I've been going on and on about how Evolution is wrong, people are being biased, people aren't looking into things, etc. etc. BUT. The real question is, DO I HAVE A BETTER IDEA?
Criticism without ideas for change is basically just nagging. So, unless I have a better idea of what to do with all this, I am the official most annoying Blog-Nagger out there.
But I DO have a better idea.
(Which just makes me the most annoying Blogger out there.)
Here are my ideas:
1. Stop seeing the issue as Bible vs. Science. They don't contradict. Evolutionary naturalists like to portray ALL Christians as "Genesis liberalists who reject the evidence of science for purely religious reasons". Not true. The Bible and good Science don't contradict.
I know some of your are saying, that the Bible says the world is flat, it says the sun rises, it says a rabbit chews cud. Well, yes, it does say that. But that's because the Bible was written in phenomonological (fih-NOH-min-uh-LOH-jih-cal) language, meaning it says things how it looks to us, not how it actually is. It's kind of a form of poetry almost.
2. Stop relying on the "blind watchmaker thesis". Having the world just suddenly "happen" or evolve from a single-celled organism is like trying to make a watch while blindfolded. It's pretty much impossible. All the tiny, tiny pieces have to mesh perfectly, and doing that blindfolded would be inconcievable.
3. Realize the philosophical bias in today's society. Most people nowadays think that "good science" BEGINS with the assumption that there is no God. Without even testing this theory, without opening any other options.
I'm just going to throw this out there: scientists are scard. That's why they make sure to define their terms so that naturalism is true by definition.
Why are they scared? Because their theories are not as sound as they like to make people think.
So, yes. I have a better idea. Those are some ideas, but my main idea is, as always this:
OPEN YOUR EYES.
I am trying to open mine. I research Evolution AND Creation both with an open mind, and I still come to these same conclusions. There are stories of countless Evolutionists who have tried to prove the theory, but instead realized it's holes and improbabilities.
Whether you are a Christian or and Evolutionist, or both, as some claim to be, don't defend your belief without first looking into it. Blind faith is silly. Check your facts, do your research, open your eyes.
Not trying to be rude, but I think I may have done a little more research than you think! I don't see how the idea that single celled organisms evolved over millions of years to be any less plausible than the idea that a divine being yelled out "Gimme a man!" There are some holes in evolution, but very few. There are much bigger holes in creationism such as how come that the bible says we've been around for only a few thousand years, but we've found bones dated back millions? And what about dinosaurs? I don't recall hearing about any of them on the ark.
ReplyDeleteI was reading through some of your posts and I must say...it's all very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlex:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Bible is not a textbook. It's not going to tell you every little detail.
One popular Creationist scientific theory about the dinosaurs and general life in Earth deals with events predating the Ark. The theory says that the climate of the Earth was very different, allow for bigger creatures and longer-living humans.
The climate of the Earth actually did change quite a bit throughout the Old Testament, especially during the flood. Another theory suggests that there was a barrier of ice or water that covered the entire planet like a shield. Because of the magnetic properties of water, it's actually not impossible. That water likely would have been the "source" of the huge rainfall during the flood.
All those climate changes would be very very dangerous to a dinosaur, especially since dinosaurs--being lizards--are highly sensitive to environmental changes. There's no reason that the larger dinosaurs couldn't have simply died off before the construction of the Ark, nor is it impossible to assume that a few of them actually were present on the Ark. Heck, maybe they ate each other for sustenance during the 40-day journey. Maybe the sea dinosaurs couldn't handle the tumultuous changes in the seas during the flood and died.
As for the chronology of it all, that's somewhat open to interpretation as well. It's not so important to look at the "how" of the events of the Bible. After all, if an omnipotent being decides to create an entire planet as if it had already existed for billions of years, he may do so.
Science is mankind's attempt to understand the universe; it's no more "true" than anything else. It was once "scientific truth" that the Earth was flat. In another thousand years, we'll laugh at the year 2009 and how completely wrong we were about so many things. The reason that science is often wrong is that it's a cyclical society: professors teach students who then go into the field, working under the assumptions that they were taught to have. No scientist is unbiased, because the scientific process requires the scientist to be either expecting something or testing an already-made theory. Every bit of scientific evidence is "tainted" by the fact that humans simply are not omniscient, and the search for empirical truth inevitably must be a flawed process. When those scientists present their findings to the scientific community, they present them in terms of how they fit into already-existing scientific models (such as evolution). Because of this, scientific knowledge often stays in a "loop," where all the knowledge stays inside a limited box.
Belief in science as a source of knowledge is a philosophy; a choice one makes. Any philosophy has its own set of pre-assumptions; there is no such thing as a completely unbiased person. all we can do is choose what we believe and how to react to it.
Kendra:
You're one of the most intelligent and eloquent fifteen-year-olds I've ever "met." I was told that I was somewhat of a prodigy when I was fifteen, but I definitely wasn't as good of a writer then as you are now. Honestly, your well-thought-out philosophical writings and firm stance in your beliefs give me a lot of hope for the world.
