Instead of continuing to detract from another thread, I'm starting this thread to address the question of the six days of creation, so let's get started:



Was God literally "refreshed"? Did He literally "labor"? Perhaps He did, but I don't think his labor and refreshment is the same as it is for humans. I believe in interpreting literally to the extent reasonable, but I'm inclined to read God's labor and refreshment in Exodus 31 as figurative (metaphorical) rather than literally the same as human labor and refreshment. Also, the text doesn't say six consecutive days. Clearly God could have created the universe and everything in the universe in an instant (or in six seconds or however he wanted to). Why didn't he? To provide a model to us for our work - labor six days and rest on the seventh (and keep the sabbath holy). God's modeling the ideal for the human week didn't require him to "work" on six consecutive days.

No, quite the contrary. Reading something into God's Word that isn't explicitly there and being dogmatic about it is arrogance. That's what I'm pointing out - if God didn't explicitly have it recorded in the Bible, it is speculation. Assuming that the six days of creation were consecutive is trying to fill in something that God didn't specifically address.

Why did God have the term "following day" used in Genesis 19:34, but not in Genesis 1?

Gen 19:34 (NASB)
On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, �Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.�

I don't know the answer, but I think it points to the fallacy of assuming that the six days of creation were consecutive and being dogmatic about it. If you believe the six days of creation were consecutive days, that's fine, but God didn't have Moses tell us that they were consecutive days like He had Moses tell us the actions that took place in Gen 19:34 happened the day following that of the previous verse.

Why not, the great flood was what, some 4500 years ago and we've managed to go from 8 to 6 billion+ in that time. Not to mention all the incest.

The Book says He "labored". Not much room for interpretation there. I would lay odds that our most knowledgeable bibliophiles will tell us that word has been translated truly since the time of Moses. "Labored" is pretty cut and dried. And so is "the seventh day".

Either "The Hand of God" wrote the Bible and kept it whole, or it did not.

If not...........how are mere mortals to discern which parts are tainted.

If Genesis I, the very foundation of the Judeo/Christian philosophy is a blatant lie......How can any of the tradition stand?

Where have I written that Genesis 1 is a lie or even inaccurate? The text itself isn't inaccurate, but people have assumed things that God didn't specify. The Bible should be read as it is. We can speculate about things not written in the text, like whether the days of creation were consecutive or not, but if it isn't written in the text, God didn't intend for it to be in the text.

Regarding "labored," God isn't human so pretending that He is is going in the wrong direction.

Let's take a look at the "seventh day." Bob hunted for seven days. The first day Bob went dove hunting and bagged four doves. The second day Bob went hunting for deer, but he didn't see any. The third day Bob saw some deer, but none were legal to shoot. The fourth day Bob saw a legal buck, but it was too far away to shoot. The fifth day, Bob found a legal buck and shot it. The sixth day Bob went duck hunting and bagged three. The seventh day Bob went goose hunting and bagged two. In seven days of hunting, Bob bagged four doves, a deer, three ducks, and two geese.

If the day Bob went dove hunting was a Saturday, what day of the week did he go goose hunting?

We don't know because we weren't told in the account. Bob could have gone hunting on seven consecutive days, or he could have gone hunting on 7 out of 10 Saturdays, or he could have gone hunting on five consecutive Saturdays and then have gone duck and goose hunting during his Christmas vacation on a Friday and a Saturday. Point is, one can read the account and assume the days were consecutive, but that is an assumption because only the ORDER of the days was specified; whether the days were consecutive was not specified.

Would you assume the first five days were consecutive if the account had described the events of the sixth and seventh days with "The sixth day Bob went duck hunting and bagged three, and the following day he went goose hunting and bagged two."? If you assumed the first five days were consecutive days when it wasn't specified while it was specified that the seventh hunting day was the day after the sixth day, you are putting your assumption into the account of Bob's hunting by assuming something that isn't written. Compare Genesis 1 to Genesis 19:34.

Since the time of Moses, folks had a pretty clear understanding of the exact meaning of Genesis.

It is only since Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species" that the book of Genesis has been considered open for interpretation.

Why, in the course of several thousand years, was no priest bright enough to figure out that Genesis was not written to be read literally?

How did we mere mortals become so intelligent over the last 100 years?

Reading Genesis literally does not require one to assume the six days of creation were consecutive.

cause if the Bible is the absolute literal word of god than the young earth creationists are right and if they are right our understanding of most any science is complete and total horse chit and voodoo.....if the creation story is exactly as written and not open for interpretation all sciences start falling apart at some point......

if the earth is only thousands instead of billions of years old its not the smartest thing in the world to let a doc preform chemotherapy on you or those you love cause it means we have no real understanding on how to measure radioactive decay which is a huge part of that area of medicine....

Does all our futile speculation alter any of this? We must deal with God's judgment if the final analysis and He offers us a free gift of Redemption if we will only accept it.

There are a number of ideas (theories if you want to call them that) of how what we can observe scientifically meshes with a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation. However, there are a lot of people who had rather say that "science" is "wrong" or the Genesis account is wrong rather than observing how they aren't necessarily in conflict.

My personal belief is that we as a human race don't know enough to clearly see that there is no conflict between the science and the Genesis account. Throw in some assumptions that people make about the Genesis account, and conflict is imagined where none exists.

Edit to add that I'm excluding macro evolution from science in my above discussion. Obviously some (many) people think that macro evolution is fact and part of the body of scientific knowledge. Many others, myself included, are very skeptical about the theory of macro evolution, to the point of considering it not proven (i.e., not established scientific fact like the science we can replicate in the lab or clearly see by other observation).

There are those who believe a span of time, that is not spoken of, occurred between Gen 1:1 and 1:3.



Did He actually create anything without form? Ever?
How about void? ( what would be the point?)
And here's the kicker, covered in darkness on the FACE of it?
That definitely does NOT sound like Him.

Well, sometime between vs 1 and vs 2 His number one angel rebelled, started a war, and was kicked out.
How long that takes, God knows...

Back to the story, vs 2 goes on to say



How long did that go on?
Almighty God, who is light and created light and all that is in it and part of it, and it all fell into darkness and chaos and became void and without form, broods over it for how long before the stage is set?

Then He steps up to center stage and says (vs 3)
"Light BE!"

And guess what...
There was light.

It could very well be, and most probably is, that both the bible AND the science are correct.

Look across space to the far side of the known universe and tell me how long the light you see has been traveling...

I say several billions of years old planet we NOW stand upon is not so difficult to imagine, or believe, at all.
And I also say if it was important, to Him or us, He would have went into some detail.

He didn't.
Because it's not important.

And if you think it IS important, please explain how or why.

Not to sound like Hillary but

"What difference does it make NOW!!!?"

+1

As I stated in the other thread, I do not care if it was six days as we know six 24 hour days today of if it was sixty thousand years. To argue and bicker that any one's opinion is the only right opinion is right up there in my book with stating only you know the exact number of angels can dance on the head of a straight pin or the exact day, hour, minute, and second the world will end.

My question is how will solving any of the above mess with my salvation or help me better serve the Lord?

in the end does it make a difference? nope...but alot of those that say im flat wrong havent stopped to think what it truly means for me to be wrong....

to Razorback....personally i never understood the whole macro versus micro evolution argument cause all macro is, is a whole lot of micro.....whole lot of small changes add up to a big change.....

I have a little trouble consigning God to the temporal constraints we have in body. In our temporal existence we have creation, a span we call time, and destruction or death. But the spirit is eternal, it cannot be divided. God isn niether created or destroyed so those two anchor points, creation and destruction, do not exist so the whole concept of time God stands outside of. He created it to be sure, creation and destruction, but he is not subject to it.

In 2 Peter 3:8 Peter says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." But that is not really literal in my opinion, it is only a representation. You might as well say billion, or trillion or just move the decimal as far to the right as it goes, which is infinity.

Zero and infinity (or eternity) have one thing in common. If you divide them by any number they remain zero and infinity. That is because they lack the two reference points.

If you directed this to me, the importance is this:

If the Genesis account of creation doesn't specifically state that the six days of creation were consecutive days, why should anyone dogmatically state that the days were consecutive, especially when doing so drives people away from God?

I have no problem with people being offended by the truth, by facts clearly stated in the Bible. However, if something isn't specifically addressed in the Bible and people who might otherwise be receptive to Biblical teaching are driven away by dogmatic assertions about human assumptions, there's a problem. We shouldn't let those human assumptions drive people away.

If people are going to reject God, let it be because they don't accept what is actually written in the Bible, not because of what some people interject alongside what is written in the Bible.

"... evening and the morning, 1 million years.(1st day)
"... evening and the morning, 24 million years.(2nd day)
"... evening and the morning, 142 million years.(3rd day)
"... evening and the morning, another 142 million years. (4th day)
"... evening and the morning, 37 million years. (5th day)
"... evening and.....oops, it actually says evening and morning, the first DAY thru 6th DAY, which seems to indicate 24 hr. periods of time. Seems pretty clear. But then I'm a true believer. Fact is He coulda done it in six nanoseconds, but chose to do it differently, His way. He doesn't very often feel it necessary to consult us.

Yes He coulda done it in millions of years, but scripture says He didn't.

Yes, Spud, from what I've read the majority of Bible scholarship indicates the six days of creation were described in the Hebrew text as literal days like we currently have. However, the Genesis account doesn't state that the six days were consecutive days.

Either that........or the entire Judeo/Christian tradition is as mythical as Zeus and Apollo, and the gods of the Egyptian pantheon.

there is always that.....but i have theory on that aswellfor the most part but then that sends this thread off in another direction which was what Razor was trying to avoid by creating this thread

Yes, it doesn't say "6 consecutive days", but the entire process including the day of "rest" took 7 days, so it's pretty easy for one to assume a week, 7 consecutive days. Scripture doesn't say it wasn't 6 consecutive days, either. My opinion, from the text as I see it: 6 consecutive days. YMMV. Have a good'n!

to me, no matter what you believe, there is no way creation and evolution can be together, it is either one or the other. Evolution is one of the greatest jokes of all time that changes everyday, every hour for that matter at the whims of all the "masterminds" who claim evolution is for real.

^This^

If the world is 37 billion years old, then it is because God decided to take 37 billion years to create it. But that doesn't, by default, give any credibility to evolution. Evolution is the biggest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. Unfortunately, many embrace it for to NOT belive that particular system of "faith", one has no other option than to aknowledge a Creator.

But that's a different subject.

Did God create the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour periods? I believe so.
Could He do that and make it appear old.
Yes.
Could He create a universe that is 93 billion light years across and during creation of light, stretch that light across vast expanses so we can see objects from photons that have seemingly traveled across distances of tens of millions of light years...and yet have a universe only several thousand years old?
Yes. And I believe this likely.

Since He lives outside of time and space, could He have taken billions of years to create the universe and then unveal it in the span of 6 days?
Yes.

Could He have taken billions of years to create it?
Of course.


The bottom line is HE CREATED the universe.

And that is the important point to keep in mind with any discussion. We don't have all the answers and won't on this side of Glory. If it could be proven beyond question the universe is billions of years old, it wouldn't shake my faith in the least, nor does it somehow diminish the authority or validity of scripture.

How does an infinite mind, which conceives all possibilities and things in a single all encompassing thought, create it in a world of matter? Given that God created everything, He established physics as the law governing how consciousness was interpreted into form through a dynamic process of creative evolution (not Darwinian evolution). The only way an infinite consciousness is able to work in the finite world of matter is through process of sequential creation over time. First we find the creation of matter itself, often described as a Big Bang or rapid inflation, everything needed came about in an instant from a single point, so the event appears to be an explosion. What was created is nothing more than hydrogen, the simplest element. Everything else is created from the natural propensity of hydrogen to respond to the force of gravity, producing stars and in turn stars produce all the other elements needed. God initiated a self-creating universe according to His design. Thus over time, all things came into being over six cosmological periods, in sequential order. We refer to these as days, for the lack of understanding of what God calls them, or how He delineates or orders them.

The primary motif of matter and existence is a circle (or sphere) with a controlling central point. All things are defined by, change or grow, from the center outward. This is true for atoms and cells, solar systems, galaxies and things yet to be discovered. The only life form on Earth is the cell, which comprises tissues, organs and organisms. We are cellular constructs organized to act within the boundaries of God's intended spectrum of consciousness and abilities set for Man. Beyond this, we and everything else, is dependent on energy derived from God's intent and will to exist, otherwise we are nothing. As long as God "dreams", we continue to fulfill His desire, whatever that may be.

We are nothing, we own nothing, not our bodies, nothing. We have no life apart from God's will, and we return to disorganized matter when we die. Our lives have no purpose apart from that which God derives from our experiences, our struggles and society. While the law of physics determine that matter always acts in a predetermined way, Man is able to deviate from self-defined norms of behavior, and to innovate using matter in ways nature could not. This is the Second Order of Creation, driven by psychology, freewill and intelligence, the very things God is observing without interference (although He can and does intervene in individual lives).

What is the meaning of it all? We may hypothesize that God intended to use our lives as a means of investigating what a future creation should contain, one of immortal forms and individual personalities in addition to His own. So, His intent was to include certain personalities from this world into the next. All religions proclaim this as doctrine, because the concept is built into the underlying raison d'etre of existence. He allowed us to struggle, to make errors and to learn that His way brings us happiness and fulfillment, so He gave us forgiveness and redemption for our atonement.

On the seventh day, God rested. His active portion of creation was finished, He became an observer rather than a builder. What He set in motion would automatically bring His plan to fruition. For our part, we too are asked to set aside one day in seven to reflect and meditate on the whys and wherefores of our existence. It is a day to free the spirit. A day where some of us may be able to open a line of communication with the Divine mind and receive guidance to fulfill our purpose, while recognizing and praising His blessings in our lives. It's all good.

Then again, I could be wrong.

It isn't that we've become "so intelligent".

There is an overlooked significance of the Pentatauch for God's covenant people. The ancient Israelites operated with oral tradition; that is how the Abrahamic Covenant was communicated down through the generations before Moses. When he wrote this stuff down by the command of God that was something that few civilizations/religions had at the time.

God's inspiration of Moses was to inspire a people not with specific, scientifically and factually clear methods of how God did what He has done, but simply to say that He did it. The people who received Genesis 1 were at a level of understanding that necessitated exactly what God gave them. They rallied behind the fact that God did what He did and pronouced it "good".

Looking at the Scripture as a scientific text book is folly. Suggesting that for us to respect Scripture necessitates a 6x24 understanding of Gen 1 is like saying that we have to read the sections of the newspaper exactly the same; I don't read the news in the same way I do the editorial or comics. Does that mean I don't respect the newspaper?

God has given us all we need for faith and salvation and quite frankly I could care less how He created the heavens & earth. I know He did; just as I know He will return "to judge the living and the dead". The details are beyond me and He has left each end of history vague because it is above our paygrade to know specifics.

Rest in that and you'll be practicing a central tenet of all of Scripture; humble servitude to a loving, gracious God.

Disagree. I am not an evolutionary believer at all, but one MUST recognize the difference between belief in observed tendencies within nature that suggest evolution on the one hand vs. ideological adherence to the evolutionary force of the universe for the purpose of negating the philosophical or systematic "need" for a g/God.

Those are two different things; God could very well have used evolution as His means of creating the world. I have no doubt that, just like speaking the world into existence, is well within His ability.

Quite frankly I could care less and think that this argument distracts from the central truth of Scripture. The more important questions deal with the truth & historicity of Christ and His person and work.

I lump those who navel-gaze on this question into the same boat as those who are always trying to figure out who the anti-Christ is. Each generation seems to have some degree of "certainty" on that question, ignoring the fact that both ends of the Bible are purposely shrouded in mystery. The clarity Scripture-wide... well, it is as Luther said, "Christ on every page".

Evolution is a hoax, that is one of the simplest things there is to see. What evolution states as fact today, is not a fact tomorrow and whatever evolution states could never happen, turns into an "evolutionary law" the next day. One day the earth is several million years old, the next it is 10's of millions years old and then it is a billion years old.

One of the things that seals the deal for me is irreducible complexity, look it up. Makes a lot of sense.

Why do you think the ships that landed on the moon were designed to have huge "feet" at first. Because, according to evolution, the dust on the moon should have been several feet deep. It is actually inches deep and corrsponds to an age that is in thousands of years. Many more facts that support a young earth.

head, you really really need to realize that evolution says nothing about dust on the moon. Never did, never will. Your whole understanding of evolution is about as messed up as it could possibly be. I highly recommend that you buy an elementary biology text or an introductory book on evolutionary biology. Nothing you have stated is remotely close to reality.

You're not a fan of Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Judith Hooper, etc?

