The Truth about Evolution

[Hemodoc]

Here is a book calling for the top scientists to "speculate" on the origins of eukaryotic cell membranes.  Speculation is not completed evidence through the scientific method.  We do not have the facts and data that most people believe we do.

Eukaryotic Membranes and Cytoskeleton: Origins and Evolution

This book discusses the evolutionary origin and diversification of eukaryotic endomembranes and cytoskeleton from a cell biological and comparative genomic perspective. The premise of this book is that convincing experimental cell biologists to speculate about the evolutionary origin of the cell biological processes they are working on, the scientific community will gain fresh insight into the problem of eukaryote origins from scientists who possess intimate knowledge of how eukaryotic cells function. Thankfully, many cell biologists have accepted the challenge and provided in-depth cell evolutionary analyses, or have teamed up with bioinformaticians in order to carry out comparative genomic surveys. Their contributions, together with the contributions of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, have provided a diversity of viewpoints and a fresh perspective on many aspects of eukaryote evolution.

http://www.landesbioscience.com/books/iu/id/811/?nocache=384948675

[Hemodoc]

Inspired Guesses, Creative Imagination, and Science

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact" (Julian Huxley, Issues in Evolution, p. 41).

Although the evolutionary community would have the public believe the above statement, there is "a great gulf fixed" between evolution and the facts of science. How could such a wide chasm be spanned? Only by using one's imagination. More and more, macroevolution is seen as Dryden pens in the Dedication of King Arthur, "that fairy kind of writing which depends only upon the force of imagination."

Real science " ... is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observations" (Dr. James B. Conant, former president of Harvard). The Harper Encyclopedia of Science describes the scientific method as " ... techniques of controlled observation employed in the search for knowledge." In other words, science is knowledge obtained primarily through observation, not speculation or imagination.

http://www.icr.org/article/inspired-guesses-creative-imagination-science/

[fc2821]

      For those who are not located in North America and come to this thread a bit of background:
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring theological and cultural-political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe, between those who espouse the validity and/or superiority of literal interpretations of a creation myth, and the proponents of evolution, backed by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology. Though also present in Europe and elsewhere,and often portrayed as part of the culture wars, this debate is most prevalent in the United States.

While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.
The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education (and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories), free speech, separation of Church and State, and theology (particularly how different Christians and Christian denominations interpret the Book of Genesis).
        Please resume fighting, folks. 

[fc2821]

        After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

       Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.   

       Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight. Because of the combative nature of  this conflict, the salvation message always seems to be lost in the struggle.

[jennyc]

And faith unlike science can NEVER be scientifically proven. Therefore creationist theory can never be proven or disproven........

In OZ there is no real serious debate, evolution is taught in schools regardless of the type of school (public, private or religious). Evolution is taught as fact. The only way religion enters into a class room is if a) you attend a religious school (therefore it's a given) b) if you attend a public or selective non religious school you have the option of taking scripture class once a week based on your faith.

[fc2821]

And faith unlike science can NEVER be scientifically proven. Therefore creationist theory can never be proven or disproven........

       I agree.   

[Hemodoc]

Dear Rob,

Thank you for the good review of what is mainly an American debate, but it certainly is not limited to only America on creation vs evolution.  The most important aspect to understand is that both sides argue from a religious point of view.  It is actually quite easy to show what evolution science does or does not say.  Such as the post above looking at the widening gap on the origin of mitochondrial acquisition.  Already on this thread, it is spoken of as an established fact when the scientific evidence for that is actually getting weaker, not stronger.  The use of the word speculation instead of established fact in the book review should be a red flag to people about the true state of evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, we can see the inner workings of a cell with the myriad of molecular machines that make life happen.  I studied the physiology of life starting 30 years ago but really had no concept that these cycles and physiologic equations don't just happen spontaneously, they are brought about by these complex micro machines.  We called them enzymatic reactions when I studied them, but not being able to visualize what is really going on I didn't grasp the wonder of these enzymes until you can see that yes they are enzymes but in reality we are looking at tiny, incredibly complex machines.

