It started out with Jill posting this..
This fun, informative, animated short explains two irrefutable scientific facts that make evolution unscientific.
Answers in Genesis
Jill posted the about link with the comment “Well said”. A bunch people liked her posting.
We then get the following posts:
Kate: I believe in evolution. What most sides miss is that evolution does not preclude God. Our universe is so discoverable, so knowable, so understandable...that if we completely understood, God would be there. He breathed life into the universe, evolution, physics, and all. If you don't see how it works perfectly together, then you need faith until you understand perfectly.
Tom: The first proposition that there is no observable way to add genetic information to an organism is false. Rebecca and I did it just last weekend at the tech museum in San Jose were we transferred jelly fish genes to a bacteria which gave the bacteria different traits. It has also been observed happening in nature. Just because the process isn't perfectly understood doesn't mean that it hasn't been observed. The second proposition that nobody has observed life being created from non life is true, but I'm not sure how that refutes the theory of evolution. Just as nobody has witness God creating life is not proof that He did not, the fact that nobody has observed the first simple organism coming into being does not refute the theory of evolution. It may be an extremely rare event that only happens under the right conditions. Given the billions of planets in the universe and the billions of years that planets exist, the extremely rare event of conditions being right to create life from non living substance will happen, but may not be readily observable. It should also be noted that people are making progress in creating life from non life. So far it's just baby steps, but the pieces of the puzzle on how to do it are falling into place.
Jill: I completely believe the Bible's account, that God created man in the beginning, fully man..."and there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day." In one day man was created. Not as man evolving from a single cell organism over millions of years. And there isn't a good explanation for where single celled organism came from. I believe in micro evolution within a species, but I can't find evidence of evolution in which there is a change from one kind to another. With Darwin's finches, the changes were within finches or birds in general. The finches didn't actually evolve into another kind like bird becoming a mammal. Which is what evolution ultimately teaches. That all life formed and branched out from one single celled organism. It takes more faith for me to believe evolution is how we came about than that of an all powerful creator -- God. I only defend what I know to be true, but in now way mean to be disrespectful or argumentative and I hope that you don't think that way of me. I like friendly discussions.
Tom: Although I disagree with you that there is no good explanation for where single cell organisms come from, I also mean no disrespect to your beliefs or the beliefs of anyone else.
Jake: How do we know billions of years is true?
Kate: I think that sharing different points of view is how we learn and how we can better understand our own beliefs. I hope friendly discussions is always welcome! Especially over a beer or your beverage of choice.
Nick: So Tom did you transfer jelly fish genes to a bacteria? Or did nature do it? Man has the ability to do many things that nature cannot. Man can build a car. Have you ever wondered through the woods and came upon an old rusty car? Did you assume that nature made it? No of course not, that would be silly. Just as silly as nature creating something infinitely more complex like life itself.
Jill: Nick, I see your point. It took an intelligent mind/designer to transfer the genes, it didn't happen naturally from random processes. I still don't know how the first living cells came from nothing. The cell itself is so organized and complex. How could it have sprung from nothing by random processes? Its like dropping a bag full of scrabble tiles. How many times would you have to shake them and drop them on a table to spell out "I will be home for dinner'. Then there are other presuppositions, like more tiles will have the letter "n" on them if all the tiles have diverse letters and not just a few letters or that there are letters on each side of the tiles for better chance of getting the letter you need. It all appears designed, by an intelligent designer and the Bible introduces us to the intelligent designer. Kate, I agree with friendly discussions that can lead to learning. I am always seeking answers. I didn't originally feel or believe the way I do now. It took investigating, reading, questioning and researching, etc, for me to come to the decisions I have come to. I don't want to just believe what someone with a Phd behind their name will teach. I feel that God is all powerful and infallible and man is fallible. God is perfect and man is imperfect. Which makes me more inclined to question man rather than God.
Tom: We see the complex things being created from more simple things all the time in nature. Simple crystals form into complex structures. A snow flake is more complicated than the drop of water and the cold that formed it. Chemical reactions often result in more complicated structures than their components. Rust is more complex than the iron and oxygen from which it formed. Photosynthesis turns simple components into complex organic ones. It's interesting to see the different view points. Far from seeming "silly" to me it seems intuitive that complexity is derived from simplicity.
