The Big Bang and Evolution Verses Reality
Posted: Wednesday, March 03, 2010
by Thomas Haskins
General Inventions
The universe has billions of life forms and trillions of stars. Where did all this come from anyway? Most scientists will tell you they came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang is an event in which everything in the universe, all the stars and planets and gases even all the light, was once squeezed into a speck far smaller that your smallest freckle and then suddenly, for no known reason it exploded and has been expanding ever since into what we observe today. Now there are four major problems that come to mind from this theory of the origin of the universe. They are as follows:
2. Scientists will also tell you that there is far to much gravity in the universe for the amount of matter we can observe. They, therefore, have created the concept of "dark matter", which is matter that is not seen and possibly is not seeable or detectable other than as some force exerted on the matter around it, but produces gravity that affects all the other matter that we can see and measure. Without this, scientists cannot properly explain the basics of how the universe works. Since this "dark matter" cannot be seen or measured, and there is no direct evidence of its existence, then it requires a rather large amount of faith to believe in its existence.
3. The Big Bang theory describes a situation much like an exploding stick of dynamite. In such an explosion all of the matter and energy involved are exploding at the same rate, or at least the energy and matter in the center of the explosion are moving at a higher rate than the matter on the outside of the explosion since that is the source of the explosive energy. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that scientists have recently discovered that the matter and energy in the outer edges of the universe are expanding at a faster rate than the matter closer to the center of the universe where is the source of the exploding energy. They have no explanation for this phenomenon.
4. The Cambrian period is the earliest layer of fossil records of living creatures on earth. Nearly very creature known to man appears in that period and there is not fossil record of life before that period. Not only does this support the story of the universe's origin found in the Bible but it disproves the theory of Evolution. Evolution tells us that all these creature evolved from other creatures and from each other but this cannot be if they show up at the same time and there is no life before them.
Now backed up by this Big Bank theory of the origin of the universe (which itself is full of holes) sits the theory of Evolution, a theory which is routinely taught in the schools and in the media as though it were established fact. It simply is not. This theory is also full of holes, and worse yet, its history is rife with deliberate fraud, fabrications and lies by some of the leading scientists that were advancing it to the world. First I will discuss some of the fraud and fabrications as follows:
In 1959 Dr. W. R. Thompson, world renowned entomologist from Canada , Director of the Commonwealth Institute for Biological Control, Ottawa , Canada was selected to write the introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of Species. In it he says, "This situation where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulty, is abnormal and undesirable in science . . . the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."
Dr. T. M. Tomisian, a physiologist for The Atomic Energy Commission said that follow regarding the theory of Evolution, "Scientists who go about teaching the Evolution is a fact of life are great conmen, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
I want to bring to your attention the fact that the carbon dating system, upon which so much of evolutionary "science" depends to support its claims about an ancient Earth and an ancient universe (thereby discrediting the Bible), was described by its creator and inventor (Nobel Prize winner Willard Libby) as "unreliable".
Next, you must understand the process followed by these Evolutionary "scientists" when they carbon date rocks that "prove" the Earth is millions of years old. Firstly, there are only certain and select kinds of rocks that can be carbon dated. When scientists want to carbon date some rocks in an archaeological dig they separate out the rocks that can be tested from those that cannot. Then they separate out from those that can be tested the ones that they know will test "correctly", that is according to their million year time scheme. Then they take these rocks to the laboratory and test them. When the test results become available, these scientists discard the results that differ from their million year scheme and only publish the results of the rocks that test according to their "expectations" (much like the recent information that came out about the "scientific" method used by those world-renowned global warming scientists".
My friends, in most fields of study or play, this would be called "fixing the game" and would not be tolerated. However, in "science", that is Evolutionary "science" it is routine.
Here is an excerpt from http://www.nwcreation.net, an excellent web site for those interested in researching the endemic problems with the theory of Evolution:
"Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man-until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville , 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe . One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Here is another excerpt from the same source:
"The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.
"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105
Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution'"
Next I move to the problems with the theory itself. Please observe:
The theory of Evolution has many, many problems with it. It is full of holes and these issues have been carefully hidden from the public for over a century. Any critics of Evolution are laughed at, ignored or drummed out of their profession if they are scientists. Scientists know that they cannot get grants for their work if they offer any significant criticism to the theory of Evolution.
In the following pages I will touch on just a few of the gaping holes in truth and reality that chronically beset the theory of Evolution. Judge for yourself whether this teaching about the origin of the universe and the origin of life should be considered anything more than an interesting fantasy.
1. Evolutionary scientific statisticians have estimated that in order for life to spontaneously occur in the oceans of Earth, you would need approximately 1 billion years. That is right "billion" with a "b". Evolutionary "scientists" have also concluded that the Earth first formed approximately four and a half billion years ago and that the Earth's oceans first formed approximately three and a half billion years ago. Here is the problem. These same Evolutionary "Scientists" have carbon dates some rocks that have fossilized life in them at three and a half billion years hold! That means that according to the very time frame, tests and findings of the Evolutionary "scientists", life appeared in the oceans the very same time that the oceans formed. Funny, is that now how the Bible describes the events? Unfortunately, these professional and reliable "scientists" somehow fail to share this vitally pertinent information with you the public!
