 | "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel... By which also ye are saved... unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) |
 | |
Does the Fossil Record Prove Evolution?
By Noel Chartier
Although Evolution cannot be seen happening today, this they say can be
observed in the fossil record. "Survival of the Fittest" is the catch word
to explain this alleged process throughout the ages and those creatures that
could not adapt died out,
producing no offspring and became extinct. On the other hand, the "strong" kept
getting stronger, producing new and improved offspring adapting to their
environment by arbitrarily changing its own function and form over eons of
time..
Here is a fossil sand dollar from Baja California, the skeleton of a sand dollar from the Gulf of Mexico, and two living
specimens also from the Gulf of Mexico. Once again, we fail to see evolution in action.
The
Carolina Parakeet
was a creature that used to thrive in the southeastern United States. But when
this bird developed a liking for the seeds of many kinds of fruit and grain
crops, it was then deemed a pest sealing its fate to wholesale annihilation.
Deforestation for agricultural purposes further reduced its habitat. The last
of these birds was seen in the 1920's in Florida where its final stand of
forest was located.
Bali is a small island that used to be home to the
Bali Tiger
but Human activity, agriculture (coffee and coconut cultivation), collection
of firewood, increasing tourism and uncontrolled hunting for sport pushed
the tiger into smaller and smaller regions until the last known Bali Tiger was
shot and killed on the 27th of September 1937; this was an adult tigress.
The famous
Dodo Bird
inhabited the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, where it lived
undisturbed before the arrival of man. It lived and nested on the ground and
ate fruits that had fallen from trees. There were no mammals on the island and
a high diversity of bird species lived in the dense forests.
The
Great Auk
was the last flightless seabird of the Northern Hemisphere, inhabiting the
boreal and low-Arctic regions of the North Atlantic. Large body size made the
Great Auk especially susceptible to human overexploitation for food, fat, bait,
and feathers. Ultimate extinction was caused by the collection of specimens for
museums and private collectors; on Eldey Island, Iceland, in 1844, the last 2
confirmed adults were killed for European collectors.
The
Laughing Owl
was once common to New Zealand, but is probably now extinct. European settlers
first arrived in New Zealand in 1840, when the laughing owl was plentiful.
Specimens of the laughing owl were sent to the British Museum where reports on
them were published in 1845.
There were
Moa
living in New Zealand when the Maori people arrived but it is believed that
the moa was totally extinct in 1769 when Captain Cook landed in New Zealand.
Some land was cleared by the Maori, which would have reduced its habitat. But
the main reason the moa became extinct was hunting.
The
Passenger Pigeon
was estimated to be numbering in the billions in the early 1800's. In 1810 the
famous ornithologist Alexander Wilson described a flock that “darkened the sky”
– it was several miles across and took hours to pass overhead. He calculated
the size of the flock --- using the time it took to pass over, its width, and
the number of birds passing over per minute – and estimated there were over two
billion birds in this one flock. But by the early 1900's they were hunted (for
food) to extinction by man. A monument to the passenger pigeon, in the
Wisconsin's Wyalusing State Park declares: “This species became extinct
through the avarice and
thoughtlessness of man.” The passenger pigeon officially became extinct
when the last known representative died on September 1, 1914 in the Cincinnati
Zoo.
The
Quagga
(
Equus quagga
) is a recently extinct mammal. Some believe that the quagga is closely related
to horses and zebras. It was a yellowish-brown zebra with stripes only on its
head, neck and fore body. The quagga was native to the desert areas of Africa
until it was exterminated in the wild in the 1870s. The quagga went extinct
because South African farmers hunted it down for meat and leather. The settlers
also saw them as competitors for their livestock, mainly sheep and goats. The
last captive quagga's died in Europe in the 1880s.
The
Tasmanian wolf
was found only on the southwestern side of the island of Tasmania in recent
history. The fossil record shows that it was found in New Guinea and Australia
as recently as 3,000 years ago. The Tasmanian Wolf was thought to be a
livestock killer. This was never substantiated, but because of this
misconception the wolf was hunted (by the private sector and the government)
from 1840-1909 for bounty. The Tasmanian Wolf is now thought to be extinct when
the last know living specimen died in a Hobart, Tasmanian zoo in 1936. The main
factors leading to the demise of this species were over hunting, habitat
destruction, disease, and competition with domesticated dogs.
Toolache wallabies
were native to a small area in South-eastern Australia. Hunting by man was
probably the main cause of extinction. They had a very beautiful pelt that was
in great demand. This species was also a favorite prey for dog-hunts, because
of its combination of high speed and unpredictable jumps. A second factor in
the extermination of the Toolache wallaby may have been the introduction of the
fox, which preyed on the young wallabies.
The last member of this species may have been a captive female that survived
till at least 1927.
The
Heath Hen
, a small wild fowl, was a relative of the prairie chicken. It was once
considered quite tasty and was rather easy to kill. Prior to the American
Revolution, the heath hen was found in the eastern United States from Maine to
Virginia. Expanding human populations in the colonies put an intolerable
hunting pressure on the heath hen populations, noticeably lowering the heath
hen populations by the time of the Revolutionary War. In 1830 the heath hen's
steep decline garnered the attention of naturalist John Audubon (founder of The
Audubon Society), but it continued unabated. By the 1870s the only heath hens
left, occupied a tiny island called Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Cape Cod
in Massachusetts. In 1907 there were only 50 heath hens left on Martha's
Vineyard. The following year a 1600-acre sanctuary was established for their
protection.
The
Jamaican Giant Galliwasp
was a reptile with a length of about 30 centimeters. Its color was described
as pale brown, clouded with somewhat irregular bands of a deeper tinge. It was
said to occasionally change into a lively golden yellow. These lizards lived in
woody and marshy districts and fed on fish and fruit. The last of the Jamaican
Giant Galliwasps probably survived in the Hellshire Hills, a mongoose-free area
on the island of Jamaica. The last Jamaican Giant Galliwasp was recorded in
1840. The probable cause of extinction was the introduction of mongooses by
humans.
At one time, the
Steller's Sea Cow
was found in the cold waters of the Bering Sea, but it was hunted to
extinction within 27 years of its discovery in 1741. The largest sirenian on
record, the Steller's sea cow grew up to nine meters (30 feet) in length and
weighed around four metric tons (approximately 4.4 tons).
In the beginning, on
day one
of the creation week, God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and
matter), and the earth was without form and void. The earth at this time
consisted of the elements and water (building blocks)(Genesis 1:2). Then on
day two
God divided the waters and made a space or an expanse between the waters above
and the waters below (Genesis 1:6-8). On
day three
God caused dry land to appear out of the waters beneath the atmosphere and He
called the dry land Earth (Genesis 1:9-13).
When we look at the strata in the mountains today, (which are full of fossils),
they have the appearance of being uplifted with the lines of strata presented
at vertical angles. It is not hard to imagine when the mountains were lifted
up, the water runoff would have caused great valleys and canyons to be cut out
all over the earth revealing the strata that was precipitated out of the
floodwaters of Noah along with all the creatures buried therein. Where canyons
are cut out, the layers of strata tend to be in a more horizontal arrangement
such as in the Grand Canyon.
This method measures the ratio of C-14 and C-12 in a creature after it has died.
When the artists created the Geologic Time Scale, it gave the appearance of
evolution happening over geologic time, with marine invertebrates on the bottom
working their way up to man at the top. But when one looks at the finer
details,
the true picture represented is that of distinct kinds, some that are extinct
and some that are living today.
Any changes we may see are always on a horizontal level within a kind
(example: many varieties of cats), or on a downward level due to mutations and
extinctions (contrary to evolutions upward demands).
Last Update : 6/26/2007
| Evolution | Renee | Enlightenment, USA | 4renee@prodigy.net | June 7, 2005 3:46 AM |
| Here here! | Carol | California | xy_squared@yahoo.com | July 29, 2005 12:44 AM |
I fully support the critique of outdated 'scientific' ideas. Many wonderful things have been discovered by careful argument and contemplation of facts, upsetting earlier ideas. The earth is round, not flat. Differences in skin color have nothing to do with your personality. Flies to not pop out of dead meat fully formed. In science, things change, and new data comes to the fore.
Science works by taking in the data, and then thinking of a reason why the data is what it is. Then, other scientists go over your idea (your theory) and test it to see if it works. They show their own theories, changes, and additions, and, by mutual effort, a theory emerges which fits all the data and is not contested (at least not until the next bit of data comes out). Because this is dynamic, even long-held ideas are still called 'theories.' That is normal scientific proccess.
However, science is, most emphatically, NOT the creation of an idea, and the search for data to fit that idea. For example, John Doe says that men are better than women. He goes and collects examples of lots of great men through history, and says that he finds no evidence that women are great. This is rediculous. John Doe has simply ignored the Data that doesn't support his theory. He is not being scientific.
If you really want to contest the long-held theory of Evolution, while keeping scientific credibility (which you are obviously trying to do), then please start over, with ALL the facts, and decide what would best fit them.
There ARE transitionary stages in the fossil record. Homo habilis is widely accepted as a transitionary stage in human evolution. Archeopteryx, Microraptor, and other feathered dinosaurs are transitionary stages in bird evolution. Mesohippus is a transitionary stage in horse evolution. Etc. Also, note that, in the geologic scale, the word 'sudden' means 'in a few million years.'
Fossils can be covered by sediment quickely. Ancient mudslides, volcanic eruptions, and tar pits are the best sources of fossils. Also, in highly acidic environments, like in peat bogs, decay happens very slowly. Fossils can form there as well.
Also, I would like to know how the Great Flood managed to deposit fossils on ALL layers of rock in a 40-day period?
Evolution can be observed withing historic time. Look at domestication, which is, at its core, human-caused evolution. Wolf becomes dog. Aurochs becomes cow. Red Jungle Fowl becomes chicken. Even recently, foxes, rats, and fruit flies have been artificially selected into highly varied forms. If people can do it, why can't nature? For that matter, why can't God?
Is evolution really contrary to a beleif in God? No. It is only contrary to an exact, literal intrerpretation of the Bible. Trying to collect data to support a theory is not scientific. It is religious. I respect that, but, like America's founders, I do not think that they should mix.
Science works by taking in the data, and then thinking of a reason why the data is what it is. Then, other scientists go over your idea (your theory) and test it to see if it works. They show their own theories, changes, and additions, and, by mutual effort, a theory emerges which fits all the data and is not contested (at least not until the next bit of data comes out). Because this is dynamic, even long-held ideas are still called 'theories.' That is normal scientific proccess.
However, science is, most emphatically, NOT the creation of an idea, and the search for data to fit that idea. For example, John Doe says that men are better than women. He goes and collects examples of lots of great men through history, and says that he finds no evidence that women are great. This is rediculous. John Doe has simply ignored the Data that doesn't support his theory. He is not being scientific.
If you really want to contest the long-held theory of Evolution, while keeping scientific credibility (which you are obviously trying to do), then please start over, with ALL the facts, and decide what would best fit them.
There ARE transitionary stages in the fossil record. Homo habilis is widely accepted as a transitionary stage in human evolution. Archeopteryx, Microraptor, and other feathered dinosaurs are transitionary stages in bird evolution. Mesohippus is a transitionary stage in horse evolution. Etc. Also, note that, in the geologic scale, the word 'sudden' means 'in a few million years.'
Fossils can be covered by sediment quickely. Ancient mudslides, volcanic eruptions, and tar pits are the best sources of fossils. Also, in highly acidic environments, like in peat bogs, decay happens very slowly. Fossils can form there as well.
Also, I would like to know how the Great Flood managed to deposit fossils on ALL layers of rock in a 40-day period?
Evolution can be observed withing historic time. Look at domestication, which is, at its core, human-caused evolution. Wolf becomes dog. Aurochs becomes cow. Red Jungle Fowl becomes chicken. Even recently, foxes, rats, and fruit flies have been artificially selected into highly varied forms. If people can do it, why can't nature? For that matter, why can't God?
Is evolution really contrary to a beleif in God? No. It is only contrary to an exact, literal intrerpretation of the Bible. Trying to collect data to support a theory is not scientific. It is religious. I respect that, but, like America's founders, I do not think that they should mix.
| Great Article! | Jay Lucas | Missouri | unclescrappy2002@yahoo.com | September 22, 2005 10:28 PM |
Well done.
| Interesting interpretation | Michael | Arizona | notreally@interested.com | January 17, 2006 2:41 PM |
Showing like animals / plants side by side is not science nor religion "shoring-up".
The author didn't show any human or sapien remains / fossils. That would contradict his slide show.
And there are plenty of plant and animal fossils that show subtle changes that you can't refute. These examples on the surface look very much alike. But the skeletal differences are key.
Ordinarily I'd have passed this site by. The author went through so much trouble in a non-logical way, that I was self-implored to comment.
I say, believe what you like, just don't cast judgement. Because as you well know in your heart of hearts, judgement can only be made be the big guy.
If I want to believe in evolution, great. You, religion, great!
I'm all for leaving politics out of how we got here. Live and let live.
The author didn't show any human or sapien remains / fossils. That would contradict his slide show.
And there are plenty of plant and animal fossils that show subtle changes that you can't refute. These examples on the surface look very much alike. But the skeletal differences are key.
Ordinarily I'd have passed this site by. The author went through so much trouble in a non-logical way, that I was self-implored to comment.
I say, believe what you like, just don't cast judgement. Because as you well know in your heart of hearts, judgement can only be made be the big guy.
If I want to believe in evolution, great. You, religion, great!
I'm all for leaving politics out of how we got here. Live and let live.
| Well Put | Aaron | Kewaunee Wisconsin | guppy_petey@hotmail.com | February 27, 2006 10:55 PM |
Wow, have never seen such convincing data for creation. The evidence is irrefutable, and some people, ^, still refuse to grasp the light...
God Bless your work
God Bless your work
| I ponder... | Jeremy | North Carolina | sgt.invincible@gmail.com | March 24, 2006 9:09 PM |
I have to admit that I am impressed with the article. It is sincere, and I have to say that I find that lacking in both the evolution and the creation camps.
I suppose in the end, I agree with what the above poster said about the mixing of God and science. I have spent a great deal of my life hearing both sides, (My father was a baptist deacon, my mother was a biologist...yeah, don't ask) being torn to agree with one side or the other.
I suppose it occured to me one day, that Gods nature, wisdom and power is INFINITE. No human can claim to understand or fathom God, and in that, perhaps He (offered as gender neutral) as the ultimate creator of 'science' utililized these methods to create all we know.
I remember as a child my Grandmother telling me that to God, 1000 years is but a twinkle of an eye. Why then, in that all encompassing twinkle could God not have used 'science' to create the world? Why is it that God has to be this old man with a beard sitting on a cloud that can wrinkle his nose and 'blink' things into existence. It is much more interesting to me that, God would utilize the mysteries of the very fabric of reality, that he himself created, to enact his will.
Regardless, we as human beings will question those mysteries, nay, we MUST question those mysteries. I feel that as we do so we must remember that just as Scientists are fallible, that those who came before us in various religious movements were too, simply, Human. Just as science can be skewed towards personal bias, so too, can religion, and I feel that both scientists and theologians can too easily become wrapped up in their own self-righteousness. We must remember that there is, and will always be things we do not know, and by that admission, perhaps we can grow spiritually, and intellectually.
I suppose in the end, I agree with what the above poster said about the mixing of God and science. I have spent a great deal of my life hearing both sides, (My father was a baptist deacon, my mother was a biologist...yeah, don't ask) being torn to agree with one side or the other.
I suppose it occured to me one day, that Gods nature, wisdom and power is INFINITE. No human can claim to understand or fathom God, and in that, perhaps He (offered as gender neutral) as the ultimate creator of 'science' utililized these methods to create all we know.
I remember as a child my Grandmother telling me that to God, 1000 years is but a twinkle of an eye. Why then, in that all encompassing twinkle could God not have used 'science' to create the world? Why is it that God has to be this old man with a beard sitting on a cloud that can wrinkle his nose and 'blink' things into existence. It is much more interesting to me that, God would utilize the mysteries of the very fabric of reality, that he himself created, to enact his will.
Regardless, we as human beings will question those mysteries, nay, we MUST question those mysteries. I feel that as we do so we must remember that just as Scientists are fallible, that those who came before us in various religious movements were too, simply, Human. Just as science can be skewed towards personal bias, so too, can religion, and I feel that both scientists and theologians can too easily become wrapped up in their own self-righteousness. We must remember that there is, and will always be things we do not know, and by that admission, perhaps we can grow spiritually, and intellectually.
| Good article, yes, but it's flawed. | Private | Private | Private | July 10, 2006 7:35 AM |
I'll have to admit-- AWESOME article. However, your theory has a few... flaws. First of all ,you claim that Evolution was "influenced by the devil" and "made by men that renounce God". The second one, renouncing God, is true. I myself firmly believe in most parts of evoluion, and I am an athiest. As for the first... I don't think so. How can you even prove the devil exists? Or God for that matter? (And don't cite the Bible as proof, please. It's been edited countless times and is contradictory even in the same Testament. Not to mention, how will you prove just because it's the Bible it's true? Oh, PLEASE realise I am not trying to offend any religious people here, just expressing my personal opinion and trying to back it up.) And as to the devil point, please. I believe in Evolution, as I have stated, and trust me, I have not seen Lucifer or the devil or whatever other names that character has.
Your spieces that haven't changed one iota are a few out of a great great many. It's understandable that Evolution, being a random process, will miss some species eventually.
As to your "Evolution=Universe came from Big Bang" argument, realize as wel lthat one need not labbel themselves. I believe in MOSt parts of evolution. Big Bang isn't one of them. (I am agnostic in that regard.)
I am sorry, however, that at this time I do not have time to write any further argument or critisism.
At any rate, good article.
-Anonymous and Random Person
Your spieces that haven't changed one iota are a few out of a great great many. It's understandable that Evolution, being a random process, will miss some species eventually.
As to your "Evolution=Universe came from Big Bang" argument, realize as wel lthat one need not labbel themselves. I believe in MOSt parts of evolution. Big Bang isn't one of them. (I am agnostic in that regard.)
I am sorry, however, that at this time I do not have time to write any further argument or critisism.
At any rate, good article.
-Anonymous and Random Person
| More crazy talk! | G-man | Reality | July 10, 2006 7:37 AM |
These tired old arguments continue to illustrate the lack of good science education in this country. Creation is a quaint religious story written thousands of years ago to explain how we got here. Since then we have learned a lot more about the universe we live in and have come up with logical explanations for many things from the Big Bang to how viruses genetically mutate from year to year. Not to mention the numerous "new" fossilized species discovered every year. It's all evolution!
| Common Sense | Kevin | Ohio | July 10, 2006 7:38 AM |
What is missing from the slide show of pictures are any mammals or birds. Why aren't there any of those families in the listing of extinct-but-not-really creatures?
Another problem I have is that the presenter only briefly touches on human destruction of the environment. If God is watching the Earth right now, he/she is NOT happy with the way the neoconservatives are thrashing our environment into the ground.
Finally, I believe that God exists just as much as evolution. Even if we go all the way back to the Big Bang, and look at the evidence, we have begun to prove that it is not a universe continually collapsing and expanding...something must have started it off.
And whoever was smart enough to blow up something as large as the Universe is wise enough to do whatever he wants, including free will. Because plain and simple evolution is free will, and nobody, not even God, can take that away from you.
Another problem I have is that the presenter only briefly touches on human destruction of the environment. If God is watching the Earth right now, he/she is NOT happy with the way the neoconservatives are thrashing our environment into the ground.
Finally, I believe that God exists just as much as evolution. Even if we go all the way back to the Big Bang, and look at the evidence, we have begun to prove that it is not a universe continually collapsing and expanding...something must have started it off.
And whoever was smart enough to blow up something as large as the Universe is wise enough to do whatever he wants, including free will. Because plain and simple evolution is free will, and nobody, not even God, can take that away from you.
| Great Article! | Scott | Canada | swthiel@yahoo.ca | July 10, 2006 7:39 AM |
It is clear Noel that you have very little understanding of evolution. You are talking jibberish and making false claims here. For example - you ask "Why don't current living species change/evolve"? The answer is that they will if required or go extinct. If you visited earth 65 million years ago you would have seen a T-REX - a species that hadn't changed in over 2 million years since 67/68 million BC. It was unable to adapt and went extinct. Just one example of many. How about a Trilobite - unchanged for well over 300 million years - then it went extinct - or a Condylarth that went unchanged for millions of years - BUT evolved into hoofed mammals - it did change! Stop quoting the bible - nobody knows who wrote it.
| Great Article! | Jessica | Canada | i_love_kiwiis@hotmail.com | July 10, 2006 7:40 AM |
This is Noel's daughter, Might I ask you the question of WHY my dad should stop quoting the bible?, Is it maybe because" It might be TRUE" according to the bible all of what it says is TRUE for example It says - Israel will become a nation again = It happened , and just look how small Israel LOOKS, BUT they have GOD with them, that is why they won so many fights and wars against Egypt, Syria, and the other Arab nations. One attack Israel had very few men and Pitchforks and shovels, And the attacking nations had Tanks, Guns and the works of army supplies, and what happened the attacking nation turned around because they thought that Israel was coming with a bigger army. And If GOD wasn't with Israel wouldn't Israel be Wiped off the face of earth? BUT they are still there in the middle of nations that hate them. There is sooo many other things in the Bible that say what is going to happen in the last days and I'm afraid WE are in the last days! The Bible was Written by men !
