Creation Museum Opens... HOORAY!
Warren thought this was a riot... and took a shot at Stockwell on his blog today.
Then there's the story of how the interference of local humanists, wanting to stop the project before it started... and how the Lord used these unbelievers to point Ken to a better piece of property right on the interstate, and spured on the construction of a much larger building! Here's how Ken put it...
I'm actually looking forward to checking it out. And yes, for the record, I generally agree with and support the views of those who run the Creation Museum. Contrary to popular belief, there's lots of science to support the view of Creationism... it's just not the "officially scantioned truth" of those who select the textbooks.
We'll be praying for Ken Ham and this fantastic ministry.
(and my sincere thanks to Warren for bringing this whole thing up... I wouldn't have noticed if he hadn't posted on it!)
Bible-based creation museum has dinosaursI've been aware of the building of this museum for several years now, and watching the updates as it's slowly become a reality. There are some funny stories that go along with the building of it... like how they showed up at an auction for a bankrupt Baltimore museum, looking to get some fossils and such for the displays. I can't remember the details for sure, but it was that either no one else showed up, or those who were there had no interest in the fossils... so they picked them up for next to nothing! (stuff that's been valued in the millions of dollars)
Updated Mon. May. 28 2007 11:32 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A new theme park that features the Bible as a literal story, albeit one in which children cavort with dinosaurs, has opened in northern Kentucky.
"We wanted to show people there's no mystery with dinosaurs, we can explain them," said Ken Ham, founder of the Answers in Genesis Ministry.
Then there's the story of how the interference of local humanists, wanting to stop the project before it started... and how the Lord used these unbelievers to point Ken to a better piece of property right on the interstate, and spured on the construction of a much larger building! Here's how Ken put it...
“This is partly their legacy, too” Ham told hundreds of supporters. “When we first started to research property in 1996, they [the local humanists] caused all sorts of problems, and they stirred up trouble, and there were all sorts of things that went on.Well, the Bible has dozens of stories on how those who oppose Him or His people unwittingly end up furthering His purposes!
“Anyway, as a result of all that, we lost that piece of property – it was 20 minutes off the freeway, and we were going to build a 30,000-square-foot building,” Ham said.
Instead, “The Lord directed us to this piece of property, right on a major freeway at a major interchange. And we decided to build a far bigger building (nearly 60,000 square feet), and a far bigger vision and a far bigger impact around the world – and I just want to thank, sincerely, the local secular humanist group.”
I'm actually looking forward to checking it out. And yes, for the record, I generally agree with and support the views of those who run the Creation Museum. Contrary to popular belief, there's lots of science to support the view of Creationism... it's just not the "officially scantioned truth" of those who select the textbooks.
We'll be praying for Ken Ham and this fantastic ministry.
(and my sincere thanks to Warren for bringing this whole thing up... I wouldn't have noticed if he hadn't posted on it!)
Labels: Christianity, Warren
posted by Christian Conservative @ 9:58 a.m.
50 Comments:
At Tue May 29, 11:53:00 a.m. EDT,
Joan Tintor said…
He moves in mysterious ways!
At Tue May 29, 12:08:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Personally I don't believe that a literal interpretation of the scriptural account of creation is necessary to believe in God. There is however a lot of metaphoric truth in Genisis about the nature of God and the human condition.
I subscribe to a lot of evolutionary ideas but recognize the limits of the theory. Anyone who wholly believes in Darwinian macro-evolution is either exercising a faith equivalent to that of creationists or is simply ignorant of the many holes and contradictions in evolutionary theory.
One thing I am certain of is that life coming forth from non-living material is scientifically impossible.
At Tue May 29, 12:40:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"Contrary to popular belief, there's lots of science to support the view of Creationism... it's just not the "officially scantioned truth" of those who select the textbooks"
Perhaps you could give examples of science supporting creationism. I know of none.
At Tue May 29, 01:01:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Tell me something.
How many non-Christians/Jews believe the world was created in 6 calendar days roughly 6000 years ago?
I mean, if there is any science behind that at all - at all - then you would think that some scientist somewhere who was not already a believer would have come up with something - anything - to support the so-called "science" behind creationism. However, it is only those who already believe in the literal truth of the Bible that "discover" any "science" behind creationism.
Sorry. I don't buy it.
I respect the faith of those who genuinely believe the truth of that story, just as I respect the faith of those natives who genuinely believe there was an actual raven who created the world or the Buddist or other, but let's not allow ourselves to voluntarily enter another Dark Ages by replacing science with belief just because we don't like the results that science gives us. No other theory of how the world started and how life and humankind began has been accepted across different cultures and backgrounds. That is very telling.
And by the way, biology was only one of the sciences to prove the earth and humankind have been around for more than a few millenia. And it was one of the later ones too. Geology and nascent astronomy and other fields of science had long before dispelled the literal truth of Genesis.
The Creation Museum is a sad statement of some Christians distain for knowledge and truth. But it took Europeans Christians centuries before they accepted that the sun and stars did not revolve around the earth and realized that their faith could not be shaken by scientific truth. It has only been 250 years or so since geology first started telling Christians the earth was millions of years old at least and only 150 years since Darwin opened our eyes to evolutionary reality, so we'll have to give you folk some more time I suppose.
With all due respect,
Ted
At Tue May 29, 01:03:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
I personally like the earth's magnetic field one...
Since the 1830's, we've been monitoring the strength of the earth's magnetic field. These studies have shown that the field has weakened by about 5% per century. This correlates to archaeological evidence that indicated that around 1000AD, the field was most likely about 40% stronger than it is today.
Anyway, reverse the trend back from the 1800's, and increase by the same percentage... and the earth's magnetic field would be so strong within a mere 10,000 years that it would melt the planet.
See here.
Check out Answers in Genesis for some really good Creation science.
At Tue May 29, 01:27:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
Here is the "science" your Answers in Genesis provides.
"Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!"
That is the antithesis of science.
