syrup:

Hi KAG,

Okay. Do natural causes (as far as "origin" of the world go) assume a "Creator" in the theory of evolution?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question - for one thing it reads wrong. There is no promotion or preclusion of metaphysical creators in the theory of evolution: it's silent on the existence of such beings - they are out of its jurisdiction, same with other science theories. Arguments that assert that gods aren't necessary for parsimony can be based around the theory, but that's about it (arguments of that kind shouldn't be mistaken for the science theory itself).

I'd like to see some pointers that it does.

Pointers that it doesn't preclude creators? Easiest one: many theists accept the theory of evolution.

That's true - and I don't think I have made them quite the same (even with references to "no god".

You implied that they are synonymous.

I understand that - and that is why I was trying to very carefully note that I was referring to those who are passionately describing themselves as "darwinists" (and thus ascring to the "darwinist evolution" concept). There are as many who are non-theistic evolutionists who rule out "God" in their postulations, though.

"Darwinist" is such a "bleh!" term. Darwin was a theist at the time he wrote the origins of species, though. I agree that there are many non-theistic evolutionists.

But he didn't quite hold that view throughout. I may be wrong - and possibly so; but that would be because his thesis do not seem to lean towards that position later on.

If I remember correctly, he lost his faith because of the death of his child. I should look that up - I'll look it up later.

That is what has held my attention so far - the "crevolution" thingy. It's hard for me to see where they play the romance there.

It wasn't the crevolution thing that was wrong it was the assertins that came after.

Lol. . . _{your sense of humour disarms me often times}.

Being a religious person i definitely believe in "Creation"

@syrup
Thanks for your submission, I shall treat the issues you raised one by one.

syrup:

Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation".

Here your problem is that you base your argument and view point on the proponents of evolution rather than the theory itself. Proponents are not always right. People read meaning into theories to suit their personal beliefs. I don't care what proponents say but I care about what the theory say. Research on evolution itself or read The the origin of species by Charles Darwin himself. The theory does not deal with God, it didn't prove the existence of God neither did it disprove it. It simply deals with how species evolved over time. Proponents use this theory and many other theories to fight believers but such war or fighting is only foolishness because the bible never claimed to be a scientific book. The bible's story of Creation deals with the issue from the spiritual perspective. It is also foolish to use the bible to change scientific theories. It's like trying to solve a chemistry problem with sociology. Read the theory of evolution yourself or talk authorities, avoid believing to enthusiasts that look for any reason to disprove the existence of God.

syrup:

The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

Here you are very wrong. To state that evolution is opposed to creation is only a view and not a fact. The statement is based on your's and some other people's opinion which cannot be scientifically proved. To say that evolution is opposed to creation is like saying that the study of the development of the zygote is opposed to creation.  We all started as single cells-- zygote-- which multiplied and grew over time to a human beings. We all agree that this statement does not oppose creation. Then whats the difference when applied to humankind -- the whole species started as very simple organisms which multiplied, adapted and developed to present day species. This is a natural process and there is nothing stupendous in it. No scientist can prove that this natural process started by chance neither can they prove otherwise. Actually the scientific laws actually disprove the notion of chance. Science operates on well established and inflexible laws which rules out the possibility of chance in any natural happening. Therefor it is unscientific to speak of chance. I can elaborate on this if you want.

syrup:

(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

Here your definition of evolution is very wrong because evolution is not a study of wheather there is a creator or not. Therefor the definition should not include "without a creator." Here is a better definition:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Your definition of creation is okay. Like I said earlier,nobody can prove even scientifically that the process of evolution was not set in-place deliberately and guided deliberately. Infact there are many evolutionists who have arrived to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that evolution would have taken this curse if it wasn't guided to achieve this purpose. I can elaborate later on this if you want me to.

syrup:

How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Some Darwinian evolutionist draw their conclusions based on what they have studied. However, this remain personal conclusions. None can tell you in a classroom or in a scientific book that evolution disproves creation or Davine plan. They don't study creation, they only study evolution which is a natural process. At best they can tell you that they have not find the Divine or the Divine plan. But this does not mean that there is no Divine nor Divine plan. The Divine and Divine plan a not physical and scientists accept that science is only limited to physical things. However, you might be surprised to learn that most of the greatest scientists in history were all very strong believers in God and Divine plane. Albert Eisenstein never failed to declare that his conviction in the existence of God and the Divine plan. I can provide quotes from him that made this clear.

syrup:

One more point:

If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:

(a) man was not created as "man" - for evolution says we evolved from apes into man. Does the Bible teach that?

Let me rephrase your question: If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human,  then you are effectively saying that you were not born a human.

Here again you are wrong, evolution never said that man descended from apes. That is what enthusiasts, who don't understand evolution go about saying.  Evolution only says that man and apes shear a common ancestor.

syrup:


If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:
(b) man was evolved without purpose or meaning - the very essentials held by evolutionists. Does the Bible teach that?

Let rephrase this one too. If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human, then you are effectively saying that you evolved without purpose or meaning.
How does the fact that we evolved disprove the fact our lives have meaning.

I summarize my points:
1.) Evolution only deals with the comming into being man's physical body, which came into being the same way animals bodies came into being. Infact science and evolution treats man as a specie of animal, this is because our physical bodies are basically animal bodies.  But every scientist agrees that in addition to our animal bodies, we have something that separates us from animals, certain concepts that are beyond animals, i.e. -- the concept of decency, love, art, higher cognitive ability, etc.
2.) These concepts which is not physical and cannot be investigated by science is a prove that we have something that animals don't have, i.e. the breath of God which is the spirit in man.
3.) The creation story in the bible explores the coming into being of man from a spiritual perspective. And confirms that our bodies are earthly --"out of the dust of the earth God made man, " The creation story also confirms that man has something animals don't have, i.e. " and The Lord God gave man the breath of life, "

@KAG,

KAG:

I'm not sure I fully understand your question - for one thing it reads wrong. There is no promotion or preclusion of metaphysical creators in the theory of evolution: it's silent on the existence of such beings - they are out of its jurisdiction, same with other science theories. Arguments that assert that gods aren't necessary for parsimony can be based around the theory, but that's about it (arguments of that kind shouldn't be mistaken for the science theory itself).

I appreciate your clear outline, and although I might have put my points hastily across, let's safely say that I was not mistaking the theory for the arguments.

