Creation vs. Evolution

[shaun_nj]

Scientists reject the theory of "Intelligent Design" (pretty much the same thing as Creationism) because as gismapper stated; God is not directly observable. Not only that, but using history as an example religions change and most of them have been pretty ridiculous. At one point many humans believed "Atlas" held the Earth on his back; now we know that "Atlas" does not exist. Many tribal religions blamed floods, storms and other natural disasters on certain Gods. The tribesmen claimed the Gods were angry and that the village had done something wrong. Obviously we now know this is due to weather patterns; not some powerful entity. Nearly all religions were created to explain natural events because humans had a lack of scientific knowledge.

Taking this into consideration; don't you see why scientists jump to conclusions, and think that there CANNOT be a creator? It also doesn't help that far too many people take the Bible too literally. Passages such as;


Isaiah 11:12
"12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH" (later translated into four QUARTERS)

Job 38:13
"13 That it might take hold of the EDGES OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"

Some look at these writing and infer; "Oh, the bible is saying that the Earth is flat!", which isn't necessarily true. The Bible is very well written so at times there are metaphors to explain certain things. If some one were to say "he jumped ship" about a particular issue, would you take this literally? Of course not!

What discredits Evolution (somewhat) is Genetics, DNA and RNA coding. Although this was not Darwin's belief, Scientists believe at one point the Earth was covered in bacterium; life forms were bonding together to form this genetic pool. Out of this pool creatures were formed and thus species came into life. However, what we know scientifically is that species cannot be intermixed. You wont see bears having cubs with condors, would you? Although "Bendors" would pretty awesome animals, it is not possible. DNA must be created to have a living creature and species cannot be intermixed; this can discredit evolution.

This leads us to conclude that creatures could not have evolved as they did. So how was this done? Given the complexity of genetic coding, a creator must have been present. DNA and RNA is a language, a script, too complex to happen over time and by accident. Do you believe your computer's script could have been made possible over time without human intervention? I think not.

This is only one of my many arguments against evolution

 

[Zathrus]

Taking the Genesis creation stories literally is a "slippery slope" all of it's own because, as I said before it was never meant to be taken literally (and If you will recall there was a reason for this).



Reply to unrelated: You said "Scientists will reject any concept of God because they say he's not directly observable." This is an inaccurate statement because there are quite a few scientists who are Christians. It is more accurate to say "Atheists will reject any concept of God because they say he's not directly observable". But again that statement would be inaccurate. Atheists reject faith because they see faith as the belief of anything that is inherently unprovable. They don't like things that are inherently unprovable. In fact they see faith as inherently dangerous. I could go on about this but this would lead to a long post. If you want to read more about this I recommend the book "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris.

Furthermore, there are many many things in Science that are not directly observable but can be proven by other means. Many of the wonderful technologies we enjoy today like computer thumb drives have come about by manipulating the unobservable. The difference between these unobservable things and God is that these "unobservable things" are provable. These things are provable because they are material, not spiritual. It requires no faith, just good science to prove it.

 

[shaun_nj]

Taking the Genesis creation stories literally is a "slippery slope" all of it's own because, as I said before it was never meant to be taken literally (and If you will recall there was a reason for this).



Reply to unrelated: You said "Scientists will reject any concept of God because they say he's not directly observable." This is an inaccurate statement because there are quite a few scientists who are Christians. It is more accurate to say "Atheists will reject any concept of God because they say he's not directly observable". But again that statement would be inaccurate. Atheists reject faith because they see faith as the belief of anything that is inherently unprovable. They don't like things that are inherently unprovable. In fact they see faith as inherently dangerous. I could go on about this but this would lead to a long post. If you want to read more about this I recommend the book "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris.

Furthermore, there are many many things in Science that are not directly observable but can be proven by other means. Many of the wonderful technologies we enjoy today like computer thumb drives have come about by manipulating the unobservable. The difference between these unobservable things and God is that these "unobservable things" are provable. These things are provable because they are material, not spiritual. It requires no faith, just good science to prove it.

Good points! There are some Christian Scientists, but there also many Atheists. I like how you pointed out that Atheists will often object to the idea of a God. They want proof, not faith.