2. One of the basic flaws of Evolutionary science is that it begins with the assumption that everything was as it is today (the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, the size of the Earth and other factors). Another foolish assumption they make is that the Bible is historically inaccurate and made up mostly of myths and fairy tales. In fact they often place more trust in other ancient documents than they do in the ancient writing of the Bible.. Because of this, these scientists fail to even consider any possibility that events in the Bible took place. Not only is this an intrinsically un-scientific approach, but it significantly diminishes the deductive potential of the "science". For example, what if the great flood of Genesis did actually happen. How would that change many of the claims and suppositions of evolutionary, or any earth-related science. Would it not explain the presence of large amounts of fossil fuels around the world. Why is it that so much of the fossil fuels in the world are centered in the Middle East where the Bible tells us life began? If life began in that area, then it is likely that it would have been fullest and richest in that area at the time of the flood, especially considering the way the Bible describes that area before the flood. Fossil fuels come from life forms being buried suddenly in wet conditions under a large amount of matter. Then, over time the pressure and moisture together convert the life forms (plants and animals) into fossil fuels. 80% of the worlds fossil fuel reserves are within one thousand miles of the city of Babylon , that is they are in the area where the Bible tells us man was created, God placed the Garden of Eden, and civilization began.
3. Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny: This is the theory, also called "Embryology", claims that the fetus goes through all the various stages of evolution while forming in the womb. Ontogeny is the embryological development process of a species; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. This theory was introduced by Ernst Haeckel in the 19 th century. However, when his sketches of the fetus were examined by medical experts it was found that they were distortions of the truth and it was revealed that they were intentional distortions. Professor Haeckel was tried by the court of the University of Jena (1875) where he taught and he confessed his forgeries.
"I should feel utterly condemnedwere it not that HUNDREDS of the best observers, and biologists LIE UNDER THE SAME CHARGE." - Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK (http://www.onemoreservant.org/TextbookLies.htm)
This Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny theory has been completely and utterly debunked. The head of the British Association for The Advancement of Science said that, "Embryology offers no support for the theory of Evolution whatever."
"Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars"
Walter J. Bock (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ., "Evolution by Orderly Law," Science , Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685
"Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail"
Keith Stewart Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist , Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 273
"To cut to the quick of this drama, Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent simply copied the same figure over and over again."
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University, New York Times August 13, 1999 .
Darwin considered this "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of"' his theory.
Letter to Asa Gray, September 10, 1860, in Francis Darwin (editor), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1896), Vol. II, p.131
4. Mount Saint Helens: The explosion at Mount Saint Helens created an ecology and landscape that is identical to many other locations which scientists for many decades have described to us as having been created over millions and millions of years, and yet it all happened in a day. This is quite profound and it shows the extraordinary bias among these scientists toward this ancient timescape, It also shows how much they refuse to utilize all of the facts available when formulating their theories. If you spend a little time on the web or in the book store and study this you will see how Mount Saint Helens created in a day what scientists for decades have been telling us could only be done over millions of years.
5. There are so many signs in the Earth of a sudden and devastating catastrophy that wiped out "all" of life on the Earth a long time ago. Scientists almost inevitably explain it as having been caused by a giant asteroid. However, they never even for a moment consider the possibility that it could have been caused by a world-wide flood because that is the explanation found in the Bible and they are opposed to accepting anything from the Bible as being valid. Yet, nearly every culture around the world has an ancient devastating flood story and there is ample evidence around the planet for such an event.
6. Here lies the crux of the matter: Evolutionary "Scientists" have never found one single fossil link between the supposed evolution from one species to another. There are examples of evolution within a species, however, there is not one fossil example of an evolutionary change from one species to another, an essential part of the theory of Evolution. This is the reason for the term "missing link".
"[T]he number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1872; reprint, New York: Random House 1993), 408. (Onemoreservant.org)
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a personal letter:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.
Colin Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sutherland, 10 April 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (San Diego: Master Books, 1988), 89. (http://www.onemoreservant.org/TextbookLies.htm)
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History:
It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil "group" can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise. Gareth Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 67 (1969): 22. (http://www.onemoreservant.org/TextbookLies.htm)
Richard Dawkins, an ardent evolutionist, notes:
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Onemoreservant.org)
Now consider the motives of one of Evolution's key founders and supporters: One of Charles Darwin's followers know as his bull dog, Aldous Huxley as he was speaking about why he chose to support and preach the theory of Evolution:
"In profession of a confessed atheist, I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning. Consequently, I assumed it had none, I was able without difficulty, satisfying reasons for this assumption, for myself and without doubt with most of my contemporaries the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain economic and political system [(capitalism)], and liberation from certain system of morality {(Judeo-Christian)]. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual morals."