KAG:

Pointers that it doesn't preclude creators? Easiest one: many theists accept the theory of evolution.

Which is the same thing we both remove from this point - the theory is silent on a 'Creator' (as far as I could tell), but arguments built around it have brought that to the fore. It was rather the theory itself that I was looking at, and wondered if it made any pointers to a "creator".

KAG:

You implied that they are synonymous.

No, I wasn;t making that stretch. Another way of saying this is the way you neatly rounded it for me - it is 'silent' on such matters (no god), nor does it argue for a 'creator'.

KAG:

"Darwinist" is such a "bleh!" term. Darwin was a theist at the time he wrote the origins of species, though. I agree that there are many non-theistic evolutionists.

Granted. Just so that my readers would not misread me was why I thought it may have helped to make the distinction.

KAG:

If I remember correctly, he lost his faith because of the death of his child. I should look that up - I'll look it up later.

I feel the same way; and like you, I'd have to carefully check that up again (particular on areas of his difficulty to come to terms with pain).

KAG:

It wasn't the crevolution thing that was wrong it was the assertins that came after.

I agree - the assertions in arguments built around the theory itself should not be taken for what the theory does not specify.

Hi justcool,

Thanks for your reasoned response. Here's what I have to say:

justcool:

Here your problem is that you base your argument and view point on the proponents of evolution rather than the theory itself. Proponents are not always right. People read meaning into theories to suit their personal beliefs. I don't care what proponents say but I care about what the theory say. Research on evolution itself or read The the origin of species by Charles Darwin himself. The theory does not deal with God, it didn't prove the existence of God neither did it disprove it. It simply deals with how species evolved over time. Proponents use this theory and many other theories to fight believers but such war or fighting is only foolishness because the bible never claimed to be a scientific book. The bible's story of Creation deals with the issue from the spiritual perspective. It is also foolish to use the bible to change scientific theories. It's like trying to solve a chemistry problem with sociology. Read the theory of evolution yourself or talk authorities, avoid believing to enthusiasts that look for any reason to disprove the existence of God.

I think I made the point just above in replying KAG. Although my post might have come across hastily, I should point out that I wasn't mistaking arguments for the theory itself.

justcool:

Here you are very wrong. To state that evolution is opposed to creation is only a view and not a fact. The statement is based on your's and some other people's opinion which cannot be scientifically proved. To say that evolution is opposed to creation is like saying that the study of the development of the zygote is opposed to creation.

I disagree, because you're confusing "creation" with "evolution". Let me use your next line to distinguish this point.

justcool:

We all started as single cells-- zygote-- which multiplied and grew over time to a human beings.

Creation of man did not start as a zygote, and to assert that "we all started as singel cells -- zygote" is to read ideas into creation itself. I'd be interested in seeing how you derive this idea from the creation of Adam (at this point, I'm assuming it's an idea that is posited to "fit" into, or make Scripture "fit" into the idea).

justcool:

We all agree that this statement does not oppose creation.

We are not "all" agreed - else the thread would have come to an end.

justcool:

Then whats the difference when applied to humankind -- the whole species started as very simple organisms which multiplied, adapted and developed to present day species. This is a natural process and there is nothing stupendous in it.

I don't have problems with "species". The point here is about "creation" and "evolution". Was man "created" or did he "evolve" into man from something else? What has been a concern to me here is the idea of a crevolution (that is, the idea of "creation by evolution". I might be mistaken; but perhaps that is what I might have thought you were leading us to believe in your previous posts?

justcool:

No scientist can prove that this natural process started by chance neither can they prove otherwise.

True, even though many of them "assert" that it is so (which necessitates our premise of not mistaking the arguments for the theory itself).

justcool:

Actually the scientific laws actually disprove the notion of chance. Science operates on well established and inflexible laws which rules out the possibility of chance in any natural happening. Therefor it is unscientific to speak of chance. I can elaborate on this if you want.

I'm inclined to hold to that from the few I have gleaned.

justcool:

Here your definition of evolution is very wrong because evolution is not a study of wheather there is a creator or not.

I humbly acknowledge the correction; but I don't think that I made that inference. This was why I said earlier:

syrup:

In simple words: evolution is a theory that makes no mention of "GOD"

. . . and I have tried to explain that "no mention" was what KAG helped bring to my attention - it is "silent" on such matters and does not "preclude" a creator. It simply does not argue for or againt theism (I stand to be corrected).

May I also state that I was not giving a "definition", but rather simplifying the implications (it "postulates"? Again, I appreciate KAG seeing and making reference to that same inference as well:

KAG:

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes. It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator.

. . . which is not the same thing as to infer that KAG was "defining" evolution.

Okay, I acknowledge the correction arising from my hasty posts. In what follows, I hope to simplify issues without risk of misleading my readers.

justcool:

Therefor the definition should not include "without a creator."

It is "silent" - it does not argue for or against the existence of a creator (arguments built around the theory itself cannot pass for what the theory actually postulates).

justcool:

Here is a better definition:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Which brings us back to the question of what is "creation"? Was man "created" as man; or did he "evolve" [pun- 'change from an already existing specie to another']? To speak of a "change" from one generation to another presupposes that man (for example) already existed before that change, no?

A change in "specie" is not to be mistaken for the origin of an organism. Evolution points to the origin of species; creation seeks to account for the origin (or, "the coming into existence" of living matter. One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter.

Where they do not connect in the way you proposed (crevolution - creation by evolution) is on the question of where the first cell came from. This may be argued out back and forth; but I'm particularly referring to this idea you offered earlier:

justcool:

I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies.

That is what is really disturbing, because it raises more questions than answered. Let me outline a few:

(a) "I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body" - on the contrary, evolution does not seek to "prove" God's creation of man.

(b) "Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - that is "fitting" the idea into a misreading of Scripture, and it is far removed from plain statements. On the contrary, the creation of man was not a question of physical bodies "evolving" from dust.

(c) "evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - this "process" being natural places an asterix on "divine"  cause (creation). Besides, if (as you earlier offered) evolution is "change. .  from one generation to the next", it does not say the same thing as creation (I fail to see the "millions of years" tranformation from zygote to Adam in Scripture).

(d) "After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years" - quite to the contrary, there is no faint hint in Scripture of this, which is worrying enough.

