Saturday, January 20, 2007

Evolution Isn't Even Logical

"...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding... Oppositions of science falsely so-called." 1 Timothy 6:20
Introduction Logic is defined as being reasonable or having sound sense. Evolution is senseless. Evolution leaves a logical person shaking their head, saying, "They can't possibly believe this," yet it is taught so dogmatically as truth today. Science interests me. Evolution is not scientific. It is dogma based on theories (often contradictory) that can not be proven. Science is the study of knowledge based on facts and laws.
Let's rely upon resources of logic and make some observations:
1. The Big Bang
Do you believe your car is the result of an explosion in an automobile factory? If you took the thousands of parts of your car, lined them up in a building, blew the building up with TNT, do you believe when the dust cleared, they will have formed a nice, shiny, brand new, perfectly running automobile? Of course not! That is not reasonable. Do you believe your wristwatch is the result of an explosion in a watch factory? Impossible!
Evolutionists tell us that the first living cell was a result of a "Big Bang." George Gamow, chief spokesman of this concept, says that 5 to 15 billion years ago all matter in the universe was concentrated in a huge ball of primordial matter. When this starry circle reached a critical point, it suddenly exploded and 30 minutes later, the known universe had begun, life began, and the first cell was found. But consider the following:
What are the chances of a living cell to be formed by random processes? Dr. Harold Morowitz of Yale says it would require 239 individual protein molecules. The minimal number of amino acids in a protein molecule is 410. All these amino acids must form themselves into left-handed chains. This would be like flipping a coin 410 times and having it always come up heads! This would have to occur in the other 238 molecules also. So now the chances are 10 to the 29,345 power! It couldn't happen. A single living cell could not come about by chance!
2. Where Did All the People Go?
Evolutionists claim that man is one to 2 million years old. However pendulation expert Thomas R. Malthus discovered human populations have tended to increase geometrically with time. This means that if the time for the population to double itself is called T. Then starting with the initial population of 2 people, after T years there would be 4 people, after 2T years 8 people, after 3T years 16 people, etc. History has been consistent with this. During the time of Christ there were 300 million on earth. In 1650 there were 600 million. In 1850 there 1.2 billion. In 1950 there were 2.4 billion and in 1990 there were about 4.8 billion. This present population indicates that there have been 30 doublings (T) in history. This would carry us back to about 3500 B.C. which was the time of Noah's flood! Interesting.
If the first man appeared 1 million years ago as Evolutionists claim, and these conservative growth rates applied during that period, the world's population would be, at present, 10 with 27,000 zeroes after it. However, no more that 10 with 100 zeroes after it could be packed on the earth and that would be wall to wall people. Where have all these people gone? Shouldn't their bones have at least remained? Population statistics tell us the earth isn't that old.
3. After His Kind
In Genesis 1:12 and 1:21 God said the plants and animals were especially created to only have the ability to reproduce "after his kind." Evolution tells us that all living things evolved from the SAME cell. Today then, why can't a horse and a cow have off spring together? Or a chicken and a skunk? Or a human and a monkey? Simply because of the unchangeable law of Biogenesis, that like species reproduce ONLY after their own kind! But when did this start? Can the evolutionist tell us? Somewhere in their evolutionary process this law took effect. HOW? Logic tells us it has always been in effect, like God said.
4. The Silliest Chart in the World
In a science class you'll find a chart of 10 creatures taking a walk. The one on the right leading the way is modern man. Behind him are 9 manlike, apelike creatures. This is the "Evolution of Man" chart. I thought you might like to know how they came up with man's 9 "predecessors."
1. Neanderthal man. Discovered in Germany in 1856. The "find" consisted of a skull and several bones.
2. Peking man. Found in China in 1921. This "find" consisted of 30 skulls and 147 teeth. They strangely disappeared in 1941.
3. Nebraska man. This "man" was created from the finding of ONE tooth! This tooth was used to prove evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial." After the trial, however, it was discovered that this tooth belonged to an extinct pig!
4. Southern ape. Found in South Africa in 1924. The "find" was a skull.
5. Rama pithecus. Found in India in 1932. "Find" consisted of parts of a jaw and a handful of teeth.
6. East Africa man. Found in 1959 by Louis Leakey. Consisted of a skull cap and a few bone fragments.
7. Cro-Magnon man. Fragments of four skeletons found in 1868.
8. Java man. "Find" consisted of a single skull cap, thigh bone and 2 molar teeth.
9. Piltdown man. Found were a skull part and a few teeth, in 1912.
If someone gave you a jaw bone and a few teeth, could you draw a picture of what that person looked like and be so dogmatic about it that you would publish it as fact? The "Evolution of Man" chart is silly, not science.
A car and a watch are the designs of master designers and skilled craftsmen, not an explosion. Everybody believes that. However, the simplest living cell is thousands of times more complex than the most complex watch, ear or computer. Your body is made of trillions of these cells. Can a logical person believe that we are the result of some explosion billions of years ago? No, it is not sensible!
So how did we get here? The Bible declares, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God said, Let us MAKE man in our image ... so God CREATED man in his own image .... " Genesis 1:1,26-27.
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were NOT made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3.
Speaking of Jesus, John 1:3 says, "ALL things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."
Why evolution? The Bible tells us that "they did not like to God in their knowledge." People can hide behind this false theory from their personal accountability that they have to a Holy God that will judge them someday. It salves their conscience, but more and more the frivolity of this pseudo-science is being revealed and thinking people are discovering that it takes a lot LESS faith to believe in Creationism than it does in evolution.
by Art Kohl