Inspired by God( written by men who were disciples of God) .
All I know is that I did not evolve, Especially not from Hairy apes and monkeys and what ever we "EVOLVED" from. I think that's jibberish.
Christians won many fights against Evolutionists proving it wrong and wrong again.
And I have another question if we evolved from Monkeys why aren't we still evolving? Why can't monkeys Build bridges, Fly airplanes, make computers ect...?? God created All animals and God created man in his OWN image. In the bible it talks about the Global flood, Some people think that the grand Canyon for instance, took Millions of years to form but if there was a global flood and the water rushed down there couldn't that cut out the grand canyon? Geologist Dr. S. Austin spent years studying the grand Canyon. He has found evidence in the support of the Theory that the Canyon was formed by the breaking of great natural dams that held back enormous lakes, Creationists believe that water trapped by these dams soon after Noah's flood, formed the Grand Canyon. Their waters cut through the sedimentary layers believed to have been laid down by Noah's flood. If these lakes did exist they would have covered a large portion of the "Colorado Plateau" High Flat land areas of Utah, !
Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. The lakes could have easily covered 30,000 sq. miles and contained 3,000 cubic miles of water. A hurricane, normal flood, or tidal wave, or Tsunami can do more in an hour or a day that the ordinary process of nature can do in a thousand years. Can you imagine that the flood waters of these lakes would do?....
Inspired by God( written by men who were disciples of God) .
All I know is that I did not evolve, Especially not from Hairy apes and monkeys and what ever we "EVOLVED" from. I think that's jibberish.
Christians won many fights against Evolutionists proving it wrong and wrong again.
And I have another question if we evolved from Monkeys why aren't we still evolving? Why can't monkeys Build bridges, Fly airplanes, make computers ect...?? God created All animals and God created man in his OWN image. In the bible it talks about the Global flood, Some people think that the grand Canyon for instance, took Millions of years to form but if there was a global flood and the water rushed down there couldn't that cut out the grand canyon? Geologist Dr. S. Austin spent years studying the grand Canyon. He has found evidence in the support of the Theory that the Canyon was formed by the breaking of great natural dams that held back enormous lakes, Creationists believe that water trapped by these dams soon after Noah's flood, formed the Grand Canyon. Their waters cut through the sedimentary layers believed to have been laid down by Noah's flood. If these lakes did exist they would have covered a large portion of the "Colorado Plateau" High Flat land areas of Utah, !
Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. The lakes could have easily covered 30,000 sq. miles and contained 3,000 cubic miles of water. A hurricane, normal flood, or tidal wave, or Tsunami can do more in an hour or a day that the ordinary process of nature can do in a thousand years. Can you imagine that the flood waters of these lakes would do?....
| Great Article! | Jessica | July 10, 2006 7:42 AM |
.... And when that global flood occurred and the animals that weren't on the ark drowned and sand and mud covered them, Could that be why there is fossils? We found fossils of what appears to be a Yard or longer Nautaloid on the Shores of a lake in the middle of Canada where Nautaloids DO NOT live. How would they get way up here sooo far from the ocean??
There are Ancient stories told by the people of Hawaii, China, Babylonia, and Toltec Indians in Mexico and there story is that the first world lasted 1,716 years and was destroyed by a great flood that covered even the highest mountains, their story tells of a few men who escaped in a " toptipetlocali' which means Closed chest. and when the flood was over these men and women began to multiply and built a very high "zacuali" or a great tower, Then how ever the languages got confused, so different language groups wandered to other parts of the earth. God told Noah and his Family to spread out on the earth but they DID NOT, So by confusing the languages it caused the people to spread out on the earth and gave us all the languages.
The word dinosaur means terrible Lizard, So could they just have lived longer and grew bigger?
Nobody could have visited the earth 65 Million Years Ago, because the earth isn't that old.
What is and what makes you so sure that a Condylarth evolved into a hoofed animal? Is there any Proof as in Fossils of this "EVOLVED" mammal??
I hope I didn't take up to much of your time if you read this, And I hope I didn't offend you in any way.
There are Ancient stories told by the people of Hawaii, China, Babylonia, and Toltec Indians in Mexico and there story is that the first world lasted 1,716 years and was destroyed by a great flood that covered even the highest mountains, their story tells of a few men who escaped in a " toptipetlocali' which means Closed chest. and when the flood was over these men and women began to multiply and built a very high "zacuali" or a great tower, Then how ever the languages got confused, so different language groups wandered to other parts of the earth. God told Noah and his Family to spread out on the earth but they DID NOT, So by confusing the languages it caused the people to spread out on the earth and gave us all the languages.
The word dinosaur means terrible Lizard, So could they just have lived longer and grew bigger?
Nobody could have visited the earth 65 Million Years Ago, because the earth isn't that old.
What is and what makes you so sure that a Condylarth evolved into a hoofed animal? Is there any Proof as in Fossils of this "EVOLVED" mammal??
I hope I didn't take up to much of your time if you read this, And I hope I didn't offend you in any way.
| nameless | July 13, 2006 6:19 PM |
It is shocking and appalling that there are so many people who continue to think in such a narrow minded way. Respecting what your father believes is commendable, but to take it as it is without critically thinking about what is being said is irresponsible. As previous commentors have said, THINK, use your own mind, look at ALL the facts and not just the data that will support or refute what you believe or don't believe.
| Great Article! | Brendan | Califonia | Notfunny11@aol.com | July 18, 2006 2:40 AM |
Hello, I don’t want to get into all the topics addressed. I love this link and I think it provides many important facts about things that are hard to find ANYWHERE. I just have one thing I would like to talk about. On the topic of the Coelacanth not having any physical evidence of its link from fish to amphibian. Do you think it is at all possible that the links were made of cartilage? Many Amphibians are made of cartilage and their skeletons are not easy to preserve, and many fish are made out of similar materials which decompose quickly. I feel this may be the reason for the link between Coelacanth and amphibians to be so hard to prove. If you look at the facts you will see that the Coelacanth has shoulders which no other fish has, you will find that they look like no other fish in the sea, and the very fact that we as humans believe them to no longer exists backs up my point, in that, we don’t know anything about anything, including where we came from. The Coelacanth, to me, seems like a very good possibility, although I do not like the idea of being created from some fish, I can accept it as a possibility, and suggested you try to open your mind as well to different possibilities.
| rubbish | prince william | July 28, 2006 8:21 PM |
dear noel and daughter,
do you honestly believe the entire world was flooded by a storm lasting 40 days that was initiated by the will of god?? read that sentence twice and then i want you to think about how ridiculous that sounds. you need to take a college level biology course and pay extra attention in the genetics and evolution section of the course. It will show you how irrational your thinking is. face it man science is killing god. people dont need to use god as a means to explain natrual phenomena anymore. we know why lighting occurs...its not zeus, as various fields of science make more and more discoveries there are less and less things we dont understand, this means there are less and less things we have to explain away by utilizing god. evolution is just one such example.
do you honestly believe the entire world was flooded by a storm lasting 40 days that was initiated by the will of god?? read that sentence twice and then i want you to think about how ridiculous that sounds. you need to take a college level biology course and pay extra attention in the genetics and evolution section of the course. It will show you how irrational your thinking is. face it man science is killing god. people dont need to use god as a means to explain natrual phenomena anymore. we know why lighting occurs...its not zeus, as various fields of science make more and more discoveries there are less and less things we dont understand, this means there are less and less things we have to explain away by utilizing god. evolution is just one such example.
| Big Bang Believable? | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | July 29, 2006 8:21 AM |
Prince William,
You ask me if the entire world was judged in a mountain covering flood by the will of God as if it is unbelieveable? I would have to ask, once again, if this were true, what evidence would we see in the earth today? Would we not find billions of dead things laid down in sedimentary strata around the world. This is exactly what we see around the globe today. But now, I have a question for you. You believe in the Big Bang, that is, a great explosion 4.5 billion years ago (this varies depending on what sect you subscibe to) created us. This is not only irrational, it is absurd. Explosions have never been observed to created anything, rather, they destroy. The Big Bang theorists propose that the temperature in the first second of the Bang was 10 to the 19th power GeV (1 gigaelectron volt = 45,940,000,000,000,000 degrees F). Without trying to ridicule the scientific mind, we must reason that if an autoclave will destroy all organisms on surgical instruments at 260 degrees F, certainly 45,940,000,000,000,000 x 10 to the 19th power degrees F would do the same. To give an idea of just how hot this is, the surface of the Sun is 12,000 degrees F, and the outer atmosphere is around 1,000,000 degrees F. The Big Bang that is alleged to be 459,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times hotter than the sun's atmosphere would certainly sterilize the whole universe and leave it void of any life. You cannot get away from the Law of Biogenesis which states, All life comes from life, ultimately the Living God! You must get back to the drawing board. Here are 100 more things to consider: http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html
You ask me if the entire world was judged in a mountain covering flood by the will of God as if it is unbelieveable? I would have to ask, once again, if this were true, what evidence would we see in the earth today? Would we not find billions of dead things laid down in sedimentary strata around the world. This is exactly what we see around the globe today. But now, I have a question for you. You believe in the Big Bang, that is, a great explosion 4.5 billion years ago (this varies depending on what sect you subscibe to) created us. This is not only irrational, it is absurd. Explosions have never been observed to created anything, rather, they destroy. The Big Bang theorists propose that the temperature in the first second of the Bang was 10 to the 19th power GeV (1 gigaelectron volt = 45,940,000,000,000,000 degrees F). Without trying to ridicule the scientific mind, we must reason that if an autoclave will destroy all organisms on surgical instruments at 260 degrees F, certainly 45,940,000,000,000,000 x 10 to the 19th power degrees F would do the same. To give an idea of just how hot this is, the surface of the Sun is 12,000 degrees F, and the outer atmosphere is around 1,000,000 degrees F. The Big Bang that is alleged to be 459,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times hotter than the sun's atmosphere would certainly sterilize the whole universe and leave it void of any life. You cannot get away from the Law of Biogenesis which states, All life comes from life, ultimately the Living God! You must get back to the drawing board. Here are 100 more things to consider: http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html
| Great Article! | Lu | Canada | August 9, 2006 3:06 PM |
I love reading your articles! I think they are the best. Evolution is wrong because God created man in his own image. The animals were told to be fruitful and multiply and they still are what we see today. A crocodile is a crocodile and a monkey is a monkey and a human is a human. I think that they should use the bible more in school and not just take evolution and the big bang as facts because there is no evidence. The Bible however is the TRUTH and God's word was arround way before science books and evolution theory. Maybe some people just need to not try so hard to contradict the Bible. People need to give up the "scientific" facts and focus on God and his creation. Again I say this is a great article. God Bless you!
| T-Rex On the Ark | Scott | Canada | falling_arrow@yahoo.com | October 7, 2006 6:22 PM |
If 2 of each animal were on Noah's ark, what did the 2 T-Rex's eat for 40 days? Birdseed? What did the lions and other carnivores eat? The measurements of the ark are in the bible. If we built such an ark could it hold a T-Rex, a Brontosaurus plus all the other large animals including the giant mammals of several million years' ago? There is no contemprary evidence Jesus existed. Those Jews who believed in Christ borrowed ideas from other religions, wrote them down, persuaded others to believe as they did and over the coming centuries murdered our ancestors the Pagans and converted those who did not wish to be butchered. Example: Charlemagne beheading 4500 Pagans in 782 AD. Definition of a good Christian: One who successfully imposes his beliefs upon another without having to murder him.
| Christian History | Scott | Canada | October 7, 2006 6:54 PM |
It would serve the religious community well to know the origins of Christianity. Ever ask yourself - "How did Europe become Christian?" Interesting Reading.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr17.htm
Although I completely disagree with Noel at least he allows opposing points of view.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr17.htm
Although I completely disagree with Noel at least he allows opposing points of view.
| Great Article! | Fezaad | NY City | fezaad28@yahoo.com | October 9, 2006 1:08 AM |
I am not a scientist, but I have learned a lot about life and want to be a scientist some day. I am 15 years old. I was raise Muslim, but I learn that their might be a possibility that god doesn’t exist. Science is something fills with logic and reasoning. There might be a god in this world and there might not be. Following science is the only reason why humans have so many things (technology) available. Humans evolved for many reason including environment changes. Ok, lets say Humans didn’t evolved and there was a god. Where would of we have gotten the food from. Is god going to give us, no it is simple our brain help us to make tools for hunting. God just didn’t give us tools, we as humans did all of this by our self. Religions and beliefs have been holing back human civilizations. Now lets say humans evolved and there was no god. How did we get our food, simple we use our brain using logic and reasonable thinking, we where able to come up with ways for hunting and it was passed on. As time passed we were able to pass on more knowledge on and today we now have more efficient tools know as technology. By taking away work tools we would basically living like our ancestors. “Knowledge is power” use it as your advantage in life. By now you’re wondering what does this entire essay have to do with Human Evolution, everything. Fossils are something that is real, but a Bible/Belief doesn’t prove any thing. Let me explain Fossils is something you can touch feel and holes evidences. Bible/Belief is like reading a storybook that is made up. It is something that is has been pass down by generations. Explanation: When your family have a religion/belief its is something that you learn from them, but will another family learn the something? No, it is just beliefs that is why there are so many different religions/belief. Now let me get Strait to the point. Humans have evolved and there have been evidences to support it (Fossils). But Regions/Belief is something like a storybook. This is what I believe religious people don’t accepts Science, because there brain have been programmed and it is too hard for them to let go. This is why we all think differently and solve problem slow/fast, just like a computer.
Email me What you think: Fezaad28@yahoo.com
Email me What you think: Fezaad28@yahoo.com
| T-Rex On the Ark? Yes! | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | October 12, 2006 11:12 PM |
Many have been critical about the Ark in regards to its size, and whether or not it could fit all the animals. There have been feasibility studies on these very issues that have been documented and they have been found, not only realistic, but entirely reasonable. The dimensions of the ark are given in Genesis 6:15, with measurements that are comparable to any of the large ocean going vessels today. It had 3 levels (v. 16). Since there are not more than 25,000 species of land animals (extinct and living), and the average size of all animals are smaller than a sheep, it has been calculated that each pair put in the "rooms" that were prepared for them would only use about half of the arks capacity. As for the question in regards to the larger animals, we must remember than most creatures are rather small, like mice and rabbits, etc, and few are large like the elephants and brontosauras' etc, and of these, it would not be necessary to take the largest ones, but rather, the smaller young ones. As for feeding all these creatures, let us remember that they would not need to consume alot of food when they were in their pens, and there is a great possibility that many of them would have entered into a hybernation mode.
| Science, True or False | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | October 13, 2006 12:14 AM |
Many today have drifted from true science. Science was once described as knowledge based on data that was observable and repeatable. This would put both creation and evolution into the category of faith. However, many today would like to call the evolutionary hypothesis "science". Have we seen anything evolve into another species? Of course not! This is why evolutionists like to use the magic wand of time. We cannot see it happening because it happens too slowly! But lets face the facts. In the fossil record we have only fossils of extinct creatures, and fossils of living creatures, and there are no intermediate links in the fossil record between any of the kinds. Evolutionists appropriately call these "missing-links". Many evolutionists have honestly acknowledged this vast void of evidence and argue one with another on how best to answer this.
However, if we would look honestly at the fossil record, we would see species that are extinct and species that are still alive, with no intermediate links. We should not have a problem with extinction for it is happening today, but lets not say that those fossils whose counterpart we have never seen alive in our lifetime have changed into another species. If you do, where is your evidence? Do not just say, "there is lots of evidence", produce it! Just because evolution is touted as science, it does not make it a fact.
What the fossil record says to me, is, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. After six days He finished His work and pronounced it very good. From that time forward, nothing has been created, we only see death and decay which was introduced by the sin of one man, and as a result of the subsequent curse on the very elements from which man and all the creatures were made. This is in complete harmony with the two immutable and fundamental scientific laws of Thermodynamics which precisely contradict the idea of evolution. Because science ( the laws of thrermodynamics) has proven that nothing is being created today, and that the whole universe, and all systems and processes are running down, decaying and becoming disorganized, it proves that the universe must have had a beginning, otherwise it would already be dead. These Laws are entirely contradictory to the philosophy of evolution which states that everything is moving upward, and and increasing in quantity and complexity, yet most scientists ignore this, and as a result keep on perpetuating the false notion of evolution.
There are other scientific Laws, such as the Law of Cause and Effect, which basically states that no effect can be greater than its cause. The whole wonderful and marvellous creation with its intricate patterns and designs becons an Almighty Creator and master Designer greater than itself.
The Law of Biogenesis states that life must come from life. And all things, therefore, must come from the Living God.
However, if we would look honestly at the fossil record, we would see species that are extinct and species that are still alive, with no intermediate links. We should not have a problem with extinction for it is happening today, but lets not say that those fossils whose counterpart we have never seen alive in our lifetime have changed into another species. If you do, where is your evidence? Do not just say, "there is lots of evidence", produce it! Just because evolution is touted as science, it does not make it a fact.
What the fossil record says to me, is, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. After six days He finished His work and pronounced it very good. From that time forward, nothing has been created, we only see death and decay which was introduced by the sin of one man, and as a result of the subsequent curse on the very elements from which man and all the creatures were made. This is in complete harmony with the two immutable and fundamental scientific laws of Thermodynamics which precisely contradict the idea of evolution. Because science ( the laws of thrermodynamics) has proven that nothing is being created today, and that the whole universe, and all systems and processes are running down, decaying and becoming disorganized, it proves that the universe must have had a beginning, otherwise it would already be dead. These Laws are entirely contradictory to the philosophy of evolution which states that everything is moving upward, and and increasing in quantity and complexity, yet most scientists ignore this, and as a result keep on perpetuating the false notion of evolution.
There are other scientific Laws, such as the Law of Cause and Effect, which basically states that no effect can be greater than its cause. The whole wonderful and marvellous creation with its intricate patterns and designs becons an Almighty Creator and master Designer greater than itself.
The Law of Biogenesis states that life must come from life. And all things, therefore, must come from the Living God.
| He He!! | Christian Biology Teacher | Virginia | wefrdfsd@aol.com | October 24, 2006 12:43 PM |
The reason my 5 year old son does not understand simple things like death, living to be 80 years old, 3 miles, and that he needs to make his bed... is because his brain is not developed enough to process that deep of information.. yet (hopefully). The same goes for adults! Some of which have stronger processing power than others... no one can argue that.
My best explaination for for why some people cannot understand
evolution and the age of the earth is they simply do not have enough processing power, to be kind at best, or they are very close-minded afraid of learning something that might actually challenge their beliefs. We are wasting our time trying to convince these weak, narrow-minded people. They will never spend time studying, equally, both sides. No wonder they are so brain washed. Want evidence of this.. read the daughter's comments. Wake up people...
IT IS POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN GOD AND EVOLUTION! It is arrogant to think any one of us has all of the answers.
My best explaination for for why some people cannot understand
evolution and the age of the earth is they simply do not have enough processing power, to be kind at best, or they are very close-minded afraid of learning something that might actually challenge their beliefs. We are wasting our time trying to convince these weak, narrow-minded people. They will never spend time studying, equally, both sides. No wonder they are so brain washed. Want evidence of this.. read the daughter's comments. Wake up people...
