Are We Blinded by Science?

Dolby singing his classic....

It is all in your head!

You got to have Soul!

What is Truth?

It never fails to amaze me that one concept or belief can be so obvious to some people and then considered nonsense or incorrect by others. Another thing that puzzles me is that science can be considered to be so truthful and precise, even though it has not always drawn the right conclusions.

For all one has to do is study the history of science and see the vapour trail of miscalculations and down right incorrect conclusions. This is not a bad thing, for the very nature of science is based on trial and error. Science is designed to constantly be in a state of flux, and the reinventing of itself.

What is a bad thing is when science is sacrificed by the obsession to be right or better yet, prove the other side wrong! It has become appalling to me, to see either the Intelligent Design folks or the evolutionist present things in a mad attempt to prove their point, not caring if the facts that seem to not fit into their agenda are brushed aside. By the way, both sides of the fence are guilty of this!

So what we got here is a failure to communicate, and I believe this comes from the perspective one has taken. What were our influences in life that directed us to come to the conclusions we have in the first place? What happened to us that put us on one side or the other of “the fence” when it comes to our belief about how life began?

Yes perspective is the key, when trying to reach any conclusion....perspective and context. Do we simple reach our conclusions because of some knee-jerk reaction form by our education and experience in life? For we either evolved or were created to question things, that is a trait that I believe can be seen as either a blessing or curse, or maybe both! The saying goes, at least the way I heard it is that “curiosity killed the cat, but information brought it back!"

I will use my own life as a example of how one can be driven by curiosity and be lead on a wild goose chase that in the end had positive results. For I survived my own obsession with “pushing the envelop” and taking things to the very edge of “lunatic fringe” only to now embrace what some may consider a somewhat conservative view of life.

I do not believe in creation because “the bible tells me so” or from what I was taught in school. The fact is, I have never been very good at playing “follow the leader.” For after exploring many options I came to believe nothing else but creation makes since. I reached that conclusion in part by my extensive study of Metaphysics and the Occult. The main premise I drew from all the years of allowing myself to be my own “lab rat” so to speak, is that everything is energy and connected.

This is what is expressed by those who hold the notion that the universe is “somewhat” holographic! The string theory is actually presented in a lot of so called "secrete knowledge" cults and science is just now catching up with this ancient view that the true reality is that everything is energy and connected. The videos that I have downloaded go into this on a deeper level and yet, I only downloaded two in a five part series because I felt that they took off in a direction that would distract from the message I want to convey. The main message I want to put forth is that what we think we know is NOT the true reality or better yet, the only reality.

The argument some evolutionist make, is that the stars could have not been created for it is proven that they are millions of light years away from earth. The fact that it takes their light so long to reach the earth, would prove creation to be wrong! Unless, the stars and everything else is indeed a part of us! I know some dyed in the wool evolutionist who would say that this statement is just a cop out! My response is that, I am just getting warmed up here...for in this article I will touch on many concepts presented by science that just plan does not hold water!

If we really take a hard look at the history of our world we will see a overwhelming amount of evidence that what we now perceive as dinosaurs have co-existed with man! Evolution keep saying this is ludicrous for creationist to say such things and yet....they close their eyes to the STRONG possibility that the myths about dragons are in fact true! Another thing that mystify me is that blood and soft tissue has been discovered in bones of dinosaurs that are claimed to be 65 MILLION YEARS OLD! I am not a scientist, but like a lot of other “Hubers” I play one on HubPages (just kidding) but I do see the problem with this!

I have recently found much more evidence to load my gun so to speak, in regards to raising some serious questions about the age of dinosaur bones. It seems that there has been even more discoveries, not just the T-Rex, that seem to laugh in the face of dinosaurs being as old as it is claimed. Even so, science still have a death grip on the notion that the bones are as old as they say they are. In fact there was a mummified dinosaur found in North Dakota, which to me proves without a shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are not as old as science claims.

The reason why this so clear to me, is that the oldest case of mummification, is the “Ice Man” discovered in Italian Alps. “He” is considered to be about 5,300 years old. The Ice Man marveled scientist on how well he was preserved after this length of time. Now remember, he is “only” 5,300 years old and yet, these dinosaurs have managed to be preserved fairly well for what? SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS?