These are a few issues that are disconnected in your proposal of the "crevolution' postulation.

justcool:

Your definition of creation is okay. Like I said earlier,nobody can prove even scientifically that the process of evolution was not set in-place deliberately and guided deliberately. Infact there are many evolutionists who have arrived to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that evolution would have taken this curse if it wasn't guided to achieve this purpose. I can elaborate later on this if you want me to.

It is illogical to assume a creation by evolution. At best, it's a compromise - but even so, it is illogical.

justcool:

Some Darwinian evolutionist draw their conclusions based on what they have studied. However, this remain personal conclusions. None can tell you in a classroom or in a scientific book that evolution disproves creation or Davine plan.

You'd be surprised to see the "scientific books" that state the opposite - that is what is being taught in some science classes. Again, personal preferences (bias) is a reality in some classes today.

justcool:

They don't study creation, they only study evolution which is a natural process.

Where then do we come up with the "crevolution" postulation?

justcool:

At best they can tell you that they have not find the Divine or the Divine plan. But this does not mean that there is no Divine nor Divine plan. The Divine and Divine plan a not physical and scientists accept that science is only limited to physical things.

Leading evolutionists are asserting the "no divine plan" (they do not see a "creation" and go to the extent of arguing against it). If one were to state simply that "creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD", we know many evolutionists who would argue to the contrary about the origin of life and matter. This is not to forget that there are many theistic evolutionists; but I'd not be persuaded that no evolutionists maintains that there is "no divine plan".

justcool:

However, you might be surprised to learn that most of the greatest scientists in history were all very strong believers in God and Divine plane.

I'm quite aware of that.

justcool:

Albert Eisenstein never failed to declare that his conviction in the existence of God and the Divine plan. I can provide quotes from him that made this clear.

Quotes with references would be quite helpful.

justcool:

Let me rephrase your question: If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human,  then you are effectively saying that you were not born a human.

Wrong. Your postulation was a question of physical bodies evolving from dust into zygote over millions of years. How you came about this would be thrilling to see.

justcool:

Here again you are wrong, evolution never said that man descended from apes. That is what enthusiasts, who don't understand evolution go about saying.  Evolution only says that man and apes shear a common ancestor.

I was being facetious; enthisiastically so. However, where are the pointers to "crevolution"? Was that another enthusiast at work?

justcool:

Let rephrase this one too. If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human, then you are effectively saying that you evolved without purpose or meaning.
How does the fact that we evolved disprove the fact our lives have meaning.

I was not "disproving" anything you assumed there - read again, contextually if it helps (instead of "rephrasing'). My dear amigo, "evolution of physical bodies from dust over millions of years" is not where I stand.

As to the "meaning, purpose, reason, significance", I only asked when the last time it was that you heard passionate evolutionists argue for those values? I haven't read your answers - just a rephrasing of what I asked! This is already interesting!

justcool:

I summarize my points:
1.) Evolution only deals with the comming into being man's physical body, which came into being the same way animals bodies came into being. Infact science and evolution treats man as a specie of animal, this is because our physical bodies are basically animal bodies.  But every scientist agrees that in addition to our animal bodies, we have something that separates us from animals, certain concepts that are beyond animals, i.e. -- the concept of decency, love, art, higher cognitive ability, etc.

And whatever happend to "soul and spirit" as setting man aside from mere animals? The "coming into being" is not what evolution is about - rather, it is the postulation accounting for "change" in what has already come into being! Species are a result of "change", and these "changes" are not to be mistaken for "origin" of life and matter - the origin of existence.

justcool:

2.) These concepts which is not physical and cannot be investigated by science is a prove that we have something that animals don't have, i.e. the breath of God which is the spirit in man.

I understand the premise, but I would not force-fit anything into another theory to make it plausible (such as 'creation by evolution').

justcool:

3.) The creation story in the bible explores the coming into being of man from a spiritual perspective. And confirms that our bodies are earthly --"out of the dust of the earth God made man, " The creation story also confirms that man has something animals don't have, i.e. " and The Lord God gave man the breath of life, "

Em, I don't know if there is a theory of zygotes springing from dust.

Simply, it is an uphill task to postulate a theory of creation by evolution. They are not to be confused or mixed up or blended somewhere. Evolution looks at "changes" in species; creation points to the "coming into being" of life and matter - two different things.

Thanks for sharing.

@syrup
I will reply your post one more time, just to clear some misconceptions that might have arisen from my last post. However, I don't wish to go round and round on this issue. If you have made up your mind to see the issue the way you do, then I can't change your mind.

syrup:

Which brings us back to the question of what is "creation"? Was man "created" as man; or did he "evolve" [pun- 'change from an already existing specie to another']? To speak of a "change" from one generation to another presupposes that man (for example) already existed before that change, no?

The fact that man evolved does not contradict the fact that man was created! I was not born a 30 years old man, I was born a baby which evolved over time into a 30 years old man. The fact that I evolved does not contradict the fact that I was born. (I hope you understand this analogy)
Our physical bodies evolved, after which our spirits incarnated into the evolved bodies. Only from the period of incarnation did we become humans(man), prior to that was just animals. I repeat myself: Evolution is the natural process through which our bodies came into being.
Most scientists agree that man is not just the physical body. If this is the case then evolution does not deal with man in man's entirety. It deals only with a part of man, i.e. the physical bodies.

syrup:

A change in "specie" is not to be mistaken for the origin of an organism. Evolution points to the origin of species; creation seeks to account for the origin (or, "the coming into existence" of living matter. One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter.

Here you proved me right! In the above post you clearly pointed out the difference--One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter-- If you agree with this, then why do you think that they contradict each other. Evolution deals with change over time, and creation deals with the coming into existence of living matter(like you said) Now show me where the contradiction lies.

syrup:

Where they do not connect in the way you proposed (crevolution - creation by evolution) is on the question of where the first cell came from. This may be argued out back and forth; but I'm particularly referring to this idea you offered earlier:

That is what is really disturbing, because it raises more questions than answered. Let me outline a few:

(a) "I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body" - on the contrary, evolution does not seek to "prove" God's creation of man.