Writing it in a textbook makes it real?

Not at all. But in the textbook, you will find what it is - and thus you might begin to critically examine it. But to say it is what it is not and therefor it is false, is pointless, doesn't advance your cause, nor illustrate that you know what you are talking about.

Excellent words of advice, Brent. In the book can be found the facts, theories, suppositions, and findings. Once those things are read, then someone has a basis for supporting or tearing down a particular idea. Until then, folks are just spouting off opinions.

The truth can sometimes be a double-edged sword.

Ed

You will not find evolution described in a bible. I'm quite sure of that.

Writing in a Bible makes it real?

Touche'

The best way that I can think-of to get such questions answered is (a) to get Jesus to punch your Heaven ticket � and then, (b) when you get there, to ask Him.

Well yeah, if you recognize it as the word of God.

If not... well this whole discussion would seem ludicrous and not worth the reading much less debate.

Very nice.

it is phenomenal that the human mind/consciousness can entertain two completely different approaches to describing our present condition in time and space, and still not reach a universal conclusion.

the idea or concept of a six day creation event is mind-boggling. the concept of it taking 14, 15 billion years to get to where we are is equally mind boggling. should we just flip a coin, and go from there?

are minority views always in the wrong, and are majority views always in the right?

i'm beginning to suspicion that there's something going here that has yet to be fully defined. ya know?

surely, space aliens had nothing to do with any of this?

It seems you don't understand Infinite. God created and set up laws of nature. Why do you think long ages are required for the laws called into existence to be old?

Based on radio active decay the eruption of Mt. St. Hellens was eons ago. But the scientific observation tells us differently. Maybe you can tell us why ALL diamonds, fossils and oil all have carbon 14 in them. Could it possibly be because God's Word is correct and you have not yet come to understand yet?

What good is a totally dark earth for several billion years? All water and many other liquids would be solid in a couple days. Why don't accept God at His Word?



One is accepting God at His Word the other is not.

Of course it does. It doesn't say God labored for a day, then rested, then labored for another day, then rested.....and then on the 1,460,000,007th day he rested.

Trained scientist have a term for what you are doing, it's called "curve fitting". Curve fitting is when you start with your answer (The Creation story of Genesis is true), collect you data, and then fit the story and the data to support you pre arrived at answer. This for of reasoning is not accepted outside of the left wing liberal sciences such as Psychology or Climate Change research....

You mean the micro changes that make a wolf into a great dane will eventually make a wold into a tiger or something the world has not seen yet? Why do you think punctuated equilibrium is so popular among some evolutionists? Lt me help you. Because the so called macro changes are not seen in the fossil record nor in living animals.

Go to God's Word and you won't have to constantly make up foolish arguments.

Coleman, there will be no Judgement if God does not exist, and no "free" afterlife.

You are assuming God didn't mean for His Word to be taken literally. What do you use to support this assumption?

It makes all the difference.
If Genesis is wrong, then the Bible is not the "unerring word of God". That raised the question...then what is it?

Spud,

God defines the day and night with evening and morning on the first day. On forth day God created the sun, moon, and stars for signs and seasons and days and years. A straight forward reading is easy to understand. All the speculations add nothing but confusion.

Yep 1 day = 124 million years doesn't pass second grade math or 4 grade language arts. If he can't get something this simple correct it doesn't make for a very "perfect God".

Modern Scientist vs. Bronze age goat herders.....I'll go with the Scientist.

snubbie,



The concept of age requires an interpretation of the facts. Adam and Eve were created mature. All the plants were created mature so they could start eating. The entire universe was created mature. The appearance of age is in the mind of the observer.

Makes me wonder why the racist, genocidal, sexist, bi-polar God just chose to speak to a series of illiterate "goat herders" over a narrow amount of time to spread his good word. You would think that he now has the opportunity to put down a bitching edit of Creation in Wikipedia.

This more or less summarizes your post. It suggests God is not Infinite Intelligent Energy.



How does one obtain this redemption? Through Jesus of Nazareth?

Here is a problem. The new paper is not God's Word and does not claim to be the Truth.

How do you handle "All Scripture is inspired by God and good for correction, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."?

antelope_sniper,''




Great answer!

antelope_sniper,



Another good post.

You're on a roll.

Science text books have not changed in the last fifty years, correct?

It all makes more sense that space aliens visited earth about two to four thousand years ago.

Art and pictures in caves and culture that depict the same "gods" and decriptions of "chariots of fire", "birds of fire", loud thunder and light comeing down from the heavens. gods that gave them knowledge, tools, and ideas. This from people that had not seen, talked to, or even had the slightest idea that the other existed two thousand miles away.

Six days, six thousand years, creationism, evolution, they are all the same thing. Some are just too caught up in the details to see the big picture

I'm thinking the big G is thinking you guys got it all wrong.

It is Friday night and I think you've been drinking and looking for a way to stir the pot for some S & Gs

Ask me on a Wednesday or any other day ending in Y. Don't believe in sky daddy. Don't need a book of tales from the sand pople to know that screwing my neighbors wife is not good. That cheating him out of money is not good. That all seems to be pretty self evident if you want people to treat you the way you treat them. The golden rule could sure use some traction, the other crap just falls in line if you have any sort of conscience.


Edit to add, Have had four beers, far from tanked. WTF are S&G's?

Never mind, [bleep]-n-grins, got it.

"How do you handle "All Scripture is inspired by God and good for correction, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."?

I handle it THIS way :

"Anything good for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness is inspired by God and thus is Scripture".

But I'm funny in that I insist on the Writer being superior to the word.

Just sober enough to figure it out I see.

Sober enough to know where the [bleep] comes from.

This reminds me of Chariots of the gods. An archaeologist, Clifford Wilson, went around the world after Erich von D�niken and refuted his claims in Crash go the chariots.

calikooknic,



Based on what? With the God of the Bible there is no absolute morality.



From where did your conscience come? You, in an evolutionary world, are not making any sense.

John 1:1-4, 14

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. "

"
So, without a book to guide you, YOU or any others can't have morals or a conscience? That seems to make no sense in my world. Not sure where you live. I "absolutely" do not need you or any other to tell me what is pretty damned self evident. Would you like to have your neighbor getting it on with your wife while you were at work or otherwise distracted? Probably not, but hay, some people just "swing" that way.
Ever play the game where some one tells another something and it gets passed from person to person around the room until it comes back to the one that started it? You think two thousand years of stories and fables and witness will be the same as when it was first told? It can't go around a room in ten minutes/ten people and be accurate.
If you believe and follow the bible, good for you. But judging other people based on your short comeings is not exactly christian like to me. Just because you can't live your life the way you would like to is not exclusive to people of faith. We all have problems, regrets, moments of not living up to our own standards.

And that is really all it is, standards by which we live our lives. Little else.

I agree with the "what if" portion but another if to consider is, what if you're wrong? Salvation doesn't cost us anything but Jesus, The Christ, paid a terrible price so that we could be with Him eternally.

A close examination of the human skeleton carefully examining how every bone works in harmony with another tells us that there was a 'design' for lack of a better term. It follows that there was a Designer. Plenty of people simply refuse to believe this....but they're wrong......and you're wrong even though it's not in my power to convince you.

When you push your beliefs back as far as you can, what supports them?

Anytime a people start grouping into a community for mutual protection and support, they invent a moral code.

People are pretty intelligent creatures. It does not take long for a thinking individual to come up with a set of laws which will make living together a lot more peaceable. Basically those rules always boil down to the golden rule. "Do unto other members of your tribe as you would have those other members do unto you. Any person or object not of the tribe is fair game."

Thousands of tribes through history and prehistory had never heard of the God of Abraham, yet those tribes developed moral codes and a system of jurisprudence.

A man alone has no ethics. A man alone is a predator, pure and simple. Morals/ethics come from the community's sense of self preservation, as a means to protect the community from that man alone.

My conscience and self sense of morality does. What about yours? You have so little self control or confidence that you rely on others to keep you in line? Can't come up with any sort of thoughts or logical conclusions without some bible verse?

It's pretty [bleep] simple, treat people the way you would like to be treated. Why can't you get that on your own?

And who in the hell says my beliefs are pushed back? Mine are right up front for you to see or hear. If that is not plain enough for you to understand, I can do little for you. If you wish to keep judgeing me by your beliefs, well, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Not looking for any sort of fight on here, I just don't understand people that can not look at the world and come to there own conclusions of right and wrong.

Archaeology shows they made some of the children walk into fire for sacrifice. That's moral for sure.

Great reply. Some just can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

That's not moral, that is moron. They had some other dumbass telling them this is what will please "god".

Coleman. You are a non-believer.
You do not believe in Zeus, Thor, Mythra, Bahai, Scientology, Muhammad, or Brahman, or Joseph Smith. The only difference between you and I is I take it one step further and include the Christian God in my disbelief. What if I'm wrong? What if Your Wrong and the correct answer was the Golden Unicorn Monkey who eats the souls of all non-believers when he dies?

Sorry Coleman, Pascal's wager is not grounded in logic.

And in the original telling, Abraham may have killed Isaac:
\
Francesca Stavrakopoulou has speculated that it is possible that the story "contains traces of a tradition in which Abraham does sacrifice Isaac.[17] Richard Elliott Friedman has argued that in the original E story Abraham may have carried out the sacrifice of Isaac, but that later repugnance at the idea of a human sacrifice led the redactor of JE to add the lines in which a ram is substituted for Isaac.[18]

Richard Dawkins wrote about the ' binding of Isaac ', " A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example simultaneously of child abuse, bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships, and the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defence: ' I was only obeying orders ' Yet the legend is one of the great foundational myths of all three monotheistic religions."[19]

Have we learned anything in the last 50 years?

If we make a new scientific discovery tomorrow, should we exclude it from any future text books?

If we should stop science books at an arbitrary point in time, when should we stop history books? Did history stop at the end of Acts, and should we not teach out children about the history of the United States?

We hope so. It could be. Maybe it was. I think so. Possibly. Or we could do what most historians do and unless there is solid outside evidence accept the historical document at face value.

You are baiting and switching here. We were discussing science which we both know is moving forward and yet some known opinions are still presented as fact. For example the Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.

You switched to U.S. history. But to answer the question about U.S. history, it would be nice if the revisionists were not allow to insert their lies.

Obviously you haven't studied any history in the last 50 years.
Take a look at something like "Battlefield detectives" on Gettysberg. It's makes for an interesting re-interpretation of the what happened.

RM, you make some good points. In order for science to succeed we must we willing to reject failed models. The difference between you and I is apply this principle beyond science to include disciplines such as history and theology.

Recapitulation theory is an excellent example of an 1800's idea, like communism, (recapitulation theory published in 1899, communist manifesto published in 1848) that now finds itself of the scrap heap of history.

How about we do the same for this:
Leviticus:
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

Very good point efw. Though I must admit such "esoterica" interests me for contemplation's sake, Christ's redemptive work on the cross is the distillate of it all.

vel, while i can honestly admit that i've never understood how a "God" can die in order to save a group of civilian humans is beyond me. we're waxing into the mystical or meta-physical pretty quickly.

are we slaves to some God, and have to act accordingly in order to be saved?

whether the Earth was created in six man-day types, or some other numerical explanation, what difference does it make, pray tell. we still breathe air, live in subdivisions, ride the roads in cars that utilize gasoline for fuel, have jobs, and pay our mortages. what possible difference could it make if we were created in 6 days or 15 billion years. tommorrow the Sun will rise, and you'll be celebrating Memorial Day, right?

Indeed, so I will stop reading. There is just nothing quite like fanaticism.

How about you jumping to the New Testament. Christians are free from the Law of Moses.

You mean that whole new book, that effectively erases the whole old book?

But if the Bible is perfect, why would you need a New Testament to erase the Old Testament?

antelope_sniper,



You quoted something from the Law of Moses.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.



Again you are adding to the conversation that which does not apply. The New Testament introduces God's Gift of His Son, but does not do away with it. In fact the New Testament teaches what was written former times was written for our instruction. It also teaches the Law was a teacher to lead us to Christ. Again Christ is the end of the Law of Moses.

If the Bible is perfect, the Law is perfect.
If the Law if perfect, there is no justification for and end to it.

The New Testament ends the Law, therefore it is not perfect, and the Bible is not perfect, and hence not the will of a perfect God.

You are starting with a wrong premise. Therefore you conclusion is faulty. You are taking a portion and expanding it to represent the Whole. The Whole Book tells us the Law, a portion, was a teacher to lead us to Christ. You are missing that; or rejecting it. When one accepts the Whole Book one learns Jesus is the end of the Law.

Perfectly wrong logic.

No, this is just the justification for erasing over half the Bible.

Do I understand correctly when you read a book you don't follow the story of the book?

The Law is not "over half the Bible". It is introduced in about four books of the Old Testament. The Rest of the Old Testament is history, prophecy, poetry and Jewish proverbs.

When I read a book by Louis L'Amour or Robert Heinlein, they don't claim to be the perfect word of God, so you comparison is not valid.

A perfect God would not create a law that later had to be repealed.

So for how many years did man live under this flawed law that had to be repealed?

How do you know what a Perfect God would do? You are a created being with extremely limited mental capacity trying to judge an Infinite Intelligent Being. Your premise is flawed because you are assuming the Book was sorta made as It went along. If you read the last book you will discover Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world.

Yea, because it was.

Christianity is a Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religions. We see the borrowing from the myths of Osiris/Dionysus, Adonis, Attis Mithras and other Pagan Mysteries the features savior fables.

Here's one of my favorite pictures. It's a Pagan Amulet dated to (IIRC) 167 BCE.

The Law WAS perfect in that it revealed to man his inability to be reconciled to God because of his (man's) sin. This was the Law's primary function. Keeping the Law never "saved" ANYONE it merely pointed man toward Christ the perfect sacrifice who can. The New Testament did not erase the Old, it fulfilled it.

BTW, no one but Christ Himself was ever able to keep the Law completely. Well, He wrote it, that helped. I think we moved off the subject of the 6 days of creation, somehow!

Ring & Spud, you can not make see what God has blinded.
John 12:40
�He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.�

So, an all powerful God, wanted to forgive mankind, and he couldn't just declare "I forgive you", instead he had to torture and murder his own son, to appease himself, so that mankind could be forgiven?

Or, perhaps, the NT story was a creative story justifying the end of Animal Sacrificed, like the story of Abraham and Isaac justified the end to child sacrifice. Each of these stories constituted a huge reduction in costs to their potential member, and would of made each very competitive in it's day.

Good answer.

Of course He could have done as you suggest, He simply chose to do it His way. I woulda probably done it your way, too, but I'm not God.

It appears you got that right. Personally I think the whole God becoming a Man and dying for our sins is crazy. But then I realize I am extremely limited in mental capacity and not the Rule Maker Whose ways are higher than ours.

I'm glad we could both agree this propositions sounds crazy. Of course it's interesting how differently we conclude what this mean.

Christ disagrees with you. Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." NIV (or your particular flavor)

Well done A_S,

Not often RM achieves a brief, brilliant moment of clarity.

Jesus does not contradict Himself.

Romans 10:1-4

"Brothers, my heart�s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God�s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

We come at the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the most documented fact of history prior to the printing press, from different world views. You start with the idea the God of the Bible is wrong and your fallible mind is the final authority. Your life's philosophy can not stand a careful philosophical scrutiny, though. It will eventually self destruct. I am not cleaver enough to get you there, but based on the four lectures I recently listened to, an advanced philosopher would be able to show you.

I start with the idea the God of the Bible is Infinite Intelligent Energy. Therefore He makes no mistakes and is the definition of perfection in everything. An advanced philosopher shows this belief will not self destruct.

If you are interested I will send them (C.D.'s) to you so you can try to destroy the premise or eventually accept the truth of it.

You said this.



And this.



Christ said this.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Then you try to wiggle around with this.



No wonder you find yourself in conflict with so many Christians here.

I find myself in conflict with "Christian" everywhere I go. I stand on God's Word and obey His precepts. Are you arguing to argue or are you trying to clear up something I may have missed. There is no wiggling. I quote God's Word unapologetically from an abundance of love.

Do you find these Scripture contradictory? Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. As followers of Christ we are not under the Law Moses, but under the Law of Christ. Apostle Paul further wrote by the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 9:20-23

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the Gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it."

It's that well documented?
Can you give me 10 contemporary, non-Biblical, Roman accounts of it?

RM, using the New Testament to prove the New Testament is, once again, circular reasoning.

Do you have an equally clear OT quote regarding how Jesus will come to end the Law?

Thanks Carbon, I really appreciate the compliment.

Of course it's all up to him to decide what he will do with that moment of clarity.

Thanks again.