Another important point is, that sciences says that the only way that this dinosaur could have become mummified is that he was buried quickly IN A FLOOD! By the way, there are five other dinosaur mummies which must have also been killed in a flood. Is it just a quiescence that these mummies were caught in a flood to preserve them?

Another thing that seems to point to one MASSIVE flood is the location of fossils. Does it not seem strange that fossils are found all over the world in mountain ranges? Were talking about the Himalayas, the highest mountain range in the world! Or in the walls of the Grand Canyon 7,000 to 8,000 feet high! Let me make another important point, and that is that fossilization can only happen when the remains of a animal is immediately covered with sediment and then the minerals gradually replace the living tissue. This is the only way it works, ask any scientist and they will have to agree with this!

Of course there are all the petrified forest with trees uprooted by some tremendous force, which scientist explain as being “trees growing by a river or some other water way that flooded.” This seems funny to me, because I have done a lot of backpacking and camping which has exposed me to some nasty flash-floods. In all the years I spent out in wilderness areas in the South and North West, I have yet to experience a flood that had enough power to embed a tree like the ones I show in the photographs. Another key discovery is a petrified beehive found in one of the trees that is said to be 200 million years old. The problem that this presents, is that bees were not suppose to evolve for another 100 million years after this time!

Many scientist insist that their claims are true, and that if you choices to disagree with their supposition you are disillusioned. Even though, some of things that were once considered absolute fact, is now considered false. Take Alchemy for example, at one time it was believed that lead could be transformed into gold. This of course has been proven to not be the case.

So in a world where everyone has their point of view, how can we identify the truth? What is it in us, that prevents us as humans from “getting on the same page” as far as what the evidence shows us? Well in the next section of this hub, we are going to examine some of the insights of actual scientist, and get a better understanding on their perspective.



And yet Science keep looking the other way!

Blood in denosure bone? what is up with that?

67 Million Old Mumy, Really?

It must of been SOME FLOOD to embed the trees in rocks like this!

So these petrified trees all over the world, that had to end up like this from some powerful flood!
So these petrified trees all over the world, that had to end up like this from some powerful flood! | Source
This is in Yellowstone.
This is in Yellowstone. | Source

Denial Raises It Ugle Head!

From his wheelchair view of the universe, Stephen Hawkins has reached the conclusion that God is not necessary for our existence. Instead, he states that, “the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow the universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

This to me, begs the question, were then did Gravity come from? How can these laws be set in motion and applied within the universe without a law giver? For evolutionist have been confronting the belief that God is the the beginning and the end, demanding to know were God has come from. However, Mr. Hawkins can make a statement like this and all the evolutionist seem cool with it!

Even though they are okay with Hawkins concept of “spontaneous creation” which to me seems just as sensational and hard to swallow as god as The Creator! I am not alone in thinking this reasoning is absurd, and I will now quote another scientist that totally disagrees with with the assumption brought forth by Stephen Hawkins.

This is Professor John Lennox who has this to say on the subject; “For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation. The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.”

Hawkins has been wish-washy with some of his prior convictions concerning the nature of black-holes. He even lost a bet because he changed his mind. Of course, being human he has a right to rethink his hypothesis and yet, does it not make one wonder if it is possible for him to do this again in the future,recanting from what he now believes? Because of the fact that I do not wish to become distracted by a subject that I plan write about in another hub, I will provide a link to a article about Hawkins changing his mind.You can find that here.

What I do want to talk about briefly, is this M Theory that Hawkins claims makes it possible to have a whole universe instantly appear. This complicated concept that is said to tie everything together, is a theory that is nothing new, for the beliefs about alternative universes has been explored in many New Age practices! That is why I purpose that the M in this theory stands for Magic Wand, that once waved allows all these universes to pop in and out of existence.

To highlight my point, I will quote Marcus Cordey, who wrote a paper called Magical Theory and Traditions .“any division that is perceived to exist between science and magic is but an illusion. Both are true and proper natural philosophies, inseparable and intertwined, physics, chemistry, and medicine all draw upon these natural forces, as does magic, alchemy, and the Occult arts.”

Wait a gosh darn minute here! I thought the whole purpose of science is to step away from the superstitious practices like “magic”! But now this M Theory that Mr. Hawkins embraces, is using the same principles that the Metaphysics has promoted for who knows how long! Some of the famous New Age writers like Carlos Castaneda, Jane Roberts, and even Allister Crowley, has presented information that seems to agree with this M Theory. This of course, opens up a colossal can of worms that I have already spoken of somewhat in my Luciferian Doctrine series, so I will not go into much detail in this hub. Instead I will now focus on those scientist that has been outspoken on the whole philosophy of evolution.

