|email - June 2004|
Every once in a while we get an email that confirms what we have been saying. We got one of those this month.
Subject: and playing devil's advocate...
"None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory."
Show me a miracle or a deific creation that has occurred in a laboratory. Can't? While I sympathize with your attempt at debunking, your logic fails since it can be used in reverse.
"Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible." Hmm...I can change that to "creationists" and get the same answer, can't I? And I can show thousands of cases of helpful mutations. Show me a miracle. Show me a creation. What? It happened a long time ago and we can't see it now? But wait! If I can't believe that when a SCIENTIST says so, how can I believe it when YOU say so?
The problem with your position is that you are trying to debunk a large scale enterprise with a criticism of an instantaneous view. It's not really an honest criticism.
"The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed." No. ... [ellipsis his] the rocks already existed, they simply melted (underground) and resolidified (above ground). The statement SUPPORTS geologic processes and age. Concordantly, it supports creation of the rocks by God. When I see this, I have to ask if you're thoroughly ignorant of geologic processes, or dishonest? You can't really believe that obviously false statement, can you?
Faith does not depend on science, and science does not depend on faith. Either or both can exist. Yet you appear to be on a crusade to attempt to discredit anything that questions your faith. A TRUE believer is not afraid of questions, welcomes them to test faith and strengthen it. You, however, seem afraid your faith can't stand a little light. Pray for strength, face the evidence, and take the debate as it comes.
You might try looking here. They seem to have a handle on the subject. But after additional perusal, I find your site most unimpressive.
We have often said that both origin explanations have to be accepted by faith and cannot be proved by science. Michael recognizes that creation has to be accepted by faith, but does not see that evolution has to be accepted by faith. He has no proof that the theory of evolution is true, but he believes it. That’s faith, by definition.
Our position, once again, is that one has to accept the theory of evolution by faith despite the preponderance of scientific evidence against it.
His second point is that we “are trying to debunk a large scale enterprise with a criticism of an instantaneous view. It's not really an honest criticism.” In other words, we point out things that evolutionists used to believe, but don’t any more. We point out specific details of the theory of evolution that aren’t true. Michael is trying to defend the position that even though all the specific details are wrong, the general principle is still true.
In fact, the whole really is the sum of its parts. The only legitimate way to verify or falsify a theory is to examine it in detail. If all the details are wrong, how can one believe the general premise is true? The only way is to have enough faith in the premise that facts don’t matter.
Last month we quoted Robert as saying, “But wouldn't an evolutionist say that the date is not a problem because the lava or debris came from within the earth which is millions of years old?” Yes, an uninformed evolutionist would say that, and that’s exactly what Michael said in his third point. Michael must not have read last month’s feature article, in which we explained that potassium argon doesn’t tell how old the lava is--it (unsuccessfully) attempts to tell how long it has been since the lava came out of the volcano.
Finally, Michael comes back to the subject of religion again. Evolutionists are incapable of discussing the theory of evolution without bringing religion into it because their beliefs about evolution are religious, not scientific. It is all about religion--not science.
The theory of evolution has to be evaluated scientifically. Is it scientifically plausible that life could have originated on its own? Is it scientifically plausible that various life forms could have been produced by mutation and natural selection? Is it scientifically plausible that complex biological organs (such as the liver, heart, lungs, mammary glands, eyes, etc.) could have arisen by chance? The answer to all these questions is, “No.”
That’s why we have so many “instantaneous views” of evolution. Every instantaneous explanation is scientifically untenable. Once the scientific evidence against a particular detail becomes overwhelming, it has to be replaced by another untenable view, which soon is replaced by another untenable view. All these instantaneous views of evolution are eventually rejected because the general theory they attempt to explain is false.
The only reason the general theory is retained is because of the religious beliefs of those who accept the theory of evolution. Michael is a prime example. Read his email again. Compare the number of religious and philosophical arguments, and compare that to the number of scientific arguments. There is no scientific evidence that life originates naturally. There is no scientific evidence that internal organs arise naturally. Science is against evolution. That’s why Michael has to resort to philosophical and religious arguments.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month