Evolution, in all honesty, is no less a theory than Newton’s Laws of motion. In reality, the only reason it has not been considered a law is that no one can show you in real time the speciation of say, an ape into a human being. But just because you cannot see something happen does not mean it exists or not; Christians should understand that concept best of all.
The theory of evolution can best be compared to a very large and complex puzzle depicting the planet with over 5,000 pieces, nearly complete, save five or six missing pieces. While most reasonable people feel safe assuming that the puzzle does indeed depict a planet (that the evidence provided points toward evolution’s legitimacy), there are a couple of diehards that refuse to give in and will use any uncertainty or loose seam, no matter how meaningless or negligible, to pervade further doubt. “Maybe it’s a dog,” they’d say, “you can’t know for sure without the remaining pieces!” Yes you can — it is called deductive reasoning.
Ultimately, however, even if you admit that evolution cannot be proven fully and only partially, that partial argument has greater evidentiary fortitude than its counterpoint, creationism. And that is undeniable. The number of holes that could be punched into Christianity are so numerous they seem endless. First, there is the issue of different biblical translations; second, the different books and their legitimacy (such as the Vulgate versus NIV or King James); and even if you get past that you still have to contend with different interpretations of the faith, as well as different religions entirely. I am afraid the statement, “I have faith” just won’t hold up in the court of valid arguments. Besides, if you are arguing with an atheist what meaning does that even have?
One might even say that those who argue for creationism or its doppelganger, intelligent design, realize how tenuous and flimsy their arguments for these beliefs are.
It is important to note that intelligent design hasn’t gone through the peer review that hard science has. Interesting — so apparently those who support intelligent design either fancy themselves too superior to submit to that crazy field of science or they recognize that what evidence they do have is relatively shaky and generally built off of conjecture, faith and interpretation. Unfortunately, feelings don’t mean much in the way of hard evidence in the scientific field.
Leave a comment 92 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Please, not another article about evolution. This is the 7th one of the semester
Reply to this Top
Evolution was once deemed crazy by intellectuals, and now it is deemed intellectual by the crazy. The only tangible evolution occurring relative to the theory of evolution is the evolution of the theory itself. Somehow, the evolution theory has mutated from nothingness to somewhat acceptable hokum.
More specifically, evolution is merely fabricated nonsense; it is a theory and as thus, it is meaningless conjecture/supposition cloaked in the tentacles of illogical reasoning. Students would be wise to regurgitate that claptrap for the course requiring attainment of a passing grade, and then relegate that crap to the trash bin of memory.
The only way the evolution theory can contribute anything meaningful to science, is if a researcher ran out of toilet tissue and rip some pages for an alternate wipe. Im sure most would agree that that would be an infinitesimal contribution as best (lol)!
Reply to this Top
Evolution was once deemed crazy by intellectuals, and now it is deemed intellectual by the crazy. The only tangible evolution occurring relative to the evolutionary theory is the evolution of the theory itself. Somehow, the evolution theory has mutated from nothingness to somewhat acceptable hokum.
More specifically, evolution is merely fabricated nonsense; it is a theory and as thus, it is meaningless conjecture/supposition cloaked in the tentacles of illogical reasoning. Regurgitate that claptrap for the course requiring attainment of a passing grade, and then relegate that crap to the trash bin of memory.
The only way the evolutionary theory can contribute anything meaningful to science, is if a researcher ran out of toilet tissue and ripped some pages for an alternate wipe. Im sure most would agree that that would be an infinitesimal contribution at best (lol)!
Top
Have you taken the time to truly investigate what you are saying in this article? It comes across as propaganda. Tell me please, what "evidence" do you have for evolution? You say, "just because you cannot see something happen does not mean it exists or not; Christians should understand that concept best of all." Yes! Christians do understand that, and we call it faith. You are reasoning from the same standpoint - yours is a faith - a religion. We believe in God who we cannot see, but whose evidence is all around us. Jesus Christ is one of the most voluminously recorded figures in history, if not the most. Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled time and time again. There is obvious design in nature, and the more advancements we have in microbiology, the more this becomes clearer. As for the Bible point you made, take the time to investigate what you are saying: The KJB came to us from different manuscripts than the modern "revisions." You can "deductively reason" for God, the God of the Bible. Where is your evidence that points to evolution? Evolutionism is a religious belief, the same as Christianity. The only difference is that Christianity is a lively faith.
Reply to this Top
The very fact that you ask if evidence can be provided for establishes your chosen ignorance of evolution as a universally recognized legitimate scientific theory.
Reply to this Top
In a single paragraph, I have given evidence that supports the Christian view. Yet, in this entire article there isn't one evidence given which supports evolution. It is just a montra told over and over again. Don't go by majority opinion. Check things out for yourself. There is no credible evidence to Evolutionism. Give me one legitimate evidence from this universally recognized religion of Evolutionism. It is a belief in origins which cannot be proven, i.e. it is based on faith in an unseen power, and a worldview which teaches people that there is no afterlife, and that morals are relative - Evolutionism is a religion. A religion of death and suffering.
Top
See this bothers me J.Smith. When will people learn the correct method of argument. Evolution is the accepted truth of origin by the large majority of the world in modern society.