All statements of fact depend on circular reasoning because all claims will ultimately appeal to a self-authenticating source of authority.

All . . without exception!

"To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, "see, it's a meter." However, the next question is obvious, "How do we know your neighbor's meter stick is really a meter?" This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter."

"The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter."

The meter is a man made construct with an agreed upon definition. You are confusing an agreed upon definition with circular reasoning. I could check my meter stick against the agreed upon definition of a meter:

"The length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.",

and see by just how much my meter stick is off.

No, I am confusing nothing. You are simply refusing to acknowledge your self-authenticating source of authority, which you admit above is an "agreed upon definition."

Your self-authenticating source of authority is human consensus.

I agree with you. Can you refute what It says?

We all use circular reasoning. You start with the idea the Bible is unreliable and end with the same. The problem with you position is it can't stand up to scrutiny. Only the Bible makes sense of Absolute Morality, Laws of Logic, and Uniformity of nature.



This is a fun question. One I have never thought about so it will take time to check it out. Thanks for the challenge.

You say non-Biblical. Have you discovered something others have not about the scholarship of the New Testament? So you think other writings of the same period are better documented?

It been several years since I read these books. Take a look at the book by a former skeptic: Evidence that demands a verdict and his subsequent work, More evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell. Also a former skeptic Lee Strobel wrote The Case For Christ. I will allow you to do the same reading I did. I used to be an atheistic evolutionist. Facts interrupted my life so I did some reading.

Dr. Kindell says there would be a lot more serious Christians if we had a lot more serious skeptics.

How could there be "evening" and "morning" (as we know it) on the first three days of Creation if God did not create the Sun and Moon til day four?

AS, it was either Samuel Clemens or Abe Lincoln that proffered, "best to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or in this case, punch the keyboard) and remove all doubt".

George, that's a nice Ad hominem attack

If you have something relevant to add to he discourse it would be greatly appreciated.

Easy! Do you think The Being Who created the sun, moon, and stars would have difficulty with evening and morning for three days without the sun, moon, and stars? Did you not read the beginning of the chapter. It informs the reader He created heaven and earth and light on the first day. With the light coming from one direction and the earth turning on its axis we get "evening and morning".

Shouldn't be any big revelation that "evening" and "morning" (as we know it) is not the same as God knows it to be. Time and measurement of time is an invention of man and means nothing to God. God is outside of time as man knows it to be (the rotation of earth around the sun and earth around its axis). God is outside of his creation and is not bound by time or space.

Yes, I say non-biblical so we can break the circularity of the argument. If we have a dozen contemporary Roman sources documenting the event, I can no longer say SEE, IT'S JUST MORE OF THE BIBLE CONFIRMING THE BIBLE. This is the type of evidence that could alter the nature of the discussion. Unfortunately, the two or three independent sources we thought we had, have all turned out to frauds and hoaxes.

If you with to convince a skeptic trained in logic, these are the kind of sources and arguments you will need.

Olaf, here's a quote from Michael Kruger original article "The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics", TMSJ Spring 2001, that you missed:

Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise it is
simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority
(�rationalists�) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for
rationalism. Those who presuppose the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose
that in arguing for their philosophy (�empiricism�). And skeptics must be skeptical of
their own skepticism (a fact which is, of course, the Achilles heel of skepticism). The
point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion . . . one must use criteria
compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity then everybody is guilty of
circularity.
The words of Bahnsen sum up the need to argue presuppositionally:
The Believer must defend God�s word as the ultimate starting point, the unquestionable
authority, the self-attesting foundation of all thought and commitment. . . . The fact that
the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or debate
about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rather illustrates it.


Notice that big IF in there. He does not say it's circularity, he postulates the question of "what if" that is circularity, and used his IF as an excuse to dismiss all arguments that do not begin and end with the Bible. Overall, his article is just 18 pages of a weak attempt to justify Christian use of one of the weakest forms of argument that exists.

God does not have "evening and morning." Time and measurement of time is an invention of man and means nothing to God is ludicrous. You really don't understand. Like you posted God is outside of time. God established "evening and morning" for man. That is the original measurement of time. God didn't set up the sun, moon, and stars for signs and seasons and days and years for Himself. He created them for man's benefit.

Maybe you didn't know it before, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts were not part of the Bible. They were documents written by eye witnesses in the case of the first three. Luke and Acts were written by someone who, similar to a modern newspaper man or magazine writer interviewed eye witnesses.

The fact that later they were canonized into the New Testament should have noting to do with their credibility as legitimate history.

When you have everything true, nothing else matters.

There's nothing more logical than that.

As usual you are thinking outside of yourself, clearly a result of smoking too much wacky weed.

God called the light �day,� and the darkness he called �night.�. There is nothing here that indicates day or night has any meaning relating to time except in mans brain.

2 Peter 3:8....With the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day...

God did not create for man's benefit. All of creation including man was created to glorify and worship a Holy God. You are the one who doesn't understand...read your bible please, in it's entirety, and read it more than once. The concept of God creating for man's benefit is completely outside Christian thinking. You ain't one of them Muzzies are you? Mabe you need a new Bong or something?

Obtw-God is not a He.

Another question: what is the significance of God describing days as broken down into "evening and morning"???

We would tend to talk about "morning and evening" of a day. so i am wondering if there is any significance when they are reversed in Genesis?

Except He called it "the first day". Read the Whole phrse.



In literature there is a valuable thing called context. Apostle Peter was referring to God's patience in regard to salvation. This section is often used erroneously to try to confuse the issue of the creation week.

2 Peter 3:8-9

8"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

Here's one to help show God does not have time, we do.

Psalm 90:4

"For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night. Here's One a more descriptive of God being outside of time."



I agree completely with your second statement here, and take issue with the first.

God is not outside time.

Time is inside God . . "In him we live and move and have our being."

antelope_sniper,

Your post reminds me I have been listening to lectures by Jason Lisle, Ph.D in astrophysics. I looked him upon the web and was fascinated to see the comments. Some said he was not using science because he starts with the Bible; which is irrefutable. He believes in six day twenty-four hour creation about 6,000 years ago. Of course they are starting from a belief, the refutable position, the Bible is wrong.

The words of Bahnsen sum up the need to argue presuppositionally. He starts with the irrefutable position the Bible is God's Word and is True. Since you start with the refutable position, when pushed it to its ultimate supporting belief, you are the same as the people above.

When one starts with the Bible and is pushed and shoved to his belief, he can demonstrate its reliability. That is not possible with any other world view.

Evidence is not the be all to end all. All of us interpret the evidence based on our world view. For me the fossil record is fantastic support for Noah's Flood. For me carbon 14 in diamonds, coal, oil, and fossils is fantastic conformation of a young earth. Instead of using Oocam's Razor you come up with a rescuing device and invent something to explain these.

Sorry for a poor choice of words. Everything is in God. God is not bound by time; we are. Time was created and we use it.

As with Passover, the celebration day begins at sunset. It's a Hebrew cultural thing that God described in terms that they would understand.

AS, I couldn't agree more with the material above. Our beliefs define our facts, or, as Anselm said, "Credo ut intelligam" � "I believe that I might understand."

Every statement of truth/fact will ultimately retreat to a self-authenticating source of authority which is accepted by faith. In that sense, I see Kruger's article as not a dismissal of all arguments other than the author's own but rather as an explanation of the necessity of epistemological self-consciousness on the part of any position/world-view/philosophy/religion.

All world-views begin with belief, and one's beliefs then define what one accepts as fact.

Not sure where you're coming from, but the subject matter is not new. Here for your amusement is an excerpt from another forum discussion some years back:

Thanks, thats much appreciated..

So if we were created with a physical body and a spiritual body...

Do we have God's spiritual DNA inside us?

Kent

Gen 1:2-5

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
KJV

In Genesis 1:2 we are told of the Spirit of God surveying a desolate, empty (without form, void) earth in darkness. God called light forth, and light naturally obeyed. The light was the intense radiance of God. He separated the darkness from the light and named the light, day, and the darkness, night.

For the next three days God manifested Himself on the earth in all His Glory and Power to continue His creation and claim and cleanse the earth with the amazing brilliance that Glory and Power yields.

Cleansing was required as the earth was found in certain condition of darkness. The word darkness used in Gen 1:2 means misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, and wickedness. Certainly, not the way He had created it, in Gen 1:1, but what His plan and purpose had allowed it to become both then and now.

Each day He came into the darkness and it fled from His light, so the evening and the morning is how each day began. The same has been true throughout the ages, that unless you start the day in darkness and retire shortly after it returns, success is unlikely.

On the fourth day, God returned the luminescence to the celestial bodies, because what He would do next, on the fifth day, was create life in living beings.

He would return to the earth to continue His creation, but not as the God of All Glory, Majesty, and Power that He projects on His Throne in Heaven, because no corruptible flesh can behold Him and live. He would return as Lord Jesus, within Whom was life as we are told in John, to complete His creation.

Perhaps, a bit much to chew on for some, but a simple Truth makes a solid foundation.

Interesting question. Who can say for sure, but we are children of God called so by Him who declares Himself our Father. Not only heirs but joint heirs with Christ. Created in His Tripartite image and after His likeness.

Do your children have yours?

Rick,

And thank you too for that..So do you think that there is an unspecified period between Gen 1.1 and the start of Gen 1.3? A period when certain events took place that caused the need for a cleansing?

Regards,

Peter

I do.

I find arguing with someone who is not open and is planning his next "verbal" counter attack while I text is a waste of time. What it boils down to is even if you have full knowledge of science, archeology, history, and philosophy, all of which support orthodox Christianity, and still refute the living God, it's because you've decided you don't WANT to believe and be held accountable to Him. It's not based on evidence; your belief is based on will which, by the way, God grants you. He does not twist arms or kick the door in.

The Bible calls you "a fool", not me, though who am I to disagree with that? Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. are religions too, dogmas, as all of thinking, evidence, and nature presents evidence to the contrary. And while you don't accept Biblical scriptures for proof of same, let me tell you that as the gambler you are (you are you know, and betting against much more than a full house) you are betting that the verse--Roman 8:16--that tells you you "are blind" as an unbeliever and that you cannot perceive spiritual truth until you believe in Jesus Christ, is untrue. I know you don't have the hand to beat that--there is none..The verse actually says that the believer by faith has the truth confirmed to him by God's spirit communing with ours, the implication being the opposite too true (which I just stated)--that the unbeliever cannot know this and it is foolishness to him. Romans 8:16 is the unbeliever's Catch 22.

But carry on; though, if seriously questioning, I'm all yours.

I apologize too for my first comment which was not very helpful if you are truly seeking truth.

Such as the battle with Satan and the casting out??

1:1 is pretty clear:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
God created the Earth, he did not find it.
If God created the Earth the earth evil it begs the question why?

Of course I appreciate the theological implications of your interpretation: Suns almost up, time to go to work.

We don't know but Lucifer was created by God for a purpose, as part of His plan. And Lucifer became evil by design, and has been instrumental in that plan.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
KJV


What we also know, from Isaiah, is the earth was not created empty or uninhabitable as it was found in Gen 1:2.

Isaiah 45:18 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.
KJV

Jerimiah had a vision of the original creation of God, I believe, after that creation fell.

Jeremiah 4:23-28

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
KJV

Did Lucifer fall as a result of something about a pre-Adamite creation? Maybe. Possibly even probably, but what I believe is the only thing of theological value to take away from it, is an explanation for the apparent age of the earth that is at odds with a young earth understanding.

Of course that is not to say, God could not have made a young earth to appear old. All things are possible with God. But there being many millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, is also very possible with the God I know, and I believe the Bible supports that concept, otherwise I would not suggest such a thing. It's not a popular concept, and many have issues with it or are not even aware of it, but it does nothing to change the message of the Bible and the salvation offered in Christ.

God did not create the earth evil, but as can be seen above, He did create evil, and we know that evil was cast to the earth.

Why? Because it fits His plan. We would be wholly arrogant to believe that plan is all about us. I highly doubt it is. But we are a part of that plan, and in essence the purpose of evil is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Of course it's interesting, as well as the implications...

When man starts understanding that it's the physical that is fleeting, even to it's micro analysis concerning God... maybe he will be able to embrace his and his fellow man's spiritual DNA.

Kent

John 4:24

"God is a Spirit. Those who worship must worship in spirit and Truth."

Is that a "yes", or a "no", or an "I don't know"?

Then truly we don't have to transform ourselves into something we already are...

Kent

Starting with the conclusion, then fitting the data to the conclusion is what progressive climatologist do, and it's exactly the method you've employed.

If you are asking if "yes", or a "no", or an "I don't know" about DNA, DNA is physical. God is spirit. Exactly like time, He created it and owns it, but does not have it like us.

We all do. It's that most of us don't realize it and even many those who do lie to themselves and say they are letting the evidence guide them. They don't, though. Their world view tells them what to make of the evidence.

Thank you for the response. Now that you make that statement I can understand what you mean. The posting of a single verse did not communicate that to me.

Of course, DNA is physical and God is Spirit. We have a spirit, also. I believe Kent was referring to the make up of that spirit and how it may, or may not be similar to God's in it's design.

I don't believe a discussion of spirit has similarity to time. God is timeless, as are we going forward. Neither do we know when our beginning is, as He knows us before our conception.

But Jesus was a man???? He must have had DNA. What do you suppose an examination of same would tell us?

That is a fun question. We have what is called the genetic load; which is a bunch of mutations. Jesus would have none. He was the second Adam. Adam was the original "very good" creation, so he had none. According to Genetic Entropy and the and the Mystery of the Genome the mutations started about 6,000 years ago at the present accumulation rate. The author has about seventy patents on gene splicing. He taught graduate students at Cornell University for twenty-five years, so he might know something about genes.

Thank You,

That is a very interesting answer.

Ok, for the mentally challenged, did not mean that evolution said anything about dust on the moon, the engineers and scientist who built the spaceship to land on the moon, used information from evolution regarding the age of the universe, and came up with the depth of the dust and designed the ship's landing equipment from that. As usual, any FACT that disagrees with evolution is ignored and never referred to.

I will say there is no way to prove the creation theory, but it is way more believable than the crock of BS evolution is.

here are some things to think on

DO ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE EVOLUTION?
While many scientists for one reason or other accept evolution, what of others who seriously question it or reject it altogether? To young
evolutionists it comes as a shock to learn that: (1) many evolutionists admit grave defects in the theory; (2) many supporters of evolution admit
the theory cannot be proved; (3) many scientists stand firmly against the theory. What, exactly, have some prominent men of science had to say
about evolution?
FROM THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY
Dr. Relis Brown admits: �The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone
exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers.�1 Dr. G.K. Hebbert, British lepidopterist, says: �The evidence of fossils
very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and biochemical differences.�2
Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says:
�There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less
closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.�3
Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the University of Rochester says: �As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a
cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing.�4 Dr. Albert Fleishmann of Erlangen
University observes: �The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It
can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.�5 Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past
president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, plainly stated: �Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.�6 Drummond,
the great English scientist, confessed: �I can live no longer on uncertainties. I am going back to my faith in the word of God.�7 Dr. Harold
Blum in his work, Time�s Arrow and Evolution, stated: �The riddle seems to be: How, when no life existed, did substances come into being
which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?�8 Dr. H.J. Fuller of the University of
Illinois says: �The evidence of those who would explain life�s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is
no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the
latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former.�9
FROM THE FIELDS OF GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Dr. Theodore Schwarze boldly states: �The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone�s intelligence.�10 British paleontologist Dr.
L.M. Davies says: �The most extraordinary nonsense is sometimes talked in support of evolution...it has been estimated that no fewer than
800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as �Let us assume� or �We may well suppose,� etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin�s
Origin of Species alone...It was Darwin�s habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind his unforgivable
offense against science.�11 Dr. J.W. Dawson, Canadian geologist, says: �The evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of
humanity. It is a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech and by the arbitrary
and artificial coherence of its parts.�12 Dr. N.S. Shaler of Harvard University says: �It begins to be quite evident that the Darwinian hypothesis
is still essentially unverified...It is not yet proven that a single species of the two or three million now inhabiting the earth has been established
solely or mainly by the operation of natural selection.�13 Dr. H.W. Conn states: �Nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue.
From its very nature, evolution is beyond proof.�14 Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once supported the evolution theory, declared:
�The theory of evolution is impossible.�15
FROM THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Dr. R.E.D. Clark points out: �It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler
ones, the progress the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.
For this reason the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophy...�16 Dr. Edmund Whittaker of the University
of Edinburgh notes: �Modern physical theory has to adapt itself to the concept of creation.�17 Whittaker�s conclusion, as has been felt
by many physicists and chemists, is based on studies of the laws of thermodynamics which will be discussed in a later chapter. British scientist
John Tyndall writes: �There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch
as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it
are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited.�18
FROM THE FIELD OF MEDICINE
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, Dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest, says: �All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they
have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists, in order to maintain their
theory, to collect similarities and to neglect the numerous differences.�19
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications, states: �Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize
the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - the essential basis of Darwinism.�
20 Again from Dr. Wilson: �Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from
life and only from life of the same kind and type.�21 Dr. Malcolm Dixon, Biochemist of the University of Cambridge, points out: �All life depends
on enzymes. Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are made only from enzymes, and it is extremely difficult to see how they could be formed
in any other way. If then enzymes are made only by enzymes, how did the first enzyme appear? I have stated this rather crudely, but it is a real
difficulty, and there are others which are more formidable.�22 And last, from the German pathologist, Dr. Rudolf Virchow: �It is all nonsense.
It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific
knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction.�23

