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?
:confused:Has anyone here seen this video?:confused:
:confused:If so what do you make of it?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

This sounds amazing enough to cause my interest!
I shall search for it .
Thank you Fred!

adam7gur,
Thanks,
Fred

This video does sound really good!

MiSSsy111222,
If you get a chance to watch it please ;ley me know what you think of it.
Fred

Very interesting facts. This reminds me of a high school teacher in Toronto about whom I read in a newspaper, few years ago. He put up his point in favour of creation that there are numerous cells in an eye of an animal and those have not evolved.

Check this link for 4-part Video Series about Dr Jobe Martin's work. Request Materials (http://www.biblicaldiscipleship.org/RequestMaterials/request_materials.htm).

Please post more information regarding this topic.

Hello Fred,
Yes I have seen the video and enjoyed it. I am a 6 day creationist but accept the fact that many born again believers believe in Evolution. I know the world has painted us 6 day creationists as stupid and/or illogical but I do have a genius IQ and taught Biology at an accredited school, so unless you have investigated all the claims from both sides, spare me the arguments you are only parrotting from secular education and the media. There are many scientists with PhD's that believe in 6 day creation so don't think ALL right minded, brilliant, scientists believe evolution occurred.

Incredible creatures don't defy evolution.

I think it is sad that we cannot keep science and religion apart, as they really should be. It is a fact that, as a general rule, all sorts of plants and other creatures alive today, including mankind, are different than they were millennia ago. Obviously, this fact has been determined by comparing what is alive today with remnants of plants and animals from the past. Of course there are exceptions.

Any given religion has a set of beliefs that presents such things as their explanation of creation, our purpose for being here, and how we should conduct ourselves.

Science does not work that way. It looks around and makes conclusions based upon what it sees. As science advances and its body of knowledge and techniques improve, its conclusions about what it sees are likely to change.

Science recognizes the fact that a given lizard alive today (for example) is not generally going to look like its ancestor from millennia ago, particularly if the conditions under which that lizard lives have changed. But that does not mean that it is impossible for a lizard to come along that spits fire, as unlikely as that may seem. Variations and "mutations" are acknowledged as possible. They do not prove or disprove the concept of "evolution," which is a generalization based upon observations of what is found around us.

6 day creationists do not believe all animals are exactly as they were when God created them. That would be stupid. We do believe each animal reproduces according to its kind. The dog kind for example produces more dogs. The cat kind produces cats. A dog never produces a cat. There are tremendous variations within a kind but you never see one kind becoming another kind. Science is made up of mechanical science which is repeatable, observable, measurable results. This is REAL science. Creationists agree with all other scientists on this. This is the science that should be taught in schools. Origens science however is pure speculation. Evolutionary speculation violates the very laws of science that it claims to be based on.
For example:
1. Something came from nothing. Scientist say this is impossible yet say that it happened.
2. Life came from non-life(abiogenesis)
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
3. Order has come from chaos independent of outside influence. (law of Entropy)
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
4. Obvious design(Function) without a designer.
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
Creationist and evolutionists have the same set of facts, they are just interpreted differently, like the Grand Canyon. The scientist says, "little bit of water, a whole lot of time" the creationist says, "a whole lot of water(flood) a little bit of time." I actually read a quote from a scientist saying that he had been working on creating life in his laboratory and when he accomplished this he would prove that creation took no intelligence at all."

God created life to be as we know it today.
That is I believe in divine design.
That is good enough for me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

How exactly do they defy evolution?

albear, I don't know.
I have nor seen that video.
That's why I asked.
Fred

Albear,
Evolution says that different changes develop over time and that is true to some extent (many different breeds of dogs- but none with wings or hoofs or scales and that cannot happen due to DNA)but there is a point of complexity that can't be bridged. The eye for example, composed of several different parts would not work at all unless all the different parts "evolved" at the same time. One of the examples in the movie was the bombardier beetle. It has 2 separate chambers in his body that hold two separate chemicals that individually are harmless but when mixed cause a small explosion. When threatened, he shoots out these 2 chemicals from each chamber at once and the explosion scares away a predator. Also, instead of a solid stream which would knock the beetle off his feet from the resulting explosion near him, he shoots a rapid fire sequence (like a machine gun) that lessons the "kick." If any part of this system wasn't developed all at the same time, the beetle would have exploded long before he could reproduce. (Just one example out of several)Darwin himself said about the eye, "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." (Darwin 1872)