I am not sure that you read my posts very well! I said, " I think"at the beginning of that statement, meaning that it is my opinion. i.e it is my conclusion from looking at both theories. I never said that evolution seeks to prove God's creation of man. That is entirely your's and not mine. Please read my words carefully. I started with "I think."

syrup:

(b) "Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - that is "fitting" the idea into a misreading of Scripture, and it is far removed from plain statements. On the contrary, the creation of man was not a question of physical bodies "evolving" from dust.

Here I never said that the scriptures said exactly that "our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution." What I said was my conclusion from reading Genesis and the theory of evolution. Different scriptures mean different things to different peoples. The scriptures were written metaphorically, and in a pictorial language, it is left to the reader to deduce the meaning. I kept saying that the scriptures tells the story from a spiritual perspective. The scriptures said: "that out of the dust of the earth, God made man and gave man the breath of live." This is not a scientific statement, it is a pictorial rendering of a an event, given from a spiritual perspective. It is left to the individual to deduce what it means. I have told you my own deduction of it, you can only accept deduction or leave it.

syrup:

(c) "evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - this "process" being natural places an asterix on "divine"  cause (creation). Besides, if (as you earlier offered) evolution is "change. .  from one generation to the next", it does not say the same thing as creation (I fail to see the "millions of years" tranformation from zygote to Adam in Scripture).

The fact that the process is natural does not contradict the fact that God made it. All natural processes and even nature itself was set in-place by God. It does not place an asterix on "the divine" The fact that some people choose not see the hand of God in natural processes does not mean that nature is no a process set in-place by God. Once again this is entirely their conclusion, the scriptures never said that God does not use natural processes. 
Returning back to the scriptures, it reads, "out of the dust of the earth, God made man." It didn't say how and through what process God made man. It only tell us that man's body was made from the dust of the earth. It is left for the individual to deduce wheather this "making out of the dust of the earth" was done by actual molding or by a natural process called evolution.

syrup:

(d) "After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years" - quite to the contrary, there is no faint hint in Scripture of this, which is worrying enough.

You don't see the faint of it in the scriptures, but I do. I don't want to go into details of the scripture here but I can do that later if you want.However, I give you a hint: The scriptures said, "And a thousand years are as one" My understanding of this is that earthly time and spiritual time are different. A day on paradise(spiritual place) is like a thousand years on earth. The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what might have taken millions of years on earth in only six spiritual days. What you see in the Scriptures is only a reflection of your inner(spiritual) maturity. People see different things in the scripture and interpret them differently, it is left for you to decide which interpretation you accept.

syrup:

These are a few issues that are disconnected in your proposal of the "crevolution' postulation.

I never used the word "crevoultion." Infact I don't even know what it means, so please don't attribute it to me. Show me where I used it in any of my posts.

syrup:

It is illogical to assume a creation by evolution. At best, it's a compromise - but even so, it is illogical.

It is logical to you. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.

syrup:

You'd be surprised to see the "scientific books" that state the opposite - that is what is being taught in some science classes. Again, personal preferences (bias) is a reality in some classes today.

Please show me just one scientifc book or discoervry based on scientif principles and discoveries which say that evolution has discredicted the existence of God or creation. All these cretion/evolution wars are mostly poeple drawing personal conclutions from what the scientits have discovered. However science itself cannot tell that there is no God or that there is a God based on scientific discoveris. Ar best, they will say that God has not been discovered scientificaly which does not mean that God does not exsist.

syrup:

Quotes with references would be quite helpful.

Here are 12 quotes from Albert Eainstain comfirming his unshakable belief in the exsistence of God. Please click on the following:
  http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/einstein/quotesaboutgod.htm

syrup:

Wrong. Your postulation was a question of physical bodies evolving from dust into zygote over millions of years. How you came about this would be thrilling to see.

Please show me where I said that physical bodies evolve from[b] dust into zygote.[/b]
I don't know if you read my posts at all, I don't know from where you get the things that you atribute to me. Dont rearenge my words and attribut them to me. If you are refering to my words, just present them exactly the way I wrote them.

syrup:

Em, I don't know if there is a theory of zygotes springing from dust.

These are your words, not mine. I don't know where you come up with such things and try to attribute them to me.

syrup:

As to the "meaning, purpose, reason, significance", I only asked when the last time it was that you heard passionate evolutionists argue for those values? I haven't read your answers - just a rephrasing of what I asked! This is already interesting!

My dear, evlutionists are entitlled to their personal opinions. I am only concerened on findings from scientific researches. Sicence has not found any evidence that the universe has no purpose, neither has science found otherwise. What people say are their opinions which they cannot atribut to science itself. However I have given a link where you will find one of the greatet scientist ever lived (Albert Eainstain) declear his belieif in God and Divine plan.

"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the universe." (Albert Einstein)

Poeple make so much noise about chance(no meaning, irrational universe, etc) but they don't know that this concept of the universe being run by chance is very unscientific. Science believes that the universe operates in well established laws which are unchangable, uniform, and inflexsible.

syrup:

Simply, it is an uphill task to postulate a theory of creation by evolution. They are not to be confused or mixed up or blended somewhere. Evolution looks at "changes" in species; creation points to the "coming into being" of life and matter - two different things.

Here you are finally repeating what I already said. I have said many times in this thread that evolution and creation are two sides of the same coin. I gave you an anlogy of the guy who went to his girlfriends house to break up with her. I kept saying that evolution deals only with the physicaln while creation deals with the spiritual perspective, thus two different perspectives. Please take time and reread my posts on this thread.

syrup:

Thanks for sharing.

My dear thanks for a mind stimulating conversation. I wish you well and remain blessed.

@justcool,

justcool:

@syrup
I will reply your post one more time, just to clear some misconceptions that might have arisen from my last post. However, I don't wish to round and round on this issue. If you made up your mind to see the issue the way you do, then I can't change your mind.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning and calling for a clear stand - that doesn't sound like i made up my mind already. Your tying creation and evolution together does not work out logically - and since you believe it does, I was open to consider how you arrived there with clear facts (not ideas).

justcool:

The fact that man evolved does not contradict the fact that man was created! I was not born a 30 years old man, I was born a baby which evolved over time into a 30 years old man. The fact that I evolved does not contradict the fact that I was born. (I hope you understand this analogy)
Our physical bodies evolved, after which our spirits incarnated into the evolved bodies. Only from the period of incarnation did we become humans(man), prior to that was just animals. I repeat myself: Evolution is the natural process through which our bodies came into being.
Most scientists agree that man is not just the physical body. If this is the case then evolution does deal with man in man's entirety. It deals only with a part of man, i.e. the physical bodies.

