Downloaded 17 times
The Bible and Evolution, Are They Compatible?
- 1. The Bible andEvolution Are they compatible?
- 2. Present Logical andintellectual evidence for a biblical faith, in terms that are easy to understand Theistic Evolution is not biblical 1. 24 Days 2. Death before sin 3. No meat eaters 4. Bloodshed NOT GOOD 5. Creation of Adam & Eve 6. Testimony of Jesus 7. God would have said it 8. Re-writing scripture Evolution is scientifically impossible It does not stand the test of scientific scrutiny 1. Does not pass test of scientific law, Laws of Thermodynamics 2. Does not pass test of mathematical possibility 3. Does not have evidence from fossil record
- 3. Define Vocabulary Evolution:The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection (textbook Def Neodarwinism) Theistic Evolution: Belief that God used the process of Evolution, that the Earth is billions of years old, that evolution is true and that God guided this process. The Days of Creation in Genesis were not literal 24 hour days, but long eons of time Life began in the oceans, gradually evolved into living creatures, that evolved into different species resulting in Adam and Eve
- 4. Evolution, How DidLife Begin?
- 5. Theistic Evolution Not compatiblewith the Bible
- 6. #1 The Bible’sDescription of a Day Days recorded in Genesis are not long eons of time They refer to only a 24 hour period “And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day” “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day” Hebrew word used for day in Genesis is: yowm When used in combination with a number, like first or second; it means Yowm can only be interpreted as a literal 24 hour period
- 7. The Bible’s Descriptionof a Day If God created through long spans of time, other words in Hebrew would have conveyed it Yamin, alone or with evening and morning, would’ve meant it was ‘days’ of evening and morning Kadem, ‘and it was form days of old’ Olam, with days ‘and it was days of old’ If God intended to communicate long periods of time, the words existed to convey that message, but God didn’t use those words Dor, ‘and it was generations’ of days and night Tamid, with days and nights or evening and morning, ‘and it was the continuation’ of days Yam-Rob, a long day
- 8. The Bible Romans5:12 ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— Death entered the world through sin When did sin enter the world? The Garden of Eden At that point death came into the world Theistic Evolution If Theistic Evolution is true, death would have been going on for millions and millions of years through the evolutionary process: survival of the fittest Animals eating each other as part of a food chain Death would have been happening for millions of years before Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. #2 Death Before Sin
- 9. Death Before Sin?“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.” “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.” Isaiah 11:6-7 When Christ returns to the earth and sets up the Kingdom of God Specifically told animals will not be eating each other Isaiah 65:25 Vision of world without sin Total harmony in nature If you believe that God used Evolution, how do you explain death occurring for millions of years on this planet before sin?
- 10. #3 No MeatEaters The diet in Genesis 1 for both humans and animals was plants Genesis 1:29-30 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. Reflects the ideal world vision in Isaiah Animals are not part of the food chain
- 11. The Bible Day 6of Creation, animals are not allowed to eat other animals Theistic Evolution If theistic evolution is true, then Genesis chapter 1 is wrong Animals have been eating each other for millions of years No Meat Eaters?
- 12. #4 Death and BloodshedGood? Genesis 1:20-21 (Day 5) And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25 (Day 6) And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Painful, brutal process of death and bloodshed…would be considered ‘good’ to God Birds and fish eating each other for millions of years God would look at that and say that it was good? Would God think that in light of what we saw in Isaiah 65? Isaiah: no sin animals not eating each other complete harmony in nature no bloodshed
- 13. The Bible Genesis1:24-25 (Day 6) And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Animals created as they were, and reproduced only their kind (species) (Gen 1:11-12 plants) Theistic Evolution Evolution teaches animals evolved into different kinds of animals Didn’t reproduce according to their kind Evolved into higher forms of life, into more complex, different kinds (species) completely A rabbit producing a chicken is not reproducing after it’s own kind #5 Reproducing According to Their own Kinds
- 19. Transitional fossils arethe remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.
- 20. #6 Creation ofAdam and Eve Theistic Evolution teaches man, Homo Sapiens, evolved great Apes called Hominids. Adam was part of an evolutionary chain Eventually Adam was produced, born from part Hominid, part human parents. Adam would have evolved in the womb through genetic mutation in his part human, part hominid mother. He would have been a little bit different from his parents When he matured God placed him into the Garden of Eden.