For the facts are, that there are many scientist that DO NOT agree with evolution, as it is being presented. I will not quote all I can, but instead will supply links so this hub does not get larger than it needs to be.

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”

Dr. Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen,

“I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundation-less, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rotted in the hearts of man.”

Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, "The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning."

Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, "The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."

The astronomer George Greenstein wrote:

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? "

" An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).

Dr. Michael Denton, an agnostic but a decided non-evolutionist compiled a chart on "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record" in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by comparing the number of living types to fossil types, gleaning information from Romer's classic book, Vertebrate Paleontology. He found that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils. (Orders are larger groupings of families which are larger than genera which are larger then species.) Many creationists consider the groupings family or genus to best approximates the Genesis kind. Of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, 79.1% are represented, a number which jumps to 87.8% if birds (hardly ever preserved) are excluded. Thus, the fossil record of even terrestrial vertebrates is seen to be remarkably complete.

In fact, the bible makes it clear, that those in this world will never understand the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 is one verse (or verses) that does not pull any punches in this regard, here let me quote for you from the New Living Translation: “God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him though human wisdom.”

Before I close this editorial, I would like to take a quick look at the words of Einstein, for it is only fair that we “hear” from one of the greatest minds of science.

“I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

  • From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371

No, I am not implying that Einstein was a Creationist, for he makes it clear in many places, that he did not buy into a personal God when he declares.. “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it . (Albert Einstein, 1954)

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

I include Ernestine's view for he is often perceived as a Atheist, which was not the case. It would be interesting to see what he would say about the ways that science today is heading. Personally, I think he would be dismayed by some of the same things that bother me!

Some may say it is not important what one believes, what is the important is the actions we take in a world that is in danger of being destroyed by our carelessness. I agree that action needs to be taken in regards to preserving life on this planet, but I also feel it is important to know what we do believe, if for no other reason than to better know ourselves. Then again, I also believe it matters for the salvation of our soul! That is my story and I am sticking to it!


And now for a bit of fun

More by this Author


Comments 124 comments

thelyricwriter profile image

thelyricwriter 5 years ago from West Virginia

Very very interesting. I know this is a very sensitive subject to speak about, little alone write about. It is well written by the way and so much information. It is hard to believe that they have found skin on a dinosaur. 67 million years ago, just incredible. It is hard to talk about this subject because you don't want to imagine a world without a higher power. On one side, you have dinosaurs and 4 billion year old planet, then you have God, ghost, and demons. Like I said, it is sensitive to even speak about so I am using my words carefully. I have seen and experienced both sides so to speak. In all honesty, I am confussed. I don't want to offend anyone. I guess I see proof on both sides. Just like aliens or ufo's. I believe. If someone had a ship that could do what they do, they would be profiting off it. That is the truth.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you so much for dropping by, thelyricwriter, I have many more hubs that touch on the subjects that you speak on. The bottom line is that I feel there is a spiritual war going on, and the enemy of God AND man is doing all he can to confuse people!


Terishere profile image

Terishere 5 years ago

Hi Highvoltagewriter, I'm a believer and I do believe the earth is 4 billion and some years old. I have no problem with my faith in believing this.

There is evidence in God's word, though it's a deep subject and controversial...For me, the truth matters more than doctrine or dogma

Terri


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hello Terri, thanks for stopping in! Yes there are a lot of Christians that believe that world is much older than those who feel that the world is 6,000 years old. In fact, my own paster feels that God does time different than man and because of that, the world could be much older. The fact is, that no body knows how long Adam and Eve were even in the garden. Personally, I think time has been miss calculated. However, if we have a time scale that puts the "Ice Man" Mummy under six thousand years, it seems like a huge leap to go from there to 65 million years! What then would be the cut off point for blood to be found in bone, or skin to be mummified?


Terishere profile image

Terishere 5 years ago

It's all very interesting. And I have no problem believing the earth is very old, though flesh man is a bit younger.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

So what do you mean by "flesh man? I am not quite following here.


Terishere profile image

Terishere 5 years ago

Till us human beings appeared


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

so, you believe in evolution?


