective, the changes observed in computers are synonymous to what
evolutionists observe as the change in biological beings demonstrates
that the conclusion: “The occurrence of structural changes in different
species are a result of natural processes” is not logical since the those
observations used for biological species are the same observations made
concerning the observed evolution of man made devices such as
computers.

Thus, if we observe a set of changes “C”, whereby, over time, as one
generation replaces the previous generation such that the subsequent
generation has both similarities in structure and improvements in
structure to its previous generation AND we can observe this set of
changes “C” in both man made devices and in non man made devices,
then it is not logical to conclude that these observations are evidence of a
creative or a noncreative process in the structure of the items/species
being observed. The observation say nothing about the cause they only
make observations about the result.

Specifically, the changes and similarities in species do not support the
argument for natural processes. Instead, they are an observation about
the results of one or more processes not observations about those
processes that created the results. While the difference may be subtle its
ramifications are not.



About the program created to simulate evolutionary processes.

Much of the argument about evolution versus creation has its basis in the
belief of the person making the argument. We Christians reject evolution
from one species to the next both because of what we believe and
because we are not vested in the idea that one species must evolve from
the next. So when we see structural changes from one species to the
next, that is DNA difference and chromosomal differences that cannot be
a result from any natural selection process but represents a fundamental
structural design enhancement, we are not wed to the idea that this
structural change must have evolved. At the same time however, we
understand that God did create the Universe and the world and that if
these processes are actually a result of some natural process then since
God also created the processes then it is still an act of creation.
Ironically, this presents a system whereby Christians are able to define
which processes have been set in place and which processes are
intervention on God’s part. The ungodly do not have the luxury of
allowing for intervention. Instead they must find some natural process
that causes what seems to them to be an intervention in the natural
selection cycle. These natural processes are called cataclysmic changes
to the environment and have yet to be testable.

So, the program mentioned in discover is an example of non-creationists
creating an environment whereby their natural processes can occur and
whereby they will later introduce some cataclysmic event into the model
that further demonstrates the naturalness of the process. The problem
with the entire argument is that they ignore the entire computer
simulation is a created thing. So just as we would say god set certain
processes in place, we would also say that the creator of the simulation
set certain processes in place. When the cataclysmic events are later
added to the model the evolutionists will again tout the model as proof
that there is no creator again ignoring that the creator of the computer
model, man, also created the cataclysmic changes in the model as well.
The irony of this whole model thing is that it really is a good model of a
creator creating an environment whereby processes are set in motion by
the creator and produce a result that parallels the real world. Hence, the
real world can best be modeled by a creation.



Keith

[David L]

I have a question for any evolutionist. ..

How did the sexes come about according to the theory? Why bother to have two separate mammals to procreate. ..wouldn't evolution have taken the shortcut by just making us be able to procreate by ourselves. In the beginning, according to evolution, did female and male just happen to develop simultaneously with the requirement that they have to mate to produce offspring? Or were male and female both in one creature? and if so then why the separation?

Has anyone ever heard an evolutionist's explanation for this?

Yes. It's not very convincing nor worth typing up.


Progressive creationists are really no better in that they adopt evolutionary dogma to the bible by adding millions of years to it. The belief that God used evolution as a vehicle to bring about creation contradicts the account documented in Genesis by Moses. So this leads me to ask the difficult questions we all must answer!!!

Did Moses get it mixed up when he wrote the account? Was it God who forgot what exactly it was He did during the period of creation and thus giving Moses a fairy tale account to write? Or did fallible man in the futility of his thoughts exchange the truth of God for a lie?

[Rte66]

Hey sub_zer0,

What defenses can you arm me with to combat theistic evolution? I am going to be in a class at our church and recently found out that the persons leading are theistic macro-evolutionists (at least one of them claims to be). I asked, "The billions of years view?" and this person replied yes. Also said something about Babel being a metaphor for the disbursement of languages. See this is where I run into difficulty giving evolution any leeway. ..where do you stop with the metaphors? Evolution as in millions and billions of years is still only a theory based on uniformitarianism. .. why are people so willing to believe its a viable answer? I've heard of vastly different answers for carbon dating results. My friend told me that they were just presenting various views and not endorsing any particular view.