Keep it up! :)
Kendra, I am not saying that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I'm still at loss for your explanation of how Creationism is more scientifically sound than the Theory of Evolution. According to the Bible, Abraham lived thousands of years ago and therefore the flood was thousands of years ago also--and therefore the same with Adam and Eve. However, fossils clearly tell scientists that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and millions of years separate humans and dinosaurs. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not saying your wrong. But, as of the moment, there is more proof supporting those who disagree with Creationism.
ReplyDeleteAbout your description of Evolution as "the world suddenly happening," I think that applies even more to Creationism. No, of course a single-celled organism can't make a watch. But a single-celled organism has enough instinct to know what it's supposed to do. You can watch it happen in any type of micro-biology. Those cells know what to do. Again, I think God guides us in a way we're too small-minded to understand.
And in response to your third direction, I just don't know. Yes, many scientists are as stubborn as conservatives in their beliefs about God. But many scientists are also just dedicated to their field. We shouldn't group any groups on any grounds. KnightWing is right, you are a very good writer.
To KnightWing: Like I said to Kendra, you can keep arguing, but there's just too much scientific evidence right now against your theory. Maybe some more proof will be brought forth, but it hasn't yet.
In response to the rest of your comment, I think I understand what you're saying. Yes, our descendants thousands of the years in the future will not only think our discoveries are elementary but also ridiculous. Maybe our discoveries will be a long-lasting scientific basis, and maybe not. Maybe humanity will reach some compromise that's most likely different from your theory and mine. But I also strongly doubt that the literal interpretation of Genesis is more likely to agree with scientific thoughts in the distant future. I enjoyed reading your comment!
I can't think of any proof that could be brouth forward to support creationism other than all the scientists sying that evolution is a government conspiracy that's been going on for hundreds of years. I just believe in evolution and really can't imagine how people can truly believe in real creationism. If there were dinosaurs on the ark, how come there is no recollection of them in the bible? That seems like a pretty big "plot hole" so to speak.
ReplyDeleteAlex:
ReplyDeleteLike I said, the Bible isn't a textbook. It doesn't contain a full readout of every single type of creature that existed at the time, and which of them went on board the ark. It doesn't mention tigers or flying squirrels either. For all we know, God created a vortex in spacetime that allowed for all the animals to fit within the ark. I mean, if he's omnipotent, that's not exactly impossible. There's no way to prove or disprove it.
The problem is that you're looking for "proof." Anything you think you "know" is just what you've chosen to believe. Heck, you could be plugged into the Matrix right now, and your entire life is a lie.
Honestly, Evolution is the only semi-plausible scientific "theory" that we have for the origins of life. Creationism isn't science, because it very specifically says that events transpired that supercede what we know about our 4-dimensional timespace. That doesn't mean it can't be true, but it does mean that if you attempt to find scientific evidence of it, you never will. Therefore, evolution is the only alternative available to the people who want a scientific answer. That doesn't make it any more or less possible, because, as I said, if God does exist and Creationism did happen, there's no way we can truly discover that.
It's all about philosophical choices, not scientific discoveries.
No, the bible is not a textbook. But it deos cover basic ground. It does not say anything about flying squirrels or tigers, but it does say something about animals. Dinosaurs and the world being covered completely by water and single celled organisms is a pretty big event and would mostly be covered in the bible if creationism was true. And here's a thought: who wrote genisis? I'm not saying that it was just some random guy, but is it possible it was meant to be more of a metaphor? I see no note in the bible saying: Every one and sentence is this book is 100% true and literal. Anyone who does not believe this is WRONG! If you can show me that note, then I'll rethink my believe. It is possible that God had a vortex on the ark and there were dinosaurs that he didn't tell us about, it's just not nearly as plausible as evolution. What about neanderthals? I haven't read anything about them and they're VERY important.
ReplyDeleteThe common belief is that Moses wrote Genesis, though there's a bit of debate on that because the various sections of the Torah may have come from various sources. It may have been that Moses wrote it originally, but separate sources combined the different sections at a later time.
ReplyDeleteWhy is a timespace vortex implausible? If God can literally bring about an entire 4-dimensional continuum into existence, why could he not bend a relatively microscopic portion of that space?
The Bible very specifically tells us about the people involved, not the events of the world at the time. After all, the Bible is a guidebook for life; the importance is on the recorded events as they specifically relate to people and their choices. As interesting as the flood is, the real focus is set on Noah's family and their righteous perseverance.
As for the Bible's literalness:
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
You could try to make the argument that the more outlandish tales of the Bible are metaphor, but, if we are to assume that all scripture is "God-breathed," that would technically make God a liar. In the New Testament, Jesus makes it extremely clear that the "moral stories" that he tells are parables. Genesis makes no such claim.
The important thing to remember is that if God does exist, he can do anything. There's no reason to say that anything that happened in Genesis couldn't have happened, because there is *nothing* impossible for an omnipotent God. We don't need to worry about the "how" in stories like that. Science is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't need to apply to the miracles in the Bible (and technically, it can't). The basic idea is that if God says something is true, you just say "okay," and move on. After all, the human mind can barely grasp our 4-dimensional spacetime; we have absolutely no idea how the universe would even operate even one dimension above our own. Even if the Bible laid out the "technical" details of all the miracles in Genesis, we wouldn't be able to grasp it. That's why it never even attempts to do so; that's not what's important.