IT IS POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN GOD AND EVOLUTION! It is arrogant to think any one of us has all of the answers.
| God VS Evolution | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | October 28, 2006 11:15 PM |
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to believe in the God of the Bible, that is, believe what He says in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and to believe in evolution. You cannot find any hints of evolution in the Bible, rather, you find a strong refutation of evolution. However, I will say, that it is possible to be a Christian and a biologist, and to find complete harmony in the observations of nature with the Scriptures.
| Are You Serious Noel? | Scott | November 19, 2006 11:57 AM |
Noel - You state on October 12/2006's post that there are no more than 25,000 species living & extinct. Are you serious? You also state that it would not be necessary to take the larger animals on the ark. WHY???? Animals like T-REX, Brontasaurus, Allisaurus and the hundreds of species of dinosaurs, not to mention the HUGE gigantic mammals that are now extinct like Balacterium [sic], woolly mammoths. Did you also consider that not all animals are build for the same climate? They'd die! A Penguin in the Arctic? Or a giraffe in a cold icy climate. Explain that one? Plus you also state that while Noah placed his 2 T-Rexs in their Pens (Where is that mentioned in the bible?) they did not require food. Oh really? Are you telling us that for 40 days none of those animals ate meat or anything? T-Rex just thought, oh what the hell I won't eat anything?? If you can pick apart one story in the bible - like Noah's Ark which is an easy one, the rest of it falls down like a house cards because it opens the whole thing up for scrutiny. The fact is, those who wrote the bible believed what they were writing was true. And said they were inspired by God. Big Deal. I could say the same thing. Anybody could write a collection of fictional stories and place it in a book and claim it was non-fiction. During the time of it's writing it was difficult to disprove, but with the aid of modern science that is no longer the case. Religious people ignore facts and visual evidence and hold steadfast to hope and words written by humans whose names they don't know, whose mental stability is unknown and whose bias was clearly slanted toward the material they were writing about.
| Further.... | Scott | November 19, 2006 12:07 PM |
Just imagine a Penguin in the desert, a Koala Bear native to Austrailia, a Polar Bear, a Giraffe and a Camel all living in the same climate - on Noah's Ark....How would that work? A Camel would not survive in the cold, a Penguin would not survive in the heat and a Koala needs it's leaves to eat. A T-Rex would need to eat meat. Noel mentions hibernation. This is brought about due to climate change and typically during cold weather. Not all circumstances suit all animals simultaneously. Like I said - the Noah's Ark story is riddled with holes and is obviously FICTION. If it is FICTION - chances are most of the bible is fiction as well. I have studied legendary folklore my entire life and to date after 25 years of research 100% of the legends I have set out to disprove have been disproved. In 100% of the cases I have found shreds of truth with 90% of the story accumulating fiction with each telling of the story. Tell a story to your friend and have him repeat it to another and so forth....expand that to decades or centruries of telling and stories become distorted. If the Christian version of the history of world is correct - it means that all other religions on earth have got it wrong.
| The Greatest Novel Written | Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 21, 2006 12:02 PM |
Noel, you are a very intelligent man, that is obvious to anyone reading your post. I can appreciate your arguments, however, they are selective at best. The cases you choose to rebuke, you use as conclusive proof of creation. I love the ark rationalization, 25,000 species....OK lets take that figure. Noah and his family, let me try to remember from my days of going to church there was 6 of them, or 9 of them in Noahs family. You are going to reasonably tell me that 9 ppl crossed the earth, with horse and buggy , about the fastest transportation at the time and collected 25,000 species of animal from every corner of the earth. They got the younger ones to help preserve space, oh man I wish I could have seen that, unarmed ppl taking the young bear cubs from their mom, but of course they had to take the time to look at the sex so they would not take 2 of the same sex. I guess they would have had help from God though, because for us to reasonably believe that as each family member were returning with their approx. 3000 species each that each animal was cooperating. The sheer time needed to find, collect and transport these animals debunks , in my mind, Noahs Ark as any reasonable event. If we assume God loaned Noahs family the ability to teleport, for time purposes of course, or maybe if that sounds like to crazy an idea God must have told each animal telepathically haul butt to the ark because the ship is sailing and you dont want to miss it. That is assuming your 25,000 population figure. Lets look at the world today. There an an estimated 21,000 species of fish. You introduced 2 miles of what is assumably salt water according to your world creation model. Seeing as the primary type of water on the earth is salt and that creation split one major body of water into two, with the second suspended in animation around the earth, ohh man where do I start. Where did fresh water fish come from??????? You flooded the earth with salt water therefore killing fresh water fish, unless God made them able to survive in salt water for a mimimum of 40 days and nights , but most assuredly longer. Or are you going to say that the upper body of water was fresh water, after all it was rain so then how does introducing 2 miles of fresh water affect the salinity of the oceans, and therefore the survivability of the salt water fish. Or did they have fish tanks back then somehow and caught all the fresh water fish and had them on the ark too. After all we know there is no way that any of the fish 'evolved' the ability to change from fresh to salt water, or vice versa, after all 'evolution' is non existent, unless of course it helps your case. Next, when this novel ( the bible ) was written species study was minimal at best. A conservative estimate on the number of insect species on the planet is 900 thousand. WHOA, that cant be.
| The Greatest Novel Written part2 | Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 21, 2006 12:05 PM |
We are at an impass here, how could there be 900 thousand species of insect on the planet, after all everything died in the flood, only animals on the ark survived, that means now that each of Noahs family had to wrangle over 100 thousand species of insect. I would love to get into the breeding habits of insects, life spans, etc etc. but I will leave to the imagination the reality of the situation. Assuming God told all the animals to behave, not reproduce, and not eat which he must have because nothing would have survived a minimum of 40 days and 40 night on a boat with 900 thousand different species of insect breeding at will, in an enviroment with no food provided....oh yes, I forgot they all hibernated..hehehe! My obvious question is why did God ask Noah to go through the trouble of building an ark. Why not just amass the creatures neccesary and flood the earth with Noahs family and the creatures in a protected section of earth. It would seem the far more logical solution than trying to amass over one billion separate species onto a boat. We know God has the power , after all he loaned it to Moses to part the Red Sea, would have been a piece of cake for the almighty. As easy as it would be to continue attacking the reality of the ark , its existence, the story blah blah blah the best thing to do is remember the whole premise of religion...fear! You must follow the teachings of the almighty, God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Gumby, Barney the Dinosaur or any of the other Deities. If you dont do as you are told you have to deal with the repercussions. The church I went to you had to fear burning in hell for eternity. That is a fairly good motivator as long as you buy it. The Catholic church practice has been to abolish anyone or thing that threatens the validity of its teachings. Sticking to a scientific theme in tune with this post, read the story of Nicholas Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei. This is one of the great example of religion blanket of fear, inhibiting but fortunately not eliminating scientific progress and use this case to remember the lengths to which the church has gone to protect its false teachings. Nicholas Copernicus believed, and hadproof that the earth was not the center of the universe, as was believed at the time by the church Copernicus so feared the repercussions of the church, and a declaration of being a heretic so much he postponed publication of his studies until before he was near death. His studies in the early 1500 's led him to believe the earth was not the center of the solar system. The prevailing teachings of the church were that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything else rotated around it. Copernicus believed the Sun was the center of the universe and the other bodies rotated around the sun. Galileo lived about 100 years later, he had built a telescope and observed the Milky Way was made of stars, that Jupiter had at least 4 moons as well as the apparent rotation of the planets around the Sun. Galileo also was the person that first attempted to explain the phenomenon of tides.The long story short, Galileo published a book on his findings and for publishing anything deemed pro-Copernicus he was charged with heresy by the church. The church forced him to renounce his beliefs, threw him in jail, burned his publishing and then read his sentence in every University in an obvious attempt to scare other 'scientists' into not speaking against any church belief. iT was not until over 100 years later when under overwhelming evidence, and public opinion the Catholic church was forced to accept the fact the Sun was the center of the universe. The churches reign of fear, not factual teachings held back what we all now know and believe, and they did this successfully for over 200 years.
| The Greatest Novel Written part3 | tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 21, 2006 12:08 PM |
Our society is stunted by the overwhelming influence the church, or for that matter religion still possesses. In my opinion the largest single thing anyone should fear today is religion. Noel, I respect your right to choose, I believe in the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, but when those church doors close all of those freedoms are revoked, you believe what you are told implicity, if you dont you will burn in hell for all eternity, such an objective use of a Sunday! Good luck to you all, do your own research on a topic please, dont read someone elses opinions and because they agree, or differ with yours they must be correct, or that they are a whack-job. It is your right, and your responsibility to form an opinion based on your own research and conclusions.
I have read some great novels in my time, but in my opinion, the greatest novel written is the Bible.
I have read some great novels in my time, but in my opinion, the greatest novel written is the Bible.
| Well Done Tom! | Scott | November 21, 2006 8:38 PM |
Well done Tom. You raise some very good points about the fictional Noah's Ark story. I'd love to see bible supporters attack your points. Worthy of mention is that prior to 2000 years ago the Christian religion did not exist. Yet other religions that contradict the Christian version did exist. So which is right if any? The Christian religion evolved out of the Jewish faith 2000 years ago. It survived by creating a fictitious character called Jesus and claiming that he was Son of God. The faith survived and flourished on violence, fear and oppression. The entire culture of Europe was destroyed by the Christians who replaced by Christianity. Ever wonder HOW Europe became Christian in the first place? The Europeans were given a choice, convert or be put to death. Read about Charlemagne beheading 4,500 Europeans in 782 AD because they refused to convert. Prior to "The time of Christ" the Greeks had made advances in science. They knew the earth was round and the sun earth revolved around the sun. The Christians claimed otherwise. They claimed the earth was flat. They were wrong. And killed people who disagreed. They claimed the earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong and killed people for disagreeing. I could go on but my point has been made. A good Christian is one who forces his belief system upon another and if met with opposition uses violence to to achieve his goals and in some cases murder.
| Reply to Scott | Noel | Canada | nchartier@mts.net | November 21, 2006 11:22 PM |
Scott, I will try to briefly touch on each of the questions you have put forth. Yes, only 25,000 species needed to be on the ark. According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world. However, the vast majority of these is capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Marine mammals, fish, amphibians, some reptiles, a large number of anthropods, most of the worms and many of the insects, to mention a few genus, could have survived outside the ark. This leaves us with approximately 25000 species that would need to be on the ark. Feasibility studies are available to support this fact.
You ask why we should not bring larger animals on the ark. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. Younger, smaller animals of the larger species would be far more efficient to bring on board. Why bring a hundred year old brontosaurus when you could bring a yearling?
You believe that the climate on the ark was a problem for the animals, however penguins can survive in the zoos of California as well as in the arctic and the giraffe was not exposed to a “cold icy climate” on the ark. On a side note, before the Flood, the world was more tropical, as the fossil record suggests, and what is known at the Polar Regions today bears record that it once contained corals and redwoods, etc. It was the Flood that caused an Ice Age that forever changed the world we now live in. Many creatures have adapted to their new environment and today find certain climates more friendly to them, but this does not mean they evolved into another species, say from a lizard (who loves the desert), into a polar bear (who likes it cold).
You wonder where in the Bible does it say the ark was build with pens? In Genesis 6:14 it says that the ark was build with “rooms” (Heb: qen), literally nests, where they most likely would have spent the Flood year in a state of hibernation with need of little or no food. On a side note, the T-Rex has been depicted by Hollywood as a flesh eating monster, however, those big teeth could have been used to eat vegetation. In the wild, big teeth do not mean that the diet is flesh as in the case of the panda.
You say you have studied folklore for 25 years. I have spent a considerable amount of time in this sphere of study as well. I have found that literally dozens of nations around the globe have a “legend” about a worldwide Flood. However, it should be expected that with oral communication and the lack of written records, that the story would become somewhat distorted with time from generation to generation. Nevertheless, you will still find a dozen or so common elements that point to a common incident. To deny the possibility that under this mound could not be found a true historical event is to enter into your studies with a prideful bias that is most certain to blind you to the truth. You have said it yourself, “after 25 years of research 100% of the legends I have set out to disprove have been disproved”. Your problem is that your mission has been to “set out to disprove them”.
You ask why we should not bring larger animals on the ark. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. Younger, smaller animals of the larger species would be far more efficient to bring on board. Why bring a hundred year old brontosaurus when you could bring a yearling?
You believe that the climate on the ark was a problem for the animals, however penguins can survive in the zoos of California as well as in the arctic and the giraffe was not exposed to a “cold icy climate” on the ark. On a side note, before the Flood, the world was more tropical, as the fossil record suggests, and what is known at the Polar Regions today bears record that it once contained corals and redwoods, etc. It was the Flood that caused an Ice Age that forever changed the world we now live in. Many creatures have adapted to their new environment and today find certain climates more friendly to them, but this does not mean they evolved into another species, say from a lizard (who loves the desert), into a polar bear (who likes it cold).
You wonder where in the Bible does it say the ark was build with pens? In Genesis 6:14 it says that the ark was build with “rooms” (Heb: qen), literally nests, where they most likely would have spent the Flood year in a state of hibernation with need of little or no food. On a side note, the T-Rex has been depicted by Hollywood as a flesh eating monster, however, those big teeth could have been used to eat vegetation. In the wild, big teeth do not mean that the diet is flesh as in the case of the panda.
You say you have studied folklore for 25 years. I have spent a considerable amount of time in this sphere of study as well. I have found that literally dozens of nations around the globe have a “legend” about a worldwide Flood. However, it should be expected that with oral communication and the lack of written records, that the story would become somewhat distorted with time from generation to generation. Nevertheless, you will still find a dozen or so common elements that point to a common incident. To deny the possibility that under this mound could not be found a true historical event is to enter into your studies with a prideful bias that is most certain to blind you to the truth. You have said it yourself, “after 25 years of research 100% of the legends I have set out to disprove have been disproved”. Your problem is that your mission has been to “set out to disprove them”.
| Furthermore... | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | November 22, 2006 12:11 AM |
However, many credible scientists have not entered into their studies with that approach, and have found wonderful truth beyond their wildest dreams, and reasonable evidence to support creation and the Bible. As one astronomer (a non-believer) has admitted, “The study of origins is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient evidence”. Or better yet, another author, who is not a creationist, but at least honest about it, sums up evolutionary cosmology (Big Bang Theory) in this manner, “It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rational of saving status quo. Perhaps no “science” is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected: trapped in debilitating dogma.”
You need to take a serious and honest look at the other side of the story, that is, creation. And I will assure you that you do not need to throw out your science when you do so, but rather, you will find the laws of science wonderfully declaring the glory of God.
| Reply to Tom | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | November 22, 2006 4:48 AM |
Tom, when you have already ruled out the possibility of a Creator, you will always find miraculous events unbelieveable. What puzzels me, is at the same time, those who ridicule and reject the Bible, believe, without any rational evidence, in evolution. This is equivalent to believing in magic. The fairy tale of evolution goes something like this, Billions of years ago (this varies depending on which cosmological camp you are in) the only thing that existed was a speck smaller than the size of a proton. One day it decided to explode with such intense heat that it would have sterilized the whole universe. But as things began to cool down over another billion years or so, gasses began to condense and to coalese to form great masses of rock. Then it began to rain on one of the rocks cooling it down further until finally a puddle formed on the rock. This lifeless rock that now had a puddle on it then gave birth to the first living cell, which over another billion years (take or leave a few hundred million years), through "natural selection and mutation", produced every living thing that exists today.
It is easy to talk silly as well when speaking on the religion of evoluion. However, enough silly talk.
How did the animals get to the ark? The Lord told Noah, "two of every sort shall come unto thee" (Genesis 6:20). Noah only had the responsibility to bring them on the ark.
It appears that you have difficulty with the saltiness of the ocean. Let us just clear up a few things. Before the Flood we do not know how salty the water basins were. What we do know is that the oceans saltiness has been increasing as long there has been a hydrological cycle, and the rain produced carries minerals of the earth (salts) back to the ocean where the waters are once again evaporated, leaving behind the salts, resulting in an overall increase in the saltiness of the ocean. The fish of the ocean obviously adapt to this increase in salinity. It should also be noted that there are many fish that can handle being in fresh or salt water. If you would like a more detailed answer as to how fish survived the Flood here is an article you may find of interest: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
It is easy to talk silly as well when speaking on the religion of evoluion. However, enough silly talk.
How did the animals get to the ark? The Lord told Noah, "two of every sort shall come unto thee" (Genesis 6:20). Noah only had the responsibility to bring them on the ark.
It appears that you have difficulty with the saltiness of the ocean. Let us just clear up a few things. Before the Flood we do not know how salty the water basins were. What we do know is that the oceans saltiness has been increasing as long there has been a hydrological cycle, and the rain produced carries minerals of the earth (salts) back to the ocean where the waters are once again evaporated, leaving behind the salts, resulting in an overall increase in the saltiness of the ocean. The fish of the ocean obviously adapt to this increase in salinity. It should also be noted that there are many fish that can handle being in fresh or salt water. If you would like a more detailed answer as to how fish survived the Flood here is an article you may find of interest: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
| Furthermore.... | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | November 22, 2006 4:50 AM |
As for Copernicus and Galileo, because they were persecuted by the "state church" this did not cause them to cast off their faith in God's Word, the Bible. These men were Christians, not athiests as yourself, and beleived that God created the universe. The Roman Catholic Church has long abandon the Word of God in favor of her traditions. This is no surprise, for Jesus foretold that in the last days false teachers and false prophets would permeate the church.
An even more amazing prophecy, was that God even predicted you. He said through the apostle Peter, "there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2Peter 3:3-6).
This would be the last days mantra by the world of unbelievers who have thought they have found a way to explain away God. "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation". This is the uniformitarian doctrine that underlies the theory of evolution. The things that continue today, they say, are the things that have always been, and therefore always will be. This is the so-called principle of uniformity. According to this principle, it is assumed that the processes that govern nature today have always been the same in the past, so that the present is the key to the past. Since no creation is occurring today, it never happened in the past either. “All things continue", not just after creation was finished, but “from the beginning of creation.” Thus, what people have called “creation” was accomplished by the same natural processes that continue to operate today.
Tom, I ask you to consider again this great and marvellous book called the Bible, it is accurate in every sence of the word because it is God's Word. Do not let the scharades that go on in the organized churches and the scams of the televangelists lead you to believe that this is what Christianity is all about. Religion is the devils favorite trick. As far as he is concerned, the more the better, this way, to a disinterested and deluded world, it would be harder for them to see the one true God of creation, and therefore justify within themselves a reason to abandon God.
An even more amazing prophecy, was that God even predicted you. He said through the apostle Peter, "there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2Peter 3:3-6).
This would be the last days mantra by the world of unbelievers who have thought they have found a way to explain away God. "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation". This is the uniformitarian doctrine that underlies the theory of evolution. The things that continue today, they say, are the things that have always been, and therefore always will be. This is the so-called principle of uniformity. According to this principle, it is assumed that the processes that govern nature today have always been the same in the past, so that the present is the key to the past. Since no creation is occurring today, it never happened in the past either. “All things continue", not just after creation was finished, but “from the beginning of creation.” Thus, what people have called “creation” was accomplished by the same natural processes that continue to operate today.
Tom, I ask you to consider again this great and marvellous book called the Bible, it is accurate in every sence of the word because it is God's Word. Do not let the scharades that go on in the organized churches and the scams of the televangelists lead you to believe that this is what Christianity is all about. Religion is the devils favorite trick. As far as he is concerned, the more the better, this way, to a disinterested and deluded world, it would be harder for them to see the one true God of creation, and therefore justify within themselves a reason to abandon God.
| Further The Point | Scott | November 25, 2006 6:13 PM |
The Christian Church taught that the earth was flat for 1500 years til it was proved wrong. The Christian Church also taught that the sun revolved around the earth for 1500 til it was proved wrong. Just 2 of many declarations made by Christians that have been PROVED wrong. According to Noel & Christians dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Since God created at the same time. Making a statement like "The bible is true because it is God's word" is absurd. Its true because it's true???? The bible is a collection of oral traditions handed down through the generations by people who believed in what they were writing. No different than the Muslim Quran. They wrote with motivation and a bias. The more followers they could garner the greater the power & wealth. Science has no such motivation. The aim of science is not to disprove religion. The aim is to learn the truth. The goal of religion is money & power, at least for those at the top of the hierarchy. No comments on how Europe became Christian?? Europe was Pagan until the Christians either murdered them or converted them and destroyed the culture of of ancestors, perhaps one of the greatest holocausts in history but generally siilenced by the descendants of the victims.
| Great Article! | DAryl | ca | halimaw_12@yahoo.com | November 25, 2006 8:09 PM |
Mr. Scott!! christians didn't teach the earth was flat read the bible first!!, that's why expeditions were made because the bible teaches that it is round. science then said that earth was on top of a really big animal! and again the sun revolving etc. youre thinking like the corrupt roman catholic church. think like copernicus he didn't see that his theory contradicted the bible he just interpreted it. and again darwin believes in God, he just came up with the theory because he was against the old testament showing that God there, is a God of wrath. while in the new testament he is a God of love.
| The Races | Scott | November 26, 2006 5:25 PM |
What color were the skins of Adam & Eve? White? If so how did Africans become black, or why do people across the globe look different than one another (Caucasions, Negroids, Mongloids etc)
If creation is true - the color of Adam & Eve's skin would remain constant from that day forward in ALL offspring and people decending from them. On top of all the other flaws with religion I'd like to hear that one explained? Because in one breath Christians claim organisms do not evolve. Yet evolutions claim that organisms evolve and adapt to their environment - black skin in Africa to fend off the sun, white skin in colder climates to absorb vitamin D, short squat Inuit near the Artic to store heat and so forth. They're multiple races so even if Adam were white and Eve black it does not explain the other races. And besides - brown offspring supports the evolutionists claim does it not. :)
If creation is true - the color of Adam & Eve's skin would remain constant from that day forward in ALL offspring and people decending from them. On top of all the other flaws with religion I'd like to hear that one explained? Because in one breath Christians claim organisms do not evolve. Yet evolutions claim that organisms evolve and adapt to their environment - black skin in Africa to fend off the sun, white skin in colder climates to absorb vitamin D, short squat Inuit near the Artic to store heat and so forth. They're multiple races so even if Adam were white and Eve black it does not explain the other races. And besides - brown offspring supports the evolutionists claim does it not. :)
| Lack Of Evidence | Scott | November 26, 2006 5:30 PM |
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
| The Greatest Novel Written | Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 27, 2006 11:36 AM |
Hey Scott,
The truth is we are banging our head against the wall with these people. In my experience no matter how much you debate with them they have been sold the one thing that is a license to print money! Religion has a corner on the market, if you can sell this to anyone you can be a rich man......Faith. They will always tell you when they have effectively lost an argument that " you have to have faith" whether it be in Jesus Christ, the Lord, God, or whatever deity it is they have chosen. Faith, that word just irks me because it requires no proof to use. Any time you might feel you are losing an argument just use faith. Noone can argue with you, how do you reason with someone that has chosen to fall back on faith. I have faith that Elvis is alive. I have faith that the South will rise again, I have faith the Republicans invaded Iraq not to secure access to oil (lol) , where does it end. I wish I could, in good faith, sell faith. Televangelists sell faith, nothing more. You and I dont buy that they heal someone of their paralysis by smacknig them on the head, we KNOW it is an act, but the weaker minds have faith and not only believe it they spend their money on it!
