- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
David
1:1 IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.
…
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the THIRD DAY.
THEN…
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
…
THEN…
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the FOURTH DAY.
If that doesn’t clearly imply the wrong order, then I’m afraid your logic eludes me.
If you are trying to make Genesis allegorical, then there is no way to tell whether the writer got it right or not.I have gone back to read your more recent posts, and can’t see anything in there that makes any more sense.
You equate Gen 1:1 to the Big Bang. The Earth was NOT produced from the Big Bang IN THE BEGINNING. It came about billions of years later.
Stuart
Quote You equate Gen 1:1 to the Big Bang. The Earth was NOT produced from the Big Bang IN THE BEGINNING. It came about billions of years later. Yes, but the matter, everything that makes up the universe was created then, in the beginning. That's what I've said over and over. The word “create” is different than the word “make” which was used later. Gen 1:1 doesn't say God was sitting there creating a blade of grass at a time. It says in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth, everything.
Then, it narrows in on the earth itself.The very fact that science has finally caught up with the very idea that the universe has a beginning should tell us something.
e=mc2
ISAIAH 40:26
““Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Who created these things? Why was there a beginning at all? What or who caused it? If there is an effect, then there is a cause. Isn't that a scientific principle? Isn't it a law? What existed before the universe to cause this “effect”? It would seem to have to be something or someone with lots of energy.
Interesting how Isaiah phrased the question of who created the stars, isn't it?
Again, the Bible isn't a science book. Yet, when it touches on science, somehow it's correct.
From the Bible itself, we know that the events in Genesis describe it as though it were being seen by an observer. So the order is correct. And again, genesis somehow got it correct.
As that geologist I quoted earlier said, if someone were to write it simply, they could do no better than the genesis account.
david
Hi David,
I'm sorry to tell you that I think your interpretation is so tortuous as to be ridiculous. Like the so-called prophesies, if you twist the vague statements enough they can be made to match modern-day events.
There is a clear order in which the Earth is discussed before the appearance of the sun. I still don't see how you can rearrange this.
++”Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Sound like science, doesn't it. Is this the new-age nonsense energy or the W=Fd energy?
Does Is 40:22 refer to a flat earth?
Is 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
Turn it upside down? how do you turn a sphere upside down? Especially when there is no such thing as up or down in space? Poetical or science?
Is 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Four corners? Sphere or square?
34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them,
The UNICORNS ??
As you are so keen on bible as fact, perhaps you can explain as Nick couldn't, how the Kiwi got from Mt. Ararat to Mt. Taranaki after the alleged flood.
Stuart
Stu God warns of the Man who is to wise in their own eyes. You can believe in what you want. To me you make no sense. What are you trying to do here convert people to your thinking? You are going to be very disappointed, because most members have a very strong Faith in God, which you will not understand with your to wise attitude that you have.
Nick has been on vacation and if He would be here He would respond to your Post.
Mrs.IM$TruthQuote (Stu @ Aug. 03 2007,18:36) Hi Kenrck ++”I did read where your scientist said that the humming bird evolve from a crocodile.
I'd like to see a reference if you can find one.
All living things share an ancestor species if you go back far enough. I think probably hummingbirds and crocodiles shared an ancestor a very long time ago.Stuart
A crock may have adapted to their environment but I CAN'T believe that they turned into a cute little humming bird and flew away!
Sure a wolf adapted into a dog but a wolf is a dog, much like a German shepherd and a tea cup poodle are related….Still dogs aren't they.
Wow and you people think Christians have blind faith?
You should take a step back and look at what you believe!
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2007,07:18) Hi David, I'm sorry to tell you that I think your interpretation is so tortuous as to be ridiculous. Like the so-called prophesies, if you twist the vague statements enough they can be made to match modern-day events.
There is a clear order in which the Earth is discussed before the appearance of the sun. I still don't see how you can rearrange this.
++”Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Sound like science, doesn't it. Is this the new-age nonsense energy or the W=Fd energy?
Does Is 40:22 refer to a flat earth?