In fact, when you pronounce so unequivocally that your sole source of knowledge is exclusively your own articles of faith, why bother trying to prove anything scientifically? It seems like a redundant and wasteful exercise.
At Tue May 29, 01:33:00 p.m. EDT,
rabbit said…
CC:
Extrapolation is dangerous. Exponential extrapolation is extraordinarily dangerous.
If the stock market goes up 25% in one year, do I then assume it will do the same every year?
Periodically the magnetic pole has reversed. There's not much doubt about that - it's in the geological record. We are now in an era where the magnetic seems to be getting ready to reverse again, and thus the magnetic field is weakening. This does not mean that it has always been weakening - that's a completely unwarranted assumption.
Bottom line: to extrapolate 5% indefinitely back in history is just plain dumb.
At Tue May 29, 02:12:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Ted, while I disagree with much of what you've said, I do want to open my comments by stating how much I appreciate you for how you presented your comments... you said at the end, "With all due respect", and indeed, your comments were made very respectfully. I certainly wish more of us (BTer's included) would have the same attitude in discussing their ideas and opinions. Your comments are the sort of discussion I desire to foster here on this blog.
Now, on to your thoughts... "I mean, if there is any science behind that at all - at all - then you would think that some scientist somewhere who was not already a believer would have come up with something - anything - to support the so-called "science" behind creationism. However, it is only those who already believe in the literal truth of the Bible that "discover" any "science" behind creationism."
That's not necessarily true. The problem is that most of what you're "allowed" to hear is pre-chewed to fit the predefined assumptions upon which most scientists publish their data. Half the reason why you don't hear scientists saying anything different is due to fear... fear of being riducled and never being allowed to work in their field again because they have faith in God and in how His Word says it happened... and had the audacity to say so.
It boils down to what I said... there are predefined assumptions that are tainting everything you see and hear on the subject.
When there is an open and honest debate on the subject, between knowledable debators, I think you would be shocked at how much science actually does not contradict the Biblical account of Genesis, when honestly presented with both sides of the debate.
At Tue May 29, 02:19:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"That is the antithesis of science.
In fact, when you pronounce so unequivocally that your sole source of knowledge is exclusively your own articles of faith, why bother trying to prove anything scientifically? It seems like a redundant and wasteful exercise."
Ted, remember that he was speaking there of the way he interprets the Bible in that statement... not speaking of science. The second sentence says it all... "I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside".
As I said in my previous comment (I think we were typing at the same time, so I didn't see your second comment before now) it comes down the paradimes in which you interpret the "science"... what I'm saying is that with my Biblical world view, true "science" in no way causes problems for my faith. In fact, it only serves to re-enforce my faith, when all the various parts are presented. In fact, they all fit together nicely.
Rabbit, in regards to your comment about the magnetic fields, take a look at some of the end notes in the article I linked... there's a whole lot more to it there.
At Tue May 29, 02:21:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Has anyone thought that maybe they all have it wrong? Just because a person is a Christian does not mean that he even believes his Bible.
Case in point. It has been pre concluded by most Christians that the earth was made in 6 ''calander'' days. When we look at the bible however , the sun moon and stars were not created til day 4. So , what orbit was used to constitute a 24 hour cycle. The first 3 days where represented by darkness , or absence of God , to "light" , the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters. So God defines the day as the evening , and the morning.The problem comes when we limit a day as only a 24 hour cycle , and when we limit creation , ( physical , and spiritual) in it's entirety to a limited time frame.
Case in point .
In Jeremiah
4 23: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24: I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25: I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26: I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness,and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27: For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28: For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
This passage shows clearly that prior beings resided on the earth, and that God rendered a judgement on that world.
Paul ascribes creation to both phyical ,and spiritual.
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Lucifer and his Angels had already fallen , and expelled from where ? wasn't it from heaven or Gods domaine? This wasw created long before the recreation of a fallen world.
We see in Jeremiah that there was no man , but there where cities that God made desolate , and that the birds of the heavens where fled before man was ever created .
Hebrews 1:1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Did anyone notice that worlds is in the plural?
This has all come down the the limited definitions that man has imposed on the use of any given word in the Bible , weather we are talking about a day as constrained to only applying to a 24 hour cycle , or creation , as only referring to physical creation.
If you notice Gods choice of words when he speaks in the past tense referring to , "God created the heavens and the earth".
In the past tense again when he states that " the earth was without form and void " , and in the past tense again when he says " and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
It is evident that God is not the babbler , man has tampered with the language intended to explain what actually transpired , and then man went and published a perverted version of creation.
The Church now has to redefine a lie they have defended by interjecting more lies to their theory instead of believing Gods word.
Prov:23:9: Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Prov:23:16: Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.
Timothy Coderre
At Tue May 29, 02:38:00 p.m. EDT,
rabbit said…
CC:
For a critique of the "young magnetic field" theory, try
here
It points out many inexcusable errors in the theory.
Such sloppy science comes form wanting the results to match some preconceived belief. Science simply can't be done like that.
At Tue May 29, 04:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
I'm afraid you are wrong. That quote was given in response to questions about the scientific understanding of the world, not of scripture.
AiG says quite clearly that the world was created in 6 24 hour periods about 6 years ago because the Bible says so. And because the Bible says so there is no need to go outside the Bible to confirm that. Indeed, one "must not".
It turns science 100% on its head. We have the conclusion here - a "self-authenticating" and "self-attesting" book - and so all other evidence to the contrary must be wrong.
Like I said, if you want to conclude that that is the truth based upon your belief, your faith, that is fine. But do not start calling that science because it starts with the conclusion.
"The problem is that most of what you're "allowed" to hear is pre-chewed to fit the predefined assumptions upon which most scientists publish their data."
I'm sorry, but that is just out and out BS. The scientific consensus on the age of the earth has been built up over a few centuries based upon observed data, tested data, and predictive testing (i.e. if X theory is so in geology, then let's see if X theory is also consistent with what we find in biology or archeology or astronomy or chemistry) over generations from real scientists of every background and religious belief.