Anonymous said...

Great post boys. The title of it alone is enough....well almost. :) LOL

I see you put the T4C radio on your blog. Good choice! LOL

Brother Randy told me today at bus ministry that y'all had requested it. :)


Anonymous said...

Interesting. Too bad there's not one thing correct about evolution. Not one.

Anonymous said...

Awesome Post.

Anonymous said...

This is a fantastic post!!! It just blow my mind how people can believe in anything but God being the creator!!!

The Good Reporters said...

Mrs. Kristi
Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, we put the T4C radio on our site. I've really enjoyed listening to it.

Chistopher o'brien,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.

Christopher Cline,
Glad that it was a blessing to you.

It is sad to see people that believe in evolution instead of Who the real Creator.

Anonymous said...

Actually, as a former atheist I can assure you that atheists who understand their worldview hate the big bang. That is because it describes a beginning, just as Genesis 1 does. If there was a beginning it must have been caused since matter does not spontaneously pop in and out of existence at option. If it was caused it must have been a personal cause based on clear evidence of design in the universe. The Christian should not view the big bang as an accident but as a highly controlled, highly complex creation event as evidenced by the incredibly precise characteristics of the expansion. The big bang is, in reality, the Christians best friend.

Anonymous said...

Even before I was a Christian, I had a hard time believing in evolution because it sounded "out there"! Now I see that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Creator!! Good job!

The Good Reporters said...

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to leave a comment on our blog. As a Christian, I do not view anything which occurs as an accident.... God is in control of all things and has a purpose for all things, even you taking the time to converse with me on my blog page. I am glad to hear that you are a former athiest, and I pray that you have found Jesus Christ as your Saviour.

Everything in our world points to a designer or creator.... why wouldn't the same be true for the creation of the world as we know it and all things that are in it? Why can't the evolutionists see this FACT? Thanks for your comment.

Anonymous said...

Oh please-you all need medicine. Why is it so hard to follow the theory of evolution when the fossil records show evolving species. If you don't believe that species evolve let me ask why is AIDS so hard to combat? Why do we now have bacteria that are not killed by the most powerful antibiotics? 'Cause god wanted it that way? Is god that narrow minded and spiteful? Is he out to kill weak children? Or maybe, just maybe the few bacteria that survived the first onslaught of antibiotics spawned a new and better bacteria? Could that be evolution?

Anonymous said...

That's bull. Your report is nothing but a biased veiw of your opinion. If you say that evolution is just nonsense, then post some factual proof that Bible is right. I'm just a religous as the rest of you but face it, you can't argue with facts.

If evolution was lie, then how do you explain the tailbone in humans? Surely god wouldn't but an obsolete part in are body like that. If god really created us in his image, I suppose he was probally sometype of mix of Oriental, Negro, Caucasian, and Latino then right? Oh no wait, all that came around because man EVOLVED to his surrondings.

If you gonnna claim your deoing a reporter or are reporters, do the world a break and maybe give both sides of the argument. I'm sure that this won't make it to your page but it was worth a try.

NoHayNada said...

