Jesus Christ – The Name Above All Names
Lifting the name of Jesus Christ and resourcing God's people for victorious living
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Makes perfect sense.
I just liked this one so thought I would share it with you all…
Recommended Reading
Fill in your email to receive notification whenever there is a new post on the JC blog.
My, What A Beautiful But!
Is Speaking In Tongues Real?
Interview With Jimmy D Brown, Creator of the Insprints Christian Artwork Home Business
Powerful Prayer Quotes
Seven Scriptural Reasons For Speaking In Tongues
How Can I Know Jesus Personally?
How Can We Know The Bible Is True?
Grateful Al: Very nice work David.
May you and yours receive m...
muriel: It"s a beauitful to read a bible for a wonderful c...
Louise Jones: I found the article on Woman's Ministry very inter...
Caridad Snellen: This is the best blog I’ve ever seen, bookmarked!...
amadin: He died for me so that I may have life to the full...
Miro Zecevic: I have been searching online for this information ...
Jesus Christ – The Name Above All Names © 2012. All Rights Reserved.
exactly!
the only thing I don´t get is what this very strongly anti-religious post is doing on the home page of jesus christ???
this is a very short but precise description of creationism!
are religious people so obsessed or stupid not to get it????
Thanks for taking time to leave a comment. I guess it is a perspective thing. I don’t believe that nothing created everything. I believe that a very real Someone did. My issue with evolutionary science is that it really does claim that everything came from nothing.
There is no prime mover or moment that does not require some sort of substance or energy, but evolution has a big problem in that if nothing existed before that moment where did those primary forces suddenly appear from?
Creationism is in many ways more plausible in that design proceeded from a designer, life from something or Someone living, and creation from a Creator.
There are many parts of evolutionary science that I am in full agreement with, natural selection for example, but concerning origins, evolution requires just as much faith as creationism. In truth it is not science but religion.
Science in the strict sense requires one to be able to observe and replicate an experiment – but when things began, no human was there to see it, and the circumstances and environment are impossible to conceive or replicate. In this way, whether we believe in evolution or creation is ultimately a matter of pure faith in something we have not seen. I choose to believe the Biblical record of events myself, others may choose to put their faith in some other theory.
thanx for your answer. what i still fail to comprend how could the above sentence be an ilustration of atheism. it is very characteristic for religion. the only teaching that says that something appeared out of nothing (e.g. and let there be light) or that some things happened “suddenly” (the world was created in 6 days, remember, and comparative even to the lets say 2000 years of human history, that is more quick than sudden) is religion.
that is one of the big differences. evelotuion reqires lots of lots of lots of time. so the sudden and out of nothing just does not apply to it. and this is why your statement is wrong. please mind, I do not mean that your beliefs are wrong, this is not a question of belief, everybody has the liberty to believe in whatever he wants, but the statement itself is wrong.
cheers!
I don’t think the amount of time something takes has any bearing on origins at all. A frog cannot become a horse whether it takes a second or a millennia. Evolution claims the impossible is possible if you just give enough time, like that makes a difference. I do take your point however that maybe it should be titled ‘Evolution’, not atheism. The fact that atheism of necessity must believe in a physical universe that had no God to create it does beg the question, “Where did all that we see come from then?” and, “How did it begin?” This I believe is the point being made by the statement. If God didn’t do it then what did? Nothing? So everything came from nothing etc…
Evolution does not require more faith than creationism, it requires more knowledge.
If you had read any serious books on evolution (Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is an excellent, accessible text, for example) you would not make such basic mistakes. Do you really think that science can discover nothing about the past just because there was ‘no human there to see it’? Evolution is one of the most attested theories in science and yet you have the temerity to suggest it is not a science at all but merely a religion. I’m tempted to think you know very little about science, or indeed religion, if you can make such statements without any sense of irony. And as for there being no experiments to support evolution, you should research the facts before you make such incorrect claims. See, for example, the E.coli bacteria experiment of Richard Lenski – 45,000 generations of evolution in a lab – described by Dawkins (ibid pp117-31). Ignorance only impresses the ignorant – you owe it to yourself and your readers to understand the evidence before making your unfounded claims.
