Faith vs. Fact (Creation vs. Evolution)

[John T 744]

If you look at the news you will see that people put religion way up there. They Live by it and they will die for it. 9-11 for example.

Why do people have blind faith?? My Nephew who is very intelligent and somewhat religious attends Rutgers University. He went to an organize debate titled EVOLUTION v. CREATION. Evolution is more or less stating that we came from a cell and went from there. Creation is that God put us here(Adam and Eve) and we came from there.

The debate in a nut shell went like this....All the facts that the Evolution side put on the table the Creation side tried to tear it apart but the Creation side really couldn't put up any facts for themselves since there side is built on faith and hearsay(Bible which is past down thru men/women)

So I ask why do people put faith ahead of fact? Is it a character flaw that we as humans have?? Is it the guilt that is bread in us that if we don't believe in God we are terrible people and we will go staight to.......

In the shortest words possible since most of us can write a book about this ---Why do you think Faith does thru-out the Planet beat Fact most of the time when it comes to Religion???

[kevinw 14]

I guess I've been sucked into the discussion. IMHO, this is a no win conversation. It seems like there are some assumptions going on that don't necessarily line up with the discussion. As I said in my previous post, there's no arguing with ongoing evolution, it's happening everywhere. The example of the height of the average male is a good example of what Darwin found...species that were adapting to their environment.

The ht. of the average male in the U.S. is increasing. Factors that contribute include better nutrition and healthcare in the U.S. than in other places. Additionally, our society places a unique value on taller males resulting in taller males being more desirable as a mate. Being 6'2", that's a good thing.

On the other hand, males are not getting taller in other parts of the world...poorer nutrition, poorer healthcare, and different societal values. Darwinism at it's best!

So, here's the jump. The fact that males are getting taller in the U.S. means life began by evolution. That doesn't work. I have a truck that needed a tune up, my mechanic put in new spark plugs and it ran better. One of my other trucks needed a tune up, so it must need new spark plugs. But it's a diesel. That doesn't work. Hope that made sense? My point is that you can't draw a conclusion based on evidence and facts from a totally separate and different set of circumstances.

Objectively, putting my faith aside, the challenge that evolution, as the genesis of life, holds for me is the huge jump that must be made to come to the conclusion converting hypothesis to fact.

At the end of the day, in order for evolution to be the genesis of life a series of chemical compounds in some form of primordial sludge must come together and start consuming and producing energy. That's the most basic form of life.

The theory says that through some manner, these compounds probably became amino acids, then some external energy source "jump started" them, and they became life.

For me, that is saying that if I drop a light bulb on a concrete floor enough times, add some form of energy (electricity or gamma rays or something), and hit just the right temperature, a single cell organism of some kind will develop. I know, I'm over simplifying and excercising unauthorized sarcasm. But that seems to be what I'm supposed to swallow if I'm gonna bite on this theory.

The next question is, "if this did happen, that organism must consume something to create energy to replace the energy it is using...how did that happen?" Life burns energy, energy must be replaced to continue life. How did this first organism feed itself, did the "spark" also create the ability to feed itself...and if so, what did it eat? Did it eat other amino acids, how many were there, and how did it find them? I accept that it could have "absorbed" them in some manner, but if it took millions of years for the right chain of elements to form...did so many of them form that there were enough to sustain the first?

Now it gets more convoluted. The theories on the sustainment of life don't support consumption of energy sources as we know them...they argue energy through heat...or light, and consumption as we know it today occurred through evolution.

What I hear, personal interpretation, is "evolution" becoming the standard answer for unanswerable questions. Yeah...that's the ticket...it's evolution! (sorry, more sarcasm)

Okay...so we're fairly technololgically sophisticated. We can do some pretty amazing things in our laboratories. Why can't we even come close to duplicating this process? We know the assumed circumstances, the assumed chain of events, and the assumed variables.

I'm not trying to to attack here. My personal aptitude is that I need to see something to support the idea. Speculation doesn't get my interest. For me to get excited about evolution as the genesis of life, I'd like to hear something credible.

[PLD 14]

Before I reply, I'd like to say that I think it can be something other than no-win and with intelligent opinions like yours it will be. What I like about the post: You have posted your opinions on the subject, not someone's elses. From there we can have a discussion. What I dislike about the post: You seem to have a creationist view yet you only discussed contra-evolutionary opinions.

So, here's the jump. The fact that males are getting taller in the U.S. means life began by evolution. That doesn't work.

Absolutely correct. Micro-evolution is a documented fact, but the existence of micro-evolution does not prove (or even address) abiogenesis. abiogenesis, however, does however require evolution. And that's where the confusion comes into play. abiogenesis is a very specialized case of evolution. Much like a red 1983 Porsche 911 turbo is a very specialized instance of "car".

FWIW, the theory survival of the fittest is also a very specialized case of evolution. The being that because of differing mortality rates, only evolutionary traits that enhance an organisms ability to survive will remain in the gene pool.

Objectively, putting my faith aside, the challenge that evolution, as the genesis of life, holds for me is the huge jump that must be made to come to the conclusion converting hypothesis to fact.

Their is nothing wrong with you position. You are saying that "I have seen the evidence, formed an opinion, and my opinion does not agree with yours". That is a far cry from "you are wrong, therefore I am right"

At the end of the day, in order for evolution to be the genesis of life a series of chemical compounds in some form of primordial sludge must come together and start consuming and producing energy. That's the most basic form of life.

And self-replicating. Don't forget that, because we can create complex compounds that metabolize much like living organisms. But they cannot self replicate.