The truth is we are banging our head against the wall with these people. In my experience no matter how much you debate with them they have been sold the one thing that is a license to print money! Religion has a corner on the market, if you can sell this to anyone you can be a rich man......Faith. They will always tell you when they have effectively lost an argument that " you have to have faith" whether it be in Jesus Christ, the Lord, God, or whatever deity it is they have chosen. Faith, that word just irks me because it requires no proof to use. Any time you might feel you are losing an argument just use faith. Noone can argue with you, how do you reason with someone that has chosen to fall back on faith. I have faith that Elvis is alive. I have faith that the South will rise again, I have faith the Republicans invaded Iraq not to secure access to oil (lol) , where does it end. I wish I could, in good faith, sell faith. Televangelists sell faith, nothing more. You and I dont buy that they heal someone of their paralysis by smacknig them on the head, we KNOW it is an act, but the weaker minds have faith and not only believe it they spend their money on it!
| I am half breed on the topic | a 16 year old philosopher | November 29, 2006 10:54 PM |
ok so here is my dilema. i firmly believe in evolution but i believe in God. i cannot understand how Noah's Ark could have possibly existed, its just not possible to me. I dont see how the Earth and the universe was created in 7 days. I believe that these would fall under folklore. By folklore I mean a story as in fiction. now whether or nor Moses split the sea, i am very unsure about. But what i do want to bring up is that i believe that the Church (Roman Catholic meaning) is in itself corrupt. And to me all a religion is an organization trying to take control of a group of people. I would like to see Noel's and Tom's reaction if at all possible. I thank you for your time and patience. I guess this proves that people can believe in evolution and God at the same time.
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 30, 2006 9:10 PM |
Philosopher,
I am sure you can take a pretty accurate guess as to what my answer is going to be. I believe religion is an attempt to control people. It is not indifferent to many other forms of controlling what people believe, the exception being religion does it in a way people can stomach. Genocide to me is not different than religion! One group of people do not believe what you do therefore they do not deserve to live. My grandmother is 7th Day Adventist and she believes that killing Sadam Hussein and others with his beliefs is not only acceptable but would not be a sin! Yet, my best internet friend is Muslim and only praises Hussein for his stand against Israel and the west! He says Hussein is the greatest Muslim leader ever. I believe in the freedom of speech, freedom of choice, but these are only 2 examples of where religion contorts, or eliminates a persons ability, or right to these. Their belief is absolute, there is no room for reason, or negotiation. To answer the question of what do I believe...I dont believe wholeheartedly in either creation, or evolution! The one thing I am certain of is that i will not follow religion when they base it on the Bible, Koran etc. when those texts are in part easily unbelievable, or unreasonable. When they try to teach us that you must believe without question the teachings of the doctrine you lose me! Conversely I do not entirely believe in the theory of evolution. see next
I am sure you can take a pretty accurate guess as to what my answer is going to be. I believe religion is an attempt to control people. It is not indifferent to many other forms of controlling what people believe, the exception being religion does it in a way people can stomach. Genocide to me is not different than religion! One group of people do not believe what you do therefore they do not deserve to live. My grandmother is 7th Day Adventist and she believes that killing Sadam Hussein and others with his beliefs is not only acceptable but would not be a sin! Yet, my best internet friend is Muslim and only praises Hussein for his stand against Israel and the west! He says Hussein is the greatest Muslim leader ever. I believe in the freedom of speech, freedom of choice, but these are only 2 examples of where religion contorts, or eliminates a persons ability, or right to these. Their belief is absolute, there is no room for reason, or negotiation. To answer the question of what do I believe...I dont believe wholeheartedly in either creation, or evolution! The one thing I am certain of is that i will not follow religion when they base it on the Bible, Koran etc. when those texts are in part easily unbelievable, or unreasonable. When they try to teach us that you must believe without question the teachings of the doctrine you lose me! Conversely I do not entirely believe in the theory of evolution. see next
| continued | Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | November 30, 2006 9:31 PM |
Evolution is an excellent theory, but they call it just that, a theory! They do not say you must believe in it! Scientists believe in proof, but when they are missing a step they insert best guess extrapolations to finish it. The one thing I have always found a major flaw in the evolutionary theory is , as Noel states in his document , that there is a complete lack of intermediate species everywhere. If humans truly did evolve there would be, and should be examples of this. Should there not be somewhere Neandertahl man, Australopithecus, etc still in currently evolving states? If there was a reason to evolve in the first place it would not just end. The lower creature would always be evolving. The only reasonable explanation to the end of one intermediate species, and the existence of the next is climatic. But one could not reasonably believe that such a change could affect all species, mammal, fish etc. at the same time and explain the complete lack of intermediate species. There is alot of best guess theory inserted into the theory of the creation of the gene pool, the formation of the earth, the age of the earth. I cant prove it, or disprove it. I was not on the earth 10 million years ago to state for certain what was and what was not. Noone was, most of evolutionary theory is best guess. Where I decided to jump to the Atheist side was because they are not arrogant enough to call it the proof of evolution, it is called the theory of evolution. Believe it, or dont, it is your choice. Religion calls it itself an absolute belief, believe it or you will burn in hell for eternity. Follow our rules or burn in hell for eternity! If someone doesnt believe in our way, they are infidels and after all the Koran says Allah eliminated the infidels , didnt say to them it is ok to choose your own beliefs, he eliminated them. The Roman Catholic Church called people heretics, banned their teachings, put them in jail only to find out that these people were right! The greatest thing we have to fear in this world is religion! I have always believed it, and always will.
| Thank you Tom | philosopher | November 30, 2006 10:53 PM |
Thank you Tom. I do have to agree with your saying of how religions are mind controlling organizations, and I even went to a Catholic school for all of my life. I just began to feel wonder if all that i have been told is brainwash. i felt very confused and this is how i came to that conclusion by going into a deep reflection on my beliefs. Another issue that annoys me is that God is omniscient. So does that mean we do or don't have free will. I believe we do, i really think that we have a choice to make in our lives even if others say that our life has been planned out. Much like you said, evolutions is just a theory, not a scientific law (much like the big bang theory, which i am so-so on. But I don't believe God made it one day.) so it is a skeptical look on how we came to be. I do not wish to create a conflict or an argument or even try to convert you to Catholicism, I just want to figure out myself. Just debating the issue.
| Reply to philosopher | Noel | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | November 30, 2006 11:57 PM |
May I say, that I too believe that man made religion is enslaving. It seeks to bring men under bondage and in most cases its grand purpose is to syphon the money out of your pocket. Many will point to certain sects within Christianity and paint everyone with the same brush. However, Jesus whom they claim to follow taught, " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal" (Matthew 6:20). The apostle Paul said there would be many, "men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness" (1Timothy 6:5-11). Riches in themselves are not evil, but the love of riches, for the apostle Paul went on to say, "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate (share)" (v. 17-18). If God has blessed someone with riches (understand that most people are poor), it appears that this blessing is to share with those who have not. One of the richest men in the world had this to say, "There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt" (Ecclesiastes 5:13). This same man said, "The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep." (v. 12) Those that hoard things will not only miss the blessing of giving, but will often experience an increased anxiety with the maintenance of excess possessions. The simple joys of salvation and service, friends and family, and contentment with our portion is worth more than all the riches this world affords. Philosopher, I too was born and raised Roman Catholic, but because many of the leaders are found to be hypocritical did not lead me to abandon Christ, but to abandon that corrupt institution more than 15 years ago.
| continued | Noel Chartier | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 1, 2006 12:48 AM |
Many have pointed to false christianity as a reason for their disbelief in God. These, of course, are empty arguements. The Roman Catholic Church, as we saw in a previous post, taught the earth was flat. However, the Bible teaches that the earth is round. In Isaiah 40:22 it speaks of the "circle of the earth". The word circle is translated from the Hebrew word khug, and is mentioned three times in the Bible. All three clearly refer to the roundness of the earth, especially to the spherical nature of sea level, defining, as it were, the global shape of the earth.
Some would point to the differences in skin color to support racism but this is the bad fruit of evolutionary doctrine. The fact of the matter is that there is only one race, the human race. Technically, everybody has the same skin color and it comes from the melanin protein, the only thing is, some people have more of this pigment than others. Because God programed the DNA of man with the ability to have variation in hair color, skin color, shapes and sizes, etc., does not in any way negate special creation, nor does it prove evolution. The fact of the matter, is that variation does not equal evolution. Evolution teaches that your great, great, great, great, great, grandfather could have been a tomato. Now that takes greater faith to believe, in my mind anyway, than believing Jesus Christ created all the creatures. That there is variation within each of the species is in complete harmony with the Bible, for God said He created them "after their kind" (Genesis 1:21). There is a dog "kind", cat "kind" and nothing inbetween. This is the observable evidence, which is contrary to the teaching of evolution.
Some would point to the differences in skin color to support racism but this is the bad fruit of evolutionary doctrine. The fact of the matter is that there is only one race, the human race. Technically, everybody has the same skin color and it comes from the melanin protein, the only thing is, some people have more of this pigment than others. Because God programed the DNA of man with the ability to have variation in hair color, skin color, shapes and sizes, etc., does not in any way negate special creation, nor does it prove evolution. The fact of the matter, is that variation does not equal evolution. Evolution teaches that your great, great, great, great, great, grandfather could have been a tomato. Now that takes greater faith to believe, in my mind anyway, than believing Jesus Christ created all the creatures. That there is variation within each of the species is in complete harmony with the Bible, for God said He created them "after their kind" (Genesis 1:21). There is a dog "kind", cat "kind" and nothing inbetween. This is the observable evidence, which is contrary to the teaching of evolution.
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 1, 2006 4:51 PM |
Well Sir, you have just disproven your argument!
Because God programed the DNA of man with the ability to have variation in hair color, skin color, shapes and sizes, etc., does not in any way negate special creation, nor does it prove evolution.
This statement proves evolution, even to a simple degree. If god created man in his own image, and evolution does not happen. Every member of the human race would be born with the generic DNA code, the image of God himself, or herself :) The ability to have variation would occur afterwards in a response to ones enviroment however we clearly see a permanent change ( evolvement ) of the human genome in the three major human types Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid. The DNA having the ability to have variation is true, but it is evolution. Man was created in gods image so please tell me which one it was, which human being is the image of god and which of the other two chose to use the ability to vary to become what they are??
My brother in law is from the Ivory Coast, a very dark skinned man and has lived in Edmonton for most of the last eight years. If his DNA has the ability to have variation as you argue I find it curious that his skin color has not lightened in that time. It is also curious that my niece, now three years old was born very dark, why not white? and then adjust to her enviroment and despite living in the lovely Albertan climate for her entire life remains dark. Is it a result of an evolutionary change to the human DNA. A result of his ancestors( dating back many more than your 5000 year old history of the earth) living and proliferating through tens or hundreds of thousands of years perhaps more.
Personally I love the tomato argument, I sincerely hope you surround yourself with people that will buy that. I am dissapointed you chose such a poor comparative, it is far beneath you. Evolution teaches you that life began as basic components and through different mechanisms, using different components in different concentrations amino acids where formed, then proteins, complex molecules etc etc. If your poor interpretation, or complete lack of research has allowed you to infer that there was only one pool, with only one specific mixture of components and only one mechanism that all life began then I can see your apathy toward evolution. It would be something similar to my apathy toward creation where I am supposed to believe that one creator, in one week, created every living thing on the earth, over 1billion species including the complex enviroments required for them to cohabitate in. Ensuring he did not make any mistakes, if you accidentally put the crocodile in the desert, oooops, the cactus in the tropics! That surely was a busy couple days. If I could believe in the creator, and creation as it is told then I can certainly believe in the theory of evolution no less. I will not stand before you and proclaim the theory of evolution is correct, but in my opinion evolution has more credibility than creation. Therein lies the whole problem, you only need have faith , not credibility to believe in religion.
Because God programed the DNA of man with the ability to have variation in hair color, skin color, shapes and sizes, etc., does not in any way negate special creation, nor does it prove evolution.
This statement proves evolution, even to a simple degree. If god created man in his own image, and evolution does not happen. Every member of the human race would be born with the generic DNA code, the image of God himself, or herself :) The ability to have variation would occur afterwards in a response to ones enviroment however we clearly see a permanent change ( evolvement ) of the human genome in the three major human types Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid. The DNA having the ability to have variation is true, but it is evolution. Man was created in gods image so please tell me which one it was, which human being is the image of god and which of the other two chose to use the ability to vary to become what they are??
My brother in law is from the Ivory Coast, a very dark skinned man and has lived in Edmonton for most of the last eight years. If his DNA has the ability to have variation as you argue I find it curious that his skin color has not lightened in that time. It is also curious that my niece, now three years old was born very dark, why not white? and then adjust to her enviroment and despite living in the lovely Albertan climate for her entire life remains dark. Is it a result of an evolutionary change to the human DNA. A result of his ancestors( dating back many more than your 5000 year old history of the earth) living and proliferating through tens or hundreds of thousands of years perhaps more.
Personally I love the tomato argument, I sincerely hope you surround yourself with people that will buy that. I am dissapointed you chose such a poor comparative, it is far beneath you. Evolution teaches you that life began as basic components and through different mechanisms, using different components in different concentrations amino acids where formed, then proteins, complex molecules etc etc. If your poor interpretation, or complete lack of research has allowed you to infer that there was only one pool, with only one specific mixture of components and only one mechanism that all life began then I can see your apathy toward evolution. It would be something similar to my apathy toward creation where I am supposed to believe that one creator, in one week, created every living thing on the earth, over 1billion species including the complex enviroments required for them to cohabitate in. Ensuring he did not make any mistakes, if you accidentally put the crocodile in the desert, oooops, the cactus in the tropics! That surely was a busy couple days. If I could believe in the creator, and creation as it is told then I can certainly believe in the theory of evolution no less. I will not stand before you and proclaim the theory of evolution is correct, but in my opinion evolution has more credibility than creation. Therein lies the whole problem, you only need have faith , not credibility to believe in religion.
| The image of God | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 3, 2006 8:50 AM |
Tom,
The Bible teaches that in the beginning "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). The "image" of God speaks of moral perfection, “righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:24), whereas "likeness" speaks of the immortal, and uncorrupt physical likeness of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20).
It is very hard to communicate all that could be said in these brief pages, but I will assume that you are somewhat familiar with the Bibles record so I will just give you a few of the highlights. If we are to understand the history of man aright, we need to look at the historical record written by one who was there in the beginning, an eyewitness, that being God Himself. After God created all things in six days He pronounced His Creation "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Today, all things are not very good, something happen, sin entered the world and death by sin. Sin and death are intruders in the creation. Because of sin, God placed a curse on the very dust of the earth from which He had made all things (Genesis 3:17). When Adam fell, the image and likeness in which he was made became marred affecting his offspring so that they were born "in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).
To answer your question as to the ethnic groups Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, these all bear the fallen image of Adam as do you and I. Understand that these three nationalistic people are each human. They can interbreed, communicate intelligibly with one another, etc. We might call their differences MICROevolution, but never do we observe MACROevolution taking place. There is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere that one species changed into another species, we only see variety within the species.
As for what evolution teaches, the universal mechanisms that are said to make evolution work are natural selection and mutations. I do not have a problem with the natural selection part, that is, the survival of the fittist, but the mutation part is unbelieveable from an observable point of view. 99.9% of mutations have a negative effect on the genetic blueprint of the species involved. Mutations involve a scrambling of the information, or a loss of information which usually leads to the death or extinction of the creature involved.
Evolution demands that from an explosion (a big bang) life was formed, first a simple cell, (however we now understand there is no such thing as simple when it comes to living cells), and from that "simple cell" and "billions of years" came all that we see. My question is, where did that one cell get the information to expand into the millions of species we see today. A mutation in that cell would have likely destroyed it. The universal laws of thermodynamics prove that nothing is being created today, that is, there is no new information being introduced into the creation, and those things that do exist are under the bondage of decay or entropy, so under these present principles that overshadow biology, physics, and chemistry, it would make evolution scientifically impossible.
If you believe in evolution, you have greater faith than I do. I also have faith, but not that kind of faith for "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).
The Bible teaches that in the beginning "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). The "image" of God speaks of moral perfection, “righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:24), whereas "likeness" speaks of the immortal, and uncorrupt physical likeness of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20).
It is very hard to communicate all that could be said in these brief pages, but I will assume that you are somewhat familiar with the Bibles record so I will just give you a few of the highlights. If we are to understand the history of man aright, we need to look at the historical record written by one who was there in the beginning, an eyewitness, that being God Himself. After God created all things in six days He pronounced His Creation "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Today, all things are not very good, something happen, sin entered the world and death by sin. Sin and death are intruders in the creation. Because of sin, God placed a curse on the very dust of the earth from which He had made all things (Genesis 3:17). When Adam fell, the image and likeness in which he was made became marred affecting his offspring so that they were born "in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).
To answer your question as to the ethnic groups Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, these all bear the fallen image of Adam as do you and I. Understand that these three nationalistic people are each human. They can interbreed, communicate intelligibly with one another, etc. We might call their differences MICROevolution, but never do we observe MACROevolution taking place. There is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere that one species changed into another species, we only see variety within the species.
As for what evolution teaches, the universal mechanisms that are said to make evolution work are natural selection and mutations. I do not have a problem with the natural selection part, that is, the survival of the fittist, but the mutation part is unbelieveable from an observable point of view. 99.9% of mutations have a negative effect on the genetic blueprint of the species involved. Mutations involve a scrambling of the information, or a loss of information which usually leads to the death or extinction of the creature involved.
Evolution demands that from an explosion (a big bang) life was formed, first a simple cell, (however we now understand there is no such thing as simple when it comes to living cells), and from that "simple cell" and "billions of years" came all that we see. My question is, where did that one cell get the information to expand into the millions of species we see today. A mutation in that cell would have likely destroyed it. The universal laws of thermodynamics prove that nothing is being created today, that is, there is no new information being introduced into the creation, and those things that do exist are under the bondage of decay or entropy, so under these present principles that overshadow biology, physics, and chemistry, it would make evolution scientifically impossible.
If you believe in evolution, you have greater faith than I do. I also have faith, but not that kind of faith for "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).
| Response To Tom | Scott | December 3, 2006 1:41 PM |
Actually Tom, Noel is wrong when he says they're no intermediate forms of life and wrong again that evolution is NOT classed as a theory by the scientific community. It is a proven fact. It used to be a theory. But no longer. They're numerous cases of modern day evolution. I'll name 3. White & black moths lived in London until the 1840's When the industrial revolution erupted soot camaflauged the black moths and made the white ones stand out like a soar thumb to predators. Within a few short months/years the white moths were virtually wiped out, replaced by the black ones. Evolution.
We vaccinate ourselves against infections. But after a while new vaccines need to be developed because the old ones no longer work. Why? Because the bacteria has evolved - changed. And finally 2 months ago I sent Noel an article where a certain bird on the Galapogos Islands evolved before our very eyes. This bird changed its appearance over a span of 30 years growing a much longer beak than it had in the 1970's and prior to that decade. evolution is much easier to see in organisms with short gestation periods and life spans because we can witness multiple generations during the life of one human. Evolution is a proven fact! The fossil record itself supports this. See Next...