If something called origins science (or anything else for that matter) is based on speculation, it isn't science. How life originated and evolution are by definition two different concepts. Why confuse them? Creationists and evolutionists have the same set of facts? Isn't "creation" a religious notion as opposed to a scientific one? If you believe God created everything, that isn't based on facts, because we don't have the facts to prove it, it's a religious belief. That's why this issue is so tangled, we can't keep religion and science apart.

If a scientist creates "life" in his laboratory he has only proven that he can create life in his laboratory, not anything approaching the notion that "creation took no intelligence at all", that's obviously a drastically different matter.

Hello Jim,
That was exactly my point. Evolution is not science anymore than creationism is and neither one should be taught in our schools. Both are speculation and creationists are the only ones that at least have a transcribed eye witness account.
By the same set of facts, I meant the repeatable, observable, facts that science requires. For example, we all see rocks, trees, cats, dogs, etc. Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists agree on all observable, repeatable facts. Speculating on how and when these things came into existence is just that... speculation. So theories (or models as science calls them) about things that are not repeatable and not ever observed have no place in the science classroom.
My point about the scientist and the no intelligence at all is that, in essence, if he did succeed, he would have proven that he himself had no intelligence at all since he was the one setting up and directing the lab experiments.

No, evolution is not science, it is a conclusion based on scientific observation of the things we find around us. A simple example is mankind-look at man today compared to millennia ago. Scientific observations tell us that man has changed drastically from his origins and people have come to calling this "evolution." I find it shocking that anyone could call such reasoning "speculation", it obviously isn't.

Neither is the notion that God created what we see around us, it's a religious belief as is any notion involving the idea of a supreme being or all-powerful creator. It should be obvious that only people who believe in a certain religion believe that their notion of creation is a "transcribed eye witness account." People who believe that do so because of religious faith, which is obviously far removed from the way science works.

You shouldn't have to worry about a scientist in a lab proving that all creation was done without intelligent design, it should be obvious that just because one person can do such a thing doesn't mean that it actually happened that way in the real would and science wouldn't accept it as such, though it sure would get people thinking about the possibility. Of course they are doing that already.

You keep using the term "six day creationists." Obviously scientists don't believe in the notion that all this stuff we see around us was created in six days because the evidence does not support that conclusion. But, as I said, there are a lot of things in the Bible that cannot be explained and maybe God's calendar is different than ours, who knows. I think it is a waste of time to try to verify the Bible with science, faith should be all a person needs to be a believer.

You say that creation scientists and evolutionary scientists agree on all observable facts. I never liked the term "creation scientist" because I see the two terms as contradictory. If you believe in the notion of creation by a supreme being, you are not expressing a scientific idea. Its an idea based on religious faith.

Science CAN use its tools and methods to make conclusions about how things came into existence, again, its not speculation if the verifiable evidence is there. Science has a pretty good idea about how our planet formed, for example, based on the evidence we see in the planet and in our Moon.

However, because we see these things and reach the conclusion that this is how our planet formed, that does not mean that this process was done without God-maybe that is the way He did it.

If a scientist happens to believe in intelligent creation, I see no contradiction. Take the Bible for example, there are a lot of things in there that are not completely explained and just because it appears to us that there may be a contradiction between intelligent creation and evolution, that doesn't mean there is one. The Bible asks us to focus on more important things anyway and I'm sure you don't need me to explain what they are.

Albear,
evolution says that different changes develop over time and that is true to some extent (many different breeds of dogs- but none with wings or hoofs or scales and that cannot happen due to DNA)but there is a point of complexity that can't be bridged. The eye for example, composed of several different parts would not work at all unless all the different parts "evolved" at the same time. One of the examples in the movie was the bombardier beetle. It has 2 separate chambers in his body that hold two separate chemicals that individually are harmless but when mixed cause a small explosion. When threatened, he shoots out these 2 chemicals from each chamber at once and the explosion scares away a predator. Also, instead of a solid stream which would knock the beetle off his feet from the resulting explosion near him, he shoots a rapid fire sequence (like a machine gun) that lessons the "kick." If any part of this system wasn't developed all at the same time, the beetle would have exploded long before he could reproduce. (Just one example out of several)Darwin himself said about the eye, "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." (Darwin 1872)


The beetle colud have evolved to be that way, just because someone's says it couldn't doesn't meant that it couldn't.(same vice versa as well)

As for the eye, he may have thought it absurd, but so did everybody when the world was first said to be round.