Terishere profile image

Terishere 5 years ago

No, I don't believe evolution.... Though many do


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yet, you believe in a "old" earth? Very interesting...I do not know what to say, for I myself do not believe the world is only 6,000 years old, I also do not believe it is as old as evolutionist claim.


Terishere profile image

Terishere 5 years ago

It is an interesting subject, but it's a deep one too... Too much to post in a comment... Maybe one day I'll write a hub on it....

Your hub is very interesting...

Terri


Mamadrama profile image

Mamadrama 5 years ago from Upstate NY

This is very interesting and def sparks some thoughts. First and foremost when I started reading this, the first thought that came to mind is.. a lot of people either do not care or become overly obsessed by the word of science simply because we do not know any better. I look at science very much like religion. Most of us are interested in the outlining facts. Any thing above that is too complicated to process. I am speaking of course on the side of the average simpleton.. many science facts are above me.. but I love learning something new, I try to absord and maintain as much as I can.. thanks for sharing! Really got me thinking.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 5 years ago from Malaga, Spain

Hi Highvoltage, anybody who quotes 'Cool Hand Luke' is OK by me! though they shot Paul Newman to pieces after that remark!

I always held to the old 'one day is a thousand years' concept when aging the earth, then one time I read about a 'universal year' which was apparently the time it took for the universe to revolve full circle, and that was something like (don't quote me) 360 million years (or some huge period of time) and I thought..... hmmmmmm?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

hello mamadrama, I was wondering if you would check this one out for it is kind of deep, and the reason I wrote it for I was getting feed up with evolutionist saying that their theory is absolute when a lot of evidence tells a different story!

Yes, aguasliver, this whole time thing is hard to grasp...and it make one wonder if our calculations are even correct! The whole thing is like jigsaw puzzle and the more pieces we fit together the more amazing the picture becomes!


Gregoryy profile image

Gregoryy 5 years ago

Nice and Interesting Hub!!


Mamadrama profile image

Mamadrama 5 years ago from Upstate NY

It is VERY deep, really gets you thinking. Love how you know which hubs I would be attracted too. I guess I am easy to read. You did a great job with this! Love think pieces!! Let me know which other ones you recomend. Email them to be on FB so I don't miss the feedback on here.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

mamadrama, it is always great to see in my comment section! This hub was actually inspired by comments I was receiving from those who believe in evolution even though the evidence shows us something different altogether! These were comments for a hub I wrote named "Evolution: The Berkeley Gulp of theories" strange name and yet, if you read it I think you would understand!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

I see evolution as science mixed with a religious faith of its own, there are so many things you must believe that make no sense at all. How did male and female's evolve side by side? The earths rotation has been slowing down so how can the earth be millions of years old? How did the DNA OR THE HUMAN EYE evolve?-Regards and blessings-WBA


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yes I totally agree with you! This hub was written to respond to all the evolution on my last hub on the subject who keep saying that evolution is absolute fact and yet there is ALL THIS EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT! Hawkins is said to be a great scientist but now is claiming that a universe can pop into existence like from cosmic toaster! Give me a break, is that what the mathematics actual show? Someone needs to go back to the drawing board!


magnoliazz profile image

magnoliazz 5 years ago from Wisconsin

Wow, this hub is impressive. I did not get the chance to watch the videos yet, but I will, as soon as I have time to do it justice.

More and more we are seeing that science proves the Bible is true and not just some made up fairy tale, of course there are some who will never believe the truth.

Thank you, keep up the good work!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

hello Magnolia, I am so glad that you dropped in! I was a little worried about you when I heard that you survived that hellish storm, but then it seem you were not to active at HP! It is interesting that I have not gotten much response from the evolutionist YET, for I wrote this hub after being amazed by the comments and arguments presented in my last evolution hub.

By the way, have you heard anything more from Lone Ranger? He said he would be joining HubPages but then I have not heard anything after that.


Becky Katz profile image

Becky Katz 5 years ago from Hereford, AZ

You missed the NASA problem in programming their computers for the first space missions. They had to account for every second of time. When they got done accounting for the scientific time, they were still short. One of the scientists was raised a Christian. He remembered the times in the Bible where time was stopped or turned backwards. They programmed them in and voila, the program worked. Proof that the Bible was right again, and by scientists.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hello Becky Katz, thanks for dropping by! Yes I had read that and I forgot to put it the hub...This is my third hub that I question evolution and I keep here the same old arguments that lead me to pull out he big guns so to speak! I had one reader who had the made the silly statement that no scientist believe in creation any more!


dreamreachout 5 years ago

This is a wonderful hub!! We keep debating on the subject yet very often we come across things that defy science!! There is so much in the world which cannot be explained and its best for humans that we remember this factor along with science!! Thank you for the hub!!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thanks for stopping by dreamreachout, and I am glad that you enjoyed this hub! I am surprised that it has not caused any debate yet, for the last hub about evolution that I wrote, caused a real uproar!