That means that the burden of proof is on Creationists. You cannot sit here, even on the internetz, and say, "Prove that Evolution is right," when in reality we already have, you just don't accept the given data. Now it is YOUR turn (Creationists) to prove to US (Evolutionists) that we are wrong and you are right. Not the other way around.
Why people think the burden of proof is on the accepted theory is beyond me. It is the accepted theory because it was presented to a creationists world and people said, "I think this may be right," and now it is researched and it is there. If you want Creationism to be accepted then you have to either disprove evolution with sound evidence or prove creationism with sound evidence to a point where the majority says, "Youre right evolution is spotty lets look into creationism again."
Top
I fear your comment may be too difficult for J. to understand so I am going to simplify it with an analogy.
There are 10 people who eat apples to wake up in the morning, as they were raised to believe. 1 decides to eat a banana and says, "I feel more awake then the apple," the other 9 try it and 8 of them feel the same way.
The 9 people now eat bananas everyday and the 1 guy keeps eating apples and says, "Prove that they make you more awake, apples are better!" The 9 people say, "We feel more awake we tested it, not just accepted it and it worked!" The 1 guy says, "Prove it then you are wrong!" The 9 guys say, "We did it is now the new accepted method." The 1 says, "You're wrong prove it!" The 9 say.....
I think you get it, hopefully, but my hopes aren't high since you seem to not care about the mountains of scientific data for evolution but believe one book instead.
And no I am not an atheist, There is a big difference between being an intelligent man of faith and being an idiot.
Top
The old "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny argument" . . . Are you serious?! Is that being taught in your "school?" That was discredited and falsified over 100 years ago. Additionally, those folds under the chin of a human embryo are not gills. They are just folds of skin from which other useful organs will develop. Incredible. You definitely need faith to believe Evolution from embryology.
As for the SINE "evidence." It only shows that there are two ways to look at the evidence: One, that it somehow "proves" Evolutionism by way of fancy models and graphs, which may simply indicate a common Designer. That doesn't "prove" Evolution. You need faith to believe Evolution from SINE evidence.
Top
As for mutations, they do not "prove" Evolution. Mutations are not "macro-evolution." They are the result of a loss of information. The HIV that you speak of is constantly "adapting" to its environment by "losing" information that would lead to its demise. And if it were in the original population, it would not have survived in the first place. It doesn't mean that it will one day become anything else but a virus. You need faith to believe Evolution from mutations.
I didn't speak to anybody, I read for myself, think for myself, and study the subject. You should read, think, and study objectively for yourself too. There is no credible reason for anyone to believe Evolutionism. Majority opinion does not make something right. A majority can be wrong, as the case when people thought the world was flat and in this case, the story of Evolution. By cleaving to majority opinion over scientific evidence you demonstrate YOU do not chose to accept it because YOU do not like where the evidence may point - to the God of the Bible.
Top
Oh and you may wish to look up the definition of a religion.
Reply to this Top
Chris, I have given evidence in my first comment which supported Christian claims. I am just asking for real evidence to support Evolutionism - even one credible piece of evidence. Christians base their faith on a real person, Jesus Christ. His life, death, burial, and resurrection are recorded - historical evidence. Evolutionism is based on models. You are wrong, Evolutionism has not been proven. People just take it by faith because it's all we ever hear. Check it out for yourself. The God of the Bible wants us to use our reasoning skills (Isaiah 1:6). Evolutionism is the "accepted" theory by many scientists (but not all) because by nature we do not like the idea of being answerable to God. Evolutionism is certainly "spotty," as you say.
Top
James, I'm sorry, but I found your "fruit" analogy a little off. The only "mountains" of scientific data for Evolutionism are in the plethora of wasted paper in textbooks based on no evidence.
What is your faith in? God tells us to believe on Him and His Word. He tells us to look around us and use our reason. I am exercising intelligence by trusting in the God of the Bible. That IS the most reasonable thing to do. I didn't have to leave my intelligence at the door when I became a Christian.
You cannot reconcile Christianity and Evolutionism, they oppose each other.
Top
Chris . . Isaiah 1:6-18, about reasoning.
Top
Sigh, the point is not who is right and who is wrong. The point is that you don't believe in what is accepted by the majority. It is not on the majority to prove their point to you it is on you to sway them to your side to shift the majority. Just because you don't believe the evidence does not make it wrong. To make it wrong you have to prove it wrong. You have to say, humans can't come from apes because....
Not, "Your wrong show me REAL evidence," here is some, "NONO that evidence is fake and bad and I don't agree with it show me more!"
I can't have a debate with someone who wants to call something wrong and then ask for proof, and then when given it reject it everytime.
I don't accept your proof of creationism because evolution makes more logical sense. So now I want you to prove evolution wrong. Every piece of it, don't prove creationism right you tried that, prove evolution wrong.
If you can do that I will accept your view.
Top
WHAT! Are you serious???? The freaking POPE said evolution is ok! REALLY???? You should recheck the doormat buddy.
You seem to think that evolution proves that God doesn't exist, that would also be wrong. I believe God created the evolutionary cycle to test the scientific REASONING of his people! The bible was written in a time before science and God's master plan can never be written in one book. You are not only and idiot but you are a bad Christian too! Put faith in God not the bible.
Top
If "Evolutionism" is a religion, then biologists shouldn't have to pay taxes.