There are many instances in which the Bible does refer to advanced scientific concepts in metaphor form, however:
* Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
* Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
* Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
* Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
* Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
* Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
* Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
* Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
God created the world for us to live in it and use it as our home, not for us to wonder how it came to be there. Science can help us in our everyday lives, through medical advances, informational technology, etc. But applying it to something that is literally beyond human comprehension is folly.
It's honestly arrogant to assume that human understanding should be the basis for what is accepted truth. If children never believed anything their parents told them, the world would be a mess. To assume that science and the human mind can comprehend every facet of the universe is a belief, not a truth. It's as much a "religion" as Christianity.
So God wants us to have no curiousity about our origins and just say "okie dokey!"? That doesn't sound like a very good world. I didn't say it was implausible, I just said that it was not as plausible to say that God created a vortex and what not than to say that evolution was God inspired and created man. Here's a thought: why would God place bones and remains that look to be millions of years old that tell us to believe in evolution? Is He trying to "throw us off the scent"? Why would be put foth evidence of evolution if He wants us to believe in total creaionism? I understand what you're saying about God can do everything, but it's just not as plausible as to say that evolution which we have a lot of proof of did not happen.
ReplyDeleteArchaeological science is a bit tricky. It's one type of assumption put on top of another. Generally it's a very precise science, however, it always relies upon the idea that the world (and the universe itself) progressed in the same way, whether that be because of constant radiation leakage, soil deposits, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the literally world-shaping events in Genesis (the vast majority of which aren't even described) would completely negate any type of dating science.
Who knows? Maybe God hyper-accelerated time on the Earth during the six days of creation, thus creating a future habitat for mankind. Maybe the Earth was simply different back then, and nature worked a bit differently. Maybe the six days of creation are representative of much longer periods of time (as certain scriptures *might* support). There are a thousand possibilities.
You see, now you're not being a true creationist. The theory of God inspired evolution says that the creation lasted longer than 6 days, but six days is just a metaphor in God's time. The true crerationism says that it was only six days and nothing else. Dated is based on carbon dating and more recently with other technologies. The entire theory of evolution fits in better than creationists think. To believe in creation you have to stretch the limits of your mind a bit, but evolution is really not that hard to grasp.
ReplyDeleteA "True Creationist"? No, there are plenty of Creationists who are open to the idea that the six days may not have been literal. Evolution, however, it a different matter.
ReplyDeleteThe larger theory of Evolution is based off of natural selection and basic adaptation, both of which are observable concepts in nature. Unlike adaptation, however, Evolution assumes that the same process will work on a larger scale, allowing for fish to evolve into monkeys and other such things. However, Evolution was conceived at a time when the very nature of the cell was not even known, and humankind was nowhere even close to being able to examine DNA directly. Now that we have better technology, we can actually see that creatures have a certain amount of "alternative genes" that are already built into their genetic structure. This enables basic adaptation, which is exactly what Darwin witnessed on the Galapagos islands. It was assumed at the time of his discovery that genes randomly manifested themselves and thus enabled adaptation to an infinite degree, with the only important variable being the time necessary for the random genes to finally result in a positive mutation.
Today, most scientists believe that those "alternative genes" are the leftovers of evolutionary descent. I believe, however, that those genes were very specifically put there by God in order to allow for a limited type of adaptation. Birds can develop different types of beaks, as seen on the Galapagos islands, but they don't suddenly develop gills and become water-creatures.
The chances of Evolution actually working are astronomically small. Just to make a estimate...
In order for evolution to occur, a positive random mutation must occur. The chances of such a mutation not only being positive but being positive enough to actually give the creature a greater chance of survival are about one in a million.
Next, we have to look at the chance that that creature will not die before it can give birth to offspring. That's somewhat indeterminate, but let's just make that a variable and say that it's between one and five.
Next, we have to look at the chances that that specific gene will actually be passed on to the offspring. That's about a one in two chance.
After all that, we then have to examine the likelihood of that creature being able to survive a climate change, such as an ice age. That is far less likely, though it certainly depends on the creature. If anything from a sudden drought to a falling meteor happens to hit the population of the creature, then everything is gone anyway. Now at this point, we haven't even gotten to the place where a creature would begin to morph between environments, such as from water to land. That's everything that we've already gone through times approximately a million.
The chances of all of that working are 0.00000000002 percent, without even looking at a third of the negative variables. And that's just for one creature. Even supposing that that one creature survives, we have to go through the same process all over again, endlessly.