Hello Jim,
There are scientists that believe in a literal 6 day creation. They are interviewed in the book, "50 scientists that Believe"
As you stated evolution is not science. We are in agreement.
They (evolutionists)are interpreting(speculating) on what they think might have happened based on what is present today. The media would like you to think that all scientists and intelligent people are in agreement about the interpretation of evidence. Far from it. There is plenty of contradictory evidence to what the mainstream believes. They make the same mistake that cults make when reading the Bible in that they first decide what it is they want to find, then find it, then ignore the evidence that contradicts what they found. Scientists, for example, are almost equally divided on the FOUR different theories of the origen of the moon.
Any scientist that tries to go against what is commonly believed is ostracised and can lose their position and grant money. If you get a chance, watch the movie put out by Ben Stein, a noted intellectual and non-christian, called "expelled: no intelligence allowed"
I use the term creation scientist to mean a scientist that believes in a 6 day creation. The same way I say an evolutionary scientist is a scientist that believes in evolution. They both are mutually exclusive since evolution is based on non-observable, non-repeatable events which also makes evolution non-scientific.
You would not believe how many assumptions go into each dating method method for the earth and how minuscule (sometimes just a tooth or a shinbone) some of the fossil evidence is. Artists interpretations are what the public goes by for the most part. IF there was a missing link between ape and man, where is the missing link between ape and whatever creature came before it? Scientists can't even figure out which animal the ape supposedly came from. And how come they never seem to unearth a true ape fossil?

Albear,
Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods. Creationists agree with this but it cannot be shown that one kind of animal can ever develop into another kind. In a million years of breeding, you would have a large variety of cats and dogs but you will never develop an animal that is half dog and half cat, and you'll never have a dog give birth to kittens or a cat give birth to puppies. Based on gradual changes, no matter how much time you give these changes, they just don't work unless they all come together at the same time. Natural selection(not the same as evolution) cannot favor these explosives chemicals forming together(explosion)there must be separate sacs. If both sides shot out in a stream again this would cause an explosion too near the beetle.
As for the eye, it is still absurd today to think of useless parts developing over time coming together to form a fully functioning eye.
By the way, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that ancient peoples knew the earth was round. The oldest book in the bible Job 26:& mentions the earth being suspended over nothing. Since the circular sun and the circular moon also was, this was reasonable. By 150 B.C. Eratosthenes already had actually measured the circumference of the earth. It was also apparent the earth was round by ships disappearing seemingly into the sea and then coming back and the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse.

Albear,
Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods of time. Creationists agree with this but it cannot be shown that one kind of animal can ever develop into another kind. In a million years of breeding, you would have a large variety of cats and dogs but you will never develop an animal that is half dog and half cat, and you'll never have a dog give birth to kittens or a cat give birth to puppies. Based on gradual changes, no matter how much time you give these changes, they just don't work unless they all come together at the same time. Natural selection(not the same as evolution) cannot favor these explosives chemicals forming together(explosion)there must be separate sacs. If both sides shot out in a stream again this would cause an explosion too near the beetle.
As for the eye, it is still absurd today to think of useless parts developing over time coming together to form a fully functioning eye.
By the way, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that ancient peoples knew the earth was round. The oldest book in the bible Job 26:& mentions the earth being suspended over nothing. Since the circular sun and the circular moon also was, this was reasonable. By 150 B.C. Eratosthenes already had actually measured the circumference of the earth. It was also apparent the earth was round by ships disappearing seemingly into the sea and then coming back and the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse.

You can't breed cats and dogs, something to do with them having a different number of chromasomes, I don't know what your trying to say with that example.

But with breeding of cats, then you will get cats that are more adapt at certain things which is evolution.

I take it you know the finch example that darwin is quite famous for.