Top
Chris. Going back to my simple example of the world being flat: Just because the majority believed it then, didn't make it accurate. There must be something to base it on rather than an appeal to the "majority." Evidence speaks for itself, whether we choose to believe it or not. And there is no credible evidence which supports the religion of Evolutionism.
Top
I have presented simple evidence of Christianity in previous comments. Please check it out. I have already addressed supposed evidences presented by "Lazlo." I have to address "every" supposed evidence? From the very git-go, there is no credible evidence that we got here from a mysterious "big bang," or that life evolved from a rock billions of years ago. Evolutionism IS NOT logical, as you say it is.
Who's "rejecting" your "proof"? I am addressing your "proof."
Top
James. Just because the "Pope" says it is Ok, means that it is correct? Here again, is an appeal to authority, rather than addressing the facts.
I did not say that Evolutionism proves God does not exist. I said that Christianity is at opposition with Evolutionism. Evolutionism puts death before sin, Christianity has sin before death. Is that not opposition?
Why would God leave us to guess? He has given us exactly what He wants us to know in His Word.
Why do we have to resort to name calling? How does believing what God says in His Word, the Bible make me a "bad Christian"? My faith is in God, THE God of the Bible, not in A god.
The Bible is not a scientific manual, but in matters of science, the Bible has always been shown accurate (i.e. "the circle of the earth," etc.).
Top
Telling me my evidence is wrong is not addressing my proof.
I will no longer comment to you because you seem to have a great inability to comprehend simple things. I will no longer tell you over and over that you have not proven one thing wrong yet, not one!
Telling me it is wrong =/= proving it is wrong. Show me data, evidence that says, "Here is why evolution is impossible."
Til' then enjoy your delusion that you are supporting your case and making a good argument. I advise James to do the same.
Top
Wow J, good luck in life.
Top
Funny that he hasn't responded to Chris, umm good job Chris!
Top
I'm confused are you defending evolution or attacking Christianity you bounce back from both pretty quickly. In the future I would recommend making the ideas separate paragraphs with transitional phrasing. I would also recommend not saying "These are nothing more than angry cheap shots, attacks, vacuous accusations" in your opinion article it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black in your case. You're back though, after that fiasco of your last opinion article I was surprised they'd let you do another.
Reply to this Top
I am surprised anyone would ask for proof of Evolution. The HIV virus and its constant mutation is a good example. You may look that up. SINES are also a proof of evolution, check that out. Embryonic development and the similarities among species, yet again another, and so much more. Speak to an Evolutionary biologist here on campus. I have done my research, you simply do not like my decision. It is clear, however, you do not want to do yours. Because even if you still believed what you do you would NOT be asking for evidence.
Reply to this Top
The old "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny argument" . . . Are you serious?! Is that being taught in your "school?" That was discredited and falsified over 100 years ago. Additionally, those folds under the chin of a human embryo are not gills. They are just folds of skin from which other useful organs will develop. Incredible. You definitely need faith to believe Evolution from embryology.
As for the SINE "evidence." It only shows that there are two ways to look at the evidence: One, that it somehow "proves" Evolutionism by way of fancy models and graphs, which may simply indicate a common Designer. That doesn't "prove" Evolution. You need faith to believe Evolution from SINE evidence.
Top
As for mutations, they do not "prove" Evolution. Mutations are not "macro-evolution." They are the result of a loss of information. The HIV that you speak of is constantly "adapting" to its environment by "losing" information that would lead to its demise. And if it were in the original population, it would not have survived in the first place. It doesn't mean that it will one day become anything else but a virus. You need faith to believe Evolution from mutations.
I didn't speak to anybody, I read for myself, think for myself, and study the subject. You should read, think, and study objectively for yourself too. There is no credible reason for anyone to believe Evolutionism. Majority opinion does not make something right. A majority can be wrong, as the case when people thought the world was flat and in this case, the story of Evolution. By cleaving to majority opinion over scientific evidence you demonstrate YOU do not chose to accept it because YOU do not like where the evidence may point - to the God of the Bible.
Top
You have you're own comment thread for this J.Smith keep your discussion in mine on topic.
Top
That was embarrassing for the people of this campus, not the author. They proved his point.
Reply to this Top
It was embarrassing to this campus that one of their students wrote that article. It reflected badly on us that we would pass that off as a good op ed. It was a first draft at best and it was full cheap shots, stereotypes and liberal guilt. It had no place in a prestigious university's newspaper.
Top
Confused? Or stultified? There's a difference.
Reply to this Top
While confusion may not be the best word to describe my reactions to this article my comments on the structure of the column remain just as valid. John really needs to learn how to separate his ideas and connect them to the overall thesis. This time was better than the last but he certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
Top
You replied to the wrong comment. It's okay, happens to the best of us.
Reply to this Top
Evolution does not preclude God...
but honesty does.
For evolution we have the fossil record, DNA (the same evidence used in Miami CSI and in courtrooms across the world), morphology, geology, vestigial traits, atavisms and molecular biology.
For God, we have the same evidence the Greeks had for Zeus and Athena - a bunch of campfire stories, some of them written down.
The beauty of evolution is that you don't have to lie to defend it. The beauty of evolution is that it doesn't requrie faith - even if you stop believing in it, it still exists.
Reply to this Top
Of course your ignoring the fact that we have proof of Jesus Christ's existence. Which would give Christianity considerably more credibility than Greek mythology.