 

[gismapper]

I stand corrected about the loose use of "scientists." I should have said "unbelieving scientists" or something like that. My apologies.

Athiests use faith every time they sit on a chair without testing it first, or drive a car without having it inspected from bumper to bumper...they just won't admit (or don't realize) that they use faith every day. The true atheist doesn't actually exist. To make an absolute statement such as "there is no God" requires absolute knowledge, which no one has. At best, they would be agnostics, who simply don't know whether or not there is a God.

Those scientists I've talked to who reject God, have claimed that He is unobservable and untestable, and therefore any claims to God creating anything are without merit. I guess that boils down to calling Him unprovable. And yet the Bible claims that God furnished much proof to mankind (Acts 17:31 and Acts 1:3). I think those who reject God and the creation account in the Bible on scientific grounds are simply not willing to look at it objectively.

 

[MyLifeIsPink]

The true definition of atheism is a person who "lacks a belief in a god or gods." Not faith in chairs...etc.

I don't understand how atheists can look around at the universe and not see a creator. But that's just me.

 

[gismapper]

My point was to make it clear that athiests are comfortable using faith and belief in many other things, provable or not. They (along with the rest of us) will simply assume that a chair will hold us, for example, without testing it first because they've sat in enough chairs to trust that chairs, in general, are trustworthy. But God Himself invites us to show Him the same growth in faith, growth in trust, growth in confidence that we afford to the ordinary chair. He says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." (Psalm 34:8) In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord practically begs us to check out His claims about Himself, "Come now, and let us reason together..." This is besides the many convincing proofs He furnished, mentioned earlier.

My point is that those who reject God will find *any* reason to do so. They don't have a problem with the concept of "trust" or "belief" or "faith", their problem is with God. But God doesn't have a problem inviting us to take Him at His word and see for ourselves. And He doesn't have a problem furnishing proof to those who are willing to seek Him.

Thomas ("Doubting Thomas") found this out first hand. He refused to believe unless he saw the risen Jesus, and touched Him. But when Jesus gave Thomas the opportunity to do just that, Thomas could only fall on his face before Jesus, and repent. Jesus welcomed Thomas with open arms.

There are unending numbers of excuses for unbelievers to continue in their unbelief. But every once in a while, they humble themselves before God, and find out that He is exactly who He says He is, and that He loves them and forgives them from His deepest heart.

 

[Zathrus]

There are some who will use any excuse not to believe in God and there are some who want to believe but can't seem to get past the obstacles.

As for furnishing proof of God's existence that's easier said then done. Creation science is a joke. A bad one at that. It does more to convince people that there is no God and that Christians are a nothing but a bunch of idiots who will believe any trash that is fed them then evolution science could ever do.

If you want to prove God's existence don't give people arguments, Jesus never did. Don't try to prove the Bible right through science, someone will always come up with a good argument to disprove you. Instead be a person of Good character, do things like take care of the people around you, do what's right even when everything inside you wants to trash everyone around you, learn to love and forgive . This sort of evidence is what convinces people that there is a God. You prove God and his biblical principles right when it has made you are a genuine (not phony) person of good character.

As for the chair argument I have heard this before and it has some merit. But mind you one can believe that a chair will hold them up without any concern that said chair will then want to be Lord of your life, or will want you to have faith in things that go beyond just the chair's ability to hold you up.

 

[gismapper]

I agree that it's easy to be an ugly, ignorant christian. I just disagree that believing in creation science or a literal 6-day creation makes one ugly and ignorant. If God didn't mean what He said, He would have told us. He's not a liar, and He is not deceptive. James 1:17 says that there is no "variation or shifting shadow" in Him.

I also agree STRONGLY that one's behavior often speaks more clearly than his words. I've seen this many many times. 1 Peter 2:15 says that our good behavior will silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

But I don't believe that giving people "arguments" is always unbiblical. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "arguments." If, by "arguments," you mean disagreeing with someone and not backing down, then Jesus did a whole lot of arguing. If you mean using the literal word of God to support and defend a case, then Jesus did a whole lot of arguing. So did the apostles.