used with permission from the author

and

PROBLEMS FACING EVOLUTION
In this chapter are to be found over two dozen arguments lodged against the theory of organic evolution. These arguments involve problems
which evolutionists must face and overcome if they are to succeed on proving their theory. It is well to keep in mind that while these problems
expose the absurdity of evolution, they also establish the only alternative - special creation.
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
The renowned biologist, John W. Klotz, in his work Genes, Genesis and Evolution, points out that one of the greatest problems confronting
evolutionists is the origin of life.1 Evolutionists have no explanation for how life began. The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Evolution, however, by its very nature and when forced to its logical end, demands that life came from non-life, that at one time life arose
spontaneously of itself. Julian Huxley, one of the world�s leading evolutionists, admits the truth of this conclusion.2 To show the enormity of
the problem and the absurdity of a spontaneous origin of life, Dr. Douglas Dewar explains what must have taken place if life arose by accident.
�Eugene Guye estimated that the odds against the formation of one simple protein molecule by chance combinations of atoms of hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur are 100 multiplied by itself 160 times to 1.�3
One of the smallest living things known to man is a virus. It is made up of 600 stands of protein molecules. Each of these strands contains 400
amino acids. In order for this virus to live all of the amino acids in all of the protein molecules must be lined up in a specific order. If even one
of the amino acids is out of place the virus cannot live. Now what is the possibility of all these amino acids coming together simultaneously
at the same spot in the precise order needed? The chance of this happening is calculated to be 1 in 10240, or 10 followed by 240 zeros! This
means that it could never happen!!
The principle of philosophical necessity states: �Something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always was.� There never could
have been a time there was nothing! Something has always been in existence! Something is eternal! But what was it that always was? All things
known to man must fall logically into one of two categories - mind or matter. One of these must be eternal, one of these is the original cause!
Now which is more reasonable? 1) To conclude that matter has always existed, and that from lifeless matter life and intelligence came? 2) To
conclude that mind or intelligence has always existed, and that from this supreme intelligence matter came? Which is more rational, logical and
believable?
Evolutionists have no alternative but to say that dead matter has always existed - there is no escaping this conclusion. But such is contrary to all
scientific knowledge. It is easy to see why evolutionists are uncomfortable discussing the origin of life. This illustrates the embarrassing position
to which they are driven by their theory.
THE ORIGIN OF PROTEIN
The question of the origin of the first protein remains unanswered by evolutionists. It constitutes an insurmountable problem.
Proteins are formed by living substance, yet living substance cannot exist without protein. They are interdependent, one cannot exist without
the other. Evolutionists, however, admit that if their theory is true protein existed before living substance. So, the question is: �At a time when
life did not exist how were proteins formed?� Or is it not more reasonable, and easier to conform to scientific fact, to simply conclude that both
protein and living substance came into existence at the same time - perfect and complete!
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Of all laws of physical science none are more basic and certain than the two laws of thermodynamics.4
The first law of thermodynamics states that while energy can be converted from one form to another the total amount remains the same. The
second law states that although the total amount remains unchanged, some of this energy becomes non-reversible heat energy. Or to put it
another way, it becomes less available for use. Thus, the amount of useful energy in the universe is always decreasing which means there is
a tendency toward greater randomness. As expressed by the great physicist, James Jeans, the universe is like a gigantic clock that was once
wound up and is now running down.
Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that instead of tendency toward greater randomness in the universe there is a tendency toward a higher
degree of organization. So instead of the clock running down evolution has it winding up! This is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics.
As Dr. Henry Morris has observed: �It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of
uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a
�fact�) and the second law of thermodynamics.�5
In responding to this some evolutionists have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the living world. However, it
does, and in a very dynamic way! Such an argument shows the weakness of the evolution position. There is no possible way to reconcile evolution
and the second law. Evolutionists, therefore, are remarkably silent about this problem.
EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY GROUNDED
That evolution is not based on science is easily shown in the following principle - �The theory of evolution can be denied without denying one
single fact of science.� This principle has been set forth by many who disagree with the Darwinian theory and has gone unanswered. The logic
in this argument is readily accepted when applied to other pseudo-scientific theories. For example, one might teach the theory that rats arise
spontaneously out of old rags. Challenging that position another might say: �I can deny that theory without denying any fact of science.� Since
the supporter of such a theory could not show any point of science which must be rejected, it is concluded that his theory has no scientific basis!
But when evolution is tested with the same logic, the conclusion is simply brushed aside. The following syllogism establishes the argument: 1)
A theory is unscientific if it can be denied without denying any fact of science. 2) Evolution can be denied without denying any fact of science.
3) Therefore, evolution is unscientific.
ORIGIN OF ONE-CELLED ANIMALS
The amoeba and paramecium are two examples of one-celled animals. Though each consists of only one cell these two minute organisms
exhibit highly complex and altogether contrasting systems. The amoeba has only a thin plasma membrane around its body of protoplasm. It
has no definite shape but is constantly changing to suit its surroundings. Its means of locomotion is called amoeboid movement describing the
pushing out of a �false foot� (pseudopod) in the direction in which it is going. The rest of the body then flows along with this movement. The
amoeba obtains food by an engulfing process. It approaches the food and simply flows over and around it until it is absorbed into its body.
On the other hand, in addition to a plasma membrane, the paramecium, has a tough, yet flexible, outer covering called pellicle. In contrast to
the amoeba the paramecium has a definite �slipper-shaped� body. Locomotion is caused by tiny hair-like projections called cilia (totaling about
2500). Instead of engulfing food as does the amoeba the paramecium has a definite mouth pore.
Evolutionists teach that these two forms evolved from a common ancestor. And, of course, if evolution were true there must have been a common
ancestor for these two animals. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence of this - it is merely assumed by evolutionists. Considering the great
differences between these two protozoa it would take a stretch of the imagination to even visualize a �common ancestor� from which both
could have evolved. Then, too, the fact that there are over 30,000 different protozoa greatly amplifies the problem.
GAP BETWEEN PROTOZOA AND METAZOA
As already mentioned protozoa are animals with only one cell. They exist in abundance in the forms of sarcodina, mastigophora, sporazoa,
cilata and suctoria. Metazoa, or many-celled animals, constitute the next step in single animal complexity. However, the simplest forms of
metazoa, such as the sponges and coelenterates, are made up of literally hundreds of cells! Now the remarkable thing about all this is that there
are no animals to bridge the gap between the protozoa and metazoa. There are no animals with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, etc. cells and there is no
evidence that any such animals ever existed. And if evolution is still occurring, as evolutionists say is true, why are there no multi-celled animals
between these two groups living today?
SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF FOSSILS
Fossils are the impressions or traces of plants and animals found within various layers of the earth�s outer crusts. Literally millions of such
remains have been unearthed. In attempting to support their theory evolutionists appeal to the fossil record. And, indeed, this is supposed to be
the very best of evidence. Now if the evolution theory is true then certainly here, in the fossil record, evidence of the evolution of life should
be found in abundance. For example, at the base of the fossil record we would expect to find only the simplest of life forms. However, this
is not at all the case. At the very lowest point in the fossil record (Cambrian period) are to be found thousands of highly complex animals. In
other words, there is no slow increase of animal complexity in the fossil record. The evidence shows that complex life forms have been here all
along. The fossils reveal the sudden appearance of all sorts of life.
The earliest known sedimentary rocks contain no fossils...in the rocks laid down in the Cambrian period a host of well defined fossils occur in
many parts of the world, not only of simple, one-celled animals, but also of a great variety of sea creatures, many of them quite as complex as
anything to be found on the beach today. Fossils of no fewer than 5,000 different species have been found of jellyfish, corals, sea lilies and sea
cucumbers, worms, numerous kinds of crustaceans and a wide range of shellfish.13
If evolution were true one would not expect to find �well defined� assortments of complex animals at the base of the fossil record. Consequently,
for over one hundred years evolutionists have been trying to produce evidence of �pre-Cambrian� fossils, but with no success. Even Darwin
understood the conflict between his theory and the facts of the geological record. He could see that for life to have reached the complexity
found at the Cambrian level, life must have existed long before it was laid down. He admitted that if the evolution theory was true then long
before the Cambrian period was laid down the world must have �swarmed with living creatures.�14
All this is quite embarrassing to evolutionists, and especially so since the fossil record is the only means of direct evidence. The fossils are,
indeed, evidence that life appeared suddenly in all its splendor.
SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF FLOWERING PLANTS
In the previous argument it was pointed out that animals appeared suddenly in the geological record. However the same thing is also true in the
plant world. Of this, Klotz says: �One of the big problems of plant evolution, and especially of the evolution of flowering plants, is the fact that
the latter appear so suddenly in the geological record...Darwin called their origin an �abominable mystery,� and most evolutionists today still
agree.�15
There is absolutely no sign of gradual development in the flowering plants and no pre-existing forms from which they could have arisen. They
appear suddenly without warning. Evolutionists have nothing to explain this discrepancy with their theory.
NO INTERMEDIATE FORMS
As one looks at the world about him it is obvious that there are no living forms which represent intermediate or transitional links between
groups of animals. Many students of evolution are surprised to learn that the same thing is true of the fossil record. There are no missing links
and in spite of the zeal of many evolutionists to produce some, they are still missing! Actually, the whole chain is missing!
If evolution is true it stands to reason that the fossil record should be full of such transitional forms - forms of animals only partially complete.
But there are none. Every fossil remain exhibits an animal that was fully developed with all the features that distinguish the group to which it
belongs. It should be noted also that the lack of transitional forms is not due to the imperfection of the fossil record, but rather demonstrates
that such forms never did exist.
Because of the obvious lack of intermediate or transitional forms, some evolutionists have questioned the original �Darwinian� theory that life
evolved by small steps. As far back as 1944 George Gaylord Simpson, strong proponent of evolution admitted: Continuous transitional sequences
are not merely rare, but are virtually absent...Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance,
and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists.6 He went on to say: �It is thus possible to
claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution.
There is much diversity of opinion as to just how such leaps are supposed to happen.� 7
Since then many more leading evolutionists have expressed similar concern about the lack of intermediate fossils. In the mid 1950s Richard
Goldschmidt revised Simpson�s idea. By most evolutionists his view was labeled the �Hopeful Monster� theory. In the 1970s and 1980�s Niles
Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Gould of Harvard, two of the most highly regarded men in their fields, proposed
this same theory, this time calling it �punctuated equilibria� or �explosive� evolution.
So, according to this newer theory we are expected to believe that radically new and different forms of life were produced by �sudden leaps�
from one generation to the next. After all, what else can be offered to explain why there are no intermediate fossils? Though this new idea is
almost laughable, yet, it is being widely accepted.
To any thinking person it should be obvious that the lack of intermediate fossils has caused evolutionists to scramble for an alternative explanation
for how evolution could have occurred.
UNBRIDGED GAPS BETWEEN BODY STRUCTURES
The theory of gradual change from one generation to the next is the backbone of standard evolution. For example, within the framework of
evolution we are told there was gradual change from reptile to mammal and also from mammal to the cetacean (marine mammals such as the
whale). However, such supposed transformations are shown to be impossible by the broad gaps between the body structure of these animals.
Concerning the �change� from reptile to mammal, the lower jaw of the reptile, with as many as six bones on either side, articulates with the
skull by means of the quadrate bone. In the mammal, however, the lower jaw, with one bone on each side, articulates directly with the skull.
What possible steps could there have been to bridge this gap? It should be noted that there are no fossils revealing such intermediate stages.
Furthermore, it is impossible to even imagine how this structural gap could have been bridged. And this is not to mention the difficulty this
creature would have had in eating!
Regarding the so-called change from land mammal to marine mammal, Dewar says: �Such a transformation would have involved a line of
intermediate types in which the pelvis was too small to enable the creature to walk on land, while too large to permit it to swim (as does the
whale) by the up and down movement of its tail.�8 He further states that such a hypothetical structure would demand a movement of the tail
which would �crush the reproductive opening of the animal against the back of the pelvis.�9 And again there are no fossils of such intermediate
stages between land and marine mammals. It would be interesting, however, to see sketches of the skeletons of such intermediate forms at the
quarter, half and three-quarter stages. But, of course, this gap, as well as the gap between reptile and mammal, involves a structural impossibility!
ORIGIN OF VERTEBRATES
Another extremely difficult problem evolutionists are unable to explain is the origin of the vertebrates (or animals with backbones). Evolution
teaches that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates (animals without backbones), and this would seem to be the case if evolution were true.
But the differences between the two are so pronounced that it is impossible to conceive how one could have arisen from the other. As Dr. Klotz
points out: �However, there is a tremendous gap between the highest invertebrate and the lowest vertebrate. None of the invertebrates has anything
which remotely resembles the vertebral column, which is one of the outstanding characteristics of the vertebrate. Furthermore, the body
plan of the invertebrates is quite different from the body plan of the vertebrates. For one thing, the annelids and arthropods have a ventral nerve
cord. The vertebrates all have a dorsal nerve cord. The invertebrate nerve cord is solid; the vertebrate nerve cord is hollow. The invertebrate
heart is dorsal; the vertebrate heart is ventral. Indeed, it would seem that a vertebrate is in many ways an invertebrate turned inside out.�10
No fewer than a half dozen different theories have been suggested attempting to explain how this change might have taken place, which in itself
shows evolution at this point to be nothing short of guesswork. And it should be noted also that the fossil record contains no evidence whatever
which bridges these two broad categories of life.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMAL ORGANS
Bodies cannot properly function unless they are essentially complete. All complex animals have organs which are useless unless fully developed
and, which, if not fully developed, make survival of these animals biologically impossible. Throughout the world there are millions of
examples that clearly illustrate this.
SPINNERETS OF SPIDERS
The web-spinning organ of the spider is essential for its survival and continued reproduction. It does not seem possible that at one time this organ
was only partially complete, yet, evolutionists are forced to assume that very thing. But what useful function could there be in a one fourth
or one half evolved web-spinning organ? During all those millions of years of so-called evolution while the organ was developing, how did this
little creature survive? That this organ had to be perfect and complete from the very beginning is the only reasonable conclusion.
POLLEN �BASKETS� OF THE BEE
As the little bee flies from flower to flower pollen clings to the hairs on its legs and body and is transferred to pollen �baskets� on its hind legs.
These baskets are made by a peculiar arrangement of hairs surrounding a depression on the outer surface of the legs. On the middle pair of legs
at the joint is a short, projecting spur used to pack pollen into the pollen baskets. The hind legs have �combs� used to scrape pollen from the
hairy body while the middle pair of legs are used to scrape pollen from the abdomen and second pair of legs. When the bee reaches its hive it
uses a spur at the tip of each front leg to push the pollen out of the pollen baskets and into the cells of the hive. The whole procedure is efficient
and practical - a wondrous design indeed!
Pollen is necessary for the survival of the bee. Had there been a time when the basket was only half evolved, survival of the bee would have
been impossible. It had to be complete at the start. And to this is added the fact that the wings and legs of the bee had to be complete from the
start. What good would only partially completed baskets, wings and legs have been to this little creature?
Literally millions of similar and even more complex examples could be cited demonstrating the necessity of original perfection in animal
organs.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOR CROSS-POLLINATION
On the basis of the preceding argument it should be obvious that cross-pollination in many plants would be impossible without the completed
organs of various animals. The following examples serve to illustrate this even further.
YUCCA PLANT AND PRONUBA MOTH
The Pronuba moth flies to the Yucca plant (a bush of the western states), scrapes together a wad of pollen about three times the size of its head,
and carries it to another Yucca plant. Here the Pronuba lays eggs among the seed cells of the plant and packs this all down with the pollen wad
which, in turn, cross-pollinates the plant. The eggs soon hatch and the young moths eat approximately one fifth of the seeds. The remaining
seeds then supply the new Yucca plants. The survival and existence of the yucca plant depends on the proper function of the perfect and complete
organs of the Pronuba Moth. Likewise, the Pronuba could not survive without the proper function of the Yucca plant, since it is dependent
on the Yucca for reproducing offspring. Now, the question is, �What good would an incomplete Yucca plant be to the Pronuba moth?� Likewise,
�What good would an incomplete Pronuba moth be to the Yucca plant?� The fact is that both of them had to be complete and functioning
with perfection from the beginning.
LADY�S SLIPPER AND FLYING INSECTS
This is a flower shaped like a moccasin with a small hole at the �heel.� The insect goes into the flower but can only get out by way of the heel.
Here it brushes against the pollen grains and carries some with it when leaving. The insect then flies to another Lady�s Slipper and enters. Here
the pollen is rubbed off and cross-pollination takes place. In order for this to occur it is obvious that the Lady�s Slipper must be perfect and
complete and that the insects must, likewise, be complete, able to fly from flower to flower. However, according to evolution, both this flower
and flying insects were at one time incomplete. But of what use would a half-evolved heel be to the Lady�s Slipper and what good would partially
developed wings be to the insects. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that both were perfect from the beginning?
SALVIA AND BUMBLEBEE
Upon entering one of these flowers for nectar the bumblebee strikes the lower part of the stamen which brings the anther down on its back.
Pollen is dusted on its back and when it flies to another flower the pollen is scraped off by the same method, thus enabling cross-pollination to
occur. Had there ever been a time when the Salvia had no stamen and anther the survival of the plant would have been impossible. Likewise, it
would have been impossible had the bumblebee had only partially evolved wings. And, yet, evolution demands that at one time this flower was
not complete and the bumblebee did not have fully developed wings. But what good is a bumblebee without wings or wings only half-evolved?
Reason forces one to conclude that these forms of life worked together with perfection from the beginning.
PITFALL FLOWER AND INSECTS
This flower traps the insect in its bottle-shaped frame. It then dusts the insect prisoner with pollen and releases it. The insect then flies to another
Pitfall flower where cross-pollination occurs. But, this could never be accomplished if either the insect or flower were incomplete. It can
be clearly seen that perfection of organs in many plants and animals was necessary from the very beginning or survival or either of them would
have been impossible.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMALS FOR COLONIAL LIVING
Nature abounds with cases where two or more animals are found living together in what is termed colonial living. A great many of these arrangements
are highly intricate and cannot be explained in terms of evolution.
PORTUGUESE �MAN OF WAR� AND NOMEUS FISH
The Man of War (or physalia) is a marine animal which has an air-filled membrane acting as a float that stays on top of the water. Long poisonous,
tentacles hang down several feet beneath the water�s surface. The Nomeus fish lives among these tentacles and lures larger fish into this
deadly trap. The Man of War devours the �meal� and the Nomeus gets the scraps. Never is the Nomeus harmed by the Man of War. Of this
complex system, Meldau says:
The thinking person who is honest must admit that such an involved mechanism of symbiosis (such an ingenious stratagem) must be the work
of a master mind and could NOT be developed by �gradual� or �random� mutations. Evolution could work in the dark for a billion years and
not come up with such an amazing mechanism. Note, further, that to work the system HAS to be perfected from the beginning. A gradual evolution
into such an intricate arrangement would not work until completely �evolved.� And so throughout the ages of �evolvement� one would
be confronted with a meaningless and incomplete �nothingness.� But such impractical incompleteness is never found in nature.11
NECESSITY OF PERFECT AND COMPLETE INSTINCTS
There are literally thousands of animals possessing highly complicated instincts which could not have possibly developed gradually. Following
are a few examples.
WATER SPIDER
This little spider has the remarkable instinct of building a nest under water. It spins a silken airtight sheet near the bottom of a pond and fastens
it to some stationary object. The nest is then connected to a surface object by a silken cord. However, before the new nest can be inhabited it
must be filled with air. The spider entangles bubbles of air among the hairs of its body and pulls itself down the cord to the sheet of silk, under
which the air is released. This process is repeated many times until the water in the nest is replaced with air. It is in this underwater nest that the