Certainly, assumptions are a big part of science but not as a conclusion because we don't know everything, but they do not form the basis of the conclusion; only part of the question to be tested. Unlike creation "science" which assumes the Bible story to be true and moves on from there, true scientific conclusions do not rely on assumptions but set out to test the assumptions made. eg. if X theory is so in geology, we assume it is also true in biology or archeology or astronomy or chemistry and conduct tests to see if it is so.
But let me give you a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Please let us know what these false assumptions are. What are the "predefined assumptions that are tainting everything [I and every other serious scientist] see and hear on the subject"?
And while we are at it, do you realize that by saying
"Half the reason why you don't hear scientists saying anything different is due to fear... fear of being riducled and never being allowed to work in their field again because they have faith in God and in how His Word says it happened... and had the audacity to say so."
you are insulting most scientists? Most scientists in history and even today believe in god and are driven to science because of god. They explore the world hoping to uncover more of god's plan. But not, as you and AiG attempt, to attempt to prove a preset conclusion against all facts. You are doing what so many fundamentalists of all religions do: you are not even considered religious if you don't hold onto the beliefs I have.
Plus: the statement itself is without any foundation.
Doubleplus: it doesn't address my comment at all. I said that if your view of science was correct, that the world was a mere 6000 years old and created in 6 days, then someone else at some point in the world's history who was not an orthodox Jew or Christian would have concluded the same thing.
Instead, we have billions upon billions of people humans now and in the past and the only ones to think the world was created that way are people who already believe the Bible. I have never ever heard of any scientist anywhere at any time who was, say, a believer in hinduism, the world's oldest extant religion, study geology or biology or other science and say, 'hey, you know what, the Vedas and the Upanishads got it all a bit wrong. Not sure about that Jesus guy, but from my observations and study the world was indeed created from scratch in 144 hours'.
Every other field of science has scientists from all over the world from all different belief backgrounds coming more or less to the same conclusions on the topic. But not creationism. Creaionism is only held by people who already believe that Genesis must be completely and literally true.
At Tue May 29, 04:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Crap. That was long and longwinded response comment.
At Tue May 29, 04:12:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Yup, pretty long winded! Almost qualifies as a post in and of itself!
Will take time to chew on it... thanks.
At Tue May 29, 04:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Every other field of science has scientists from all over the world from all different belief backgrounds coming more or less to the same conclusions on the topic.
By this I mean any given topic or subject, like the theory of gravity or cloud formation, not just the age of the earth and origins of humans.
As you would expect with a scientific truth, the background of a person would not affect the conclusions a truly open scientific exploration would reach or truths revealed. Which is why independent scientists have reached similar conclusions in different fields regardless of background.
Similarly, different independent scientists have reached the same conclusion with respect to human origins and the age of the earth regardless of what their cultural heritage or official religious texts told them to believe.
The same cannot be said of creation "science".
At Tue May 29, 05:28:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Just a question... do you not agree that it would be difficult to obtain a "consensus" of any kind when the people with whom you have to obtain "consensus" throw out your basic premises right off the bat?
At Tue May 29, 05:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Drew Costen said…
Here's the Friendly Atheist's take on it: http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/
I personally do find evolution difficult to believe, but then a) I'm not a scientist, and b) I find a literal interpretation of the Bible even harder to believe.
At Tue May 29, 09:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
The "basic premise" of AiG is that "the Bible is right". That's not even a basic premise that tolerates verification or testing, it's an outright conclusion.
The underlying "basic premise" of science that underlies ALL of today's technological, medical, biological, chemical, and every other scientific field is the scientific method:
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
-Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
-Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
-Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
-Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
-Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (See also Lakatos.)
-Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
-Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
-Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
-Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
At Tue May 29, 09:36:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
The highlighted passage in bold is critical to the scientific method. Yet is fundamentally rejected by AiG, moreso than they reject the rest of the scientific method.
So while there may be holes in this theory or that, and unproven hypothesis here and there in science, it is wrong to call creationism a "science" since there is no "science" underlying it.
The "basic premise" is belief. First, foremost, above all.
Like I have repeated, I don't have a problem with someone holding a belief that completely rejects my view of the world and, friendly guy that I may sometimes be, tells me I will burn in hell for eternity because I don't ascribe to their particular view of the world.
Just don't tell me it's science.
At Tue May 29, 10:58:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Timothy Coderre is right, not only here but on all the other blogs he submitted this comment. There are people who claim to be Christians who don't believe the Bible, or at least are selective in the parts they choose to believe.
Perhaps it is those people who have the hardest time reconciling some parts of scripture with their understanding of the world. I find that somewhat schizophrenic, but I guess it is more satisfying to hold to one and discount the other, than to have unreconciled beliefs.
Personally, I do not find it necessary to discount what I don't understand. It does not offend my sensibilities to admit that there are things I can't explain. The scientific arguments that are set against the biblical account may be daunting, but the questions they raise only identify divergent explanations for the state of things, not proofs of one over the other.
It is the people with power who decide which views are accepted, and “science” is used to defend their opinions, whether they are right or wrong.
For centuries before 300 BC, Greek scientists maintained the earth was flat and had great difficulty coming to terms with Eratosthenes suggestion that earth was a sphere. They believed “scientifically” that he was wrong, until he demonstrated “scientifically” that he was right.
Before 1642 it was the commonly held view of “science” that all stars and planets revolved around the earth. The Church in power at that time enjoyed that belief because it fit so nicely in their faith that the earth is the centre of the universe, and they persecuted those who disagreed. They eliminated Galileo who dared to propose a solar centric universe, but they were unsuccessful in attempts to stop his observations from making the truth apparent and changing “scientific” understanding.