It is interesting, in light of these motives that the establishment of the theory of Evolution as "fact" and its almost universal acceptance has led to the worst crimes in history and the most and largest mass murders ever. "What?" You say. That is correct. Nazism, Communism and modern humanism were all founded on the theory of evolution because they all deny the existence of any god and thus they must rely on the theory of Evolution to explain the existence of all that we observe. If you study the history of these movements (which I have) you will see that they actively depend upon the theory of Evolution for their positions and their actions. This is not a theory I propose here. History makes it very clear that these three movements are inseparably intertwined and dependant on the theory of Evolution and could not have found anchor in the minds of millions of people without it.
So we have a theory, taught as "fact" that is rife with fraud, lies and scientific fabrication, founded at least in part by people with evil motives, which also has many logic holes that no one is willing to truly admit and try to tackle. This same theory has led to the conscious or unconscious denial of any god which leaves us with no ultimate source of morality, which means that morality is defined by the powerful and you know where that has gotten us in most countries around the world since its inception! If there is not creator God who is all powerful, sees all and remembers all, who is loving, and if loving must therefore be just, and if just must therefore judge and punish for all wrongs, then there is nothing and no one to hold any of us back from doing whatever we desire, even murdering hundreds of millions of people . . .
It is important to understand that the theory of Evolution provides mankind with an explanation for our own existence without any moral and authoritative God. This then allows us to do whatever we want that suits our fancy and fulfills our pleasures. This is why it is so very tantalizing for so many and this is why it has and will continue to be so destructive to society and society's families.
Here I will cease to give you words and I invite your debate, for this topic is in desperate need of informed, measured, open and civil debate. Please let us all treat each other with respect as we debate.
Just added: Here is an interesting short video to watch on this topic concerning the butterfly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiRFftkTtSA&feature=player_embedded
This Article has been viewed 802 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsA foolish excursion, but at least worth one star for its entertainment value, as a creationist restates the rules of science in defense of his beliefs.there is just too much to comment on here. I'm not even going there.This is a response to the last three comments: Not one of you gave any evidence to dispute my article. Not one. You each made global assertions without providing any proof. If you cannot debate with fact and evidence then stay out of the debate. Not one of you has offered one example of evidence of evolution from one species to another, without which, the theory of Evolution is dead in the water. Well? I am waiiiiiting.The number one problem with your proposition is that you have culled the best of bad science to prove your hypothesis. That goes completely against the scientific method, which presumes the null hypothesis, and works its way forward very slowly, very methodically. You have already jumped ahead to the conclusions that you desire to see, and have worked backward finding and presenting only those theories that support your conclusion. Conclusions, my friend, are made after the fact, not before you start looking for evidence.Bob, Bob, Bob,I grow tired of your factless assertions. Give me some FACTS! But first do two things:1. List just one example of a fossil showing evolution from one species to another among the millions and millions of fossils found over the last160 odd years.2. Since there are no examples of fossils showing evolution from one species to another, Please explain to me how the Theory of Evolution can be accepted as established fact without evon one example of evolution from one species to another.If you cannot do these, please do not respond with another empty, meaninless FACTLESS assertion. It is a waste of everyone's time.Tom, Tom, Tom, I would ask the same of you! You have done nothing but condemn science with counters to the Big Bang and Dark Matter using bad sources and misappropriated facts (to put it politely), exactly as Jennifer said. You're not making inroads by regurgitating your misunderstanding of thermodynamics, astrophysics, or evolution.Bob,I gave several facts. The fact that the matter in the outer part of the universe is traveling out from the center of the universe faster ther the rest of the matter. The complete lack of any evidence of evolution from one species to another. The problem with "black matter" (Possibly another name for God????) that cannot be measured or seen. Matter in the outer part of the universe moving out faster than the rest of the matter (not possible from a big bang explosion, and many, many more fact. You each chose to ignore them and still have refused to present me with just one example of evolution from one species to another. Your claims, therefore, are factless and bankrupt. If you cannot debate the facts with facts, proving my fact wrong rather than making meaningless and factless assertions then shut up and listen to those who know how to debate with facts. Our debate is over.Uh, . . . God is an invention of an insecure mind, and the bible nothing but Jewish myths and legends written by scores if not hundreds of different people with who knows what agendas, and then organized and edited by scores more. Please. This is a childish religion for kiddies. Grow up. All of your arguments are circling because nobody can prove God exists, and won't be able to until he comes down and says hello. Move on. Close your bible and open your mind. You will be much happier! And you will be free from all this hypocrisy.Tom, you misappropriate (and misstate) tenets of science in a perverted effort to "prove" religion. What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter if the Theory of Relativity is proven incorrect tomorrow, or that dark matter doesn't exist, or that there are no quantum strings. These are the best guesses based on the best data at present. They will be updated with the advent of better data. That data will come from empirical observation and mathematics, not scripture. Science doesn't care about your mythology, nor should it. We don't learn by blindly following dogma designed to perpetuate Dark Age thinking."Dark matter doesn't exist! Aha, science is wrong, therefore the earth was created in seven days, and Jesus rose from the dead!"Reality is not so simple minded, Tom. And you misspelled "Verses" in your title. The word you are looking for is "Versus".And, by the way Tom, you haven't given us "facts", only poorly selected pseudo-science to substitute for facts. I guess that's what I should have said earlier, is that you started off your whole premise with lousy tidbits of junk science, imagining them to be facts. You're not learning facts from that creationist web site, sorry. You're filling your head with fluff.
Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors.Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. It addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved.I could go on all day. Want more?Your words bring to mind the word arogance. You are arrogant. Again, not facts. Still waiting for your facts. I made assertions and claims that certain things were facts. Many of them. You have proven none of them wrong. Debating with you is useless. Oh, bye the way, did you know that there is a carbon dated copy of the book of Daniel (Bible) describing Cyrus in detain and naming him, describing what he would do, 700 years before he lived? This is not possible without the actions of a God who stands outside of time. Have you ever actually researched the FACTUAL basis of the Bible? Try Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell. Bob, you are arrogant. Pride comes before a fall. You continue to make empty assertions never even responding to any of my claims of facts with counter evidence. Debating with you is useless. Write your reply if you will but I will not be reading it.Oh, finally, finally, some "facts". Now we can get to work. Thank you. Name me the time, place, species and the scientist who discovered just one fossily proven to be a proof of evolution from one species to another. You still have not done so. What does "major groups of organisms" mean? Take a look at the Mt St Hellens erruption. Many things happened there in one day that are identical to the same signs described around the world by scientists as taking millions of years. Look into it if you really want to know the truth. Also, bacteria learning to become immmune to and antibiotic is not evolution between species, it is just adaptation of one species.Also, Bob,You still have not proven any of my assertions of facts to be wrong by using data and facts to prove them wrong. I have many, many of them and you have not disproven one of them. Regarding the new fossil finds you mentioned, Still there is not fossil evidence of evolution between species, without which macro evolution cannot be.Good luck to you my deluded friend. May you find peace in your heaven.I'm not sure what your assertions are, Tom, they are all over the map. It's like you are throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping something will stick.Now you're quoting Bible verses, with righteous indignation, as if it somehow lends support to your pseudo-science. A bad end to your whole discussion.*yawn* Yes, we have fossils of intermediary amphibians, we even intermediary whales who are mammals. But just look at human evolution! W have plenty of intermediary hominids! There is plenty of evidence for evolution, you just refuse to look at the facts to support it.And just because the Nazis distorted evolution to fit their needs does not make it incorrect.We have no fossil evidence evidence of evolution between species including from ape to human. You both continue to show your arrogance. Bye the way, arrogance is always osely married to atheism. Now, I have a question for you atheists: if there is no god then who defines morality? The majority? Ancient Greece showed that to be a failure. the elite minority? Many civizations have proven that a failure. Without a god it is the powerful who define morality and they always show their corruption. Freedom and prosperity have always followed the gospel of Jesus (not Catholicism but biblicLly based Christianity. Corruption and murder repeatedly follow atheism. Enjoy your atheism till it over takes you, it provides you a convenient excuse for all the sins you refuse to stop loving. Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.er..yes we do. You are obviously not a scientist.speaking of arrogance..I never said i was an atheist. Guess what? You can believe in evolution and God.Jennifer, I am debating several people at once. Thus it is easy to make such a mistake. For that I apologize. But where is the arrogance I'm making such a simple mistake?Ok anonymous "scientist" name it. Name the missing link! Why waste our time with such a meaningless statement devoid of information! Name it so I can prove you wrong - unless you cannot.Morality is defined by society. You don't need Jesus to know that murder and thievery are immoral. Non Christian societies have defined morality for centuries without having a need for your bible. Morality is taught, passed down, and results from an ethos learned in pre-history. The fact of morality in a society has nothing to do with any need for a god to have taught it. People can learn what works and what does not work in their society.Every species is intermediary between what it came from, and what it will be next. Each species is discrete, because mutations are discrete. We have fish with legs, we have different types of primates, different horses have evolved from eohippus, and different cat species, tress, etc., etc., the list is pretty long. Hominids especially have a connection to many intermediary species, like Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis,Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens. Please Tom, try to educate yourself on evolution, biology, and anthropology before claiming the evidence doesn't exist.Bob, educate myself? Let's assume for the moment that I have not. Do me a favor, educate yourself concerning. The evidence for god and I will return the favor re evolution. Read Josh mdiwell's evidence that demands a verdict. Now, back to youri missing link PROBLEM: it is nice and tidy to say that each species is the transitional phase from what it was to what it will become but you must have examples of fossilized creatures between the species to prove your theory and you do not. Argue all you want but you do not have such evidence. You gave also ignored the events at mt st Helena I mentioned that shed swrios doubt on your "scientist's" dating assertions (which CONSTANTLY change and contradict themselves. This I have observe with my own eye for the past 4 decades.You asked for evidence of intermediary species, I gave them to you. The fact that you are unable to intelligently comment on my reply is proof enough that you're only interest here is to proselytize, not discuss.Ker Thanfor National Geographic NewsPublished April 8, 2010Identified via two-million-year-old fossils, a new human ancestor dubbed Australopithecus sediba may be the "key transitional species" between the apelike australopithecines—and the first Homo, or human, species, according to a new study.(See pictures of Australopithecus sediba fossils.)"We've never seen this combination of traits in any one [early human species]," study leader Lee Berger told the journal Science, where the new study is published today.