Evolution, like all science, is based on the painstaking collection of data over many years, hypothesising, testing, experimenting, predicting, drawing conclusions and testing with data again and again and again. In the case of the origin of life you discard all this and give a weightier authority to a literalist interpretation of a book written by an unknown author in a pre-scientific era of great superstition when most people believed the sun went around a flat earth and God lived in heaven above the sky! Well, good luck with that!
Let me finish with two questions. When God created the world did he make vegetation before man, as in Genesis 1, or was it the other way around, as in Genesis 2? You’ll admit, I think, that it couldn’t be both, so I wonder which version is true. Secondly, because evolution is a scientific theory it is falsifiable, which means that it can make predictions that if proved false will mean that the theory cannot stand. One of its predictions has to do with the increasing complexity of life-forms over time, as shown in the fossil record. If, however, a single fossil of a complex animal was found well before it could possibly have evolved the whole theory would fail. Imagine that! A single rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, for example, would bring the whole theory crashing down. So, if God wanted us to stop thinking that evolution was the best explanation of the facts as we know them, and start believing one of the Genesis accounts instead, why doesn’t he lead a paleantologist to find just such a fossil? Just one, remember! Imagine the fame and fortune such a find would bring, to say nothing of the Nobel prize (after publishing the peer-reviewed paper in a respected science magazine and allowing other scientists to validate the claim, naturally). Imagine too, the upsurge in church attendance and faith in God, which must be what he wants, surely. So, please explain to me why this one fossil has NEVER been found.
Thanks for your comment Paul. I do not claim to be an expert in either creationism or evolution, and although I have not read Dawkins book that you mention I have read several ‘serious’ books on evolution in my limited studies in this area, and from the evidence that I have seen, have drawn different conclusions to yourself. The two accounts that you mention in Genesis 1 and 2 are not two accounts of the creation, but a broad view followed by a more intimate view of God’s creation of man, and the ‘garden’ he planted for his man to dwell in (not the creation of vegetation), which as Genesis 1 described as created before this as you rightly said.
The second law of thermodynamics proves again and again that organisms break down over time, not grow more complex (the opposite of that which is necessary for evolution to take place).
I believe that the fossil record we see is the result of the flood spoken of in Genesis. When we look at the fossil record what do we see? We see layers of rocks and fossils…
What we see is not in the past but the present. What is important to grasp is that what differs among scientists is their INTERPRETATION of the present facts. We cannot go back and see what actually happened, we can only interpret what we find in the present. In this respect, from natural evidence alone, neither the creationist nor the evolutionist can categorically state that a particular view of our past is certain. Our interpretation of the present facts will undoubtedly be influenced by the worldview through which we view the evidence.
Quoting from Prof. Gary Parker’s book, Creation: Facts of Life:
“Knowledgeable people readily agree that both fossils and rock layers can and do form very rapidly. But there’s a catch. Fossils and rock layers are not just found “one at a time.” Rocks chock full of fossils are buried in layers stacked on top of one another, in places about 2 miles (3 km) thick! Not only that, but there’s a tendency for fossils to be found together in certain groups, and a tendency for these groups to be found one after the other in a certain sequence called the “geologic column.”
According to evolution, the geologic column lays out the story of evolution chronologically, from bottom to top, right before our eyes. Maybe science hasn’t explained how evolution works yet, but the “fact of evolution” is plain to see in the “record in the rocks.” Life started with a few simple life forms (originally produced by time, chance, and chemistry), and we can chart its progress, the net increase in variety and complexity, as we move up through the rock layers. Only an ignorant, fundamentalist fanatic with his nose in the Bible could fail to see evidence so clear and convincing as the “rock-hard” geologic column!
Two interpretations of the geologic column
Two interpretations of fossil groups (geologic systems) and their sequence (the “geologic column”).
According to the uniformitarian model, systems and the geologic column represent stages in the slow and gradual evolution of life over aeons of time.
Or at least that’s the way textbooks, television, museums, and magazines usually tell the story. But what is someone who believes the Bible going to say? There really are fossils out there; they really are in sedimentary rock layers; and those layers really are stacked on top of each other, over 1.5 miles (2 km) deep across the Arizona-Utah border, for example.
Now the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence. But, still, the geologic column does represent a tendency for fossils to be found in groups and for those groups to be found in a certain vertical order. Cambrian trilobites and Cretaceous dinosaurs aren’t usually found together.