Jill, the theory of evolution does not state that cells appeared out of nowhere. It postulates that cells evolved from more simple organic molecules which in turn formed from more simple substances. Also, while mutations are random, which mutations survive are not. It is dependent on natural selection. While the odds of a beneficial mutation seem astronomical, consider that the numbers of simple bacteria are in the trillions with new generations appearing every hour. The math works. It's why we see simple forms of life mutating all the time. It's why viruses and bacteria become resistant to drugs.
Nick: Nature has the means and mechanism to turn iron and water into iron oxide. It doesn't however, have the means to turn iron and water, into a small block Chevy 350 with an attached radiator. The same goes for a living cell.
Kate: From a creationist perspective, I really want to know, and truly understand, I'm not just being antagonistic....what is wrong with God creating evolution? Why does evolution exclude God? I believe God is the crux of it all, but he has used processes to create. Yes, he could have gone "poof" and created life...but I've come to believe that he was more subtle, more ingenious, and created bread crumbs for us to follow, to discover, to appreciate the creative force. I would disagree with Tom an others, the universe is not overall based on chaos and randomness. Individual events may appear so, but there is very much a detailed design. I understand part of it is that creationism is taking a literal translation of the bible...which is in so many ways is true. Evolution with a God at the helm takes a literary view of the bible and views the creation story as the author inspired by God explaining to man in a way he can understand how the world was formed. When Genesis was written, explaining genes would have not worked. Hmmmm Genesis, genes.... maybe they were Genesis not wrong...it's 100% correct, but there seems to be "the rest of the story" as Andy Rooney would have put it.
Kate: Nick - Nature (which is in my book the finger of God) created man with the creative ability to turn iron and water into a small block Chevy 350 with an attached radiator. So in essence Nature (aka God) made the rust and the Chevy? How is evolution (the creative power of the natural world) any different than the creative power of man? Both are God given? What am I missing?
Bruce: This little cartoon doesn't prove anything. I don't understand why fundamentalists have such an obsession with this issue. Believing in evolution does not exclude a belief in God. I believe that when folks obsess over which miracle God chose to create life, then you are missing the larger point. You are fixating on how God created man, rather than the more important question/issue of WHY he did so.
Kate: Bruce,be careful. To me your use of "fundamentalist" and "obsession" is coming off with a derogatory under tone. That is not helpful to the argument. (I sincerely hope that Jill, Jake, and Nick don't feel I did the same thing.) This discussion is between well educated people with different opinions. We may disagree but I completely respect the source of those opinions and know they were not formed lightly. Such discussions help us all understand God and our relationship with him. We are never going to know what the right answer is until we die and meet our maker or the end of time when God reveals his master plan.
Tom: t doesn't follow that because nature can't turn iron and water into a small block Chevy that it doesn't have the mechanism to create a cell. A Chevy isn't made up of self replicating and occasionally mutating genes.
Jake: Since we have been recording events in history why haven't we seen species evolve into other forms of life. Meaning, why haven't we seen kinds evolve into different kinds of life. Why haven't we seen humans evolve into another species. If I came from placentals or marsupials then where is the in between? Why don 't we have half monkey, half human species running around? The only evidence of evolution is within it's own kind. Not one kind into another. The bible clearly says the earth was created in six days, six twenty four hour days. Six individual days with a day and a night and on the seventh day he rested. There is only evidence of a young earth. No evidence of a billions of years earth. Where do people even come up with billions of years? We don't even have to refute the Theory of Evolution because the term refutes itself. Other words for theory are assumption, speculation, suspicion, guess, hunch & presumption. Assumptions, speculations, suspicions, guesses, hunches and presumptions don't hold up in a court of law. Only real hard evidence holds up in a court of law. The theory of evolution would not hold up. that is all it is, just a hunch, a guess. That is why it can only be a called a theory. just like the big bang theory. that is all it is. something can't come from nothing. it's not science fact, it's only science theory. Gap Theory, day-age theory, progressive creation, etc are not true to the text of the scriptures and any attempt to undermine what the scripture actually says undermines the whole New Testament/Gospel emphasis relating to sin, death, bloodshed, redemption, and the curse. I hope my comments don't offend as they are my opinion on the matter. No intention to insult or belittle here. Just standing up for my beliefs. Shalom.