and I did give you facts before. I'm not going to annotate them for you.and Tom, how about you go to your local library...look up E-VO-LU-TION...and find all of the data that supports it for yourself. We shouldn't have to list them for you if you are so sure that it is incorrect, I would assume that you have researched this topic thoroughly before you spoke. eh?I reviewed your comments and found no Dara. Now, do you believe the bible is from god?Your logic is miserably childish. IF NOT A, THEN C? Sad.More insults with meaningless assetipns without facts or informatioN bob. Talk about childish. That is exactly how a child argues.If you take my comments as an insult, it is probably because they hit a nerve. I have provided you with enough facts and reasoning to qualify in your phony little debate, but, as usual, you're not interested in debate, only proselytizing. Can you not make a single comment about the list of hominid species I enumerated above? Or are you just not interested?
Tom, you asked for evidence of intermediary states, I provided some examples, and you pretend I have said nothing. You just continue to drone on about the bible.Bob,You did not provide intermediary example. You simply made claims that the current species are intermediaries between what they were and what they will become and claims that various past species evolved from one to another. You STILL have not provide one fossil record of a creature I. The stage of trsitioning from one species to another. You, like these "scientists" you blindly follow just keep claiming that o e species transitioned into another. That is no evIdence, it is merely conjecture. Name one fossil that has been proven to be a transitional creature from one species to anotherThe species I named form a logical progression of lower primate to modern Homo Sapiens. You choose to pretend there is no sign of evolution, but that doesn't sound like my problem. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink it.The bible was written by men who didn't understand science. If they found a bone, as there were many bones on the island of Samos, they attributed them to dragons and minotaurs, etc. What they didn't understand about nature, they made up for with their own peculiar mythology. As for the claim that the bible history is 100% accurate, that's incredible. No, really, in credible, meaning not credible. Many of the vents of the bible have not been corroborated, simply because there is nothing left to corroborate. I can tell you I have a diamond in my pocket, and I can write on a blog that I am never wrong. Who out there in the world can prove whether or not I'm lying? It's the same with bible stories. There is simply little to no basis to establish their truth, one way or another. That is where irresponsible tricksters step in to take advantage of people's stupidity, by threatening their eternal souls if they don't believe.Fortunately, I freed myself of that smoke and mirrors, so it's not likely you will convince me on the basis of the bible as "proof". Don't get me wrong, I think the bible is a wonderful book. The bible is many things. But history? Somewhat. Science? No.
I've also answered your perennial question about the source of morality, but once again, because you are talking to yourself, you choose not to respond to my answer. You know, it takes two to engage in a dialogue. Your asking all the questions, but not taking any consideration of the people you are talking to shows very bad communication skills on your part. I've answered a number of your questions now, please take the time to read through them, and actually respond to them with something other than the usual ad hominem and straw man attacks.The Bible has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true. if anything, evolution is true, and they need to learn how to read the Bible's facts vs metaphor and poetry. it is a book of theology, not scientific truths.Jennifer, please answer my question.The bible is not supposed to be taken literally. it is full of poetry, allegories and metaphors.Regarding the bible being a book one should not take literally: hmmmm. . . Have you researches this topic fully? I have, over 40 years, including. History degree from Harvard w extensive studies in ancient and biblical history. Part of the bible is alegory, part is poetry, part is philosophy, part is theology AND PART IS HISTORY. The history of the bible has NEVER been proven inaccuratePerfectly said, Jennifer.see now why i didn't even want to go there??No, I do not see why. Also you reveal a profound ignorance cncerning the bble, the king of ignorance of which you accuse me concerning evolution. Now, concerning rsear hing evolution and learning the"facts" supporting evolution: you might as well tell me to research the American culture so that i am qualified to debate it's issues. I have been pumped full to the point of over flow with the "facts" that "prove evolution all ofe my life and thoughout my school years. I have read books and listened to lectures by professors with multiple degrees in he sevral sciences that surround and include the theory of evolution, including micro and macro evolution, scientific statistics, asronomy, astrophyscs, sting theory, physics, etc. These have include those for and against evolution. Have you done all this research? Did you ever question, challenge or indepantly verify with scientfc scrutny all of the major assertions of your professors? Or did you just wallow it whole wihout a challenge?Science is full of challenges, that's the point of the peer reviewed research process. But bad misrepresentation of facts that you pick up on creationist web sites doesn't pass the muster, that's why you never read about it in scientific journals. It's simply made up to meet the agenda of a certain political-religious establishment, but has nothing to do with discovery through the scientific method.