young spiders are hatched.
The Water Spider�s survival depends on this remarkable instinct to build an underwater nest. Could there have ever a time when this instinct
was only half-evolved? No rational person could entertain such an idea.
And another amazing thing is that the young spiders carry on with this remarkable process, and do it without flaw the very first time, even
though they never see their mothers building the nests. If this instinct evolved, how did the water spider manage to survive through all those
millions of years during which this transition was supposed to have been occurring?
SOLITARY WASPS
Such wasps have an expert way of providing fresh meat for their offspring. The wasp paralyses its victims and stores them among the her
unhatched offspring, which, incidentally, she never sees. When the young wasps hatch they live on the fresh meat. When matured, these new
wasps will duplicate this amazing procedure. This instinct could not have come about gradually by the blind forces of nature. Neither could the
wasp have learned this instinct, for it never sees the parent paralyzing a victim.
MARTIN�S NEST
Dewar gives the following description of the Martin�s nest building ability. �The nest, which is attached to a perpendicular wall, is composed
of mud collected by the bird in its bill from a puddle, mixed with bits of straw to toughen the mud. In order to get a foothold on the side of
the wall, and maintain its position and plaster the mud to the face of the wall, the bird not only clings with its claws but also uses its tail as a
fulcrum by pressing its tip against the wall. When a layer of about half-an-inch has been attached to the wall the bird ceases work for the day, to
enable the mud to harden before more is added. Next morning the work is resumed.�12
In about ten days the nest is completed and perfectly suited for all the Martin�s needs. This nest building instinct, if only partially developed,
would result in disaster. What good would such an instinct be if only half-evolved? Through the longs ages, while this instinct was supposedly
evolving, how did the Martin continue its life process? There is no way to explain how such a unique instinct came about gradually. It had to be
complete from the beginning.
NO NASCENT ORGANS
Evolutionists often cite so-called vestigial (degenerate) organs as evidence of evolution. The claim is made that as life evolved various organs
within animals became useless and, as time passed, degenerated. Obviously, if evolution occurred this would seem to be the case, for this is
fundamental to the theory. (Vestigial organs will be taken up in the next chapter.)
However, just as important to the theory of evolution is the development of nascent (newly appearing) organs. It stands to reason that if animals
evolved, and in the process lost various organs, they would also have developed new and more useful organs. After all, how could new and
different animals have come about? And this is the very point at issue -- whether or not animals evolved into more complex forms. But where
are these nascent organs? There are no examples of such in any living specimens. Indeed, it would seem that evolution, if it ever occurred, has
somehow stopped. In addition, there is no evidence of nascent organs in any animals of the fossil record.
One evolutionist, defending his theory in debate, when pressed on this point, made the brilliant discovery that the corns on his toes were nascent
organs.16 Into what could these corns possibly evolve? To many evolutionists the problem of the lack of nascent organs has proved fatal.
It is significant that evolutionary indoctrinated textbooks have very little or nothing to say about such organs.
TESTIMONY OF THE ENDOPARASITES
There are many animals which spend most of their lives inside other animals. One such example is the Taemia Solium (tape-worm) which normally
spends its adult life in the human intestine. Of the tapeworm, Dewar says:
Its flat tape-like body is many feet long and is composed, for most of its length, of loosely connected segments, which in the forepart of the
creature become small and narrow, terminating in a rounded head provided with a crown of hooks and four suckers, by means of which it
firmly attaches itself to the wall of the intestine of its victim (or so-called �host�). Each of the segments holds male and female organs, which
produce the eggs. These eggs cannot develop while they remain in the intestine of the host. As soon as the eggs in any segment mature, this
breaks off and passes out of the host with the feces. After being ejected the segment decomposes and sets free the eggs it contains. These eggs
perish unless they are eaten by a pig. As soon as an egg finds itself in the stomach of a pig it begins to develop into a larva which is provided
with six spines, and is called a pre-solex. This, by means of its spines, forces its way through the wall of the pig�s stomach, its leathery covering
having by this time become dissolved by the juices in the pig�s stomach, which do not harm the pre-solex. On leaving the stomach the pre-solex
forces itself into the muscles of its host, in which it takes up its abode and surrounds itself with a protecting case and then develops at its hinder
end a bladder filled with fluid. In this condition it is called a solex. This is the final stage of the tapeworm, unless the part of the pig in which it
is located is eaten by a human being. When it finds itself in the intestines of a man the solex breaks out of its case, and by means of its hooks
and suckers attaches itself to the wall of the intestine, where it grows into an adult tapeworm.17
The problem for evolution created by this endoparasite is enormous. It must be explained how the tapeworm, living inside another animal,
slowly evolved over aeons of time from a worm which lived in the open. So much is involved here that such a transition would have been
impossible. For example: 1) How could a free-living worm have entered into the stomach of another animal and continued there alive, surviving
the body acids? 2) How did it continue to breathe and nourish itself during this long period of transition? 3) What is the explanation for the
change from a free-living worm with a digestive system, to this endoparasite which has no digestive system?
But the problem for evolutionists is multiplied when noting the complexity of the life cycle of the tapeworm. Evolution cannot explain the
change from the reproduction process of a worm living in the open, to a tapeworm which depends on two different animal hosts for reproduction.
The gap between the free-living worm and the tapeworm is too broad for evolution to close. And this is only one of hundreds of endoparasites
all of which present equally difficult problems.
SKELETAL ARMOR
Most evolutionists believe that armored animals evolved from soft, naked animals. It is assumed that somehow these naked forms developed
a need for protection, and that by gradual change over long periods of time armor appeared. But how and why did these animals develop such
a need? And does not the concept of need imply purpose? And how can this be made to harmonize with the evolutionary principle of blind
chance working in nature?
Then there are some evolutionists who take an altogether different position, saying that armored animals came first and that from these the soft,
naked forms evolved.18
Now who is to be believed? And, remember, this constitutes a gigantic step in the evolution story. If the fossil record contained any information
as to which evolved first then there would be no disagreement among evolutionists, which points out that the fossil record contains no evidence
of any such evolving. If evolution is so clear-cut and if the evidence is so overwhelming, as we are sometimes led to believe, why this glaring
discrepancy? (Similarly, there is disagreement over which came first, thin-skinned or armored fish.)19
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Photosynthesis is the means by which green plants convert sun energy into food. This process is carried on throughout practically the entire
plant world, even in the very simplest one-cell forms. Photosynthesis involves, in the words of Winchester: �A long sequence of very complicated
steps with many intermediate products being formed before the overall equation is completed.�20
Without laboring a detailed description of photosynthesis, let us simply point out that it is virtually impossible to imagine how this complex
mechanism could have gradually evolved into existence. It is such a remarkable system of processes that in order for it to work every step must
be functioning with perfection. It would be interesting to hear an explanation of how this profoundly complex network of processes evolved.
METAMORPHOSIS
Metamorphosis is a word describing the various stages through which certain animals pass before reaching their adult forms. The common butterfly
is a classic example. This little animal goes through four distinct stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult butterfly. It begins as an egg which, in
turn, develops into a worm like larva. The larva has a tremendous appetite eating almost constantly. When the larva reaches its potential growth
it goes into the pupa stage by spinning threads of silk around itself forming a cocoon. The transformation which occurs within the cocoon is
truly amazing, so amazing, in fact, that science has no adequate explanation for it. Meldau writes: �The encased caterpillar seems gradually
to melt into a jellied, shapeless mass; and before long, out of this melted caterpillar comes a gorgeous butterfly, having large, dainty, colored
wings, instead of the crawling, ugly caterpillar!�21
The entire system of metamorphosis is an embarrassing problem for evolutionists, for it is impossible for them to describe, or even visualize,
how such a process could have gradually evolved. Evolution simply has no explanation for metamorphosis as witnessed by the following. The
metamorphosis of the butterfly cannot reasonably be explained by any mechanical theory of evolution. The idea that this mysterious process, by
which a certain form of animal is changed comparatively suddenly into something entirely different, and which goes on with undeviating regularity
generation after generation, could have come about by the chance selection of chance variations or mutations, without plan and without
directing force, is so contrary to intelligence and so basically unscientific that it is...manifestly absurd.22
SOME ANIMALS HAVE NOT CHANGED
Informed evolutionists believe that evolution is inevitable, that it is a process of nature that cannot be helped, that there is a tendency in nature
for all life to evolve to higher forms. And this is certainly consistent with the overall picture of evolution. But, is evolution really inevitable?
Is there really a tendency in nature for life to evolve to higher forms? The answer is �No.� Abundant evidence substantiates the fact that from
the beginning many animals have not changed. At the base of the fossil record (Cambrian period, which evolutionists say was laid down about
500 million years ago) are found thousands of animals which are no different than their offspring living today. In view of this testimony one is
forced to ask: �Have animals ever really been subject to the organic change required by evolution?� Again, the fossil record and evolutionary
claims do not harmonize and the Darwinian theory has no explanation for this obvious inconsistency!
�EXTINCT� FORMS STILL LIVING
Another difficulty closely related to the previous argument is the fact that in the modern world several living specimens have been discovered
which, according to the evolutionary timetable, were supposed to have become extinct millions of years ago. This is true of both plants and animals.
In the plant world, for example, evolutionists once taught that the redwood, Metasequoiam, became extinct about 200 million years ago.
However, in 1944 a Chinese forester discovered living specimens of this tree in Central China.23 Likewise, for years it was thought that the
Coelacanth, a fish, became extinct at least 50 million years ago. However, in 1937 a specimen of the Coelacanth was taken alive off the coast
of west Africa.24 Since then many more of these have been discovered. And an even more amazing discovery is that of a mollusk, Neopilino
Galatheae. It was found in 1957 off central America at a depth of 11,700 feet.25 Evolutionists have claimed that this mollusk became extinct
over 200 million years ago!
Burdened with an already overworked theory, evolutionists are now forced to conclude that these forms, according to their own time-table,
remained unchanged for multiplied millions of years, while the rest of the organic world evolved. This conclusion is just a little hard to swallow,
and before these discoveries even evolutionists would have rejected such reasoning. How inconsistent can one be? Discoveries of these
so-called extinct forms have raised great suspicion regarding the extreme dates set by evolutionists.
NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES
Chromosomes are the threadlike structures in the nucleus of the cell. These microscopic threads are the determining factors of inherited characteristics.
Assuming evolution to be true, when ascending the evolutionary timetable, one would expect to see a gradual increase in the number
of chromosomes of plants and animals. However, this is not at all the case. The following lists show some plants and animals in the ascending
order in which they are supposed to have evolved, along with their corresponding chromosome number. Note the great fluctuations.
PLANTS
Algae - 48
Moss - 40
Pine - 24
Onion - 16
Lily - 48
Peas - 14
ANIMALS
Earthworm - 32
Crayfish - 208
Chicken - 18
Horse - 60
Cow - 16
Man - 46
Evolutionists are heard to say that this reasoning is irrelevant, that it has no bearing on the issue. But we can rest assured that had there been, by
some twist of circumstance, a gradual increase in the chromosome number of plants and animals corresponding to the evolutionary timetable,
evolutionists would be preaching it as proof of their theory! It is amazing how often unfavorable evidence is so easily avoided.
STABILITY OF CHROMOSOMES
All species of both plants and animals have fixed chromosome numbers.26 Man has forty-six chromosomes and each generation of man has the
same number. The horse has sixty and its offspring also has sixty. And this is consistent throughout the entire biological world.
Evolutionists rely heavily on the idea of inherited characteristic. However, since chromosomes determine the inherited characteristics of plants
and animals, and since the chromosome number of each specie is fixed, how, then, could evolution have ever occurred? What is the strange
force that keeps the seed within its bounds? �And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good.�27 Evolution cannot consistently
conform to this principle, and, needless to say, evolutionists refuse to even consider it.
THE BALANCE OF NATURE
Though it may at first seem to be insignificant, the balance of nature creates another real setback to the evolution position. The force of this
argument is best seen by noting that the world is full of small animals which, if not kept in check by higher forms of life, would reproduce to
such an extent that no life could exist. To put it another way, there never could have been a time when these animals existed without higher
forms of animal life existing at the same time! The following examples illustrate the point.
FROM THE INSECT WORLD
Most insects multiply at a tremendous rate. For example a single housefly can, in one season, lay as many as 500 eggs. Left unchecked, at the
end of one season the offspring of that single fly would number 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 or two hundred quintillion!
If all the offspring of a single pair of common houseflies lived to mature and reproduce, the earth would be covered beneath a layer of flies
nearly fifty feet deep in less than six months.28
Now the question is this: Could there have ever been a time when there were no higher animals to keep the housefly in �check�? It is reported
that a single spider will kill as many as 200 flies in its lifetime, and there are thousands of species of fly eating spiders. A single toad may eat as
many as 30 flies an hour. And a single swallow will eat hundreds of flies every day.
But what if there were no spiders, toads, swallows or other insect eaters? Surely disaster would soon overtake the world. Therefore, it is reasonable
to conclude that there was never a time when the fly was among the most advanced animals. And the fly is just one example among
thousands in the insect world.
FROM THE PROTOZOAN WORLD
The one-celled amoeba reproduces itself by means of fission. That is, it goes through mitosis and forms two cells of equal size. The time
required for this is about ninety minutes. Can we imagine how many amoebas there would be if such rapid means of reproduction were left unchecked?
In less than five years they would cover all known space -- if that were possible. Could there have ever been a time when the amoeba
existed without higher forms of animal life to feed on them?
And this is only one example of thousands in the protozoan world. But this is just a beginning. The argument based on nature�s balance extends
throughout the entire animal world and would require volumes for a complete review.
ORIGIN OF BIRDS
It is assumed by evolutionists that birds arose from the reptile world. However, this position faces several serious problems.
SCALES AND FEATHERS
Since birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles, evolutionists maintain that there was some kind of transition between reptilian scales
and feathers of birds. However, there is no evidence in the fossil record of such a transition having ever occurred, and no plausible explanation
for how such could have ever happened. In fact, the earliest known fossil remains of birds (which, incidentally, evolutionists place at about 165
million years) show fully developed feathers. Such evidence is admitted by knowledgeable evolutionists.29
In addition to this there is wide disagreement among evolutionists as to just how birds developed. Some contend that they came from two-footed,
long tailed reptiles. It is believed that these reptiles:
...while running, oared along in the air by flapping their front feet, which were, of course, not in contact with the ground. This oaring movement
could become more effective if the breadth of these anterior extremities were increased to give a greater bearing surface. This is believed
to have been accompanied by increasing the size of the scales along the arm margin, and these gradually developed into the feathers. Similarly
scales are thought to have developed along the marginal of the tail for the same reason, and these, too, gradually developed into feathers.30
Other evolutionists, however, believe that birds evolved from tree-dwelling lizards, that these lizards developed wings and feathers for gliding.
Now which view is to be believed? Did birds evolve from two-footed, long tailed reptiles or tree lizards? This, together with the fact that there
is no fossil evidence of any transitions from reptile to bird, illustrates the guesswork so prevalent among evolutionists.
COLD AND WARM BLOOD
Reptiles are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded. The reptile has three chambers in its heart and its temperature varies with the temperature
of its environment. The bird�s heart, however, has four chambers (as does the mammal) and has a built-in �thermostat� or heat control
devise by which it maintains a rather constant body temperature. Quite obviously the problem here is to explain this transition in terms of
evolution. But is such a transition possible? And how could an animal undergoing this drastic change even survive? How did a cold-blooded
animal with three heart chambers develop a bird heart with four chambers? What good would there be to a half-evolved �thermostat�? Theorists
are at loss for an explanation.
The required change from scales to feathers and from cold blood to warm blood places before the evolutionist another rather uncomfortable
difficulty.
ORIGIN OF MAMMALS
Standard evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. There are, however, great differences between these two areas of life. For
example, mammals have hair, mammary glands and are warm-blooded, while reptiles have none of these characteristics. The gap between these
animal groups is too broad even for evolutionists to bridge. The fossil record shows no evidence of a transformation between reptile and mammal
and honest evolutionists admit this.
ODD CREATURES
Nature is full of odd creatures which seem to have no place in the world around them. These animals are so unlike even their nearest �relatives�
on the evolutionary timetable they are profoundly confusing to evolutionists.
AUSTRALIAN PLATYPUS
This is one of the strangest animals known to man. It has a heavy, squatty body about a foot and a half long, weighs about four pounds and
lives in burrows which start beneath water level. It has fur like a beaver, a bill and webbed feet resembling those of a duck, spurs with venom
like a snake, large cheek pouches for holding food like a monkey or squirrel, short legs parallel to the ground like a lizard, lays eggs like a bird
and nurses its young like a mammal.
Now, from what type animal did the Platypus evolve? From a mammal? But mammals don�t lay eggs. Did it come from a lizard? But lizards
don�t have fur. Maybe it came from a duck. But ducks don�t nurse their young. Could it have evolved from a snake? But snakes don�t have
webbed feet. Did it come from a squirrel. But squirrels don�t have duck bills. Actually it seems to be a combination of them all! Clearly, the
Platypus defies the theory of evolution. It just doesn�t fit in! It appears as a distinct creation.
PRAYING MANTIS
The so-called Praying Mantis is an �insect nightmare� if there ever was one. It is commonly about 2 inches long. It�s spiny, ferocious forelegs,
its protruding eyes that pop out from its head that appears to be a caricature of a snake�s head, its long body and ambling gait, and its bony
�armor� suggest �a prehistoric reptile in miniature.� It has no voice, and lacks real ears.32
In nature the closest �relative� to the Praying Mantis is the grasshopper. But it is so far removed from even the grasshopper that no evolutionary
kinship can be claimed. It seems to be completely out of place in nature. From what did it evolve? The answer! Nothing! Nature displays many
such remarkably odd creatures: the cicadas, sea horse, plankton, sting ray, oyster, grunion, palolo worm, electric eel, tilapia, deep-sea squid and
climbing perch, to mention only a few. There is simply no place for these animals on the evolutionary tree.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
A final, but extremely important point to be made, is the principle of irreducible complexity. To a large degree this principle can relate to many
of the things already mentioned in this chapter. Simply stated, irreducible complexity means that the complexity of a functional system cannot
be reduced without destroying the system itself.
The common mousetrap, though simple in design, has a degree of complexity. It is made up of a platform, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar
and a catch, all of which must function properly in order for the mousetrap to work. If any of its parts are removed or rendered incomplete the
mousetrap is useless. Hence, every part must be in place and fully functional. The complexity of the mousetrap cannot be reduced.
Throughout the living world all animals and plants contain multiple complex systems. As with the mousetrap, in order for these systems to
function, every part must be complete. For example, the system of sight in man. Among other things, human sight is made up of the eyeball
(containing the cornea, the lens, and the retina), the optic nerve, the midbrain junction, nerve fibers and the occipital lobe. With all these parts
working together man is provided with the remarkable ability to see. However, if even one of these parts is removed or rendered incomplete
there can be no sight. Every part must be in place and fully functional. The complexity of the system of sight cannot be reduced - irreducible
complexity!
However, this is what evolution requires! Evolution demands that if the system of sight evolved, at some point the parts of the system had to
be reduced and, hence, less complex. There is no escaping this conclusion! The point is clear. There never could have been a time when any of
the complex systems of the living world were less complex? Yet, this is what evolution says has to have happened! Evolution and irreducible
complexity are mutually exclusive.
EVOLUTION BUILT ON ASSUMPTION
The theory of evolution is built on assumption. It is somewhat like an inverted pyramid made of blocks, with one block at the base followed by
two, these followed by three, and so on, with each block representing a step in the theory.
From the very base this inverted pyramid is weak because it begins with assumption. It is assumed that life somehow just sprang into existence.
One widely distributed high school biology textbook, when explaining of how life was supposed to have begun, in two short paragraphs uses
over a dozen expressions such as �could have come,� �might have been,� �assumed,� �might have produced,� �we can imagine,� and so on.33
The idea of an accidental beginning of life is the foundation block upon which the entire pyramid rests, yet even that block is made of guesswork!
Ascending the pyramid one can see many additional assumptions, a few of which have already been discussed. Time and space would be exhausted
if every argument unfavorable to evolution was presented.
As Morris says: �Its nature is coming more plainly into focus and can be discerned as that of a vast framework of deductions built upon the
foundation of a false premise.�34