Evolution isn't just anti-Creationist philosophy, it's bad science. The only reason it's still being used at the moment is because no one has any better theories, and because we're already in a scientific system in which every new discovery is being examined in terms of how it fits in with evolutionary theory. If you look at Evolution as it was originally conceived, you'll see that its details are very different from what they've become today. That's because every time a new bit of evidence contradicts an aspect of Evolutionary theory, the theory is modified to fit the information. Because Evolutionary descent is so vast and not immediately testable or viewable, there's no way to disprove it. It's just a belief that scientists hold, not because it's a great theory, but because it's all they've got. (unless they accepted that God did it all, but that wouldn't really work in their "everything is explainable" view)
Your right, it's very rae for evolution to happen. That's why it's so fasinating tat it worked. However, you have exagerated a bit. Evolutionis in a sense adapting to ones enviroment. The evolve because they need to to survive. It's a survival measure. In future, perhaps humans will have evolved snd lost some small body part. Like, in the next 10000 years, mybe we'll just have 4 toes. It's a weird thought, but perhaps somehow we'll need it to survive. You still haven't explained about neanderhtals or really the dinosaurs. You've just said God can do anything which is really harder to grasp than evolution.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Evolution is adapting to an environment, but it only adapts through random trial and error. There's no magic way for the creatures' genes to know how to mutate. I didn't exaggerate in my analysis.
ReplyDeleteYes, saying "God can do anything" is hard to grasp. But that's the thing: if you refuse to grasp it, then you're missing the point.
Yeah, I haven't really talked much about Neanderthals or Dinosaurs because I really don't have an easy answer there. That's the thing: you don't need answers. When a three-year-old wants to know what calculus is and how it works, then that's just tough for the kid; there's no way he's going to understand it. We, as God's children, are perpetually in that state where we'll never understand many of the vast mysteries of the universe. And hey, what's wrong with not knowing the technical origin of the universe? Is that going to actually influence anything beyond just being able to say "I know how it happened!"?
We don't need to know everything, as much as we might like to.
It's a scientific principle that whatever's simplest is often the correct choice. Science, however, does not apply to God.
Heck, he actually told us what happened in extremely simple terms so we could understand it, but now we just can't let that be enough; we have to keep asking "how we did we come to be here" when we should be asking "where do we go from here?"
That's just the thing: there is something wrong with never knowing the explanation of the universe or at least some of it. There's just no proof but the bible and faith to support creationism. There is lots of proof to prove evolution. If you want to say that things didn't evolve, fine. But you're dead wrong and someday maybe you'll take that second look and see that. You are part of a vast minority of more or less uneducated people who believe in total creaionism. You and Kendra Logan are exceptions. You two are educated and do know you're facts. There are exceptions like you who are educated and know the facts and still believe. I respect people like you more who at least have data to back up your arguments and make good points. However, there still is no evidence to believe in total creationism. Don't say that I don't have faith in things that I can't see, because I do. I have faith in God, I just believe that God did not blatanly create the earth and form people. I believe that God was that spark that gave evolution a kick in the pants and said "Get a move on! I got some plans for this rock!" That's just what I and a great number of people believe.
ReplyDeleteBut you're coming from the perspective that human logic applies to God. What makes sense to us has absolutely no bearing on what makes sense to him. What proof do you have that God even exists? You don't. That's the thing: it's about faith. I have faith not merely that God exists, but that he is the god of the Bible, and that it's his written word to us. Because of that, I believe that what's written in Genesis is true. I don't know *how* it all happened, but I believe that it did. God's word is all the evidence that I need.
ReplyDeleteSo you have no curiousity? Wow, that's really sad. That's even worse than saying that you have an explanation that's like "Every thing that happened in the bible happened exactly like that. There's still one thing I don't get: how come there are bones in the ground that register to be millions of years old? I realize that you say anything is possible with God and all that, but it's just not as plausible as evolution. You exagerate the odds and make it look like evolution is impossible, but it's not. It's actually a very simple belief that things may change over time in order to survive. Taht's very simple logic that anyone can understand. Have you read Inherit the Wind? It's a good book that I think you should read.
ReplyDeleteOh, so now you're going to insult me? Nice.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter or fact, I *do* have a sense of curiosity. I'm a literary analyst, after all. I spend my free time examining various sources of information in an attempt to discover truth.
I would LOVE to know everything.
However, I'm not arrogant enough to assume that the human brain can comprehend everything in not only this dimension but all others as well. Just because something doesn't make immediate sense doesn't make it wrong. That's the logic that kept science back for generations and actually made Einstein fail physics.
I already did address the fossils and why they might register as being old. The dating methods used for fossils are nearby soil deposit layering and carbon dating of the fossil itself. The soil deposits are dependent upon the layering of soil following normal conventions, which the events of Genesis could easily negate, what with the Earth being in such a tumultuous state. Furthermore, we don't know what processes were involved in creation, and that may have had something to do with it. The same logic applies to carbon dating; it's reliant upon the concept of radiation leaking from an object at a constant rate over a number of years, but since the entire physical universe was being altered during creation, there's no telling what could have happened with that radiation.
The basic idea is that if biblical creation did happen, it would negate any scientific research based on it, since influence from a source outside our timespace continuum would have severely altered the physical world in incalculable ways.
And I didn't exaggerate Evolution's impossibility; those are the actual chances of it working. I perfectly understand how it works, and you're absolutely correct: it's simple. In fact, it's too simple. It doesn't take into account enough environmental factors (because many of them were not even known at the time of Evolution's inception).
Think about this: what if Biblical Creationism is actually true? The scientific community will never accept that, as it requires them to accept that they cannot truly understand everything. The pursuit of knowledge is a noble thing, but there are some instances in which that pursuit can be impossible.
