As someone else asked, what's your definition of complex? Isn't a single cell organism already incredibly complex? Even going back the original "simple" one-celled organism, I still see something too complex to have come about by random processes.
I think we are close to agreement - just that we differ in which scenario is the simplest to us:-). It's simpler for me to believe that an all-powerful God created everything, that the rock layers and fossils we observe are the result of the world-wide flood. For me, it's quite a stretch to think that my molecules are just rearranged pond-scum (maybe not such a stretch for others to believe that about me though).
Question 1 cannot be answered. Can the creation ever fully understand the creator? Is not the creation limited by what it can observe? The creator is not part of the creation and thus cannot be defined or understood by observing the entire creation or a subset of the creation.
some organisms evolve fairly rapidly in the labratory or in nature (very simple life tends to evolve faster)
But are those evolved organisms not recognized as the original? How does an organism changing over time into a slightly different version of the same organism support the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution?
Clues get left behind (Fossils for instance)
Evolutionists interpret those clues one way; Bible-believers interpret those clues another way. Both involve faith and both are believable. But neither can be confirmed as fact without an eyewitness. Your gunshot example illustrates that well. It is reasonable to believe but without an eyewitness it cannot be stated as fact. Without the eyewitness account, other unknown sequence of events are possible. But based on our experiences, we choose the scenario that is most likely. When I see a car driving down the road, I don't conclude that a pile of junk fell over in the junkyard and the car was assembled. Based on my experience of other complicated machines, I conclude the car was designed and made that way by a person/group of people and/or machines designed and built by people. Same with life. Even the so-called simple one-celled organism is more complex than an automobile. Based on my experience of everything I've ever seen that was complex, I conclude the one-cell organism had a designer.
Creationists believe in the scientific method and plenty of real qualified scientists believe Genesis 1.
The scientific method involves observation and testing. You can't observe something that alledgedly happened millions of years ago and you certainly can't test it.
The scientific method is good for operational science - but it does nothing to prove history. You need an eyewitness to know what happened in the past. Other than that, it's just a guess and one you have to believe by faith - whether your guess is evolution or your guess is Genesis 1.
I think the real difference is the interpretation of the evidence. Those who believe the Genesis account of creation and those who believe evolution have the exact same evidence - the same rock layers, the same fossils, etc. We just interpret the evidence differently - Bible believers according to their biblical worldview and evolutionists according to their evolutionary worldview. There are plenty of real scientists in both camps.
Of course, we can never state as fact that evolution is true and we can never state as fact that Genesis 1 is true based on the evidence. We are forming theories about the evidence but we were not eyewitnesses to the origin of the universe/earth/life. Belief in Genesis 1 is a matter of faith (Hebrews 11:3) but so is belief in evolution. No matter how many mutations we observe it still is a leap of faith to extrapolate millions and millions of mutations occurring over millions and millions of years to get back to the origin.
We have easily produced amino acids in recreations of primordial Earth
If it were only that simple. First, no one can say for sure what the primordial earth was like. Second, these amino acids were created by an intelligent being (the scientists) in a strictly controlled environment (hmmm, intelligent being created... sounds kinda like Genesis 1), and third, these created amino acids lacked chirality.
that by 2020 they will have changed the prediction 100 times because they keep discovering their assumptions are wrong. But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying so please forgive me for asking this. I am really trying to just understand your viewpoint. It seems to me that you just dismissed the entire Bible and what it says concerning salvation. Based on what you said, can't anyone who has faith in a false religion then expect to enter Heaven? I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know you have faith in the right thing?
A dog is still a dog. There are no transitional forms.
All calculations that are used in your so-called insurmountable proof involve assumptions - assumptions that just may not be true.
I'm glad you mentioned the appendix. You should check out Grolier Encyclopedia and see what it says about the function of the appendix. Just because in the past we could not determine what the function is, does not mean it does not have a function. THe appendix does have a function as scientists have recently discovered. Guess that part of the evolutionary theory will have to be changed.
You could also read the book "Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional" by Dr. Jerry Bergman & Dr. George Howe.