For the betle it seems that way, but what I don't think your getting is that certain things change to make it work, the ones that don't work yes will kill the beetles but the ones that do, those beetles will survive.

As for the eye, no its not, you have eyes don't you?

I'm not saying there wasn't evidence, just that people thought it was absurd when it was first suggested, like you quoted before

Yes albear that was my point exactly. No matter how much the finches changed, they were still finches and they will always be in the finch family. Yes you cannot breed a cat and a dog which is why evolution is wrong when it says that one kind(say elephant for example) can become another Kind(say camel for example)
Saying that since we have eyes it is proof of evolution is equal to if I say since we are here we must have been created. It is not a valid argument.
And for others reading this, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT saying a person must believe in a 6 day creation to still be a Christian. Many of my closests friends that I am sure are "in Christ" believe God used evolution. I can disagree and we are still family.

... which is why evolution is wrong when it says that one kind(say elephant for example) can become another Kind(say camel for example)Where does it say that?

When it alleges that we all(every living thing on earth) came from a simple (though there is no such thing as a simple)one celled organism which came from a pre-biotic soup which came from ? A rock? The infinitesimal speck super compressed that scientists say is how the big bang started. Basically, it says that organisms become more complex as they evolve, which is the opposite of what we find in science. Even a one celled organism is extremely complex. Darwin really had no idea since cellular biology was in its infancy back then. Every living thing has an information packet(the DNA code) which tells the cell what to do and what it's function is. Where did the DNA code come from? An honest scientist will admit they don't know. On top of that, the DNA is in code so there is also a way for the organism to interpret the code. No one knows how the DNA is able to interpret its own code. Accident, radiation and other things cause a mutation. A mutation is ALWAYS a LOSS of genetic information, never a gain, (in other words a dog will never sprout wings)In fact there has never been a proven gain of DNA information at any time. This is why many purebred dogs are weak, sickly have hip problems, etc. while the "heinz 57" mutt dog is usually in excellent health. This is also why we as humans dare not inbreed with close relatives, the chances of defects increases dramatically.

Yes albear that was my point exactly. No matter how much the finches changed, they were still finches and they will always be in the finch family. Yes you cannot breed a cat and a dog which is why evolution is wrong when it says that one kind(say elephant for example) can become another Kind(say camel for example)
Saying that since we have eyes it is proof of evolution is equal to if I say since we are here we must have been created. It is not a valid argument.
And for others reading this, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT saying a person must believe in a 6 day creation to still be a Christian. Many of my closests friends that I am sure are "in Christ" believe God used evolution. I can disagree and we are still family.

Its not saying one species will become another, not in the way your thinking, its saying a species will contine ue to improve/adap positivly so it is better at surviving or it will die out.
No idea where your getting the idea that its saying a cat can become a dog, the thing about the finches is that they had a common ancestor but after being separated by water,(creating the galapagos islands) they adapted to become better at surviving, bigger beak, lighter bones so yes they are all still finches, just different types of finches.

Well no you saying that and comparing it to eyes being proof of evolution, is not really the same, as for one we are actually created, just not in the way your meaning(you meant be god right? I meant by reproduction)

As for eyes being proof of evolution, I don't have the knowledge to back that up... yet, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Id have stuck with the finches as proof of evolution, its much easier to understand for me :)

Yes finches have changed and they came from a common ancestor- the finch family. If by common ancestor you mean going back to where we all have a one celled organism as our ancestor then your talking molecules to man evolution. An evolution where one kind of creature becomes a totally different kind of creature(over time) a kind of goo to you by way of the zoo.
What I said was, you can't point at the eye and say,"it must have developed by evolution because it's here" I can't point to the eye and say it was created by God because it is here. Those aren't valid arguments.
Every animal that has ever been discovered was complete. Not, here's one that almost had it's ears to hear or here's one that was THIS close to having eye development good enuff to see, or wow! If this thing had just developed hollow bones and feathers, those useless wings would have helped him instead of getting him killed.