However, you admit you do not see that, so what more can anyone do for you. I'll say it again (and again and again, if necessary) when science fraternizes with religious doctrine, just to satisfy the egos of people who need their truth to be the truth, then it's no longer science, it's garbage. Which is exactly what creationist "theory" is.Science is full of challenges? That sounds like a cop-out, an excuse. That sounds like special favor and allowances that you have chosen not to give to the evidence for God. Hmmm . . . That sounds like a certain lack of reason . . .don't be absurd. of course I have. And if you really had ( which I do not believe for a second) you wouldn't be making such statements as "We don't have any transitional life forms " which we do, in fact.Josh Mcdowell was a avowed atheist who set out to prove the absence of any god and write a book about it. He made it thrrough one chapter before he realized the evidence proved the existence of God. If you are not a coward, you will read that book to review all the evidence. God is gracious, merciful and extremely patient with us, waiting for us to acknowledge him and turn from our wicked ways through the only savior available: Jesus. However, he is also a raging fire of judgement and eternal, terrible, terrible punishment to those who stubborrnly refuse to return his love and providence with honor, obedience and love. You have reason to be terrifed of him. If you read Mcdowell's book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict and still refuse to accept there is a God, I will drop that subject with you. It is not a long book.Sorry about the typos, am typing on my phone.I see you have removed my comment giving you the cited information on transitional life forms from national geographic. How pathetic is that?oh, and well said Bob! Bravo!Now, let's just take off from here. They won't listen to reason which is why i didn't want to argue with them in the first place. They are just wasting your breath.Signing off,JenniferJennifer, you continue to show your arrogance. I do not have the access to remove any comments! Grow up!Jennifer, you still have not answered my question as to whether you believe this god in which you believe gave us the Bible.Jennifer,Are you afraid to answer my question?
First there is u,there is a mirror.the mirror fractures into infinite parts.betwen u and mirror parts u need a photon the holy angle
Huh? You do not make senxe Kuchroo.
The madness of men and women and their schemes to portray themselves as virtuous and godly is well documented by history. The Crusades, Inquisition, destruction of societies and cultures, were the results of this belief and the bodies of those who believed and opposed them litter the graveyards of humanity. The belief and truth invoked by creationists has no more moral authority than those who do not. Humanity has no more reason to follow such unproveable or unproductive systems of thought which in large part bear no responsibility for our existence.
Hello Rick,
Thank you for commenting on my article. I have a few things for you to consider.
1. Yes, there have been some people in history who used the Bible and the name of God to murder rob and rape. They clearly twisted the teaching of Jesus against his intentions. However, it is estimated that somewhere around 20 million poeple have been murdered over the last 2000 years by such people. In contrast, it is estimated that from 400 million to 700 millioni people have been murdered by strong supporters of the theory of evolution (atheists, communists, socialists and Nazis) in just that last 150 years! Without the theory of Evolution the genocides of China, Russia, German and all the other communist murders would not have had a philosophical basis (devoid of God) to justify them. Evolution was openly and actively used by these mass murders to justify their murders.
2. There is a massive amount of evidence to prove the Bible. Here is one simple example: The book of Daniel, which was carbon dated at 600 years before Cyrus of persia, names Cyrus, says what he will do and where he will go, including place names, and is accurate. This is not possible without the action of a God who stands outside of time. Another example is the nearly universal tradition among cultures around the world of a story of a great flood. Another is the miracles that God has worked through those who put their trust in Jesus. This has been happening for thousands of years and I have personally seen God perform such miracles through me, in my life and through others in the lives of others. These include instand healings of terrible burns, pneumonia gone instantly, cancer gone instantly and many more.
3. The testimony of history and reality from the Bible has never changed and within the books of the Bible it is consistent and unchanging. On the contrary, the testimony of history and reality provided us by Evolutionary scientists changes constantly and routinely they contradict themselves every few years. Their version of timelines and events is full of huge and glaring contradictions throughout the history of the theory of Evolution, not to mention the outright fraud I mentioned in my article.
3. Evolutionary scientists have been searching for fossil evidence to prove their theory for over 150 years. They have found tens of millions of fossils. Despite this, they have never found one fossil that shows the evolution from one species to another. It is such a big problem than more and more of them are shifting to a new version of Evolution in which such evolutionary transitions between species happened so suddenly and infrequently that not fossils survived. This sounds like the compulsive lyar on Saturday Night Live, always changing his story to fit the needs of his goals. "yeah, that it. Yeah, and then I became an astronaut and spent some time on the moon. . . :
Thank you for responding to my comments, however, I will now offer some things you may consider as well.