I will take one exception to your comments and jennyc that creationist theory can never be proven.  You made an interesting statement: 

Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.     

First, God has already revealed Himself to us supernaturally and naturally during His first coming yet who has believed His report.

Secondly, I would like to set a verse before us that actually challenges the notion that God can't be found in the things that He has created:

Romans 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

The Bible states that all are without excuse based only on the things that He has created.  I puzzled as a medical doctor and as a born again Christian over this verse for years on how His creation not only is self evident of God, but the God of the Bible as the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I am now completely satisfied personally on how the creation does exactly fulfill this verse.  Indeed, Paul spoke on Mars Hill and preached a message on creation to bring the gospel message:

Acts 17:19: And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20: For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21: (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22: Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23: For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25: Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27: That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29: Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32: And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

The single biggest detriment to belief in the gospel of Christ is the theory of evolution.  Most believe that it is a proven fact when it is not at all proven.  Most believe that it is the result of the scientific method when in fact it does not get beyond the hypothesis state.  Looking into the past through many scientific techniques  that are quite sophisticated is not experimenting in the present which is the integral component of the scientific method.  Instead, speculation, imagination and conjecture is what supports the foundation of most evolutionary theories.  Dawkins climbing mount improbable is just one such example.

On the side of the Bible, we have hundreds of specific prophecies that prove it's reliability.  Given the state of affairs with where evolutionary theory and evidence is today, I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution than the faith I have to believe in the God of the Bible.  I believe that the creation message from God is an important message to hear especially today.

Peter is one of the few people where God the Father actually spoke to Him and revealed supernaturally that Jesus is the Son of God on the mount of transfiguration.  But Peter does not use that as the most reliable evidence of God.  He goes right to the Bible as the most important evidence of the truth of God:

II Peter 1:15: Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17: For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18: And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rob, it is interesting that many wish that God would speak directly to us so that we could believe.  Peter did have that experience not only through Jesus but directly from the Father above.  Yet he placed the evidence of the Bible even above a supernatural event of hearing God the Father speak directly to him.

[monrein]

I found this article to be interesting and representative of what my views are on the topic of evolutionary theory and the importance of this body of knowledge.  There are also, to my way of thinking at any rate, some additional points of interest to be found in the "Objections" and other links included in the essay.
I am also posting the original link from Google for those who like to assess sources as well as the information or ideas presented.

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm



The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged.  Last revised in March 2005]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate).  And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on).  In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation.  That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay).  In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

 

[Those who wish to communicate a criticism of the above article to the author should first read a quick survey of some common objections and responses to them at the following link: Objections] http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay2.htm

[For a more detailed treatment of the same issue, please see the following article "Creationism in the Science Curriculum?"] http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/creationism.htm

[Stoday]

There are, of course, degrees of proof. Civil law (at least, in the UK) requires proof on the balance of probabilities; criminal law as proof beyond reasonable doubt. What I have looked for on the issue of evolution vs intelligent design is for something more likely than on the balance of probabilities. I found the case for evolution  to be beyond reasonable doubt. It's not just one thing that makes up my mind but a number, each more likely than not to support evolution and taken together the total puts the answer beyond reasonable doubt.

I have already spoken of one problem for ID, that of the existence of viruses. Why should a designer create viruses after he's created eukaryotes? The former cannot replicate unless they have infected a eukaryote to steal its replication machinery, so must have been designed/evolved after eukaryotes.

My next problem is the mixture of life over the earth. All the same families of life exist in America, Europe, Africa and Asia BUT NOT in Australia or Madagascar. Why are these different? Evolution has the complete answer — Australia and Madagascar became isolated so that evolution continued along a different tree from the main continents. On the other hand, it's a pointless complication for intelligent design. A designer always seeks to make a design more elegant, not unnecessarily more complicated.