Reply to this Top
Not sure what you're getting at; there is scant evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone that he possessed magical powers. Obviously, the Bible alone cannot be used as proof, as The Hobbit does not prove Bilbo Baggins. Besides, no part of the New Testament was written when Jesus was said to be alive. Therefore, I assume you are referring to the non-Biblical Jesus references. The earliest of these was from the historian Josephus, who was born after Jesus was said to have died. There exists no first person accounts of the life of Jesus, only hearsay. Even then, Josephus' account (totaling two mentions) never claimed Jesus to be divine, son of god, nor the messiah. All of that came later; generations later. There very well may have been a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who said some wise things, but do not suggest that there is evidence to his divinity. You believe that on faith alone.
Top
Of course Jesus existed are you going to try and convince me Alexander the Great never existed too. If you look at ancient texts independent accounts prove that even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the existence of Jesus. Only now do skeptics question whether he was real, it's been an argument over whether he was the son of god or simply a man for almost 2000 years. Yes Jesus was a man and if you want to doubt his works fine but you can not deny that he did exist.
Top
John F. You are right, inevitaby, it comes down to faith in the Son of God, as God ("I and my Father are one," John 10:30), and yes there is much evidence to demonstrate His existence: Roman ordinances, graffiti, and tomb inscriptions towards the late 30's AD; Caesar's Decree c. 50 AD, regarding thefts of dead bodies; Chrestus, the Instigator's reference to Christ's missing body in 50 AD; Thallus' Eclipse in 52 AD noting that darkness fell on the land during Christ's crucifixion.
Regarding His miracles: The Testimonium Flavianum, et.al. describes "surprising works" which Jesus did; Roman historian Tacitus, the same, writing in about 115 A.D.; In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding His miracles. Yes, years after Christ, but still fresh in people's minds, at a time when people didn't normally waste writings on lies.
There are numerous references apart from Josephus. There has still been no body found, a world turned upside down, and changed lives. Christianity is based on faith, but a reasonable faith.
Top
All of those are either from the Bible (Ceaser/ body/ tomb stuff), made up (Thallus never mentioned Jesus), or otherwise not legitamate sources. People back then only lived about 40 years, so historians writing about events 100 years after the event took place is at least 2 generatiosn removed. Kinda mkes it hard for things to be "fresh" in the mind. Even if there were documented witnesses to affirm supposed miracles, I sould still not be convinced. Just look at how many people swear they have been abducted by aliens. Faith is believing what you know ain't true.
Top
John F. Please check your facts before you make those statements. All of those are documented writings. Thallus didn't mention Jesus, he mentioned His surprising works. People back then lived to about 40?? I believe the Apostle John was about 90 when he died, and Paul, before he was beheaded was maybe 60.I'm sure if we dug deeper, we would find life beyond 40 in many cases. Please check your facts before you speak out like that. People might believe you.
Faith is believing what you cannot see (Hebrews 11:1-3), trusting what God says in His Word, not believing what "ain't true" as you say. God tells us to put our faith in "something" (Him and His finished work on the cross), not "nothing."
Top
What fossil record? Even Stephen Gould admitted there is none. If anything, DNA demonstrates incredible complexity and design. The Law of Probability alone excludes it from ever forming by "blind chance." Morphology? There is no evidence for that. Geological research gives much more credence to the Biblical account, check out polonium halos found in granite. Vestigal arguments?? Which ones?? Molecular biology reveals a world we have not even imagined - smaller is not simpler.
Reply to this Top
>What fossil record? Even Stephen Gould admitted there is none.
False statement.
>If anything, DNA demonstrates incredible complexity and design.
False statement.
>The Law of Probability alone excludes it from ever forming by "blind chance."
False statement.
>Morphology? There is no evidence for that.
False statement.
>Geological research gives much more credence to the Biblical account, check out polonium halos found in granite.
False statement.
Search TalkOrigins for each of these, and you will find out why. If you have an irrational prejudice against that site, then check out the references that they provide. Then compare that information with the hopeless pastiche you have offered.
There is a very simple reason why you make these utterly unsupportable assertions: You have been lied to. I don't accuse you of dishonesty, just of an immense credulity. But the people who have given you these bad arguments are completely unscrupulous.
I understand that you will not accept this; the decades I have spent trying to repair the thought processes of gullible creationists have taught me that it takes more than demonstrable reality to convince them. But there may be others who read this and follow through to examine the actual evidence.
For them (and you, if you are willing!) search TalkOrigins for the story of Glenn Morton. It is enlightening.
Top
The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Stephen Jay Gould Harvard University. Evolutions Erratic Pace Natural History Vol. 5 May, 1977
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stageshas been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.
Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now p. 140 Marxist Professor at Harvard University in Boston
Top
Are you seriously telling me that DNA is not incredibly complex when the information in one molecule could fill volumes and volumes of books??
Law of Probability - Anything over 10 to the 50th is considered impossible.
The probability of just one DNA arranging itself by chance has been calculated to be 1 chance in 10 to the 119,000th
In The Beginning, Walt Brown p. 12
That means it is impossible!
Morphology - evidence please? Just one.