- 21. Creation of Adamand Eve ‘Theistic evolution typically postulates a point at which a population of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms.’ Wikipedia.org
- 22. Adam Genesis 2:7“Then the LORD God formed a manfrom the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The bible is very clear, so which is it? Was Adam created by God from the dust of the ground? Or was Adam created as a fertilised egg in the womb of his part hominid, part human mother? At what point did God breathe into Adam’s nostrils? Was he not alive before he was born? Why would God tell Moses that he formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, if he in fact developed in the womb and went through the birth process as we know it today?
- 23. Eve Genesis 2:21-23“So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” If TE is true, Eve was part of an evolutionary chain, would have been born from part human, part Ape/Hominid parents same as Adam Can that be reconciled to Genesis 2? Theistic Evolution teaches that Eve did not come from Adams side
- 24. Eve 1 Corinthians11:8 “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man” Apostle Paul. If Theistic Evolution is true, Eve came from women (her mother, a part monkey) Does this mean that Paul just didn’t understand Darwinian Evolution/Science?
- 25. Side Note, Creationof the Animals Genesis 2:19 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.” Theistic Evolution teaches that life began in the oceans billions of years ago How is it that God started life in the oceans, then turns around and tells Moses that he started life from the dust of the ground?
- 26. #6 The Testimonyof Jesus Regarding Creation Theistic Evolution teaches each of the days of creation were actually long eons of time, they spanned millions and millions of years Adam and eve came along at the very end of the evolutionary process, they came at the end of day six So through millions, and billions of years of creation, Adam and eve came along at the very end of all of the creative process If TE is true, God created the universe 15 billion years ago Adam and eve evolved just about 30 to 40 000 years ago, that is at the very END of creation Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.’ Did Jesus just not quite understand science? Did Jesus not have the capacity to understand Darwinian Evolution? 99.9998% through all of creation is when Adam and Eve came along, but Jesus says at the beginning
- 27. #7 God WouldHave Just Stated it If God truly used evolution to create, why didn’t he just tell that to Moses? Moses would have believed him, Moses would not have been offended in the slightest Moses would not have thought anything negative about that at all Today we would consider Evolution to be a Godly thing Fact is, God told Moses that he didn’t use evolution. He told Moses that he created things as they were, after their own kind
- 28. God Would HaveStated It It would have been simple for God to tell Moses that he used Evolution ‘Well, Moses wasn’t a scientist’ God would not have to explain the science of Evolution, He would just convey the basic concepts
- 29. God Would HaveStated It Creation of the sun God didn’t go into all the intricate scientific details explaining the sun ‘I set a great light in the expanse of the sky’ God could have simplified the Evolutionary process to Moses just the same
- 30. God Would HaveStated It “I created life in the oceans too small to see, and over a long time they grew larger and more detailed until they became man, and woman, and all the plants and animals of the earth, and it was good.” Why didn’t God just tell that to Moses? Problem is, that’s not what God told Moses Why would God have worded creation the way that He did in Genesis when he could have easily worded it another way that would have been more truthful?