To be going on with I've now I've suggested two problem areas that support evolution and tend to suggest that intelligent design did not happen.

[Hemodoc]

There are, of course, degrees of proof. Civil law (at least, in the UK) requires proof on the balance of probabilities; criminal law as proof beyond reasonable doubt. What I have looked for on the issue of evolution vs intelligent design is for something more likely than on the balance of probabilities. I found the case for evolution  to be beyond reasonable doubt. It's not just one thing that makes up my mind but a number, each more likely than not to support evolution and taken together the total puts the answer beyond reasonable doubt.

I have already spoken of one problem for ID, that of the existence of viruses. Why should a designer create viruses after he's created eukaryotes? The former cannot replicate unless they have infected a eukaryote to steal its replication machinery, so must have been designed/evolved after eukaryotes.

My next problem is the mixture of life over the earth. All the same families of life exist in America, Europe, Africa and Asia BUT NOT in Australia or Madagascar. Why are these different? Evolution has the complete answer — Australia and Madagascar became isolated so that evolution continued along a different tree from the main continents. On the other hand, it's a pointless complication for intelligent design. A designer always seeks to make a design more elegant, not unnecessarily more complicated.

To be going on with I've now I've suggested two problem areas that support evolution and tend to suggest that intelligent design did not happen.

Dear Stoday,

The issue of a virus as a difficulty for the God of creation is not at all a difficulty.  Viruses actually are not all pathogenic and carry plamids that help exchange genetic information between bacteria.  After the fall of man, all of nature changed under the curse where animals had been vegetarian before that time and a lion and lamb would lie together.  That does not happen today but under unusual circumstances.  So, what we see today is not the original version of what God created perfect in the first six days before He rested.  This is not a theological problem at all.

Second, the issue of the variety of life is also not a problem from a creation stand point.  The Bible teaches that God not only created all things, but also destroyed this creation when the wickedness of man became overwhelming. After the flood, we have the first mention of snow in the book of Job. After the flood, the conditions on earth led to the ice age.  During this time, if you look at the continental shelf, you can walk across all continents if the waters are only a hundred feet lower.  As the ice age abated, the seas rose breaking the land bridges in Alaska and in Australia leaving it a separated place where unusual species flourished only there.  This is not a problem from the creationist standpoint.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Monrein,

I am not sure how his major evidences of evolution are proof that it occurred and that creation did not occur.

The Strong Case for Evolution

On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to make a very strong case for the scientific validity of evolution. Consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed overwhelmingly by the established processes of science:

1. There is enormous variety in the plant and animal kingdoms. Some species of plants and animals have much more complex organic structures than other species.

2. All living things must come from at least one living parent (i.e., life does not arise spontaneously out of non-life).

3. The simplest forms of plant and animal life were on earth long before the more complex forms (as confirmed by the geological succession of fossils).

I am not sure how he believes that this is proof of evolution.  In addition, his comment to origins was essentially, why do we have to have beginning?

Those who wish to focus on this point might also like to consider the following questions: Why does life have to have an origin?  Could it not have always existed somewhere in this universe or a parallel one?  Why does there have to be a "first cause" at all?

I will pass on trying to refute his arguments that he made.  They really are not based on testable scientific principles.

On the other hand, he did enter into an area of great interest to me, that of the Grand Canyon.  How old is the grand canyon?    That is a wonderful issue to explore with much information that can be confirmed objectively.  It also ties into the next step in the alleged evolution from eukaryotes during the Cambrian explosion.  Understanding geologic time scale and how it was derived and its limitations is actually one of the next areas I wanted to look at.

[Hemodoc]

Here is a little bit lengthy video on stratigraphy based on actual experimentation.  This is one of the few aspects of geology that has actually been subjected to the full testing by the scientific method which again involves experimentation.  The usual interpretation of stratigraphy is that the bottom layers are older than the layers on top placed bottom to top.  However, in the lab, in moving water, they are laid in a completely different manner laterally with several layers all the same age.  It is important evidence found in the laboratory that must be considered when you look at pictures of the Grand Canyon.