Becky Katz profile image

Becky Katz 5 years ago from Hereford, AZ

Another thought though, which may help the scientists a bit. When Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, one of their sons left and came back months later with a wife. Where did she come from? Could both be true? Something to think about.


taylorslaw profile image

taylorslaw 5 years ago from Taylors

Nice article. It reminds me of a comment someone left on my facebook page about columbus "discovering" america. They said...."I'm going across the street and break into my neighbors house and "discover" their toilet! Poor scientist...they mean well but simply are too afraid to admit they will never "discover" anything about creation because it came from G-D not man!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

So Becky, are you saying in another part of the world, apes were evolving into Humans? I believe that there is much left out of the Bible that the writers of that time did not see as important.There is a lot of things we may not fully understand until "we" (who ever we are) are transformed after Christ returns. Paul said the at the present time, "we" (there I go again) see though a glass darkly.

Hello taylorslaw, thank you for stopping by! The point you make about Columbus is a good one, for the "Native Americans" beat him to the punch as also the Vikings did!


magnoliazz profile image

magnoliazz 5 years ago from Wisconsin

HI Again Highvoltagewriter!

I have not seen hide nor hair of the Lone Ranger. Sometimes I think he might be the same guy as American Tiger. American Tiger used to be on hubpages, but then he just disappeared, don't know what happened to him either.

LOL...the evolutionist must be tired out or something, they have not attacked your hub yet!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hello Magnolia, that is the thing about LR, he always seemed a bit mysterious and yet he had a lot knowledge on a lot of things and I would love to get his insights on this hub.

It is funny when you talk about the evolutionist...for I have invited my friend Trish M to stop by and she said she would when she had more time...funny I thought that was the one thing evolutionist had much of, TIME!


sharewhatuknow profile image

sharewhatuknow 5 years ago from Western Washington

Hivoltagewriter: I am a bit puzzled by so-call carbon-dating. I am not any bit experienced with this. So my question is this? How do experts know that something carbon dated is 65 million years old?

After all, we can look at a tombstone now, or a gage for example on anything...a gas tank, an oxygen tank, etc...and say, oh, you need more fuel, or, this person died in 1855.

But I find, for instance, a fossilized insect...how can any person to date put an exact stamp on that about when the creature died ?? I mean, how does our carbon-dating science really know it died 65 million years ago or just 65 thousand years ago, or just 65 years ago???

That is my question, not to you, but to science HVW.

I agree with you. You state what I have been thinking for a long time.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

One thing to understand is that carbon dating can only date carbon! This is why it is NOT used in dating fossilised bone such as dinosaurs. The process of carbon dating is a very detailed approach that concerns it's self with what is know as "half life." I will not go into the detail at this time and yet, it is a agreed on fact that carbon dating is only used on substances that the carbon as been broken down completely. This is somewhere around 30,000 years depending who you ask!


sharewhatuknow profile image

sharewhatuknow 5 years ago from Western Washington

I only wish I had more money to go to college. I am truly interested in how "carbon dating" works. But once again, how does anyone really know, without a gage to work with, that any kind of dating is accurate? I am laughing while I ask this again, reminds me of a horror movie I saw made back in the 70's. The plot was from a 19th Century scientist who had fossils with him. He and his fossils had boarded a train. He was telling everyone on the train that had any interest in speaking with him that these fossils were millions of years old...

UH, how would he have possibly known this?

I know it was a movie, but you folks get my point.

Unless there is a fossil that says, "I died 15 million years ago," how can we possibly know when any creature died? There are no gages here.