- 31. #8 Waters Downthe Authority of Scripture Big problem, big concern with Theistic Evolution “What’s the big deal if I choose to believe God used Evolution? Why does it matter? So what?” One of the biggest battles bible believers face today is re-writing of scripture People don’t want to believe what the bible actually says
- 32. Waters Down ScripturalAuthority John 14:6 “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ Today, ‘all paths lead to God’ ‘All religions lead to God’ We are seeing Jesus being re-written/re-defined before our very eyes People are believing what they want to believe Believe in Jesus = fan of Jesus, nice guy
- 33. Waters Down theAuthority of Scripture People are buying into the argument that Evolution is scientifically true Since they believe the dominantly atheistic scientific community that says there is not God, Darwinian Evolution is what happened, and here is the supposed evidence Since Christians are believing that there is scientific evidence for Evolution (succumbing to pressure and propaganda) they are assuming that the bible must be interpreted incorrectly Twisting the bible to fit what they think science has taught them is true
- 34. The Bible Adamcame from dust of the ground Eve came from the dust of the ground and Adam’s rib Animals were created from the dust of the ground Death entered the world through Adam sin Theistic Evolution Adam and Eve came from part hominid (Ape), part human parents Animals evolved from Amoeba's in the oceans Death was happening for millions of years before sin But we’re really supposed to interpret that to mean…
- 35. The bible Animalsdid not kill and eat each other until after Adam’s sin Adam became a living being when God breathed into his nostrils Jesus said that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation Theistic Evolution Animals DID kill and eat each other for millions of year before Adam Adam was already a living being in his mother’s womb before he had nostrils Adam and Eve were actually born billions of years after creation But we’re really supposed to interpret that to mean…
- 36. Why Trust anyScripture? If that’s how were really supposed to interpret the creation record of scripture, then why trust anything scripture says? Well sure, the bible says that Jesus walked on water, but what does that really mean? How should we really interpret that? Yeah, the bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, but who knows what that really means? If you can twist the interpretation of the creation accounts to believe in Theistic Evolution, you can do the very same thing about anything in scripture Give yourself that license, to take anything in scripture that you don’t like, anything you don’t agree with: ‘Well I’m sure that’s just supposed to be interpreted a different way’
- 37. It’s Either/Or Adameither came from the dust of the ground, or a part monkey mother Eve either came from Adam’s rib, or she came from a half monkey mother Women either came from Man, as Apostle Paul said, or woman came from her mom Animals either did not kill and eat each other and die before sin, or they did kill and eat and die before sin Etc, etc, etc You cannot have both, you cannot have it both ways…There is no way to reconcile Theistic Evolution with scripture
- 38. Why has TheisticEvolution become Prevalent Today? Many of evolutions top supporters have switched from defending evolution, to attacking religion Richard Dawkins is the best example of this…
- 39. Evolution is Scientifically Impossible Itdoes not stand the test of scientific, mathematical or archaeological scrutiny
- 40. #1 The Lawsof Thermodynamics 1st law of Thermodynamics: a conservation of energy law, in the universe everything is made up of matter and energy. The matter can convert into energy, the energy can convert into matter, everything in the Universe is made of matter and energy However much matter and energy there is, there can never be more, and there can never be less You cannot create something out of nothing, you cannot go from nothing to suddenly the creation of matter and energy. Scientific law just like the law of gravity
- 41. 1st Law ofThermodynamics How did we go from nothing in the universe to something in the universe? where did everything come from? Where did all the stuff come from? How do we have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in the closed system of the universe? No scientific explanation… Being called God, who operated outside of physical law, and has ability to violate laws of physics, has the ability to create something out of nothing Scientific conclusion there must be a God who created everything because there is no scientific model without him that allows matter and energy to be created from nothing
- 42. 2nd Law ofThermodynamics Everything in a closed system will tend toward a state of equilibrium Entropy: things will tend to decay, degrade, go from order to chaos Key principle, things will not increase in complexity and design, they will decrease, break down, physical law.
- 43. Violation of Lawsof Thermodynamics Evolution: big bang explosion 15 billion ye ago, complexity and design started to develop on its own, then life developed on its own, and that life grew in more complexity, more design, and more order Violates the second law of thermodynamics We get radiation from the sun (random) We get hit by asteroids (random) = increase entropy, increase degradation process Evolution: supposed to believe everything has gone opposite to the laws of thermodynamics Laws violated all through history until today we don’t see it violated any more…not logical
- 44. Wisdom from RichardDawkins
- 45. #2 Mathematical Probabilityof Life Developing Over Time Time + chance means anything is possible (very slow process) Evolution: Life started developing about 3 billion years ago Is that enough time? Rather then giving 3 billion years, really generous multiply that by 10, 30 billion years The simplest protein molecule has 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order Is 30 billion years enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplest protein molecule?
- 46. Not Mathematically Possible Simplify it even further… Picture simple 100 piece puzzle 100 arranged in a specific sequence, how many different combination options are possible? Use a factorial (100 x 99x 98 x 97, etc) Total number of different combinations options available? 10 to the 158th power…1 with 158 zeroes behind it, there are not that many atoms on the earth! “If I have 15 billion or 30 billion years that’s enough time to eventually stumble upon the right sequence, right?”
