Evolution vs. Creation
I've been holding off on this topic for a while. I actually started writing my thoughts down about six months ago, but everything just got really long and dreary so I scrapped it and never got around to starting over. But a recent development has lit a fire in my heart and trying to hold back from stating my views is only burning me.
Proof of God
Anglican Church wants to formally apologize to Darwin
If there was ever a way to completely undermine the faith of the masses, there's no better way to do it. If mankind and every other living creature evolved from simple amino acids and galactic goo, then what place does God have in our lives? Absolutely none. If God didn't create us, then how can we even say that he exists in the first place?
I'm writing this today because I feel that God needs something like a defense team. So many voices today side against God and the Bible and there aren't enough voices on the other side. The ones that are and are published also seem to be not quite convinced and don't seem to have their things together on the subject. This is why I've studied this for the past two years. Thankfully, this won't take equally as long to read. :)
Dogs in the Snow
I don't believe that anything happens by pure chance. Yet, evolutionary scientists believe that our entire existence, as well as everything around us is basically a colossal cosmic fluke. It is, at the very least, possible that certain animals - let's use dogs as an example - can "evolve" to fit their surroundings. In a colder climate (let's say Alaska), smaller short haired dogs would die off and the larger dogs with longer, fuller coats would survive long enough to learn techniques to survive in the harsh winter. We know that Huskies dig burrows in the show to shield themselves from a blizzard and survive the night. Even if a short haired dog did the same, his chances of surviving the night are slim, simply due to the fact that his fur isn't much of an insulator compared to a dog with long fur, not to mention that the smaller his size, the more vulnerable is is to hypothermia. This much is at least plausible. But unfortunately, this principle just does not work when you try to explain away the origin of life itself since the dog remained a dog and did not evolve into another species. No large building could stand without a foundation and even two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admit that "the evolutionary theory lacks and proper foundation." (Evolution from Space by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8) And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.
The Primitive Atmosphere
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." (The Origins of Life on Earth by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie Orgel, 1974, p. 33) Yet 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, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 65) The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.
Mystery of the "Organic Soup"
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, a second spark would have decomposed them. Even if somehow these precious amino acids were protected in the oceans from UV radiation, 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." (Ibid) In other words, it just doesn't work.
There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, that 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 the other half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred for 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, 1976, p. 144)
Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
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. 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 only 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 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeroes). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematics as never happening. An idea of the probability involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 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 1040,000! "An outrageously small probability," Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced if 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 conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of the court." (Evolution from Space, p. 24)
I could list many other scientific and mathematical facts on other materials common to life (such as DNA) but this is why it got so long last time. I think the odds for amino acids (which are needed BEFORE DNA even exists, is enough to prove that this just didn't happen the way evolutionary scientists so blindly assert.
"It has to be, but it can't be"
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists are forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: "These issues are too complex to set numbers to." They add: "There is no way...in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one."
Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: "Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" Thus an observer might conclude that a "psychological" barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any "design or purpose or directedness" (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 14), as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, Intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
Is it Scientific?
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Of course, this method cannot be used because humans weren't there to observe in the first place.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
Fossil Evidence...or lack thereof
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. There should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. Even attempts to provide the so-called "missing link" between apes and humans has only lead to numerous hoaxes with bones from both human and ape species combined into one skull.
The Genesis Account
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or "day," in which each first appeared.
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been preset. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon a 'lesser light that dominates the night.' - Genesis 1:14-18
How long is a Genesis "Day"?
Many consider the word "day" used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day." In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one "day": "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day," can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament World Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens." This last sentence appears to fit the creative "days," for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions "evening" and "morning" relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man's lifetime as his "day." They speak of "my father's day" or "in Shakespeare's day." They may divide up that lifetime "day," saying "in the morning [or dawn] of his life" or "in the evening [or twilight] of his life." So 'evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
Other scriptures where "day" means more than 24 hours:
Zechariah 14:8; Proverbs 25:13; Genesis 30:14; Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10,; Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24
The First Day
"'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day." - Genesis 1:3, 5
Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
The Second Day
"Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.' Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters and that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven." - Genesis 1:6-8
Some translators use the word "firmament" instead of "expanse." From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this "firmament" as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses "firmament," says in the margin, "expansion." This is because the Hebrew word ra-qi'a', translated "expanse," means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it but does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the 'waters above' had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in "the expanse of the heavens," as stated at Genesis 1:20.