This is confusing both concepts of evolution and creation. Evolution is not pointing to the origin of life and matter - that is what creation posits. The concept of the physical body "evolving" from dust bears no relation to the creation account. If it did (or does), where does it teach that? That is the simple answer I was hoping to come back and read; and that was why I asked simply: did Adam evolve from something into man, or was he created as man?

justcool:

Here you proved me right! In the above post you clearly pointed out the difference--One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter-- If you agree with this, then why do you think that they contradict each other. Evolution deals with change over time, and creation deals with the coming into existence of living matter(like you said) Now show me where the contradiction lies.

I don't think I proved your premise right by any stretch. Let me illustrate it simply:

Evolution - origin of species
Creation - origin of life and matter

By implication, if you said that man evolved from zygote (as accounting for the creation of Adam), then where did the zygote come from?

justcool:

I am not sure that you read my posts very well! I said, " I think"at the beginning of that statement, meaning that it is my opinion. i.e it is my conclusion from looking at both theories.

Granted - that was why I was waiting for a clear basis for drawing such conclusions.

justcool:

I never said that evolution seeks to prove God's creation of man.

Okay - I was rather quoting you, and this is where I got that from:

justcool:

I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body.

. . . which is basically leading to that idea as above. Evolution does not "prove" that God made man out of the dust of the earth - but I appreciate that is what you had "thought".

justcool:

That is entirely your's and not mine. Please read my words carefully. I started with "I think."

The thought was not logical - which was what I had sought in your explanation.

justcool:

Here I never said that the scriptures said exactly that our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution. What I said was my conclusion from reading Genesis and the theory of evolution. Different scriptures mean different things to different peoples. The scriptures were written metaphorically, and in a pictorial language, it left to the reader deduce the meaning. I kept saying that the scriptures tells the story from a spiritual perspective. The scriptures said: "that out of the dust of the earth, God made man and gave nab the breath of live." This is not a scientific statement, it is a pictorial rendering of a an event, given from a spiritual perspective. It left for the individual to deduce what it means. I have told you my own deduction of it, you can only accept deduction or leave it.

The deductions or inferences you drew was one that tied evolution and creation in a compromise. Evolution does not "prove" creation; nor does creation "prove" evolution. The idea that they are saying something akin (albeit from different perspectives) is quite misleading.

justcool:

The fact that the process is natural does not contradict the fact that God made it.

I did not draw that line of thought. By extension, it leads one to think that God brought Adam into being from dust "evolving" into zygotes and then on to man. Since this is what you are saying does not apply, that is why I was seeking clarifications from you to draw the line instead of marrying them together. The attempt to compromise a middle ground between both is what you face as a serious challenge - and up until now I haven't seen you address it squarely. This gap renders your initial assumptions quite untenable, even though it was your "thinking".

justcool:

All natural processes and even nature itself was set in-place by God. It does not place an asterix on "the divine" The fact that some people choose not see the hand of God in natural processes does not mean that nature is no a process set in-place by God. Once again this is entirely their conclusion, the scriptures never said that God does not use natural processes.

An argument against natural processes is not in my repostes - as can be deduced from my statement earlier that I have no problems with "species". Babies emerge from transformations of cells into foetus, etc - but that is not the same as "the evolution of the physical body which took place millions of years ago" - especially so in the case of Adam "evolving" from dust.

justcool:

Returning back to the scriptures, it reads, "out of the dust of the earth, God made man." It didn't say how and through what process God made man. It only tell us that man's body was made from the dust of the earth. It is left for the individual to deduce wheather this "making out of the dust of the earth" was done by actual molding or by a natural process called evolution.

Thankfully, you've set the dichotomy, and let me address it lucidly. Two things are standing out in your premise now:

(i) "to deduce wheather this "making out of the dust of the earth"
was done by actual molding"

(ii) ". . . or by a natural process called evolution"

So, if we were asked, "was it molding or evolution", what would we be saying? Is Scripture also silent on the "molding" (since I see no evolution in the man-from-dust statement)?

Here is why we can clearly state the obvious on creation:

(a) "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7)

(b) ". . .we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand" (Isa. 64:

(c) ". . .Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Isa. 45:9)

(d) ". . .Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel" (Jer. 18:6).

Could the idea of "molding" be saying differently from -

"fashioned"
"formed"
"work of thy hand"?

Or is that a matter of "natural processes" taking place by evolution? See the point with my pun on the "asterix"?

justcool:

You don't see the faint of it in the scriptures, but I do.

That is why I have waited and asked that you kindly demonstrate it. It was your thought alright, but where can I follow your lead in finding that inference in Scripture?

justcool:

I don't want to go into details of the scripture here but I can do that later if you want.

Like I said, it would be thrilling to see.

justcool:

However, I give you a hint: The scriptures said, "And a thousand years are as one" My understanding of this is that earthly time and spiritual time are different. A day on paradise(spiritual place) is like a thousand years on earth. The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what might have taken millions of years on earth in only six spiritual days. What you see in the Scriptures is only a reflection of your inner(spiritual) maturity. People see different things in the scripture and interpret them differently, it is left for you to decide which interpretation you accept.

Let me get it: a "day" could be = to a "thousand" years, which could possibly mean "millions of years"? I don't think Scripture plays such jigsaw puzzles and leaves us far between.

Assuming that a "day" is like a "thousand years" (I know it says so), then the "millions of years" (how many millions?) is forcing us to ask how many such "thousand-year-days" man was created! This is like simply saying, the million years is something analogous to -

Since 1 day may be = to 1,000 years, then
millions of years would be 'x' number of that time factor
- a million years is 1000 x "the 1000 years".

So, where do I find the million years in Scripture?

You see something here is simple: rather than simply state what Scripture says, so many compromises are being made to make ideas fit where they are not warranted! Evolution is not to be confused for creation!

justcool:

I never used the word "crevoultion." Infact I don't even know what it means, so please don't attribute it to me. Show me where I used it in any of my posts.

I did not say you used it in your post. I earlier stated that it was my pun word to aptly describe your theory (thought or idea) of creation by the process of evolution. For want of a better word, I tucked them together and arrived at "crevolution" (from cre[/b]ation and e[b]volution).

syrup:

Like I said, it would be thrilling to see.