- 47. Not Mathematically Possible Is it really? Do you know that 30 billion years only has 10 to the 18th power number of seconds in it. Divide 10 to the 158th power (# of combination options) by 10 to the 18th power (# seconds there are in 30 billion years) = 10 to the 140th power 10 to the 140th power combination changes that would have to take place, every second on the second for 30 billions years to randomly get the right combination!
- 48. Not Mathematically Possible Keep in mind, the simplest protein molecule has 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order I don’t see how 30 billion years is enough time mathematically for life to evolve…let alone 3 billion years The evolutionists still have to explain how life came into existence from non-living matter Something evolutionists believe in but there’s no scientific basis for it at all.
- 50. #3 The FossilRecord: No ‘Transition’ Fossils Evolution teaches that everything we see today evolved from a common ancestor One type of animal that slowly progressive steps evolved into a different animal Lets say a rat evolved into a bat. Predictions; science, forming a hypothesis…If Evolution is true, we should be able to find in the ground/fossil record a few bones of rats, a few bones of bats, but the overwhelming majority of fossils should be the long series of evolutionary transition However if creation I true, I predict what we should find are bones of rats, bones of bats, and no transitionary fossils in-between
- 51. No Transition Fossils Guess what we find in the ground? Fossils of all animals in their completed form, but no transitional fossils in-between Logic demands that these animals were created as we see them There will be claims of transition fossils…nothing more then a deformity, we see all the time cows with six legs, animals with two heads, etc There is no logical reason for me to conclude that the cow is evolving from a spider We look around the world today, see a very small percentage of animals that are deformed, so we should be able to predict that in the fossil record the vast majority of fossils will be wholly formed, and a very small percentage of fossils of animals with a deformity...that is exactly what we find
- 52. Deformities 2003, babyborn in India with a 6 inch tail Is anyone going to believe that these people are the last remnants of evolution from a cat or a dog or an animal with a tail? 2005, the Mermaid Baby, Lima Peru, legs fused together No evolutionist is going to claim that the baby is a link between a fish to a human BUT what if that baby was born a thousands of years ago? The cyclops kitty, 2006..would anyone claim this was evolution happening? If that very same fossil were born today, everyone would understand its just a deformity, so why isn't it just a deformity when it was born that way back then?
- 53. Fossils of UniqueExtinct Animals 2006 fish like creature, stubby lobe fins Might be strong enough to allow the fish to drag itself along the ground or along shallow water Claim this is proof of Evolution, where fish started to evolve and develop legs, setting stage for them to come out of the water and crawl along the ground, 375 million years ago What if Tiktaalik was nothing more then a regular kind of fish that went extinct a couple of hundred years ago? Isn't it possible its nothing more than a fish that had stubby fins that allowed it to move along the sand in shallow water?
- 54. ‘Living Fossils’ Coelacanth,same stubby lobed fins 390 million to 70 million years ago dated fossils 1938, a fisherman caught a life Selicanth Selicanth today look identical to fossils of Selicanth that supposedly died out 70 million years ago and were proof of fish evolving into land creatures (same time prediction as dinosaurs) Find the bones of an extinct animal, since its unique to anything alive today claim it’s a transition fossil So now it’s a ‘Living Fossil’ (oxymoron) Why isn't this just evidence that they were wrong? Think about the Penguin? Or Platypus?
- 56. Stephen J Gould,Evolutionary Scientist, Professor of Geology and Palentology at Harvard University “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates, in so many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution Harvard University Paleo-Biology Journal, Page 127, January 1st 1980.
- 57. Do All ScientistsBelieve in Evolution? Real scientists with real credentials who believe in creation: rattle off some names that believe Evolution is false (notice different disciplines) Dwayne Gish PHD biochemistry, John Morse PHD Geological Engineering, Ken Cumming PHD in Biology (Harvard), John Bumgardener PHD Geophysics space physics (UCLA), Robert Gentry Nuclear Physicist, Steve Austin PHD Geology, David DeWitt PHD Neuroscience, Larry Vartimun PHD Atmospheric Science, Jay While PHD Nuclear Chemistry, Russel Humphries PHD Physics, David Phillips PHD Paleantology, Burt Thompson PHD Microbiology, David Mentum PHD Cell Biology, Danny Faulner PHD Astronomy and Astrophysics, Alexander Molonov PHD Geology, Kurt Weiss PHD Paleontology (Harvard)
- 58. Test? Mona Lisa,are you open to the possibility that that painting came together on its own from random energy and action? It’s too complex (logical) What's more complex, that two dimensional painting or the three dimensional person looking at you in the mirror?