Why aren’t trilobite and dinosaur fossils found together? According to evolution, the answer is easy. The Cambrian trilobites died out millions of years before the dinosaurs evolved. But there is another explanation that seems even more natural. After all, even if trilobites and dinosaurs were alive today, they still wouldn’t be found together. Why? Because they live in different ecological zones. Dinosaurs are land animals, but trilobites are bottom-dwelling sea creatures.
According to the catastrophist model, groups of fossils are the remains of plants and animals once living in different ecological zones at the same time, and they were buried in rapid succession.
According to creationists, the geological systems represent different ecological zones, the buried remains of plants and animals that once lived together in the same environment. A walk through Grand Canyon, then, is not like a walk through evolutionary time; instead, it’s like a walk from the bottom of the ocean, across the tidal zone, over the shore, across the lowlands, and into the upland regions. Several lines of evidence seem to favour this ecological view.”
Maybe the reason that rogue fossil has NEVER been found is the same reason there has NEVER been one indisputable transitionary fossil found either?
The total number of undisputable transitionary fossils that have been discovered since Darwin’s day until this very moment stands at a massive ZERO.
The late Dr Colin Patterson was senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of natural History – an evolutionist and a fossil expert. He wrote a significant book on evolution. When someone asked him why he did not show any pictures of in-between (transitional) forms in his book, he wrote the following:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
…you say I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
As recorded in “Stones and Bones”, Carl Wieland p14, Published by Answers in Genesis
I am happy to accept that some may interpret the evidence in a different way, and draw different conclusions, but in all honesty, neither evolution nor creation are as rock solid as the geology they interpret!
I hope that my answer respectfully answers your questions. And yes, I do believe that the Bible is more authoritative than any book. I believe that it’s author is God Himself, so I would be foolish to think other wise. Incidentally, the Bible describes the earth as round long before men caught on to the fact. It is not just a book of myths, but a genuine, supernatural record of events that help us comprehend our worth and purpose. I did not always believe this, far from it, but as I have given serious study and consideration to its claims, I have found it to be entirely trustworthy.
Oh dear! I think I might have guessed you’re not an expert on evolution, nor on physics either, I think. Do you have a degree, and if so in which subject? Please tell me in which respected science journal the peer-reviewed paper has been published which demonstrates that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution. You say it with such certainty that you really must have read it somewhere. And I don’t want a reference to one of those Answers in Genesis comics! Why do you think the creationist movement has had to create its own ‘journals’ rather than use the established scientific press? Because their papers fail the peer-reviewed test, that’s why!
You claim to have read some serious books on evolution. Which ones? Any by respected, serious, professional, non-fundamentalist biologists or are they all from the creationist camp? Do yourself a favour, get hold of Dawkins’ book and examine the facts. Among the other fallacious points he effortlessly deals with the very silly and naive point about transitional fossils. He has an entire chapter on the subject (chapter 6) and when you read what he says you will understand why this is not a problem for evolutionary science.
The second law of thermodynamics does not say that organisms cannot grow more complex over time. Where do you get such nonsense from? It says that entropy (chaos) increases IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. This means a system in which energy cannot get in or out. The earth is not a closed system: energy is pouring on us from the sun. A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing David, and you are demonstrating just how little knowledge you have.
For an effective de-bunking of the Genesis flood myth I recommend Jason Long’s ‘Biblical Nonsense’ which de-bunks a good deal of the rest of the Bible also.
For an even more scholarly review of the conclusions of modern biblical scholarship see Bart Ehram’s ‘Jesus Interrupted.’ Have you read either of these books? If not, you owe it to yourself. The fundamentalist position is extremely difficult to maintain once you have read more broadly. The Bible only appears trustworthy if you do not expose yourself to those who have applied critical analysis to it.
I never claimed to be an expert in any subject. All I did was place a rather amusing take on atheism on an unashamedly Christ centred web site. The Bible may seem like nonsense to you, but to millions of others who have neither degrees in science or physics (and indeed to many who have!), it has provided a life line of salvation that has brought radical and positive change to their lives. Clearly you are better read and have a fuller comprehension of these things than I have so I will not venture to argue with the points you make. I am glad that the books you recommended are available for those who want to delve further into the subject. Regarding Biblical scholarship, Jesus said that certain things are kept from the wise and revealed to those who are willing to become like children and simply trust and believe. If that makes me naive and foolish then so be it, but as for me and my house, we will love and proclaim and serve Jesus with wholehearted devotion and delight.