Is 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
Turn it upside down? how do you turn a sphere upside down? Especially when there is no such thing as up or down in space? Poetical or science?
Is 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Four corners? Sphere or square?
34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them,
The UNICORNS ??
As you are so keen on bible as fact, perhaps you can explain as Nick couldn't, how the Kiwi got from Mt. Ararat to Mt. Taranaki after the alleged flood.
Stuart
Does Is 40:22 refer to a flat earth?Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth *upon the circle of the earth*, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
*CIRCLE OF THE EARTH…Gees!
“Is 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
*If you take the North pole and turn it to the South Pole then the North Pole is now the South Pole. It' turned upside-down from where it was…….Gees!
Is 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
*North is one corner, South is another corner, East is another corner, West is another corner. Hummm Let's see North is one, South is two, East is three, and West is four……..Gees!
YOU have never heard of the “four corners of the earth”?
34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them,
**YOU DON'T KNOW? A unicorn is a horse… HELLO! is anybody home? The unicorn ADAPTED and lost his horn
Quote Is 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. Turn it upside down? how do you turn a sphere upside down? Especially when there is no such thing as up or down in space? Poetical or science?
Like a bowl that is turned upside down, allowing all its contents to spill out, the land would be emptied of its human inhabitants.
This prophecy is fulfilled when Jerusalem and its temple are destroyed by the invading Babylonian armies under King Nebuchadnezzar and when the inhabitants of Judah are decimated by sword, famine, and pestilence. Most of the Jewish survivors are taken captive to Babylon, and the few left behind flee to Egypt. Thus the land of Judah is wrecked and completely depopulated.As kenrch points out, Is 40:22 mentions: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Some translate this “sphere.”)
Didn't many back then think that the earth was sitting on tortoises that were resting on an elephant?
The Bible says that God is “hanging the earth upon nothing;” (Job 26:7)Hmmm. Hanging the earth, a circle on nothing, apparently magically floating in nothing.
Again, just like the order of events in genesis that are somehow correct (from the standpoint of someone observing from earth) somehow these things are correct too, and when false ideas were rampant.
hmmm.
Quote 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them,
Unicorns? What translation are you using? The KJV or something?Why don't I just quote from the “scientists” of that same era. I guess all science would be wrong then, because some scientist back then were bad at science. Similarly, the KJV …. well, can you support the translation of “unicorns” here? Is that what the Hebrew word means?
Translators were long uncertain as to what animal was meant. The Greek Septuagint rendered re’em′ with the sense ‘of one horn,’ or unicorn.
The Latin Vulgate often translates it as “rhinoceros.” Other versions use ‘wild ox,’ ‘wild beasts,’ or ‘buffalo.’ Robert Young simply transliterates the Hebrew into English as “Reem,” basically leaving the reader in the dark.Modern scholars, though, have eliminated much confusion over the re’em′. Lexicographers Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner show that it means “wild oxen,” with the scientific identification Bos primigenius. This is a “subfamily of the large horned ungulate family.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains:
“Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re’em′. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but many modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’ (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em′.”
* * *
Quote Is 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Four corners? Sphere or square?
People today still say that they have gone “to the four corners of the earth,” and they don't mean it's square.
The Bible also speaks of “the extremity of the earth” (Ps 46:9), “the ends of the earth” (Ps 22:27), “the four extremities of the earth” (Isa 11:12), “the four corners of the earth,” and “the four winds of the earth” (Re 7:1). These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions “to the ends of the earth,” “to the four corners of the earth,” in the sense of embracing all the earth.—Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.
****************
Back to some things:THE WORD “DAY.”
The Lord’s DAY, judgement DAY, the DAY of Jehovah, in Noah’s DAY, etc. are uses of the word “day” which do not mean 24 hour periods.
Dictionaries tell us that one meaning of the word “day” is an “epoch” or “an era of existence or influence” such as: “in the day of the dinosaurs”; “in the days of the Roman Empire”; “in the days of sailing ships”; “he was a successful pianist in his day”
The things that happened in Genesis were certainly “an era of influence.” WE KNOW FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF IN THAT VERY ACCOUNT ITSELF that it isn’t referring to 24 hour days, because as I said a couple times already, all those days are then put together into one day, “in the day” that Jehovah made all those things. This is consistent with the use of the word day.