Editor's Notes
- #7 The days recorded in Genesis are clearly not long eons of time, they are not millions and millions and millions of years God, describes these days through Moses to make it very clear that they refer to only a 24 hour period “And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day” “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day” God is very specific Hebrew word used for day in Genesis is: ‘yowm’ When used in combination with a number, like first or second; it means Yown can only be interpreted as a literal 24 hour period
- #8 Answers in genesis, creation science ministry, Dr john Howitt, wrote to appropriate professors in leading universities asking the question: Do you consider that the Hebrew word yowm as used in genesis one accompanied by a numeral should be properly translated as: A day, as commonly understood, 24 hours B an age of time, or C either a literal day or an age of time without preference. Professors at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, London, Manitoba all responded unanimously that it should be translated as a day commonly understood, 24 hour day
- #13 This painful, brutal process of death and bloodshed would be considered ‘good’ to God If TE is true, through day five, that would have lasted millions and millions of years. You would have these birds and fish eating each other, God would look at that and say that it is ‘good’ Would God think that in light of what we saw in Isaiah 65? Isaiah: A new heaven and new earth with no sin and animals not eating each other, complete harmony in nature with no bloodshed is good
- #14 Evolution teaches animals evolved into different kinds of animals They didn’t reproduce according to their kind, but evolved into higher forms of life, into more complex and different kinds (species) completely A rabbit producing a chicken, is not re-producing after it’s own kind, whether it’s done over a long period of time or not
- #21 Theistic Evolution teaches that man, Homo Sapiens, evolved from/came from a kind of great Apes called Hominids. Adam was part of an evolutionary chain, that began with monkeys, who gradually evolved to look more and more like humans. Eventually Adam was produced, he would have been born from part Hominid, part human parents. His parents would have been slightly less than human. Adam, would have evolved in the womb through genetic mutation in his part human, part hominid mother. He would have been born as a baby being looked after by his part Hominid parents. He would have been a little bit different from his parents, he would have been fully human at that point. When he matured into a young man, God would have placed him into the Garden of Eden.
- #23 The bible is very clear, so which is it?…Was Adam created by God from the dust of the ground? Or was Adam created a s a fertilised egg in the womb of his part hominid, part human mother? You cannot have it both ways At what point did God breathe into Adam’s nostrils? Was he not alive before he was born? He would have developed and been alive as an embryo and a fetus inside of his mothers womb before he was born. Why would God tell Moses that he formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, if he infact developed in the womb and went through the birth process as we know it today. It makes no sense.
- #24 Eve, as part of an evolutionary chain, would have been born from part human, part Ape/Hominid parents in the same way as Adam. You tell me if that in any way can be reconciled to what we read in Genesis chapter two…there is no way Theistic evolution teaches that Eve did not come from Adams side, that she was born from her part monkey part human parents.