If you are expecting everything to be perfect as it was when God first created it, then you are as those that Peter warned about that think that all things continue the same from creation. If you read the Bible, when God finished creating, he said it was very good. In other words, everything was perfect. But then Adam & Eve sinned and the earth was cursed. Now, instead of everything remaining perfect, the scientific law that things tend toward disorder kicked in and things (including people and animals) began to devolve into less-complex rather than evolve into more complex. (Why is it that evolutionists believe everything in the universe is subject to this except for living organisms? WHy do they believe living organisms start with the so-called simple single celled organisms - which really isn't so simple - and become more complex and more ordered?) That's why God did not prohibit close-relatives from marrying until the time of Moses. Prior to the time of Moses, genetic mutations had not accumulated enough to be a concern that offspring would be harmed by both parents having the same genetic mutation. But by the time of Moses, things had devolved enough, enough genetic mutations had occured that it was dangerous for close-relatives to have offspring together.
Keeping his word and worshiping the bible are two different issues. Jesus wrote no text. His word is not what in the bible, his paraphrased words are. And if they are divine and not divinly inspired then you must then go to their source and not read any interpretation because each interpretation has it's weakness. NIV to KJV to Catholic. If you believe that God told the Clerigy of the 6th centry to cannons the exact books in the bible then you should remain a catholic, because it is the catholic church which chose which books were made into the bible. If you do not then your claim the bible is divine cannot be true because it was put together by man. This is a paradox. If you think God told the clerigy then you should be catholic, since the catholics did that. If you do not then the work is a collation of human works inspired by God and hold no authority in this argument. The reformation was as political as it was theological thus it cannot be divine in inspiration.
What is your definition of science? Is it not observing something, developing a theory to describe the observations, and then testing the theory to see if the theory is true? Not ever observing one kind becoming another kind certainly is a valid argument against evolution. If it is never observed, it can never be tested. The dog is still a dog, the bacteria is still bacteria. That is not evolution of one kind becoming another kind. Your malaria resistant genes are also a disadvantage as you admit. But you are still a human, are you not? Evolution states that one kind becomes another kind yet we do not ever see it happen and there is no fossil evidence that it ever happened. God designed every kind with a wide possibility of variations. But the variations within a kind are still the same kind.
I use the Bible for support because even God magnifies his word above even his own name. TIme & time again in the New Testament, we are told to keep the word, to guard the word, to preach the word. Even Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments. Where are his commandments found? In the Bible.
When Jesus said he made them male & female at the beginning, what did he mean?
You are still confusing operational and historical. Operational science can be observed, tested, and repeated. Historical cannot. We do not see one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism. To say that it occurred in the past is to say that by faith - because it hasn't been observed and it isn't repeatable.
I'm not saying that the people are working together - I'm saying Satan has great power to deceive and manipulate.
One evolutionist at least was honest and admitted he believed in evolution because the alternative - God created in 6 days - was unacceptable to him.
You are confusing operational and historical. Of course NASA is successful because operational science is sound - it is observable and repeatable. Science that goes about to support origins of the universe & life are not sound because every one of those theories are based on certain assumptions that can never be proven true or false because it all occured in the past. Evolutionary theories change year by year, day by day, yet the word of God stands sure.
Evolution cannot be proven and neither can Genesis 1. At least I'm honest enough to admit that. But since neither can proven, I'll take the word of the only eyewitness.
6000-10000 is the range I've heard from all who believe the Bible record. I've never heard 4000.
You say the link I provided is only speculation. But don't you understand that all science that tries to prove past events is speculation? Even your points are based on assumptions - all dating calculations are based on assumptions. Most of those assumptions are based on uniformity - that is processes observed today are the same as processes in the past. Peter warned us about that:
2 Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
There are non-Christian scientists who disbelieve the earth is as old as evolutionists require it to be. Evolution is indoctrinated into children early in their education and hammered into them at the university level. Any attempt to even allow schools to teach the problems with the various evolutionary theories is met with stiff resistance. The major education society in the United States is made up mostly of atheists and agnostics and this group dictates what is taught in the schools. If you don't think it is a concerted effort, then you seriously underestimate the power of Satan to deceive.