The theory says that through some manner, these compounds probably became amino acids, then some external energy source "jump started" them, and they became life.

The some manner is no longer up for debate. We have replicated amino acids from common gasses in primitive conditions like those found in the wild. And the experiment is so simple that it can be replicated in any high-school lab.

The "jump start", however, is not accurate. Abiogenesis is not dr. frankenstein and the lighting bolt. It's a hypothesis about an unknown number of steps between amino acid soup and basic life forms. Since we do not understand the processes, we obviously cannot replicate them. We try to gain a better understanding by investigating the building blocks of life as we know it and speculating why these building blocks came together. And we can look at evolutionary premutations of these building blocks and see if they support our ideas of why. But in the end, it is a work in progress.

It is because of this that abiogenesis is the theory that most people (including evolutionists) have a problem with.

For me, that is saying that if I drop a light bulb on a concrete floor enough times, add some form of energy (electricity or gamma rays or something), and hit just the right temperature, a single cell organism of some kind will develop. I know, I'm over simplifying and excercising unauthorized sarcasm. But that seems to be what I'm supposed to swallow if I'm gonna bite on this theory.

I only seperated this from the previous section to make one point to everyone. If the "shaking parts in a bag" model is the only one you have to describe abiogenesis, you are significantly lacking in information on the subject. I will grant you that abiogenesis theory is far from complete, and leaves lots of room for rejection, but "accidental" and/or "random" have nothing to do with the facts, evidence, and theories regarding abiogenesis.

The next question is, "if this did happen, that organism must consume something to create energy to replace the energy it is using...how did that happen?" Life burns energy, energy must be replaced to continue life. How did this first organism feed itself, did the "spark" also create the ability to feed itself...and if so, what did it eat? Did it eat other amino acids, how many were there, and how did it find them? I accept that it could have "absorbed" them in some manner, but if it took millions of years for the right chain of elements to form...did so many of them form that there were enough to sustain the first?

You are putting "eat" in terms of an animal. But that's an improper frame of reference. Energy can obtained from many forms such as the sun. As can "food". Organisms that produce their own food are called autotrophs Plants belong that group because the produce food from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water (photosynthesis).

Now it gets more convoluted. The theories on the sustainment of life don't support consumption of energy sources as we know them.

Unless I'm mistaking your point, I just addressed that.

What I hear, personal interpretation, is "evolution" becoming the standard answer for unanswerable questions. Yeah...that's the ticket...it's evolution! (sorry, more sarcasm)

Well warranted sarcasm. Many a scientist has observed the problems with picking a theory and trying to support it. Unfortunately, at present we have no other theory that we can test analytically. So until someone presents a new hypothesis that is plausible, and meets known fact, were stuck with this one.

Okay...so we're fairly technololgically sophisticated. We can do some pretty amazing things in our laboratories. Why can't we even come close to duplicating this process? We know the assumed circumstances, the assumed chain of events, and the assumed variables.

To start with, we don't fully understand the process. That makes it very difficult to replicate them. Second, most of the skills required to actually reproduce what we do know are still science fiction. For example it takes a huge supercomputer 3 months to simulate a single protein fold. Your desktop PC would take 30+ years. How long would it take to actually make one?

Furthermore, because there is big money to be made folding proteins, the research is not being shared and discussed openly. Take Eli Lilly for example. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by dozens of companies on research, EL is the only company that knows how to fold the simple protein we know as insulin. And they aren't telling ANYONE.

I'm not trying to to attack here. My personal aptitude is that I need to see something to support the idea. Speculation doesn't get my interest. For me to get excited about evolution as the genesis of life, I'd like to hear something credible.

If you will start seriously digging deeper, you will find that there is a great deal more than speculation going on. And barring the ocassional kook or publicity w**re, most of it is credible. Whether or not it changes your mind is a decision that you will have to make alone. You may not even wish to have your mind changed, and that is a legitimate choice as well. But to base your decision on the idea that the knowledge base is minimal or incredible is faulty logic.

[kevinw 14]

You've actually touched on most of the areas that are the greatest challenges for me. The struggle I have with evolution as the genesis of life fall into one of two categories. First category, where did it come from? Second category, how did it work?

Let me explain the first category, and I realize that this is the old, old challenge to the evolutionary theory. In order for the evolutionary process to occur...keep in mind that I'm referring to genesis of life, not evolution of species...there had to be somethings (raw materials) and someplace for it to happen. It had to start somewhere. Drilling back, my question is where did the environment that became the laboratory come from. Where did the inorganic materials come from...the energy...etc? I know the answer is going to come down to "it was here". My question is where did it come from? This gets into real "Carl Sagan" stuff...and I know the answer it that billions and billions of years ago (my best Carl Sagan via e-mail impersonation) something happened that led to the universe. From my scientific days...waaay back in college...that doesn't respond to the question. It's speculation. The responses I've heard can't answer the question, only offer possibilities that lead to further questions.

The old argument on this point is that this is where the "evolutionist" will have to acknowledge that some external force must have started things. The "creationist" will say that they've just acknowledged God...I don't think they did, they simply acknowledged that the theory starts getting stretched pretty thin at this point without much support.

Back to the process, the next challenge for me is the "jump start". I'm not saying that something happened and...abracadabra...we have a single cell organism. You are correct regarding the synthesis of simple amino acids, I think I did that experiment about 30 years ago. I also know what I had to do to synthesize that amino acid. It was a very simple amino acid, and required heat, catalysts, and the right recipe. Was it possible for a simple amino acid to generate in natural, environmental conditions? That's a little bit of leap, but it's possible.