Here are some place where to get more information:

Anonymous said...

Let's think this example of yours through... a bacteria develops into a stronger bacteria but is it not still called a bacteria??? First there is a bacteria, and still there is a bacteria....
Hmmmmmmm...... an example of evolution??? Not exactly....

Without that tailbone, many great thinkers would have no place to rest while they are in deep thought about how they know more than God.... :)

Anonymous said...

Dear Joshua and Caleb,

I want to thank you for your excellent post on evolution. I once considered myself to be an athiest, largely because I was deceived by the dirty ol' devil's story of evolution. I was taught evolution as a young man by crafty scientists and "teachers" and became blinded by Satan's lies. I believed that my ancestors were monkeys. It hardened my heart and I was unable to feel Jesus' love for me and kept me from truly seeing that it was the almighty Lord who created all things in heaven and on earth.

After years of wandering in the valley of sin and despair, kind and loving Christians, like yourselves, helped me to see the truth. They showed me that it's impossible for a watch just to come into existence. And if it's impossible for a relatively simple thing as a watch, then it must be impossible for something as complex as life. Life just can't self assemble over billions of years. My ancestors aren't monkeys at all. We were all created by the almighty Lard. I couldn't believe that I had been so deceived by science. It truly is a tool of Satan. I hope someday we can outlaw the teaching of evolution in our public schools. It's a shame that our public schools are tools for the dirty ol' devil to distribute his filthy lies.

May God bless you two wonderful boys.

Your friend in Christ

Dave said...

If an explosion occurs in a factory there is a slim chance that a car would come out of it.

But this is a 100% chance that SOMETHING would come out of it. It would be a bunch of scattered parts, which, when looked at objectively, is just as interesting a phenomenon as a car.

The problem you creationist folks have is you look at the end product and decide that that end product was always meant to be. The truth is you have to start at the beginning and work forward, not vice versa-- sure, there was an explosion at the car factory, and there may be a slim tiny tiny ridicuously improbably chance that a car could come out of it, but there is a 100% chance that SOMETHING, ANYTHING would come out of it. Objectively and logically, anything can come out of that explosion, and the results are just as reasonable as having a fully assembled car. You have to forget the end product, since the end product is just a coincidence amongst millions of other coincidences that didn't happen.

That is how evolution works. Humans evolved, and that's fine, but anything else could have evolved instead of us, dependent upon environmental factors of our earliest anscestors.

Dave said...

Without that tailbone, many great thinkers would have no place to rest while they are in deep thought about how they know more than God.... :)

That's very clever, but its not an actual retort, just humorous nonsense. Try again.

Dave said...

I sure hope that you're approving all of the comments that dispute your article. I mean, folks like you argue that all sides of an argument should be heard in public schools, no matter how absurd they are (ie. Kansas school board allowing creationism to be taught in science class) so I'm SURE you're going to make sure that every side of the evolution argument is heard on your forum of good news here.

NoHayNada said...

Question: "What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"

Answer: It is not the purpose of this article to present a scientific argument in the Creation vs. evolution debate. If you are looking for scientific arguments for Creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis -, and the Institute for Creation Research – The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the Creation vs. Evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen."

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to Whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the “religion” of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.


Unknown said...

I'm glad that there are good people like y'all perpetuating misunderstanding. Evolutionary theory is a completely separate theory than the big bang theory. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your post is riddled with inaccuracies, ones that have been pointed out and discussed ad nausiem on other websites. You can think that evolutionary theory threatens Christianity and its belief system, and post reactionary, un-researched nonsense such as this, but you are doing your cause a disservice.

When you post totally erroneous comments such as this, you give others the impression you 1. have no clue what you are talking about, and 2. have no interest in learning what is actually reality and what is not.

You would be better served to start a conversation with scientists that advocate evolutionary theory rather than throwing inflammatory rhetoric and false arguments at them. Perhaps you could learn something from them as to what precisely they believe and what the theory espouses, and they could learn something from you about what you believe. Posting this only increases tensions and raises walls, precluding any discourse from happening at all.

Jim said...