Let me get it: a "day" could be = to a "thousand" years, which could possibly mean "millions of years"? I don't think Scripture plays such jigsaw puzzles and leaves us far between.

Assuming that a "day" is like a "thousand years" (I know it says so), then the "millions of years" (how many millions?) is forcing us to ask how many such "thousand-year-days" man was created! This is like simply saying, the million years is something analogous to -

Since 1 day may be = to 1,000 years, then
millions of years would be 'x' number of that time factor
- a million years is 1000 x "the 1000 years".

So, where do I find the million years in Scripture?

My dear syrup
I am not returning to the evolution/creation issue. I have said enough on that. However, I promised to go into details about the actual length of days mentioned in Genesis' creation.

First of all I assume you are well educated and can understand that words have different meanings depending on the context the word was used. Let us look for definition of the word day in the dictionary.

1 a: the time of light between one night and the next b: daylight 1 c: daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4: a specified day or date
5: a specified time or period : age <in grandfather's day> —often used in plural <the old days><the days of sailing ships>[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]6: the conflict or contention of the day <played hard and won the day>
7: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/day)

From the definition 5 you see that in some context the word "day" could mean many days. For eample: Assuming that my grandfather lived 80 years. I can say, "things were cheap in my grandfathers day." In this context, day means 80 years because it denotes the length of my grandfathers life on earth. In another context, I could use the word "day" to mean 24 hour period.
It is left for the individual to deduce the context on which the word "day" was used in Genesis and the context on which it was used on other scriptural writings, i.e. "and a thousand days are as one."
Now it is easy to deduce that the word "day" in Genesis could not have been 24 hour period because day and night(24 hour period) was created along with everything during creation. You cannot say that it took six(24 hour period) days to create because the earthly time/day(24 hour period) did not exist before creation. I ask you a question: Did day(24 hour period) exist before creation. The answers no, since the earthly day(24 hour period) was created along with other things. So it logically cannot take earthly day(24 hour period) to create. It cannot take a length of time that does not exsist to create something. Therefore Genesis must have been refering to a different time-length and not the earthly time length.

Now let us look at the actual word use in Genesis( Remember that Genesis was not originally written in English) The Hebrew word "yom" was used. Let us look at the definition of the Hebrew word "yom."
Accordingo Hebrew scholars the word "yom" in the context used on Genesis refers to age, period, extended time, and forever. I leave you to do the research yourself.
Read this article by Rodney Whitfield PHD:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf
Also read this:
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Therefore if the word "yom" is used in the context to mean an extended period which could be thousands or millions of earth years.

I used the scripture (A thousand years are as one) to show you that earthly time is different from spiritual time. Now find out the context in which each word "Day" and "a thusand years" are used.
You Will see that it can add up to millions of years.

@justcool,

I am humbled by your loving and gracious spirit in your response. I had to excuse myself from another thread to allow the heat calm down.

Many thanks for putting your points across lucidly and simply on the matter of a day possibly stretching to include millions of years. I don't have much of a worry on that subject and would be willing to consider it more if it leads there. Grateful also for the links - I'll take my time to read through so I don't offer hasty conclusions.

Now, the main point that has been of some concern to me was the creation by evolution. Please forgive me, I'm not trying to pressure you into any position (whether "for" or "against". I was trying to see how I could understand this "process" that might have suggested a creation by evolution theory or idea to some thinkers.

Again, grateful for your responses.

@syrup
Thank you so much. I am also deeply humbled by your gracious manners.
May the Almighty grant that you find the Truth you seek.
Remain blessed

syrup:

Here is why we can clearly state the obvious on creation:
(a) "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7)
(b) ". . .we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand" (Isa. 64:
(c) ". . .Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Isa. 45:9)
(d) ". . .Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel" (Jer. 18:6).
Could the idea of "molding" be saying differently from -

         "fashioned"
         "formed"
         "work of thy hand"?

This is a short formula of the creation worldview:

God formed man from the dust of the ground(Gen2:7)
Sin disformed man (Rom.5:12; 8:18-22)
This world conforms man (Rom.12:2)
The Word of God transforms man (Rom.12:2; 1 Pet.1:23)
QED

Below is a dramatised implication of the two worldviews; Biblical creation and evolutionary theory:

The Creator: 'I formed man out of the dust'

evolutionist: That's not a big deal I too can do the same

The Creator: Go ahead and do as you have said,

The evolutionists began to gather dust together and the Creator interrupted by saying:

The Creator:  Not so fast, you have to start by making your own dust.

The evolutionist: but, but, but, erm, erm; scratching his head

hope u know Darwin {the man who the evolution theory is attributed to} does not deny the action of a 'divine power' in the existence of the first living 'form'?
he simply believes that this action was on a single minute 'formal essence' that evolved to form every thing that has been, that is and that will be!
creation cannot end in 7days, there are things we are yet to know, afterall my son is not yet created!

dmxqo:

hope u know Darwin {the man who the evolution theory is attributed to} does not deny the action of a 'divine power' in the existence of the first living 'form'?

The Eternal, Uncreated Being, The El-shaddai-all-sufficient One, The Almighty-I am that I am, The Everpresent-Jehova, The Mighty-Strong-One-Elohim, The covenant-keeping-never-failing-Jehova is the Creator of the universe.

dmxqo:

he simply believes that this action was on a single minute 'formal essence' that evolved to form every thing that has been, that is and that will be!

The Uncreated Creator who cannot be fully comprehended with our natural senses has not only created us but has already programmed a language by which He communicates to us verbally His Words and His Names.  This is the Holy Bible where you will get the information of the highlights of the events of His work of creation (Genesis) and this forms the worldview that I use to interprete the evidence that is presently before me.  His Word says that 'He formed man of the dust of the ground' Gen.2:7 "Let God be true and every man a liar" Rom.3:4 For this reason I build my thinking on the Bible and not on evolution theory and not even on science because they are sinking grounds bound to change with the wind.

dmxqo:

creation cannot end in 7days, there are things we are yet to know, afterall my son is not yet created!

The age of the earth, as determined by man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old.  This is just used to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible.  Thus, man's fallible theories are allowed to interprete the Bible which eventually undermines the use of language to communicate.

