The Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution Series enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory.

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution, rather a revolution when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. This was the beginning of the evolution of a creationist.

- Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?

- How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?
- How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

- How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?

- How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

- How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?

- What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?
- How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!

- What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?

- How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?

- Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?

- How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?
Has anyone here seen this video?
If so what do you make of it?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

homesell

JimGunther,
My point about 50 scientists that believe is that these aren’t just people off the street like your 50 that believe in sex with minors(a curious analogy) but actual Phd’s in the subject that make their living as scientists, some are professors at college. I taught high school biology and don’t consider myself a scientist but know more than the average guy about the subject and these 50 know way more than I do. The point being to erase from people’s mind the idea that people that don’t believe in evolution are either ignorant or ignore the facts of science.
The reason I broughtup about being ostracized about NOT believing in evolution, is that many real scientist do not believe evolution took place, but stay silent to keep their jobs.
You said I was absolutely wrong saying evolution is based on non-observable, non-repeatable events which make evolution non-scientific” If you remember from grade school, science is 1. Observable, 2. repeatable, 3.testable. Carbon dating cannot and does not give specific dates of age, many assumptions are made about the organic objects being tested, conclusions that don’t fit with long periods of time are thrown out. If I’m walking down the street and find a bucket of water, I can test the bucket, I can test the water but neither test nor no matter how many tests I perform will tell me where the bucket came from, where the water came from, nor how the water got in the bucket because the bucket was not observed being put there and the water wasn’t observed being put in the bucket. To test the water and the bucket only and say that science can determine how long the bucket was there and how it and the water got there is not science.
You plead science is in its infancy and that is why they don’t know some things. My answer is the same. True science can never tell us about origins of life or the universe because those origins are not observable, testable repeatable.
Your final quote where the encyclopedia says “…how evolution occurs is still a matter of debate, but that it occurs is a scientific fact.” is like saying the water is in the bucket because it is there and that is proof it got there the way we said it did because anyway except the way we say would be supernatural and science does not include the supernatural.
How or when things occurred that were not observed and are not repeatable and therefore not testable is speculation, and that is NOT science. If by evolution, you simply mean change within a species, of course this happens – dogs- are a perfect example. But one kind, like the canine kind changing into another like the feline kind has NEVER been observed. Scientist tout all day long how there is a change in a species and say it is evolution in action but never hear about changing to a different kind. Darwins finches still remained finches. The Bible says in Genesis that each animal would reproduce according to its kind. The bird kind, the insect kind, the elephant kind, the fish kind, horse kind, dog kind, cat kind, etc. All animals stay within their kind.
Thank you for your response and remember that I will never say and I hope not imply that a Christian HAS to believe the way I do in a literal six-day creation to be saved and in a relationship with the living God.

arcura

JimGunther,
You're welcome.
Fred

JimGunther

Homesell, I think we might agree on the big picture more than is apparent but perhaps not on some specific items.

You said: "True science can never tell us about origins of life or the universe because those origins are not observable, testable repeatable."

I think it is unwise to state what science will never do, I think we will be amazed to see what science will have done in the next 1000 years or so, if we are still in the position to advance that far.

But you read what I said about the origin of the universe. I don't think its explainable without God, so we are close to a shared position on that matter.

I'll have to admit that the business about the water and the bucket is lost to me, carbon dating has its uses and limitations, and like every other tool in science, it either gets better as we go along, or replaced with another technique.

I realize you don't "buy" what the encyclopedia says for the reasons you stated, such as "How or when things occurred that were not observed and are not repeatable and therefore not testable is speculation, and that is NOT science."

But as a former police officer I know that things do not have to be observed to be proven. Its not the actual event that has to be repeated, its the steps in the scientific method that are repeated and verified by anyone who repeats the technique to get the same conclusion, even if its from bones and dirt.

But let me mention what I see as the major difference in the way you and I look at things. You are obviously a man of great faith who holds tightly to the principles held in the Bible. I personally consider myself to be of a similar mind. But when you see science claiming that one species changed to another, or claiming that the Earth was created in billions of years instead of six days, you raise objections. You feel the need to try and refute these conclusions based upon your faith in the Bible and the explanations it lays out for how everything got here and what we are supposed to do now that we are here.