If it occured, we have a simple amino acid...nothing more. The challenge of the theory is moving this simple amino acid toward a form that will ultimately become a single cell organism. Back to the primordial puddle. From a basic chemistry perspective, in order for the amino acid to sustain in that molecular structure, the environment must help it out little. It has to be in the right pH at the right temperature, if either of those factors change (according to laws of physics) it will break down. The natural progression is from a state of order to a state of disorder without external influences (my light bulb discussion).

We don't know the environment, but speculation is that it was very wild. High heat, lots of fluctuation in pH, etc. All of that would break down the amino acid, not push further development.

But if we acknowledge the external influence, energy, there is a possibility that the amino acid would actually become more complex...leading to the next big leap. That external influence could possibly result in the amino acid growing, or becoming more complex. How complex is a subject of lots of speculation, but logic says it wouldn't become very complex. We're talking about another chemical process...electrons are exchanged and the result is a larger molecule.

Depending on what is in the ooze, the molecular growth is going to grow by adding those compounds or elements with the greatest electron affinity...the strongest valence values. However, we don't know what was in the ooze and have to acknowledge that there is a wide range of valence values depending on what compounds are already there. In other words, the likelihood of moving toward that unique combination that would ultimately become life if very small. The likelihood of going in other directions is much greater. We're talking exponential values in both directions.

The "evolutionist" will argue that, given the length of time, this is exactly what happened. They will say that in the billions and billions of years it happened. The logic is that if you play the lotto long enough, you'll win. The mathematician will tell you that no matter how many times you play, the odds are always the same. When you roll in the fact that we're talking about billions and billions of years, and the environmental conditions were all over the board, the likelihood that all the factors lined up on that one moment are a huge mathematical challenge. It could happen, but I like my chances in the lotto better...and I don't play the lotto.

But if we say that it happened, we're to the next big jump. From molecular structure to some pre-life...thing...can't call it an organism, it's not. This thing has to have some basic properties of life, it can grow. In order to grow, it requires energy. At some point, it will have to duplicate...it has to become more than one. Back to basic chemistry. In order to grow, basic chemical processes have to occur which require energy, pH, catalysts...whatever. Without knowing what it was, hard to speculate on what it takes. When a molecule grows, it only gets bigger...it doesn't get "live-er". Molecular growth only means a bigger molecule.

The reproduction topic is a big challenge. When molecular chains split, they just break up. If it's a repeating chain, it could possibly break at the point of repetition if that's the point of weakest valence. It will break at the point of weakest valence, unless something occurs to make it break at another point. We can manipulate this process in a lab, pick where we want it to break...but we're not in the lab.

So, we now have large molecules that are breaking up...and maybe breaking into two identical molecules. We can take it further and assume that the molecules start combining into new, larger molecules...but we still talking about molecules. We need an electron microscope to see them.

At the end of the day, all we have is inorganic material. It seems like the jump from inorganic materials, to pre-life organism, to a single cell organism starts to sound like something from a comic book. Spider man got bit by a spider while exposed to radiation! This isn't sarcasm, nor an attack. To make all of these jumps just push me beyond realism...too many huge jumps.

You are right, they have synthesized some amazing compounds in the labs and insulin is a good example. They're doing it today. But I don't think you can use that to validate evolution as the genesis of life. In those instances, they have used some amazing technology to manipulate and synthesize. Those materials did not occur naturally, and would not occur in any other setting. Think about the technology they use, the manipulation of energy, synthetic catalysts...that stuff wasn't around when this evolutionary party was scheduled.

As I said before, just too many huge jumps for me. If you can get past all of that, then you start the jumps over how that single cell became what we see today.

As I said before, I have no problem with evolution. I don't think you can argue against it...but it doesn't demonstrate where life began.

Kevin

[Paul B. 523]

I was replying to Pauls post that Darwin recanted and your interpretation of the excerpt I posted. But you are correct. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of creationism.

Supporters of creationism seem to be really fond of the idea that Darwin was a closet Christian or had some sort of conversion and recanted all he wrote during his life. If it were true, it would be noteworthy that the "father" of modern evolutionary thought altered his views that dramatically. Even so, the significance of a single deathbed conversion as a contrarian argument is minimal as his theories have since been reviewed and accepted by hundreds of prominent scientists.

Phillip,

You are again blaming Paul by putting words in my mouth - I never said Darwin recanted... I asked didn't he become a Chrisatian again?

You must have also assumed that I was sourcastic - It was a valid question since I didn't know the answer.

[Paul B. 523]

Thank you Kevin!

You've said everything I've tried to say.

[Paul B. 523]

Paul, I will not answer your question. At least not until you can engage in some manner of discussion that somewhat more two dimensional than me making a point and then you shredding it. Even in this short post, you have carefully (and transparently) crafted your words and mine so that any answer I give will either appear evasive of the question or incongrous with prior comments.

Even if I was up for the spanish inquisition that will ensue, I woudn't start until you made at least a fleeting effort to support your own position. Just suffice it to say that my thoughts (and words) on the subject are not in conflict no matter how badly you wish them to be.

You keep putting words into my mouth and accusing me of things I had no intention of doing.

I simply want to know what you believe in! is that so hard to believe?

I've always tried to say "in my opinion" when I had an opinion; I've always said each person can have their opinion, I make no judgement even though I may or may not agree! THERE, I'VE SAID IT ONCE AGAIN!