If bibical creationism is true, then Srah Palin should be elected president. The fact is, it's not. I still don't understand your view on dinosaurs. And neanderthals. You seem to think that it's beyond the realm of possibilty for the human brain to register how they got there or what happened to them. All the evidence fits together so perfectly with evolution. However, you have to stretch your imagination to figure out creationism. And that's what makes it harder to believe. No evidence vs lots of evidence. Yes, evloution was rare, but it happened. Rare things happen. SOme creatures didn't evolve, and there for went extinct. The dinosaurs couldn't all evolve to adapt to the change in enivorment, so many of the species died out. The species that lived evolved into birds over millions of years. Or at leat that's what some scientists believe. The point is, the theory of evolution fits in perfectly, contrary to what you seem to believe. Small children go to museums and see skeltons of men and monkeys and have trouble making the distinction. Coincidence? I don't believe it said that man made monkey in his own image or one close to it.
ReplyDeleteI leave for one week and everyone gets all argumentative! *sigh* I miss all the fun stuff ;)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment, KnightWing! Eloquent is exactly what I'd like to be. Thank you!
Thanks also for reading the blog, and answering Alex while I was gone, haha! You said everything (with a couple of exceptions) exactly what I would have said, so I don't feel it's necessary to go back and read over all nineteen comments, lol!
Alex's latest comment: I'm not exactly sure where you got Sarah Palin from Biblial creationism...
Here's what I have to say about Neanderthals: *giggle* Monkey men? You've got to be kidding me. There was no such thing. I know you're going to tell me that there have been monkey-man skulls found, but I'm just going to tell you that scientists like to claim that their discoveries fit together a lot better than they actually do. They like to fit together randomly found skull pieces like a little kid jamming a puzzle piece in the wrong place.
I'm not going to answer the part about No Evidence vs. Lots of Evidence. Sorry.
I'm really crabby right now because I've been gone all week at a work camp, so I'm super, super, SUPER tired and I've been with people non-stop for way too long, so sorry if you could totally tell that from the comment. I'll probably read over this in the morning and be like, "Wow, Kendra, let's just be jerky, shall we?" Lol ;)
~Kendra
"You've got to be kidding me?"? There have not just found skulls, but entire neanderthal skeletons. It've seen them on display at a Darwin exhibit at the Smithsonian. I actually find neanderthal culture and society fascinated. They were 95% human, but had small exceptions like red hair and a more potruding skull. They actually think now that they died out due to not only a lack of females in their society, but because normal humans hunted them! They also have found the highly cartooned "cave drawings". What about the ice age? Do you believe that that didn't happen? Did you think that a wholly mammoth just didn't exsist? The wholly mammoth evolved into the modern elephant! That's an exmaple of evolution at work. So you think scientists "made up" in a sense neanderthals to get attention or something? They don't need neanderthals to prove evolution, it just helps support the theory.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties are raising interesting cases. Both are also making personal attacks and turning a discussion into an argument. We sure do seem to be hogging all the comment space.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure Neanderthals existed. That evidence is pretty sound.
Kendra: What do you mean by work camp? I've been counseling at a day camp for 3-5 year olds. Is it like that?
Yes, this is more of an argument than a debate. But really, I just don't believe that creationism is right. I don't think it's morally "wrong" and I respect your opinions, but if you're going to challenge me, then I'll return the favro. Kendra, you still haven't told me your opinion of Sarah Palin. I'm curious.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that the Woolly Mammoth evolved into the modern elephant? Why couldn't it have simply been a separate creature that became extinct long ago?
ReplyDeleteIf neanderthals were 95% human, then that doesn't really count. Humans and cherry trees share 50% of the same genes.
Who says there wasn't an ice age? The Bible itself hints at many planet-altering natural events that we don't even know about; maybe that was one of them. Maybe timespace worked differently during creation.
Believe it or not, Evolution does not fit "perfectly." You can make that argument, but the fact is that Evolution is an easily adaptable theory that can fit most any circumstance. There's no way to say that a prehistoric rat didn't suddenly grow wings in the span of two or three generations, so we can't ever say that Evolution *didn't* occur, if we're looking at it scientifically. You can make any argument you like with Evolution, and there's nothing to stop you from saying you're correct because there's no way to immediately test your theory. However, by the same token, there's no way to prove that it *did* happen, either.
I've been trying to explain this, and I'll say it again:
Just because something makes simple sense in a purely naturalistic manner does not have any bearing on anything that involves God. Once he's involved, no amount of study in the natural world will ever be able to discover the truth, because his actions would supercede our natural world's laws.
It's like God's playing The Sims. If he inputs a cheat code and a refrigerator suddenly appears in the game world, there's no way for the sim-people to know what actually happened.
The reason that Evolutionary descent seems so "perfect" is that there's no reason to say it didn't happen. Scientists can just look at what evidence is there and craft a theoretical history around it; that doesn't make it correct.