Kate: Hey Jake. I do completely respect the strength of your beliefs. I find these conversations very interesting. (I have them all the time...if you couldn't tell). You and I were both were raised Catholic, but have followed different paths in adulthood through study and prayer. I am especially interested in your thoughts about this topic because you have studied all sides and have come to the conclusions you have after much examination. It is the people who have spent time to throughly understand a topic and challenged the status quo that I want to learn from. We still may not agree.... but I hope you are OK with sharing ideas!
Tom: One of the dangers in discussing such fundamental disagreements is that it is difficult not to come across as sounding disrespectful or insulting even when that is not your intent. I have not been offended by anything anyone has said here and I hope that nobody has been offended by anything I have said on this topic or will say.
The thing about the scientific method is that it requires repeatable observation of phenomena. If it's just a hunch, or if the only observation is non verifiable, it is at best called a hypothesis. A hypothesis gets called a theory only after the observation of empirical and measurable evidence and the observation of the evidence has been repeated and verified by others. It only becomes called a theory after the evidence has been published and peer reviewed by others who verify that the observation of the evidence is repeatable, measurable, and verifiable by anyone, and that whatever conclusions are drawn from the observation logically follows the observation. While the theory of evolution isn't a law like gravity, there is still a lot of evidence.
Why haven't we seen humans evolve into another species? It's probably because complex creatures like humans take a long time to evolve. It's probably because the conditions on earth haven't resulted in the natural selection process favoring mutations enough to result in a new post human species during the relatively short time of human history.
Why haven't we seen half human half monkeys? Well, the theory states that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. Fossils of multiple kinds of creatures that are between the common ancestors and humans have been found. Over time more and more fossils are found adding more evidence supporting the theory of evolution. By the way, DNA has been extracted from some fossils showing a close relationship to modern humans.
In relatively recent times we have been able to sequence DNA from many living species. We have found that the DNA of apes are closer to humans than that of monkeys which in turn have DNA close to us than that of lemurs. This is what you would expect from the theory of evolution. It's a new and different line of evidence.
Why is there no evidence that the earth is billions of years old? There is. One of the lines of evidence is radiometric dating. You can read a little more about it at
Does the theory of evolution refute the bible? That's not for me to say. I suppose that some people would say that it does and others would say that the bible should be read metaphorically and therefore it does not. Would the bible be considered hard evidence in a court of law?
I don't mean to offend. I have just read some posts over the past year that I felt misrepresented the theory. I'm not trying to change your view. I just wanted to show that the theory is not crazy or coming out of left field. You may not agree with it, but I'm hoping that you can respect it.
Jake: Nor have I, been offended. We just have different view points on the matter. You know we love you guys and that regardless of some differences, we still enjoy your company and can have a good time together. And we still have things in common to share an interest in. Shalom.
Bruce: Same-same to All... to me this is a discussion. I am just simply amazed that this single issue remains so controversial, triggers so many emotional responses, and individuals are so extremely sensitive about it. I have many friends and family who happily describe themselves as fundamentalists (in that they believe that the Bible is to be taken completely as a literal truth. Certainly not a dig. I respect this view though I, personally, don't share it as I view much of the Scriptures, specifically in the Old Testament, as metaphorical. Though absolutely not the case with Jill or Jake, I must say, that over the years I have experienced many individuals who have proven so sensitive to this issue that they undeservedly disparage believers in evolution and their faith in God. Just to be clear, my references to fixation on a particular point and obsession with a single specific aspect were not directed at either Jake or Jill but, rather, to other friends, associates, and some members of my own family, nor were these words intended as derogatory but rather as descriptive of the amount of energy that is sometimes directed to this topic. I honestly feel that this particular single facet too often distracts us from what, I believe, are the far more important aspects of our relationship with the Lord and all of our brothers and sisters here on Earth. I believe, that, no matter how we got here it was a miracle of the Creator, as is every moment that he gives us. May God bless all of you!!