1. To assert that one's belief or God is somehow granted greater authority because it causes less harm is not a defense. When in fact, the reality is that the belief in God or Gods has led to untold deaths and other dire consequences. To assert that one's God is responsible for creation itself is to carry the burden of all faults, for in not doing so, it can not lay claim to all creation. Humanity has not created evolution or other philisophical ideologies, they are the product of creation, are they not?
2. The basis of the Bible's accuracy has been debated endlessly. My opinion of the Bible is that it is an accurate historical description of the Jewish people since it was written by Hebrews, but I do not accept that it is of a divine origin. It is a matter of historical record that the Jewish people changed their beliefs in God over generations just as other cultures beliefs changed over time. There are no factual of plausible records or evidence to support any of the so called miracles, or other events within the Bible that have not been explained through normal environmental phenomenon. Just as you claim that a massive flood is recorded in many different cultures and attributes this to the flood of the Bible. It can also be attributed to the well known fact that floods occur everywhere on this planet from time to time, and always have. There have also been numerous so called prophets and prophecies that have been documented, from both religious believers and non-believers from every culture, but they do not lay claim to creation.
3. The pursuit of knowledge has always been the primary drive for humanity. Evolutionary thought is not the be all-end all explanation for our existence. It will never be able to answer every question, no more than creationism can. What explanation does a creationist offer for the phenomenon that has now become known to all through science. An earthquake, volcano, hurricane, in the past was described as an act of God, a punishment, lacking any science or learning whatsoever. Modern science can predict them, warn of them, describe and explain them with facts rather than beliefs. Should humanity forego this learning and knowledge for the sake of creationism?
The folly of men, women, and thinkers of every kind is that they choose to think that only they have the answer. The mystery of the universe cannot be solved by humanity, for it is only a part of it, not the source of it. The greater part of all stories, tales, and fables, is to teach a person of the dangers of life, just as the Bilble does. The Pharoah Ramses II once said, "so it is written, so shall it be done".
Sorry, please see last comment first. Anything can be debated endlessly, regardless of whether it is valid and accurate or not. The fact that it has been debated does not speak to whether it is accurate.
Suppose I accept your assertion that the Jewish people changed their views on God over the centuries (although I am not sure exactly what kinds of changes you are referring to). What does that mean? As you get to know a person, your views on them change all the time. That does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you are getting to know them better.
I gave you one example of evidence that proves a miracle in the Bible. The Book of Daniel was carbon dated to 600 years before Cyrus of Persion. It named him, described in detail what he would do and where he would go. This cannot be explain by natural phenomena. Another example is when Joshua prayed that the sun would stand still. Do you know that all of the ancient calendars changed from 360 to 365 days after that event? Do you know that ancient writers refer to a moon of Mars that cannot be seen without a telescope because it is black? How did they know about it? Look into it. I suggest to you that there are gobs if data and facts proving the Bible of which you are not aware.
As to the flood, these cultures talk about a world wide flood in many, many cases. That does not happen periodically. These traditions also talk about one man and one woman surviving the flood and become the progenitors of the current human population of the earth. These flood traditions are not descriptions of normal, periodic flooding.
I do not understand your point here:
"There have also been numerous so called prophets and prophecies that have been documented, from both religious believers and non-believers from every culture, but they do not lay claim to creation."
Science does not preclude creationism. Also, just because science can observe visible, tangible, physical events that play a role in Earth quakes, etc., does not mean that God is not causing it. God is invisible unless he chooses to show himself, and thus science cannot measure him. Some of his actions are invisible and some are not. I have seen, as I mentioned before, with my own eyes impossible miracles, instantaneous.
One of the major problems with Evolutionary scientists is that many of them are bigots, narrow minded and refuse to even consider creationism. They ridicule anyone who suggests that there is a God and that he made everything we see. This they do despite the fact that they have never, ever suggested any concept that would explain where everything came from. The Big Bang theory does not suggestion where the original spot of energy came from. Science has never proven the Bible wrong or innacurate, however, science constantly proves itself wrong an innacurate and each time they adjust their timelines and assertions as to the facts of history and the universe. Humanity should not forego learning and knowledge for the sake of anything. In fact, most of the early scientists in Western culture were Bible-believers and many of the practicing Christians. They understood that all knowledge is revealed to man by God for his and our enjoyment. As to those who say only they have the answer, eithe there is a God or there is not. One who says there is a God cannot then say that they and those who say there is not a good are bother correct. . .
Rick,
Firstly, I want to comment on your attitude. It is excellent. So many people with your viewpoint love to ridicule people with my viewpoint. Thank you for your intellectual honesty and polite demeanor. It is refreshing.
I did not assert that anyone's belief in God is granted greater authority because it causes less harm. I merely stated that the alternative to belief in God by definition (as seen throughout history) brings catasrophic death and moral depravity. This is because without a just and moral God there is no reason for any single person or society to refrain from doing wrong. In fact, without a God, there is no right or wrong, merely what feels "good" to each individual which thinking has brought ruin to many a society and people.