The Third Day
"'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas." (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth's history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land - many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: "into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?" - Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like "socket pedestals," earth's crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. "The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid," says Putnams Geology. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth's layers press inward upon earth's core from all directions, making it like a great "cornerstone" of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants on the Third Day
The Bible account adds: "'Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.' And it came to be so." - Genesis 1:11.
Thus by the end of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every "kind" of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this "day."
The Fourth Day
"'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the Earth.' And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars." - Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
Previously, on the first "day," the expression "Let light come to be" was uses. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma.'ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on "Luminaries" in the Emphasised Bible, says: "In ver. 3, 'ohr, light diffused." Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma.'ohr' in verse 14 means something "affording light." On the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen - a requirement for animal life.
Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years." (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing solar years. The seasons that now "came to be" on this fourth "day" would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. - Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22
The Fifth Day
"'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." - Genesis 1:20, 21
It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called "living souls." This term would also apply to the "flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse." And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Some may discount the Genesis account based on the evidence of dinosaurs in the fossil record. We do not know what purpose they would have served in the grand scheme of things, but considering that this part of the Genesis account uses words like "creatures" and "monsters" rather than "animals" as in the Sixth Day, it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the dinosaurs would have lived and subsequently died in this time period. It also explains why scientists do not know why the dinosaurs died out. It is probably more likely that they had served their intended function, perhaps as "gardeners," and had to make way for the rest of Creation.
The Sixth Day
"'Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.' And it came to be so." - Genesis 1:24
Thus on the sixth "day," land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final "day" was not over. One last remarkable "kind" was to come:
"And God went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving on the earth.' And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:26, 27
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third "day," after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans - Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife. - Genesis 2:5-9; 15-18, 21, 22
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6x24), but over many millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
May find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, Part 1, p.335) Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: "The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different."
The Babylonian Creation Myth:
The god Apsu and the goddess Tiaman made other gods. Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea. Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea's son Marduk. Marduk split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth. Then Marduk, with Ea's aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu.
Does it seem to you that this type of tale bears any similarity to the Genesis creation narrative?
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only "according to their kinds." The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each "kind" appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous "kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis." This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events - from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals - is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of the geologic time.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
Can you trust the Bible? If you really examine what it says, discerning for yourself, rather than simply accept what certain ones claim that it says, you will find reason to trust it. If anyone out there reads this and would like to learn more about what the Bible really teaches, please send me a PM and together we can look into whatever you'd like to learn more about.
This entry is posted publicly so my Mom can read it (HI, MOMMY! *waves*) so BEHAVE YOURSELVES! :P
Proof of God
Anglican Church wants to formally apologize to Darwin
If there was ever a way to completely undermine the faith of the masses, there's no better way to do it. If mankind and every other living creature evolved from simple amino acids and galactic goo, then what place does God have in our lives? Absolutely none. If God didn't create us, then how can we even say that he exists in the first place?
I'm writing this today because I feel that God needs something like a defense team. So many voices today side against God and the Bible and there aren't enough voices on the other side. The ones that are and are published also seem to be not quite convinced and don't seem to have their things together on the subject. This is why I've studied this for the past two years. Thankfully, this won't take equally as long to read. :)
Dogs in the Snow
I don't believe that anything happens by pure chance. Yet, evolutionary scientists believe that our entire existence, as well as everything around us is basically a colossal cosmic fluke. It is, at the very least, possible that certain animals - let's use dogs as an example - can "evolve" to fit their surroundings. In a colder climate (let's say Alaska), smaller short haired dogs would die off and the larger dogs with longer, fuller coats would survive long enough to learn techniques to survive in the harsh winter. We know that Huskies dig burrows in the show to shield themselves from a blizzard and survive the night. Even if a short haired dog did the same, his chances of surviving the night are slim, simply due to the fact that his fur isn't much of an insulator compared to a dog with long fur, not to mention that the smaller his size, the more vulnerable is is to hypothermia. This much is at least plausible. But unfortunately, this principle just does not work when you try to explain away the origin of life itself since the dog remained a dog and did not evolve into another species. No large building could stand without a foundation and even two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admit that "the evolutionary theory lacks and proper foundation." (Evolution from Space by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8) And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.
The Primitive Atmosphere
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." (The Origins of Life on Earth by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie Orgel, 1974, p. 33) Yet 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, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 65) The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.
Mystery of the "Organic Soup"
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, a second spark would have decomposed them. Even if somehow these precious amino acids were protected in the oceans from UV radiation, 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." (Ibid) In other words, it just doesn't work.