This logical fallacy is known as an argument from incredulity. Just because you don’t, or won’t, understand it doesn’t make it false. Why, not so long ago your co-religionists were using an almost identical argument about the earth going around the sun. You are in danger of looking as foolish as they did.
Oh, and the “a frog cannot turn into a horse” argument is also simply wrong. Evolution doesn’t state or imply any such thing. What it does say is that species change over time – a fact that has been demonstrated in the laboratory – and that, given sufficient time these changes can become big changes – again a fact which has much evidence to support it.
All you have are the folk tales of an Iron Age Sumerian tribe – folk tales which are inconsistent with themselves, let alone hard facts.
Thanks for joining the discussion jack. I appreciate the points you have made, but the scientific reality is that living systems break down over time, not become more ordered and complex. The first and second law of Thermodynamics shows this. Secondly, a frog into a horse has never been, nor ever will be demonstrated. There are many examples of variation within a species, absolutely, but not one species turning into another! I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. At the end of the day, none of us was there to witness the origin of the universe, so whatever stand we take it is based on faith, not science. I choose to place my faith in a creation model, which is not without its scientific proponents and valid explanations and proofs.
Hi David,
it is funny that you would mention the laws of thermodynamicas. Because they are the basics /with some extentions) to exactly what answers your orginial question-how did it all begin. And I don´t recollect the Bible including any thermodynamics.
If you acknowledge the existance and validty of thermodynamics, than creationism theory is just not plausible. If you don`t, please do not use it as an argument.
When God put the universe in motion He put in place both spiritual and natural laws. The law of Thermodynamics states (among other things) that energy cannot be created, only changed from one form to another. This fits with a model of origin that states that in the beginning all that would ever be in the natural universe came into being.
If energy cannot be created (actually it can, depends of course how you define energy, Maxwell saw to the correspondig mathematical formulation) where the heck did “god” take it from?
God does not need to get energy from anywhere – He is the Creator of all things! This is precisely what Creationism says. The energy came from Himself and is now at work and made available to the created universe.
The energy came from Himself. Sure, fine, we’ll go with that. Since the argument has been logical up until the above quote, let’s see if we can keep some logic in it. So God moved energy from Himself into a singularity, which expanded into the known Universe. This means that either God now contains (or has access to) less total energy (and is therefore no longer omnipotent), or He created the energy out of nothing whilst paying no penalty whatsoever. This means that He could create an infinite number of Universes from his bottomless sack of Godergy (God energy). Questions arise such as, “Why is this energy, which has already been created once, now subject to the laws of thermodynamics?” and, “If he can do all this, why can’t he verbally introduce Himself to every living person on the planet at once?”
He is the Source of all life and energy, absolutely. He has chosen to set physical systems in place that work harmoniously to provide an environment suitable for mankind. THis system was of course messed up when Adam sinned, throwing the created order into disarray. The truth is He has verbally introduced Himself to the world in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ (the Bible refers to Him as ‘the Word’. He then commissioned His followers to act as His representatives and make this introduction known to every tribe and tongue. Whether they choose to accept this introduction as genuine or not is their own prerogative.
exactly. So now, let me see…. he “got” the energy, he “verbally” introduced his son, and this is the truth, just because you say so.
I am afraid that has been your weekest post yet.
You can of course believe, that the machine you are reading this in is fine milk chocolate. You might even take a bite, and think is tasty. You might chew and swallow. But, belive me, you internals will know otherwise. And do will the rest of the world. Or no, don’t believe me, and try it. Please do it close to a hospital, with a human watching you, for god or church will not help you in this matter.
Calling things names does not change their properties. Sorry.
Believing that a machine is milk chocolate is absurd, true. But believing that a computer is a computer is perfectly reasonable. To accept and believe that there is a Creator/Designer based on the evidence of design and purpose in the universe is also perfectly reasonable. Our belief is not blind, but based on our interpretation of the facts that are before us – the visible things pointing to invisible realities. Hey, after all, God is God and He can do things we cannot. This is far more reasonable to my comprehension than a scientifically impossible theory that design and information was the result of time and chance. As you say, time and chance, however long that process may happen for, cannot make a computer a chocolate bar, any more than time and chance can make a monkey a man, or a parrot a professor.