Yes finches have changed and they came from a common ancestor- the finch family. If by common ancestor you mean going back to where we all have a one celled organism as our ancestor then your talking molecules to man evolution. An evolution where one kind of creature becomes a totally different kind of creature(over time) a kind of goo to you by way of the zoo.
What I said was, you can't point at the eye and say,"it must have developed by evolution because it's here" I can't point to the eye and say it was created by God because it is here. Those aren't valid arguments.
Every animal that has ever been discovered was complete. Not, here's one that almost had it's ears to hear or here's one that was THIS close to having eye development good enuff to see, or wow! if this thing had just developed hollow bones and feathers, those useless wings would have helped him instead of getting him killed.

When I said the finches had a common ancester I meant a finch.
But yes I believe that we did evolve from a single celled organism.

Yea I agree with you about saying the eye is proof because its here, but it doesn't mean that evolution or creationism is wrong

'Every animal that has ever been discovered was complete. Not, here's one that almost had it's ears to hear or here's one that was THIS close to having eye development good enuff to see, or wow! If this thing had just developed hollow bones and feathers, those useless wings would have helped him instead of getting him killed.' - I've no idea what you just said there :confused:




The theory of evolution and the creation story in the bible, they aren't mutually exclusive, the bible says that god created the earth in 7 days, it doesn't say how long a day is, it could be several million years, also it doesn't note quite how he created the creatures.


Important 1
What creationism and all other theories of evolution are away of trying to work out how everything came to be.

homesell
Very well made points.
Thank you. That's why I believe in Divine Design.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Homesell:

You said "There are scientists that believe in a literal 6 day creation. They are interviewed in the book, "50 scientists that Believe."

I could give you the names and address of 50 people who think that sex with minors is OK-from the state sex offender registry. What 50 people believe isn't really of value in a discussion of this type, the best evidence for the conclusion, combined with common sense, should decide the issue.

You said "Any scientist that tries to go against what is commonly believed is ostracised and can lose their position and grant money."

Yes, I know this happens, I recall a particular case in which evidence was found suggesting that mankind got to the North American continent much earlier than is commonly believed. Obviously that is an injustice and I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up the matter.

Your said "evolution is based on non-observable, non-repeatable events which also makes evolution non-scientific."

You are absolutely wrong. Carbon dating, for example, can be used as a technique to verify the dates of organic objects by anyone who learns the technique. The scientific method by definition requires that the conclusions reached are based on observable, repeatable events. If not, the conclusion is not acceptable by science.

You mention the things that science has not done yet, such as discovering the "missing link". Isn't it obvious to you that science is in its infancy, and that there are many, many, many things we do not know about the world and the universe around us? It doesn't really constitute a valid argument against science to say that we don't know some particular facts, after all we are just beginning our quest. As was mentioned, science is a growing body of knowledge and we learn more every day.

Of course there is evidence against evolution and there are people who don't believe in it, but from where we stand right now in our journey to discover everything about ourselves and our universe, its the generally accepted explanation for the existence of the living things we see today. Here are two quotes from the Grollier Encyclopedia of Knowledge on the subject:

"Evolution is the process by which all living things have developed from primitive organisms through changes occurring over billions of years, a progression that includes the most advanced animals and plants. Exactly how evolution occurs is still a matter of debate, but that is occurs is a scientific fact."

"New species may evolve either by the change of one species to another or by the splitting of one species into two or more new species. Splitting, the predominate mode of species formation, results from geographical isolation of populations of species."

So that's what I believe about the issue, based upon science. But let me tell you what I believe based upon faith. My study of astronomy and other branches of science leads me to believe that the existence of the universe is not explainable without the existence of God. And I believe that God uses evolution, among many other tools, to run the universe as He sees fit.

JimGunther,
I agree with you.
I also believe in science and that God created the universe to become as we see it today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thank you, Fred and backatcha!

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.

JimGunther,
You're welcome.
Fred

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, it's 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 a lot 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 a lot 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.

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

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 today's 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)

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!!

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.

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?

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.

YoungHyper.
He did let us know about it.
Fred

YoungHyper.
He did let us know about it.
Fred

I think so too. If someone doesn't think so, I want to understand their reasoning.

No I didn't mean to close the discussion, only that I have expressed my points of view on it about as far as I can without getting repetitive. The Bible asks us to believe the creation story it tells based on faith. We can't prove it by science, at least not yet, and I doubt that we ever will.