One arguement I have heard people use for arguing an old earth age is that "A day in the life of God is a thousand years." But then why say the first days were made up of a morning and evening? Also does that mean Jonah was in the fish for millions of years. .. . 'course theistic evolutionists probably bring up the metaphor answer again for that.

Any insights would be appreciated. .. specifics, like what do the beliefs of the theisitc evolutionists hinge on scientifically? or theologically?

Rte66

[Salty Skipper]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.cneuroscience.org/Resources/Default.htm

Dive in Rte66. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that refutes evolution out there. Here are some good placed to start. Let us know how it goes.

[Rte66]

thank you salty,

I was aware of those. ..I guess I was hoping someone would sum up the arguments for me. .. And maybe share their experiences of debate so I could see what arguments these theistic evolutionists rely on most. But definately AiG is an awesome sight for the defense of Biblical creationism! Thanks Again. ..Maybe as I discover key points I'll try and get them posted. No promises though, got so much on my plate!! But I'm going to head there right now. I have bookmarked a lecture on theistic evolution that I want to listen to.

have a great day!

[water]

Hey sub_zer0,

What defenses can you arm me with to combat theistic evolution? I am going to be in a class at our church and recently found out that the persons leading are theistic macro-evolutionists (at least one of them claims to be). I asked, "The billions of years view?" and this person replied yes. Also said something about Babel being a metaphor for the disbursement of languages. See this is where I run into difficulty giving evolution any leeway. ..where do you stop with the metaphors? Evolution as in millions and billions of years is still only a theory based on uniformitarianism. .. why are people so willing to believe its a viable answer? I've heard of vastly different answers for carbon dating results. My friend told me that they were just presenting various views and not endorsing any particular view.

One arguement I have heard people use for arguing an old earth age is that "A day in the life of God is a thousand years." But then why say the first days were made up of a morning and evening? Also does that mean Jonah was in the fish for millions of years. .. . 'course theistic evolutionists probably bring up the metaphor answer again for that.

Any insights would be appreciated. .. specifics, like what do the beliefs of the theisitc evolutionists hinge on scientifically? or theologically?

Rte66

This may have already been stated, but the Bible tells us Adam was created as an adult...is that just make believe too?

It is true, we do not know *exactly* how God created things, but we do know that he resides in a spiritual dimension that is not dependent upon our physical dimension.

God could have created a universe that looks 13 billion years old in 7 days if he wanted. Time is totally irrelevant to God. He built it into our physical universe, but other than that, time is in God's hands, not the other way around.

In my opinion, it is all a matter of faith. If we can't trust God to do what he says and say what he does, then where does that leave us with respect to salvation through faith?

I want to live entirely in faith. The flesh is dead upon arrival, my spirit will live forever, why should I trust what my eyes can see and what my hands can touch?

The people that are doubting God on such matters that will be gone tomorrow, that is the things of the flesh and this physical world, are probably doubting him on more important matters too.

Edit: Another example is the miracles where Jesus fed thousdands of people. Why didn't he cause the grain to grow and have everyone grind it and bake bread? The answer is...because he doesn't need to...hehe. He can summon bread from nothingness, so can he summon a mature universe from nothing...just as he said.

[water]

Also, I wanted to say that I think the reason most of these Christians still try to chase theories like evolution is because they have a genuine interest in where science leads us. After all, science is nothing more than studying creation.

The problems come when such people bite into theories that are obviously false and are spread with the intent of undermining God's story.

If such people would realize that some theories are not really science, but lies from Hell, they could leap those tiny hurdles much easier.

[Rte66]

This may have already been stated, but the Bible tells us Adam was created as an adult...is that just make believe too?