Evolution is a belief, not a science. The scientific community is just that: a community. All the same aspects of sociology and group dynamics apply to them as well. Just because that group claims that something is true does not make it true; after all, much of prehistorical science is guesswork and filling in the blanks; they can fill in the blanks any way they want, and find any answer they want. Because they can never acknowledge God's hand at work, they have no choice but to assume that Evolution is true, simply because there's no other explanation that still meshes with their belief that all aspects of the physical world can be understood through the study of merely our four dimensions, and that anything unprovable is, by default, untrue.
The problem is, evolution is science! And it's just eaier to believe than creationism! There's more proof whether you like it or not! I'm sorry if you don't believe in it, but it's just A reasonable explanation that makes more sense than you think and DOES fit in pretty well. How do neanderthals "not count"? What does that even mean that they "don't count"? They were an important part of evolution that was a good link between man and monkey. You can't dein their existence no matter how hard you try. The bones they've found are not human bones. They share similar features, they're just not completely human, and you have to acknowledge that.
ReplyDeleteI never said Neanderthals didn't exist, I meant that they don't count as being "human." As far as I'm concerned, they've got little or nothing to do with the human race.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, Evolution is science, but that ultimately means very little, as science has its limits. Like I've said, God's presence negates a lot of scientific research. You're very right that Evolution is easier to believe in, but that doesn't make it correct. Newton's Laws are far simpler and make more sense than Einstein's Relativity, but that doesn't make them correct.
If you only believe whatever's easiest, then that's your choice. However, that does not mean that you are unequivocally correct. Belief is a choice, and there's no way for either side to "prove" its correctness to another, as all types of "proof" mean nothing to the other side.
Can we agree that either way, belief in either Biblical Creation or Evolution is a choice of belief, not something that can be proven correct over the other?
So you don't agree with Newton's Laws? I wonder how you get through the day. I understand what your saying that God can do anything, and I see what you mean. The problem is is that believing in that is just harder to believe. And I'm curious as to what you think neanderthals were if they weren't at all human and didn't relate to the human race.
ReplyDeleteNewton's Laws are not correct. They're very close, but they don't factor in a lot of important things, such as the bending of space. If we relied only upon Newton's Laws, we wouldn't be able to have any type of advanced astronomy, space travel, or physics research.
ReplyDeleteI'm kinda curious about the Neanderthals, but it's never been something that kept me up at night. I've never given it any thought. Maybe they were a group of horribly deformed humans; I honestly don't think they matter.
I group of horribly deformed humans? Must have been one pretty big group because they quailify as there own species. They do matter. They're vital link between man and monkey. And yes, Newton's laws are pretty much correct. They apply to earth and earth's atomsphere. In space, they don't work so well. Physics research is based off of Newton's laws. They were what built physics research. Without them, we wouuld be a little lost.
ReplyDeleteNewton's Laws are a close approximation, but they're not technically true. 99 is not 100, even if it's close.
ReplyDeleteLike I've said many, many times here before, it honestly doesn't matter. The neanderthals could have been a lot of different things, but their existence doesn't prove Evolution's truth.
(and didn't we already establish that it's irrelevant anyway?)
How is it irrelevant? They don't prove it completely, but they do help support the theory. Ignoring them just shows your inhabitablity to look beyond your own theories.
ReplyDeleteThe Neanderthals aren't enough to convince me of anything. So they look similar to humans; big deal. That's not enough to support the entire evolutionary model?
ReplyDeleteWhy is Biblical Creation so hard to accept?
It's hard to accept because saying that a divine power created the entire earth and universe in 7 days vs creatures naturally evolved over millions of years is just not as plausible. There is more evidence for evolution than you think and it's not as rare as you think. The idea of evolution is a very simple concept that most people can understand and believe in. Why is evolution so hard to accept?
ReplyDeleteYou said you have faith in God. Why believe at all, if you only believe what's scientifically plausible?
ReplyDeleteI don't only believe what's scientifically plausible. I just never don't think that a large part of God's plan is having us believe in creation. Which do you think God cares more about: believing in creationism or believing in God and Jesus? I think that there is far more evidence of evolution and ignoring that evidence just doesn't make sense. If God is so powerful, why did He put that evidence there?
ReplyDeleteBetter question: why would God lie in the Bible? It says plain as day what he did in Genesis, and says nothing about any of it being metaphor or myth. God cannot lie, therefore, if the Bible is truly God's spoken word, then Genesis must be true.
ReplyDeleteIf I have to choose between human theory and God-spoken scripture, I choose God.
Because maybe God isn't "lying" and just using a metaphor even if it is not explicitely stated. For instance, there is also a story in the old testament about the "great flood" that wiped out the human race except for noah and his family. With the use of arceological research, we now know that there was never a "great flood" which wiped out the entire earth, so I believe it's a metaphor. Plus, basically what your doing is ignoring research and facts to believe in something that has no proof and facts behind it. I would same that's pretty narrow minded.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly do we know that the great flood never happened? Like I said before, the entire globe would have been going through immense supernatural changes during Genesis, which wouldn't exactly make for easy archaeology. There is absolutely no reason it couldn't have happened.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is that all the "research" that anyone does on that time period is going to be flawed simply because it cannot account for anything that's not of this world. I'm not ignoring facts; I'm saying that if what the Bible says is true, then those "facts" are invalid anyway.