Polonium Halos found in solid granite. Had to have formed rapidly, not over -illions of years. False?? What kind of science are you promoting? Dr. Robert Gentry, www.halos.com
You said all are false . . . it seems you are the one who has been lied to. And where did YOU get YOUR information? None of us are born with an education. I think you made need the "repairs." Yes, I pray that others will check the evidence for themselves.
Top
Interesting that Mr. J.Smith would mention Dr. Walter Brown. According to Dr. Brown's Hydroplate theory, the energy released from the flood waters erupting from the subterranean chambers hypothesized by the Hydroplate theory was like that of an explosion exceeding 10 BILLION hydrogen bombs. Since the earth has an area of about 200 million square miles, that would mean that each square mile of the earths surface was subject to the equivalent of 50 hydrogen bombs. While I am not sure what sort of yields Dr. Brown might be envisioning, thermonuclear warheads can go all the way up to 50 megatons of TNT, which would be equivalent to 2.5 BILLION tons of TNT on every square mile of the earths surface, or approximately 90 tons of TNT for every square FOOT of the earth's surface. I am curious, since Mr. J.Smith seems to be a fan of Dr. Brown's "science", if Mr. J.Smith has any scientific evidence for this 90 tons of TNT for every square foot of the earth's surface event? Oddly enough, the scientific discipline of geology does not.
Top
Since it is Dr. Brown's theory, you might want to ask him about it. However, the evidence of a flood is all around us. Simply quoting someone does not make me a "fan," as you say. I quoted Stephen Gould TWICE, Flavius, and Tacitus ... does that make me a "fan" of theirs too? You digress from the original point of my "Brown" quote, which is that DNA cannot arise by chance, by attacking a separate statement altogether. The issue is the validity of Evolutionism, not Brown's Hydroplate theory.
Top
The evidence of the Noachian flood all around us? Really? You will have to let everyone know about it. The vast majority of the rest of the world seems to have missed it.
To quote from a popular movie, "show me the money". If "flood geology" were actually true one would imagine that profit making ventures such as oil companies and mining consortiums would use "flood geology" to make their massive profits. Do you actually think that this is the case? Does "flood geology" add to the bottom line for these multinationals?
Do you ACTUALLY think that a Saudi Muslim petrochemical engineer uses "flood geology" to find the next pocket of crude. Do you REALLY think that a Norwegian atheist engineer uses "flood geology" to find the next pocket of North Sea natural gas? Do you REALLY think a South African agnostic geologist uses "flood geology" to find the next profitable diamond mine?
That's the kicker, isn't it? You can claim the scientific validity of "creationism" all you want, but when push comes to shove and people need to use science to make some money (and very often, LOTS of money) "creationism" is no where to be seen, because "creationism" is USELESS as a "science".
Heck, you can't even find the big wooden boat, and your "flood geology text book" tells you EXACTLY where to look.
Top
MIDutch. How did that oil that all those "money hungry" oil companies are searching for get there? All that oil came from the rapid burial and compression of biological materials, massive amounts. A worldwide flood could have done that, hhmm. Yes, people do use science to make money off of what the Flood could have easily accomplished.
As for the Ark, the Turkish government seems to think they have it, they even built a visitor's center next to it:
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-07.htm
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm
. . . hhmmm
Top
Check your facts about lies. May I remind of Haeckel's lies in embryology, and the fallacies used to "prove" missing links (e.g. Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc.). Evolution requires great faith to go from a rock to a living organism. That's NEVER been proven.
Reply to this Top
When J. Smith can hold his own against a P.h.D. in evolutionary biology then I will give him credence. As for now, I am done arguing with a parrot. Also, it is of note that the article actually believes that God either participates in or initiated evolution, it being apart of his design. His only discrepancy with you is the time creation took place in.
Reply to this Top
Do I need a Ph.D. to read and study? The information is available for anyone who is willing to acknowledge the truth. Do I need a Ph.D. to decipher it?
Reply to this Top
You have given a reasonably good presentation about Evolution/Creation. I enjoyed reading it.
Of course, this is not an easy topic and anyone who writes on it should be ready to get a lot of feedback, questions, and comments.
Some of the comments such as "holding against PhDs" shows either ignorance of the issues involved or a lack of substance. It is not PhDs that establish something as true or false. It is facts and evidences that establish something as true or false.
Johnson C. Philip
www.TrinityTheology.org
Top
No, but a P.h.D. is going to know every corner of evolution, things the public has no clue exists or happens.
Top
Good idea you have of PhDs. Do ask some PhDs if that is a true picture.
Johnson C. Philip
www.TrinityTheology.org
Top
I think you should understand I think your right. However, to really just comment so lightly as a center spectator like myself. you should know your not helping the discussion you really need to simply ask both sides to provide their theory in full so that it can be compared and contrasted to each other and so that your all arguing on the same understanding of the theories and concepts that are in question.
Reply to this Top
For example what is evolution are we going to to simplify it or leave it whole. this being said evolution = Delta/Time (change over period of time) example of changes are Ape to man. now that is the short of evolution but the bigger side of it is Evolution = big bang, creation of solar systems and planets, life seeded by aliens or formed from ice crystals, then mutations that resulted as competitors, Adaptation and survival of fittest/smartest.
now I am no pro at either side of this debate that has gone on for some time but let me try the other side too.
Creationism = God created worlds and man continues to live and change into a more advanced and sophisticated race. Animals become extinct due to inability to change or over crowding.
