I came across your website while surfing and I found it
to be very interesting. As an author of Sci fi and a Christian I too had many
questions. The other day I found a series of articles supporting evolution. I
wrote the author and to my surprise he responded. He explained his viewpoint and
then proceeded to call me stupid for believing in God and creation. There was
never any meaningful dialog that I had hoped for. I have spent a lot of time
reading the articles written about theistic evolution and
basically theistic evolution states that God is in charge of the biological
process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms
over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict
between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. Frankly I have a problem with
that statement. God is in charge of the biological process; in fact God is in
charge of the whole process. There is the age old question many have asked, what
came first, the chicken or the egg. I think when that question is asked, it’s
like saying he put the horse before the cart. What I'm trying to say is this, in
my view theistic evolution is nothing more than a compromise with Darwinian
evolution, compromising with the world view brings about failure and I believe
is also degrades who we believe God is. So let’s start at the beginning as I see
it. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" In the first
sentence that Moses penned he used the Hebrew word "(beginning - re'shiyth"
meaning the first in place, time, order of rank (specifically first fruit) the
second word he used was God or the Hebrew word elohiym. Now here we get into
multiple meanings. Elohiym is the plural of el-o'-ah which comes from el, or
almighty. Under the meanings of elohiym we see "the supreme God and occasionally
applied by way of deference to magistrates. The next word that is used is
heavens, or the Hebrew word shaw-meh. This word comes from an unused root
meaning to be lofty. Alluding to the visible sky as well as where the celestial
bodies revolve. The Next word is created. Moses used the Hebrew word bara which
means to create, to cut down a piece of wood or to select, to choose, to do or
to make. The last word Moses used was earth or the Hebrew word eh'-rets which is
from an unused root meaning to be firm. Translation - The first place, the first
time, the first fruits of The might one, the supreme God and magistrate choose
to create the sky, all the celestial bodies that revolve, and a place that is
firm. Along with all that is in the universe God created earth.
You
probably are asking why go to all this trouble to translate, we already know
what it says. And that is where the problem lies. We have read it so much we've
lost sight of the real meaning. question, what did God say when he had finished
creating? In Genesis 1:31 He says
"God saw all that he had made, and it
was very good."
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now let me ask you a question, How is it stated. Moses made a statement and
ended it with a period. Meaning the creation was complete.
Now let me ask
you another question, when God creates does he leave anything unfinished. God
said that everything he created was good. But look how Moses starts out in the
second sentence.
"And the earth was without form and void" Now some would
say this is a form of foreshadowing and that in verse two Moses goes on to
explain how creation took place. However I disagree.
Moses uses the word
"tohuw" it’s from an unused root meaning waste. What happened between verse one
and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. Now, let me ask you this
question. If God created the heavens and the earth, did he create something that
was worthless or a desolate place? I think the answer is no, what God creates is
perfect. When we look out at the universe what do we see? We see order, but we
also see destruction. We see lifeless worlds, we see asteroid belts. Here on
earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where
giant asteroids hit. Jesus said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Think on this for a moment. How old is God? He is timeless. What has he been
doing the whole while he has been around? I believe he has always been in the
mode of creating. So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the
dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as
taught by science. Satan wanted to be like God and when he tried to take over
the thrown in heaven - because it does state that in Isaiah - Satan was cast
out, however he did not go without a fight. Answer this question, what did he do
in the garden? He destroyed God's most exalted creation - man - because in all
of creation the created was spoke into existence, with man he was created by the
hand of God and then God breathed into man the breath of HIS life. All of who
God is was breathed into man, which is why woman was taken from man and not
created separately. Satan's revenge on God... he destroyed what God loved. Think
about this - The universe has been around since the beginning. When Satan fell
he destroyed all that God made. Verse two in Genesis tells us that. In verse two
God Re-created JUST earth. Why - I don't know, but I believe it has something to
do with proving to Satan just how wrong he was. In my mind there's no such thing
as theistic evolution. God recreated the earth in six days. So now that we've
covered the theological part, we'll cover scientific facts.
Darwin stated
that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over
time. While Darwin 's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary
worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as
Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the
evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something
new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so
years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly
complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the
microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote,
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than
10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing
thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made
up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than
any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living
world."
We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We
have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing
came into existence. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time
became more complex, yet when we explore the miniature we find the smaller we go
the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were
self procreating. But just the fact that male and female was created to bring
forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existence through chance
and fit so perfectly?
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists
base their beliefs on are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a
Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote,
"evolution
became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it,
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say
if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same
plane as those that believe in a divine creation?