Jill: First of all, I love having these conversations!! I don't at all get offended, as I am always trying to learn the truth. That is all I seek. However, people tend to get offended with me . Tom, about the Scientific Method requiring repeatable observation of a phenomenon to turn a hypothesis into a theory and then further into a law, is absolutely correct. But, I feel that when life started billions of years ago, it wasn't observable. Nothing would have been observable to us until humans came about in their present form; which in regards to billions of years, has been very recent. If it is believed that we evolved from lower life forms, we wouldn't have been able to practice observational science till we became more advanced and have the intelligence to do so. I totally agree there species are constantly evolving after their own kinds. Evolution has us being a sub life form, for lack of a better word, and has us now as superior intelligence over all other creatures. Why some primates evolved into the humans we are now and why others are stuck in their primate form, doesn’t makes sense. I truly don’t have the answers but have more questions. However, when I look at the Bible it has answers. The Bible was written over period of approx 1500 years by approx 40 different authors with diverse educational backgrounds and different stations in life; it contains facts there weren’t know until recent years, it contains so much prophecy that has been fulfilled, and Jesus declared it true. There is just so much truth in the Bible and answers so many questions and evolution leaves me with more questions.
Jill: Kate, I know without a doubt that God could have used evolution, but it states so clearly that He created everything in the first 6 days and rested on the 7th. He also stated that He created us in His own image (Gen 1:26 and 5:1). God was never a lower life form that evolved into a human, which is what evolution has for us. Everything God created was good, but He stated the when he created man, He declared his creation to be very good (Gen 1:31). Exodus 20:8-11 states “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath …for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Also, Jesus made the statement, “but from the beginning of creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).” So Jesus is saying that man was created from the beginning, not billions or millions of years after creation. I just feel that man’s science is always changing, but God doesn’t change and His word never changes. I believe Him to be all powerful, and thus capable of doing what He said. Man is fallible and God is infallible.
Tom:
Jill, I'm glad that you enjoy theses conversations and that we're all able to discuss our opinions and beliefs calmly. Regarding your comment that man's science is always changing, it leads to a question that I hear often. How can we trust science when it's always changing? I actually trust a process that will refine or even correct itself to new information or better insight. I believe that this will lead us closer to the truth than a system that won't reevaluate old beliefs even in the face of new information or new insights. I see the continually self reevaluating and self refining nature of science as a strength and not a weakness. It is also important to note that science is mostly changing at it's frontier. Our understanding of how evolution works, for instance, has had to be refined over the years based upon new information, but the general concept of natural selection that has been around since Darwin has not been refuted. In fact, new observations have further supported the theory of evolution even if our understanding of it has changed. I get excited when a new discovery gets made and makes us reevaluate our current theories. I like the many new questions that tend to arise with new discoveries and with new insights. It's how we progress. Yes, the current theories leave us with questions, but the questions don't necessarily invalidate the theory.
It is true that nobody has seen the first spec of life created. Just because science is based upon observation and testing doesn't mean that it can't make deductions about what it can't observe based upon the observations that it can make. One example of this is that people observed wobbles in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune and they deduced that there must be another planet out there. They were later proven right by the discovery of Pluto. Another example is that people figured out all kind of things about atoms long before the atoms themselves were observed. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me that based upon the observations that we have made that we can't reason out at least some parts of the evolutionary process that we haven't made or can't make.
Having said that, I have read some articles that say the theory of evolution isn't about how life first started, but about how species arose and diversified from that first life. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it does show how our discussion can be broken into two questions. How did life first start and how did the diversity of species come about. I suppose it would be possible for someone to think that the theory of how life first started from simple compounds is not supported by evidence, but still think that the evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming.
I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense that certain primates would have evolved higher intelligence while others did not. There is nothing that says that natural selection just favors higher intelligence. All that matters is that whatever change has happened in a species leaves the species suited to survive to whatever conditions happen to exist in its environment at the time. In fact, the natural selection process doesn't always mean that the original species has to go extinct. One species of primates can live in multiple regions. The conditions may change in one region where certain mutations are favored eventually leading to a new species, while the conditions in another region did not change to favor those mutations.