I love this bumper sticker. We are currently doing a series in my youth group on evolution versuses creation, and with all I have learned I don’t think it is likely at all that evolution is true.
That’s for sure!
which proves only one thing then-you haven’t learned anythig. Actually no. This is not entirely right. You have learned to belive, and not to learn or think. It is your right, after all.
My belief is based on learning and thinking as well as experience. God is real.
as the say in german “jain”. namely yes and no.
yes, it is your belief we are talking about. therefore no thinking or leraning is involved. that’s why it is called believing and not thinking, learning, logic, or anything else. that is the fundamental about belief-ou belive without the need to think or prove.
I have learned the truth it was proven that science backs Creationism over evolution.
i belive you mistake scientology for something more than religion-namely belief, without any facts or proof.
scientology is a Belief just like christianity only i believe Christianity where u believe Scientology u break ur own laws of nature through scientology
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c
CHRISTIANITY
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
Makes perfect sense
This is a very funny comment! I agree that Christianity sounds as absurd as Atheism when you want to present it that way. There’s no denying the reality of Christ however when you have met Him and He has radically changed your life! That personal miracle is enough to convince me that all else is possible. If I am going to follow and believe something, it may as well be someone or something that offers hope. Thanks for your comment though, it did make me laugh! Quite brilliant.
have you met him?
waht was he dressed in, what color were his eyes, what did he smell like, what did he tell you, did you get him on tape/video?
now that would be proof, and we would be bridging this enourmous gap between belief and facts!
have u ever seen a monkey turn into a human Beatles
ATHEISM
The arrogant belief that the entire billion-galaxy universe was not created for us.
knowledge is for those who learn to know
http://www.prehistoricstore.com/newitems/m1389.jpg
CHRISTIANITY
The humbling realisation that the entire billion-galaxy universe was created by a loving God, who has set His love upon us – the sheer wonder of it boggles the mind.
Psa. 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
Psa. 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
UNDENIABLE
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.
Banish ignorance http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
The honest truth is, when we talk of origins, not one of us can scientifically prove anything. Science demands that we are able to observe and replicate the conditions that existed at that moment of origin – we cannot, we were not there. All that any one says has to be assumed, and as such be a matter of faith. You may believe in the humanistic religion that ascribes to evolution and big bang, or to Christ and His Creatorship – either way it is a religious decision, not a scientific one.
Lets get one thing clear the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life.
Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two — especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.
The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
My acceptance of evolution and big bang theory is not based on faith
but because of the overwhelming evidence that exists to support them.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Your assertion that acceptance of evolution and big bang theory is “a religious decision, not a scientific one” highlights your lack of knowledge regarding these theorys.
How do you explain the spontaneous addition of complex information that is necessary for evolution to take place when there is no evidence of this ever taking place?
The Lie: Evolution
How Evolution Adds New Information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
Darwin: Quote
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)
This has to be read in the context of the areas that Darwin and Gray had been discussing (and which can be followed closely from the rest of the published correspondence) which was the problem of how to account for species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin was attempting to come up with a theory to account for this and had speculated that these ‘disjoined species’ would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be ‘unscientific’. He is not making a general comment on his larger theory of speciation through natural selection.
‘A Universe From Nothing’ By Physicist Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Its not a religious decision.
Is it based on experience and evidence then? If so, my decision to believe in creation is not a religious decision but one based on solid personal experience and evidence of a supernatural God at work in tangible and definite ways.
I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Acceptence of evolution is not a religious decision.
Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UGpcea8Zg&feature=related
Indefatigable Indisputable Undeniable
We are rising apes not fallen angels
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/user/philhellenes?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/5/_sxh_L1LUNk
A main concern with any evolutionary framework is that it demands the spontaneous creation/formation of information that did not exist previously. This is impossible…
“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology)
“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics – MIT, taught information and communications at Johns Hopkins University), Not By Chance, 1997, pp. 131, 138.
“…that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to be a hypothesis based on no evidence….”
Ernst Chain (Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner), Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society, London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1970, p.25.
“We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information – a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”
Ray Bohlin, (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology), Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science, 2000, p. 41.
