if not evolution

[Autodidact]

The Bible Versus Evolution

To get the issue between creation and evolution in clear focus, we must strip away the fuzzy shroud of dogma carried over from 17th-century religion. Then let us compare, point by point, what the Bible says with what evolutionists teach and see which agrees with established facts.

First, the Bible says that God is the source of life. (Ps. 36:9) Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.

Secondly, the Bible says that every living thing brings forth its own kind of offspring. (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) Neither the evidence from paleontology nor experiments in breeding or mutation have ever been shown to refute this principle. Fossil remains from ancient geologic strata of species that are still alive are identical with present-day forms. Wide diversity within a given kind may appear both in nature and in breeding experiments, but in no case does it ever pass beyond the limits to produce a new kind.

Thirdly, with respect to man the Bible discloses the time of his beginning, about 6,000 years ago. (Plants and animals have been here much longer.) With this date history and archaeology are in close agreement. Claims for older human fossils by evolutionists are subject to dispute and do not disprove the Bible record.

Truth of Creation Vindicated

What, then, is the Bible-based position in this controversy?

The fact of creation is clearly stated in the Bible. It is in harmony with scientific evidence found in astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and biology.

The theory of evolution is directly contrary to the Bible. It has failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the facts of paleontology and biology.

The Bible does not set the time of creation of “the heavens and the earth.” The creationists’ position on this is not supported by the Bible, and their theories conflict with the facts of astronomy, physics and geology.

The Christian’s faith in the Genesis account of creation stands firm, unperturbed by current religious-scientific squabbles. That faith is based on “the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) Above all, it is backed by the testimony of Jesus Christ: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Further, in the revelation, which God gave him, we read: “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”—Matthew 19:4, 5; Revelation 4:11; 1:1.

Plagiarism is against the law and forum rules. Stop, or I will report you.

 

[Autodidact]

Proofs of the existence of “the living God.” The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. In looking into what might be called the Book of Divine Creation, scientists learn much. One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.

In contrast to the lifeless gods of the nations, Jehovah is “the living God.” (Jer 10:10; 2Co 6:16) Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1) Men have no reason or excuse for denying God, because “what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—Ro 1:18-20.

Jehovah God is described in the Bible as living from time indefinite to time indefinite, forever (Ps 90:2, 4; Re 10:6), and as being the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only true God. (1Ti 1:17) There existed no god before him.—Isa 43:10, 11.

I'm so exhausted by confused creationists derailing these threads. Please take this conversation to the appropriate forum. Thank you.

 

[Nepenthe]

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

The dreaded quote mining! Like most creationist Yodh is not exactly telling the truth here. Anyway, as has been pointed out already, Yodh's posts are copy/pastes from Jehovah's Witness literature. As for the rest of the Jastrow quote though:​

"But while scientists must accept the possibility that life may be an improbable event, they have some tentative reasons for thinking that its appearance on earthlike planets is, in fact, fairly commonplace. These reasons do not constitute proof, but they are suggestive. Laboratory experiments show that certain molecules, which are the building blocks of living matter, are formed in great abundance under conditions resembling those on the earth four billion years ago, when it was a young planet. Furthermore, those molecular building blocks of life appear in living organisms today in just about the same relative amounts with which they appear in the laboratory experiments. It is as if nature, in fashioning the first forms of life, used the ingredients at hand and in just the proportions in which they were present."​

Jastrow is not defending creationism.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

Eiseley is referring to the origin of life of which he found its emergence on Earth puzzling but supported variations of a panspermia like concept. He rejected creationism and intelligent design and accepted the overwhelming evidence for evolution. He has also been compared to Thoreau in that he used poetic metaphors to describe science and unfortunately this type of prose lends itself to creationists misinterpreting his intent.

"Somewhere, somehow, sometime, in the mysterious chemistry of carbon, the long march toward the talking animal had begun."​

“Still, in your formless shiftings, the you remains: the sliding particles, the juices, the transformations are working in an exquisitely patterned rhythm which has no other purpose than your preservation—you, the entity, the ameboid being whose substance contains the unfathomable future. Even so does every man come upward from the waters of his birth.”​

Eiseley is clearly supporting evolution while waxing poetically about abiogenesis.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Unfairly and deceptively edited quote mining from Michael Ruse in New Scientist from vol. 90, the June 25th 1981 issue (you can Google search the publication for the quotes). Ruse attempts to reconcile religion with evolution but he's certainly no creationist and he's criticizing the quotes when read in context.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Lipson clarifies his stance later on in "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337:

"Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."​

Anyway, he's a phycisist who had problems with theories on the origin of life and while he did sneeringly refer to evolution as a religion, he did accept it but questioned abiogenesis.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

please, if not evolution, are you saying a fully formed man/woman/baby just appeared from nothing??.like a Star Trek energizer???.what is the creationists theory..specifics please...

In order for it to appear it needed to be seen by something.

 

[BIG D]

In order for it to appear it needed to be seen by something.

but the tree still falls

 

[Wotan]

As Auto' just pointed out this has been explained again and again... posts like yours are why discussing evolution with a large majority of creationists is a waste of time. Forums with posters like MoF means debating them is like being in an orgy with eunuchs- some participants just aren't equipped with the necessary equipment to participate.

That's neat. Can I steal that line?