We vaccinate ourselves against infections. But after a while new vaccines need to be developed because the old ones no longer work. Why? Because the bacteria has evolved - changed. And finally 2 months ago I sent Noel an article where a certain bird on the Galapogos Islands evolved before our very eyes. This bird changed its appearance over a span of 30 years growing a much longer beak than it had in the 1970's and prior to that decade. evolution is much easier to see in organisms with short gestation periods and life spans because we can witness multiple generations during the life of one human. Evolution is a proven fact! The fossil record itself supports this. See Next...
| Intermediate Forms | Scott | December 3, 2006 1:49 PM |
Ok - Intermediate Forms. It is clear that neither Tom nor Noel fully understand this concept. Let me explain it in terms of mathamatics. If I had a #4 and a #5, as an evolutionist I'd say 4 evolved into 5. You'd say - I don't believe you, where is the intermediate form? 4 is not identical to 5. That is because it changed/evolved. If I found a 4.5, creationsts would argue that 4 is not the same as 4.5. Where is the intermediate form? Well - what the hell do creationists want?? A 4.0000001 contrasted to a 4? They are not the same. You need an intermediate form to that? The fact is WE DO have intermediate forms. The example I gave previously with the bird with the longer beek is a perfect example. There is no intermediate form necessarily. The short beek evolved into a longer one. Thats evolution - a change. If the beek evolves again, then the organism now would be classed as intermediate between the first & third forms. Noel has made several false statements on this site regarding science & religion. "Intermiediate Forms" do exist. Hopefully my math example clarifies this somewhat. If a 4 becomes a 4.1 -we have evolution. Period. There is no intermediate between the 4 and the 4.1. If the 4.1 evolves into a 4.2, then the 4.1 is the intermediate between the 4.0 and 4.2.
| God On Trial | Scott | December 3, 2006 2:19 PM |
Noel if you are going to argue religion, at least argue it with some facts. The bible is a collection of writings consolidated in the 4rth century from unknown authors, and translated from other languages. I don't care what the bible says - any of it. It is HEARSAY plain & simple. And in our courts we do not allow hearsay, so stop quoting hearsay. Produce some hard core evidence. If God were put on trial he would be found non existant because there is only faith as Tom says. "I believe because I believe". In a court of law that would never fly. Good & bad things happen on earth everyday. If a man is rescued its the work of God. If a man is beheaded God is not mentioned. Pull Leeeze.
Whoever wrote the bible - and I've said this repeatdely - believed what they were writing was true - and had a motivation (Power & money) to embellish the truth in order to gain followers. In Psychology we call it a Psychological bias. There were no Christians before the time of Christ. And the only reason that religion spread is through violence and deception.
Science does not have all the answers. But we in 2006 know far more than we did in 1906. And in 2106 those living then will know even more scientifically than we do now. Scientists seek the truth no matter what it is or whether it supports or negates the existence of God, Bhudda, Appolo, Glooscap, Zeus, Aphrodite or any of the hundreds of other supernatural beings thought to float around the atmosphere of this planet. I know enough about evolution and the science behind it to believe that yes all organisms on this planet evolved and are either evolving or are stagnant in their current form because there is no pressure to evolve. Some of the mechanisms are well understood while others are not - but evolution itself is not a theory. It is a proven fact.
Even humans have the ability to create life in a laboratory as evidence by the Russian Scientist A.I. Oparin in 1953 so the creation of life is no big deal. It is a scientific process.
The same forensic science we use to solve crimes in our courts is used to date fossils. And that dating system and science in part contradicts religious teachings. It just so happens that when fossils are dated they follow a logical chronological pattern - one you'd expect to find if life arose on this planet by scientific processes. There comes a point when the amount of circumstantial evidence against the existence of any and all Gods becomes so overwhelming that to the clear thinking objective individual, they must acknowledge that religions are man made concepts and a great hoax.
I used to believe in God & religion. But as a clear thinking man with an open and objective mind I can no longer believe in something as ridiculous and archaic as any religion.
Noel - if you are going to argue any part of this - do so without the bible - without hearsay - and give us some hard core facts to support your argument.
Whoever wrote the bible - and I've said this repeatdely - believed what they were writing was true - and had a motivation (Power & money) to embellish the truth in order to gain followers. In Psychology we call it a Psychological bias. There were no Christians before the time of Christ. And the only reason that religion spread is through violence and deception.
Science does not have all the answers. But we in 2006 know far more than we did in 1906. And in 2106 those living then will know even more scientifically than we do now. Scientists seek the truth no matter what it is or whether it supports or negates the existence of God, Bhudda, Appolo, Glooscap, Zeus, Aphrodite or any of the hundreds of other supernatural beings thought to float around the atmosphere of this planet. I know enough about evolution and the science behind it to believe that yes all organisms on this planet evolved and are either evolving or are stagnant in their current form because there is no pressure to evolve. Some of the mechanisms are well understood while others are not - but evolution itself is not a theory. It is a proven fact.
Even humans have the ability to create life in a laboratory as evidence by the Russian Scientist A.I. Oparin in 1953 so the creation of life is no big deal. It is a scientific process.
The same forensic science we use to solve crimes in our courts is used to date fossils. And that dating system and science in part contradicts religious teachings. It just so happens that when fossils are dated they follow a logical chronological pattern - one you'd expect to find if life arose on this planet by scientific processes. There comes a point when the amount of circumstantial evidence against the existence of any and all Gods becomes so overwhelming that to the clear thinking objective individual, they must acknowledge that religions are man made concepts and a great hoax.
I used to believe in God & religion. But as a clear thinking man with an open and objective mind I can no longer believe in something as ridiculous and archaic as any religion.
Noel - if you are going to argue any part of this - do so without the bible - without hearsay - and give us some hard core facts to support your argument.
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 4, 2006 4:11 AM |
Scott,
You misread, or skipped the part where I clearly stated I do believe evolution exists, I stated it clearly in my comments regarding the human species. I do not wholly believe 100% in the theory of how the earth evolved...the theory of evolution. It is nice that in the world of over 1 billion species you have chosen 3 cases, therefore you must conclude that the theory of evolution is absolute. You have much in common with Noel, you will believe what you want to fit your agenda. You are the example of where the church went wrong. Their belief was absolute, therefore the earth was flat, later on ooops, the earth is round, later on oooops the universe revolves around the sun. You make it sound as if the information we have now is enough for you to believe absolutely in the theory of evolution as it exists now. I am stating that I believe it far more than any religious theory (creation) but that I am not 100% convinced in it. Should they find another fossil of a previously unfound species of pre homo sapien they will have to amend the theory of evolution making you look like a fool because you believe now in the absoluteness of it. I do not, I believe that in every decade from here on we will revise the theory of evolution as science improves and expands. It is only by driving out the suffocating blanket of antiquated beliefs and control that religion subjects us to will science be allowed to move forward.
I must say I am dissapointed Scott that you use a butterfly and a beak to argue with me on why we dont see evolutionary states of homonids on the earth. If evolutionary theory states we evolved through these states, the absolute lack of historic sightings, or evidence in any corner of the earth in recorded history is a hard pill to swallow for us to absolutely buy the evolution of man theory. I do thank you for using a profound example of a butterfly and a bird beak to explain it. I must however respond with muahahaha that is funny. I will compare it to creation, because I must assume the theory of creation is correct now because of you. After all the apple Eve took from the serpent is,after all, an apple,and was in the Garden of Eden and therefor the apple must have been made by God and using Scott logic God must have created the heavens and the earth because he created the apple. Cant argue that, after all it is an apple, has to be as significant as a beak or a butterfly.
Please read carefully before you tell me I dont believe in something I clearly stated I do!
You misread, or skipped the part where I clearly stated I do believe evolution exists, I stated it clearly in my comments regarding the human species. I do not wholly believe 100% in the theory of how the earth evolved...the theory of evolution. It is nice that in the world of over 1 billion species you have chosen 3 cases, therefore you must conclude that the theory of evolution is absolute. You have much in common with Noel, you will believe what you want to fit your agenda. You are the example of where the church went wrong. Their belief was absolute, therefore the earth was flat, later on ooops, the earth is round, later on oooops the universe revolves around the sun. You make it sound as if the information we have now is enough for you to believe absolutely in the theory of evolution as it exists now. I am stating that I believe it far more than any religious theory (creation) but that I am not 100% convinced in it. Should they find another fossil of a previously unfound species of pre homo sapien they will have to amend the theory of evolution making you look like a fool because you believe now in the absoluteness of it. I do not, I believe that in every decade from here on we will revise the theory of evolution as science improves and expands. It is only by driving out the suffocating blanket of antiquated beliefs and control that religion subjects us to will science be allowed to move forward.
I must say I am dissapointed Scott that you use a butterfly and a beak to argue with me on why we dont see evolutionary states of homonids on the earth. If evolutionary theory states we evolved through these states, the absolute lack of historic sightings, or evidence in any corner of the earth in recorded history is a hard pill to swallow for us to absolutely buy the evolution of man theory. I do thank you for using a profound example of a butterfly and a bird beak to explain it. I must however respond with muahahaha that is funny. I will compare it to creation, because I must assume the theory of creation is correct now because of you. After all the apple Eve took from the serpent is,after all, an apple,and was in the Garden of Eden and therefor the apple must have been made by God and using Scott logic God must have created the heavens and the earth because he created the apple. Cant argue that, after all it is an apple, has to be as significant as a beak or a butterfly.
Please read carefully before you tell me I dont believe in something I clearly stated I do!
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 4, 2006 5:19 AM |
Noel,
Good day! It is good to hear from you. I look forward to reading your posts. There is no sarcasm, you are very well spoken and I do enjoy the way can express yourself clearly. I have yet to gain that ability, but have realized it is not going to come. I agree with you that there is not the space here to fully engage in every point for arguments sake. I do not want to drag this on too long as it is clear we have each made our choices clear. I have respect in that your choice has been made with good research. My only problem with that is that I believe the Bible to be a work of fiction, not fact. Before you say it I know what you are thinking. The theory of evolution, in your belief is a work of fiction xD. Therein lies the impass.
I could drag on here for hours and pages to explain evolutionary theorem, conversely I believe you can also. I cannot get past your explanations of the arc event, including the division of the water bodies of the earth. The explanation is so unbelievable that I am shocked you can. We all know about UV lightwaves and how they heat the earth and how a 'suspended' body of water would affect that. Conclusions of 25,000 species of animal on the arc is not only implausable but improbable that 9 people rounded them up. Accepting proven evidence of over 1 billion species of life on this planet makes it laughable. I wont get into discussing the propagation of the human species because it would only tell us we are all inbred genetic mutations. If humans came from only 2 genetic donators incestual relations would have had to have been mandatory for the future of the species. If there was Cain, Abel and Seth I hope there was a sister somewhere along the way or Eve was a busy woman.Sorry that is tactless but I thought the church states incest is a sin yet without such sin we would not be here today. Such unions are illegal, considered immoral and sins,yet our species is the product of it.
Good day! It is good to hear from you. I look forward to reading your posts. There is no sarcasm, you are very well spoken and I do enjoy the way can express yourself clearly. I have yet to gain that ability, but have realized it is not going to come. I agree with you that there is not the space here to fully engage in every point for arguments sake. I do not want to drag this on too long as it is clear we have each made our choices clear. I have respect in that your choice has been made with good research. My only problem with that is that I believe the Bible to be a work of fiction, not fact. Before you say it I know what you are thinking. The theory of evolution, in your belief is a work of fiction xD. Therein lies the impass.
I could drag on here for hours and pages to explain evolutionary theorem, conversely I believe you can also. I cannot get past your explanations of the arc event, including the division of the water bodies of the earth. The explanation is so unbelievable that I am shocked you can. We all know about UV lightwaves and how they heat the earth and how a 'suspended' body of water would affect that. Conclusions of 25,000 species of animal on the arc is not only implausable but improbable that 9 people rounded them up. Accepting proven evidence of over 1 billion species of life on this planet makes it laughable. I wont get into discussing the propagation of the human species because it would only tell us we are all inbred genetic mutations. If humans came from only 2 genetic donators incestual relations would have had to have been mandatory for the future of the species. If there was Cain, Abel and Seth I hope there was a sister somewhere along the way or Eve was a busy woman.Sorry that is tactless but I thought the church states incest is a sin yet without such sin we would not be here today. Such unions are illegal, considered immoral and sins,yet our species is the product of it.
| Peppered Moths | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 4, 2006 11:51 AM |
In the introduction to L. Harrison Matthews (who is not a creationist), “The Origin of Species” (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971), he states:
“Much of Professor Thompson’s criticism of Darwin’s text is unanswerable. In accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists have paused to reflect that science is built upon theories that been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? … The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” (p. x)
He then goes on to use the Peppered Moth example:
“The [Peppered Moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.” (p. xi)
What then is the end result of that experiment? Once a moth, always a moth. Knowledgable evolutionists recommend not using this example to support their theory, however it is still in almost every biology textbook, so it is understandable how this old arguement still prevails in the minds of students.
To give an update to those who have not even heard of the Peppered Moth, it was argued and popularized by the English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell, in the 1950s, that the Peppered Moth was "Darwin's Missing Evidence". In the 1800's, before the onset of the industrial revolution, 98% of these moths were of a light grey, speckled color, and only 2% exhibited a dark color. The darker colored moths did not blend in well with the color of their surroundings and therefore were an easy prey for their predators. With the introduction of the industrial revolution, the soot from numerous industrial sites began to kill the lichens and darken the trees and rocks causing the white moths to stick out more profusely. Gradually the population began to shift and the darker colored Peppered Moths began to be predominant in numbers. What is interesting, is that since England has began to clean up its atmosphere, the lighter moths are once again becoming the more common form of Biston Betularia.
I have observed a similar phenonemon in my own gardening experiences. I like to garden. Unfortunately there are insects and weeds that make this quite a challenging endeavour. I like potatoes, however, so do potato beetles. When I began gardening many years ago, I found out that potato beatles could not tolerate malathion, so I would sprinkle the leaves of the potatos and the next day, to my pleasure, all the beatles were lying on the ground with their legs up. But over the years, I found out that the potato beatles were becoming more resistant to malathiaon, until finally, it no longer worked at all.
What happen? Did they evolve? Of course not! They were still potato beatles. What did happen was similar to what happen to the Peppered moths. Of the many potato beatle varieties in our area, originally, a minority of the potato beatles were not alergic to malathion. Over the years, as those beatles who could not tolerate the effects of malathion died off, the population of the malathion tolerant beatles began to grow. This has caused me to resort to another pestacide, matador (hehehe), and over the next decade I will be watching to see if there are any that are resistant to it. Right now, it appears that they all get a deathly belly ache from it.
“Much of Professor Thompson’s criticism of Darwin’s text is unanswerable. In accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists have paused to reflect that science is built upon theories that been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? … The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” (p. x)
He then goes on to use the Peppered Moth example:
“The [Peppered Moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.” (p. xi)
What then is the end result of that experiment? Once a moth, always a moth. Knowledgable evolutionists recommend not using this example to support their theory, however it is still in almost every biology textbook, so it is understandable how this old arguement still prevails in the minds of students.
To give an update to those who have not even heard of the Peppered Moth, it was argued and popularized by the English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell, in the 1950s, that the Peppered Moth was "Darwin's Missing Evidence". In the 1800's, before the onset of the industrial revolution, 98% of these moths were of a light grey, speckled color, and only 2% exhibited a dark color. The darker colored moths did not blend in well with the color of their surroundings and therefore were an easy prey for their predators. With the introduction of the industrial revolution, the soot from numerous industrial sites began to kill the lichens and darken the trees and rocks causing the white moths to stick out more profusely. Gradually the population began to shift and the darker colored Peppered Moths began to be predominant in numbers. What is interesting, is that since England has began to clean up its atmosphere, the lighter moths are once again becoming the more common form of Biston Betularia.
I have observed a similar phenonemon in my own gardening experiences. I like to garden. Unfortunately there are insects and weeds that make this quite a challenging endeavour. I like potatoes, however, so do potato beetles. When I began gardening many years ago, I found out that potato beatles could not tolerate malathion, so I would sprinkle the leaves of the potatos and the next day, to my pleasure, all the beatles were lying on the ground with their legs up. But over the years, I found out that the potato beatles were becoming more resistant to malathiaon, until finally, it no longer worked at all.
What happen? Did they evolve? Of course not! They were still potato beatles. What did happen was similar to what happen to the Peppered moths. Of the many potato beatle varieties in our area, originally, a minority of the potato beatles were not alergic to malathion. Over the years, as those beatles who could not tolerate the effects of malathion died off, the population of the malathion tolerant beatles began to grow. This has caused me to resort to another pestacide, matador (hehehe), and over the next decade I will be watching to see if there are any that are resistant to it. Right now, it appears that they all get a deathly belly ache from it.
| Peppered Moths cont. | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 4, 2006 11:55 AM |
This all, however does not "prove" evolution, it shows how those who cannot adapt quick enough to changes in their environment die off. It is not an upward evolutionary progression as some would argue, but a downward descent into death and extinction. There are no new species being "created" today nor do we observe this in the past (fossil record), we only see extinction in the fossil record, and thousands of species today are on the endangered species list who sooner or later will only be found in the fossil record.
As for Darwin's finch, this again only illustrates variation and adaptation in the same manner as the Peppered Moth, not evolution. As for the virus arguement, it is proven that mutaions are always 99.9% harmful to those creatures mutating. In the case of viruses, we only see the weak intolerant strains of the particular viruses dying off. Again, this is not evolution. Evolution is an upward ascent, particles to man, not a downward descent towards extinction.
As for Darwin's finch, this again only illustrates variation and adaptation in the same manner as the Peppered Moth, not evolution. As for the virus arguement, it is proven that mutaions are always 99.9% harmful to those creatures mutating. In the case of viruses, we only see the weak intolerant strains of the particular viruses dying off. Again, this is not evolution. Evolution is an upward ascent, particles to man, not a downward descent towards extinction.
| ark | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 4, 2006 2:30 PM |
Tom, I understand your dilema with the ark. If they discovered the ark and CNN did a film documentary on it would you beleive the Bible's record? There are eyewitness accounts of sightings of the ark, but these may be suspicious due to the lack of physical evidence. Due to the hostile environment on Mount Ararat, not to mention the hostile governement of Turkey towards any further research by outsiders, I would not hold my breath on finding any conclusive evidence that it still exists, frozen in the snowbank somewhere up there. What is amazing though, is that there are over 200 universal "legends" around the globe that share common elements regarding the global catastrophic Flood in the days of Noah. I have a book in my library written by the evolutionist Sir James G. Frazer, written in 1923, in which he documents these "stories" from Babylon, Greece, India, Eastern Asia, the Indian Archipelago, Austrailia, New Guinea, Malanesia, Polonesia, Micronesia, South America, Central America, Mexico, North America, Africa, Europe, etc. Due to his evolutionary bias, however, he draws the conclusion that the Hebrew account must then have been adopted from one or another of these nations legends.
I guess our conclusions will depend on what bias you are biased with. I would like to think that because the Flood was universal in extent, and that the human race would have been propagated from those eight people on the ark, and the Flood, being such a stupendous event, would not have been forgotten for a long time. As mankind began to grow in size, and spread throughout the earth, I would like to think that they would have brought this legend with them wherever they went.
The Bible tells us, "he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6). If we have ruled out the possibility of God, it would be impossible to believe that God could have led the animals to the ark for Noah to place thereon. This, I will agree with you, is a matter of faith. However, as to the possibility, of all the creatures being able to fit on the ark, there was more than enough room for Noah and his family, and all the creatures, and food to feed them all for over a year. This has been documented extremely well in the technical book called "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
I guess our conclusions will depend on what bias you are biased with. I would like to think that because the Flood was universal in extent, and that the human race would have been propagated from those eight people on the ark, and the Flood, being such a stupendous event, would not have been forgotten for a long time. As mankind began to grow in size, and spread throughout the earth, I would like to think that they would have brought this legend with them wherever they went.
The Bible tells us, "he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6). If we have ruled out the possibility of God, it would be impossible to believe that God could have led the animals to the ark for Noah to place thereon. This, I will agree with you, is a matter of faith. However, as to the possibility, of all the creatures being able to fit on the ark, there was more than enough room for Noah and his family, and all the creatures, and food to feed them all for over a year. This has been documented extremely well in the technical book called "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
| marriage | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 4, 2006 2:35 PM |
As for the propagation of mankind, The Bible teaches that all of mankind, including Eve came from Adam. And Adam "he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4). So to answer the age old question, Where did Cain get his wife? He would have married one of his sisters. Simply put, before the curse and shortly thereafter, the genetic code would have been more pure, with less mutations that were likely to show up in our offspring. The law against marrying our siblings were given a thousand years after the Flood by Moses when the laws for marriage were introduced in Leviticus chapters18-20.
Genetic mutations are known to have multiplied with time, all of us having different mutations that leave us susceptible to one ailment or another. Each of us has one pair of genes. When we marry and have children, they inherit one out of two genes from each parent. This determines how we are made up and function.
Our offspring have a 50% probability of having matching genes. Our genes contain defects (because of sin and the curse), so if those who have the same genes marry, it is likely their offspring will have deformities.
However, the fact of the matter is, that if you are married, you have married a relative.
Consider this article from the December 4, 1995, issue of U.S. News & World Report, titled “The Genetic Eve Gets a Genetic Adam”:
“Each study dates Adam differently. One says he appeared roughly 188,000 years ago. The other estimates he lived up to 49,000 years ago. But both buck the notion that modern humans emerged in disparate spots across continents. ‘We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to ONE ANCESTOR,’ says the University of Arizona’s Michael Hammer, author of one of the studies. ‘THAT INDICATES THAT THERE WAS AN ORIGIN IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION ON THE GLOBE AND THEN IT SPREAD OUT FROM THERE,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 4, 1995).
This certainly sounds like the Biblical record, shortly after the Flood, when the Lord scattered the rebels from that central location at Babel. “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8).