For example, Jesus "argued" with the teachers in the temple when he was 12 (Luke 2:46 & 47). He was asking questions, listening, and people were astonished at his answers. In Matthew 12:1-14, Jesus had three such "arguments," using the scriptures to confront those who were mis-handling the truth and mis-representing God. Instead of humbling themselves and accepting the word of God as truth, they wanted to kill him because they couldn't get past the obstacle of their own hard heart.

In Matthew 15:1-20, He schooled them regarding their traditions, and it was actually reported to Jesus that the pharisees were offended. He did not apologize. He went on to say that those who refuse to submit themselves to the word of God will be cut down.

John the baptist didn't even give the unbelieving religious leaders a chance to "argue" back. He flat-out called them serpents. Can't get much uglier than that. Jesus did not stop him or rebuke him.

In Acts 6:9-10, we read, "Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)--Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke." Clearly, Stephen was "arguing" back.

Hopefully, I didn't misunderstand how you are using the term.

 

[Zathrus]

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I have been extremely busy.

I was referring to rhetoric when in my last post. This is the type of arguing where the goal is to win the argument and if possible make the other person look stupid. If you are clever enough you can prove anything using this style of arguing. The truth of the matter you are arguing is irrelevant because the goal is to win the argument.

This style of arguing was popular in New Testament times. The pharisees were constantly trying to trick Jesus through these means. Time and time again Jesus circumvented their arguments to get to the truth of the matter. I don't have time to look it up but I can think of at least one passage where he cleverly answered their trick question with an appropriately placed parable.

Jesus's goal (one of them) was to teach by not getting sucked into their arguments he achieved his goal.

Many creationists win arguments via rhetoric. The truth of the matter is irrelevant. The only difference is that they think that they are helping out God by doing this.

Creationism has become a political position. In areas where creationists are organized they will send out members of their group who will heckle scientists when they are doing a public presentation. This does nothing to prove that God exists and does everything to give the impression that Christians are stupid, nasty little imps.

 

[HisAngel]

If you want to know more about how the Bible tells the perfectly logical story of the history of the earth and science supports it, go to Ken Ham's website (the videos section). He communicates clearly, and starts at the word of God to explain what we see on the earth today. Some of his answers have given me new clarity on areas I used to be confused, and he increases your faith.

As for convincing evolutionists, evolution is a religion. It is faith based, and they will defend it as strongly as you and I would defend Christ. The only way to convince an evolutionist is through the Holy Spirit and prayer. I have seen this work. A friend of mine went from being an athiest to a diest through prayer, and later went from an evolutionist to intellegent design. Not as far as I would have hoped, but he is continually stepping in the right direction as I pray for him. Not to mention he is a chemist....

So don't be dismayed. Jesus is bigger than their theories, and prayer is powerful in removing strongholds in the mind.

God Bless.

 

[gismapper]

So don't be dismayed. Jesus is bigger than their theories, and prayer is powerful in removing strongholds in the mind.

God Bless.

That's pretty much how my mind changed as well. I was in college, a christian, a theistic evolutionist, studying earth science and trying to reconcile it all. I can still remember the day I realized that Jesus quoted from the Genesis account of creation (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4). If He presented the Genesis account as truth, something to base our decisions, ethics, and morality upon, who am I to call Him a liar?

That was when I began to objectively look at the Bible's claims, instead of trying to re-interpret the Bible to fit science (which is constantly in flux).

So, yeah, I know what you mean.

As a side note, one of the things that nailed it down for me was the impossibility of developing new species over time. By definition, a "species" would be a group of organisms that can produce viable, fertile offspring. So, you can breed a donkey and a horse together to get a mule, but it can't reproduce. If it could, you would have a variety/hybrid, not a separate species. Evolutionists rely on the "hopeful monster" theory that takes an individual with a favorable mutation, and propagates that forward.

The problem is, if that mutant is to be a new species, it must not be able to reproduce with anything but its own kind to produce viable offspring, or else it's just a variety of the original species. So, you 'd have to have a male and female with the same set of mutations arise at the same place, at the same time, survive to maturity, find each other, and reproduce, in order to establish a truly new species. As long as the mutant can reproduce with it's non-mutated cohorts, it's only a variety, not a separate species (in the sense of man descending from an ape-like ancestor). I'll give you cecropia moths able to cross with columbia moths, but, again, those hybrids are sterile...not a species.