This is what needs to be done if your going to argue sometime that has too much data for one person B/C otherwise problems develop like people mistaking adaptation as something that couldn't also be applied to creationism since it is probably the one the evolution has as the most real evidence for.
Top
I agree with the basic premise of this article. The Theory of Evolution does not preclude God (or gods). However, the Theory of Evolution and everything we know about biology does preclude "creationism", as does every discipline of science. "Creationism" was the default mind set in the western world for THOUSANDS of years and had an (enforced) monopoly on scientific thought. And yet it still FAILED to produce anything of scientific value. Yes there were a few brilliant scientists who were "creationists", but all of their work was built upon scientific evidence and the scientific method, not the tenets of "creationism". Indeed, the Christian naturalists, clergy and lay people who set out to discover the geological evidence for the Noachian flood some hundred years before Darwin were actually the ones who put the first nails in the coffin of "creationism". To their credit, their faith was never shattered by scientific reality. Something that some present day Christians could learn from.
Reply to this Top
Everything we know about biology does preclude 'creationism'" ?? Does the incredible complexity of a single cell support evolutionism or creation? How about the bacterial flagellum?? A literal "motor" found in bacteria. Does that preclude creation? There are no transitional forms to this day, only the same creatures. Evolutionism's explanation is that they suddenly appeared (Cambrian Explosion). . . hhmm, sounds a lot like creation.
Let's go to the "beginning" . . . Evolutionism says we came from a rock (rain on the rocks = primordial soup) billions of years ago - that life arose from a chemical soup. Creation says, "In the beginning God." Which one is more reasonable? How about the oldest living tree, the oldest coral reef, and the population of the Earth all indicating an earth less than millions of years old? Does your biology include these facts, and still preclude Creation?
Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown (Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998 fossil section)
Reply to this Top
What a remarkable distortion of the facts.
Top
"A few" scientists? How about: Alexander MacAlister (18441919) Anatomy; H. Sayce (18451933) Archeologist; George Romanes (18481894) Biology; Physiology; John Ambrose Fleming (18491945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve; Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist; George Washington Carver (18641943) Inventor; L. Merson Davies (18901960) Geology; Paleontology; Douglas Dewar (18751957) Ornithologist; Howard A. Kelly (18581943) Gynecology, to name "a few." I have many more.
Being a Christian does not preclude science, it embraces it. Science is a way to see the wisdom of God and glorify Him for His great works. Sadly, men do not want to acknowledge the God of the Bible. If you will, YOUR faith in Evolutionism will be shattered.
Reply to this Top
Christian "naturalists" is an oxymoron. A naturalist believes there are ONLY naturalistic explanations to phenomena, to the exclusion of a "supernatural." However, I believe these men set out to find geological evidence of an old Earth, rather than evidence for a Flood. And, depending upon how you view the evidence, a conclusion can be drawn. We see the same evidence but draw opposing conclusions because of our "beliefs." The question is, which is more reasonable: Billions of years ago "Bang" and nothing exploded into something, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, chemical soup became life, and a "frog" became a man; or "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." ?
Reply to this Top
What would it take you to believe in evolution? What kind of evidence? What kind of evidence would you accept to no longer believe in creationism? For example, evolution would be shown to be false is they found rabbit fossils from the pre-crambrian era, or anything similar. How is creationism falsifiable?
Top
To the closed minded people like J.Smith it isn't that is why I stopped arguing until he provided evidence to prove evolution wrong.
You should too...
Top
John F. You hit the nail on the head. "What would it take you to BELIEVE in evolution?" Evolutionism IS a belief. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the bottom line is that Evolutionism teaches that something exploded from nothing, and "nothing" became all that we see today. Behind all the talk of age of the Earth, fossils, missing links, and everything else that diverts our attention from that point, Evolutionism teaches supernatural origins.
Evolutionism clearly goes against the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter came from nothing). It clearly breaks the Law of Angular Momentum (not all planets/moons spin in the same direction, in our solar system alone, there are even galaxies that spin in the wrong direction). It clearly breaks the Law of Biogenesis (life from non-life). Those are just three areas where sense tells us that Evolutionism IS a falsified theory. It's time to get a new theory. Those who choose to BELIEVE in it are choosing to believe in what is not reasonable or scientifically accurate.
Top
"Creationism" is the belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth," as found in the Bible. Until this day, nothing in the Bible has been proven incorrect or inaccurate, nor will it ever be, because "God cannot lie." Science supports the biblical creation account. Christians can embrace science as another means whereby the God of the Bible may be glorified.
So, you see John, Evolutionism is a belief (as you inferred) based on unreasonable data. The biblical creation account is also a belief, but based on faith in God and in His Word, which is supported by science. Which one is more reasonable?
Top
First, let me say you sound as if you have serious anger issues. Second, there is a place where science and creationism intersect but you can only truly appreciate that place if you suspend your disbelief enough to "go there." Faith is an abstract ingredient that is required to "go there" - the inspiration BEHIND the words in the Bible are what takes you to this place. As you read the Bible, the inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit (just bear with me a second longer...) which gives the reader a deeper insight as to what is written.
Take your claims to the next level and try to experience the intersection where faith and science co-exist. You might find less anger in your life.