Tamarajo profile image

Tamarajo 5 years ago from Southern Minnesota

I like your logic and I think you are correct about both sides working so hard to prove themselves right and the other wrong that critical thinking gets tossed out the window sometimes and facts are squashed to fit the desired argument.

favorite quote from your article:

"science can be considered to be so truthful and precise, even though it has not always drawn the right conclusions"

I think this is a huge problem. I watch PBS documentaries occasionally and get so annoyed about the conclusions that are drawn from their gathered facts. It seems as if they take a bag of random facts and create what they think is a factual story from it. I have found more often than not that there facts seem to support a creation view rather than an evolutionary one. One of the more fascinating topics concerning this was in a documentary called "Ghost in your Genes" it was about epi-genetics and how things including experiences get passed down from generation to generation. The discussed how switches were turned on and off enabling or disabling genetic material to express itself and the genetic material being described as "in the dark". I couldn't help think of Jesus declaring Himself to be the light of the world healing people and flipping those switches.

another one was on fractal geometrics showing how everything in the universe can be explained in mathematical and geometric terms. If that doesn't scream creator I don't know what does.

Enough rambling here. I enjoyed your article and found it very interesting and thought provoking.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you Tamarajo for your comments, this hub was written because the evolutions keep telling me that "everything points to evolution" and yet "they" have not been able to show me how!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

Hi highvolatewriter, a great article but you make many fundamental mistakes:

"Evolution keep saying this is ludicrous for creationist to say such things"

Evolution does not "say" anything.

It is a concept. Animal populations evolve and this has been proven. The concept that genes can be altered and cause different organisms is not in dispute. The concept that some genes allow for better survival and breeding chances is not in dispute. You can see this using a simple antibiotic and bacteria colonies. Some will die, and some with the resistance gene will live and breed. That bacteria colony has evolved and next time that antibiotic is used, none of the bacteria will die. Evolution at it's simplest.

Evolution is not in dispute, and every time you imply that it is, is incorrect.

-What is in dispute is how (what mechanism) things have evolved or have not evolved by. Also in dispute is whether ancestral organisms are our genetic ancestors. If dinosaurs where around at the times of humans, it does not stop the concept of evolution being true. It is a concept that we can see work before our very eyes today and is not in dispute. It's use as a theory that encompasses all life is a theory and is by no means shared by every scientist....

- It is like saying that because breathing says that because some animals didn't breathe before, breathing is wrong. Not really :S -

In addition, you seem to imply that scientists cannot be religious. The two are not mutually exclusive. Further to that point, you seem to make points for a creator, and then suddenly use that as a means to promote religion's credibility. The reason I say suddenly, is that the idea of a creator does not give credit to the morals and beliefs of a religion.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I meant to say evolutionist not evolution…thank you Philanthropy2012 for making me aware of that type error. The book "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" is written by scientis that would beg to differ with you. I have never said that a scientist can not believe in God. I am trying to say that we can not take scientist as the end all. The whole argument about evolution has been that for something to evolve it takes massive amouts of time...are you saying that is not the case?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

Scientsits , If I am not mistaken, who dispute the validity of the dictionary definition of Evolution as the concept that some animals evolve as a result of acquiring better genes, are wrong. They are arguing with very clear proof.

For something to evolve it takes massive amounts of time? What is 'massive', relative to the time that has passed, evolution is fast. Also, my example of bacteria colonies shows that even relative to a human life, evolution can be fast.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Oh man, I wish "you evolutionist" would get on the same page! For, over and over again I have been told that it is TIME, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TIME that makes evolution work!

To me, just because a species of animal has adapted to survive, is not the same thing as evolution! God in his wisdom has allowed animals to adapt to changes in the environment. This is became necessary after sin entered the world.

Here is one example were the concept of that "only the strong will survive" scenario as not working out the way one race of people planed it to. This is during Nazi Germany when the Germans actually felt that they were superior to the others countries they were fighting but were sadly mistaken! Might does not always make right!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

@HighVoltageWriter

ah hah there are at least 30,000 different interpretations of the Bible! A poor evolutionist cannot say that a Christian is for or against anything because there are so many different types of them and so many views!

"God in his wisdom has allowed animals to adapt to changes in the environment."

Yeah but the name we give to this adaption is "evolution" regardless of faith hah ^^ You've pretty much admitted to accepting Evolution right there :L.

"Germany when the Germans actually felt that they were superior to the others countries they were fighting but were sadly mistaken! Might does not always make right."

Germany lost because it was weaker than it's opponent. In a sense, it was not as evolved as the other countries, evolution deals with everything that makes a difference in survival. Germany did not have the social skills to make enough allies to beat it's opponents. Nor did it have the brains (politicians) to realise that they could not take on the entire world. Even if it's men were of a "higher" race, there weren't enough of them.