Every machine (life
form) must have a certain number of parts to function. Take away one of those
parts and it ceases to be. Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to
carry out the function necessary for life. The E.coli has about 4,639,221
nucleotide base pairs which code for 4,288 genes. Chlamydia and Rickettsia are
the smallest living things known. Even so these two forms of life still require
millions of atomic parts. If I had a good mathematician here I'd have him figure
the odds of just these two coming together in just the right sequence.
I
think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his
theory of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe
was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me
wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be
flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. The problem for
evolution as I see it is caused by the enormous complexity required for life and
none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory. If you are
not familiar with Dr. Lee M. Spetner, he is a biophysicist, author, and critic
of Neo-Darwinism but not against evolution in a more general sense. He received
his PhD in physics from MIT in 1950. You need to read his book "Not By Chance!
It blows evolution out of the water. Another problem I have is this, that even
if all the parts that were needed to create life, these many parts could not
just sit around and wait for the other parts to evolve because the existing ones
would most likely deteriorate from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and
the action of bacteria or other pathogens. The only way it could have happened
is through instanteous creation. In all of my reading I have yet to find any
compelling evidence presented to disprove creation, where on the other hand
there's a whole lot of evidence to prove creation such as the discovery that
most nucleotides degrade fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on
the earth when it was young. which brings me to the conclusion that the half
lives of many of the basic building blocks of life are too short to allow for
the adequate accumulation of these compounds? To quote Levy and Miller -
Therefore unless the origin of life took place extremely fast, less than a 100
years...a high temperature origin of life cannot involve adenine. Adenine is one
of the most important organic molecules for life as we know it today. It is an
integral part of DNA, RNA, and ATP. DNA, as you might know, is the genetic code
used for cellular life on earth. It is through the precise inheritance of on
organism's DNA from its parent that the traits of an organism are passed
on.
Uracil is a colorless, crystalline organic compound of the pyrimidine
family that occurs as a component of ribonucleic acid RNA a molecule involved in
the transmission of hereditary characteristics. The RNA molecule consists of a
sequence of nucleotides, each containing a five-carbon sugar (ribose), a
phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base.
Guanine is
one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA; the
others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and Uracil. With the formula C5H5N5O,
guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole
ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic
molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.
I think
this finding is a setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature origin of
life is the only feasible model. With that being said it brings me to another
theory called abiogenesis. It is the formation of life from non-living matter.
Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such
as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most
probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but
self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being
scientifically tested.
In the book, “Origins Creation Or Evolution” the
author has calculated the odds this way Let¹s consider some factors that are
involved in probability. If you recall, we said that all proteins (remember
enzymes are proteins) require left handed amino acids. Now, using this fact of
life science lets try using probability theory. (Calculations submitted by Dr.
Monty Kester) (doing the calculations)
1. What is the probability of
forming one left handed (L), 400-amino-acid protein, from a normal 50% mixture
of right handed (D) and left handed (L) forms?
(A) The probability of each
linking is 1/2
(B) If we deduct a fair share of glycine, say 20, then the
probability would be 1/2 X 1/2 X ...380 times (400 - 20) = ...1/ 10^114
(incidentally, you must convert to logarithms)
2. What is the probability
of 124 such proteins, the number needed for the simplest possible
self-replicating system forming? 1/10^114 (probability of one protein forming)
1/10^114 X 1/10^114...124 times = 1/(10^114)^124 = 1/10^14,136
3. What is
the probability of 124 all (L), 400-amino-acids protein forming, if there is a
99% surety that (L) will preferentially link to a (L)?
(A) The probability
of each (L) left handed amino acid linking is ...99/100
(B) The probability
of 380 (400-20 glycine) L - amino acids linking in succession is: .99 X .99 X
.99 X ...380 times + >99^380 = 1/10^1.7
(C) The probability of 124
proteins forming is: 1/10^1.7 X 1/10^1.7 .....124 times = 1/(10^1.7)^124 =
...1/10^210 When we consider the facts related to these numbers we can easily
see that the random chance of evolutionary theory will not likely be useful.
Consider what those numbers mean in general comparisons:
(1) Age of
universe (evolutionary assumption) in seconds = 10^18
(2) Diameter of the
universe in inches = 10^28
(3) Diameter of the universe in A (angstroms) = 4
X 10^37
(4) Mass of milky way in grams = 3 X 10^44
( 5) Number of atoms
in the universe = 5 X 10^78 Physicists conclude that events whose probabilities
are extremely small *never occur* ( 1 chance in 10^15).