In 1785, while it was widely believed that God created the world recently (10K to 6K years ago), James Hutton was the first to suggest that the earth must be millenia old to allow time for mountains to erode and sedimentary deposits to form. In 1811, George Cuvier added credibility to that theme by noting that an elephant fossil was discovered buried in layers of sedimentary rock that must have been laid down over a very long time. This belief was carved into “scientific stone” by Charles Lyell who from 1827 until his death in 1875, championed the ideas of geological ages represented by sequential layers of rock.
Lyell’s influence, perhaps more than any other, helped to form the accepted standards of geologic “science”, and has formed the basis of the 20th century understanding of the fossil record and the millions of years that must have been necessary to lay down all these layers around the world.
Surprisingly, and very dramatically, these accepted tenets of science were shaken when in 1980, a volcano in the northwestern United States erupted and caused a geological catastrophe in the surrounding area. Unlike most volcanic eruptions, the greatest impact was not lava flow, but the millions of metric tonnes of ash that were spewed into the atmosphere, and mixed with the melting snow, flowing away from the mountain through Silver Lake and the Toutle river canyon.
What was so significant about this event is that in the few years following the eruption, it was evident that stratification of the sedimentary ash deposits had formed, which were/are indistinguishable from formations that inspired Hutton, Cuvier and Lyell. A documented historical event that we all witnessed, produced in a few hours a geological formation previously believed could only be formed over millions of years. Like a house of cards, much of the science of the last 180 years is based on foundational precepts that depend on geological ages, and long periods of time.
A fossilized wide brim Fedora hat was retrieved from an abandoned mine after being submerged for about 50 years, not millions.
Even radioactive dating is based on assumptions made about decaying levels of carbon, strontium, and other elements over periods indicated by theories on rock strata. Circular logic at best; intentional deception at worst.
And so, the observations at Mt. St. Helen are added to the current “science”, leaving it to the scientific community to either reconcile these conflicting ideas, or discount them and persecute the adherents.
It is clear which path has been taken because those who continue to suggest that the layers of rock prove millions of years and a sequential fossil record, appear very much like the church elders condemning Galileo.
My point is not to show who is right or wrong, but rather to highlight the fact that knowledge is always changing, and at any given time, it represents our best understanding of the collective “facts” of history. Just because one “fact”, scientifically observed, is later found to conflict with another scientific observation, does not mean that either “fact” is wrong, but it does mean that the conclusion derived by the observers may be faulty. We should not blame scientists for being wrong. It is an inevitable part of the scientific method.
Blame is justified, however, for all the people through history who arrogantly squelched those whose ideas and research disagreed with their own. That includes many of the scientific elite today.
Today, as through history, we have people who find God and Science irreconcilable. Unfortunately, it is common to assume that the scientist represents pure science, and the God-follower represents faith without science, even though neither premise is true. The bible believer has a surprisingly large body of scientific evidence to support the biblical account of things, but because not all things are explained scientifically, there is need for faith in the things that are unprovable.
The scientist who rejects the biblical account, is also relying on a body of scientific evidence, that while vast, is not complete. Even renowned atheist scientists are commonly heard saying that the more we learn, the more we realize how little we really know. But in order to reconcile the natural explanation of the universe with the known facts, assumptions are made, on which other assumptions are based to explain a hypothesis for which there is no observable or repeatable test. No honest scientist can call that science. It is just as much faith as that held by the bible thumper.
So the case is not really God vs Science, but rather Faith in God vs Faith in Science. Both make assumptions to fill in the unknown.
Between the two, the advantage is with the bible believer, because he trusts that all science is compatible with scripture, and anything yet unexplained will either be explained or not. The science believer however, cannot accept any evidence to support the biblical view, even when it is the most likely conclusion to draw. His faith depends on having an alternate, natural explanation for all things, and sometimes goes to increasingly silly lengths to avoid the obvious conclusion of the evidence.
Finally, it is true that there are some who do not believe the Bible or parts of it that are difficult to explain. But others intentionally avoid understanding because to admit that the Bible is true has moral implications that they are not willing to address. If the bible is true, then I am wrong to be sleeping with my girlfriend. If it is true, then I have been wrong to treat my parents so poorly. If God is real, then it was wrong for me to fake my study results just to get another research grant.
It is not the science that keeps so many from believing the bible; it is the moral impact on their lives if it turns out to be true after all.
Scott Merrithew
At Tue May 29, 11:18:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I'm not sure why the museum is needed. Even if we prove that every fact in the Bible is correct all we have done is prove that the Bible is correct. It does not prove that God exists. Belief in the existence of God can only be accomplished through faith, the antithesis of science. This may sound a little off topic but it is not; the argument of Creationism versus Evolution is really about acknowledging the existence God.
At Tue May 29, 11:26:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Cerberus,
Not to start a flame war but I have seen, over and over again, assertions made about historical errors in the Bible that were later found to be correct. I have also seen, over and over again, assertions that science was correct only to see those assertions later overturned. With that in mind let me ask you; which would you be more likely to believe, a series of ideas that were consistently proven wrong over time or a series of ideas that were consistently proven right over time?
I don't expect to convert anyone with that question but I hope you will chew on it for a bit.
At Wed May 30, 01:15:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Well said jgriffin.
Cerberus, I believe all science supports creation. It actually takes more faith to believe that all the living things we see around us just happened or evolved from nothing viable. The intricate and beautiful designs in flora and fauna, and human beings too, just screams out that there was a designer who created things to work in a certain way. Even the sheer diversity of all these creatures and plants argues against evolutionary accidents.
However, I understand that for many that is not sufficient persuasion, and so we strive for alternative explanations. We end up accepting "black box" explanations from people who sound like they know what they're talking about, because we don't have enough expertise to know if they are bluffing or not.
So here are a few ideas that support creation by an intelligent designer, but are difficult to explain by natural processes without going to ridiculous lengths that require even more faith.
The lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record. If life forms have evolved from primordial goo, where are the transitional stages between known species? In the early days of fossil hunting, evolutionists were able to convince us that we just hadn't found them yet. But many years and exhaustive archaeology in many parts of the world have rendered that a feeble excuse, and simply confirmed the frequency of known species.