You keep twisting my words and putting words into my mouth. You want me to play by your rules maybe so you can win?

I'm in the same boat as Kevin:

- I believe in evolution (as stated before - regurgitated).

- I believe it's a far reach for scientists to make all the ties with the gaps that exist without tagging it as assumptions.

I also believe that science proves the existance of God and supports the words of the Bible.

I also believe that it is possible that the Bible supports evolution.

[Paul B. 523]

Paul, I will not answer your question. At least not until you can engage in some manner of discussion that somewhat more two dimensional than me making a point and then you shredding it. Even in this short post, you have carefully (and transparently) crafted your words and mine so that any answer I give will either appear evasive of the question or incongrous with prior comments.

Even if I was up for the spanish inquisition that will ensue, I woudn't start until you made at least a fleeting effort to support your own position. Just suffice it to say that my thoughts (and words) on the subject are not in conflict no matter how badly you wish them to be.

Originally Posted by racechaser

You see the main thing is , do you believe God could have done it?

"Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. I just don't believe that he did it as detailed in Genesis ch 1&2."

I am the one that's confused!

You say you believe "he" (GOD) did it - but he did it accidentally?

Again, I'm just looking for your thoughts and beliefs - no more, no less.

Everyone else here has pretty much spilled their beliefs on these pages (including myself).

[PLD 14]

You are again blaming Paul by putting words in my mouth - I never said Darwin recanted... I asked didn't he become a Chrisatian again?

Then I apologize. Since you stated that christianity and evolution are exclusive, I ASS-U-ME-d that you were asking if he recanted. That, and Darwin's deathbed confession is frequently regurgitated as an attack on evolution. With you being con, and me being pro, I again ASS-U-ME-d that you were making an anti-evolutionary case. In any case, he neither recanted nor reaffirmed his christianity. He became increasingly athestic (agnostic is his words) right until he died.

As for blaming, I have only leveled two charges against you. Those being; A) that you will only attack the opposition and never support your own postion. and B) that you do so by re-posting other peoples work & opinions. If I wanted Mitchell's anti-evolution opinion, I would go and read his book. I come here to listen to and discuss your opinions. If you are just going send me other peoples opinions, then I'm wasting my time here.

You must have also assumed that I was sourcastic - It was a valid question since I didn't know the answer.

The question itself is valid, but in the context of this discussion you must have had more of a reason for asking it than simple curiosity.

[racechaser 64]

I haven't forgot about you. I'm just waiting for things to cool down here.

Scott

[PLD 14]

I simply want to know what you believe in! is that so hard to believe?

Yep. Because each time I start to say what I believe, my opinion is met with a hearty assault of reasons why my opinion is invalid.

You keep twisting my words and putting words into my mouth. You want me to play by your rules maybe so you can win?

I have NO desire to win. How do I win by tearing down someone else's faith? If there is a God, I have committed a mortal sin. If there is no God, I have robbed them of something that brings them great peace and confort. Either way, it takes a great deal of bitterness to try and win.

As for the discussion, you can play by whatever rules you wish. I am not the arbiter of your actions. However, if you wish to engage me in conversation further we will do so in a much less one sided manner. And that means that you share your opinion, I share mine, and we discuss it. Thus far it has been a whole lot of I share my opinion, and you give me 20 reasons why I am wrong.

I'm in the same boat as Kevin:

- I believe in evolution (as stated before - regurgitated).

- I believe it's a far reach for scientists to make all the ties with the gaps that exist without tagging it as assumptions.

I also believe that science proves the existance of God and supports the words of the Bible.

I also believe that it is possible that the Bible supports evolution.

I think you are confusing evolution and abiogenesis... That said I here's my thoughts (in order);

- Evolution is a fact. Abiogensis is up for debate.

- It *is* a far reach, and those gaps *are* widely promulgated as assumptions (i.e. theory)

- If science supports the existence of God, I have not seen any examples. I would welcome any you have to offer.

- The bible is silent on evolution, but directly decries abiogenesis in Gen 1&2

[PLD 14]

Originally Posted by racechaser

You see the main thing is , do you believe God could have done it?

"Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. I just don't believe that he did it as detailed in Genesis ch 1&2."

I am the one that's confused!

You say you believe "he" (GOD) did it - but he did it accidentally?

Again, I'm just looking for your thoughts and beliefs - no more, no less.

Everyone else here has pretty much spilled their beliefs on these pages (including myself).

Accidentally? Again, that is your word not mine. There is nothing accidental about evolutionary theory.

Do I believe that he created mankind specifically and explicitly? No.

Do I believe that the entire universe exists solely as a stage on which the God-man relationship plays? No.

Do I believe that we are the only living beings in the universe? Over all time, no. At this moment, most likely.

Do I believe that the known universe exploded from a singlularity? Yes. Do I have a problem with the entirety of the universe existing in a point smaller than the head of a pin? no.

[Dan Stapleton 14]

Alrighty then.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Accidentally? Again, that is your word not mine. There is nothing accidental about evolutionary theory.

Do I believe that he created mankind specifically and explicitly? No.

Do I believe that the entire universe exists solely as a stage on which the God-man relationship plays? No.

Do I believe that we are the only living beings in the universe? Over all time, no. At this moment, most likely.

Do I believe that the known universe exploded from a singlularity? Yes. Do I have a problem with the entirety of the universe existing in a point smaller than the head of a pin? no.

Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God?

[kevinw 14]

Hey Phillip...

Sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion...but thought I might have something to contribute. It's a backward look at science and the Bible...actually, it's more like the Bible proving science is wrong.

Let me give you some examples...in 1861, the science commmunity stated there were 51 incontrovertible instances where the Bible was wrong. Today, each one of those "wrong" instances have been confirmed as accurate by science. Be happy to provide reference if you would like...but you'll have to read some Christian literature to find it.

Keep in mind that science is a moving target...facts that later are proved or disproved. I think we can both name instances where a scientific "fact" was cited, then later retracted as being inaccurate. But, here are a few notables. Centuries ago, the science of the day (yes, this was a long time ago...but it was cutting edge technology at the time) had interesting explanations for how the earth was held where it was. Greeks said the earth was on Atlas' shoulders...Hindus said it was on the back of an elephant...and the elephant was on the back of a turtle. Sounds very childish today, but it was the conventional thought to that time. Let's go back further the oldest piece of literature known to man...the book of Job. Chapter 26:7...the oldest literature known to man..."He stretches out the north over the empty space, he hangs the earth on nothing." Job described space...over 1,000 years earlier.

Okay, let's move forward....in the 15th century, science stated that the earth was flat. Remember, Christopher Columbus was going to sail off of the edge of the earth? Isaiah wrote...over a thousand years earlier..."It is He who sits above the globe of the earth." (Isa. 40:22) When you look this one up, be sure to go back to original translations.

150 years before Christ, the leading astronomist of the time (Hipparchus) proclaimed there were 1,022 stars. 150 years later, Ptolemy said no, there are 1,056 stars. 13 years later, Galileo discovered there were millions of stars...more than could be counted. Over a thousand years earlier, Jeremiah said, The host of heaven cannot be counted." Jer. 33:22

Move forward again...in William Harvey discovered that blood circulated through the body. As late as the 19th century it was believed that illness could be cured by "bleeding", letting out the bad blood. Geo. Washinton was bled to death to cure him...an interesting aside. Thousands of years earlier, Leviticus 17:14 said, "For it (blood) is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life."

The black plague was finally controlled by using Lev. 14:46. The plague is the sore, and the treatment for the unclean is quarantine.

Now let's move to some historical contradictions. In the late 1800s, Dr.S.R. Driver ridiculed the Penteteuch saying Moses couldn't have written it because people didn't know how to write at that time. We now know that people were writing at that time, and even had a postal system.

Historians said the book of Daniel was inaccurate because Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon...the last king of Babylon was Nabonitus. Then, it was discovered that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonitus, the last king. Nabonitus is known to to have travelled a great deal during his rein and made Belshazzar king while he was gone.

Asking a person to defend the Bible, or Christianity, with science is actually an oxymoron...I think by definition it's an oxymoron, I'll check. The only response that I can provide is that the Louvre is filled with volumes of man's accumulated science...going back centuries. If you take every book and stack it side by side, it will supposedly stretch nearly 3.5 miles. Lotta books...and nearly 100% of them are now accepted as obsolete.

On the other hand, the Bible was written over 1,600 years by 40 different authors, in 3 different languages, by men from all walks of life. And it stands today as God's truth.

I guess my point is that science hasn't been able to chip the foundation away, but it's distracted a lot of people. The Bible's message hasn't changed. Can you say that of science?

Kevin

[racechaser 64]

Hey Phillip...

Sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion...but thought I might have something to contribute. It's a backward look at science and the Bible...actually, it's more like the Bible proving science is wrong.

Let me give you some examples...in 1861, the science commmunity stated there were 51 incontrovertible instances where the Bible was wrong. Today, each one of those "wrong" instances have been confirmed as accurate by science. Be happy to provide reference if you would like...but you'll have to read some Christian literature to find it.

Keep in mind that science is a moving target...facts that later are proved or disproved. I think we can both name instances where a scientific "fact" was cited, then later retracted as being inaccurate. But, here are a few notables. Centuries ago, the science of the day (yes, this was a long time ago...but it was cutting edge technology at the time) had interesting explanations for how the earth was held where it was. Greeks said the earth was on Atlas' shoulders...Hindus said it was on the back of an elephant...and the elephant was on the back of a turtle. Sounds very childish today, but it was the conventional thought to that time. Let's go back further the oldest piece of literature known to man...the book of Job. Chapter 26:7...the oldest literature known to man..."He stretches out the north over the empty space, he hangs the earth on nothing." Job described space...over 1,000 years earlier.

Okay, let's move forward....in the 15th century, science stated that the earth was flat. Remember, Christopher Columbus was going to sail off of the edge of the earth? Isaiah wrote...over a thousand years earlier..."It is He who sits above the globe of the earth." (Isa. 40:22) When you look this one up, be sure to go back to original translations.

150 years before Christ, the leading astronomist of the time (Hipparchus) proclaimed there were 1,022 stars. 150 years later, Ptolemy said no, there are 1,056 stars. 13 years later, Galileo discovered there were millions of stars...more than could be counted. Over a thousand years earlier, Jeremiah said, The host of heaven cannot be counted." Jer. 33:22

Move forward again...in William Harvey discovered that blood circulated through the body. As late as the 19th century it was believed that illness could be cured by "bleeding", letting out the bad blood. Geo. Washinton was bled to death to cure him...an interesting aside. Thousands of years earlier, Leviticus 17:14 said, "For it (blood) is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life."

The black plague was finally controlled by using Lev. 14:46. The plague is the sore, and the treatment for the unclean is quarantine.