Excellent thread started here, arcura!

Thanks!

Referring to post 25, sorry to bring this back up I know its been a while I just find this bit rather hypocritical

What I said was, you can't point at the eye and say,"it must have developed by evolution because it's here" I can't point to the eye and say it was created by God because it is here. Those aren't valid arguments.


But that is exactly what you are doing, by believeing that everything was created by god

As you quoted, I said neither one was a valid argument. There is no proof of our origins, either evolution or by God. One must have faith in one or the other.

As you quoted, I said neither one was a valid argument. There is no proof of our origins, either evolution or by God. One must have faith in one or the other.

So what your saying there is that there's no proof that god created anything, and that goes for evolution as well. But that's not going to stop you believing in god

OK, yeah I understand, and agree :)

I just thought it hypocritical because I've seen people use things that way (like the eye thing before) as proof that god exists.

Thanks
albear

6 days - Well the believers believe that God created the world. First of all. Time is different. We can not really understand timing in Gods time. Except we are told 1 day to God is like one 1,000 days for us. So time measurement of creation can not really be measured in our standards or ideas of it.

As far as evolution vs creation.

There are many different levels of evolution believe and creation belief.

Many people believe that yes God created life and put everything in motion. Gods evolution. Over years and times we do change, animals change, everything changes over time and the evolution of this process had to start some where.

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I did not really read anything in between.

Just want to say there is more then just what people think is straight forward evolution and straight forward creation.

There is such a thing is half way and between the two.

Compromises are ridiculous.

Many people believe that yes God created life and put everything in motion. Gods evolution. Over years and times we do change, animals change, everything changes over time and the evolution of this process had to start some where.

There is such a thing is half way and between the two.


This I believe is what he's talking about, how that's including your(not you, just christians who believe this) answer so that you can't be wrong, i.e god created evolution

Albear,

Not trying to start anything. Just stating what Some Christians believe. Why some Christians believe in evolution. That is all.

Also how there are different levels and definitions or opinions about evolution and creation and it is not always one or the other, vs each other.

Albear,

Not trying to start anything. Just stating what Some Christians believe. Why some Christians believe in evolution. That is all.

Also how there are different levels and definitions or opinions about evolution and creation and it is not always one or the other, vs each other.

Yeah I know, just saying that's what I think he means by 'no compromise'

You can't synthesize unrelated conclusions. There's bound to be some moral or intellectual cowardice in theistic evolution theories.

Jesushelper76,
I do believe that you are right about that.
Fred

The 6 day creation is one of the foundations to our religion in that we believe that sin entered the world with Adam and Eve, the wages of sin is death, and there was no death prior to Adam and Eve sinning."(Rom 5:12)
Since at the end of creation week, all things had been created and God looked and saw that it was all very good, does it make sense that God would use death, disease, and suffering(evolution) and say it was very good or the way the Bible says where it is a paradise before sin. If death was in the world before Adam sinned then we have a problem with the reason Jesus came and died.
(I mean no offense to anyone. I once believed as you do.)

Fred:

Your list of creatures that contradict evolution accentuate the wonder of God's creation. Proponents of evolution often criticize the story of Adam and Eve as being folksy mysticism. But I've come to believe God made all creation, whether it was in 7-days, or 7-millennia, the scale of time doesn't seem important. His creation of the stars before the earth doesn't cause any consternation. I also believe that there was an “original” Adam and Eve; and that their story is told in Genesis. It's not important that the mythical names 'Adam' or 'Eve' are accurate representations; 'Fred' and 'Jane' would have done as well. Whether the Genesis is symbolic story isn't a difficulty. I understand Genesis as a story that defines God's love for his creation. Any theory that maintains the dignity of man separates humanity from lower forms and views God as the first Cause can be entertained. Darwinism doesn't do this. In fact Darwinism does the opposite; it dehumanizes mankind, placing man in the same category as animals ruled by instinct thereby denying God as first cause of all creation.