There isn't any proof of God himself, so why do you still believe in him? After all, from a purely scientific perspective, God shouldn't exist.
No, there would have to be some evidence of a great flood. It is impossible not to. There is no proof that God exists except for little things like watching a perfect sunset. Wow, that sounds cheesy. But still, I don't think God's number one priority is having us believe in creation or the "great flood".
ReplyDeleteIt's not about priorities, it's about what is and isn't. If God says that a flood happened, I'll believe that it happened. I'll trust human science up until the point where it tries to contradict God's word, because at that point it has to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be wrong. You have too much faith in God in a sense. God didn't say a flood happened. A book written by humans thousands of years ago did.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Bible is God's written word to mankind.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, all the scientific textbooks in the world were written by humans, so that goes double for your point.
Yes, but they were not written by humans thousands of years ago. And I don't rely on one book or several, I rely on all of them and science itself, which you apparently have no respect for if it contradicts the bible. And plus, the bible has been around for thousands of years and has been translated many times. Is it possible that some of it may have been "lost in translation" so to speak?
ReplyDeleteSorry to jump in like this, but I just wanted to say something:
ReplyDeleteIn this case about the floor, I agree with Alex. A flood over the entire Earth is possibly, but I find it more likely that God meant "the entire earth *as we know it*", meaning just the known world and not the Americas, Russia, etc.
*flood, haha :)
ReplyDelete*possible
ReplyDeleteI agree. I watched something on the discovery channel about it where it talked about a possible large moonsoon that came over the arab lands which may have been the flood that Noah was referring to. They also say that most likey, Noah was a merchant who was most likely on his ship with his family celebrating aholiday when the moonsoon came, thus saving his family.
ReplyDeleteAlex: Yeah, I know of the documentary you speak of. It's part of a series of docs that Discovery aired. It's full of shoddy research and purposely-avoided scientific claims. That show tries to prove points while ignoring the fact they don't like.
ReplyDelete(which sucks, 'cause I really love the Discovery Channel.)
Actually, there was a recent (meaning in the past 10-20 years or so) discovery of some Old Testament scrolls, and they reflected the current Biblical translations with startling accuracy. And besides, today, with the internet, we have access to countless translations of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, so we can do research for ourselves.
I'm not saying that science is bad; I love science. Heck, God gave us the ability to think and reason; he wants us to use it. However, he also told us to trust him. If an omnipotent/omniscient God says something happened one way, I'm not going to tell him he's wrong, or that the book he wrote wasn't true.
Story time:
Once I was praying and asked God if Genesis was "accurate." Though I rarely get responses from him, this time I did: he said "My word is true."
And I'm not gonna argue with that. You can say that it's metaphorical or something, but that's just twisting the Bible to match what humanity has come up with. And because I have faith that God is both constantly truthful and omniscient, I trust his word over any other claim.
So God "spoke" to you? That would make you his "prophet" and I'm osrry but I doubt that you are his voice in this world. Anyway, there's just no evidence at all of a flood of that size. You can say whatever you want about creation, but there would have to be some evidence of a flood. They've even looked for evidence of a flood in order to prove it and they haven't found any. My belief is that there was a large flood that was most likely pretty bad but not end of the world bad and it taught a man named Noah a lesson which was his trust in God. The story was probably past down over the ages and changed some. The bible wasn't written down for a long while and during that time oral translation was the most common form of spreading the bible which allows for some leeway. I also don't believe that different languages were invented because of the tower of babble.
ReplyDeleteI never said I was a "prophet;" he speaks to *everyone;* I was merely giving my personal story.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm sorry, but if you don't believe the Bible then that's your problem.
And like I said, there does NOT have to be evidence.
Alex: God speaks to all kinds of people, you just have to listen. Almost everyone I know has had God speak to them, and, not to boast, he speaks to me in very unusual and powerful ways that I won't go into detail about.
ReplyDeleteNot to seem rude, but you really have no right to tell someone if God spoke to them or not.
I find it hard to believe that God lierally speaks to you. He gives us answers in subtle ways and it's our job to look for them. When you pray for happiness, he doesn't make you happy or tell you how to be happy, but gives you the oportunity to be happy and it's your job to take it. I didn't say I believed in the bilbe, but are you seriously going to tell me that languages were invented by the tower of babble?
ReplyDeleteIt probably is hard to believe that God literally speaks to you, but if it ever happens to you, believe me, it won't be so hard to fathom anymore.
ReplyDeleteGod doesn't always speak to me through loud thoughts, he sometimes speaks to me in...other ways.
Yes, the languages were invented by the Tower of Bable. I know you aren't going to believe that, though, so I'm probably just wasting my breath.
I don't think that *all* languages came from Babel, but their root tongues did.
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it so hard to believe the story of Babel? Alex, you keep saying that we're closed-minded, but you consistently reject ideas that you have no reason to disbelieve.
And honestly, I'm getting tired of being repeatedly personally insulted. Pardon my bluntness, but if you can't be civil, then don't purposely start debates.