It appears that your post of an article written by Art Kohl the other day has caused your blog to be rather popular today... usually you average about 20 hits per day, but today.... approaching 1000. Congratulations... I am amazed how many commenters have believed that you were the author of the post... and so many have poked fun and expressed hateful comments regarding you and your blogsite; of course anonymously for the most part. I hope this has taught you a lesson about how the world views any opposing viewpoints.... especially those based on the Bible.... and especially if they have to acknowledge a God in Heaven... they know that if there is a God, then they will be judged for their actions.... and of course, they don't want to submit to any authority.... and want to experience the "anything goes" lifestyle. Many have no clue about God and His word.... they only know what man says about the Bible. Most are afraid to pick it up and read it for themselves... the Word of God is alive, and will soon prick their conscience... Again, this has been a valuble experience.... I am thankful for the interest this post has generated.... God had a purpose for this.... and many which came to your site will have an impression embedded in their minds that they will never forget. The seed has been planted.... Let's pray for those whom have visited today that they will find the Truth before it is too late.

Anonymous said...

Greetings, Joshua and Caleb!

After reading the article you posted and the vicious criticisms, I just want to thank you and encourage you for being lighthouses of God's truth. It takes courage to stand upon your convictions in the face of such hatred toward God.

Those who do not accept the Word of God as their authority have only name-calling to throw at us--fortunately, we have the Scriptures, God's truth.

In the Creator's name,

Jonathan Girotti

Anonymous said...

What's really strange is that you believe that the world was created by someone or something no smarter than yourself. And that you consider yourselves qualified to discount the work of hundreds of years of work by scientists much, much, much smarter than you (and your God, necessarily). You may want to upgrade your conception of God. Or downgrade your estimation of your own ability to reason. God Bless.

Anonymous said...

As mentioned before, there are so many inaccuracies in the explanation that I wouldn't know where to start. But it's funny to see people still advocating against evolution when medical science (particularly orthopaedics) is based on it, seeing that all human back problems come from the fact that we still have "design" features from 4-legged creatures (we are the only animals that continuously have their backs stretched in their outermost position by walking upright, which explains why we can take so little stress on it).

Also people are still advocating against the big bang (not that these two things have anything to do with each other) while the proof of it is literally all around us (the 2K heat radiation).

It's also funny to see how people who just WANT to believe the Bible word for word, look for "logical" or "scientific" proof of it and discard all proof of anything else. Calculating the start of humanity on the doubling frequency, lol, that assumes that the growth has always been the same as it is now (with our immensly increased life expectancy and medical care). But the fact that 2K radiation can be calculated as a remainder of the Big Bang and that the result of that happens to coincide with other estimates of the age of the universe, is discarded as "ah you can't be sure of that".

But all this talk about "if it's so complex and wonderful, it must be designed", only leads me to this simple question: If everything complex is designed by a higher power, who designed God?

Every creationist I ever asked this, answered: "Well, He's always been there". Riiight.. like THAT's logical.

Steve said...

OK, here's a question for all the "evolution is not true" people.

When you go to the doctor and she says "you need anti-biotics - but be sure to take the full course" do you know why that is and why you aren't given penicillin any more?

Because the bacteria have evolved...yes...evolved and become resistant to many anti-biotics.

You just watch avian flu. Right now people can only catch it from birds...but pretty soon it is also going to evolve (there's that word again" and it will spread from human to human.

I note that these comments are moderated, likely you won't even allow this one through because the logic is irrefutable.

Anonymous said...

Is this a joke? I certainly hope so. It is ridiculous to assume that anyone would believe this pile of rubbish. I am tremendously befuddled by this. This was either the work of a mastermind or the complete opposite.

There are just about no correct statements in this entire "article." The proportions are all tremendously skewed and not all factors are taken into account. The probabilities may seem slim, but one forgets how big the universe truly is. Also, the time line left me very confused.

This is like throwing rubber, metal and water together and calling it wood. Please forgive the haphazard way this message was thrown together, but my brain hurts after reading this drek.

As a scholar of the sciences I find this article a terrible piece of work. It is ironic that the author speaks of logic in such a way then turns around and throws it to the wind. Was the source of his information wikipedia? I am insulted by this. There are many great arguments for Christianity out there, but this is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

I believe in evolution and not in a higher deity; but I respect your right to believe what you want to believe.

However, I have issue with this statement:

"So now the chances are 10 to the 29,345 power! It couldn't happen. A single living cell could not come about by chance!"