In my opinion evolutionist are working with a broken theory, and if not, it still doesn't explain first cause –the root cause of all things created. There are those who use evolution as an intellectual excuse to reject God. The philosophy holds that God didn't create man; rather man evolved from some primordial puddle of ooze. Some would extend this further suggesting that man evolved into God; and further still, evolved to create God. In the search for truth the supernatural is rejected and replaced with science, a disciplined body of knowledge. One such body of knowledge deals with the natural sciences, not the wondrous science of God's created beauty and majesty, but rather a cold heartless study of numbers, data, and statistics.

The Darwinian theory of evolution depends on mankind's ability to axiomatically define observable surroundings and explain how sustained life can be perceived in nature without the aid of God. To do this, science depends wholly on man's ability to identify those things not perceived in nature and how they might affect our measure nature. Thus, we conclude that Darwinian science is an absolute truth, one only need to know math, chemistry, physics, and biology; not to mention a dozen or so other natural sciences. Such clerics of science have turned the supernatural question of “how did God make heaven and earth” into “prove that God made heaven and earth.” The problem with the scientific approach is best expressed by G. K. Chesterton observation, “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (1905 Heretics )

In 1953 Stanley Miller's experiment for the first time produced the basic building blocks of proteins necessary for all life; a primordial soup of amino acids in a strictly controlled experiment. The problem was that the experiment was conducted in a mixture of methane and ammonia gasses not found in the prebiological environment. In 1983 the experiment was repeated by Miller using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen now thought to be the prebio conditions. The experiment failed to produce the goo of life. In 2007 the experiment redone again by chemist Jeffrey Bada; this time changing the reactive mixture once again. This narrowly constrained experiment finally produced primordial soup. (Igor, it's alive!! ) Only under strictest of laboratory conditions can the very basic building blocks of life be produced. But, beyond that science using Darwinaianism can not show how “intelligent” life is then derived. The probabilities of this being repeated in nature are slime to none (Pun was intended).

To date, science has failed to produce a realistic, repeatable, unconstrained theory explaining creation of the simplest of life forms. Furthermore, it cannot produce a plausible theory of how the first proteins evolved in nature. Even doing so, science would be faced with the enormous problem explaining how prebio conditions were stable and sustained for sufficient time for these basic proteins to form an amino acid linked in a group. Science's difficulties get exponentially enormous when explaining how this simplest of these linked chains remained in equilibrium to form genes that, to add more complexity, form chromosomal chains of DNA. Logically, we would expect the most simple of these chains to form first, presumably by magic, change to chromosomes of sufficient self-knowledge to reproduce, first to a simple one cell organism, then to a more complex organism, finally through billions of years, billions of self initiated changes (a yet unknown process, all the while in perfect atmospheric conditions), morph into the one, and only one, sentient, self-aware being.

Scientist thus far failed to explain how simple chains of amino acids, through successive changes, evolve into a complex animal or plant; they certainly can't explain how an amino acid chemically reacts with an agent to become self-aware.

As shown, the probabilities of man rising from a pool of primordial goo by chance are infinitely improbable; you would need a firm “faith” in the science to hold these views. In fact they are so improbable that only God could unravel the complexities. Therefore, it would be more intellectually honest to turn science back to measuring God's laws so as to define His creation, as opposed to asking nature to prove man created God.

Considering the inadequacies of science you have to ask how can a sentient self-aware being came into existence by chance through a chemical reaction of amino acids; later to be refined into animated beings through natural selection, ultimately evolving into man? There are two very important questions the proponents of evolution seem unable to answer. The first is at what point an inanimate chemical solution comes alive. Secondly, when, where, and how, do amino acids become sufficiently aware of themselves to know that cell division is necessary to sustain life. It seems to me that only with His supernatural grace can life come to inanimate objects.

God created heaven, earth, and man; the how is only important in the need to know the details of His natural laws, a real discipline of knowledge.


JoeT

JoeT,
I agree.
God created all things visible and invisible including life and that He designed things to evolve (grow, change, whatever).
Peace and kindness,
Fred

God,in his infinite wisdom created a perfect world where the balance is flawless,it is only when man steps in that the balance is corrupted.Sad to say.Dominion over the beasts does not mean abuse of power.

Comments on this post
YoungHyperLink agrees: True. I take "Subdue the earth" to mean, care for it, not, destroy it.

I do believe so :) Sadly,sometimes we don't know what we've got until its gone.

Artlad,
I very much agree.
Fred