It is not the most exciting video you will ever see, but the information is quite interesting and of great importance to understanding how the layers seen in the Grand Canyon were formed.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6969084415434797659&ei=rIJeS4BGpKCpA-Kdra8H&q=geologic+column+grand+canyon&hl=en&client=safari#

[Hemodoc]

Experiments In Stratification

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6969084415434797659&ei=rIJeS4BGpKCpA-Kdra8H&q=geologic+column+grand+canyon&hl=en&client=safari#

35:38 - 10 months ago

One of my favorite short documentaries about Geology. Guy Berthault discusses some evidences from deep sea drilling, deposits at the mouths of rivers, and work done in concert with hydrologists at the Colorado State University hydraulics laboratory laboratory at Fort Collins. I suggest buying this DVD and giving it to the local professor at the closest community college with a note, thought you should see. The site where the DVD is available, is: http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=DVD-EXP1&Category_Code= Description from site: "Guy Berthault uses laboratory and sediment flume experiments to test accepted principles for the formation of strata. He shows, using easy to follow computer animation, that in moving currents several of the basic principles of stratigraphy do not apply. These principles, including the principles of superposition and continuity, are applicable only in calm water. He applies flume experiments to the real world of strata, mainly the formation of the layers in the Grand Canyon. Long periods of time are not required to deposit a sequence of strata in a moving current, and multiple beds can be deposited simultaneously, especially as a result of changing current speeds. His results have profound implications for the geological column and the interpretation of fossil sequences." Best article on this work:

 http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

[Hemodoc]

Highlighted facts
It was discovered that where there is a current:

1. Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time;
2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies;
3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology.

http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

[Hemodoc]

Moving on from a eukaryotic cell to the Cambrian explosion, we have a question and answer session with a top rated scientist that became a Christian in part based on the findings of his research on the Cambrian explosion.  We started with over 50 phyla of life forms and have had no new life forms added since then contrary to that predicted by the theory of evolution.  Take a look:

Explosion of Life: A scientist reveals details of the Cambrian explosion

Dr. Paul Chien, chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, recently accepted a unique invitation to travel to China to study fossils of the Cambrian era. What Chien found at the Chengjiang site, and what he has since learned about the Cambrian fauna, has changed the focus of his career. Today, Chien concentrates on further exploring and promoting the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion of life. Subsequently, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. . .
               

RI: As you became more interested in this and discovered more about it, did you find it really was an "explosion of life"?

Chien: Yes. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. . .


Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever. There's only one little exception citedthe group known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was probably also present in the Cambrian explosion.

Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html

[Hemodoc]

Explosion of Life: A scientist reveals details of the Cambrian explosion

RI: What information is the public hearing or not hearing about the Cambrian explosion?

Chien: The general impression people get is that we began with micro-organisms, then came lowly animals that don't amount to much, and then came the birds, mammals and man. Scientists were looking at a very small branch of the whole animal kingdom, and they saw more complexity and advanced features in that group. But it turns out that this concept does not apply to the entire spectrum of animals or to the appearance or creation of different groups. Take all the different body plans of roundworms, flatworms, coral, jellyfish and whateverall those appeared at the very first instant.

Most textbooks will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and chop off 99 percent of it, [what is left] is closer to reality; it's the true beginning of every group of animals, all represented at the very beginning.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html

[fc2821]

    Hemodoc, I did not say God can not be found in the things he has created.  In fact I have continuely stressed that a study of science will lead you to the conculsion there is order in things that prove that point.  You insult me sir!
     I don't think you understood my point. 

[Hemodoc]

        After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

       Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.   

       Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight. Because of the combative nature of  this conflict, the salvation message always seems to be lost in the struggle.

    Hemodoc, I did not say God can not be found in the things he has created.  In fact I have continuely stressed that a study of science will lead you to the conculsion there is order in things that prove that point.  You insult me sir!
     I don't think you understood my point. 