In the first instance you acknowledge that the chance is non-zero and then say that because it is so small that it cannot happen. This is a fallacy. The odds of picking the winning numbers of a lottery are small, but people win the lottery despite these odds out of the sheer number of repetitions.

So, while the probability that the minimum number of molecules to form an amino acid is very small, this says nothing about how many big bangs we have ever had? Perhaps we're iteration 10^100 and this is the *first time life has been created? As soon as you demonstrate that there is the possibility, however small, of an event occuring then the event will SURELY occur given an infinite number of trials.

So, in order to defend your position you have to either say

1) an event has ZERO probability of occuring, or
2) there is a finite number of trials

you have conceeded 1) is not true but have not demonstrated that 2) is not true.

Christopher Cline said...

Amen Brother Jim.

Anonymous said...

Modern History Sourcebook:
Thomas Malthus:
Essay on Population, 1798:

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio...

In this famous work, Malthus posited his hypothesis that (unchecked) population growth always exceeds the growth of means of subsistence. Actual (checked) population growth is kept in line with food supply growth by "positive checks" (starvation, disease and the like, elevating the death rate) and "preventive checks" (i.e. postponement of marriage, etc. that keep down the birthrate), both of which are characterized by "misery and vice". Malthus's hypothesis implied that actual population always has a tendency to push above the food supply.

Note the word "unchecked". Note the word "checked".

Now note the scientific "proof" used to qualify the author of this blog's conclusion:

the time for the population to double itself is called T

During the time of Christ there were 300 million on earth

In 1650 there were 600 million people
Therefore T=~1600 years

In 1850 there 1.2 billion
I mean 200

In 1950 there were 2.4 billion
No, make that 100 years

In 1990 there were about 4.8 billion
Bugger! I meant 40! Please, believe me, I know what I'm doing! I've got an abacus!

How fantastic is that? T could be anything! Therefore, "the time for the population to double itself is..." variable. I therefore conclude, scientifically, that the author's point number 2 is complete bollocks.

Now, most people read through and blindly accept all that is written as fact. Others are so blind to obvious facts they see only what they want to, what they believe. This must surely hold true for many, if not most, of the readers who have taken time to post comments.

I would guess, though, that most readers read, had a laugh, and moved on, seeing as this article has been mentioned as good laughing-stock by a few other sites.

Anyhoo, the point I'm trying to make is this, Mr. Author. You can rant about whatever it is you want to believe, but you disqualify yourself by making preposterous claims supposedly based on science and instead based on fanaticism.

Shame on. You may have fooled at least half a dozen people. You should beg forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

Either you geninuely don't understand evolutionary science, or you're being deliberately disingenuous. I'm just not sure which.

Ozan said...

let's see:
first of all, your big bang metaphor is wrong. because big bang is not a explosion as we see in day to day life. explosion you descriped is simple classic physics system. big bang is a big quantum system as far as we know. there's some weird theories about more eairler stages of big bang.
secondly evolution does not say big bang was not the cause of evolution. big bang just explanes how universe came to this stage. evolution says that somehow a single cell happened then other livings envolved from this stage. so far fossils make sence in this theory.

if you start to talk about probability you have to take account of how much universe is big. it's very big and big numbers make highly imposible highy posible.

and don't forget to take account of fossilization change, too.

note: putting a sound into your blog was a bad desing idea. it's annoying. im was enjoying Echoes then some sound started to mix with Echoes both aren't understandable at all.

Anonymous said...

The problem with your logic argument is this: logic to you is something that is obvious to understand. If it is not obvious, it is not logical. By that definition, your computer does not exist either (unless it was instantaneously created by God). The nuances of how a microchip works are not inherently logical in a simplistic understanding of the word. Yet, here is your computer. Thank God scientists probed the world around them with theories and experients to the extent that they gained the understanding required to create such a device.

I personally see no inherent conflict between evolution and creationism. Remember that a day to God is an eon to you and me. If you allow that God can work on his own time schedule (and not yours), it is not even inconsistent with the Bible to think that God created evolution as his tool for putting life into the universe.

Your arguments are akin to a toddler's explanation as to why the next tissue pops up from the box. Since he cannot understand the mechanism, it must be God's work. Since you refuse to try to understand how evolution can work in creating life, you simply chalk it up to God in your narrow understanding of him- that he said Abracadabra and everything came to be.

Personally, I think the the concept of a God that can create a universe using a big bang and populate it using evolution is a far more impressive God than one that just poofs things into existence.