- #25 Or was it that Paul did in fact understand how God created Adam and Eve, that it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (God’s power) and that he trusted the authority of scripture
- #27 Theistic Evolution teaches that each of the days of creation were actually long eons of time, that they spanned millions and millions of years Adam and eve came along at the very end of the evolutionary process, they came at the end of day six So through millions, and billions of years of creation, Adam and eve came along at the very end of all of the creative process Did Jesus just not quite understand science? Did Jesus not have the capacity to understand Darwinian Evolution? If TE evolution is true, God created the universe 15 billion years ago, Adam and eve evolved just about 30 to 40 000 years ago, that is at the very END of creation 99.9998% through all of creation is when Adam and Eve came along, but Jesus says at the beginning Literally like working a work day from 9 – 5, looking at the clock when it’s 4:59 and 59 seconds and saying, what time is it? ‘oh it’s right at the beginning of the work day
- #28 Why wouldn’t God just tell Moses he used evolution If God truly used evolution to create, why didn’t he just tell that to Moses? It would have been easy to do Moses would have believed him, Moses would not have been offended in the slightest “God I can’t believe your siding with the evolutionists, your buying into this Darwinism, how could you do this God?” Moses would not have thought anything negative about that at all Today we would consider evolution to be a Godly thing Fact is, God told Moses that he didn’t use evolution. He told Moses that he created things as they were, after their own kind: This is how he describes his creation to Moses
- #29 It would have been simple for God to tell Moses that he used evolution, and today we would think evolution was a Godly and biblical thing (a lot of the atheistic scientists would be arguing for creation) ‘Well, Moses would not have understood the complex biological structures, DNA, increases in genetic information and mutations that are part of Evolutionary ‘transitions’ after all Moses wasn’t a scientist…the bible isn’ta science book.” God would not have to explain the science of evolution, he would just convey the basic concepts of evolution
- #30 When God described the creation of the sun, God didn’t go into all the intricate scientific details explaining the sun, God didn’t tell Moses that he created yellow dwarfstar cvomprisedof hot gases, containing hydrogen, helium, calcium, sodium, magnesium, and iron that burns at temperatures of 5800 degrees at the surface to 10million degrees at the core with a diameter of 900 000 miles, suspended 93 million miles from the earth in one of the arms of the milky way galaxy No, he told him, ‘I set a great light in the expanse of the sky’ God could have simplified the evolutionary process to Moses, just the same
- #32 Big problem, big concern with Theistic Evolution “What’s the big deal if I choose to believe God used Evolution? Why does it matter? So what?” One of the biggest battles Christians and bible believers face today is a re-writing of scripture, watering down of scriptural authority People don’t want to believe what the bible actually says, about anything
- #33 Jesus isn’t the only means of salvation any more, you can’t say that Jesus is the only way to Salvation, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim it’s OK God will welcome everyone
- #37 If that’s how were really supposed to interpret the creation record of scripture, then why trust anything scripture says? Well sure, the bible says that Jesus walked on water, but what does that really mean? How should we really interpret that? Yeah, the bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, but who knows what that really means If you can twist the interpretation of the creation accounts to believe in theistic evolution, you can do the very same thing about anything in scripture Noahs ark? Jonah and the fish? Jesus miracles? Why believe that REALLY happened…parting of the red sea, well that’s just an exaggeration Give yourself that license, to take anything in scripture that you don’t like, anything you don’t agree with, ‘Well I’m sure that’s just supposed to be interpreted a different way’
- #39 Many of evolutions top apologists, have switched from defending evolution, to attacking religion…in what they see as a bid to stamp out the intelligent design movement at the source. Richard Dawkins is the best example of this, his recent book, The God Delusion, has sold over 1 million copies world wide = science and religion are at war with each other, and in the end someone has to win, and it has to be science, disregards the history of religion and science working together (the founders of early modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, even Gallileo all believed in God, and all thought that their belief in God actually made it easier to do science…being religiously motivated and doing good science has traditionally gone together more then not)
- #41 1st law of Thermodynamics: a conservation of energy law, in the universe everything is made up of matter and energy. The matter can convert into energy, the energy can convert into matter, all/everything of matter and energy throughout the universe However much matter and energy there is, there can never be more, and there can never be less…you can’t add to the total mount of matter/energy, you can’t decrease from the total amount of matter and energy You cannot create something out of nothing, you cannot go from nothing to suddenly the creation of matter and energy. When you have ma and e you cant cause it to cease to exist, you can change its physical properties but it always has to be there. Scientific law just like the law of gravity How did we go from nothing in the universe to something in the universe? No explanation…where did everything come from? Where did all the stuff come from? How do we have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in the closed system of the universe? No scientific explanation.
- #42 How did we go from nothing in the universe to something in the universe? where did everything come from? Where did all the stuff come from? How do we have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in the closed system of the universe? No scientific explanation I propose, being called God, who operated outside of physical law, and has ability to violate laws of physics, has the ability to create something out of nothing Scientific conclusion there must be a God who created everything because there is no scientific model without him that allows matter and energy to be created from nothing It makes sense, to believe there is a God who created it, if you remove God from the equation, then science doesn’t allow all the stuff we have in the universe
- #43 Everything in a closed system will tend toward a state of equilibrium, cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice water in a room together, eventually those two liquids will become the same temperature Closed system is a system with no outside influence Entropy, things will tend to decay, degrade, go from order to chaos Drop a plate, smashes in totally random order Put things and papers on a desk, over time, the state of your desk will get sloppier and sloppier, they will not neaten up and put themselves into a neat stack…violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics Key principle, things will not increase in complexity and design, they will decrease, break down, physical law.