Inhabitability of everywhere except earth. Every year brings more advanced technology that allows us to see deeper into space and confirms the harsh reality that we are a very lonely blue planet. Hope springs eternal though, and there is always some news report that they have discovered what may be evidence that there was once water on mars which of course is necessary for life, but we need to send up a rover to be sure. Sorry, I've heard it too many times to believe it is anything more than blind faith.
Life itself. Science has advanced to the point where we can identify the elements of living creatures and can even synthesize many of the constituent parts, but actually creating life has eluded us. The more we learn about computers, the more remarkable is the computative power of the human brain.
Evolutionary Mutation. The primary tenet of evolutionary theory is that changes come about by accidental beneficial mutations. Sounds good to the uninformed, but now that science has advanced to understanding the cellular structure of living beings and mapping the DNA architecture of the human genome, we now know that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. All mutation is a corruption or destruction of information within the DNA code. No new information is created in any scientifically observed mutation. In all observed experiments, the resulting creature is either not viable, or is crippled, or is simply sterile, unable to reproduce. Unless a repeatable observable process in a controlled environment produces a beneficial mutation, there is no scientific basis to believe it ever happened. So why is held with such religious fervor?
Irreducible Complexity. Assuming for a moment that beneficial mutations could happen, how significant could they be? How large a change could happen from one mutation? Common explanations suggest that flippers evolved from ridges of cartilage that the animal was using to propel it forward. Another is that useless openings on each side of the animals head mutated into ears and that a perfectly balanced tympanic membrane evolved to allow hearing.
How can any reasonable and honest person believe this when we know how many tiny and interdependent elements constitute the ear mechanism? And that doesn't even consider the neural system required to actually transmit information from the ear to the brain.
The eye poses a similar problem for the evolutionist. What did the eye evolve from? Like the ear, there is no individual piece of the optical machine that serves any other function than to collectively enable sight.
These complex structures cannot be reduced to simpler components from which they could evolve.
It is ludicrous to believe any longer in the "black box" babble proffered by the priests of Syrinx. It turns out that all knowledge is not tied up nice and tidy. There are lots of assumptions that are made to assuage the awkward gaps in the various theories.
I realize that you, and I, and everybody else have been culturally indoctrinated to believe that scientists know everything they claim to know, but as we mature in our sense of reason, and enter the world of post-secondary academia, we learn to question everything, and start to realize that the body of human knowledge is full of holes, and there are more questions than answers.
From that perspective, we are all explorers trying to understand the nature of our universe. At the very least we should consistently apply the same tests and scientific method to all our studies. That produces a record of observable and repeatable facts. But the real challenge is formulating a theory that addresses all those facts, not just the convenient ones, but is also flexible enough to adjust when a new scientific discovery is made.
The issue is not the facts; It is the story we use to explain them.
I choose to believe the story that the Bible reveals, because it is consistent with all the science man has observed. Furthermore, the Bible is not just some theory I am believing to be true; it is a real and living God who has a wonderful purpose for me (and you). There is no way for me to prove that to you scientifically of course, and that is why many people can’t or won’t accept it. But even without that, it is far more difficult for me to accept an evolutionary approach, because that story doesn’t explain all the inconsistencies.
Scott Merrithew
By the way, I should point out that there are many wild and variant interpretations of what the Bible story really is, but don’t be fooled. A straight-forward reading will give you a clear understanding and you won’t fall prey to somebody else’s interpretation. Read it for yourself and form your own opinion.
At Wed May 30, 08:35:00 a.m. EDT,
Drew Costen said…
So the case is not really God vs Science, but rather Faith in God vs Faith in Science. Both make assumptions to fill in the unknown.
It's really neither. The case is actually a literal interpretation of the Bible (or at least the book of Genesis) vs. science. The problem is that there's no good reason that I'm aware of to believe that Genesis is at all accurate if interpreted literally.
At Wed May 30, 08:36:00 a.m. EDT,
Drew Costen said…
And, by the way, even if creationists could disprove evolution it still wouldn't mean that Genesis is at all accurate.
At Wed May 30, 09:38:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
And I suppose my mother wears army boots too.
Thanks heretic for illustrating my point.
At Wed May 30, 10:25:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
"Belief in the existence of God can only be accomplished through faith, the antithesis of science."
I agree entirely. And that is my point. True science may have the answers, some of the answers, some suggestions that are incorrect, but no one believes creationism is an explanation for the origins of the world except someone who already believes in the Bible. Faith drives the belief in creationism; not science.
But Scott, you have done what every Creationist does: equate the natural and expected holes and gaps in our knowledge here and there, and seeming incongruities with a lack of veracity. The reality is that there is far more that is consistent with the theories than there are gaps and incongruities.
You inflate the Mt. St. Helens example because, while stratification was observed, stratification of different land sediments was not observed. The example is completely isolatable because the observed phenomena is explanable and is not even an exception. True land stratification is observable consistently across the entire planet. We have areas around volcanos that appear different at first but are not. The geological stratification is still there, just with ash/lava rock/etc. sometimes in between. The "exception" proves the rule.
As for your run through history and how the "scientific" community and consensus has often proven wrong, that too works against you. In all of the examples you gave the then "scientists" were also the theologians and make the same scientific mistake that you make: they start with the conclusion - that their interpretation of the Bible must be correct - and then look for supportive examples. Any contrary observation must be false or heretical.
You then say that creation "science" is in the same position faced against a "scientific consensus". Rebel with a cause that you may be, what we are in fact seeing with creation "science" is the remnants of the old theolgical based "science" of the past. The tides of knowledge cannot be held back and it will take centuries and generations for a true scientific understanding of the age of the earth and origins of life to work its way through to every corner. Lots of faith-based holdouts.
The difference between your historical examples and "science" is not just that the old "scientific consensus" was made up by scientist theologians, but that the scientific method has replaced faith as the driving determinative in the exploration of scientific truth.