It isn’t consistent with people who wrongly assume what they want to, as many have done to discredit the Bible.Quote There is a clear order in which the Earth is discussed before the appearance of the sun. I still don't see how you can rearrange this. Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account.
A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
((In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ’ohr, light in a general sense; but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma·’ohr′, which refers to the source of light.))
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”
The record clear
ly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago?
Genesis 1:3 speaks of the creation of light on the first day. According to J. W. Watts’ translation, that verse reads: “Afterward God proceeded to say, ‘Let there be light’; and gradually light came into existence.” The translation by Benjamin Wills Newton gives the same picture of continuing development of a process once started: “And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].” (Brackets are Newton’s)
The light that penetrated to the surface gradually increased in intensity, and the process proceeded on into the future.
The first day did not complete the “creation” of light with respect to the earth. The sources of it, of course, existed before that first day but were invisible from the surface of the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
The first day saw only the penetration of diffused light to the surface of the earth, made possible by the thinning of obscuring layers that enveloped the earth like ‘swaddling bands.’ (Job 38:9) Illumination at the surface gradually increased with the thinning of the interfering layers.
On the second creative day, God caused a separation to develop between the waters on the surface of the earth and those above it, leaving an expanse, or atmosphere, between the waters above and the waters below. As Genesis 1:6, 7, Watts’ translation, expresses it: “Then God continued, saying, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, also let there be a separation between the waters.’ Accordingly, God proceeded to divide the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and gradually it came to be so.”
Just as day one saw the first appearance of light at the earth’s surface but not its final state, so day two saw the start of the expanse. The completed state was not immediately reached
Genesis 1:9, 11, Watts’ translation, says concerning day three: “Then God continued, saying, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear’; and gradually it came to be so. Then God continued, saying, ‘Let the earth produce grass, herbs yielding seed, fruit-trees which have their seed in them bearing fruit according to their kind upon the earth’; and gradually it came to be so.” (Italics ours.) The use of the word “gradually” indicates progressive creative activity, as opposed to a single event at a single point in the stream of time.
Day four saw dramatic changes: “Then God continued, saying, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night, and they shall be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. Also they shall be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth’; and gradually it came to be so. Accordingly God proceeded to make the two great lights, the greater light as a ruler of the day, and the lesser light as a ruler of the night, likewise the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16, Watts
Now, for the first time, more concentrated sunlight reached the surface of the earth. The sources of light—sun and moon and stars—could be seen from the surface of the earth.
To repeat, in the account of the first creative day, the Hebrew word for light is ’ohr, light in a general sense; but on day four, it is ma·’ohr′, meaning the source of the light.Day five was characterized by the creation of forms of life that live in the water, apparently including great aquatic reptiles. The Genesis record reads: “And God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.” (Genesis 1:20, 21) This, then, was also the period when flying creatures began to be brought into existence. The creation of “every winged flying creature according to its kind” continued after the opening of that creative period during the fifth day.
Genesis 2:19 seems to point to progressive creation involving flying creatures, for it states: “Yahweh God continued to form from the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heavens and to bring them to the man to see what he would call them.”—Watts
Thus the Bible record of Genesis chapter 1 indicates that broad categories of plant and animal life began to be created by God when the earth had been brought to a stage of development suitable for a given type of creature life. The filling of these broad categories with many individual kinds of life, such as “flying creatures,” was a progressive, ongoing activity of God. This ongoing divine activity may have continued beyond the end of the creative day on which it commenced.
The geologic record is incomplete and subject to interpretation according to the theoretical leanings of those seeking to unravel it.