Finally, it's important that you realize that faith is not nor will it ever be a perfect science. We are not as smart as we think so there will just have tobe some mysteries in life. To get through it all, you need faith. Scientists don't have all the answers, so no need to pretend.
Just trying to help you out since you seem so angry about not understanding creationism.
God bless you.
Reply to this Top
Interesting Discussion/Debate!
I helped organize a Creation vs. Evolution Debate at VT in 2002. It was a major undertaking for sure! We had about 1,100 who showed up in Burruss for the Debate itself. We worked with the Freethinkers who provided the Evolution speaker, while we provided the Creation speaker.
I was the spokesman and leader. We had interviews with WUVT and News 7. There was a healthy response on the campus in various ways. We videotaped the Debate and I spent hours editing all to air on the local WTOB TV Channel. We also aired a follow-up we realized was necessary and held on campus before the end of that semester--Creationism Explained.
To this CT article: Many do take this position that Evolution can coexist with GOD, as has been noted. We interviewed many students taking this "middle of the road" position.
The problem and question with the Origin of all being through Evolution or Creation can never be proved by the scientific method one way or the other, for it was not observed by any of us, nor can it be. We have to work with and interpret all we have today--including all the data that is factual and even the historical accounts and books, such as the Bible. That takes work, which many are not willing, honest or disciplined enough to do .
A lot is at stake.
Charles Pugh
www.vtlessonstolearn.com
related articles at: http://www.vtlessonstolearn.com/node/132
and
http://www.vtlessonstolearn.com/node/133
Reply to this Top
As usual I'm surprised that when the Christian faction argues that the Theory(an explanation that best explains the facts at hand) of Evolution is evidence for the Big Bang or the age of the earth, that no one on the 'science' side, corrects them by saying that the ToE has no comment on that age or origin of the universe and only implies that the earth is much older than 6000 years. If you have a 3000 year old fossil, the earth must be at least 3000 year old. Also, the ToE has no comment on the 'origin of life', only on the 'origin of species'. The ToE does not say that man descended from monkeys, but that primates had a common ancestor.
Christians, shame on you!! I can think of two reasons why you would try to build an argument on fallacies. 1) you are indeed ignorant of the facts. 2) you are intellectually dishonest.
Being ingnorant on the facts of what you are arguing is just plain silly. How could you possibly expect to win, let alone how could you expect anyone to take you seriously. The Christians who are intellectually dishonest, doing so is a slap in the face of the God you supposedly worship and obey. Shame on both of you.
To the science folks, why not just point out the errors immediately, stop that line of argument right in its tracks. Then maybe we can have a serious discussion on this subject.
Reply to this Top
Now Christiantiy is a "faction"? When did that happen? It has been an established religion for centuries. From that comment alone, you reveal that you are not thinking clearly. Evolution is not a theory, it has been disproven. It is a belief, the same as "Creationism." If you will reread my previous comments, and do your own evaluations, you will understand that. The "ToE" as you call it DOES posit 6 separate kinds of evolution:
Cosmic Evolution: The Origin of Time, Space, and Matter from "nothing"
Stellar Evolution: The formation of the stars and planets
Chemical Evolution: The formation of all the known chemicals (from hydrogen and helium)
Biological Evolution: Life arose from non-life.
Macro-Evolution: "Simple" life forms evolved (morphed) into what we have today.
Micro-Evolution: Small changes or adaptations.
But Evolutionists tend to present Micro-Evolution (which no one disagrees with), and use it to qualify the other 5 kinds of evolution.
Reply to this Top
Don't believe me . . . Here are some quotes from school textbooks and other sources:
"Most astronomers BELIEVE that about 18 to 20 billion years ago" [caps mine] there was a Big Bang (Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 61)
"Phycisists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion" (HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362)
... the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region*. Its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing" (Alan Guth & P. Steinhardt Scientific American, May 1984 p.128; See Darling, David, On Creating Something from Nothing,New Scientist, vol. 151, September 14, 1996).
Sounds similar to this "belief" :
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
Reply to this Top
One of your own said: [The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come from nothing. It represents a true miracle" (Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist, The Edge of Infinity).
More kinds of evolution:
"Origin of Life" : A swirling broth of complex chemicals progressed into a living organism. (Holt Earth Science 1994 p. 282)
"The first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic 'soup'" (Biology The Unity and Diversity of Life Wadsworth 1992, p. 301)
"About 30 million years ago" ancestral primates evolved into humans and modern apes" (HBJ General Science 1989 p. 385)
God has something to say about this kind of "science":
" keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20, KJB).
Yet this so-called theory is taught as "fact" in schools.
Reply to this Top
Why would anyone who professes faith in something turn around and offer scientific facts in support of it? That makes no sense. If you had facts you would have no need of faith, right? Isn't that what faith is all about, belief without evidence?
Top
Actually the Big Bang has been proven, we have photos of the explosion. Even before then Einstein mathematically proved the origins of the universe through an event such as a big bang. To be fair to both sides he used that formula to also prove God existed. The thing is our universe is an offshoot of a larger universe. The matter didn't come from nothing it came from another universe. The origins of life have also been verified Nobel Prize winning scientists have created organic molecules from early earth conditions using artificial lighting.