Think about this:
A scientist can sequence (put together) 124 proteins in a matter of hours, This
shows the need for intelligence behind design.
ref 4 Sir Fred Hoyle
calculated the odds of 2000 different enzymes which are needed- and each one
tailored made to do a particular chemical as 1in 10^40,000
ref 5 In the
book It couldn’t just happen you¹ll read that, A professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology has estimated that all the protein molecules that have
ever existed on earth is only 10 followed by 52 zeros. This means there is no
real chance at all that even one protein with all left handed amino acids could
ever have *just Happened* to come into existence. The book also notes, What is
the probability of an amino acid chain 400 units long happening by chance? The
answer is on chance in ten followed by 240 zeros!
So now that we have
the math, what about what evolutionists have to say. I've taken quotes from
several.
1. "The 'RNA world' hypothesis proposes that early life
developed by making use of RNA molecules, rather than proteins, to catalyses the
synthesis of important biological molecules. It is thought, however, that the
nucleotides constituting RNA were scarce on early Earth - From Whitehead
Institute for Biomedical Research, and Department of Biology, MIT, Cambridge ,
Massachusetts
2. From Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego ,
CA 92186-5800 , USA .
It is difficult if not impossible to synthesize long
polymers of amino acids, nucleotides, etc., in homogeneous aqueous solution.
We suggest that long
polymers were synthesized on the surface of minerals in a prebiotic process
analogous to solid-phase synthesis.
3. From the Department of Applied
Biological Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Science University of
Tokyo , Noda 278, Japan.
The recent discovery of polymerase activity in a
ribosomal RNA intervening sequence as well as other studies of RNA-replicating
systems suggest that
the first living molecules were RNAs called replicates.
4. A genetic
annealing model for
the universal ancestor of all extant life is presented.
What’s
interesting that in all these statements the words hypothesis, thought, we
suggest, are used. The last one is even more interesting for in that statement
they use model. Now what is a model?
I think the best model we can look
at is the models used to predict the weather. In book 5 of my series I look at
it from the view point of global warming. In book 5 we are having problems with
the earth’s climate. Listen as the this character in the book explains this
model for weather and after you read this we'll look at what evolutionists would
have you believe.
If we Look back at
earth’s history we see there have been wild fluctuations in climate ... but over
the last eight to ten thousand years the climate has been very stable almost to
the point of being predictable, and many believe these ocean current systems are
the cause.
Now first
let me say with all due respect for Dr. La Baugh’s analyses, there are some who
disagree with his theory. It sounds good and it even makes sense, but the models
he used and the models of… Drs. Harvey and Jacobs who are two very renowned
climatologists differ greatly.”
“How do you mean, differ
greatly?”
Well, the
behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed
as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities
such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you
want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be
given a certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast.
We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and
solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main
sources of error:
The
first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere
is doing right now due to the lack of data. When the model starts it has an
incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always
generate a forecast that is imperfect.
The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids
that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as
large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not
handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create a
fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time.
Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all
situations.
And third
is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the
atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite
right.
If scientists can say this about
something we know a whole lot about and are in the here and now, what are the
basic understandings, the equations, the fudge factors, and the physics of a
million years ago going to be like? How accurate are their
models?
With all that we know about the weather, and all the data we
have, and as complex as the models are, we still have issues in forecasting
weather. We still make mistakes in forecasting because the data is constantly
changing, and some of our data is not correct. How can a model be made for what
happened a million years ago using information that is most likely flawed or
generated in a laboratory experiment is considered correct?
Let’s say
just for a moment that what they say is correct, than the next question that
needs to be asked is, where did theses substances come from. At some point if
you go back in time something was created from nothing. Do they really believe
that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal
crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than
the animals and that is what evolution is all about. One last thing, consider
the following statement.
If you wish to question evolution, by all means
do so. Debate is healthy. However a useful debate requires that you make a
good-faith effort to study and understand the breadth of accumulated evidence.
Finally, evolution theory (and science itself) is fundamentally neutral with
respect to the existence of a creator. A supernatural force or being could well
have created our universe based on a set of mathematical principles, predicting
every outcome, including the emergence of humans. Evolutionary theory cannot
speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how
species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing
environment. • Rajesh C. Miranda is an associate professor in the department of
neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University
System Health Science Center .
Do you think this man represents main line
evolution? Here is how one entitled his arguments - Lies, Damned Lies,
Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. It is from his
references I took the quotes. The bottom line, evolution can't come up with
proof, all they have is supposition, theory, and miss-information. Their
theories and math look good, but it’s built on a house of sand. Look at their
arguments through the lens of scripture and real science and it falls apart like
a house of cards. I agree with you on the age of the earth, however I disagree
with you on the existence of God.