I think you might be a little mistaken with the idea that strength and "might" are the only thing we poor evolutionists look at!

Humans for example, are not at all mightier than an elephant. But we have developed social skills so that we can work together in packs and slay and eat elephants where otherwise we could not? We also recently developed technology (the best trait a human has, ingenuity) to kill elephants despite the fact that biologically, we are no stronger than an elephant! Evolution takes into account social and mental factors, not just physical size or ability.

The same goes for countries, some countries are indeed more evolved to survive their surroundings than others. But countries evolve in a different way, not like an organism. It's far more complicated!

As for the evolution takes massive amounts of time. What we expect is that is true for some organisms on the planet. Large animals that don't reproduce quickly tend to evolve much slower than small ones that reproduce rapidly. As such, a polar bear will take ridiculous amounts of time to evolve to battle the ice caps melting (they'll probably all die), whilst bacteria (and viruses) are tiny and rapidly reproduce and evolve incredibly fast in comparison and cause us problems because they keep evolving against the antibiotics that we make against them >: ( !!.

(this is the reason we haven't got a permanent vaccine for the flu, it evolves so rapidly that a cure on one day would effect numbers of the virus, the next, even less, the next even less. This is also why you have to get a new flu jab each year if you want to be protected against it)

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/winterhealth/Pages/Flua...

have a good evening,

Philanthropy,


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

Interesting, but it is important to be sure that facts and comments cited are both correct and valid.

For now, I shall just mention Etheridge, and quote from an item I found elsewhere on the Internet:

'Ronald L. Numbers* discussed the use of [this] quote in the evolution/creationism controversies in the 19th century:

'The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,” at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that “Mr. Etheridge’s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.”

'Thus instead of a contemporary distinguished scientists doubting evolution we have an obscure nineteenth century figure that never had any fame at all. In short the creationists have been dishonest in their presentation of the quote'.

* Ronald L. Numbers. 'The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism'. Berkeley: The University of California Press. 1992. P. 52.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie0...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

That same site deals with Fleischman, who did, indeed, reject evolution.

This is what they say:

'Numbers also dealt with Fleischmann:

'... Fleischmann (1862-1942), [was] a reputable but relatively obscure German zoologist who taught for decades at the University of Erlangen in Bavaria. In 1901 he published a scientific critique of organic evolution, Die Descendenz-theorie, in which he rejected not only Darwinism but all theories of common organic descent. This placed him in a unique position among biologists. As Kellogg noted in 1907, Fleischmann seemed to be “the only biologist of recognised position … who publicly declared a disbelief in the theory of descent.” The German creationist apparently remained of the same mind for the rest of his life. ..... In his declining years Fleischmann informed English acquaintances that he was writing a book “that will wipe evolution off the slate,” but the work never appeared.

'So instead of a contemporary biologist ... we have an obscure and long-dead biologist'.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie0...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Yes, science is ongoing. It is about experimentation and observation. It is a work in progress.

And, while its discoveries can be very useful in helping to prove things right or wrong, scientists should ~ and most do ~ keep an open mind, because new information may change the 'facts'.

Some scientists may be more rigid than others, but they are only human, after all. And it is not surprising that some of them should become frustrated, when confronted with supposed 'scientific' arguments based upon the Bible. The Bible is not really about science ~ it is a mish-mash, designed to tell God's story.

I actually think that it is difficult to talk about 'both sides', as if they were somehow equal; they are not. Biblical beliefs cannot be compared to scientific conclusions.

Yes, there will be failure to communicate, because the two 'sides' are speaking different languages. One is based on mathematics and experimentation; the other is based on mythology and supernatural belief.

I certainly agree that, whether we evolved or were created we humans need to question things.

I also know that, while scientists may have hypotheses, regarding the origins of the universe, they do not 'know'.

No-one actually knows. I'm sure that most scientists would accept this. But because they don't know ~ and may even acknowledge that 'God' might fit into this 'gap' ~ this does not mean that they consider that there is any logic in the Biblical 'creation' explanation.

Why should this particular holy book, out of all of those available, be correct?

Why would a scientist accept that the first woman was moulded out of the rib of the first man?!

There is no rhyme or reason to this!