again with permission from the author, a freind of mine

and

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
Another question often related to evolution is the age of the earth. For evolution to have occurred there had to be lots of time - extremely long
periods of time! This is a fundamental requirement of the theory, hence, evolutionists stretch the earth�s history just as far as they can. The
Bible, on the other hand, though not giving a date for creation, limits the time to thousands instead of millions of years. When this view is
proposed people often show surprise and even scoff at the idea that the earth may relatively young. But why? Simply because they have been
conditioned to think in terms of an old earth philosophy and have never considered anything else.
Many are surprised to learn that there is much scientific evidence pointing to a young earth. Note the following cases.
1. Earth Population - Using the standard population growth rate and applying it to the general time evolutionists claim man has been on the
earth, the projected population at present would be 105000. This is 10 followed by 5000 zeroes. However, calculations show that all known
space could only hold 10100. That�s 104900 people left over even after all known space is filled! Such a figure is so absurd it is not worthy of
serious consideration. On the other hand applying the same growth rate to 2500 B.C. (or the approximate time of the flood, when the man�s history
began anew) the population of the earth should be about 4.5 to 5 billion. Remarkable isn�t it!
2. The Earth�s Magnetic Field - T.G. Barnes, well-known for his unique research in this area, has shown that at the known decay rate of the
earth�s magnetic field it will be depleted by about 3900 A.D. Using this data and projecting back into the past, he has calculated that a maximum
age for the earth would be no more than 10,000 years.
3. Shrinkage Of The Sun - The sun is gradually burning up. Science can measure the decreasing diameter of the sun. At the present rate it is
calculated that just 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its present size. At that size it would have been so hot that the earth would
burn up! Further calculations reveal that only 20 million years ago the sun would have been the size of the earth�s orbit around it. And 500 million
years ago it would have been so large that the entire solar system could fit inside it! But remember, evolutionists claim the sun is several
billion years old! So, something is wrong with the evolutionary timetable! Something is drastically wrong! According to this scientific data the
earth could not be very old.
4. Hydrogen In The Universe - The amount of hydrogen in the universe is decreasing at a steady and rather rapid rate. It is constantly disappearing
and is not being replenished in any significant amounts. Now, if the universe is billions of years old the question is: �Why is there so
much hydrogen?� The amount of hydrogen should be greatly reduced! In fact, according to the vast age of the universe offered by evolutionists,
it should have been depleted long ago. Since it is known that the universe has an abundance of hydrogen this would indicate that the universe
(with the earth) is very young. Evolutionists are at loss to explain why there is so much hydrogen.
5. Helium In The Earth�s Atmosphere - It is known that helium, the product of disintegrating minerals, is accumulating in the earth�s upper atmosphere.
The rate at which this is occurring is measurable. Now if the earth is as old as evolutionists say, based on the known rate that helium
is collecting there should be enormous quantities of it in the atmosphere. However, this is not the case. According to the amount of helium in
the atmosphere the earth is no older than about 10,000 years. If the earth is excessively old where is the helium? The only explanation offered
by evolutionists is that helium must, somehow, be escaping from the earth�s atmosphere. Is there any evidence of this? No. That such a light gas
could escape the gravitational pull of the earth is ludicrous.
6. Ocean Sediment - Sediment (the collection of minerals, sand and small rock particles) is being continuously deposited on the ocean floors.
The rate of this deposition can be calculated. Using this rate of accumulation an approximate age of the earth can be determined. If the earth
is extremely old the ocean sediment should show evidence of this. However, the ocean floors reveal an average sediment buildup of less than
3000 feet, which projects an age for the earth at approximately 10,000 years.
7. Moon Dust - Dust from space is continually being drawn into the gravitational pull of both the earth and moon. Estimates of the amount of
dust accumulation can be measured. Since the earth has an atmosphere the dust cannot settle directly because of being washed by wind and water.
On the other hand, since the moon has no atmosphere to disturb the dust it accumulates directly, meaning there is a distinct buildup. Based
on the ancient age of the moon set by evolutionists it was projected that the dust should be fifty to seventy feet deep. This is why the early
lunar landing modules had wide �feet� or �pods� - so they would not sink down. However, what a surprise it was to find a layer of dust only an
inch or so deep. Indeed, the moon is very young. And since all agree that the moon and earth are the same age this means the earth is also very
young!
There are many other similar, equally impressive, evidences which point to a relatively young earth.

Wgaf

THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Because of a growing liberal trend in theological circles and a failure to honestly examine the evidence, some professed Bible believers have
attempted to reconcile belief in God and the Bible with evolution. Many have been conditioned to think that by rejecting evolution they would
be looked on as antiquated and outside the educated circle.
Out of this effort to reconcile the two views has come the theistic-evolution position. Those holding this view feel they can believe both the
Bible and evolution, hence, they endeavor to burn the candle at both ends. Here are some peculiarities of those who promote the theistic-evolution
position.
First, since they claim to believe evolution, they see themselves as intellectual.
Second, since they profess to believe the Bible they see themselves as flexible.
Third, to keep from having to reject the Biblical account they are forced to make serious modifications in evolution.
Fourth, in order to align the Bible with the evolution theory they are forced to make serious modifications in the Biblical account. (It is a wonder
why men will go so far out of their way to attempt to adjust the scriptures to a theory that is beyond proof!) The �middle of the road� stance
of theistic-evolution is looked on as absurd by both evolutionists and creationists. It has no credible position, for both sides from which it draws
support reject it!
Theistic-evolutionists declare that God created the first life and then used evolution to develop all other forms of life. However, if one can
believe that God created the first life, why is it so difficult to believe that He could create all life whole and complete? By its very nature the
theistic-evolution view makes it necessary to stretch the days of the creation week into periods lasting millions of years. However, for the following
reasons the Biblical record will not allow such a senseless interpretation.
First, each day is combined with a numeral - �first day...second day...third day...� In the Hebrew Old Testament whenever a number is used with
the word �day� it is always a normal, twenty-four hour day. There are no exceptions to this!
Second, each day is qualified with the expression �morning and evening� which is a Jewish idiom for the night and day (or light and dark) portions
of a normal day.
Third, in literature a word is always to be understood in its literal sense unless there is something in the context demanding otherwise. There is
nothing in the context of Genesis one even suggesting a figurative meaning for the word �day.� (The only reason men want to give a figurative
meaning to the word �day� is because they have already rejected a literal rendering.)
Fourth, the Bible clearly puts all creation within the time frame of a normal week! In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote of a regular seven-day week
and used the creation week of Genesis one as a model. �For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...�
There is no way the days of Genesis chapter one can be made to mean long periods of time. In addition, if each day represents many millions of
years, how can the following be explained?
� The earth was created on day one, but the stars were created on day four. However, evolution teaches that stars existed many millions of years
before the earth.
� The Sun and moon were created on the first day. However, evolution teaches that the sun existed millions of years before the moon.
� Vegetation was created on day three, but animal life was not created until day six. However, evolution teaches that both plant and animal life
evolved together.
� Both fish and birds were created on the same day. However, evolution teaches that fish existed millions of years before birds.
� Birds were created on day five, but reptiles were created on day six. However, evolution teaches that reptiles came before birds. The theisticevolution
view and the Biblical creation week cannot be harmonized.
� In addition, vegetation was created on day three, but insects were created on day six. If each day represents many millions of years how did
plants which are dependent on insects for cross-pollination exist during all that time?