The last typical fatal flaw in your circular argument is that there are all sorts of gaps and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Every single biologist will agree with you. How it happened is still being explored.
But a creationist attacks evolution on these grounds whereas I actually have spent little focus in this thread on evolution. Deliberately. The overwhelming scientific data and observed fact from ALL fields of science, not just biology, conclude that the earth, the sun, the stars are ancient.
Are there gaps or inconsistencies? Of course. We are not gods and do not have all of the answers. But it is truly astounding how very much knowledge we have collected since we based our approach to knowledge on a scientific method that is verifiable and constantly tested and re-tested and is predictive.
Imagine where we will be in another 100 years!
At Wed May 30, 10:39:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"You inflate the Mt. St. Helens example because, while stratification was observed, stratification of different land sediments was not observed. The example is completely isolatable because the observed phenomena is explanable and is not even an exception."
Ted, just an honest question for you... have you looked into the concepts of stratification due to a worldwide global flood? True, Mt. St. Helens showed only one type of sediments. However, the main point being made was regarding the TIME involved in fossilization, not the materials. The rapid sedimentation that occured during the flood (along with the catostrophic tectonic movements that are presumed to have occured during this time) can easily explian the creation of differing strata, with differing materials, in a rapid period of time.
(some also theorize that the vast oil reserves in the Middle East were created during this period... makes sense if the Middle East was the "cradle of civiliazation" according to the early chapters of Genesis. The massive extintion of plants, animals and man, and subsequent pressure of rapidly deposited layers of sediment, compounded by millions of tons of water above. Again, just another part of the whole theory, but it fits)
At Wed May 30, 10:54:00 a.m. EDT,
Drew Costen said…
And I suppose my mother wears army boots too.
Sensitive, much? My pointing out that the creation/evolution debate has nothing to do with faith in science vs. faith in God (it can't be, many evolutionists believe in God) but rather faith in science vs. faith in the Bible was not a personal attack on you.
Thanks heretic for illustrating my point.
Which point?
At Wed May 30, 11:03:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"The issue is not the facts; It is the story we use to explain them." Scott said exactly what I was trying to say... we can look at the same set of facts, and both "stories" of our origins can be derived from them. It's the original premise from which we examine the "facts" that determines how we intpret them.
The statement statement you made, "The overwhelming scientific data and observed fact from ALL fields of science, not just biology, conclude that the earth, the sun, the stars are ancient", touches on that very point I just made. I have heard many rational, scientific, reasonable arguments from each of these same areas and how the facts in fact support the Creationist model. Again, these concepts are not presented to "explain away" anything, it's that many parts of the Genesis account fit in perfectly with what "facts" we know from science.
I forgot to post my thanks to Scott... you said a lot of what I wanted to say, in a much better way that I ever could. Thanks for the contribution.
At Wed May 30, 12:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"Are there gaps or inconsistencies? Of course."
"Imagine where we will be in another 100 years!"
See that's part of the problem with evolutionary theory. The more we have learned the more holes appeared. From the understanding of the inner workings of the cell to the immergence of molecular genetics, the gaps are expanding not closing.
At Wed May 30, 12:18:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Actually, CC, the flood cannot explain the stratification of the earth.
As early as the "godfather of geology", William Smith, it was clear that it was impossible to reconcile the flood explanation with observed facts. By way of one simple example, Smith observed in the early 1800s that fossils at different strata were different and fossils at the same strata were the same everywhere he looked.
If there was a sudden flood and then recession, all animals that were fossilized would have been fossilized at every level of strata.
You and Scott and AiG continue to ignore two very significant points that undermines any claim of creationism being a "science". ONLY believers in Genesis believe in creationist theory and you don't apply the agnostic process of scientific method.
At Wed May 30, 12:24:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Ryan:
That is very false. So false it doesn't make sense.
Are you saying that Darwin claimed to have provided all of the answers and ever since we've been poking holes in it?
Darwin would - and did - disagree.
Scientists who don't already believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis almost all agree in evolution. That is not to say they all agree on how evolution works or any one of them claims to know everything there is to know about evolution. Scientific knowledge does not advance in a linear direction; instead it is fits and spurts and reversals and progress. Each time testing and retesting using scientific methodology instead of blind faith.
And again, you come back to evolution. Biology is just a single field of science. AiG claims the entire world was created in 144 hours and there is just too much consistent evidence in every field of science to maintain that view.
At Wed May 30, 01:24:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Well Ted, I think I can see the root of your problem right now... taking geologic lessons from "Will Smith"? True, he may be a good actor, but I wouldn't put much scientific faith on his viewpoints... he just reads what's in the script. ;-)
(I am, of course, kidding...)
At Wed May 30, 01:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Taken as the humour it was intended to be, CC.
At Wed May 30, 02:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Good. You can't be to careful these days... flame wars have started over less. ;-)
At Wed May 30, 02:36:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Personally, I think flame wars and name calling - LIEberals, Blogging Whorries, Taliban Jack, Liberanos, Harpocrites, etc. - is not just juvenile but shows a lack of confidence in one's own side/party/leader/beliefs.
And a lack of humour shows the same.
(Speaking of which, in case you haven't seen them: http://hi.im.a.liberal.ca/. You might even agree with the cross-dressing one I think.)
At Wed May 30, 02:54:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Yea, I saw the PC vs. Liberal one... bahh... playing off the stereotypes... junk. Though I did smile... shook my head too, but did smile. Mostly just smiled at the typical misinformed Young Liberal group-think, but smiled none the less at the humor.
At Wed May 30, 07:21:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I apologize for my army boots comment. It was late and I was getting tired.
Cerberus, I still disagree with your assessment of our positions.
I think you are failing to recognize the difference between science and theory. On top of that you keep talking about consensus which also has nothing to do with science.
Science and the scientific method deal specifically and exclusively with observable and repeatable behaviour that we can conclude are facts. Defined this way, facts are indisputable. Anything beyond this is NOT science but philosophy.