God could have created the universe within 6 seconds or six minutes but He decided to create it in six literal days(24hrs).  In Exodus 20:11 God confirms this when He said "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

dmxqo:

there are things we are yet to know, afterall my son is not yet created!

In Genesis 1:28 God blessed Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth.  That they should bring forth. He set the machination in place for us to procreate.

i believe in creation but in what form did God create man, the bible account is full with flaws, was man created male and female first, or man then woman after he remembered that man was alone.  i find the story more of a moonlight story than a true story that teaches morals, because my village Zawan in Jos was a part of creation, but bible account tells me that every thing was from the mediteraanian (east) be that as it may, the days used by the purpoted god to finish the earth is laughably short.  i want to believe also that this God created the earth as a man following the story, "let us make man in our own image"  and likeness, then it means creation was a consultative act he consulted others who were they.i will want us to discuss on this topic "GOD IS A MAN" TRUE OR FALSE.reason being he said let us make man in our image. an image is a reflection of the creator, and as humans made in the image of God, flesh and blood, our maker must also be human not a spirit if he is then we should also be in that form.Jesus was a man, not a spirit, he being a man caused those in his day to reject his claim of being God-Man, today there is this clamour for Jesus, if Christ comes back in the form he came before would the earth recieve him?  i want to beleive that there would be a repeat of the days of the jews, "how can He a mere man claim to be God" i need you contribution on this topic.(this is my first contribution on the bloc) i am new!!

Pam Rin:

(this is my first contribution on the bloc) i am new!!

@Pam Rin,

First, a hearty welcome to the Forum. I hope you get so thrilled to stay on for a good while to come.

When you posit that the Bible account is full of flaws and is "laughably short", it came across to someone like me that you really haven't studied it, but only wished to join the party of those who start out laughing than calmly examining issues before making any statement.

It is interesting that you stated your belief in creation, but you did not tell us anything about how, why and what you believe about that "creation". Would it not be fair that you present your own alternative account and be open for discussion - so that you give others the opportunity to examine whether or not your own theory is as impeccable as you assume out of hand?

A word about "image". True, the Biblical account in Genesis states that God created man in His own image and likeness. But does that necessarily make God into a man with "flesh and bones and blood"? Is that what the word "image" suggests - even in context? Could it be possible that you assume so much without an informed study?

We understand that an "image" does not mean that same thing as a "clone". The former (image) has several connotations - and one helpful meaning in context here might be suggested in WordWeb dictionary as "Language used in a figurative or non-literal sense". So, was God speaking of Himself as having bones and blood and flesh when using the term ""image?

And could this man possibly be olumba olumba

OLAADEGBU:

The Eternal, Uncreated Being, The El-shaddai-all-sufficient One, The Almighty-I am that I am, The Everpresent-Jehova, The Mighty-Strong-One-Elohim, The covenant-keeping-never-failing-Jehova is the Creator of the universe.

The Uncreated Creator who cannot be fully comprehended with our natural senses has not only created us but has already programmed a language by which He communicates to us verbally His Words and His Names. This is the Holy Bible where you will get the information of the highlights of the events of His work of creation (Genesis) and this forms the worldview that I use to interprete the evidence that is presently before me. His Word says that 'He formed man of the dust of the ground' Gen.2:7 "Let God be true and every man a liar" Rom.3:4 For this reason I build my thinking on the Bible and not on evolution theory and not even on science because they are sinking grounds bound to change with the wind.

The age of the earth, as determined by man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old. This is just used to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible. Thus, man's fallible theories are allowed to interprete the Bible which eventually undermines the use of language to communicate.

God could have created the universe within 6 seconds or six minutes but He decided to create it in six literal days(24hrs). In Exodus 20:11 God confirms this when He said "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
In Genesis 1:28 God blessed Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. That they should bring forth after their own kind (vs 24-25). He set the machination in place for us to procreate.

What evidence have you to show that the scientific metthods used in determining the age of the earth are flawed.

m_nwankwo:

What evidence have you to show that the scientific metthods used in determining the age of the earth are flawed.

While waiting on that, I'd like to ask: for those holding a "billions of years old", can we get a precise date? It's easy to say that something is "hundreds of years old" - that is saying nothing, until a spcific figure is given.

Then, we can then ask again: how confident would the answer be on a definite date/age figure?

The earth is atleast 4 billion years

Then, we can then ask again: how confident is your 4 billion years?

Very confident

No one but a mad man can be 100 per cent confident on anything

Pastor AIO:

No one but a mad man can be 100 per cent confident on anything

Well, the answer has always been the same with the "billions of years" leaning. It is a neat figure, but on what confidence.

Anyway, enjoy.

m_nwankwo:

What evidence have you to show that the scientific metthods used in determining the age of the earth are flawed.

I am not a scientist neither do I claim to understand all the intricacies of science but I do know the Original Scientist who was there at the beginning, and He has communicated His mind to me through the scriptures - the revelation knowledge of God.

Biblical creation scientists have made us realise that all radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past.  If assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processess), results can be biased toward a desired age.  In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored.  When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood catastrope which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.  When you really look at it Carbon-14 dating supports a young earth.

Carbon-14 is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years.  How then do they claim 4.5 billion years?!!

The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life.  The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay.  The half-life of radiocarbon is 5,730 years

Scientist in the book The mystery of earth's magnetic field (www.icr.org/article/292) Discovered that the magnetic field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Can I go on?

Visit this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

syrup:

Well, the answer has always been the same with the "billions of years" leaning. It is a neat figure, but on what confidence.

Anyway, enjoy.

Sure, you can go on. But the reference you sited is an opinion not a scientific article. Please can you cite peer refreed articles. That is when I will reply you point by point. Any person can generate an opinion but that opinion should be subjected to peer review.

syrup link=topic=11284.msg2301202#msg2301202 date=1211827891[quote author=OLAADEGBU:

I am not a scientist neither do I claim to understand all the intricacies of science but I do know the Original Scientist who was there at the beginning, and He has communicated His mind to me through the scriptures - the revelation knowledge of God.

Biblical creation scientists have made us realise that all radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processess), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood catastrope which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils. When you really look at it Carbon-14 dating supports a young earth.

Carbon-14 is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. How then do they claim 4.5 billion years!

The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of radiocarbon is 5,730 years

Scientist in the book The mystery of earth's magnetic field (www.icr.org/article/292) Discovered that the magnetic field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Can I go on.