To assert that one's God is responsible for creation is not to carry upon one's God's shoulders the burden of fault. If God is loving then he must, by necessity cxreate being with free will for anyone who does not allow others free will is not loving. Once free will is granted then each is free to choose right or wrong. Once someone chooses wrong there are consequences, terrible consequences. those consequences are not the fault of God, they are the fault of the one who does wrong. The God if the Bible (he is the only one who had done this) gave he most beloved son to die on the cross in order to save us from our sins. So, not only is he not responsible for the "faults", he has provided a way to be free from them. I agree that Humanity did not create the theory of Evolution. It came from evil angels who were once good but, having free will chose to do evil. However, humans, with wicked intent and purpose, did do their major part in the creation and dissemination of this theory which has been the primary source of so many mass murders. As I mentioned in my article, one of the primary supporters of Charles Darwin stated that one of the main reasons they supported his theory is because it provided them with the "freedom" to pursue their sexual proclivities. These are the same sexual proclivities without which there could not be a world wide aids epademic and without which close to 1/3 of Americans would not have a sexually transmitted disease.Thank you for you kind remarks and I too appreciate your tempered responses to a very controversial subject. The basis of this debate appears to be two-fold, A. Does a God exist, and B. What is the outcome for believing or not believing? In response I submit the following:
1.To claim that the lack of a belief in the God of the Bible or any God results in catastrophe is extremely speculative at best. The fact is that it has no bearing whatsoever on one’s life, other than when one uses it for their own purposes. For the most part, the large majorities of people do not claim to be fervent believers, or profess to be ardent zealots. They mostly live their lives without care or action of this or that belief. Nevertheless, they prosper or fail according to their acts, both individually and collectively. Both good and bad, right and wrong befall them with equal likelihood. Is this not so?
2.Free will is an issue of much contention. The extent to which this is a truth is full of peril. For example, you claim that God gives each person free will, and by this act shows his love. Yet, we know that this is not true to a large extent. By examining the human biology we know that our destiny and fate is controlled by many facets of our being. The discovery of DNA proves that our abilities and talents are predisposed in many ways. We like and dislike, we can run fast or we cannot, or throw a baseball farther than another, etc. We can be born with all kinds of illnesses, diseases, and the like. Does this mean that God has decided to harm us irrespective of our nature? All diseases have a cause, not because we engage in one activity or another. Aids, cancer, malaria, and other diseases are the result of bacteriological or viral actions that we have no control over, in other words we can be the cause or not the cause, yet they occur anyways. This is what I meant by laying claim to creation, if God created all things then he must be responsible for this as well. Also, if these diseases were individual and collective curses preordained by a God. They would certainly prove that we have no free will, which appears to contravene your own position. Consider if you will what it would be like if we had no free will and didn’t know it?
Perhaps, you could define what not having free will would be like?
3.Laying claim to the historical accuracy of a book written by a particular culture and saying that it is true in every way is also fraught with presumption. As I have said, I believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record of the Jewish experience in large part. Mostly because it was written by people of Hebrew ancestry. Thus I can find little reason why most of its facts wouldn’t be true. Alternatively, it is easy to understand that it would also be embellished and that many of its so called miracles and prophecies would appear legitimate because of its historical accurateness. Yet, to simply claim that it is of divine origin is not acceptable. If we were to accept this kind of thinking, then we would have to believe in thousands of different kinds of aliens, gods, and other deities. Science lacks this written historical record and must use other means such as tests to determine its reliability. Is this not so? Indeed, humanities legacy is wrought with mistakes and errors in the dissemination of facts and reporting of them. Every culture has rewritten its history in one way or another, embellished them, in the hopes of projecting a more powerful or acceptable image. Is the Hebrew race any less likely to have done this same act? I should think not.
4.It is not the belief in any particular God/Gods that consumes a person’s thoughts, but the fear that the belief will be imposed upon them. Not because they fear one act or another, but because every act can be interpreted any way a believer wishes. For in every good there is harm, and in every harm, there is good. Thus, we come full circle to what is important to every human being on this planet, benefits and consequences. Were humanity to remove the possibility of a further life, a heaven, from the tenets of religious belief, I should dare say that almost all religion would cease to exist. Should we remove the fear of ostracization, banishment, and other moral penalties for not believing, I would submit again that religion would cease to exist. Should we remove the possibility of exultance, and pomp, associated with these beliefs, again I submit it would cease to exist. For it is fear which drives the majority of men and women in their quest for absolution, and if this also were removed, I submit religion would cease to exist. But not only would this result in this outcome for religion, but also politics, and perhaps society itself.
Thank you for allowing my comments on your article.
Here is an interesting short video showing intelligent design in the butterfly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiRFftkTtSA&feature=player_embedded
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.