I don't know what they believe about the creation of Adam. That is what I would like to find out. That and many other answers to questions I have. When I have some time to ask my friend how that part of Genesis fits into her macro-theistic evolution belief I'll let you know. Or when I can do some research on it. Bottom line at this point that I know is that they claim to believe that God used evolution as the process for creation. As to the specifics, I don't know. I don't know if they apply evolution to man or just animals and plants. If they do apply it to man, how? Was man created and God eventually breathed life into one of these men, or what? Evolution as I understand it involves death. Death of the old to make way for the new and improved. As far as I understand Genesis, death didn't enter the picture until the first sin. You bring in death any earlier then that, it throws the whole redemption plan out of wack.

It is true, we do not know *exactly* how God created things, but we do know that he resides in a spiritual dimension that is not dependent upon our physical dimension.

God could have created a universe that looks 13 billion years old in 7 days if he wanted. Time is totally irrelevant to God. He built it into our physical universe, but other than that, time is in God's hands, not the other way around.

I agree. ..and if God wanted to make a man survive in the belly of a fish for three days to make a point I believe He has the power to do so.

In my opinion, it is all a matter of faith. If we can't trust God to do what he says and say what he does, then where does that leave us with respect to salvation through faith?

Although I agree with you, obviously others feel a need to align the Bible with evolution, even though evolution on a macro-scale cannot be proven. And they don't seem to think that it undermines their faith at all. I've heard one of the theo-evolutes claim that the geneological record can not be depended upon. So then that begs the question. .. if you can't trust/believe some parts of the Bible. ..which ones can you trust? Which is where I think it leads them to shaky ground, to the "salvation through faith" question. Heck if we can't trust that in God's Word the morning and the evening mean one day, one literal 24 hour day, then how can we believe that Christ rose again? And it surprises me that they don't see this danger.

I want to live entirely in faith. The flesh is dead upon arrival, my spirit will live forever, why should I trust what my eyes can see and what my hands can touch?

That is true, but not everyone thinks this way, especially science-minded folks. Many folks have fallen for the lie of evolution, including these theo-evolute Christians, who in every other way, love the Lord. They have fallen for the lie and instead of realizing it they are trying to make it agree with the Bible. I feel we need to help them see that it is a lie and that Biblical creationism is the only viable way to explain the geological and fossil records. Unfortunately, it seems to involve lots of research on our part to be able to explain to them why evolution is wrong and the Bible is right. There is so much propaganda out there, enough to fool the elect. I can't just ignore that my friend and others belief this baloney. And she and her husband are intelligent people. I have to be able to speak with them intelligently on these matters to help them see their error.

The people that are doubting God on such matters that will be gone tomorrow, that is the things of the flesh and this physical world, are probably doubting him on more important matters too.

Therein lies the danger. You are right. Once you explain away portions of the Bible to yourself in order to suit the ideas of man, where do you stop? And we are just mere men. ..trying to understand the creation as you said. How many times in the past have we gotten it wrong in science only to be proven so, many years later? To think that man could get it figured out without God is. .. well. ..its downright arrogance in the face of God.

Edit: Another example is the miracles where Jesus fed thousdands of people. Why didn't he cause the grain to grow and have everyone grind it and bake bread? The answer is...because he doesn't need to...hehe. He can summon bread from nothingness, so can he summon a mature universe from nothing...just as he said.

Yep, that is the power of God.

Angie

[Rte66]

If such people would realize that some theories are not really science, but lies from Hell, they could leap those tiny hurdles much easier.

EXACTLY. ..and I believe it is up to us to help them see those lies.

I went to listen to those lectures at AiG but they were just teasers. I have to buy the DVD to hear the whole thing which I have decided not to do at this time.

[keithareilly]

You know guys,

Sometimes you miss the point about being a christian and studying science. There a some general assumptions that are made in the theory of evolution versus creation.

Let assume for a moment that evolution is a process of creation.
Let us also assume the processes that evolutionsists tout is acceleratred such that evolution occurs over a period of 6 days.

Then we would have a description of evolution and creation that fits the both the evolutionary model and the creation model. So, is the model less creation or less creation if the time span is 2 weeks or longer? I don't think the length of time has anything to do with it.