Genetic mutations are known to have multiplied with time, all of us having different mutations that leave us susceptible to one ailment or another. Each of us has one pair of genes. When we marry and have children, they inherit one out of two genes from each parent. This determines how we are made up and function.
Our offspring have a 50% probability of having matching genes. Our genes contain defects (because of sin and the curse), so if those who have the same genes marry, it is likely their offspring will have deformities.
However, the fact of the matter is, that if you are married, you have married a relative.
Consider this article from the December 4, 1995, issue of U.S. News & World Report, titled “The Genetic Eve Gets a Genetic Adam”:
“Each study dates Adam differently. One says he appeared roughly 188,000 years ago. The other estimates he lived up to 49,000 years ago. But both buck the notion that modern humans emerged in disparate spots across continents. ‘We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to ONE ANCESTOR,’ says the University of Arizona’s Michael Hammer, author of one of the studies. ‘THAT INDICATES THAT THERE WAS AN ORIGIN IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION ON THE GLOBE AND THEN IT SPREAD OUT FROM THERE,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 4, 1995).
This certainly sounds like the Biblical record, shortly after the Flood, when the Lord scattered the rebels from that central location at Babel. “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8).
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 4, 2006 4:34 PM |
You call it Babel, we call it Olduvai Gorge!
You call it the Great Flood, we call it the melting of the Ice Age. The earth was covered in Ice limiting the position and population of animal, mineral and vegetable to very specific locale(s). With the melting of the Ice would come a flood in many areas but not covering the entire planet and killing anything that wasnt on 'the boat'. As the ice melted it would open up land, and the ability to spread out across the globe over time. The ever rising water would eventually cut off Africa, Asia and the Americas from each other. I agree that homo sapiens as we know it started in a specific location on the globe but it was not because of divine intervention. Science shows us that female mitochondrial DNA is the only DNA that is passed through generations without loss of information. The Y chromosone does not possess this ability. The x chromosone can be traced back to what you may call Eve. If all of mankind came from Adam, and God is so thorough in his creation why is the genetic record only able to trace back to his first offspring, the rib! The rib is a more important genetic link than Adam. This is an oversight by the writers of the novel that didnt have the benefit of DNA testing when they wrote it. The Bible is a misogynistic novel. Eve took the apple therefore introducing sin and curse into the species yet it is only her DNA that carries forward (in the hypothetical world of creation) to today. The only women of importance in the novel was the one responsible for the downfall of the species. Is it perhaps that God created Eve first, the one with the ability to carry forward the species. Eve created Adam , his secondary genetics not being as important as hers. Women posses everything a male has with the exception of raw strength. Perhaps it was Adam that took the apple and incurred sin, his physical power would put him in the position to rule over Eve. It is from this point on that man assumes the position of power and rule. The Bible would be written in this way, reflecting male dominated society while men possess all positions of power and women have well, one use. This is still the prevalent attitude in the majority of the worlds cultures.
I dont believe the Bible, I do believe that it was written over hundreds and thousands of years and amended to fill in gaps that arose along the wayl In a way not dissimilar to the Roman Catholic church changing its teachings to accomodate scientific revelations. If it had not been it would easily be refuted today.
You call it the Great Flood, we call it the melting of the Ice Age. The earth was covered in Ice limiting the position and population of animal, mineral and vegetable to very specific locale(s). With the melting of the Ice would come a flood in many areas but not covering the entire planet and killing anything that wasnt on 'the boat'. As the ice melted it would open up land, and the ability to spread out across the globe over time. The ever rising water would eventually cut off Africa, Asia and the Americas from each other. I agree that homo sapiens as we know it started in a specific location on the globe but it was not because of divine intervention. Science shows us that female mitochondrial DNA is the only DNA that is passed through generations without loss of information. The Y chromosone does not possess this ability. The x chromosone can be traced back to what you may call Eve. If all of mankind came from Adam, and God is so thorough in his creation why is the genetic record only able to trace back to his first offspring, the rib! The rib is a more important genetic link than Adam. This is an oversight by the writers of the novel that didnt have the benefit of DNA testing when they wrote it. The Bible is a misogynistic novel. Eve took the apple therefore introducing sin and curse into the species yet it is only her DNA that carries forward (in the hypothetical world of creation) to today. The only women of importance in the novel was the one responsible for the downfall of the species. Is it perhaps that God created Eve first, the one with the ability to carry forward the species. Eve created Adam , his secondary genetics not being as important as hers. Women posses everything a male has with the exception of raw strength. Perhaps it was Adam that took the apple and incurred sin, his physical power would put him in the position to rule over Eve. It is from this point on that man assumes the position of power and rule. The Bible would be written in this way, reflecting male dominated society while men possess all positions of power and women have well, one use. This is still the prevalent attitude in the majority of the worlds cultures.
I dont believe the Bible, I do believe that it was written over hundreds and thousands of years and amended to fill in gaps that arose along the wayl In a way not dissimilar to the Roman Catholic church changing its teachings to accomodate scientific revelations. If it had not been it would easily be refuted today.
| continued | Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 4, 2006 4:53 PM |
This is a far more plausible solution. Men are far more capable of evil deeds, acts of deciet, manipulation, infliction of pain and terror. Women are nurturing, supportive, empathetic and forgiving.Character traits one might more closely associate with your God. Character traits that would transcend time, and be maintained in a purer form than one directly in contact with an evil influence. Men are the walking example of sin and curse. A mans ability to forgive is at best tenous, retalitation and payback are a more primary instinct than forgiveness.
| Flood and Ice | Noel | Canada | nchartier@mts.net | December 7, 2006 11:20 AM |
Evolutionists believe in many "ice ages", I only believe in one ice age that was caused by the Flood. Lets face it, none of us were there, so at best, we can only anylyze the evidence we see today in order to come to our conclusions as to what world-view, the evolutionary world-view or the creationist world-view, fits best with the observable evidence we see today.
In the mid-seventies, we were alegedly heading into another ice age, today we are supposedly heading towards global warming, tommorrow, who knows what other fears the "scientists" will be leading mankind to believe.
What I cannot understand, is how those who would proclaim the Bible is truth and yet, try to adopt the reasoning you have just displayed and declare that Noah's Flood was a local flood rather than a global Flood. This fly's in the face of what the Bible actually declares. First of all, in their steadfastness to accomodate the evolutionists, they are calling God a liar. The Lord made a covenant with Noah saying, "neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9:11). There have been lots of devastating local Floods, furthermore, if it was a local flood, the animals and Noah could simply have migrated to higher ground. But the Bible teaches that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered...and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19-20). And that, "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" (Genesis 7:21).
The world has not known a catatrophe of that magnitude since that time, and it is really hard to fathom such an event, but Peter says, "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2Peter 3:6). That world is gone, it perished, it "then was", it is history. This would make last years tsunami in Indonesia look like a bird bath. What makes this event unbelieveable to most is that we have never seen anything remotely like it in out time.
However, the incredible evidence that this was a real event in history, is the water laid sedimentary layers found around the globe that are full of sudden death that overtook all those creatures we find in the fossil record. We cannot deny that even the hills and mountains are primarily composed of water laid strata. And in order to make a fossil, the creatures need to be covered rapidly to trap out oxygen, which promotes rapid decay, and to prevent scavenging by a hungry world of predators. We cannot deny it, that there was a great watery global catastrophy somewhere in the past as is evidenced in the study of geology.
In the mid-seventies, we were alegedly heading into another ice age, today we are supposedly heading towards global warming, tommorrow, who knows what other fears the "scientists" will be leading mankind to believe.
What I cannot understand, is how those who would proclaim the Bible is truth and yet, try to adopt the reasoning you have just displayed and declare that Noah's Flood was a local flood rather than a global Flood. This fly's in the face of what the Bible actually declares. First of all, in their steadfastness to accomodate the evolutionists, they are calling God a liar. The Lord made a covenant with Noah saying, "neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9:11). There have been lots of devastating local Floods, furthermore, if it was a local flood, the animals and Noah could simply have migrated to higher ground. But the Bible teaches that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered...and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19-20). And that, "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" (Genesis 7:21).
The world has not known a catatrophe of that magnitude since that time, and it is really hard to fathom such an event, but Peter says, "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2Peter 3:6). That world is gone, it perished, it "then was", it is history. This would make last years tsunami in Indonesia look like a bird bath. What makes this event unbelieveable to most is that we have never seen anything remotely like it in out time.
However, the incredible evidence that this was a real event in history, is the water laid sedimentary layers found around the globe that are full of sudden death that overtook all those creatures we find in the fossil record. We cannot deny that even the hills and mountains are primarily composed of water laid strata. And in order to make a fossil, the creatures need to be covered rapidly to trap out oxygen, which promotes rapid decay, and to prevent scavenging by a hungry world of predators. We cannot deny it, that there was a great watery global catastrophy somewhere in the past as is evidenced in the study of geology.
| Flood and Ice cont. | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 7, 2006 11:22 AM |
We also cannot deny that those areas that are now called the polar regions were once tropical. In antarctica (where no trees grow today) we have fossilized trees and other creatures that cannot survive in that environment today. Above the arctic circle we have giant redwoods fossilized, even fossil coral which requires 23 degees celcius water in order to survive. Perhaps we could theorize that "billions of years ago" the equator ran through the south and north pole, however, there is no conclusive evidence to support this idea.
If the world was as the "garden of Eden", and there were certain climactic factors that we do not understand today that made the whole world more tropical, and this greenhouse effect was somehow destroyed, it makes perfect sence, scientifically, that the polar regions would freeze over, and until the warmer ocean waters near the polar regions would cool down, we would have massive precipitation in the form of snow causing an Ice Age. I have watched with amazment, this Fall when we had some very cold mornings while the river beside us was still very warm. You could literally see the mist rising and forming clouds, which were then carried away by winds higher up in the atmosphere, which were to be precipitated out somewhere else.
I beleive that we are still coming out of the Ice Age that was caused by the Flood, and that the globe is warming, for most glaciers are still receeding, chunks of Antarctica are continually breaking off, and the ice sheet on the North pole, as long as we have been observing it via satelite, has been continually shrinking causing ocean levels to rise. We know how far south the cordilleran and laurentide ice sheets stretched in Canada, and due to the massive amounts of water trapped by these ice sheets, the ocean levels would have been much lower, enabling mankind, as well as other creatures to spread around the globe.
Lake Agassiz once covered the region where I now live, and I agree with you that many of these lakes, that were held back by these great ice sheets, suddenly breached the ice or land causing the waters of these inland lakes to drain rapidly leaving geological anomalies we see today such as the Grand Canyon, the scablands of Washington, and Dry Falls (http://www.stanmiller.info/photographs/travels/dry-falls.jpg) etc.
| Eve and the apple | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 7, 2006 11:58 AM |
One thing that should be clarified, "the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). There is no mention of an apple tree, and this command was given to the man before Eve was made. He would have relayed the message to Eve, however, she was decieved by the serpent and took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam, who recieved direct revelation from God concerning the tree, was not decieved, and in direct transgression of the commandment of God found out what evil was. He already knew good, for everything that God had made was "very good", but now he knew the essence of evil. So it is written, "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). The universal law of entropy, described and formulated in the second law of thermodynamics originated when God pronounced His curse on the very elements from which He had made man and all things. We cannot answer, why do all things die? scientifically, because it goes into the relm of morality. We only observe that nothing escapes "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2), or the "bondage of corruption" (literally decay) (Romans 8:21). Before scientists even formulated the laws of Thermodynamics, they were written here in the Bible. The heavens and the earth "shall perish...all of them shall wax old like a garment" (Psalm 102:26).
| Written record of man. | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 7, 2006 12:24 PM |
Tom, you said you "believe that it [the Bible] was written over hundreds and thousands of years". You see, you do have "faith" (same meaning as believe). However, your faith is without evidence to support your claim. My faith however, that the Bible was written over a period of approximately 1600 years, by about 40 different authors less than 5000 years ago, is supported by the evidence and aligns perfectly with the Biblical chronology of man. I find it amazing that (according to evolutionists) homo sapians have been around for about a million years, yet somehow, they only figured out how to write a few thousand years ago. Evolutionists came to the conclusion that homo sapians only figured out how to write a few thousand years ago because the written historical record of mankind, in fact, only goes back this far.
Consider Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Archeologists and historians alike call this region the “Fertile Crescent” and the “Cradle of Civilization”. (Oh, and I do know that evolutionists are trying hard to say that man now came out of Africa, to which there is no WRITTEN archeological evidence). The earliest written records of man are found in this region written on cuneiform tablets, which date back to about 4500 years ago. Evolutionists would have us believe that before this time man was too stupid and ape-like to produce any form of intelligent writing skills. But the evidence establishes the fact that from the very beginning of the new world, man had writeing skills, which he would have brought with him from the other side of the Flood.
It is amazing and remarkably significant that the origin of man is traced back to this region and no human record predates it. Mankind all of a sudden appears on the scene, in this location, in a modern civilization, with a written language, like they came out of nowhere. This is exactly the evidence we would expect find, if the written record of the Bible is true. The Biblical record states that Noah and his family migrated from Mt. Ararat to the "land of Shinar" (or Sumer: located in the Tigris Euphrates valley) where they began to build cities, and from that location they were scattered throughout the whole world.
Consider Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Archeologists and historians alike call this region the “Fertile Crescent” and the “Cradle of Civilization”. (Oh, and I do know that evolutionists are trying hard to say that man now came out of Africa, to which there is no WRITTEN archeological evidence). The earliest written records of man are found in this region written on cuneiform tablets, which date back to about 4500 years ago. Evolutionists would have us believe that before this time man was too stupid and ape-like to produce any form of intelligent writing skills. But the evidence establishes the fact that from the very beginning of the new world, man had writeing skills, which he would have brought with him from the other side of the Flood.
It is amazing and remarkably significant that the origin of man is traced back to this region and no human record predates it. Mankind all of a sudden appears on the scene, in this location, in a modern civilization, with a written language, like they came out of nowhere. This is exactly the evidence we would expect find, if the written record of the Bible is true. The Biblical record states that Noah and his family migrated from Mt. Ararat to the "land of Shinar" (or Sumer: located in the Tigris Euphrates valley) where they began to build cities, and from that location they were scattered throughout the whole world.
| Tom | Canada | tmoore186@shaw.ca | December 7, 2006 11:27 PM |
Noel,
You have your fantasy world, I have mine it appears. I will grant that your are correct with this statement.
Perhaps we could theorize that "billions of years ago" the equator ran through the south and north pole, however, there is no conclusive evidence to support this idea.
I however am correct with this one.
A legendary novel written by a bunch of people with an agenda tells us that an imaginary deity created the earth in six days about 5000 years ago.
There was noone around to prove it is true, there is no conclusive evidence to support this idea, except for your novel. Sounds familiar! Could the earth have rotated on a different axis at one time, most certainly. We know that even now the earth has an elliptical rotation. A drastic altering of the earths orbit is entirely realistic within the realm of physics. An object on a set orbit, rotating at a set speed could, and would
have both of those altered in an impact with another object. This is an experiment I can do with my three year old sons balls. An impact could not have only altered the orbit but the rotation speed of the earth. I am not interested in dragging this on any longer but maybe in another 1100 years or so, when scientists have had the time to evaluate, and reevalute, write and rewrite they may come up with what they may call The Bible of Evolution. At that time, and everyday inbetween ppl maybe debate and argue what is true and what is not, and their beliefs inbetween but until then all I will say is that 40 or 50 people over 1600 years put together something we are supposed to accept as accurate truth of history? Are you on glue, if you tell a person a story, by the time it gets around for it barely resembles the original. We all did the camping bit where you sit in a circle , one person whispers a paragraph, sentence, or story into anothers ear. By the time it comes out the other end it barely resembles the original. I was a paramedic for 15 years, I would attend accident scenes and know exactly what happened. I would see people in the days and weeks afterwards. The story was always more amazing than the original event. Noone tells a story that is boring. It is always embellished and very rarely truthful. Do you have any idea how many times a rollover accident in which the driver and passengers got out on their own and were never even transported to hospital turned into a fatality accident by the time I got asked about it a few days later? I am supposed to believe that a bunch of stories passed down over 1600 years, written and interpreted and added onto by later individuals are accurate. The original story may have been one of a great flood but by the time 1000 years passed by noone remembered the original, there was no photographic or scientific evidence to prove that any embellishment is fictional.
You say it happened because it is in the book but I say great novel, some good stories in there. Like any other interesting novel I would recommend to anyone to read it. Come to your own conclusions.I am sure that any novel that underwent as many revisions as yours, with the absolute protection and threat of retaliation if you argued the validity of its content would have become infamous also. It is simply a testament to the power and control the church possessed for those 1600 years...sadly!
You have your fantasy world, I have mine it appears. I will grant that your are correct with this statement.
Perhaps we could theorize that "billions of years ago" the equator ran through the south and north pole, however, there is no conclusive evidence to support this idea.
I however am correct with this one.
A legendary novel written by a bunch of people with an agenda tells us that an imaginary deity created the earth in six days about 5000 years ago.
There was noone around to prove it is true, there is no conclusive evidence to support this idea, except for your novel. Sounds familiar! Could the earth have rotated on a different axis at one time, most certainly. We know that even now the earth has an elliptical rotation. A drastic altering of the earths orbit is entirely realistic within the realm of physics. An object on a set orbit, rotating at a set speed could, and would
have both of those altered in an impact with another object. This is an experiment I can do with my three year old sons balls. An impact could not have only altered the orbit but the rotation speed of the earth. I am not interested in dragging this on any longer but maybe in another 1100 years or so, when scientists have had the time to evaluate, and reevalute, write and rewrite they may come up with what they may call The Bible of Evolution. At that time, and everyday inbetween ppl maybe debate and argue what is true and what is not, and their beliefs inbetween but until then all I will say is that 40 or 50 people over 1600 years put together something we are supposed to accept as accurate truth of history? Are you on glue, if you tell a person a story, by the time it gets around for it barely resembles the original. We all did the camping bit where you sit in a circle , one person whispers a paragraph, sentence, or story into anothers ear. By the time it comes out the other end it barely resembles the original. I was a paramedic for 15 years, I would attend accident scenes and know exactly what happened. I would see people in the days and weeks afterwards. The story was always more amazing than the original event. Noone tells a story that is boring. It is always embellished and very rarely truthful. Do you have any idea how many times a rollover accident in which the driver and passengers got out on their own and were never even transported to hospital turned into a fatality accident by the time I got asked about it a few days later? I am supposed to believe that a bunch of stories passed down over 1600 years, written and interpreted and added onto by later individuals are accurate. The original story may have been one of a great flood but by the time 1000 years passed by noone remembered the original, there was no photographic or scientific evidence to prove that any embellishment is fictional.
You say it happened because it is in the book but I say great novel, some good stories in there. Like any other interesting novel I would recommend to anyone to read it. Come to your own conclusions.I am sure that any novel that underwent as many revisions as yours, with the absolute protection and threat of retaliation if you argued the validity of its content would have become infamous also. It is simply a testament to the power and control the church possessed for those 1600 years...sadly!
| Worldviews | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | December 11, 2006 11:09 AM |
When it comes to the creationist worldview or the evolutionary worldview, I have not denied that faith must enter into the equation, for both are belief systems. However, evolution requires blind faith for there is no evidence to support it, and it is contrary to the known laws of Biogenesis, Cause and Effect, and the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. There is no evidence in the fossil record. Even Sephen Gould of Harvard, the most prominent evolutionist until his recent death said,
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
Even Darwin admitted his view was completely contradictory to the fossil record.
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
When Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species", he concluded that the conflict of his theory and the fossil record was a result of the imperfection of the fossil record, and that with time the evidence would be brought to the surface. However, after a 150 years and tens of thousands of tons of fossils, Darwins worse fears, that "the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory was realized, so that now, the fossil record is being abandoned as evidence for evolution. Consider Mark Ridleys comments in New Scientist,
"In any case, no real evolutionist....uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Darwin never did discuss the origin of species in his "Orgin of the Species" because there is no known mechanism for evolution as stated by Kieth Thompson in the publication American Scientist.
"Evolution is...troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery---speciation itself."
You stated on an earlier post that "Evolution teaches you that life began as basic components and through different mechanisms, using different components in different concentrations amino acids where formed, then proteins, complex molecules". Do you really know what you are saying here? Do you realize the extreme complexity and improbability of any of this happening by "chance"? There are "laws of probability" which should shock our sences into seeing just how absured this thought really is. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician calculated that in order to form the 2000 protiens of an aomeba by chance is equivalent to 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. To illustrate this, understand that it is assumed by some that in the whole universe there are only 10 to the 80th power number of atoms. The odds of you plucking the right atom that I have secretly selected is one times ten with 80 zeros behind it.
Mr. Hoyle conclusively proved that chemical evolution is mathematically impossible. In the publication Nature Vol. 294:105 he said:
"...It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Furthermore, the Big Bang theory, which evolutionist argue was their creator, flies in the face of all reasoning. The temperature was so hot it would have sterilized the universe. Life cannot come from sterility. You must understand that a great explosion does not increase order as evolution demands, it increases chaos.
It is beyond me how some call this science. It is clearly psuedo-religion.