There is no way I can be convinced that such unlikely, simultaneous, geographically coincident mutations and subsequent pairings happened (in isolation or outside of isolation) enough times to produce the array of diversity we see in nature. Not to mention the fact that, the mutated individuals would still have to find each other attractive. Consider the complexity of mating displays put on by various species. If the mutation in question interferes with the expected courtship behavior, that's the end of that mutation. If the mutation interferes with any necessary care of young, that's the end of that mutation. I'll give you trillions of years...cats will never produce anything but cats. As long as the offspring can cross back to a cat, it's still a cat.

The term "mutation" has a colloquial connotation for a reason. If mutations were good things often enough (so as to give rise to the diversity of life around us), they would have a much more positive connotation. I know, it's a weak argument.

It's impossible to get away from the "kind after kind" command to reproduce, given by God at creation. The fact that DNA is self-replicating, with checks to correct mis-codings, reinforces what the Bible says, not that God's Word needs man's affirmation, but it stands affirmed, nonetheless.

 

[farouk]

shaun nj:

Hard to see how ppl can't acknowledge the presence of order and design in a wonderfully complex world.

But unbelief blinds ppl.

Scientists reject the theory of "Intelligent Design" (pretty much the same thing as Creationism) because as gismapper stated; God is not directly observable. Not only that, but using history as an example religions change and most of them have been pretty ridiculous. At one point many humans believed "Atlas" held the Earth on his back; now we know that "Atlas" does not exist. Many tribal religions blamed floods, storms and other natural disasters on certain Gods. The tribesmen claimed the Gods were angry and that the village had done something wrong. Obviously we now know this is due to weather patterns; not some powerful entity. Nearly all religions were created to explain natural events because humans had a lack of scientific knowledge.

Taking this into consideration; don't you see why scientists jump to conclusions, and think that there CANNOT be a creator? It also doesn't help that far too many people take the Bible too literally. Passages such as;


Isaiah 11:12
"12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH" (later translated into four QUARTERS)

Job 38:13
"13 That it might take hold of the EDGES OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"

Some look at these writing and infer; "Oh, the bible is saying that the Earth is flat!", which isn't necessarily true. The Bible is very well written so at times there are metaphors to explain certain things. If some one were to say "he jumped ship" about a particular issue, would you take this literally? Of course not!

What discredits Evolution (somewhat) is Genetics, DNA and RNA coding. Although this was not Darwin's belief, Scientists believe at one point the Earth was covered in bacterium; life forms were bonding together to form this genetic pool. Out of this pool creatures were formed and thus species came into life. However, what we know scientifically is that species cannot be intermixed. You wont see bears having cubs with condors, would you? Although "Bendors" would pretty awesome animals, it is not possible. DNA must be created to have a living creature and species cannot be intermixed; this can discredit evolution.

This leads us to conclude that creatures could not have evolved as they did. So how was this done? Given the complexity of genetic coding, a creator must have been present. DNA and RNA is a language, a script, too complex to happen over time and by accident. Do you believe your computer's script could have been made possible over time without human intervention? I think not.

This is only one of my many arguments against evolution

 

[shaun_nj]

Yes, but, make no mistake that Evolution is a scientific fact. However, the complexity of this process could only be made doing so by some sort of outside intervention. As most of us know, Evolution is done so by transferring genes from the parent to the offspring. Take a look at your parents, then yourself. You see some similarities, don't you? Gradually these genes are altered. However, the problem with this process is that it could not have begun by itself. Genes are only made possible by DNA, which is sort of the manual for a species. DNA, however, CANNOT self replicate; it can not appear out of thin air.

Basically, you can't have genes without DNA but DNA cannot be formed by itself. This is fantastic evidence for a creator. Not only this, but, the fact that human's genes have evolved so rapidly and have become so far advanced from all of the animal kingdom, makes the case for God to be pretty obvious.