and

FRUITS AND TENDENCIES OF EVOLUTION
Typical of many evolutionists is this statement from The Meaning of Evolution, by G.G. Simpson: �Man is the result of a purposeless and
materialistic process that did not have him in mind.�1 A more recent statement by the famed evolutionist, Julian Huxley, expresses the same
sentiment: �Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational thought. Darwin pointed out that
no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural
agency in its evolution.�2
On the cover of Gamaliel Bradford�s work, Darwin, is the statement: �The life of a gentle, tolerant and lovable man, who overturned the world
of thought, shifted the whole attitude of science, and upheaved the very foundation of religion and morality.�3 And, again: �He made hell a
laughing stock and heaven a dream.�4 Such statements reveal the true nature of modern evolutionary thinking.
Lying at the root of all evolutionary ideals is a basic anti-creation, anti-God attitude. It is principally a materialistic philosophy with nothing
to offer but doubt and despair. Most evolutionists have an automatic barrier that reacts at the very mention of the alternative to their theory,
namely, creationism.
That the theory of evolution is a negative and unproductive philosophy is shown by the following.
1. Evolution Is Non Beneficial To Science. Davis writes: �If anything good has come out of the evolution theory, it is certainly difficult to
detect it. And it is a self-evident truth, accepted by all thinking people, that a tree is known by its fruits.�5 Dr. W.R. Thompson states: �I am not
satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.�6 Thompson adds: �The success
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.�7
Research centered around the modern concept of the theory of evolution has contributed little, if anything, to scientific knowledge. One hundred
fifty years of evolutionary probing has not produced anything significant so far as true science is concerned and there are some who feel
that it has, in a number of instances, been detrimental to scientific progress.
2. Supporters Of Evolution Often Do Not Square With The Facts.
The theory, therefore, becomes a bias doctrine. In modern scientific circles it has become fashionable for evolutionists to say of others: �Why,
you�re not looking at both sides of the issue.� Now this may sound impressive to the unaware, but when the truth is known it is the evolutionist
who fails to look at both sides of the issue. When only favorable information is presented and when detrimental information is suppressed or
neglected, obviously the scientific process is being cast aside.
Evolution, of course, is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it was unproved and unprovable.8 But listen to the 20th
century�s leading exponent of evolution, Julian Huxley: �Whether or not we like it, Darwin�s theory is confirmed...thanks to Darwin we accept
evolution as a fact.�9 This illustrates how bias evolutionists are in their defense of the theory. But in spite of such a statement (which has been
echoed by many others) there are thousands of good scientists throughout the world who reject evolution. (The reader may want to again refer
to chapter 4.)
3. Evolution, To A Large Degree, Grew Out Of Atheism And Has A Tendency To Promote Atheism.
Evolutionists make a fetish out of what they call academic freedom. To them it means the license to teach anything that they want to, even to
the advocacy of those things which undermine the basic foundations of society.10
This seems to be the trend among many evolutionists - teach what you wish regardless of the consequences. And atheism, by way of deceptive
evolution, is one of those things being subtly advocated. In a pamphlet entitled Evolution Implies Atheism, published by the American Association
for the Advancement of Atheism, president Woosley Teller said: �The God idea cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of evolution.�11
Evolution stands in direct opposition to belief in God. This, of course, is admitted by all leading evolutionists. Real supporters of the theory are
quite clear and adamant when discussing this, for they realize there can be no reconciliation between the two. And, indeed, there cannot!
4. The Doctrine Of Evolution Creates An Atmosphere Tending Toward Immorality. When young people are led to believe that they are only the
result of an evolutionary process, that they are nothing more than advanced creatures possessing no soul, and that there is no God to whom they
will one day give account, what can be expected of their moral outlook? Some youth have said: �If we are no different than dogs or cats, why
should we believe in moral rules?� Where does this idea originate? It is not self-taught and it does not likely come from the home. No doubt it
is instilled through the subtle influence of evolution presented in the classroom and is a conclusion drawn from information found in science
textbooks. This attitude is typical with a growing number of youth. As a result with many there is no shame in declaring, �I don�t believe in
God.� Others feel no guilt when being sexually permissive. And yet others have no sense of remorse when becoming involved in violent acts.
Parents, educators, politicians and theologians are baffled when youth become so �animal-like� and are puzzled to find the cause. Then everything
is blamed but the real criminal - Godless evolution! When evolution is taught in the classroom and when youth are left with false,
misleading impressions, what else can be expected but a downward spiral in their moral outlook?
5. Evolution Has Been Instrumental In Producing Corrupt Systems Of Society. Communism is largely based on atheism and breeds in the atmosphere
of atheism. However, few are aware that Karl Marx, designer of the communist philosophy, drew heavily on Darwin�s concepts of natural
selection and survival of the fittest. Atheistic communism began with its roots grounded in evolution. As entomologist Geoffrey Taylor says:
�Darwin�s Origin Of Species and Marx�s Das Capital... heralded the two great secular faiths of modern times - Evolutionism and Communism.
Let me say at once that I believe both these faiths to be wrong; that each enshrines not a truth, but an illusion. Also they are in my opinion to
some extent connected and intertwined.�12 (Note: Marx requested that his book be dedicated to Darwin.) In connection with this Davis says:
�Since the adoption of the Marxian philosophy, Russia has consistently stressed the hatred of God and all forms of religion; Russia not only
denies the existence of God, but makes atheism �a necessary premise of the system on which its government is formed.�13
If one understands something of how ideas take hold of individuals and nations, he cannot doubt the influence of Darwin�s theory of survival of
the fittest upon the thinking of Nietzsche�s philosophy, and he accepted the principle that the few who rule should not be bound by any kind of
morality that would hold them down.14
Later, during the Nazi regime, leaders of Nazism capitalized on the concept of survival of the fittest and for several years systematically bred
men and women of the so-called �pure Aryan race� in an attempt to produce a �super-human race.� The connection with evolutionary ideas is
all too obvious.
When evolution is blindly accepted and forced upon people there is a tendency to do away with the individual. After all, if man is really nothing
more than animal what place does the individual hold? Such a materialistic philosophy as evolution leads to a purposeless life. Man becomes
just another cog in the wheel, an insignificant part of the human mass. This, of course, is but another way of describing state socialism, the
backbone of communism.
The United States will never be made communistic by a frontal attack on her ideology, but there is a good chance of bringing it in by the back
door of state socialism. As men fall more and more under the influence of the philosophies of evolution and atheism and as they turn away from
belief in the Supreme Creator, they cannot help but head down the road of corrupt government.
These brief observations of the fruits and tendencies of evolution are but a beginning point. Who could truly measure the evil which has already
resulted from this assumed theory? And who knows what added evil the future holds?

All used with permission from the author.

sorry Brent, I can read and think for myself. I did not and have not ever believed in evolution, I was insulted when taught the theory of evolution in school, but my friend who has studied and debated evolution for years has much to say about it. If anyone would like a copy of his book, I can get it for you.

I do believe you evolved from a piece of schit. Does that make me a evolutionist?

Defining evolution is important also

WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
The word evolution comes to us from the Latin �evolution� and simply means an unrolling or change. Under this definition there are a great
many things which can be labeled evolution: a child growing into an adult, a seed developing into a tree, weather changing from summer to
autumn, or day turning into night. These simple illustrations of change are in harmony with the fundamental meaning of the term.
This work, however, does not deal with the fundamental definition of evolution. Rather, it deals with a special use of the term sometimes
known organic evolution or Darwinism. Evolution in this sense can be defined as: The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals,
including man.
This special use of evolution, then, involves more than mere change, for it attempts to explain the origin and development of all life, and that,
by purely natural means. It begins with the supposition that life began spontaneously or by accident! 1 It then endeavors to bridge the enormous
gaps separating the various species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.
Evolution is not a science, and to so classify it is a major mistake. Technically evolution is not even a theory, although this expression is commonly
used. According to the scientific method a theory is an inference supported, at least to some degree, by observed facts.2 Evolution, as
shall be pointed out in the following chapters, is not so supported. What, then, is its proper classification? The most accurate description of
evolution is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a broad assumption based on nothing more than subjective observation. It is an �educated guess.�3 And
this is precisely what is involved in the evolutionary concept of life.

WHY IS EVOLUTION BELIEVED?
It is sometimes asked: �Why do so many educated people believe in evolution?� Dr. Henry Morris, who was once an evolutionist himself, gives
this concise and revealing answer: The writer is convinced, from having discussed the subject with hundreds of people, that the main reason
most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution. Very rarely is
such a person able to do more than repeat a few stock �evidences for evolution,� and almost never has he given any really serious consideration
to the question of their real implication. 1
From all outward appearance it would appear that the majority of educated people tend to believe in some kind of evolution. However, as
Dr. Morris implies, this widespread acceptance is not altogether based on objective thinking. In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution,
Doctors R.T. Clark and James D. Bales say: �Evolution is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as by
laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained
their education.�2 Again, they note: �So widely accepted is the doctrine of evolution that it is received by each oncoming generation for the
simple reason that each generation finds that evolution is a part of the scientific world outlook in which it is reared.�3
There is a strong trend in most educated circles to lean toward evolution even if one does not actually believe it. Clark and Bales mention
further that �the tendency to conformity is so great that...there are many people who will call white black in order to be in step with the times.�4
Dr. Thomas Dwight observes: �How very few of the leaders in the field of science dare to tell the truth as to the state of their own minds! How
many feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in!�5 Also, belief in evolution has apparently come
about due to an anti-religious, anti-Biblical bias. This does not mean that all evolutionists hold to this bias; no doubt some have honestly endeavored
to discover answers to questions about life without reflecting on God or the Bible. And, yet, among the vast majority of evolutionists
there is an undertone of resentment toward the Bible, especially the Biblical account of creation.
As far back as the days of Darwin this trend was apparent. T.H. Huxley, Darwin�s peer, said Darwin�s The Origin of Species was �anti-genesis.�
6 The ardent evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith declared: �Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative
is special creation and that is unthinkable.�7 Again, Huxley says: �It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of
creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.�8 The third annual report of the American Association
for the Advancement of Atheism, strong backers of evolution, said: �Evolution is atheism.�9 Dr. L.T. More of the University of Cincinnati said:
�Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation.�10 Dr. Theodore Schwarze
of New York University, pointedly states that evolution is �accepted by scholars and scientists because it categorically denies the word of God,
which they hate.�11 In his work, Evolution and the New Inquisition, Bales states: �If one is acquainted with the background of Darwin and
other evolutionists in the nineteenth century, he will realize that they accepted evolution not because scientific evidence proved it, but because
they had rejected the idea of creation by God, and had determined that all must be explained naturally.�12
Creation is the only alternative to evolution, and since supporters of the theory view the Biblical narrative as untenable, they are compelled to
turn to evolution.

Good lord

send in the midget before we get old

GDit learn to copy&paste



Jezuz H, i hate retards

Relis Brown, PHD in Philosophy, 1938.
Only published paper on Google scholar I could find from his was his thesis. Not much of a scholar.

John W. Klotz, in his work Genes, Genesis and Evolution
Published 1955...

Eugene Guye: 1866-1942. Did most of his work around the turn of the century.... or a 100 years ago.

Theodore Schwarze, nice quote from an apologetics book from 1942.

I could go through your entire list like this, and as usual, the young flat earthers can't give any modern evidence from a reputable scientist to support their views. You did however, do better one creationist I debated, he couldn't come up with an sources after 1912.

Well, hate away and see if I care. You and DumbA$$ must be buddies.

Of course I copied and pasted, from a friend's book that is thoroughly researched. The best info I have found. I thought evolution was a crock when I first heard it and I am not stupid enough to believe it. Nothing can be proven in my opinion as far as how old or young the earth is. Nothing about the age of the earth or how it started can be a scientific fact or a law, but I sure do not have to believe in can of BS like evolution. Ir cracks me up how many say evolution is a fact. Anyone can see the multiple flaws and if you read about it, most EVERY day what was a fact the day or week before is no longer a fact and not true.

antelope, Can you give any evidence that evolution is real?

ME CAN! ME CAN!


your dad jacked off on a petunia and here you are

I bet you read all that schit from a book you checked out of the library of the mental hospital you been Locked up in.

evolution is a crock. not true.

George, thank you for the apology. Since I believe there was no ill will in your heart, I accept it.

It appears to me, from the nature of your arguments, you are used to having these discussion it a more highly Christian acculturated area such as Iowa. Let me take a moment to deconstruct the flow of your logic, and you will see why they are less effective in other environments.

When you assert someone is a "fool" of course this takes on the tone of a personal attack. This will typically cause all except the most vulnerable to put up a tough resistance to defend the attack against their psyche. By asserting "I didn't say it, the Bible did", you are switching to a combination of circular reasoning (you must believe the bible because the bible tells you to), and an appeal to authority (authority of the bible). It's also an interesting way to disclaim personal responsibility for the attack, after all, you were just quoting the Bible.

From here you move to a threat, it the form of Pascal's wager. To begin with, Pascal's wager is a False Dilemma, it ignores other religions, other heavens, and other hells, it claims that believing costs you nothing. It also assume you can choose to believe, and the all knowing God cannot see into the heart of a person who just claims to believe just to make it into heaven. If the correct answer is Mormons, where does that leave you?

But underneath it all, it's just a threat, and nothing more.

It interesting to me how such a well meaning person, such as yourself can become so acculturated to the Christian doctrine that you fail to see the threats and logical flaws for what they are.

I suggest you start with something simple:

College Text Book, Life on Earth.

That might be what you do, but please don't project your methods upon me. Some of us prefer to examine the evidence, and let the evidence form our world view, not the other way around.

You schittin me ?

HH, I'd like to hear your take on this:

Disecting out the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe

Basically, by nature, an arrogant ad ignorantiam argument.

I saw no consideration given to the individual organism in the developmental (embryological) state. I can't tell you how many evolutionary "facts" I have seen in my life that are now in the dust bin of science history.


A. S., you are acting like a sophomore philosophy major, which is to say, an insufferable azz. Just saying.

Yea, that logic can be a real pain in the arse.

Antelope, how does that work partially evolved?
Irreducible complexity, look it up.

Evolution is one of the greatest jokes ever played of on the human race.

Dawkins is an idiot.

Ah yes, the old Michael Behe argument from ignorance/god of the gaps nonsense. As ridiculous as that argument is, it still only attempts to justify an intelligent design. Why would a YEC retreat to a deist position like William Lane Craig does when cornered?

Well show me one proven fact of vertical change from one species to another. Not horizontal within a species, but verictal from one to another. Just one.

Yea, the argument was originally put forth by William Paley somewhere around 1802 to 1804 as the "watch maker" argument. It's interesting how apologist keep going back to the same centuries old flawed arguments. Here's a dissection of your misnamed "irreducible complexity" argument. The proper name is "Interlocking Complexity", but since that term didn't come around until 1918, I'm sure it was much too late in history for you, complete with references:


Introduction

Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly � and here's why.

"Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.

Behe's flawed argument

Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this:
� (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
� (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
� (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.

Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.

The Mullerian two-step

With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's "irreducible" conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor:
1. Add a part.
2. Make it necessary.

It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and gradually from a simpler, functional precursor. And this is exactly what Behe alleges is impossible.

As a scientific explanation, the Mullerian two-step is extremely general and powerful, since it is independent of the biological specifics of the system in question. In fact, both steps can happen simultaneously, in a single event, even a single mutation. The function of the system can remain constant during the process or it can change. The steps can be functionally beneficial (adaptive) or not (neutral). We don't even need to invoke natural selection in the process � genetic drift or neutral evolution will do4. The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both.

A historically and technically appropriate name for IC: "Interlocking Complexity"

For the preceding reasons, compelled by both scholarly ethics and scientific accuracy, I suggest that we avoid reference to "irreducibly complex" structures using Behe's misnomer. Rather, I propose the term "Mullerian interlocking complexity" (MIC), terminology similar to that used in H. J. Muller's much earlier evolutionary analyses of the same molecular phenomenon (Muller 1918; Muller 1939).

Example 1: The stone bridge

A clear example of the Mullerian two-step is given by a stone bridge. Consider a crude "precursor bridge" made of three stones. This bridge spans the area needed to be crossed and is thus functional. For step one of the Mullerian two-step, a part is added: a flat stone on top, covering all precursor stones. Whether this improves the functionality of the bridge is irrelevant � it may or may not, the bridge still functions. For step two of the Mullerian two-step, the middle stone is removed. Voil�, we have an irreducibly complex bridge, since the last step made the top-stone necessary for the function.

The precursor bridge: three stones.
[Figure 1: Three square stones]
Step #1, add a part: the top-stone.
[Figure 2: A cap-stone added to the three-stone bridge]
Step #2, make it necessary: remove the middle stone. As promised, we now have an irreducibly complex stone bridge. None of the three stones can be removed without destroying the bridge's function.
[Figure 3: The middle stone removed]
Example 2: How to eat pentachlorophenol

An irreducibly complex system has evolved in bacteria within the past 70 years.


Footnotes

1: Behe has defined his usage of "irreducible complexity":


"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. "
Behe 1996 p. 39.


"... 'irreducibly complex' means roughly that if one removes a component from a system, function is lost; ..."
Behe 2001 p. 686.
Back
2: H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a "molecular machine".


"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..."
Muller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original)


"V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution

"... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."
Muller 1939 pp. 271-272.
Back
3: Behe explains why he imagines "irreducible complexity" is a barrier to gradual evolution:


"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."
Behe 1996 p. 39.


"Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory."
Behe 2002.
Back
4: H. Allen Orr has explained Muller's explanation for "irreducible complexity" in several articles in the Boston Review criticizing Behe's and William Dembski's writings. Orr has emphasized the adaptive possibilities in the Mullerian two-step (i.e. improvement of function at each step). However, the mechanism is more general and does not even require selection, a point that Muller himself made originally, 50 years before neutral evolution was found to be important in molecular evolution.


"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
Orr 1996

"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. "
Orr 1997
Back

References


Behe, M. J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, Touchstone.

Behe, M. J. (2001) "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Biology and Philosophy 16:685-709.

Behe, M. J. (2002) "The challenge of irreducible complexity." Natural History, 111(3):74.

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dembski, W. A. (2004) "Irreducible Complexity Revisited." Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) 3.1.4, November. [PDF]

Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499. [Free Text, Genetics Online]

Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.