We have all been given the power to choose, and honestly, I see perfect harmony with the laws of true science and creation, therefore I have chosen to believe the Word of God. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
Even Darwin admitted his view was completely contradictory to the fossil record.
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
When Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species", he concluded that the conflict of his theory and the fossil record was a result of the imperfection of the fossil record, and that with time the evidence would be brought to the surface. However, after a 150 years and tens of thousands of tons of fossils, Darwins worse fears, that "the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory was realized, so that now, the fossil record is being abandoned as evidence for evolution. Consider Mark Ridleys comments in New Scientist,
"In any case, no real evolutionist....uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Darwin never did discuss the origin of species in his "Orgin of the Species" because there is no known mechanism for evolution as stated by Kieth Thompson in the publication American Scientist.
"Evolution is...troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery---speciation itself."
You stated on an earlier post that "Evolution teaches you that life began as basic components and through different mechanisms, using different components in different concentrations amino acids where formed, then proteins, complex molecules". Do you really know what you are saying here? Do you realize the extreme complexity and improbability of any of this happening by "chance"? There are "laws of probability" which should shock our sences into seeing just how absured this thought really is. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician calculated that in order to form the 2000 protiens of an aomeba by chance is equivalent to 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. To illustrate this, understand that it is assumed by some that in the whole universe there are only 10 to the 80th power number of atoms. The odds of you plucking the right atom that I have secretly selected is one times ten with 80 zeros behind it.
Mr. Hoyle conclusively proved that chemical evolution is mathematically impossible. In the publication Nature Vol. 294:105 he said:
"...It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Furthermore, the Big Bang theory, which evolutionist argue was their creator, flies in the face of all reasoning. The temperature was so hot it would have sterilized the universe. Life cannot come from sterility. You must understand that a great explosion does not increase order as evolution demands, it increases chaos.
It is beyond me how some call this science. It is clearly psuedo-religion.
We have all been given the power to choose, and honestly, I see perfect harmony with the laws of true science and creation, therefore I have chosen to believe the Word of God. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)
| Earths orbit | Noel | December 11, 2006 1:35 PM |
In discussing the rotation of the earth, we should not leave out other factors, which collectively, are an overwhelming arguement for a Designer. Surely you have heard of the "anthropic principle" which examines fundamental constants that are required to sustain life. If the tilt of the earths axis, the earths distance from the sun, the gravitational effect of the moon, the force of gravity on the earths atmosphere, etc., or any number of other phenomenon that has an effect on the earth were altered, it would make life on earth impossible. It appears that the earth is finely tuned and has an incredibly delicate balance, whose exact conditions are required to sustain life.
Many choose to chalk this up to "chance". I have chosen to believe the Bible. We are told that Jesus Christ is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). "all things were created by him ...and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). The word "consist" here, comes from the Greek, "sunistano", where we get the word "sustain". The Bible teaches that all things are being sustained, or conserved, or held together by Him, for "in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
He is the one who is holding all things together. Newton (a Bible believing Chrisitan) discovered gravity. We can measure its effects, but none really know what it is. Newtons first law of motion states that "a particle not subjected to external forces remains at rest or moves with constant speed in a straight line." On a large scale such as the planets revolving around the sun or the moon around the earth, or on the sub atomic level where electrons revolve around the nucleus of an atom, something is holding them in their orbit. Dr. Keith Wanser, Professor of Physics at California state university says, "Given our current understanding, there is nothing to hold the electron together. It should fly apart under its own electrostatic self-propulsion."
Just to hold the moon in its orbit, I have calculated to be a force of 32.7543 x 10 to the 22 power. No strings attached! I find this an incredible display of God's eternal power. I remember a few years back when 5 or six of the planets in our solar system were going to be simultaneously aligned, and destruction was anticipated by many who knew the forces involved. But our great God and and Creator was able to hold His universe together.
If the earth was 5% closer to the sun the oceans would boil up, if the earth was 1% farther, the oceans would freeze solid. There are so many factors that if altered slightly would make life on earth impossible. I cannot, I am sorry, give these up to the god of chance.
Many choose to chalk this up to "chance". I have chosen to believe the Bible. We are told that Jesus Christ is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). "all things were created by him ...and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). The word "consist" here, comes from the Greek, "sunistano", where we get the word "sustain". The Bible teaches that all things are being sustained, or conserved, or held together by Him, for "in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
He is the one who is holding all things together. Newton (a Bible believing Chrisitan) discovered gravity. We can measure its effects, but none really know what it is. Newtons first law of motion states that "a particle not subjected to external forces remains at rest or moves with constant speed in a straight line." On a large scale such as the planets revolving around the sun or the moon around the earth, or on the sub atomic level where electrons revolve around the nucleus of an atom, something is holding them in their orbit. Dr. Keith Wanser, Professor of Physics at California state university says, "Given our current understanding, there is nothing to hold the electron together. It should fly apart under its own electrostatic self-propulsion."
Just to hold the moon in its orbit, I have calculated to be a force of 32.7543 x 10 to the 22 power. No strings attached! I find this an incredible display of God's eternal power. I remember a few years back when 5 or six of the planets in our solar system were going to be simultaneously aligned, and destruction was anticipated by many who knew the forces involved. But our great God and and Creator was able to hold His universe together.
If the earth was 5% closer to the sun the oceans would boil up, if the earth was 1% farther, the oceans would freeze solid. There are so many factors that if altered slightly would make life on earth impossible. I cannot, I am sorry, give these up to the god of chance.
| Bible Hisory | Noel | December 11, 2006 9:53 PM |
Tom, I have heard the campground story many times, but unlike this little parable, the Bible was not "written and interpreted and added onto by later individuals". There is solid evidence that we have the same Old Testament manuscripts today as they did before the time of Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls are wonderful evidence of this. As for the New Testament manuscripts, there are over five thousand parchments that support the underlying Greek Text. The Scriptures have been preserved as God said He would do it(Psalm 12:7).
If you would give the Scriptures a chance, you would find out just how wonderful and magnificent they are pertaining to all fields of TRUTH. Whether they be science, archeology, ancient history pertaining to people, places and events, etc.
One of the most convincing evidences of the inspiration of the Scriptures is that of prophecy. No other religious books deals with prophecy, because only the God of the Bible is the God of prophecy. Consider His claims.... "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.... yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it" (Isaiah 46:9-11). We are not talking Nonstradamus or Jean Dixion stuff, whose accuracies are under 5%. We are talking about things that are too wonderful for the few little words this meager soul can declare, but, I would take a shot at convincing you if you wish. Let me just say this much now, there are over 350 prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, into the world. I have compiled these and examined them myself, and can testify that Jesus Christ truely is who he said He was, and He fulfilled every single prophecy to the letter. I would love to talk more about Him, that I might convince you that He died for you and rose again from the dead. This is the most provable fact of History, and I would like to declare it to you if would give me the chance. I know you do not want to carry on forever, but if you chose not to respond any longer, when you come to your wits end, if you can remember anything I said, remember this friend, "The blood of Jesus Christ, [God's] Son cleanseth from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
If you would give the Scriptures a chance, you would find out just how wonderful and magnificent they are pertaining to all fields of TRUTH. Whether they be science, archeology, ancient history pertaining to people, places and events, etc.
One of the most convincing evidences of the inspiration of the Scriptures is that of prophecy. No other religious books deals with prophecy, because only the God of the Bible is the God of prophecy. Consider His claims.... "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.... yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it" (Isaiah 46:9-11). We are not talking Nonstradamus or Jean Dixion stuff, whose accuracies are under 5%. We are talking about things that are too wonderful for the few little words this meager soul can declare, but, I would take a shot at convincing you if you wish. Let me just say this much now, there are over 350 prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, into the world. I have compiled these and examined them myself, and can testify that Jesus Christ truely is who he said He was, and He fulfilled every single prophecy to the letter. I would love to talk more about Him, that I might convince you that He died for you and rose again from the dead. This is the most provable fact of History, and I would like to declare it to you if would give me the chance. I know you do not want to carry on forever, but if you chose not to respond any longer, when you come to your wits end, if you can remember anything I said, remember this friend, "The blood of Jesus Christ, [God's] Son cleanseth from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
| I love the juxtaposed photos | Ted | Lotten, OK | fish@net.org | December 18, 2006 2:56 AM |
Great stuff. I wanted to ask though, there is no such job as Evolutionist. And some of my friends say they are properly called scientists. So you should probably change the term if you want to bolster the illusion of objectivity.
| The Religion of Evolution | Noel | December 18, 2006 12:10 PM |
It is an incredible contradiction of terms when humanists declare that evolution is science and creation is religion. In fact, evolution takes a far greater faith than creation when one realizes that evolution is not based on any evidence or logic, but relies wholly on chance and matter to produce the complex systems and mighty energies of the universe. Consider the statement by Harvard zoologist P. J. Darlington:
“The outstanding mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy.”
Evolution is a faith that surpasses all the religions of the world. Although the mechanisms of evolution are an “outstanding mystery”, this is no stumbling block to the great faith of the evolutionist who believes that dead matter could produce life, that chaotic disorder can evolve itself into organized complexity, that unthinking atoms can organize themselves into thinking humans. The co-discoverer of the extremely complex DNA molecule, Dr. Leslie Orgel stated:
“We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code…The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.”
The discoverers of the DNA molecule have acknowledged that this basic component of life and the genetic code which controls the reproduction of all living systems is too complex to have arisen naturalistically, however, even this giant obstacle is no challenge for the mighty faith of the evolutionist.
The faith of the evolutionist is not only articulated on the microscopic level, but is also expressed in the telescopic scale. Let us look to the great faith of the most prolific scientists of our generation, the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, writer of over 500 books on almost every field of science there is. He BELIEVES that the universe began with a big bang of a primeval cosmic egg that developed into all the extremely complex structures and systems we see today. Let us consider his mighty statement of faith:
“The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing…. The existence of the cosmic egg is, however, itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the universe is from order to disorder, how did the order (which presumably existed in the cosmic egg), originate? Where did it come from?”
The great faith of Mr. Asimov allows the cosmic egg to be “structureless” and at the same time “very orderly”. Amazing! Mr. Asimov is very much aware of the “Law of Entropy” which scientifically proves that everything in the universe is moving from order to disorder, so he believes that billions of years ago there must have been a great explosion of a “structureless” yet “very orderly” “cosmic egg”, that originally produced a vast array of order and complexity before it began to wind down and move in the direction of disorder that we see today. What a grand and noble faith. (Note: Please forgive the sarcasm, but for some it is perhaps needful to help them recognize that evolution is not science, but a religion.)
“The outstanding mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy.”
Evolution is a faith that surpasses all the religions of the world. Although the mechanisms of evolution are an “outstanding mystery”, this is no stumbling block to the great faith of the evolutionist who believes that dead matter could produce life, that chaotic disorder can evolve itself into organized complexity, that unthinking atoms can organize themselves into thinking humans. The co-discoverer of the extremely complex DNA molecule, Dr. Leslie Orgel stated:
“We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code…The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.”
The discoverers of the DNA molecule have acknowledged that this basic component of life and the genetic code which controls the reproduction of all living systems is too complex to have arisen naturalistically, however, even this giant obstacle is no challenge for the mighty faith of the evolutionist.
The faith of the evolutionist is not only articulated on the microscopic level, but is also expressed in the telescopic scale. Let us look to the great faith of the most prolific scientists of our generation, the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, writer of over 500 books on almost every field of science there is. He BELIEVES that the universe began with a big bang of a primeval cosmic egg that developed into all the extremely complex structures and systems we see today. Let us consider his mighty statement of faith:
“The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing…. The existence of the cosmic egg is, however, itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the universe is from order to disorder, how did the order (which presumably existed in the cosmic egg), originate? Where did it come from?”
The great faith of Mr. Asimov allows the cosmic egg to be “structureless” and at the same time “very orderly”. Amazing! Mr. Asimov is very much aware of the “Law of Entropy” which scientifically proves that everything in the universe is moving from order to disorder, so he believes that billions of years ago there must have been a great explosion of a “structureless” yet “very orderly” “cosmic egg”, that originally produced a vast array of order and complexity before it began to wind down and move in the direction of disorder that we see today. What a grand and noble faith. (Note: Please forgive the sarcasm, but for some it is perhaps needful to help them recognize that evolution is not science, but a religion.)
| Human Existence is meaning less. | Kevin | Virginia | kjhansen1@cox.net | January 19, 2007 8:24 PM |
I think one reason why people have trouble accepting evolution is because it cancels out religion, and without religion, humanity is just another meaning less dot on timeline of the earth. Humanity is naturally arrogant. We used to think we were the center of the universe, the same way children think everthing revolves around them.
If evolution is true, human existence is absolutly meaning less in the long run, god or no god. Eventually humanity is going to die out, just like the rest of the prehistoric creatures before us. Everyone wants to feel special, like their life has some significant meaning, and the the idea that our existence is meaning less is either too frightening, or too difficult a concept for some people to comprehend.
Anything that can't be explained by science will always be considered an act of god until irrefutable evidence proves otherwise.
If evolution is true, human existence is absolutly meaning less in the long run, god or no god. Eventually humanity is going to die out, just like the rest of the prehistoric creatures before us. Everyone wants to feel special, like their life has some significant meaning, and the the idea that our existence is meaning less is either too frightening, or too difficult a concept for some people to comprehend.
Anything that can't be explained by science will always be considered an act of god until irrefutable evidence proves otherwise.
| Carbon Dating | The Truth | USA | goldendeliciousfruit@hotmail.com | January 21, 2007 9:37 PM |
In the processes of carbon dating the proposed destruction of carbon is impossible. The writer of this article obviously forgot to go to college and disregarded the fact of a atomic half life. This means that the statement "Half of the amount of C-14 decays in 5730 years. In another 5730 years, half of the balance is depleted and so on until there is no C-14 left.
At this rate of decay, it is obvious that within about 10 half lives there will be no C-14 left." is completely wrong. An atomic half life of the element carbon will always render you with an exponential graph. If you took Algebra you would know that an exponential graph can not ever reach zero due to the fact that even if you divide a positive decimal number by two you will always end up with a number larger than zero. This means that reaching zero is impossible to get by dividing. For example: 0.00000001256/2=0.00000000628 not zero. This fact alone validates why you can't trust everything you read on the internet.
Also the provided pictures of extict animals show perfectly the results of evolution. The author shows many pictures including the Trilobite but, neglects to show the pictures to scale. This is because this would show that animals have evolved in the way of size since their appearance on earth but this fact has been disregarded. Furthermore the Steller's Sea Cow looks an awful lot like a manatee. Now wouldn't this show obvious signs of evolution between animals of the tropic and artic conditions?
This article has been based on bias research and should be consitded to be no more than sudo-science. And undoubtedly the reader of this article will delete this comment because it does not fit into the idealistic views with which he or she wishes to brain-wash the naive people of society. If you delete this message you would be committing a SIN yourself for trying to hide the truth which this article told so much about finding!
At this rate of decay, it is obvious that within about 10 half lives there will be no C-14 left." is completely wrong. An atomic half life of the element carbon will always render you with an exponential graph. If you took Algebra you would know that an exponential graph can not ever reach zero due to the fact that even if you divide a positive decimal number by two you will always end up with a number larger than zero. This means that reaching zero is impossible to get by dividing. For example: 0.00000001256/2=0.00000000628 not zero. This fact alone validates why you can't trust everything you read on the internet.
Also the provided pictures of extict animals show perfectly the results of evolution. The author shows many pictures including the Trilobite but, neglects to show the pictures to scale. This is because this would show that animals have evolved in the way of size since their appearance on earth but this fact has been disregarded. Furthermore the Steller's Sea Cow looks an awful lot like a manatee. Now wouldn't this show obvious signs of evolution between animals of the tropic and artic conditions?
This article has been based on bias research and should be consitded to be no more than sudo-science. And undoubtedly the reader of this article will delete this comment because it does not fit into the idealistic views with which he or she wishes to brain-wash the naive people of society. If you delete this message you would be committing a SIN yourself for trying to hide the truth which this article told so much about finding!
| Radio Carbon dating methods | Noel | Canada | info@accordingtothescriptures.org | January 22, 2007 12:57 AM |
An ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer , which is used to measure the ratio of C14 to C12, only has a theoretical range of sensitivity up to about 90,000 years, so your point is really pointless. But while you are on the topic, it is interesting to find that of all the organic fossils, no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value, which is less than 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument. Over the past 20 years, scores of peer-review papers have been produced on this subject, and the only answer that those who put their faith in the geologic time scale can come up with is that somehow the samples are contaminated. The fact of the matter, if you are really interested in the facts, is that this proves a young earth, and the geologic timetable is pure mythology.
As for the Stellar Sea Cow, it is from the same "order" (Sirenia) as the manatee but different families, as far as taxonomy goes, but the point in the article was "how animals become extinct". I will repeat myself again, Scientifically I do not have a problem with MICROevolution, that produces variety within a kind, but there is absolutely no evidence (search the world over) for MACROevloution, that is a change from one species into another.
Because there are big trilobites and little trilobite does not equate to Darwinian evolution. That some finches have big beaks and other finches have little beaks is not evolution in the ultimate sence, they are still both birds. If we could find hard tangible evidence that the bird changed into a turtle somewhere along the way, hey, then we would have something to work with, but the fossil record is void, I repeat VOID of any such evidence. That is the truth if you will hear it.
As for the Stellar Sea Cow, it is from the same "order" (Sirenia) as the manatee but different families, as far as taxonomy goes, but the point in the article was "how animals become extinct". I will repeat myself again, Scientifically I do not have a problem with MICROevolution, that produces variety within a kind, but there is absolutely no evidence (search the world over) for MACROevloution, that is a change from one species into another.
Because there are big trilobites and little trilobite does not equate to Darwinian evolution. That some finches have big beaks and other finches have little beaks is not evolution in the ultimate sence, they are still both birds. If we could find hard tangible evidence that the bird changed into a turtle somewhere along the way, hey, then we would have something to work with, but the fossil record is void, I repeat VOID of any such evidence. That is the truth if you will hear it.
| Hmmmmm | Paul | USA | paul.eftang@gmail.com | January 31, 2007 4:51 PM |
It is interesting how proponents of both sides conveniently leave out crucial facts that do not fit within their beliefs. If Chimpanzees have over 99% of our genetic code, then wouldn't our evolution from apes be considered MICROevolution. Or would this be disregarded because you think that because our visual appearance is different enough that we should not consider it a change within the same type of animal. If you believe that Uranium can evolve (or devolve) into lead because it is not as stable of an element, then why can't you believe that an organism can change to suit its environment as well. If you believe in physical evolution then why can you not believe in organic evolution? Is every thing on this planet made from the same things? Protons, Neutrons, Electrons; of course. If everything is so different then how can we grow human tissue on the backs of rats? Every animal on this planet is made up of the same things. By that fact you, as a rational human being, should be able to admit that biological change is not just possible it is happening as we speak. I believe that the events in the Bible are based on actual events. However, do we not all embellish our stories to help people understand or to make them more interesting. Why can you not concede that the writers of the bible told a story of what was lived in the way they knew how? Does that make it wrong? No. Does that make the words factual truth? Absolutely not. You sir cannot pick and choose pieces of reality and ignore the vast majority of the rest to form a theory. That is called deliberate stagnation of progress. Like it or not you are made of the same things that rocks and monkeys and trees are. Everything on this planet has and always will change due to its environment. Religious zealotry will never change that fact; it will only attempt to mask it from the public.
| Hmmmmm | Paul | USA | January 31, 2007 5:28 PM |
Also, you said to one of the people who responded that they always disproved what they were trying to because that is what they set out to do. Well in that case take a good hard look at yourself. You have no doubts and are only here to prove your position and disprove others that dont agree. I hope that one day we can all live with an open mind and see all sides of the situation. Ignorance is bliss, but only for a moment. Once you realize there is more to this world than religion, only then can you be truely grateful for the world God has given us. God has never spoken to you, nor given you direction personally. The more you follow the words of men, the less time you will have truely discovering Gods gift to us. The ability to discover truth for ourselves.
| Homology? | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | February 1, 2007 3:17 PM |
Homology as evidence for evolution is invalid. Evolutionists for some time have been parroting phrases such as “Chimpanzees have over 99% of our genetic code”, or “there is only 1% difference between man and monkeys” etc. But what does this mean on the molecular or morphological level? The fact that living things possess genetic similarities is no proof of the evolutionist claim that they evolved from a common ancestor. For example, New Scientist published an article in 1999 stating, “nearly 75% of human genes have some counterpart in … soil-dwelling worms”. It is obvious that this does not mean that there is only 25% difference between man and worms. There is also current genomic research that is indicating that the difference between man and monkeys may be less than 90%. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. Ah, but let us not forget, that there less than a fraction of a percentage of mutations that were ever proven to be beneficial. Mutations always lead to a loss of information or a scrambling of the genetic code that almost always leads to death of the offspring.
It is no surprise, however, that living creatures on the earth should possess very similar DNA structures. Living things’ basic life processes are the same, and since human beings possess a living body, they cannot be expected to have a different DNA structure to other creatures. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.