I suggest reading "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins. I was astonished that he too shares the same ideas as I. He makes the same argument that Science allows us to understand how God created life; by no means does it disprove God.

 

[farouk]

shaun:

Species can undergo some modifications, but basically one species is different from another. And that is what secular humanists can't accept. And I'm not a secular humanist. And by God's grace I trust Scripture's account. 'By faith we believe that the worlds were framed' (Hebrews 11).

Yes, but, make no mistake that Evolution is a scientific fact. However, the complexity of this process could only be made doing so by some sort of outside intervention. As most of us know, Evolution is done so by transferring genes from the parent to the offspring. Take a look at your parents, then yourself. You see some similarities, don't you? Gradually these genes are altered. However, the problem with this process is that it could not have begun by itself. Genes are only made possible by DNA, which is sort of the manual for a species. DNA, however, CANNOT self replicate; it can not appear out of thin air.

Basically, you can't have genes without DNA but DNA cannot be formed by itself. This is fantastic evidence for a creator. Not only this, but, the fact that human's genes have evolved so rapidly and have become so far advanced from all of the animal kingdom, makes the case for God to be pretty obvious.

I suggest reading "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins. I was astonished that he too shares the same ideas as I. He makes the same argument that Science allows us to understand how God created life; by no means does it disprove God.

 

[gismapper]

Hi Shaun,

I mean no disrespect, just honestly wondering, if you don't accept the idea of a literal 6-day creation, then how do you get around Jesus' words in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, where He quotes the Genesis account of creation, and presents it as truth to be taken literally?

 

[shaun_nj]

The quotations you have used are pretty accurate and can be taken literally. However, the time span in which Genesis says the Earth was formed cannot be (at least in my opinion).

Hi Shaun,

I mean no disrespect, just honestly wondering, if you don't accept the idea of a literal 6-day creation, then how do you get around Jesus' words in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, where He quotes the Genesis account of creation, and presents it as truth to be taken literally?

 

[Darian]

The Word of God

Evolution is irreconcilable with the Word of God. God is not a man that He should lie. Men on the other hand are liars from birth. The Word of God speaks for itself and stands on its own merit. It needs no man to defend it. It has power to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent. It has nothing to do with evolution. If God said He made all things in six days, then I take Him at His word. It took six days. He made man of the dust of the Earth and breathed into him to make him a living soul. God said it, that's how it was.

But men are liars, of which there are two kinds. Those who deceive, and those who are deceived. I find it hard to believe anything men say these days, who do not have the Spirit of God within them to govern the words of the heart. And there are precious few of those.

I am with gismapper on this, I cannot be convinced that a fully compatible mating pair of any kind evolved at the same time, were able to find each other, and had programmed within them the knowledge of what to do with each other to both produce and raise offspring, and all of this within the reproductive years and the lifespan of a single species. The concept is utterly absurd in the face of the huge spans of time laid out in current evolutionary and developmental theory. The exponent on the odds against this has several zeros in it. Anything with odds against it with an exponent of the power of 50 is flat out impossible, and cannot occur.

 

[Boanerges]

It is just a matter of time until the "evolution hierarchy" is outed the way the climate change scientists have been. The "climate-gaters" were caught hiding facts and manipulating evidence dozens of times now and I have seen this starting to surface amongst these elitist evo guys IE the last "missing link Ida" deception.
God's Word is true and the more man knows the more he should know how much he does not know. Teaching the theory of evolution is one thing and teaching it as fact is quite another.

 

[Lawligator]

The two smartest men that ever lived were both Jews, one was a savior, the other was a scientist. But God chose the first one to rule them all.

God bless

You just made my day.. It's sometimes the simplest smallest answers/replies that have the biggest impact. :wink:

 

[zezpwn44]

So are we, as Christians, called to not believe in ANY FORM of evolution? I know that God definately created man to be what we are today, but natural selection is a seemingly logical explanation for the way organisms adapt, even if it is not how they were originally created.

Based on the fairly limited knowledge of evolution sciences I have, I currently believe that God did indeed create the Earth and everything on it, as the book of Genesis tells, but I also belive that organisms adapt to their environment over the generations, with those with favourable traits surviving and reproducing (e.g. "natural selection").