Dear Rob,

Absolutely no insult at all intended towards your comments, I just didn't agree with the supposition that creation is not important to the gospel of Christ especially since the Bible states several times over that He created all things.

John 1: 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:12: Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19: For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


I would hope that we do agree that evolution is one of the biggest detriments to people being able to accept the creation story which also is a major reason why people don't get saved.  This is actually even more true since science is actually on the side of creation.  It is only the philosophy of evolution that keeps this theory alive.  Evolution is absolutely devoid of the evidence that everyone is told it possesses.  If people are going to accept the Bible as the basis of their belief, then creation, evolution and the gospel are intertwined in a dance of death so to speak as our eternal soul depends on what we believe according to the Bible.  God has already revealed Himself supernaturally and my son in law became a believer through the evolution creation debate.

I simply respectfully disagree that this debate is not important to the gospel of Christ otherwise I wouldn't bother to engage in the debate.

[Stoday]

After the flood, the conditions on earth led to the ice age.  During this time, if you look at the continental shelf, you can walk across all continents if the waters are only a hundred feet lower.  As the ice age abated, the seas rose breaking the land bridges in Alaska and in Australia leaving it a separated place where unusual species flourished only there.  This is not a problem from the creationist standpoint.

Dear Hemodoc,

Not a problem? Then how do you account for the existence of marsupials in Australia and nowhere else?

The evolutionary case is that there was a land bridge at one epoch which allowed the migration of animals that existed at that time; they evolved and marsupials were one of the products of evolution. They only evolved in Australia because the environment was different from the rest of the world.

On the other hand, if they were created, they had to roam the world otherwise they would not have been saved in the ark. They left no fossils other than in Australia. After the flood, all the marsupials in the world would have had to go to Australia and get there before the end of the ice age, when the land bridge disappeared.

You have mentioned another fact, which I perceive as difficulty with the creation theory, several times. The extinction of a greater number of species than currently exist is a fact. Evolution provides an explanation for it. I cannot think of how creation can explain that fact other than that the creator made mistakes.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Stoday,

Marsupial fossils have been found not only in Australia, but Asian up to China as well as in North America.  There are apparently some found in Indonesia  still today.

Though most marsupials are restricted to Australia today, all early fossil ancestors of the mammalian group are known from Asia and North America. The previous oldest known marsupial skeleton was unearthed from 75-million-year-old Mongolian deposits (though jaw fragments and teeth up to 105 million years of age have also been documented). The discovery of Sinodelphys follows the uncovering by the same research team, of the world's oldest placental mammal Eomaia scansoria last year. The discovery of both fossils was part funded by grants from the National Geographic Society.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1215_031215_oldestmarsupial.html

Marsupials are not the only unusual creatures that we have that only exist within a small region.  Lack of predators in Australia may be part of the reason that they still survive in Australia where as in the other areas, these docile animals may not have been able to compete against more aggressive animals in other areas.    The natural land bridge between asia and Australia is quite easy to see when  looking at the map of the continental shelf around Australia. 

[Hemodoc]

After the flood, the conditions on earth led to the ice age.  During this time, if you look at the continental shelf, you can walk across all continents if the waters are only a hundred feet lower.  As the ice age abated, the seas rose breaking the land bridges in Alaska and in Australia leaving it a separated place where unusual species flourished only there.  This is not a problem from the creationist standpoint.

Dear Hemodoc,

Not a problem? Then how do you account for the existence of marsupials in Australia and nowhere else?

The evolutionary case is that there was a land bridge at one epoch which allowed the migration of animals that existed at that time; they evolved and marsupials were one of the products of evolution. They only evolved in Australia because the environment was different from the rest of the world.

On the other hand, if they were created, they had to roam the world otherwise they would not have been saved in the ark. They left no fossils other than in Australia. After the flood, all the marsupials in the world would have had to go to Australia and get there before the end of the ice age, when the land bridge disappeared.