I would urge you to read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller (who is both Christian and a scientist). While the first part of his book constitutes rather clumsy assaults on both creationism and science, the unified argument he puts forth that God used science to create is compelling.

Please stop posting tripe like this, though. You make Christianity and Christians look ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Here's what God tells me is true:

The Bible is one of many ancient texts which survive due to the universal need to have simple, understandable answers to the complex questions of existence. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What comes next? What should we do? How should we live?

As a seminal work of the written word, the Old Testament represents an attempt to sum up the philosophy, law, anthropology, sociology, metaphysics, and more of a tradition that began with a group of largely illiterate Middle Eastern pastoralists and Evolved into a Different Thing as it was adopted and modified by pagan tribes of Europe.

Today's reader can plainly see that the Bible contains, among other things, transcendent wisdom, history, common sense, wishful thinking, and more than a little obsolete and dangerous superstition. It compares favorably with the Analects, Tao te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, and Classical philosophy, but ultimately it's no no more powerful or enlightening than any great classic work produced by human beings. If the Bible is God's word, than so is this.

Evolution is not a theory or a faith-based superstition - it is simply a set of methodically recorded, painstakingly correlated observations. It may not be the whole truth, as the questions of ontology and metaphysics are not necessarily knowable through simple reason (doesn't mean the Bible is better), but it is an accurate description of how characteristics are passed on through heredity and how they change over time under environmental pressure.

Here's the thing. Those who seek to dilute the teaching of science with religion should first give up the fruits of that teaching. With enough faith in God, religious people should have no need for sinful technologies - antibiotics, gene therapy, insulin, microwave ovens, etc. Is it not an affront to God to forsake His Love for the fruits of Godless science?

Sooner or later, if religious zealots force their hand, I fear that scientists will create nano-neurological bug fixes to eliminate it from the human psyche.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Scientific Crusades will be any better than the Christian ones, but for their sake I hope JHVH takes an interest in peptide-mosaic-specific shifting-antigen-neuro-ablative-vectors, cos I didn't see that in Leviticus.


Anonymous said...

God had a purpose for this.... and many which came to your site will have an impression embedded in their minds that they will never forget. The seed has been planted....

The only seeds that have been planted is bad, logically flawed arguments into the consciousness of people of faith. Some may have the belief that the arguments presented in this article are silver bullets that can defeat evolutionists-- but as I and so many here have already done, the arguments are demonstratably fallacious.

By insisting that religion follow the same rules as science, religions has nothing to gain. If this is how people of faith want to fight, then this is how evolutionists will respond. We have absolutely no choice but to respond by putting every aspect of your faith under a microscope-- scientific inquiry simply requires it.

And if you're going to complain that science is stifling alternate opinions in how the world was created, then that's fine. Find a science-based alternative to evolution, and we will enthusiastically debate the science of it. Unlike religion, the spirit of science is competing theories, of which there is none to the theory of evolution.

But please, calling evolutionists that have posted here "vicious" for taking your challenge to science to task... that's just not how scientific debate works. Don't play the game if you can't handle losing.

Max Wilder said...

Great stuff! Very funny! I love the part about blowing up a watch factory. Ha!

You really have those religious nuts pegged. They would totally believe this kind of lame analogy and poorly conceived leaps of logical fallacy.

"30 minutes..." hehe, classic.

To paraphrase your last line: "It takes a lot less THOUGHT to believe in Creationism than it does in evolution."

Keep up the great work, and I'll keep coming back for more laughs!

Anonymous said...

This makes me so happy that I don't live a sheltered life.

Anonymous said...

One of the funniest satire pieces I have read in a while.

Anonymous said...

This makes me thank God that I do have a sheltered life!! Thank God that I was brought up in a good godly home.

Very good post, Joshua!! Keep up the good work!!

Teacherbug said...

Great post! Coming from a public school background, I was bombarded with the the teaching that evolution was a fact...not a theory. I agree with Kate that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Evolutions have worked backwards to try to explsin themselves. Keep that light shining! God Bless!

Anonymous said...

I for one would be more then happy to take up faith of evolution as it looks along side the model creationism. As has been stated above, both are faith based systems. Yet one shines beyond the other when you look at all the facts.