Now let's move to some historical contradictions. In the late 1800s, Dr.S.R. Driver ridiculed the Penteteuch saying Moses couldn't have written it because people didn't know how to write at that time. We now know that people were writing at that time, and even had a postal system.

Historians said the book of Daniel was inaccurate because Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon...the last king of Babylon was Nabonitus. Then, it was discovered that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonitus, the last king. Nabonitus is known to to have travelled a great deal during his rein and made Belshazzar king while he was gone.

Asking a person to defend the Bible, or Christianity, with science is actually an oxymoron...I think by definition it's an oxymoron, I'll check. The only response that I can provide is that the Louvre is filled with volumes of man's accumulated science...going back centuries. If you take every book and stack it side by side, it will supposedly stretch nearly 3.5 miles. Lotta books...and nearly 100% of them are now accepted as obsolete.

On the other hand, the Bible was written over 1,600 years by 40 different authors, in 3 different languages, by men from all walks of life. And it stands today as God's truth.

I guess my point is that science hasn't been able to chip the foundation away, but it's distracted a lot of people. The Bible's message hasn't changed. Can you say that of science?

Kevin

I think it was the sermon on the mount of olives when Jesus spoke of the rapture of the church when he said some would be in the fields working and others will be in bed sleeping.

Everyone thought that it was daylight everywhere at the same time. This shows (to me anyway) that Jesus knew of a round earth rotating around a sun.

Scott

[Mike Williamson 198]

I think it was the sermon on the mount of olives when Jesus spoke of the rapture of the church when he said some would be in the fields working and others will be in bed sleeping.

Everyone thought that it was daylight everywhere at the same time. This shows (to me anyway) that Jesus knew of a round earth rotating around a sun.

Scott

Wow...now THAT'S a great point!!!

[racechaser 64]

Wow...now THAT'S a great point!!!

Thanks Mike. All I can say is I have some great teachers and listen to many powerful and incredibly smart preachers. I produce a radio program for my church. I listen and edit over 12 hours of sermons every week on top of what I hear in other places. Being constantly exposed to this, I find myself "being given" many interesting things that are divined on me to share.

I once again credit it all to God though. I am merely a messenger he has chosen to use.

Scott

[Jeff 232]

I havent read all the post and have stayed out of this topic because to me I think religion is a personal thing, whether you are a true believer or not quite sure, I've always felt its something between me & my beliefs. I've always felt uncomfortable when people try to push there religious beliefs on me

I believe in evolution and have since I was young, but in the past 15 years or so I also believe in God and I pray to him often. Its not that I didnt believe in God years ago, I just wasnt sure, it couldnt be proven to me. Now I dont care if it can be proven to me or not, I find comfort in praying, I find comfort in looking to the sky and saying thank you God or ask God for his help. I'm not a church going catholic, but I figure God still loves & looks over me as much as the person who speaks of God all the time or the person who has the head of Jesus on his back window of his SUV

I believe in God and evolution and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to Hell for my beliefs. I dont care if evolution is the total truth or if God did it all, its what a person believes or wants to believe at the end of the day when they are alone that matters.

I am very uncomfortable and dont like the extreme religous right who push their beliefs on others and they think they are the only right ones. Its like some past & present televangelist, some may be good but a lot of them are theives and they prey on those who believe or want to believe. They should go to hell for using God to profit or as a political tool

Thank God , God doesnt mind me being somewhere in the middle , I think he would want all this to be a personal thing

JL

[PLD 14]

You've actually touched on most of the areas that are the greatest challenges for me. The struggle I have with evolution as the genesis of life fall into one of two categories. First category, where did it come from? Second category, how did it work?

That makes you perfectly normal. It is a reach.

Let me explain the first category, and I realize that this is the old, old challenge to the evolutionary theory. In order for the evolutionary process to occur...keep in mind that I'm referring to genesis of life, not evolution of species...there had to be somethings (raw materials) and someplace for it to happen. It had to start somewhere. Drilling back, my question is where did the environment that became the laboratory come from. Where did the inorganic materials come from...the energy...etc? I know the answer is going to come down to "it was here". My question is where did it come from? This gets into real "Carl Sagan" stuff...and I know the answer it that billions and billions of years ago (my best Carl Sagan via e-mail impersonation) something happened that led to the universe. From my scientific days...waaay back in college...that doesn't respond to the question. It's speculation. The responses I've heard can't answer the question, only offer possibilities that lead to further questions.

It is speculation. We can and will never know. As for the raw materials, study quantum theory. Something appears from nothing quite readliy.

The old argument on this point is that this is where the "evolutionist" will have to acknowledge that some external force must have started things. The "creationist" will say that they've just acknowledged God...I don't think they did, they simply acknowledged that the theory starts getting stretched pretty thin at this point without much support.

Here, you and I agree solidly. Disproof of evolution is not proof of creation. Yes, the theory does get stretched pretty thin. Not without *much* support, but certainly without *adequate* scientific support.

Back to the process, the next challenge for me is the "jump start". I'm not saying that something happened and...abracadabra...we have a single cell organism. You are correct regarding the synthesis of simple amino acids, I think I did that experiment about 30 years ago. I also know what I had to do to synthesize that amino acid. It was a very simple amino acid, and required heat, catalysts, and the right recipe. Was it possible for a simple amino acid to generate in natural, environmental conditions? That's a little bit of leap, but it's possible.

Actually, the experiment synthesized most of the common amino acids. No recipes, No catalysts. Just methane gas, ammonia gas, water, and a spark. The heat was only added to create evaporation/ condensation cycles found naturally.