The Bible is consistently accurate when it touches on scientific matters, including the order of creation.david
Quote Who created these things? Why was there a beginning at all? What or who caused it? If there is an effect, then there is a cause. Isn't that a scientific principle? Isn't it a law? What existed before the universe to cause this “effect”? It would seem to have to be something or someone with lots of energy. Stu, Wasn't it less than a hundred years ago that scientists began to think that maybe the universe had a beginning?
Gen 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens…
Science is always changing, replacing old theories with better ones. At one time, scientists could point to these very first words of the Bible and say: The Bible is wrong. Well, THEY were wrong. They were all wrong.
It turns out the universe did have a beginning.And at one time, the greatests scientific minds (albeit limited at the time) could not picture the earth “hanging on nothing” as the Bible states. That would be crazy. If it was just floating there, it would colide with other things, shoot off into the sun. Once better scientic thinking came into play, it turned out the earth was in fact not attached to any elephants, etc.
A great amount of energy goes into the smallest amount of matter. There is a lot of matter in the universe. A lot of energy. I just find it interesting that these two things are linked in the Bible, as I pointed out before.
Quote As you are so keen on bible as fact, perhaps you can explain as Nick couldn't, how the Kiwi got from Mt. Ararat to Mt. Taranaki after the alleged flood. Let's let scientists (oceanographers) help us answer this one.
The findings of oceanographers indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land areas.
For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean.
Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles.
If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands.
david
Quote It is not obvious to me that “intelligence designed and made the universe”. What is obvious is that humans have an evolutionary advantage in looking for and finding patterns, even when there are no real patterns to be found. Yes, putting human skulls on chimp skeletons and putting them in museums for 7 decades. It is true that people look for patterns and even that they sometimes see what they want to see.
That's why it's so important we look at what the bible actually says and compare it to what science has actually proven as fact, rather than how some have interpretted the Bible and comparing this to science theories of today.
I have a question Stu.
What would you say to the scientists, those who specialize in one field (maybe they've studied bird wings for their whole life, or the human mind, or the eyeball) and see what they consider to be design and attribute that design to a designer. What would you say to them, the scientists that are on the fence?
Quote You don't need much more that gravity to explain the arrangement of bodies in space. Aren't the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong neucler force and weak neucler force) so precisely finely tuned.
What if any of these forces were .001% stronger or weaker. Could the universe even exist? Could any universe exist? It almost seems like those numbers were chosen. Like those were the only numbers that could ever work.
The “law” of gravity, who wrote that law? Everything in the universe is made up of math. All the bits that science studies, they keep looking for the smallest bit. What they find isn't stuff. It's energy and math. Who devised these calculations? Who provided the energy, the abundance of energy?
The Bible answers.Quote All fossils are transitional forms. Even if we had no fossils at all, the evidence written in modern DNA provides all you need to show common ancestry. I've notice you said this “all fossils are transitional forms” a few times.
We have fossil 1 which looks nothing like fossil 8.
Fossil 1 seems to be an entirely different kind of creature than 8.
So, when we say this, what we mean is that we're wanting to see the actual transition, the numbers between 1 and 8. Yes, you can say that 8 is a transition between 1 and 9. But that is not any kind of proof of anything.
And the DNA, the common ansestry you speak of.
All of Da Vinci's works have a certain feel. Picasso's a completely different feel, and look.
If God created these things, would they not all have his stamp on them?Quote Why does there HAVE to be a designer?? I could stare at the house on the other side of the street and ask the same question. It's quite possible that if there were billions of years of time everything possible would happen right? That house across the street would come together in just that way, as though designed, and yet, by accident.
The answer to the question: does design require a designer is, “of course.”
HEBREWS 3:4
“Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”We can take the simplest of things. Take a meat grinder made up of 15 parts. Take it apart and set it in a bathtub. Now, shake that bathtube for 100 billion years. Will you have a meat grinder?
No. You'll have a wrecked tub, and metal shavings everywhere.
Things that have design tend to have designers.
You may look at the same meat grinder and say, I see no design. It happened by chance. Well, I see design, even in very very simple thing.