There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, that 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 the other half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred for 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, 1976, p. 144)
Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
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. 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 only 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 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeroes). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematics as never happening. An idea of the probability involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 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 1040,000! "An outrageously small probability," Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced if 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 conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of the court." (Evolution from Space, p. 24)
I could list many other scientific and mathematical facts on other materials common to life (such as DNA) but this is why it got so long last time. I think the odds for amino acids (which are needed BEFORE DNA even exists, is enough to prove that this just didn't happen the way evolutionary scientists so blindly assert.
"It has to be, but it can't be"
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists are forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: "These issues are too complex to set numbers to." They add: "There is no way...in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one."
Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: "Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" Thus an observer might conclude that a "psychological" barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any "design or purpose or directedness" (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 14), as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, Intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
Is it Scientific?
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Of course, this method cannot be used because humans weren't there to observe in the first place.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
Fossil Evidence...or lack thereof
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. There should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. Even attempts to provide the so-called "missing link" between apes and humans has only lead to numerous hoaxes with bones from both human and ape species combined into one skull.
The Genesis Account
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or "day," in which each first appeared.
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been preset. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon a 'lesser light that dominates the night.' - Genesis 1:14-18
How long is a Genesis "Day"?
Many consider the word "day" used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day." In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one "day": "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day," can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament World Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens." This last sentence appears to fit the creative "days," for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions "evening" and "morning" relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man's lifetime as his "day." They speak of "my father's day" or "in Shakespeare's day." They may divide up that lifetime "day," saying "in the morning [or dawn] of his life" or "in the evening [or twilight] of his life." So 'evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
Other scriptures where "day" means more than 24 hours:
Zechariah 14:8; Proverbs 25:13; Genesis 30:14; Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10,; Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24
The First Day
"'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day." - Genesis 1:3, 5
Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
The Second Day
"Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.' Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters and that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven." - Genesis 1:6-8
Some translators use the word "firmament" instead of "expanse." From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this "firmament" as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses "firmament," says in the margin, "expansion." This is because the Hebrew word ra-qi'a', translated "expanse," means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it but does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the 'waters above' had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in "the expanse of the heavens," as stated at Genesis 1:20.
The Third Day
"'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas." (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth's history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land - many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: "into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?" - Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like "socket pedestals," earth's crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. "The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid," says Putnams Geology. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth's layers press inward upon earth's core from all directions, making it like a great "cornerstone" of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants on the Third Day
The Bible account adds: "'Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.' And it came to be so." - Genesis 1:11.
Thus by the end of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every "kind" of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this "day."
The Fourth Day
"'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the Earth.' And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars." - Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
Previously, on the first "day," the expression "Let light come to be" was uses. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma.'ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on "Luminaries" in the Emphasised Bible, says: "In ver. 3, 'ohr, light diffused." Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma.'ohr' in verse 14 means something "affording light." On the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen - a requirement for animal life.
Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years." (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing solar years. The seasons that now "came to be" on this fourth "day" would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. - Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22
The Fifth Day
"'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." - Genesis 1:20, 21
It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called "living souls." This term would also apply to the "flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse." And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Some may discount the Genesis account based on the evidence of dinosaurs in the fossil record. We do not know what purpose they would have served in the grand scheme of things, but considering that this part of the Genesis account uses words like "creatures" and "monsters" rather than "animals" as in the Sixth Day, it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the dinosaurs would have lived and subsequently died in this time period. It also explains why scientists do not know why the dinosaurs died out. It is probably more likely that they had served their intended function, perhaps as "gardeners," and had to make way for the rest of Creation.
The Sixth Day
"'Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.' And it came to be so." - Genesis 1:24
Thus on the sixth "day," land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final "day" was not over. One last remarkable "kind" was to come:
"And God went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving on the earth.' And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:26, 27
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third "day," after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans - Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife. - Genesis 2:5-9; 15-18, 21, 22
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6x24), but over many millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
May find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: "No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, Part 1, p.335) Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: "The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different."
The Babylonian Creation Myth:
The god Apsu and the goddess Tiaman made other gods. Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea. Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea's son Marduk. Marduk split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth. Then Marduk, with Ea's aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu.
Does it seem to you that this type of tale bears any similarity to the Genesis creation narrative?
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only "according to their kinds." The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each "kind" appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous "kind," as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis." This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events - from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals - is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of the geologic time.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
Can you trust the Bible? If you really examine what it says, discerning for yourself, rather than simply accept what certain ones claim that it says, you will find reason to trust it. If anyone out there reads this and would like to learn more about what the Bible really teaches, please send me a PM and together we can look into whatever you'd like to learn more about.
This entry is posted publicly so my Mom can read it (HI, MOMMY! *waves*) so BEHAVE YOURSELVES! :P