I do have a reason to disbelief! At least your not one of those people who thinks all languages cam from the tower of bable. I like debating in an anger and agressive manner, that's why I like policitcs! :) You can say you don't, but whe you say thing like "Homosexuality is a choice" you insult the gay community. Not to mention the fact that you have come out and stated that you can't believe in both evolution and a caring God which I take as a HUGE inuslt to my beliefs. It's hard to belief in the tower of bable because it doesn't add up. I belief that people evolved to communicate with vocal chords and used noises to communicate to one another. Eventually these noises grew more complex until they were full words and out of this came languages. Plus, the tower of babble begs the question that there had to be one universal language to begin with and I don't think that's true.
ReplyDeleteYou can call it "angry and aggressive," but that's just flat-out disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't carry out a conversation in a civil manner, don't purposely start debates.
How have I been uncivil? I have stated that some of your beliefs are very narrow minded, but I didn't scream them. It's impossible to on a computer anyway. Really, not being civil means you yell and fight in an agressive manner. I have not yelled, and although I have "fought" in a way, it's really just debating. I don't start these debates. The posts on this blog do, I just carry them on. I have to defend my beliefs some where. If you want to do the same, try my blog at leftsideview.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean aggressiveness, I meant in terms of actual insults.
ReplyDelete"So you have no curiousity? Wow, that's really sad."
"So you don't agree with Newton's Laws? I wonder how you get through the day."
And anyway, we're only going in circles at this point. It's like we're arguing from two positions so vastly different that there's no way for our arguments to actually interact.
Yes, but it is sad you have no curiousity and newton's laws are something we use very often. Yes, our positions are different, but I still like hearing how you think the world was created. Like I said, you can do the same to me at my blog: leftsideview.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI have a ton of curiosity, but in this instance, it's been satiated.
ReplyDeleteFolks, I'm a medical student. I'm learning for myself how incredibly complex the human body is. I'm going to be in college for seven years total. If I wanted to be a vet, it would be over 10 years. That's because there's so much more to the way the body works than you know, and animal bodies are no simpler. Any living cell is easily as complex as a city, and I do not feel unfounded in saying that the body is as complex and dynamic as a country. No, make that a continent. Not Antartica.
ReplyDeleteThe processes of the cell are more fine-tuned and complex than any computer chip we have made yet. They can break down very easily. If there are any mistakes, the system breaks down. That's why there are even mechanisms for checking and double-checking dna as it is being replicated. The cells are highly specialized. There are millions of types of proteins, with thousands of functions in the body.
These things simply could not come about by the mechanisms suggested in evolution. Any college level genetics class will leave you reeling, and then try taking a class on how the genes are expressed and how a baby developes. There isn't a little factory in the womb connecting the pieces together. The pieces, chemical by chemical, fiber by fiber, connect themselves. How? Why do some cells become muscle and others bone and others skin? Why do some become kidneys and others stomach? Why are all of these in the right position? What happens that they end up in the wrong position or aren't there? I just listed only the most basic questions that are being answered right now, but it should give an impression of the incredible complexity and mind-boggling accuracy we are dealing with. I want to know the answers to these questions. I praise God because every living cell is a marvel of ingenuity. I praise him because every human body is a walking work of art. Biological life functions on the sort of level of organization that writers of utopias can barely dream of. The body isn't the perfect machine, but it is surely far more perfect already than anything we can create. Don't even get me started on the fantastic complexities of perception, language, emotion, psychology, and reason.
You know, reason alone can't account for the existence of reason. Yes, it's here, but why is it here?
I say all this as a general response to what has been said in the comments. I believe with all my mind that biological life is utterly astounding to all who begin to learn about it. It's a case where, the more you know, the more you know you don't know. And I can appreciate this, because when I know it, I praise God for the complexity, and when I don't know it, I marvel at the mystery and bend my mind to the task of discovering the genius of the mind behind the existence of life. New doors are being opened every day in the medical community. It is an exciting place for the curious mind.
This is how reason backs up faith. No chance or quirk of nature resulted in the things I am learning here. Someone created this. Order leads to order, as I said in a previous comment.
Ok, enough of this, the post is plenty long. One random sidenote. I submit to Alex that saying that homosexuality is not a choice seems to be the true insult.
Think of it this way. Let's assume that there is nothing right or wrong about homosexuality. If you choose it, then you probably have reason for it, a reason which you can defend and have some confident standing on it. Our choices define who we really are. If you are going to insult someone at their core, insult their choices. If you can not choose it, then you have no inherent dignity or stake in what you are. No one can praise or fault you for being what you can not choose to be. Now, to these premises, let's suggest that homosexuality is a good thing. If you choose it, you've made a good choice. If you don't choose it, then again, you have no inherent dignity in your position. Let's say homosexuality is bad. If you choose it, well, it's a mistake, but fools can be content with mistakes they choose to make, it's their own life. If you can't choose, then you can claim that this wasn't your fault at all, in which case you are to be pitied. So no matter how you slice it, I'd say that choice is to be preferred, and saying that homosexuality comes without a choice sort of undermines any merit that it could possibly grant to a person as an individual. (Does all that make sense? I wrote it all off the top of my head at 1:30 in the morning, so let me know if my logic or the premises don't make sense.)
ReplyDelete