Quote E.g., saying that DNA of an ape is mostly similar to a human and therefore deriving that we came from Apes is still imagination. You could also argue equally that it only proves that the ape and humans came from the same programmer. All programmers reuse code and even this page you are looking at is just code with a HTML interpreter to make sense of it. (Go to the view menu and click on source to see the genetical makeup of this webpage). I am a web developer by trade and I could for example create 2 completely looking websites but could use say 50% of the same code. I don't need to reinvent the wheel each time do I?
This is the point I was trying to make. T8 made it better. If I make a bunch of paintings, they are going to look different than if you made a bunch of paintings. since it is all from God, it should all have some similariites.
The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are
(1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and
(2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life.
(3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that
(4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter
(5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves.Are these steps in accord with the available facts?
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”6Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: : “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
–The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.
However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: : “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”
–The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”
–The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”
–Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”
–Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!
How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”
–The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule?
It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 to the 113 . But any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10 to the 113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 to the 40,000 “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
–Evolution From Space, p. 24.However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”
–New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.More difficult to obtain than these are nucle
otides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20 to the 100—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.”
–Evolution From Space, p. 27.Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”
–The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66.This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”
–Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73.In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable?
A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”
–The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”
–Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”
–New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151.And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”
–Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 71.Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
An additional hurdle for evolutionary theory now arises. Somewhere along the line the primitive cell had to devise something that revolutionized life on earth—photosynthesis. This process, by which plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, is not yet completely understood by scientists. It is, as biologist F. W. Went states, “a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube.”
–The Plants, by Frits W. Went, 1963, p. 60.Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it.
This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?
A lot of these numbers make evolutionary thinking seem to be a fairy tale, based on impossibly complicated scenerios that mathematically, just can't happen.
To say that a car is designed but a human isn't is like comparing a grain of sand to the universe itself. A car is nothing in complexity compared to a human.
I have a question Stu.
Hi David
Starting with your question:
++”What would you say to the scientists, those who specialize in one field (maybe they've studied bird wings for their whole life, or the human mind, or the eyeball) and see what they consider to be design and attribute that design to a designer. What would you say to them, the scientists that are on the fence?
Three questions for such a person:
1. What evidence do you have of the act of designing?
2. Can you explain the scientific view of how the eye evolved?
3. What makes you think that 96% of your colleagues are wrong?The reason for question 1 is obvious. There is no evidence whatsoever of any designer. To postulate a designer is to add an unneccessary imaginary being that itself then needs explaining.
Number 2 exludes the possiblity of sheer ignorance. I have met quite a few creationists in my time but never one who could actually explain in objective terms the theory of evolution by natural selection, let alone give any scientifically credible counter-argument to it. I'm afraid at this stage David, I still consider you to be in this camp. At least you're trying!
No.3 makes no point at all, but it is a great wind-up.Stuart
Hi IM4Truth
++”Stu God warns of the Man who is to wise in their own eyes. You can believe in what you want. To me you make no sense. What are you trying to do here convert people to your thinking? You are going to be very disappointed, because most members have a very strong Faith in God, which you will not understand with your to wise attitude that you have.
Nick has been on vacation and if He would be here He would respond to your Post.I have already asked Nick about this and he said, with full honesty, that he didn’t know.
I’m sorry that I make no sense, that is my failing. I’m sorry too that you do not like my attitude. I care about the truth. Too few people know what it is that they reject when it comes to the origins of the universe and life.
Is the warning you received about wise guys not perhaps intended to discourage you from thinking about things for yourself? Religious groups often immunise their members against dissent.Stuart
Hi again Kenck
++”A crock may have adapted to their environment but I CAN'T believe that they turned into a cute little humming bird and flew away!
Neither can I!
++”Sure a wolf adapted into a dog but a wolf is a dog, much like a German shepherd and a tea cup poodle are related….Still dogs aren't they.
Yes, but the right way round, dogs are subspecies of wolves.
++”Wow and you people think Christians have blind faith?
Yes. That's what the bible tells them to do.
++”You should take a step back and look at what you believe!
You've got to be careful steping back to look at these things. You might trip over a creationist lie or two.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