Quotes from some scientists concerning origins
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”
Dr. Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4 1988, p. 348. (Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany)
“The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight….”
Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colo State U, The Way of the Cell, 2001, p235.
“Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled…they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding,…”
Paul Davies, Ph.D. Physics, The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, 1999, p. 18.
“The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance.”
Johnjoe McFadden (Evolutionist & Professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Evolution, 2000, p. 85.
“The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero. ”
Robert Gange, Ph.D. (research scientist with extensive research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77.
“Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.”
Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, 1997, p. 99. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology)
“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”
Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer,” New Scientists, 1982, p. 140.
Apemen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYy8aYTwiYQ
We Evolved whether you like it or not
Undiniable genetic evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc&feature=related
Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM&feature=related
Your beliefs are at odds with reality.
Reality Reason Knowledge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
As vast the gulf between atheism and Christianity, as broad the chasm between evolution and creation, so the difference between religion and relationship with Jesus Christ. All that has been done in His name was not at His bidding. This is my commandment, He said, “that you love one another.” That is the liberating message and heart of Christ, and of Christianity – not control.
I know ive posted alot of links but please look at them and try to learn.
And maybe you will see why im an atheist.
Religion — The Bad Parent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk
God – the fabulous Father
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlEbTE-EOc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqhSSTdfxmY&feature=related
Frog+kiss=fairytale
frog+time=evolution
all scientists did was substitute a kiss with time
Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn’t been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a horse. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a horse, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
Surely if evolution were true we would expect to see in the fossil record millions of transitionary forms and fossils between species. You say that the fossil record verifies this but that is simply not the case. Museums would be full of such fossils if it were so.
Even Darwin himself wrestled with the lack of evidence and impossibilities of the theory (and that is what it remains, a theory) he proposed:
“But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (Origin of Species, 1859).
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.
I fully appreciate your interest and evident knowledge of this subject, and it great to engage in conversation, but as absurd as you find the idea of creation, so I find the postulations of evolutionary theory equally as impossible!
QUOTE MINING
When removing from context is the only way to make your case
Full quote in context
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.(Origin of Species, 1859).
Even if the quote stood for what you claim it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time early in the scientific study of fossils and when few scientists were expecting to find “transitional forms.” Much has been learned since.
Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?
Fossil evidence is just one category in the evidence for evolution.
And it is not nearly the most important genetic and molecular evidence is even more convincing to the point that even if no fossil had ever been found, the evidence for evolution, including common descent, would be overwhelming.
THE EYES HAVE IT
Here is the entire quotation in context:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only “aggregates of pigment-cells…without any nerves …
which serve only to distinguish light from darkness.” Then, in animals a bit more complex, like “star-fish,” there exist “small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] — depressions which are “filled … with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, “like the cornea in the higher animals.” These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a “depression” in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps “focus” the image like a simple “box-camera” may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a “sack-like fold in the skin.”
The Evolution of the Eye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TEKDWAe_b8
None of this actually explains how previously absent complex information was generated.
Nevertheless, I honestly appreciate your diligence and input in this post.
As earlier however, I do think we simply have to respectfully agree to disagree, as neither will convince the other I am sure.
Thanks again for your interesting and thought provoking comments.
The eye and the ear and the great complexity we see in life is so vastly and beautifully arranged and designed to work in harmony and interdependence I simply cannot believe that it happened by chance mutations, I prefer to place my faith in the fact that purposeful design points to a purposeful designer. It is a faith decision based on observation of the facts I see before me, and on my own studies and inquiry into the subject. I am certainly not a scholar in these things, that is clear, but neither am I a blind religious fundamentalist. I genuinely believe as I do based on a mix of experience, reason and careful consideration. in the same way, you have drawn different conclusions from what you observe, and I respect that. As certain as you are that evolution is unquestionably the correct interpretation of the facts before you, so I most certainly believe they corroborate the history we are privileged to read in Genesis.
The Lie: Evolution
How Evolution Adds New Information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
We are not here talking about a simple variation within a species such as green or black beetles though are we? The contention of evolution is it proposes the addition of massive amounts of complex and interdependent information simultaneously necessary for an organism to exist and reproduce – such as the female reproductive system and the male reproductive system (which according to evolution must have formed independently’, or the formation of the eye, or the ear or the internal organs etc etc. The comment earlier about simply applying ‘time’ as the fix-all for such impossibilities is quite relevant. No matter how much time you add to the evolutionary equation, it still does not make the impossible probable.