It is no surprise, however, that living creatures on the earth should possess very similar DNA structures. Living things’ basic life processes are the same, and since human beings possess a living body, they cannot be expected to have a different DNA structure to other creatures. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.
| Ummmm... | Unkown | February 9, 2007 12:00 PM |
You stated that you belive in mutation, but not evlolution, when all evloution is, is mutation over time...
But you make a very persuave argument! Good Work!
But you make a very persuave argument! Good Work!
| Mutations... | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | February 10, 2007 12:43 AM |
You are correct when you say "evolution ...is mutation over time", or at least correct as to what evolutionists believe to be the mechanism that makes evolution possible. However, let us consider again what a mutaion is. As previously stated, "Mutations always lead to a loss of information or a scrambling of the genetic code that almost always leads to death of the offspring." Mutations result in a decrease in information, lower order and decrease in complexity.
It is no wonder evolution has never been "observed" taking place because it is impossible for a mutation to change one kind of organism into a higher, more complex kind of organism. Evolution demands that the operating principle of evolution, that being mutations, should propel organisms and other systems uphill toward higher, more complex systems, all the way from primeval random particles to simple one celled organisms to higher animals and man.
However, evolution in the upward vertical sence is impossible in terms of the basic laws of science, especially the entropy law, the second law of thermodynamics, which states the observed fact that all systems tend natrally to go downhill toward lower degrees of order. Most evolutionists understand this as David G. Kitts, who wrote in "Evolution" volume 28, "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." It is an astonishing delusion among evolutionists, even among such prominent scientists as Isaac Asimov who stated in "Science Digest", "In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order."
Charles J. Smith in his article, "Problems with Entropy in Biology", he states, "...the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory [is] one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology."
The fact of the matter is that evolution cannot be observed in the present, nor has it been observed in the past. The gaps in the fossil record testify to this fact as one evolutionist admitted, saying, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
If evolutionists are adamant about refusing the possibility of Creation by God, they should abandon their theory of evolution and start looking elsewhere for answers for our existence, for the theory of evolution is completely bankrupt.
It is no wonder evolution has never been "observed" taking place because it is impossible for a mutation to change one kind of organism into a higher, more complex kind of organism. Evolution demands that the operating principle of evolution, that being mutations, should propel organisms and other systems uphill toward higher, more complex systems, all the way from primeval random particles to simple one celled organisms to higher animals and man.
However, evolution in the upward vertical sence is impossible in terms of the basic laws of science, especially the entropy law, the second law of thermodynamics, which states the observed fact that all systems tend natrally to go downhill toward lower degrees of order. Most evolutionists understand this as David G. Kitts, who wrote in "Evolution" volume 28, "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." It is an astonishing delusion among evolutionists, even among such prominent scientists as Isaac Asimov who stated in "Science Digest", "In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order."
Charles J. Smith in his article, "Problems with Entropy in Biology", he states, "...the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory [is] one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology."
The fact of the matter is that evolution cannot be observed in the present, nor has it been observed in the past. The gaps in the fossil record testify to this fact as one evolutionist admitted, saying, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
If evolutionists are adamant about refusing the possibility of Creation by God, they should abandon their theory of evolution and start looking elsewhere for answers for our existence, for the theory of evolution is completely bankrupt.
| Great Article | Archie Angelmann | woghd911@hotmail.com | Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:32 PM |
The article is very well written and researched. I had to have a little
chuckle at how some of the people are accusing you of creating a theory to
fit your idea, ignoring facts that don't fit your theory, and ignoring the
fact that the theory of evolution is long standing and highly accepted.
Is this not what Dawin did? Did he not ignore everything you have just presented to prop up his theory. Was not creation the long-standing and highly accepted idea of his day?
Ignore the hypocritical masses. It is clear that various species are the result of adaptation rather than evolution. It's a big difference. It has always confused me why evolutionists will tell you that two different kinds of birds are the result of evolution, but two different colored people are adaptation.
Now I know this may hurt, but I'm an agnostic/athiest. I do not believe in creation. I also do not believe in evolution. Evolution theory has FAR too many unexplained features and contradictory data. It is clear that people adapt. And people adapt QUICKLY, taking tens or hundreds of years, not THOUSANDS and MILLIONS. Our own written history shows this, if anyone is willing to look.
Keep up the good work.
The Agnostic/Atheist
Is this not what Dawin did? Did he not ignore everything you have just presented to prop up his theory. Was not creation the long-standing and highly accepted idea of his day?
Ignore the hypocritical masses. It is clear that various species are the result of adaptation rather than evolution. It's a big difference. It has always confused me why evolutionists will tell you that two different kinds of birds are the result of evolution, but two different colored people are adaptation.
Now I know this may hurt, but I'm an agnostic/athiest. I do not believe in creation. I also do not believe in evolution. Evolution theory has FAR too many unexplained features and contradictory data. It is clear that people adapt. And people adapt QUICKLY, taking tens or hundreds of years, not THOUSANDS and MILLIONS. Our own written history shows this, if anyone is willing to look.
Keep up the good work.
The Agnostic/Atheist
| Noel | Canada | July-16-07 7:13 AM |
It is interesting to note, that the earths written history only goes back about 4500 years. I find this extremely odd if homos sapiens have (allegedly) been around for about one million years. However, it is totally compatable with the chronology of the Bible. God had destroyed the the wicked world of the antediluvians and saved only Noah and his family to repopulate the earth approximately 4500 years ago. Without looking at the Bible, it appears that man all of a sudden appeared in Mesopatamia with a written language, with a totally functioning society, with great buildings (ziggurats), tools, etc. just like they appeared out of nowhere. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the Bible were true, for Noah and his family would have brought this technology from the other side of the Flood.
| Unbelievable! | Johnny | California | johnnyki8@yahoo.com | July-16-07 5:03 AM |
Absolutely true, the Bible is the most unbelievable fiction novel ever written!
| Re: Unbelievable! | Noel | Canada | July-16-07 6:37 AM |
It is easy to SAY the Bible is unbelievable, however, it is much harder to prove WHY it is unbelievable! The Bible tells us to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15). The word answer comes from the Greek word apologia, which means a reasonable and systematic defense of the faith. The Bible also tells us that those who refuse to believe "are without excuse" (Romans 1:20) for the evidence for a Creator are clearly stamped on His creation. This little phrase "without excuse" comes from the Greek word anapologetos, which means without a defense. Evolution is totally undefendable and fits into that class we would call myths and legends, and therefore, those who will one day stand before their Creator and Judge will be inexcusable when they say they were sure there was no God for they were told, and ignorantly believed, they evolved from nothing.
| Evolution | Chip Steinmetz | NW Virginia | chip@visuallink.com | July-29-07 12:18 PM |
The argument presented contains a clear agenda as do most of the responses. All of these conclusions should be open to discussion and not considered absolute fact. An omnipotent being wouldn’t have changed between old testament and new. An omnipotent god wouldn’t have left his word to be edited and interpreted by man, not to mention allowing so many passages to be in conflict with each other. If the Bible were fact, logical and the word of god, it wouldn’t require “faith” to believe in Jesus or God. It would be a matter of reasonable minds reviewing the data and “most” of us drawing the single most reasonable conclusion.
Likewise science is an effort for us to figure out and understand the world we live in. It is not absolute. It is a work in process. We’ve seen scientific conclusions and absolute fact tossed out quickly as new theories come into being. The fact that after our great 20th century of exploration, a visit to the moon, Einstein’s theories and our medical advancements that we still don’t know what makes up 75-80% (dark matter) of the universe and that we don’t have a clue what gravity really is, should keep us humble for a while longer.
We know so little about our universe and god that to speak in absolutes is the folly of small minds with agendas and for people who can’t stand being wrong or not looking good to their closed, like-minded communities.
Likewise science is an effort for us to figure out and understand the world we live in. It is not absolute. It is a work in process. We’ve seen scientific conclusions and absolute fact tossed out quickly as new theories come into being. The fact that after our great 20th century of exploration, a visit to the moon, Einstein’s theories and our medical advancements that we still don’t know what makes up 75-80% (dark matter) of the universe and that we don’t have a clue what gravity really is, should keep us humble for a while longer.
We know so little about our universe and god that to speak in absolutes is the folly of small minds with agendas and for people who can’t stand being wrong or not looking good to their closed, like-minded communities.
| Faith in Evolution | Noel | Canada | July-30-07 7:59 AM |
We have in fact left this page open for all to present their opinions and beliefs, and it appears that you are quite ignorant of what the Bible says or teaches (I say this humbly without malice), else you would not have made some of the comments you made. In the Old Covenant there was the promise of a New Covenent (Jeremiah 31:31). The New Covenant was concealed in the Old in such a way that even the unbiased skeptic would have to say the handprint of the Devine is upon this book, with its hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the New that denies all odds of being fulfilled in one person, namely Jesus Christ. God says what He means and really there is no need for interpretation. For many the Bible is too hard for them to believe so they interpret it to mean something else other than what it says. You say there are "so many passages in conflict with each other". Could you show me ONE?? Of couse you can't for God cannot contradict Himself.
It is agreed that there is much we do not know, but admittedly there is much we do know in every field of science that are established facts based on empiracle testing and peer review that confirms that there are absolutes in nature. True science is testable and repeatable from which we can draw tangable conclusions. Evolution cannot be empiracally tested in the laboritory by man for this is allegedly something that has happen over billions of years and requires faith to believe. None can put God in the testube either, but we can take his handiwork and come to the reasonable conclusion that the great and marvellous design in all things made demand a master Designer. This is the conclusion that millions upon millions of people have come to. Even the FACT of gravity should point you to the power of God for He is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3) and "by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16), or literally, are held or banned together. This is seen in the great power that holds our own solar system together, everything in its own orbit, against centrifugal forces so great that it would require a cable 500 miles in diameter to hold the moon alone in its orbit. Even the atoms in our own body are held together by this same mysterious force that keeps the electrons orbiting around their neucleus. I must say with the psalmist, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psalm 139:14).
It is agreed that there is much we do not know, but admittedly there is much we do know in every field of science that are established facts based on empiracle testing and peer review that confirms that there are absolutes in nature. True science is testable and repeatable from which we can draw tangable conclusions. Evolution cannot be empiracally tested in the laboritory by man for this is allegedly something that has happen over billions of years and requires faith to believe. None can put God in the testube either, but we can take his handiwork and come to the reasonable conclusion that the great and marvellous design in all things made demand a master Designer. This is the conclusion that millions upon millions of people have come to. Even the FACT of gravity should point you to the power of God for He is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3) and "by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16), or literally, are held or banned together. This is seen in the great power that holds our own solar system together, everything in its own orbit, against centrifugal forces so great that it would require a cable 500 miles in diameter to hold the moon alone in its orbit. Even the atoms in our own body are held together by this same mysterious force that keeps the electrons orbiting around their neucleus. I must say with the psalmist, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psalm 139:14).
| 2 Years later... | Naira | South Africa | naira_langenbach@hotmail.com | March-12-08 3:33 PM |
Sorry, this is going back a bit, but according to you, Noel:
"Mutations always lead to a loss of information or a scrambling of the genetic code that almost always leads to death of the offspring. Mutations result in a decrease in information, lower order and decrease in complexity."
However, this is not always the case. I am a 16 year old studying biology, and I can assure you that mutations can occur in a variety of ways; yes, there is deletion where whole fragments of DNA are deleted and substitution that can completely scrable the DNA, but there is also addition (where completely new fragments of DNA are added). Yes, often these changes are potentially harmful, but as with any frequent occurrence, there is a verly likely chance that at least one mutation will benefit the organism. For example, the potato beetles that were not "allergic" to a pesticide specifically designed to kill them. After a few of them had undergone their mutation, the became resistant to the poison. Now tell me, how can you say that variation has not benefited the species? For any living creature, the goal is to keep alive for as long as possible, and is that not exactly what they accomplished by this mutation?
Another thing, how can you say that this change has 'decreased their complexity'? With this extra DNA fragment they are already more 'complex' than the previous generation of beetles, and the countless mutations that are still going to occur (for it is rare that there is NO mutation in cells during mitosis or meiosis) are likely to cause the species to become less vulnerable to their surroundings by becoming even more complex. Evolution.
I find that the terms 'evolution,' 'mutation' and 'variation' are almost interchangable; they all imply a changing, a flow of nature: you cannot find a past, present nor future if you do not look at the evidence that is right under your nose in the form of fossils; they can be seen as the archives of catastrophe and mistakes made by the countless species on Earth. Thus again underlining that if God is perfect, why didn't he make us perfect also? Is he just amusing himself by watching us through the ages and seeing what happens?
"Mutations always lead to a loss of information or a scrambling of the genetic code that almost always leads to death of the offspring. Mutations result in a decrease in information, lower order and decrease in complexity."
However, this is not always the case. I am a 16 year old studying biology, and I can assure you that mutations can occur in a variety of ways; yes, there is deletion where whole fragments of DNA are deleted and substitution that can completely scrable the DNA, but there is also addition (where completely new fragments of DNA are added). Yes, often these changes are potentially harmful, but as with any frequent occurrence, there is a verly likely chance that at least one mutation will benefit the organism. For example, the potato beetles that were not "allergic" to a pesticide specifically designed to kill them. After a few of them had undergone their mutation, the became resistant to the poison. Now tell me, how can you say that variation has not benefited the species? For any living creature, the goal is to keep alive for as long as possible, and is that not exactly what they accomplished by this mutation?
Another thing, how can you say that this change has 'decreased their complexity'? With this extra DNA fragment they are already more 'complex' than the previous generation of beetles, and the countless mutations that are still going to occur (for it is rare that there is NO mutation in cells during mitosis or meiosis) are likely to cause the species to become less vulnerable to their surroundings by becoming even more complex. Evolution.
I find that the terms 'evolution,' 'mutation' and 'variation' are almost interchangable; they all imply a changing, a flow of nature: you cannot find a past, present nor future if you do not look at the evidence that is right under your nose in the form of fossils; they can be seen as the archives of catastrophe and mistakes made by the countless species on Earth. Thus again underlining that if God is perfect, why didn't he make us perfect also? Is he just amusing himself by watching us through the ages and seeing what happens?
| Mutations... | Noel | Canada | noel@accordingtothescriptures.org | March 15, 2008 8:43 AM |
Naira, I tip my hat to you, for in a day that most teen agers are bemused by chasing after the baser sort of things, you show an intelligence and maturity well beyond your years which is a rare thing in the pop culture of our day.
As for mutations of the genetic code of any creature, it is pure and simple a blueprint or information. You say that when a mutation occurs "there is also addition (where completely new fragments of DNA are added)". Might I ask, where did this new information come from and how did it enter into the extremely complex germ cell and get encoded into the proper place in the billions of strands of DNA to make it beneficial to the species?
You have made a common err that many biologists make. You assumed that the potato beetle that was resistant to the pesticide evolved upward, when in fact, the potato beetle that was no longer resistant to the pesticide mutated downward in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
We have abundant evidence that various kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations, however, these are defects or misteaks that are non-beneficial. Mathematically, it is impossible for mutations to produce a thinking human being like yourself from non-thinking dead sterile chemicals over time. The whole universe would have been completely serilized during the "Big Bang" (which is only a theory which evolutionists use to explain the origin of the universe), believed to have taken place billions of years ago by evolutionists, but we know as a fact that no life can come out of a sterile environment, for the "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes from life, and we would argue that this life ultimately comes from the living God.
The fact of the matter is that evolution via mutations cannot be observed in the present, nor has it been observed in the past. The problem with mutations is that they are going the wrong way, downward which is contrary to the theory of evolution.
Mutations can best be explained from a Biblical perspective when death and corruption entered the world by sin. Everything in the whole world now has a tendency to move toward decay and death, in complete harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the "curse" (Genesis 3:17) that was pronounced by God on the very building blocks of life.
Many have wondered as you do yourself why things are the way they are, and why God would allow this to happen. We must however understand, that when God created the world it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Today things are not very good, so what happen? God created man with a free will to honor and obey God or to dishonor Him. He did not make us robots or slaves, but gave us the freedom to chose. However, with the ability to chose comes the possibility of making bad choices. The first man exercised his free will to disobey and rebell against God, even after God had warned him of the consequences.
The Lord is not amused with the pain and suffering and death that now pervades every facet of life in this corrupt fallen world. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die" (Ezekiel 33:11). We still have a free will and can exercise our ability to choose good or evil. God has promised that He will one day redeem His creation from the bondage of decay that it is now in, and there is a wonderful future for all those who will repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. The choice is yours....
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance....Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation..." (2 Peter 3:9, 13-15).
As for mutations of the genetic code of any creature, it is pure and simple a blueprint or information. You say that when a mutation occurs "there is also addition (where completely new fragments of DNA are added)". Might I ask, where did this new information come from and how did it enter into the extremely complex germ cell and get encoded into the proper place in the billions of strands of DNA to make it beneficial to the species?
You have made a common err that many biologists make. You assumed that the potato beetle that was resistant to the pesticide evolved upward, when in fact, the potato beetle that was no longer resistant to the pesticide mutated downward in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
We have abundant evidence that various kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations, however, these are defects or misteaks that are non-beneficial. Mathematically, it is impossible for mutations to produce a thinking human being like yourself from non-thinking dead sterile chemicals over time. The whole universe would have been completely serilized during the "Big Bang" (which is only a theory which evolutionists use to explain the origin of the universe), believed to have taken place billions of years ago by evolutionists, but we know as a fact that no life can come out of a sterile environment, for the "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes from life, and we would argue that this life ultimately comes from the living God.
The fact of the matter is that evolution via mutations cannot be observed in the present, nor has it been observed in the past. The problem with mutations is that they are going the wrong way, downward which is contrary to the theory of evolution.
Mutations can best be explained from a Biblical perspective when death and corruption entered the world by sin. Everything in the whole world now has a tendency to move toward decay and death, in complete harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the "curse" (Genesis 3:17) that was pronounced by God on the very building blocks of life.
Many have wondered as you do yourself why things are the way they are, and why God would allow this to happen. We must however understand, that when God created the world it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Today things are not very good, so what happen? God created man with a free will to honor and obey God or to dishonor Him. He did not make us robots or slaves, but gave us the freedom to chose. However, with the ability to chose comes the possibility of making bad choices. The first man exercised his free will to disobey and rebell against God, even after God had warned him of the consequences.
The Lord is not amused with the pain and suffering and death that now pervades every facet of life in this corrupt fallen world. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die" (Ezekiel 33:11). We still have a free will and can exercise our ability to choose good or evil. God has promised that He will one day redeem His creation from the bondage of decay that it is now in, and there is a wonderful future for all those who will repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. The choice is yours....
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance....Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation..." (2 Peter 3:9, 13-15).
| Two years later | Maximus | California | Maximus_Alexander@msn.com | May-19-08 9:54 PM |
Two years later and you're still keeping an eye on this board,... Way to go Noel! I also want to comment on your ability not to verbally smite people like Tom and mostly,...Scott. My IQ has been measured at 142 and I must say,... you sir are awesome. I wish I had your calm when it comes to hatefull scoffers such as Tom and Scott. They seem to have real venom towards the utter notion of GOD. Why? I could not believe Scott's position on Jesus- not even being real,... Using his logic many people of history would become make-believe. I do salute you Noel! I wish I had your calm, when people like that start spitting out their venom. It just makes me "plane-ole-angry"! You know?
Thanks for your work and calm..
Maximus
Thanks for your work and calm..
Maximus
| Subject | Your Name | Location | Your Email | ADD A COMMENT |
Evolution is never wholly, or even partly, understood correctly by any Creationist I have ever met, heard, read. Not once have I heard or seen it defined or discussed with any accuracy. Of course, that is the nature of the delusion.
Evolution is not just supported by fossils. It can be observed, happening, as we speak. Get some bacteria and a petri dish. Go to the Galapagos Islands, and compare birds over several seasons of varying weather. And once and for all, realize that "theory" can indeed mean fact.
I think the most telling statement about how much those who adhere to Creationist explanations are not observing life with their eyes (mind) open is their idea that evolution - even the vague, inaccurate, misconception of it - somehow precludes God, or religion. Therein lies perhaps the biggest misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, Creationists are so enmeshed in supporting an imposed patriarchal Catholic papalcy imposed belief (above their own ability to think critically) that they have forgotten how to inquire, ponder ideas, concepts, that just may include their God and evolution all in the same instant.
I have heard it said that God exists whether you believe in her or not. Similarly, evolution exists whether you believe in it or not. It won't go away by ignoring it, or trying to forbid education about it, or arguing in stubborn ignorance that it is not well-supported by fact. All such arguments are specious and based in a very basic fear of, well, enlightened thinking.
If only Creationists could step put of their fear, and rightousness, for just a moment, they just may figure out that spirituality and evolution are living, co-existing, together on this planet, no matter how hard they choose to deny, and ignore it. It is sad to observe.
As a teacher of grade school and college students, I am grateful that I have the opportunity to help hundreds of children learn how to think cirtically for themselves, especially when fear and bias are proferred in the name of religion, or worse yet, God.