Creationist and Athiest scientists both look at the same body of facts and theorize on the grand scale story that explains those same facts.
That is what I mean when I say the issue is not the facts.
Where we disagree is in the realm of philosophy, not science.
I am quite happy to disagree with you in our philosophical opinions, but don't give me this garbage that you are talking about science.
The word consensus cannot be used in the realm of science because it attributes value the number of adherents, when in fact that has no value at all. In other words, there was consensus that the earth was flat, and that the rebel Eratosthenes was a lunatic whose ridiculous notions of a spherical planet show a total lack of understanding that real scientists know with certainty. Sound familiar?
I repeat; creationist and athiest scientists do not disagree on the facts. Their dispute lies in the philosophical framework that we choose to explain them.
If you continue to believe that facts are in dispute, perhaps you are considering as facts things that are not facts at all, but rather theories proposed by observers of the facts.
It is hard to have an intelligent debate on this topic unless we accurately define the basis of our positions.
At Wed May 30, 07:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Creationist and Athiest scientists both look at the same body of facts and theorize on the grand scale story that explains those same facts.
That is what I mean when I say the issue is not the facts.
Scott, with respect, you keep trying to change the debate.
First, there is no Creationist scientist vs. Atheist scientist dichotomy. There is though a dichotomy between Creationist "scientist" and general scientist. As I have said from my very first comment here: people from pretty much every faith and culture and religion and background have managed to confirm, through scientific testing and experimentation, that the earth is very very old; but ONLY those who ALREADY have decided that the literal story of Genesis MUST be true have concluded that science proves them correct.
Second, I have not spent much time here disputing facts or theories. What I have done is dispute, and dispute strongly, calling Creationism science. NOT because of the conclusions you reach, but because of THE WAY you reach those conclusions. As I highlighted from the quoted passages of AiG: the Creationist belief STARTS with the conclusion that the Bible story is literally true AND THEN goes out to try to find the evidence/facts to support it. As jGriffin so honestly and openly put it: "Belief in the existence of God can only be accomplished through faith, the antithesis of science."
That PROCESS of Creationism/faith is the exact opposite of science.
In science we set out to prove or disprove hypothesis. AFTER observing experiments and test results, we develop theories that try to explain the results and will predict the results that will occur in similar circumstances.
That is why in the example I gave, after it was observed in England that a certain type of fossil was always found at a certain strata but at no other strata, a theory was developed that maybe this was because land sendiment settled over thousands of years and this creature only existed way back then. Then we go halfway across the world to test it out on the strata over in China and, wow, same results.
I'm not concerned about creationism too much. Scientific truth cannot be held back forever and some people will never accept it. Heck there are some who still believe the earth is flat and the earth is at the centre of the universe.
But for some reason you keep going back to examples of "scientific" consensus at a time when the "scientists" were theologians as well and not apply scientific method but following dictates of religious elders. That is why Galileo and Copernicus and others were jailed for heresy, a religious concept, not for lying.
Indeed, Creationists are nearing the stage at which those prior theological-science consensa eventually reached. Once your faith-based "science" was the consensus, but it was challenged by agnostic science (agnostic in the sense of not trying to obtain a specific result, only accepting what the facts revealed). Like the past, creationist needed to pass laws to enforce/force their views on citizens despite science and jail those who would not believe what they believed.
So I don't even need to get into a discussion about different theories. The process that AiG and Creationist employ is irretractably rooted in faith. You are not indifferent to the results of testing but use testing to prove a pre-existing conclusion.
That is the opposite of science. And so I do not call it science.
At Wed May 30, 09:15:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
No I am not changing the debate. I am disputing your premise. You are debating a false construct that I am trying to clarify.
I acknowledge that there are people who believe in creation purely on a biblical basis with no knowledge of the science, just as there are people who believe in evolution with no knowledge of the science. In both cases, it is faith in what they have been taught because they are ignorant of the facts on which their faiths are based.
In this debate I have made the assumption that we are having an intelligent conversation with a scientific focus.
Have I erred in that assumption cerberus? You seem to be under the impression that Creationists do not look at the scientific facts. How can I let that go? You say it is changing the debate. I say it is refuting your premise.
Which part of "same science" "same facts" don't you get? The process is the same!
How many times do I have to say observable and repeatable before you realize that I'm talking about empirical laboratory experimentation and research; the foundation of all scientific knowledge; the same process you claim to be important.
At Wed May 30, 09:48:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
No Scott, you are ignoring my simple questions and my simple premise.
I'll try to keep it uncharacteristicly not long-winded.
Science does not start with the conclusion. It starts with the facts. Creationists start with the conclusion - the Bible is literally true - and then go pick out facts those facts that support the conclusion and reject those facts that undermine the conclusion.
True science is agnostic: it is indifferent to the result, it seeks only an understanding of what is.
If this were not so, if creationism was merely the conclusion reached upon observing agreed upon facts, then you would have lots of scientists who agreed with parts of the Genesis story (like age of the earth, the flood, two humans, 144 hour creation of the earth as it is now, etc.) even though they didn't believe in the Bible. In fact, you would find scientists who had discovered through observable fact that they agree with your premise without them having ever read the Bible.
And yet, only believers have "concluded" that the Creation story is true.
That is not science.
It is not science to pick and choose the facts you want when and only when they support your pre-determined conclusion.
And AiG is at least honest: they say that all you need to confirm the truth of the Bible story is... the Bible. Since it is "self-attesting", i.e. the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
If you can find me one person who genuinely dismissed the 144 hour, 6000 years ago origins of the world, did the research and THEN concluded that creation is right, I'll call that person a scientist.
But that person doesn't exist. Faith is required first for Creation. That is the opposite of science as some of your fellow believers have already stated above and at AiG.