[quote][/quote]

Sure, you can go on. But the reference you sited is an opinion not a scientific article. Please can you cite peer refreed articles. That is when I will reply you point by point. Any person can generate an opinion but that opinion should be subjected to peer review.

m_nwankwo:

Very confident

Interestingly, just over a century ago peer-reviewed consensus in geology (although the field was still relatively young at that time) was that the earth was millions of years old. Within less than two hundred years, that consensus has grown by a thousand-fold.
If the principle of uniformitarianism and others which form the basis for geology are not true (and which unfortunately cannot be proven either way, being in the past) that figure could be drastically different from what the present consensus is. 'Confidence' IMHO is not a term one should readily recurse to if one's underlying principles and assumptions aren't known for certain.
Cheers.

m_nwankwo:

Sure, you can go on. But the reference you sited is an opinion not a scientific article. Please can you cite peer refreed articles. That is when I will reply you point by point. Any person can generate an opinion but that opinion should be subjected to peer review.

.

Nwankwo the great, i trust you.
Don't forget that before creation there was nothing,every other thing follows the creation

kola oloye:

.

Nwankwo the great, i trust you.
Don't forget that before creation there was nothing,every other thing follows the creation

It is incorrect to say that there was nothing before creation. Before creation there is God and his power. God and his power cannot be said to be nothing.

saw this post and just could not resist,well i believe in the God the most high and there are so many evidence of His handy work in nature.As for the theory of evolution, its just a theory and can never be proven.If indeed we evolved how come its only human female virgins that have hymens?And have you heared of irreducible complexity?
This chapter will examine how evolutionists respond to the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument in three areas: the eye, the complex cell and the flagellum. Scientific American states the problem this way:

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This ‘argument from design’ is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802, theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures. [SA 83]

Indeed, Gould, who was an expert on the history of evolution, agreed that Darwin was writing to counter Paley. This is another way of saying that he had an anti-theistic agenda,1 as discussed in chapter 2. This doesn’t stop many churchian academics kowtowing to every pronouncement made by Darwin and his God-hating successors, who in return regard them as contemptuously as Lenin regarded his ‘useful idiot’ allies in the West.2

Could the eye have evolved?
It’s interesting to note that the eye, which evolutionists claim is an example of ‘bad design’ leftover from evolution (previous chapter), presents their greatest challenge as an example of superb ‘irreducible complexity’ in God’s creation. Scientific American says:

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye’s ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye’s evolution—what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even ‘incomplete’ eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. [SA 83]

First, this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. Second, it’s fallacious to argue that 51 percent vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50 percent to overcome the effects of genetic drift’s tendency to eliminate even beneficial mutations.3

Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) [SA 83]

Scientific American contradicts itself here. If the evolutionary history of eyes has been tracked through comparative genetics, how is it that eyes have supposedly evolved independently? Actually, evolutionists recognize that eyes must have arisen independently at least 30 times because there is no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. What this really means is that since eyes cannot be related by common ancestor, and since they are here, and only materialistic explanations are allowed, hey presto, there’s proof that they evolved independently!

Simulation of eye evolution
PBS 1 goes to great lengths to convince us that the eye could easily have evolved. Dan Nilsson explained a simplistic computer simulation he published in a widely publicized paper.4 Taking his cue from Darwin, who started with a light-sensitive spot when ‘explaining’ the origin of the eye, Nilsson’s simulation starts with a light-sensitive layer, with a transparent coating in front and a light-absorbing layer behind.

Here is how the simulation proceeds. Firstly, the light-sensitive layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture, gradually increases the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light. But because of the diffraction of light if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens. Even if we were generous and presumed that such computer simulations really have anything to do with the real world of biochemistry, there are more serious problems.

However, the biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states that each of its ‘cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison’ and describes a small part of what’s involved:5

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

A transparent layer is also far more difficult to obtain than the researchers think. The best explanation for the cornea’s transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesn’t vary over distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content.6

Therefore, these simulations do not start from simple beginnings but presuppose vast complexity even to begin with. Also, in their original paper, the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

It is also fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!

Rotary motors in the bacterial flagellum
Scientific American cites another difficult example of irreducible complexity—the rotary motors on bacterial flagellum, but it really has no answers.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole.

What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84]


Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features:

Self assembly and repair
Water-cooled rotary engine
Proton motive force drive system
Forward and reverse gears
Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
(from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video, <www.arn.org/
arnproducts/videos/v021.htm>

Indeed, it does (see diagram).

He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84]

Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7

In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84]

This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8

The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84]

Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.

The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84]

Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.9

Blood clotting
Scientific American cites another serious problem for evolution—blood clotting.

Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. [SA 84]

This is once more a lot of bluff by the atheist Doolittle, or at least poor reading comprehension. He cited recent experiments showing that mice could survive with two of the components of the blood clotting cascade (plasminogen and fibrinogen) eliminated. This supposedly showed that the current cascade was not irreducibly complex but clearly reducibly complex. But the experiment really showed that the mice lacking both components were better off than one lacking only plasminogen, because the latter suffer from uncleared clots. But the former are hardly as healthy as Doolittle implied, because the only reason they don’t suffer from uncleared clots is that they have no functional clotting system at all! A non-functioning clotting system (despite possessing all the many remaining components) is hardly an evolutionary intermediate that natural selection could refine to produce a proper clotting system. Rather, this experiment is evidence against this, because the next step (i.e., from lacking both plasminogen and fibrinogen to fibrinogen only) would be selected against because of the uncleared clots.10

Complexity of a different kind—‘specified complexity’—is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially, his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski’s argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. [SA 84]

Talk about blind faith! But in practice, as Dembski points out, specified complexity in all cases but biology is used as evidence of design, including the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since biological complexity is the only exception proposed by evolutionists, it smacks of special pleading.11

In addition to the human eye, the flagellum, and blood clotting, there’s a host of other examples of irreducible complexity in nature. Earlier I alluded to the dynamic sticking mechanism in the legs of insects. The sticky feet of geckos is another clear example of God’s ingenuity.12 Its structure is described by its evolutionary discoverers as ‘beyond the limits of human technology.’13 Still other examples of design include the lobster eyes with their unique square reflecting geometry that inspired advanced x-ray telescopes and beam producers,14 the ATP synthase motor.