- #44 Evolution says, big bang explosion 15 billion ye ago, what happened over that 15 billions years was that complexity and design started to build it just started to develop on its own, and then life developed on its own, and that life grew in more complexity, more design, and more order Violates the second law of thermodynamics We get radiation from the sun (random) We get hit by asteroids (random) = increase entropy, increase degradation process Imagine, small blank painting canvass, paint brush, palette of paint, put it in a microwave, turn it on high, pelt the microwave with rocks… do you think your going to end up with a designed painted masterpiece in that microwave? No opposite, increase the degrading and chaos and destroying of the things in the microwave Evolution, says supposed to believe everything has gone opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, went from nothing to bunch of chaos and mess and primordial goo, then suddenly life developed and increased in order and complexity. Violates common sense and scientific law, violated all through history until today we don’t see it violated any more, not logical Rise to the theory of Transpermia…the earth is an open system
- #46 Time + chance means anything is possible Evolution: Life started developing about 3 billion years ago Is that enough time? Rather then giving 3 billion years, really generous multiply that by 10, even 30 billion years is not enough time for life with its complexity to develop and evolve The simplest protein molecule has 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order, is 30 billion years enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplist protein molecule
- #47 Simplify it even further… Picture simple 100 piece puzzle, 100 pieces need to be arranged in a specific sequence, how many different combination options are there to get the magical sequence (could be 37,, 24, 92, 16, etc) How do we determine how many combinations options we have, we use a factorial...100 x 99x 98 x 97 and so on Total number of different combinations options available in this simple 100 piece sequential puzzle 10 to the 158th power…1 with 158 zeroes behind it, there are not that many atoms on the earth Well if I have 15 billion or 30 billion years that’s enough time to eventually stumble upon through probablility the correct sequence to solve this puzzle Is it really? Do you know that 30 billion years only has 10 to the 18th power number of seconds in it. Not minutes, not hours Divide 10 to the 158th power (# of combination options) by 10 to the 18th power (# seconds there are in 30 billion years) = 10 to the 140th power 10 to the 140th power combination changes that would have to take place, every second on the second for 30 billions years before the laws of probability say we would stumble upon the correct combination to solve this simple 100 piece puzzle Keep in mind, the simplest protien molecule has 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order Simply put, I don’t see how 30 billion years is enough time mathematically for life to evolve let alone 3 billion years To make it even worse, the evolutionists still have to explain how life came into existence from non-living matter…something evolutionists believe in but there’s no scientific evidence for it at all.
- #48 Is it really? Do you know that 30 billion years only has 10 to the 18th power number of seconds in it. Not minutes, not hours Divide 10 to the 158th power (# of combination options) by 10 to the 18th power (# seconds there are in 30 billion years) = 10 to the 140th power 10 to the 140th power combination changes that would have to take place, every second on the second for 30 billions years before the laws of probability say we would stumble upon the correct combination to solve this simple 100 piece puzzle Keep in mind, the simplest protien molecule has 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order Simply put, I don’t see how 30 billion years is enough time mathematically for life to evolve let alone 3 billion years To make it even worse, the evolutionists still have to explain how life came into existence from non-living matter…something evolutionists believe in but there’s no scientific evidence for it at all.
- #49 Can’t explain how life started…but once it did start it happened this way. You don’t get to start with life and not explain that, its like holding a seminar on how to get rich and tell everyone ‘ok first get yourself a million dollars, then we’llshow you how to invest it to get rich.’