It's actually not a leap as the experiment was specifically engineered to simulate a natural environment.

The natural progression is from a state of order to a state of disorder without external influences (my light bulb discussion).

I assume you are referring to entropy. That does not apply to matter, only energy.

We don't know the environment, but speculation is that it was very wild. High heat, lots of fluctuation in pH, etc. All of that would break down the amino acid, not push further development.

As much as the environment is speculation, so is the fact that it would NOt be conducive to amino acids.

The "evolutionist" will argue that, given the length of time, this is exactly what happened. They will say that in the billions and billions of years it happened. The logic is that if you play the lotto long enough, you'll win. The mathematician will tell you that no matter how many times you play, the odds are always the same.

Yes, but the lottery is a series of isolated incidents. Evolutionary developent is a sequence of connected events. It's like playing the lottery 1mm times and each time the last number cannot be picked. And given the size of the earth, thousands of identical lotteries are happening in parallel.

Without knowing what it was, hard to speculate on what it takes. When a molecule grows, it only gets bigger...it doesn't get "live-er". Molecular growth only means a bigger molecule.

No so, There are colloids that metabolize w/o growth. And there are chemical compounds that self replicate. We do not yet know of a non-living organization that does both. But it's not that far fetched as we have seen both traits in non-living structures.

The reproduction topic is a big challenge. When molecular chains split, they just break up. If it's a repeating chain, it could possibly break at the point of repetition if that's the point of weakest valence. It will break at the point of weakest valence, unless something occurs to make it break at another point. We can manipulate this process in a lab, pick where we want it to break...but we're not in the lab.

Molecular self-replication is not common and observed at all levels of molecular complexity. Most often, it has little to do with breaking chains.

At the end of the day, all we have is inorganic material. It seems like the jump from inorganic materials, to pre-life organism, to a single cell organism starts to sound like something from a comic book. Spider man got bit by a spider while exposed to radiation! This isn't sarcasm, nor an attack. To make all of these jumps just push me beyond realism...too many huge jumps.

I cannot say that the path is paved and has handrails installed. But I can say that if you will look more closely at the gory, boring details, you will see that there are stepping stones in the river, and the jump is not as far as you may believe it to be.

You are right, they have synthesized some amazing compounds in the labs and insulin is a good example. They're doing it today. But I don't think you can use that to validate evolution as the genesis of life. In those instances, they have used some amazing technology to manipulate and synthesize. Those materials did not occur naturally, and would not occur in any other setting. Think about the technology they use, the manipulation of energy, synthetic catalysts...that stuff wasn't around when this evolutionary party was scheduled.

I am not using that as an example in support of evolution. In fact, it's probably a better con argument. I am using it as an example of why we can't develop an experiment that proves once and for all that abogenesis occurred.

As I said before, just too many huge jumps for me. If you can get past all of that, then you start the jumps over how that single cell became what we see today.

It's a reasonable doubt. Not nearly as insanely far as you presently think it is once you know and process all the data, but still a big jump. I have no problem with the idea that it's too far for you to grasp. I do have a problem with it being portrayed as running jump over the grand canyon. It's only that if you cannot, or will not, look at the data that exists.

As I said before, I have no problem with evolution. I don't think you can argue against it...but it doesn't demonstrate where life began.

Rememeber, abiogenesis is a specialized case of evolution. Evolution is required for abiogenesis, but abogenesis is not needed for evolution. In fact, by definition evolution cannot prove/disprove abiogenesis.

[kevinw 14]

"Thank God , God doesnt mind me being somewhere in the middle , I think he would want all this to be a personal thing"

Jeff,

I believe you're partially right in your response. Your relationship to God is very personal. Too many people believe their role is to evaluate everybody else's relationship with God, and never look in the mirror to ask themselves hard questions about their relationship with God.

The hard part is realizing who God is and what he requires of us as his children. It's easy to fall in love with the cuddly, loving side of God...but that doesn't mean the other realities of God go away...they don't. In a previous post, I mentioned the importance of making sure the god you worship is the God of the Bible. That God is described beginning in Genesis, and ending in Revelation. If the god we're discussing isn't the same God of the Bible...we've taken the parts we like, rejected the parts we don't like...and created our own god. One that likes us just the way we are.

Make sure that lines up with what the Bible says about God, and what it says you're supposed to do about your belief.

Is believing Him enough? The Bible says that even the demons believe in him, and tremble. Apparently we're supposed to do something besides just believe.

Let me encourage you to add something to your prayers. Find a Bible with some study guides, and start reading about God. I think you'll be amazed at what you discover there. Let God show you who he is.

I'll be happy to make some recommendations on what types of Bible might be easiest for you to use. There are some particular passages that are good starting points. If you'd prefer, find someone you know better and ask them for some recommendations.

It sounds like he has your attention, why don't you get to know him better?

Kevin

[PLD 14]

Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God?

No.

<pad>

[Dan Stapleton 14]

Wow, what a surprise.

[kevinw 14]

Hey Phillip,

Thanks for the response...could you do me a favor...I know that breaking down the quotes into groupings may help you respond...but it gets a little tedious on my side when I respond? Not sure that made sense.

Anyway...yes...you're kinda right again...but kinda wrong too. The amino acid synthesis you described assumes 2 points...1st, that was they type of amino acid that started it all...and 2nd, ammonia gas was present. If they were, you've got a starting point. Where did the ammonia gas come from in that time and place? Might have been there...but I'd be interested in how that happened.