Can I prove God? No. But I can give a scientific model based on Bible truths that will demolish the out dated model of evolution. If any would take the time to keep up with devoplments in the scientific world, one would know that evolution is falling apart as we speak. Links have been give already by others to start you on your education process and more can be given. I have no idea who the writer was of the work "The Good Reporters" posted that got a few people angry, other than the name given, but it is clear the writer is more to date then some of "no namers" reading out dated text books claiming to know it all. At the rate things are changing, and if our God does not return, within 20 years, evolution systems will be looked at as the biggest joke that has ever been pulled over in the West.

If evolution systems is all that the "no namers" know of, it is clear that they do not have a "better" education. Most home-schools and Christians schools will look at both models, for they have nothing to fear. This is not to be done in goverment controled schools. Why? The truth will always come to the top. Maybe if the "no namers" had been in a home-school they would know of the joke that evolution has become in the last 30 years

This would not be the place to take up such a task, but there are ways to do this, if one wishes to do so. I will check back to see if any are up to the task.

Stick to the truth "Good Reporters" matter what the world may say.

In Christ...Jimmy/James

Anonymous said...

For starters..Mr Abacus..please try this..


G=% growth rate

Based on evolution standard of uniformitarianism what is G?

Todays rate is 2% which is also the peek rate

After you do the math you will soon see the problem. Is evolution uniformitarianism right? Lets change the numbers that we know are right, in order that evolution will look better. If you reduce the growth rate to only 1/2% which would destory uniformitarianism, and go back to only 1,000,000 years, a rather small number going by evolution standards, you would have a population of over 10\2155 which is a higher number then all the electrons in the entire universe at 10\80.

Therefore I would also say..."Where are all the people"?

If we keep the number at the higher rate and move the years back to where you would like to see it, in order for evolution to have a chance to work, this will overload your abacus and you will also need 3-4 extra earths to hold the people.

Anonymous said...

I don't think evolution makes any sense either. If it were true everyone would be beautiful and straight because of NATURAL selection. If anyone really thinks evolution over, they should realize that it doesn't make any sense. Also I've read revelation and I realize that a lot of the things it said were going to happen are happening now such as the Pope declaring that every religion besides their own is a cult.

Anonymous said...

"Dear Joshua and Caleb,

I want to thank you for your excellent post on evolution. I once considered myself to be an athiest, largely because I was deceived by the dirty ol' devil's story of evolution. I was taught evolution as a young man by crafty scientists and "teachers" and became blinded by Satan's lies. I believed that my ancestors were monkeys. It hardened my heart and I was unable to feel Jesus' love for me and kept me from truly seeing that it was the almighty Lord who created all things in heaven and on earth.

After years of wandering in the valley of sin and despair, kind and loving Christians, like yourselves, helped me to see the truth. They showed me that it's impossible for a watch just to come into existence. And if it's impossible for a relatively simple thing as a watch, then it must be impossible for something as complex as life. Life just can't self assemble over billions of years. My ancestors aren't monkeys at all. We were all created by the almighty Lard. I couldn't believe that I had been so deceived by science. It truly is a tool of Satan. I hope someday we can outlaw the teaching of evolution in our public schools. It's a shame that our public schools are tools for the dirty ol' devil to distribute his filthy lies.

May God bless you two wonderful boys.

Your friend in Christ" You were never a atheist, agnostic, or skeptic. You have, and always have been, a sheep. I find it funny when fundamentalists try to use this to coerce people, pretending that they too were once free-thinkers. I guarantee this guy never was, it's so obvious its rather funny. Yes, evolution is the tool of the satan, so is rational thinking, secularism, requiring factual evidence, and common sense. Dont let your mind be corrupted!1!11!!11!!

Anonymous said...

What makes it even better is christians dont realize this is a satire.

Unknown said...

Thank you for this i needed some proof to talk to the kids at school:)

Anonymous said...

Great post! Evolution is not scientific, it's more like storytelling.

I read in a blog once that an evolutionist was puzzled as he couldn't understand why a Leopard would attack and then kill a Crocodile. He said, "that was not logical given the high risk."

Evolution has taken on the "logical" label because things looked more designed as they learn more about nature. They are basically in denial that a design can only be created by intelligence, and logic also comes from intelligence.

Nature has God written all over it...

Anonymous said...

Wow! You did a great job on explanaing this.
God bless

Anonymous said...