I too have faith in what the Bible says, though I do not consider myself a religious person. I took alot of astronomy in college and see that science cannot explain the origin of our universe beyond the notion that there was a big bang. I recognize that science has alot yet to learn and I read in the encyclopedia about evolution. I read the creation stories in the Bible and wonder if there is a contradiction.

But my solution to all this is that I recognize that neither science nor the Bible is going to give me all the answers. Science can't explain everything we see around us because it is so new and I doubt that it will ever be able to explain everything. The Bible doesn't reveal all the answers either, because, if it did, there would be no need for faith, and faith is, of course, the major aspect of the story that the Bible tells.

So I don't try to compare, contrast or justify the Bible with science. I don't think it can be done and I see no purpose in it. My faith in the Bible is good enough for me. I know that there will come a time when I will no longer be walking the Earth and all these mysteries will be revealed to me. I can wait.

arcura

JimGunther,
I agree with your position on that.
Who or what was the banger that started the big bang?
Considering what came of it up till now that who or what must have been rational and of great intelligence.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

homesell

Hello Jim,
I appreciate your position. As the last line of my statements said, I certainly do believe that one can be in a saving knowledge of God and still believe in some form of evolution.
I realize believing the bible is infallible and without error is weird in todays world, but my worldview shapes the way I look at the evidence, just as everyone has a worldview that filters how they interpret the evidence. For example, an evolution worldview looks at the grand canyon and says, "a little bit of water a long, long, time." A creationist looks at the same evidence and says, "A whole lot of water(Noah's flood) and a short(about 1 year) time. Even Scientists are human and they have a worldview that shapes their interpretation of the evidence. There is just no such thing as a totally unbiased witness(except for God)
Since you obviously know some science, you probably know that there is still a lot of controversy between scientists about the big bang(and not just bible believing scientists either) because of the breaking of many scientific laws to have happened.
1st Law broken-something from nothing. No matter how incredibly small they want to make the original matter that supposedly contained everything that exploded into the current universe. Where did that super condensed ball come from?
2nd law broken - Law of cause and effect. Everything that happens(an effect) had a cause. What caused this incredibly small piece of matter from nowhere to explode?
3rd law broken - Law of dispersion. The only explanation they have of planets and stars forming is gas condensing which is the exact opposite of what happens to a gas.
4th Law broken - the Law of entropy which states that everything in the universe heads toward maximum disorder unless acted upon by an intelligent force. An explosion in an autobody shop will never create a car even with all the available parts there.
5th Law broken - Biogenesis. Scientist know, as even small children do, that you can't get life from non-life. Nothing inorganic can become organic.
Those are just a few of the reasons off the top of my head but that is why there are real scientists that object to the big bang theory.
To me it takes a lot more faith to look at a rock and say, "way, way back several billion years ago a rock like this one was my ancestor" than to believe a recorded account from an eyewitness(God)

JimGunther

Well Homesell I think I have taken my views on the issue about as far as I can and things like the "something from nothing" idea are what lead me to believe that the universe is not explainable without God. I'm going to move on to other issues and I appreciate the conversation!!!

homesell

Science is observation of testable results by repeated actions.
For example, a bowling ball is dropped. It goes down. We call it gravity.
A bowling ball is dropped at the same time a feather is dropped and both objects are at the same height in a vacuum. They both drop at the same rate and hit the bottom at the same time. This is cool science.

YoungHyperLink

Jim et al,
Sorry if you'd rather close the discussion, but I wonder:
If you think there is a god powerful enough to bring about the origin of the universe, why do you think he would be incapable of letting us know about it?

321543

Simple answer really.

The same as our abilities to taste, feel or even our finger to move . They are miracles and gifts given to us by God our Father. just as You or I would give a gift to one of our children to enjoy.

arcura

YoungHyper.
He did let us know about it.
Fred