The quantum theory response. Please give me an example...physics isn't my strong suit, chemistry and biology are my areas. What matter has occurred from nothing? I guess I'm more familiar with this explanation for the existence of matter when there are no other explanations.

It gets confusing, bouncing back and forth like this...doesn't it. The environment and it's conducive/non-conducive nature...I think. We know that different compounds, or molecular structures, are more stable in some environments than others. The popular assumption, at least that I'm familiar with, was that the environment during this time period was going through some dramatic changes. It would have to be going through these changes...heat extremes, pH changes, electrical discharge, radiation, etc. to support the philosophy. In other words, these changes are necessary to force the migration from simple compounds to increasingly complex amino acids. However, these dramatic changes also increase the likelihood that the amino acids would be exposed to unfavorable conditions, which would cause them to break down. The argument seems to be saying "we want it both ways...it did, but it didn't".

But here's the challenge, and the jump, that it seems you've made. You've pointed toward some examples of what we have today without acknowledging the context of those examples...colloids that metabolize w/out growth and self replicating molecules...and no example of non-living matter that does both. So, let's start with examples of non-living matter that does either and the context of that process. Then let's pin it down to the likelihood of that occurring in the primordial ooze.

To be honest, my biochemical days are far behind me...but I think I still have enough of the basics to follow up on your response. The challenge is to tie any examples to a context that could possibly relate to the genesis of life, and still fall within the simple rules that all chemicak processes must follow.

The conducive environment...your response feels a little like you're playing it both ways. If I understand correctly, the assumption is that there was a huge swing in the environment during this process...one day, condtions are good...shortly thereafter, conditions are bad. These amino acids we're discussing don't have adaptability yet, they're just chemical compounds. How do they survive these changes...yet these changes must occur to drive the process. That seems contradictory.

Your response to the lottery analogy has been used before...and it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. You're assumption is that as time goes by, the odds get better because this amino acid has developed. But it doesn't address the fact that the larger structure is less stable, which actually makes the odds worse. And now, we have multiple lotteries going on in parallel around the world. I believe the reality would have been that the lotteries going on around the world only drives the likelihood farther away...the variables increase dramatically. If I played in every lottery in the world, would my chances of winning increase? No, they would be the same chances of winning each lottery for that particular lottery. Every primordial puddle has it's own odds...every puddle has it's own set of circumstances, unique to itself. The mathematical challenge is a tough one to over come. If you're saying the time period involved changes that...you're correct. The time period means that every day brings a new set of circumstances...more/less moisture, higher/lower pH, higher/lower temp, more/less radiation, more/less static discharge...the list goes on. So the odds are constantly on the move...some days more favorable for a particular puddle, some days less. But it doesn't seem logical to assume that even on the most favorable day, the odds are very good.

Molecular replication...you're going to need to explain that one to me. Can you give me an example of what your referring to? I'm afraid that we're talking about different things here, that response got a big "HUH" from me.

It's not that I don't want to look at the gory details...but I'm careful to make sure that those details are relevant and contextually accurate.

Although it's been a while, I had the opportunity to study under some pretty well accredited teachers in college, both in biology and chemistry...even got to do some assistant work with them. I've had this discussion with all of them. The interesting thing was that the majority of them were very fluent in the discussion, taught it in class...but didn't buy it personally. Even had one PhD that had changed sides in the discussion.

The lesson that I picked up from that was that there is a lot of the shell game going on in the discussion. Too much of the validation came from examples that had little, or no, contextual accuracy. To make the case for colloidal metabolism as provenance for the generation of life is a huge stretch. There are too many instances of referring to some process that occurs somewhere, and say, "see...just like that." However, you've got to take that instance and tie back to the primordial puddle with some kind of realistic connection.

Let me ask your opinion on something...is this going anywhere? I'll be happy to sit here and bounce this stuff back and forth, but it's like my son just told me while discussing with me a few minutes ago..."it's mental gymnatistics. kinda fun for a while, but you're' just spinning your wheels."

I went through this discussion with my older son recently. Masters in Biology. He doesn't support the theory, coincidentally. But he made me re-think the arguments. So...do we keep playing ping pong? Or agree to disagree?

Kevin

[Mike Williamson 198]

No.

<pad>

Upon what do you base your belief in the divity of Jesus Christ, and upon what do you base your belief in Him as your Lord and Savior? How do you even know you need saving?

I just don't understand the concept that we can take parts of the bible (usually the parts that don't make us uncomfortable, or that don't contradict our worldview) and reject other parts of it. Either God gave us His word, and preserved it, or He didn't. If He didn't, then as far as I'm concerned, toss the entire thing in the trash, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. And without it, how do we know anything about Him, about our need of Him? How do we know anything about what He expects of us?

[Mike Williamson 198]

Thank God , God doesnt mind me being somewhere in the middle , I think he would want all this to be a personal thing

JL

I used to feel as you do, I believed in God, but I sure didn't want anyone pushing their religious crap on me! Until I was ready to listen, and God sent a man to push his religious "crap" on me. LOL! What a ride it's been since then!!!

Jesus was perfectly willing to allow those not interested in Him to walk away...He's a gentleman, and will not force Himself on anyone who is unwilling to hear. The thing is, He has a way of making us willing to hear!

Don't be offended when someone wants to share their faith with you. They're simply doing what Jesus told them to do..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...." And in most cases, it is done with a spirit of love and concern, not self-righteousness. Just be glad someone cares enough to take the time, even if you feel you don't need what they're offering.