Top
Prometheus,
Ugh! Faith is not the opposite of evidence or fact. Your use of the term faith suggests you think it is tantamount to religious wishful thinking, wholly aside from the evidence, as in "blind faith" or a "leap of faith". If this is the case, then the best possible thing would be for Christians to find Jesus's old bones, so they could have their faith in spite of evidence. This is pure foolishness.
The thoughtful religionists among you consider faith as active trust in an individual based on evidence, as in "I trust my husband", or "I trust my fellow soldiers". You trust someone if they prove themselves trustworthy. We would both probably agree there is nothing noble about believing something counter to the evidence, but not all religious faith/trust is of this type.
Top
I have read and considered the facts, and belief in the God of the Bible, and His Word is the more reasonable conclusion. I am not trying to WIN anything. I just want to present the facts so people can think for themselves and make their own decisions.
What, pray tell is the difference between being "intellectually dishonest" and being dishonest? When you answer that, you may realize that what you are being told to "believe" by Evolutionism may fall into one of those two categories.
Reply to this Top
Please allow me to correct myself. "I am not trying to WIN anything. I just want to present the facts so people can think for themselves and make their own decisions." Let me correct that to say simply, "I just want to present the truth." That is all I desire to do, and it is what started my initial comments, because the truth was not being told in the article.
Thank you. I have been blessed by the opportunity to discuss this with all of you. I pray that each of you will consider the facts that have been presented and discard the fallacies, to the end that you may come to know the Creator (Jesus Christ) personally: "Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD"(Jeremiah 9:23-24, KJB).
Top
your article is ignorant and unfounded.
tell me why darwin questioned and rejected his work on evolution right before his death?
Reply to this Top
For the same reason Jesus rejected his work and proclaimed to be an atheist before his death.
Reply to this Top
I'm calling Bravo Sierra on that one
Top
Such a "God" as believes in obeying Darwin's theory, so-called, is wicked and incompetent.
Jesus, by whom and for whom all things are created, got it just right. He knew you before this world began. He died for your sins before he wrote the DNA code for your face. He knew your name as he hung on the cross. He would have died for you, tho no one else on earth shculd ever have accepted his great gift of salvation.
read your Bible. What year is it? All history is His story now. The reason for every season is Jesus. To know Him and serve Him is the greatest show on earth, the greatest joy a heart can know.
Unto us a child is born, a Son is given. Immanuel, God with us. Receive Him.
Reply to this Top
The christian bible is a crock, so are all the "holy books" of all other religions. As the cumulative knowledge and influence of science grows, the credibility and influence of "holy books" diminishes, slowly dwindling, until they are the circling the bowl, their fate to be that of all the other beliefs and gods that people no longer believe in or take seriously, the stuff of myth and legend.....
Reply to this Top
If Jesus could turn water into wine, then he was probably a drunk...
Reply to this Top
Silly frat, evolution was once deemed crazy by intellectuals, and now it is deemed intellectual by the crazy. The only tangible evolution occurring relative to the theory of evolution is the evolution of the theory itself. Somehow the evolution theory has mutated from nothingness to somewhat acceptable hokum.
More specifically, evolution is merely fabricated nonsense; it is a theory and as thus, it is meaningless conjecture/supposition cloaked in the tentacles of illogical reasoning. Regurgitate that claptrap for the course requiring you attain a passing letter grade, and then relegate that crap to the trash bin of your memory.
The only way the evolution theory can contribute anything meaningful to science, is if a researcher ran out of toilet tissue and rip some pages for an alternate wipe (lol)!
Top
I would like to say that I have done many papers on Darwin and Evolution and I am astounded and very awed by the way you presented you thoughts and views. I would have to say I am right there with you. I was raises as a christian but as an adult and now a mother of two, and also a college student, whenever I get a chance to choose my own topic for thesis, or for term papers, it is always Darwin or Evolution. I am guess what you would call addicted. I just wanted to say that I am very overwhelmed and am right there with you.
Reply to this Top
This is understandable that cash makes us disembarrass. But what to do when someone doesn't have money? The only one way is to try to get the <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com/topics/home-loans">home loans</a> and small business loan.
Reply to this Top
That's known that money can make us disembarrass. But how to act if somebody does not have cash? The only one way is to get the credit loans or just short term loan.
Reply to this Top
Hi my family member! I want to say that this post is amazing, great written and include almost all vital infos. I would like to see more posts like this . <a href="http://swtorpowerleveling66.blog.fc2blog.net/">diablo 3 gold</a>
Reply to this Top
I'm really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it's rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..
<a href="http://swtorcreditsbuy.tumblr.com/" title="swtorcreditsbuy.tumblr.com">swtorcreditsbuy.tumblr.com</a>
Reply to this Top
I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it's rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..
<a href="http://briterasal33.tumblr.com/" title="acheterwowgold">acheterwowgold</a>
Reply to this Top
Highly descriptive blog, I liked that a lot. Will there be a part 2?
<a href="http://diablozp.smartlog.dk/" title="Diablo 3 Free Gold">Diablo 3 Free Gold</a>
Reply to this Top
Hi there, I honestly like reading your posts, offer you!
<a href="http://www.official49ersteamshop.com/+aldon+smith+jersey+c+3.html" title="Aldon Smith Jersey">Aldon Smith Jersey</a>
Reply to this Top
I appreciate, cause I found exactly what I used to be having a look for. You've ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye
Reply to this Top