I just found this article that says that CHinese written records date back 3500 years and 5000 years is the age commonly used by Chinese as the age of their civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we should hurry global warming along to melt the polar ice caps sooner so we have enough water to fill that new ocean.
Name calling and belittling an entire group of people is very scientific indeed!
for letting that butterfly flap its wings.
People aren't interested in a Windows without a media player - it was the competing businesses who were complaining.
Sorry about that.
As someone else asked, what's your definition of complex? Isn't a single cell organism already incredibly complex? Even going back the original "simple" one-celled organism, I still see something too complex to have come about by random processes.
I think we are close to agreement - just that we differ in which scenario is the simplest to us :-). It's simpler for me to believe that an all-powerful God created everything, that the rock layers and fossils we observe are the result of the world-wide flood. For me, it's quite a stretch to think that my molecules are just rearranged pond-scum (maybe not such a stretch for others to believe that about me though).
Question 1 cannot be answered. Can the creation ever fully understand the creator? Is not the creation limited by what it can observe? The creator is not part of the creation and thus cannot be defined or understood by observing the entire creation or a subset of the creation.
But are those evolved organisms not recognized as the original? How does an organism changing over time into a slightly different version of the same organism support the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution?
Evolutionists interpret those clues one way; Bible-believers interpret those clues another way. Both involve faith and both are believable. But neither can be confirmed as fact without an eyewitness. Your gunshot example illustrates that well. It is reasonable to believe but without an eyewitness it cannot be stated as fact. Without the eyewitness account, other unknown sequence of events are possible. But based on our experiences, we choose the scenario that is most likely. When I see a car driving down the road, I don't conclude that a pile of junk fell over in the junkyard and the car was assembled. Based on my experience of other complicated machines, I conclude the car was designed and made that way by a person/group of people and/or machines designed and built by people. Same with life. Even the so-called simple one-celled organism is more complex than an automobile. Based on my experience of everything I've ever seen that was complex, I conclude the one-cell organism had a designer.
Creationists believe in the scientific method and plenty of real qualified scientists believe Genesis 1. The scientific method involves observation and testing. You can't observe something that alledgedly happened millions of years ago and you certainly can't test it. The scientific method is good for operational science - but it does nothing to prove history. You need an eyewitness to know what happened in the past. Other than that, it's just a guess and one you have to believe by faith - whether your guess is evolution or your guess is Genesis 1.
Have scientists verified the assumptions in all of their dating methods? Or is that why they are called assumptions?
I think the real difference is the interpretation of the evidence. Those who believe the Genesis account of creation and those who believe evolution have the exact same evidence - the same rock layers, the same fossils, etc. We just interpret the evidence differently - Bible believers according to their biblical worldview and evolutionists according to their evolutionary worldview. There are plenty of real scientists in both camps.
Of course, we can never state as fact that evolution is true and we can never state as fact that Genesis 1 is true based on the evidence. We are forming theories about the evidence but we were not eyewitnesses to the origin of the universe/earth/life. Belief in Genesis 1 is a matter of faith (Hebrews 11:3) but so is belief in evolution. No matter how many mutations we observe it still is a leap of faith to extrapolate millions and millions of mutations occurring over millions and millions of years to get back to the origin.
If cloning a human embryo is equal to cloning a human, why isn't killing a human embryo equal to killing a human?
If it were only that simple. First, no one can say for sure what the primordial earth was like. Second, these amino acids were created by an intelligent being (the scientists) in a strictly controlled environment (hmmm, intelligent being created... sounds kinda like Genesis 1), and third, these created amino acids lacked chirality.
Why would that be stupid?
that by 2020 they will have changed the prediction 100 times because they keep discovering their assumptions are wrong. But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.
But our eyes still serve us well - just as God designed them. We do not need eyes like eagles. Did you click that link and read that article?
If we only had 1 eye, that would indeed be a problem. Fortunately, God designed us with two.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying so please forgive me for asking this. I am really trying to just understand your viewpoint. It seems to me that you just dismissed the entire Bible and what it says concerning salvation. Based on what you said, can't anyone who has faith in a false religion then expect to enter Heaven? I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know you have faith in the right thing?
A dog is still a dog. There are no transitional forms.