At Thu May 31, 12:30:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Um,
Another dumb question here, why is it important to prove or disprove the Bible anyway? We have all sorts of comfortable disagreements about other things, dark matter, the age of the universe, red wine with chicken, the list goes on. Why is there such special vehemence for the Biblical story of creation. I don't hear anyone going after the Muslim/Hindu/<insert your favorite religion here> version of how it all started. Is there something about the Biblical version of creation that merits this special treatment?
At Thu May 31, 01:11:00 a.m. EDT,
Dirk said…
"Why is there such special vehemence for the Biblical story of creation."
There isn't any special vehemence for the Genesis creation stories. The scientific community hasn't gone out of its way to disprove anything -- it has, however, arrived at conclusions and theories that don't happen to align with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
At Thu May 31, 10:38:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
jGriffin:
"Another dumb question here, why is it important to prove or disprove the Bible anyway? We have all sorts of comfortable disagreements about other things, dark matter, the age of the universe, red wine with chicken, the list goes on. Why is there such special vehemence for the Biblical story of creation. I don't hear anyone going after the Muslim/Hindu/< insert your favorite religion here > version of how it all started. Is there something about the Biblical version of creation that merits this special treatment?"
1. The aim of scientists has never been to prove or disprove any element of the Bible. In fact, scientific study is indifferent to the Bible. Darwin believed in the Bible his whole life, just not the literal version. Same with geologists. They observe, hypothesis, test and conclude. No scientist is out to get the Bible.
2. Hindus and even Native Americans are not trying to legislate their version of origins, at least not in the Western world. Nor has anyone tried to put someone in jail for not teaching the Hindu version of origins. (Plus, there is no Hindu or Native version of origin, there are many Hindu versions, many native versions.)
3. So yes, there is something special about the Biblical version: adherents to a strictly literal version want to impose it upon our children and our science.
At Thu May 31, 10:58:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Not quite accurate Ted... we don't want a "theory" being taught as fact... we don't want to push our view so much as ensure that their (the humanistic) view is NOT pushed on our children.
You don't need to understand evolution to understand science.
At Thu May 31, 11:41:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
Every single bit of taught science is theory. The age of the earth, the rotation of the planets, the stratification of the earth, the atomic properties of substances, the origins of humans, gravity... all of these are theories.
They seem like facts because of the preponderance of overwhelming evidence and because of their consistency with facts and their predictive value and because of the lack of a consistently verifiable and substantiated alternative. So some theories we are more certain of then others. Which theories we teach and which we don't depend upon how certain the general community of scientists is about the theory. Even with the alleged "holes" in evolutionary theory, these are just the competing views on HOW evolution occurred or at what pace or why, none of which challenge the underlying theory of evolutionary progress. With such a solid backing from the scientific community - from scientists who hold so many different religious beliefs from Christian (and of many different denominations within Christianity), Judaism, Hinduism, Muslim, Budhism, atheism/agnosticism - I do think it is appropriate to teach that to our kids. Besides, evolution, the age of the earth, the composition of the earth... most people, other than orthodox or fundamentalist believers who put literal religious texts before science, do not find science in any way challenges their faith. Very conservative and orthodox Catholics for example including the Pope do not believe the earth was created in 144 hours 6000 years ago.
To take the view that "theories should not be taught" would mean that almost no science or even social science (histories, etc.) should be taught.
And there are indeed many creationists who want creation taught in school. The problem is they have to legislate it.
At Thu May 31, 02:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Why with all the hoopla attacking the Bible as authoritative , and all the praise of Scientists who often disagree , how is it that all the great Genious's of the day could not figure out that te earth was round when it was in the Bible 1000 years BC. That is 3000 + years ago.
Prov:8:27: When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
And again 700 years BC or 2700 years ago
Isa:40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Could it be that they got it wrong.God gave man the cure for aids and other contageous disease's 3500 years ago, but none of the genious's of the day today will heed God's wisdom for fear of public scrutanty.
Lev 13:43: Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh;
44: He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.
45: And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
46: All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.
And here is a pont in closing that no one has ever been able to explain.
If Darwinism is so true , how is it that we do not see all species of all walks of life not in intermediate stages of development.
Case in point , in Solomons day 1000 BC
1Kgs:10:22: For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.
Why do we not see apes and peacocks in intermediate stages of development?
Or, how about Moses's time 1500 BC
or 3500 years ago.
Examine this list of animals in this Chapter of Moses, and give me one example of a beast that is in an intermediate stage of developement. All are currently recognized species. The theory of evolution argues on the premise of a sustained state of development , and yet not even the ape is exempt from a biblical standpoint.
Where where all the genious's during the time of Noah who
said that there was not enough water on earth to permit a
flood of the magnitude decribed.
They all drowned , the only man spared was a man of faith , and his family. The oversite was something they never considered .
Genisis 7:11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
This comes as no surprise as we where admonished in Christ's time.
Mathew 24:37: But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38: For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39: And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
And then Paul nicely concludes :
Romans 1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Timothy Coderre
At Fri Jun 08, 12:09:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Haven't been on the blogs lately..too busy with a course...which brings me to comment on this very interesting discussion.One of the first commenters asked for scientific 'evidence' of Creation. The course I am taking is Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology. I'm focusing right now on 3 chapters...one is on the chemistry involved in ONE HEART BEAT.
Next is the electrical activity in ONE HEART BEAT.Third is muscular activity of ONE HEART BEAT.They are neeedless to say interdependent. Keep in mind slight changes to any activity affects the heart in an unhealthy way. Skeptics want to brush off evidence of perfect design and purpose in our bodies(and that is their right and their 'faith'), but I would remind them that something that runs so efficiently did not evolve to this perfect state...because less than this perfect functioning would be ...what?
Vicki
At Sun Jun 10, 09:43:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Also...could the very intricate and specific Kreb cycle( producing a very specific form of energy for the heart muscle) be explained as an accident of the evolutionary 'steps?'
That is scientific evidence of the Creator.
Science does not disprove Creation.
Post a Comment
<< Home