Who made god? Because if he wasn't made he couldn't exist right? And why does it have to be God that made our world? Maybe it was some other God. Think of it, if the possibility of God existing is true there's as much chance other Gods exist as well. I find it hard to believe matter was created out of nothing so that's still a puzzle for me, but why God?
That matter exists is weird alright, but...why...God?
Not believing in Evolution doesn't exactly mean God exists. If you don't believe Evolution, then why should you believe the bible?

Do you know the chance of winning the lottery? It's actually very, very small. But winners are chosen right? A MIRACLE.

The comparison of a car factory exploding and the creation of a car is lame because this only happened once and only in this time. If that car factory exploded million times and over millions of years, then how much has the probability increased? A lot indeed. Do you know of those identical twins where the one girl is black and the other white? The odds are a million to one, look it up if you'd like (not that hard with google). There's numerous examples of things happening that actually have very low odds. Against all odds, weird things actually DO happen.
These things happen because there are odds. How much chance is there of something being created out of thin air like God did? I'd say there's less chance because after all, all the things that did occur at least had the resources for it.

What would you describe handicap people are? They're mutations of nature, things happening against all odds. Just look at all those deformed Embryo's, how come they CAN exist? If DNA strands were copied exactly without errors and such mutations would never happen but as you see... Maybe God made stuff who knows, but as you can see... our procreation isn't waterproof at all, our children are actually different from us and all have their minor flaws on a microscale. After a million of years when all these flaws are pasted on to the next generation (genetics, I hope you do know that), doesn't evolution sound way more plausible? Btw, there wasn't a thing that pushed Evolution in the right direction, freaks of nature (like there are born now) happened but went extinct offcourse. It's all just huge luck, we just won the lottery that's been on for ages.

Riley said...

:) hey an example you can use is this one:

if you found a watch in the desert you would not just say "oh numbers must have come together to make this object" now would you, cause that seems pointless and very unscientific. if this statement seems pointless and unscientific then how come evolution/big bang theory isn't? there must have been an itelligent designer of the watch who made it for a purpose, same here the earth didnt just "come together" there must have been an intelligent designer who made it for a purpose!

I'm a Christian whos fired up for Christ!

Anonymous said...

I was going to use this for an essay in my logic class, but there's no mention of inductive or deductive reasoning for either side of the issue. There's plenty of simile and allegory, but not a lick of sound reasoning in the argument. It's deduced based on the validity of the bible. Which is fine, assuming the bible is true, but it is as fallible as any man written document. My point is, evolution starts with nothing more than observations, and draws conclusions based on those. Unbiased Inductive reasoning, where creationism discounts every other creation myth out there, in order to serve it's agenda (and key piece of evidence). Both sides are logical, but I consider Creationism the more fallible, simply because the authors of the bible had a good handle on the concept of allegory. It's still a great piece of literature, sure, but is it an absolute fact? Yeah, but only if you take it on faith.

Anonymous said...

This post would be a very convincing arguement if the portrayal of what science is, what evolution is, and how evolution works were accurate. Unfortunately, it is not. This post serves only to detract from the credibility of the author's knowledge of both science and evolution. This is a shame since it does nothing to support any arguement against evolution.

Anonymous said...

I am almost disgusted to be the same species as the person who wrote this. It's people like you who keep believing in non-sensible non-sense like the creation theory that slow us as a human race from bettering ourselves. You actually SLOW DOWN evolution.

Unknown said...

YES!!! Finally! Someone that believes what I believe! Go CREATION!

Anonymous said...

I had to stop reading your post to comment. I have not read through all the comments, but I am going to answer a few of the points you have brought up.

-The car analogy does not make one lick of sense.

-"Where did all the people go?" They died, of course, from natural causes, disease, and wars. What do you do with dead bodies? You bury them in a grave. Some cultures buried their dead in marshes, others cremated them, yet more placed their dead into boats and let them drift into the ocean. Then they decompose. Decomposition is the culprit here, not scientists who don't know what they are talking about.

I am so appalled that you have posed this on your blog. I urge you to research this topic in greater detail and present a better argument about your views on Evolution.

Believing in creationism is not a bad thing. Neither is evolution. God could have wanted the world to evolve this way. We don't truly know. Evolution is a theory, a way to understand how life was formed. So is creationism. It is a way to understand how life is formed.