Your input is appreciated however, and I am glad anyone reading this will get a balanced consideration of the topic through your comments. Thanks
The Origin of Sexual Reproduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
The Evolution of Sex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk&feature=fvw
The genesis and dignity of sex:
Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
….Gen. 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
…Gen. 2:21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen. 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen. 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen. 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife;
I simply and absolutely believe this.
“The contention of evolution is it proposes the addition of massive amounts of complex and interdependent information simultaneously necessary for an organism to exist and reproduce”
No it does not neither evolution nor the theory of evolution makes such a proposition.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Small amounts of information over massive amounts of time, or massive amounts of information over small amounts of time (punctuated evolution), it is still an unlikely philosophy.
The Lie: Evolution
“We are not here talking about a simple variation within a species such as green or black beetles though are we?”
yes we are
The Basic Process of Evolution
The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:
It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.
The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.
As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.
Many things can cause a DNA mutation, including
•X-rays
•Cosmic rays
•Nuclear radiation
•Random chemical reactions in the cell
Therefore, mutations are fairly common. Mutations happen at a steady rate in any population, but the location and type of every mutation is completely random.
Large organisms such as human beings average about one mutation per ten gametes [a gamete is a sex cell, either sperm or egg] — that is, there is a 10 percent chance that any given sperm or egg cell produced will have a new and inheritable change in the genetic instructions that make up the next generation. These mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful — it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.
Only about one nucleotide pair in a thousand is randomly changed every 200,000 years. Even so, in a population of 10,000 individuals, every possible nucleotide substitution will have been “tried out” on about 50 occasions in the course of a million years, which is a short span of time in relation to the evolution of species. Much of the variation created in this way will be disadvantageous to the organism and will be selected against in the population. When a rare variant sequence is advantageous, however, it will be rapidly propagated by natural selection. Consequently, it can be expected that in any given species the functions of most genes will have been optimized by random point mutation and selection.
Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.
Then, natural selection takes over
Natural Selection
mutations are a random and constant process. As mutations occur, natural selection decides which mutations will live on and which ones will die out. If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutated organism survives to reproduce, and the mutation gets passed on to its offspring. In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process to incorporate only the good mutations into the species, and expunge the bad mutations.
The book “Extinct Humans,” by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz, puts it this way:
…in every generation, many more individuals are produced than ever survive to maturity and to reproduce themselves. Those that succeed — the “fittest” — carry heritable features that not only promote their own survival but are also passed along preferentially to their offspring. In this view, natural selection is no more than the sum of all those factors that act to promote the reproductive success of some individuals (and its lack in others). Add the dimension of time, and over the generations natural selection will act to change the complexion of each evolving lineage, as advantageous variations become common in the population at the expense of those less advantageous.
An example of natural selection Whale evolution
The ancestors of whales lived on land — there is evidence of the evolution of the whale from life on land to life in the sea, but how and why did this happen? The “why” is commonly attributed to the abundance of food in the sea. Basically, whales went where the food was. The “how” is a bit more perplexing: Whales are mammals, like humans are, and like humans, they lived and walked on solid ground, breathing air into their lungs. How did whales become sea creatures? One aspect of this evolution,is explained as follows.
To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale’s “nose” moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.
Odd as it seems that the whale’s “nose” actually changed positions, the theory of evolution explains this phenomenon as a long process that occurs over millions of years:
Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its “nose” farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than “normal” whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection “chose” this trait as favorable.
In successive generations, further mutations placed the nose farther back on the head because the whales with this mutation were more likely to reproduce and pass on their altered DNA. Eventually, the whale’s nose reached the position we see today.
Natural selection selects those genetic mutations that make the organism most suited to its environment and therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. In this way, animals of the same species who end up in different environments can evolve in completely different ways.
X-rays, cosmic-rays and nuclear radiation have long been known to cause excellent mutations in living matter as we know. Chernobyl would be a perfect example! Even if a chance positive mutation does occur, the millions upon millions that would be required for just one complex living form to result from them would be a miracle indeed! You are a man of great faith. It seems we have much in common, we just place our faith in different things.