Orr, H. A. (1996) "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again)." Boston Review, December 1996/January 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review]

Orr, H. A. (1997) "Is Darwin in the Details?: H. Allen Orr Responds" Boston Review, February/March 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review]

Rhagoletis flies just to pick a particularly interesting and historically important pair of species. Guy Bush's inspiration for teasing out the details of sympatric speciation.

Nice personal attack.

Did you learn that in Sunday School?

still no proof. I want to see vertical change between species. Horizontal change within a species happens, no doubt about that. Show vertical change.

Antelope, personal attack? Really? I ask a question, how does evolution work partially evolved? Explain it. I am very familiar with the way evolutionist work. Anything that supports their assumptions (not facts) then they will promote it but if something is found or shown to disagree with evolution, it is buried, disreagarded, etc. even if it is a solid fact. Hard to believe in anything that the supporters cannot look at all the facts.

Again, asking a question, how does evolution work partiall evolved? where is proof of vertical change from one species to another?

HH, I guess you've never heard of Brent's Rhagoletis flies?
If you are familiar with them, please explain how they fail to meet your criteria.

If you want more, here's another 300, and this is just up to the 70's. We have even more examples now.

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Selection-Wild-MPB-21-Endler/dp/0691083878

Sorry, natural selection is NOT evolution. Show me a horse becoming an elephant, a rock turn into a fish, whatever else that is crazy that evolutionist claim. Mutation is not evolution either. Before you can argue evolution a definition needs to be established. That is one of the main problems, you cannot even get "scientist" to agree on a definition.

Natural selection is one of two processes by which evolution occurs. Do you disagree with that?

No evolutionary biologist says that rocks turn into fish. Sorry, you are just making stuff up. Again.

Evolution is very very well defined. As you know. Why do you continue to troll like this?

So, please tell us about the hoax that is the genus Rhagoletis.

You seem to be very nonresponsive.

How about a Deer becoming a Whale?
Start at 22:30

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CW9G2YVtBYc#t=1352s[/video]

What do you mean evolution does not say a rock turns into a horse? Well maybe not exactly that, but doesn't evolution say that living things came from an exploding star, etc. (I have watched shows and read about all the theories of how life started and they all are a crock of crap) until someone shows how life comes from nothing. Evolutionist twist and distort and assume and guess and since we see this then this happened until what they thought they saw turns out to be a mistake so now is happened another way and today the earth is 1 million years old, tomorrow it is a billion years old, then it is 500 million years old and this life form came about here from this inanimate object, etc. I could go on and on. Nice exact science evolution is.

Headhunter, now you are changing topics. We were discussing evolution, and when you were unable to respond to Brents discussion regarding a specific species, or my examples of extreme change, you changed the subject from Evolution to Abiogenesis. You then switched from Abiogenesis to Cosmology.

If you wish to admit defeat on the subject of evolution, we can then move on to other subjects such as abiogenesis and cosmology.

No I am not changing topics.

Tell me what you think evolution is.

This is what I think is meant by evolution. This is copied from my friend's writings and defines it better than I can.

The word evolution comes to us from the Latin �evolution� and simply means an unrolling or change. Under this definition there are a great
many things which can be labeled evolution: a child growing into an adult, a seed developing into a tree, weather changing from summer to
autumn, or day turning into night. These simple illustrations of change are in harmony with the fundamental meaning of the term.
This work, however, does not deal with the fundamental definition of evolution. Rather, it deals with a special use of the term sometimes
known organic evolution or Darwinism.

Evolution in this sense can be defined as: The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals,
including man.

This special use of evolution, then, involves more than mere change, for it attempts to explain the origin and development of all life, and that,
by purely natural means. It begins with the supposition that life began spontaneously or by accident!

1 It then endeavors to bridge the enormous
gaps separating the various species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.
Evolution is not a science, and to so classify it is a major mistake. Technically evolution is not even a theory, although this expression is commonly
used. According to the scientific method a theory is an inference supported, at least to some degree, by observed facts.

2 Evolution, as
shall be pointed out in the following chapters, is not so supported. What, then, is its proper classification? The most accurate description of
evolution is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a broad assumption based on nothing more than subjective observation. It is an �educated guess.�

3 And
this is precisely what is involved in the evolutionary concept of life.

my main focus is on the following

The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals,
including man.

Craziest and most unproven statement ever as far as I am concerned and until concrete evidence comes around I am amazed that anyone could believe it.

When you lack basic knowledge about what the debate is about and cannot articulate what you do know, well...... you may as well call a friend.

Too bad that the friend you called is as far behind the curve as you are.

Go back to the video I posted above, and instead of starting at 22:30 where he blows you "no intermediate fossil" theory out of the water, start at the beginning where he lays out the 5 pillars of Evolution and walks through them step by step. He nicely lays out the current scientific understanding of evolution. Evolution it self is not an separate science, but evolution is the underlying theory that pins together the whole of the science we call BIOLOGY.

All evolution can say, scientifically, is this is how we believe life descended from life.

Evolution as Science cannot say how life began nor whether or not the process of evolution was directed. And as soon as "evolution" attempts to dogmatize such things, it is no longer Science but is Metaphysics.'

And metaphysically speaking, the belief that the material world is all that exists is Philosophical Materialism.

In either case, that of Theistic origins and directed creation or Atheistic Materialism, both are based on faith/belief, nothing more. Both positions are, fundamentally speaking, a religion, a world-view. And, believe me, there are fundamentalists in both camps.


The dispute is irresolvable. To an outsider, the scientific materialist looks like a closed-minded fundamentalist dogmatically (even angrily) asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees.

To a scientific materialist, all others seem like the dogmatists that have clung to old beliefs and inhibited the progress of mankind since time immemorial. Furthermore, scientists are something like psychopathic serial killers in their single-minded and obsessive need to seek out problems and solve them (and thank God for that).

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, you know? And they don't take kindly to people telling them that some problems are immutable, unsolvable, non-rational mysteries. It is not only a personal insult but, since most scientists are staunch humanists, it is an insult and challenge issued to mankind from the depths of the universe itself; another defense thrown up as nature attempts to elude its master. Yes, there is something Luciferic in all this. And that's OK, too.

PS if you are going to blatantly rip off another forum, please provide proper credit to the original author and a link like this:
http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=15985&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

I don't think you've posted a single original thought in this thread.

And how do you know that I am not in fact Marcus . . ?

Be careful . . . veeeerrrrry careful . . .

Are you?

Tell you what . . you PM me your real name and personal email, and we'll have a little conversation . . .

67 posts all on theology. You don't appear to be an actual member of the gun culture, so at this time, I will decline your offer. Any conversation you wish to have we can have hear.

Wow . . you are quick on the trigger, aren't you?

Bet I've busted more caps in my lifetime than you have . .

Know what happens when you a-s-s-u-m-e . . . ?

Now a question for you . . did you participate on the old Spengler forum? If so, who were you?

More caps, doubt it.

No, I was not on the Spengler forum.
This has been my primary ID for many years.

Well, if you'd come out of the bushes we could find out, couldn't we . . ?

Says the pot to the kettle.

to get back on tract, it looks like there's two competing creaton stories? one is a supernatural being who spoke, and the creation occurred. the other is that the evolution Story holds sway?

if so, that is two main competing stories, how we ever resolve our differences> i mean, we all know my Story is better than your Story.

science, metaphysical, divine, there's a lot to discuss here. i feel a lot of heat, but see very little light.

perhaps we'll never know for sure?

Sure you'll know . . just like you know now . . to each his own, it's as simple as that.

As for two stories, they are not divine creation versus evolution, they are Theism versus Philosophical Materialism.

Evolution has nothing to say about creation.

I love it when nonsense is cloaked in Post Modernism verbiage.

Nothing to say, except that the literal 6 day story is not true.

Olaf, I have not asked you about your version of Christianity. Do you believe the creation story to be a literal truth, and that the earth is less then 10k years old?

when the Coming of the Cosmic Christ finally manifests itself, we can carry on from that point forward, right?

i mean, we've got competing Stories. it's as simple as that.

should we hold our breath until we pass out, and let Nature take it's course?

seriously, science evolves or descends from religion, doesn't it?

to put the whole thing a bit more succiently, we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we are going next?

that's philosophy. theology is another subject entirely. as is psychology and physics.

so, given all the add-ins, where are we, exaactly? anyone know for sure? i'd say they don't have a clue, but do have the best of intentions.

Gus, why don't you try telling us what we do know?

we are exactly where we started Gus - and you are as hopelessly lost as ever. But that's no real surprise

Next??????

What makes you think there is any "next"?

To sum up:
Brown is an unknown person, of unknown vintage, whose quote is not critical of evolution.
Hebbert is an unknown, of unknown vintage, whose quote looks suspiciously out of context.
Clark was a biologist, but generations out of date.
Flemming was an engineer, with no apparent education in biology who wrote before 1945 so is also out of date.
Drummond, the great, a 19th century evangelist and lecturer, said nothing about evolution.
Blum said nothing critical of or relevant to evolution.
Fuller could just as well been criticizing those who think chemistry is an accidental process and said nothing about evolution.

Wow. I can hardly wait for the geologists.

Cheers,
Wolf

First, there is only one confessional version of Christianity, and it is summed up in the Apostle's Creed, which all Christians�Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant�confess in unison. Within those parameters, there are various degrees of emphasis and various issues of interpretation.

Personally, I believe the first chapters of Genesis are historical myth that defines exactly what happened though not necessarily in that exact way.

The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS poses no obstacle to biological evolution. Your quote with comments added in red:

"Of all laws of physical science none are more basic and certain than the two laws of thermodynamics.4 The first law of thermodynamics states that while energy can be converted from one form to another the total amount remains the same. The second law states that although the total amount remains unchanged, some of this energy becomes non-reversible heat energy. True in a closed system. Or to put it another way, it becomes less available for use. Thus, the amount of useful energy in the universe is always decreasing which means there is a tendency toward greater randomness. Entropy is not the same as randomness. As expressed by the great physicist, James Jeans, the universe is like a gigantic clock that was once wound up and is now running down.
Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that instead of tendency toward greater randomness in the universe there is a tendency toward a higher degree of organization. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of living things and has nothing to say about the randomness or organization of the entire universe. So instead of the clock running down evolution has it winding up! This is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics. Wrong! The earth is not a closed system. There is constant energy input. As Dr. Henry Morris has observed: �It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of
uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a �fact�) and the second law of thermodynamics.� It is hard to believe that a PhD engineer has such a poor understanding of thermodynamics. In responding to this some evolutionists have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the living world. However, it
does, and in a very dynamic way! Such an argument shows the weakness of the evolution position. There is no possible way to reconcile evolution and the second law. Evolutionists, therefore, are remarkably silent about this problem."

They aren�t silent about it at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html. Let�s see how they reply to Henry Morris.

�The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible�. -- Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
1.The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
�the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
�entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
�even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2.The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An inane misstatement of thermodynamics is not a problem for the ToE.

Regards,
Wolf

Olaf, today there are over 30k different varieties of Christians in the U.S. with widely varying beliefs. As we can see from the qualification in your above statement " Confessional version of Christianity.".

In addition, by subscribing to the historical myth version of Genesis, you've created distance between yourself and the YEC science denying version of Christianity.

Then there is the whole question regarding the nature of Jesus. Was he a historical figure or does he exist only in spirit? Did he perform miracles, or are the miracles allegories. How about his relationship with God. (the Trinity vs. non-Trinity question etc.)? Do all Christians go to Heaven, of just those who follow the practices of that particular sect?

Since each of these visions of Christianity can inform a persons world view, we can have Christians with significantly different practices, and vastly different world views.

If my few questions about the tomb we can see the assertions moving from "there are not contradictions", to "we know the eye witness testimony is unreliable, and the Gospels were not written by the actual eye witnesses, and we cannot provide a direct link between the witnesses and the writers".

That' a big move in the span of just a couple of question, but you willingness to make these concessions is informed by your version of Christianity.

Tell you what, good buddy, you believe what winds your clock, and I'll do the same. If you ever grow up to where you can respectfully engage others of different beliefs rather than try to piss in their face, send me a PM. Until then, you're a waste of time.

So, saying all Christians are not the same is being disrespectful?

Help me understand that?

He's just pissed that you called out his cut and paste job.

It's my opinion that you don't wish to understand anything, that you only wish to argue and abuse, and that you need to grow up and get a life.

The kind of crap going on here amounts to little more than a circle-jerk.

Olaf, you seem to be far more guilty of your own accusations than almost anyone here.

You should listen to yourself - really.

Brent, I feel your pain, trust me, I do, and trust me, I've been party to more of this kind of crap than I care to admit or remember. One hopes for earnest discussion, but, alas, this is the way it always ends up.

Virtually no one here is interested in polite, educated, rational discussion of ideas. Instead what we have are proponents of two, mutually-exclusive world-views engaged in a pissing match, each intent on trying to make the opposite view look like a**holes.

And if that offends you, don't ever, ever read John Calvin or Martin Luther. They'd knock your socks off with their plain-speaking:

"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels." �John Calvin

Wow, discussing abuse:

Your the one who called me(scientists) a psychopath and started asking where I live.

Brent, are you getting the picture yet . . . ?

Don't ever read Gould or Lewontin or Fisher or Haldane or a gazillion others, heaven forbid (pun in there somewhere) Darwin. They will be scarier to you than Calvin or Luther.

Frankly, Olaf, you seem a lot more like what you complain about than anyone else does. At least to me.

Sorry to disappoint, Brent, but I have read Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Charles Darwin.

Darwin is fine. Gould and Dawkins are Materialist fundamentalists . . too stupid, dishonest, and epistemologically unconscious to be worthy of comment.

You continue to make my point for me.

You continue to make your own point. You obviously did not understand what you read. And I'm expecting that when you said you read those authors you read their primary literature not their stuff for the lay public as it were.

i have spoken at length with two Rabbi's that are highly regarded and well trained seminarians. they do not believe in a "next" at all. they think that part is all Greek as far as they are concerned.

I would heartily agree with the good Rabbi's.

Eternity, Heaven, and Hell were invented by the priesthood as the carrot and the stick which kept the coffers overflowing.

And then there is this

Religion was invented to control and extort from the peasants.
Government evolved from religion.

Science came about in a natural manner as man strove to understand and manipulate his environment so that he and his tribe might be warmer, better fed, better defended, and well, to put it simply, more wealthy!

If a certain load from Federal consistently gave me bang-flops and bug holes, I couldn't care less if somebody wrote that it was loaded with a mix of talcum powder and corn meal.

Results trump theories.

once upon a time somebody said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. but, in practice, they are not.

headhunter,
Onward to your next quoted canard:



Actually one must deny an ark-load of facts in order to deny biological evolution.

It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
These are the facts of evolution, ways which we can sufficiently prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. What facts can you show me that will distinguish your preferred beliefs from the illusions of delusion? � AronRa

Oh, and a syllogism that begins with a false premise is invalid.

Regards,
Wolf

Wolf, where is the evidence. I see writing, but no back up. I can write "it is a fact that my rifle shoots 10,000 feet per second" but just because I write it does not make it a fact. Mutations are not proof of evolution per the definition of "life coming from nothing".

I have seen basically what you wrote many times, it PROVES absolutely nothing.

As far as this thread is concerned, creationism or intelligent design do not exist. All I am interested in is to see concrete evidence of evolution.
meaning proof of the following

The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals,
including man.

Mutation, natural selection, etc. do not even come close to proving anything about evolution as defined above.

You have been offered it and you continue to ignore it. You are not responsive to anything anyone posts in response to your posts. Do not expect much more of anyone's time.

Also note, that you have not offered one iota of evidence that evolution is a hoax as you continue to insist. Why do you feel you are exempt from the need to back up your words with evidence?

Basically, you are just trolling. So, I think you can stick a fork in this thread.

Evolution? Well....my right grip is considerably better than my left.

quite honestly, this whole debate between and among creationists, intelligent design and evolutionists has about worn me out.

i sometimes wonder if life is more complex than thermonuclear reactions. but, even if it is, life wouldn't be possible "as we know it" without said reactions.

it's kinda like arguing that the humans are the most complex lifeform, when in fact an argument could be made that trees occupy that niche slot.

i'm wondering if we were 4 standed DNA creatures, we'd see things far differently than we do now?

I have offered much. Evolutionist ignore anything that does not agree with what they think happened. If evolution is a fact, why are there so many facts that completely disagree with it? The most convincing to me is irreducible complexity. Explain how things live or survive PARTIALLY evolved. Also, when evolution theory is used to make a decision it is wrong, (moon dust) but that fits right in with evolutionist, if it does not agree they ignore it.