- #51 Evolution teaches that everything we see today in life evolved from a common ancestor, that they branched out over time into different branches of evolution If this took place, you should have one type of animal that slowly progressive steps evolved into a different animal Lets say a rat evolved into a bat. Million years ago you had a rat, now you have a bat, in between you should have thousands and tens thousands of transitions where the rat was slowly turning into a bat Predictions; science, forming a hypothesis…If Evolution is true, we should be able to find in the ground/fossil record a few bones of rats, a few bones of bats, but the overwhelming majority of fossils should be the long series of evolutionary transition However if creation I true, I predict what we should find are bones of rats, bones of bats, and no transitionary fossils in-between
- #52 Guess what we find in the ground? Fossils of all animals in their completed form, but no transitional fossils in-between Logic demands, that these animals were created as we see them If evolution were true I would expect to see evidence of evolution in the bones as they are transformed from one animal to the other There will be claims of transition fossils…nothing more then a deformity, we see all the time cows with six legs, animals with two heads, etc There is no logical reason for me to conclude that the cow is evolving from a spider We look around the world today, see a very small percentage of animals that are deformed, so we should be able to predict that in the fossil record the vast majority of fossils will be wholly formed, and a very small percentage of fossils of animals with a deformity...that is exactly what we find
- #53 2003, baby born in India with a 6 inch tail Is anyone going to believe that these people are the last remnants of evolution from a cat or a dog or an animal with a tail? 2005, the Mermaid Baby, Lima Peru, legs fused together No evolutionist is going to claim that the baby is a link between a fish to a human BUT what if that baby was born a thousands of years ago, and died because the technology wasn’t there to save it. It fossilised, and today scientists dug up those bones, wouldn’t they claim that those bones are 3 million years old and proof of evolution. The cyclops kitty, 2006..would anyone claim this was evolution happening? Not a transitional fossil but a deformity If that very same fossil were born today, everyone would understand its just a deformity, so why isn't it just a deformity when it was born that way back then?
- #54 2006, fish like creature, lobe fins, possibly drag itself across the ground Found front part of the fish, where fins were was stubby, might be strong enough to allow the fish to drag itself along the ground or along shallow water Claim this is proof of evolution, this is where fish started to evolve and develop legs, setting stage for them to come out of the water and crawl along the ground, 375 million years ago Here’s the problem…what if the Tiktilik was nothing more then a regular kind of fish that went extinct a couple of hundred years ago? Its bones fossilised (it doesn’t take things a long time to fossilise bones can fossilise in literally just a matter of years, we have fossils of modern day things, sausage links bags of flour, hats and boots completely fossilised today from recent time, not necessarily millions of years old) Isn't it possible its nothing more than a fish that had stubby fins that allowed it to move along the sand in shallow water?
- #55 Selicanth, same stubby lobed fins 390 million to 70 million years ago 1938, a fisherman caught a life Selicanth, since then various schools of them found around round the world Selicanth today look identical to fossils of Selicanth that supposedly dies out 70 million years ago and were proof of fish evolving into land creatures. Find the bones of an extinct animal, since its unique to anything alive today claim it’s a transition fossil 2006, rat-like rodent went extinct 11 million years ago, cross between a squirrel and a rat, claimed proof of transition fossil a rat was evolving Scientist in Thailand, found one in the meat market, one of them in June 2006 caught alive on camera So now, they are ‘Living Fossils’ (oxymoron) Why isn't this just evidence that they were wrong? Transition fossil, no reason to assume its evolving into something Think about the Penguin? What if went extinct 1000 years ago, no one in modern day had seen one, dug up, what would they say about it? It walk upright, it lays eggs, it’s a bird, but it doesn’t fly…evolutionists would claim its proof of evolution, but we see them alive today and know better (Platypus)
- #57 Stephen J Gould, Evolutionary Scientist, biggest name in modern evolution today, professor of Geology and Palentology at Harvard University, modern day guru of Darwinian evolution
- #58 literally hundreds even into the thoudsands of scientists who reject evolution and write about creative design…their PHD’s are just as solid
- #60 Human body with ten fingers, ten toes, a nose, a mouth, two eyes each one with 120 million photoreceptors, two ears each one with 24 thousand hair cells that convert sound vibrations into electrical impulses, a body with over 30 trillion cells and two million sweat glands that automatically regulate temperature to within a fraction of a degree, a brain with over 100 billion cells each one with over 50 000 neuron connections to other brain cells, a central nervous system, organs, blood flow, consciousness, a standard of morality, self awareness, a vocabulary, and the necessary vocal chords to say “I don’t think I evolved into this.”