You have mentioned another fact, which I perceive as difficulty with the creation theory, several times. The extinction of a greater number of species than currently exist is a fact. Evolution provides an explanation for it. I cannot think of how creation can explain that fact other than that the creator made mistakes.

Dear Stoday, the issue of extinctions are not a problem with the God of the Bible that records that all creation groans under the burden and curse of our sins because God gave dominion to man before the fall.  However, the Cambrian explosion is not explained by slow gradualism.  Instead we see the most complex life forms at the start now we are at a reduced level of complexity.  This goes against the principles of evolution, but is in agreement with creation.


RI: In the December 1995 issue of Time magazine in the article "When Life Exploded" the writer implied that there was nothing to get worked up aboutthe theory of evolution was not in any danger.

Chien: The scientists come out and say, "Oh yes, we've heard this before and it's very similar to the Burgess Shale," and so forth, but the Burgess Shale story was not told for many years. The Burgess Shale was first found by Charles Walcott in 1909why was the story not reported to the public until the late 1980's?

At the very beginning I thought it was a problem for them; they couldn't figure out what was going on because they found something that bears no resemblance to the present animal groups and phyla. Walcott originally tried to shoehorn those groups into existing ones, but [his attempt] was never satisfactory.

It was puzzling for a while because they refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist nowthat's more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) But the point is, they saw something they didn't know what to do with; that's the scientifically honest position they're placed in. Later on, as they began to understand things are not the same as Darwinian expectations, they started shutting up.[/i]

http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html

[Zog]

One day everyone will be on dialysis and several medications to stay alive.  Just as we evolved to not have thick fur and to make clothes and require shelter.  One day people will require all sorts of machines and drugs as a result of congenital problems resulting from widespread experimentation with genetic engineering.  I am kidding.  It probably won't happen, but if it was a scifi movie, I'd go see it.

[Wallyz]

SO, Peter- what are the ethical and moral conclusions of the Intentional Creation theory that you have defended so voluminously?

How do they differ from those of Evolutionary theory?

[Hemodoc]

Not sure I want to dive into this again, but you asked a fair question, I will bite, here is a fair answer from the Bible.  I am sure that the book of frog folks will have a feast on Tyefly's doodoo over my answer, but so be it.

The ethical conclusions of the gospel are of a loving God and loving Creator who wishes all to be saved from this fallen world and enter into eternal life.  Yet He will not force Himself upon anyone.  We all have the free will to choose what we will believe.  It is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should be saved.  Neither was it His will that man should fall to sin, but so is the temptation of free will and free choice, in fact it was simply a responsibility of man to avoid this temptation.  Love cannot be love if it is forced, you must be free not to love to be able to love.  Love and  free will go hand in hand.  Man must choose between good and evil, between eternal life or eternal death.  From your question, I assume there is an issue perhaps of good and evil and why suffering is allowed by a loving God when you ask a out the ethical and moral conclusions of the Creation theory.  For myself, suffering in many ways led me to repentance.  Paul has much to say on these issues in several of his epistles for anyone that wishes to explore the morality and ethics of Creation, the Creator and Salvation.  I may be making an assumption not present in your question, but that is a common argument against the God of the Bible.  Once again, Paul speaks on this in many places.  I believe it all ties in to the simple fact that love cannot be coerced.  That in itself shows the free will that we have.  There are many ways to exercise free will.  I believe that the reason that God gave us free will is to be able to choose to love the God that Created us and spend all eternity with Him in heaven.

II Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Revelation 13:7: And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelatoin 17:8: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


The message of the Bible is that of eternal life to those that call upon His name.  Just as love is a choice we make, eternal life is based on love through free will as a choice to be made as well.  Salvation is open to all through this choice.  The story of the gospel was written before the foundations of the world.  What did it cost?  The life of God's only begotten Son as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  The gospel precedes the Creation.  The greatest act of love ever was when the Son of God gave His soul an offering for our sin. That is the story of the gospel that the Bible records was written down before the foundations of the world, in other words, God knew what would happen once He created the heavens and the earth and then put man in charge of this creation. What we see now on earth is not the entire show. Folks have a choice to make. God made that choice before the foundations of the world with all things made by the Lamb that was slain before the foundations of the world.  According to the Bible, Jesus knew what the Creation would cost Him personally before He created anything.  People may not wish to believe that, but that is what is recorded in the Bible.  In the garden of Gethsemane He asked His Holy Father in Heaven if there was any other way to save man.  "Take this cup from me."  He answered His own question with not my will but thine be done.  The crucifixion is written over a thousand years before it happened.  That is one of the reasons that I believe that there is a God, the God of the Bible.

God tells us that He has shown us even His eternal power and Godhead through that which He created. The Creator, the Creation and Salvation are a continuum  of the same story.  What is truth? Creation or Evolution?  It is not just a philosophical issue to ponder, eternal placement is at stake.  If the Bible is not true, then we will all just be worm food according to the theory of evolution.  If the Bible is correct, then we have an eternal soul that will spend eternity somewhere.  I believe that is a question that we should all consider no matter what our religious or philosophical perspectives.

If the science of evolution is so proven as not to be questioned, then show us that proof.  Unfortunately, when you look at what is supposed to be overwhelming evidence, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  That is all that I have placed in my prior posts, looking at the evidence directly such as the evidence for all of the layers of sedimentary rock that we see across the whole world. I would offer to anyone to simply look at the actually testing of the geological layers and how they were actually formed by direct laboratory experimentation at the University of Colorado by Guy Berthault.  These amazing experiments must lead us to question the entire geologic column on which evolution and the age of the earth are based. 

If folks wish to believe in evolution, so be it.  i don't buy it and looking at the evidence of stratigraphy, the language of DNA, and many other evidences from science, to me the conclusion of an all loving Creator who wishes to fellowship with us in His love through His Son is a much easier thing to believe in than the theory of evolution and the theories of abiogenesis on how non life became life.  If nothing else, folks should simply listen to the video by Guy Berthault and the evidence of how the geologic layers were formed.  It is completely different than what folks are taught as the "gospel truth" from early childhood.  Is evolution science or brainwashing?  Let the evidence speak starting right here from experiments in stratigraphy.  How did we get all of those layers world wide?  Was there a flood?  I believe that the Bible is correct that there was a world wide flood to remove evil from the earth.  It is a powerful message of how much God hates sin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6969084415434797659&ei=a5B_S_6jGJe0rAOds5CfBw&q=Guy+Berthault&hl=en&client=safari#

The message of evolution is that we will all go back and be recycled as worm food.  You can look at the many philosophers of the last few hundred years to gain an understanding of what logic and reason say about morality and ethics without God at the center.  Many conclude that we are the god of our own universe and we make up our own rules as we go along.  So be it.  To each his own, just make sure you are really right since the issue of what lies beyond this world and whether there is life after death may be the single most important issue that anyone of us ever ponders about. 

I believe that there is a God and He wishes to save all men everywhere through the gospel.  That is a condensed version of the Creation, the Creator and Salvation and how morality and ethics ties in to the Bible.  The issues of morality, ethics I would assume is in the realm of good, evil and suffering.  I focus on the suffering that God's Son suffered for my sins.  It stops me cold in my tracks when I want to complain about any evil or suffering that is in my own life.  He knows our fears, our hurts, our sufferings and He promises to wipe away all of our tears in heaven one day.  I believe and trust in that promise.

Once again, I'm not really interested in another food fight so to speak with this issue, but you asked a simple question and I assume you wanted a real answer from the biblical perspective I have looked at in my other posts and tie together the Creation, the Creator and the morality and ethics of such.  If this is not what you had in mind, please clarify.

Thank you.

[Bill Peckham]

 


No need to start a new Evolution thread - this one has it all and can be an avatar for how any thread on IHD can devolve into an endurance contest. See if you can read to the end