All calculations that are used in your so-called insurmountable proof involve assumptions - assumptions that just may not be true.
I'm glad you mentioned the appendix. You should check out Grolier Encyclopedia and see what it says about the function of the appendix. Just because in the past we could not determine what the function is, does not mean it does not have a function. THe appendix does have a function as scientists have recently discovered. Guess that part of the evolutionary theory will have to be changed.
You could also read the book "Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional" by Dr. Jerry Bergman & Dr. George Howe.
If you are expecting everything to be perfect as it was when God first created it, then you are as those that Peter warned about that think that all things continue the same from creation. If you read the Bible, when God finished creating, he said it was very good. In other words, everything was perfect. But then Adam & Eve sinned and the earth was cursed. Now, instead of everything remaining perfect, the scientific law that things tend toward disorder kicked in and things (including people and animals) began to devolve into less-complex rather than evolve into more complex. (Why is it that evolutionists believe everything in the universe is subject to this except for living organisms? WHy do they believe living organisms start with the so-called simple single celled organisms - which really isn't so simple - and become more complex and more ordered?) That's why God did not prohibit close-relatives from marrying until the time of Moses. Prior to the time of Moses, genetic mutations had not accumulated enough to be a concern that offspring would be harmed by both parents having the same genetic mutation. But by the time of Moses, things had devolved enough, enough genetic mutations had occured that it was dangerous for close-relatives to have offspring together.
If you do not believe the Bible is God's word, how do you know 100% for sure you are saved and will spend eternity in Heaven?
What is your definition of science? Is it not observing something, developing a theory to describe the observations, and then testing the theory to see if the theory is true? Not ever observing one kind becoming another kind certainly is a valid argument against evolution. If it is never observed, it can never be tested. The dog is still a dog, the bacteria is still bacteria. That is not evolution of one kind becoming another kind. Your malaria resistant genes are also a disadvantage as you admit. But you are still a human, are you not? Evolution states that one kind becomes another kind yet we do not ever see it happen and there is no fossil evidence that it ever happened. God designed every kind with a wide possibility of variations. But the variations within a kind are still the same kind.
I use the Bible for support because even God magnifies his word above even his own name. TIme & time again in the New Testament, we are told to keep the word, to guard the word, to preach the word. Even Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments. Where are his commandments found? In the Bible.
When Jesus said he made them male & female at the beginning, what did he mean?
You are still confusing operational and historical. Operational science can be observed, tested, and repeated. Historical cannot. We do not see one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism. To say that it occurred in the past is to say that by faith - because it hasn't been observed and it isn't repeatable.
I'm not saying that the people are working together - I'm saying Satan has great power to deceive and manipulate.
One evolutionist at least was honest and admitted he believed in evolution because the alternative - God created in 6 days - was unacceptable to him.
You are confusing operational and historical. Of course NASA is successful because operational science is sound - it is observable and repeatable. Science that goes about to support origins of the universe & life are not sound because every one of those theories are based on certain assumptions that can never be proven true or false because it all occured in the past. Evolutionary theories change year by year, day by day, yet the word of God stands sure.
Evolution cannot be proven and neither can Genesis 1. At least I'm honest enough to admit that. But since neither can proven, I'll take the word of the only eyewitness.
Evolution is a religion.
6000-10000 is the range I've heard from all who believe the Bible record. I've never heard 4000.
You say the link I provided is only speculation. But don't you understand that all science that tries to prove past events is speculation? Even your points are based on assumptions - all dating calculations are based on assumptions. Most of those assumptions are based on uniformity - that is processes observed today are the same as processes in the past. Peter warned us about that:
There are non-Christian scientists who disbelieve the earth is as old as evolutionists require it to be. Evolution is indoctrinated into children early in their education and hammered into them at the university level. Any attempt to even allow schools to teach the problems with the various evolutionary theories is met with stiff resistance. The major education society in the United States is made up mostly of atheists and agnostics and this group dictates what is taught in the schools. If you don't think it is a concerted effort, then you seriously underestimate the power of Satan to deceive.
Your very last question is speculation.
I just found this article that says that CHinese written records date back 3500 years and 5000 years is the age commonly used by Chinese as the age of their civilization.