You want to argue the point about time?

Another assumption often made is that time passes at the same rate of speed throughout history. Is this true? can anyone prove this? I don't think so. So while many will dismiss evolution as a misguided theory it may simply be what we observe when we veiw creation from such a distant perspective in time.

Let us consider another example.

The prophesies in Daniel state 4 beasts will rise from the sea. Does this mean that we should go to the mediteranean and watch the water until these beast come out? No, it means that nations will come into existance.

So maybe not every verse in the bible is intended to be taken with such a strict interpretation. Perhaps there are other meanings to the verses. Perhaps this is why Daniel knew enough to ask "What does this mean?"

So let us look at the story of Cain and Abel. Let's ask the question Daniel asked, "What does this mean?"

First notice the names, cain and abel. These might very well represent two peoples, cain, the tillers of the ground, or an agricultural society, and abel, a hunter, might well represent the hunter gatherer societies. The story of cain and abel might well be the story of how hunter gatherer societies were exterminated by agricultural societies. If this perspective is correct, and since we know that agricultural societies replaced hunter gatherer societies, then we have documented evidence in the scriptures regardnig what happened in history about how man's societies have changed or evolved.

So just as the beasts from the sea are not literal beasts rising from the mediteranean, the story of cain and abel may (and I say 'may' not 'is') be about two societies of men, the agricultural societies replacing the hunter gatherer societies.

These are the thoughts that come from asking Daniel question. "What does this mean?"

This is why some of us who are christians may not necessarily agree with every literal interpretation of every passage.

Keith

[water]

You know guys,

Sometimes you miss the point about being a christian and studying science. There a some general assumptions that are made in the theory of evolution versus creation.

My point, coming from a backround in biology, is that state universities teach evolution as if it were more than a theory. It was this way when I was in college in the early 90's and it is only worse now.

The facts on the table do not support the theory of evolution as it is taught. The theory of evolution needs to be taught as it is, a theory with suspect support.

The first obvious problem that evolutionists must deal with is that evolution has no support from real, factual evidence.

They do not like to admit this reality because it brings them face to face with their second problem, which is bigger than the first, which is that if evolution is not reality, they have no back up theory, nothing to fall back to that excludes divine intervention.

Considering that evolution has no real evidence and, more importantly IMO, has no support from probability, their next best theory is seeding. Seeding states that an intelligent being or race of beings is behind the development of complex and intelligent life on this planet.

Evolutionists do not like to mention seeding as a possible candidate because it breaches the chicken-egg paradox. If "aliens" made us, who made the aliens?

Evolutionists have no hope of proving their theory, yet to abandon it is to acknowledge that our physical universe has a source outside of itself, that is the possibility of a spiritual dimension (or call it whatever you want, it is obviously not part of the physical dimension).

I can demonstrate part of the problem right here in this forum. When I mention evolution, what do you think of? Most people that do not come from a background in science think of evolution as a giant, super theory that reaches all the way back to the big bang. Anyone with a background in science knows this is not true.

And this is the problem. The government, through state run universities, is pushing this generic pill down the throats of our young minds in college. Most in college do not pursue degrees in pure science, yet they are forced to complete the basic courses in biology where the lies begin. So the vast majority of young men and women graduate from college with only a brief, false introduction to the theory of evolution, which at the junior college level teaches that first there was nothing, then a big bang, then cosmic soup, then a cell, then sponges, then fish, then mammals, then men. It is simply not true and is gross misunderstanding of the term evolution.

Now while I agree that God could have created the universe any way he wanted to, including using evolutionary processes, the problem is that the evidence only supports micro evolution, or variation *within* a species.

There are no fossils or any other type of observed evidence that supports macro evolution, or the change from one species to another. Anyone who tells us this type of evolution is true is either deceived or trying to deceive.

For more information from a man who does a wonderful job of explaining these ideas at a level that even those who have no science background can understand, I suggest googling the various Dr. Hovind videos.

Here is one:

Lies in Textbooks by Dr. Hovind