As for dinosaurs, it would not surprise me if they discovered that some were still alive in some remote spot. They thought that the coelocanth was extinct, but it wasn't. I don't think that the existence or non-existence of present-day dinosaurs would prove anything very much.

Why do 'ancient' creatures, like crocodiles, still exist? ~ Well, why shouldn't they? Creatures evolve to adapt. If they already 'fit' well into their evironment, then there is no need for them to evolve. On the other hand, some may have evolved, where they did not fit so well into their environment. Thus the ancient creatures and their evolved descendents can co-exist today.

Fossil shells on top of mountains, or elsewhere where there is currently no sea? ~ No problem. Tectonic plates smashed into each other, causing one-time coastline to be raised into mountains.

Earthquakes occur and volcanoes erupt. Tsunamis happen. Sea levels rises and fall. Land surface changes over the years. Floods occur. The Biblical flood story is probably based on some such event.

Science is most definitely not a religion; not a belief system. It is about observing, checking, recording and testing truths. There is no blind faith.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

PS. Could someone please explain to me why it makes any sense to believe that the Biblical 'super-being', who tortured Job, a good and faithful man, but rewarded Lot, who gave his young daughters to strangers for their sexual use, should also be considered as the great mind, which planned and created life, the universe and everything?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Wow so many comments and so little time, if I was evolutionist I would really be worried (Just kidding, for now some are saying that it does not take much time for evolution to work). Hello Trish, it is so good of you drop in for I always look forward to your insights! Unfortunately I have a lot of other issues I must deal with but I will try to be back shortly to respond to them..so sit tight and be afraid to raid the frig and I will be back as soon as TIME allows!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

One thing I noticed Trish, is that you use one of the web sites I have used in my research....If you take a really good look at that list I think you will also see many that are not obscure or out dated. I also want to comment quickly on your P.S. (Maybe it my dyslectic mind that wants to start with the last post first, I do not know).

However, when you look at the verses that refer to Lot or Job you should take them in the right context.

Were does it say that God was in favour of Lot offering his virgin wives to the men who wanted to rape the angles? If you read that account, the angles of the Lord did not say, "yea, that is a good idea Lot, offer up your daughters to save us!" No, they blinded the men outside Lot's house! Then there is Job, which went though great torment, and yet you are only mentioning part of the story! Job once again became prosperous!

Yea, people keep saying that science is not faith base and yet, I keep seeing science jump to conclusions! Just like the mummified dinosaur or the blood found in the bone of the T Rex. Most Occultist have embraced certain concepts of evolution and will claim that there is great similarities in magic and science! I will be back with more observations!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Highvoltagewriter :)

Good to 'talk' with you, again :)

I don't think that you will find many intelligent, well-educated, unbiased scientists, who prefer Biblical mythology to science.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

However, there is.... like Professor John Lennox and many others that belive in the teaching of the Bible! My bottom line point is that people should not belive ANYTHING just because science OR FOR THAT MATTER even the people who believe in Creation say so!

There is so many things that are taken as gospel just because it on the Discovery Chanel!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

I always told my students not to believe everything that they were told, even by experts, because even experts don't know everything ~ and new information can change the assumed facts.

However, we would never learn anything, if we did not trust the experts to a certain extent.

I am wary of doctors, because they make mistakes whilst encouraging us to trust them 100%, but, while we have to work with them, and take responsibility for our own health, too, many of us may need the skills of a doctor, at some time, and may even need to entrust our lives to them.

Thus, we should certainly consider that scientists may make mistakes, but we must acknowledge that they may be a lot more knowledgeable on their subject than the rest of us are.

Their learning, experiences, skill and knowledge ~ I think ~ should be respected. Too many creationists ridicule these people, who are so much more knowledgeable about the sciences than they are.

Why are evolutionary scientists mocked, yet other scientists are revered? I don't hear too many creationists condemning brain surgeons or cancer specialists.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

@Highvoltagewriter

Professor John Lennox uses fallacy after fallacy in his argument and I do not think that his name should be brought up at any point. He simply uses God of the Gaps over and over! Lennox argues that he is a man of science yet at the same time argues that Jesus can turn water into wine using magic. He never even responds directly to questions!

Science is based on facts and that is why people are so much more inclined to believing it these days, read my hub on why religion is declining if you're interested.I think that everyone should believe in science so that we can make more and more progress on it. That way we'll be able to find out how the Universe came about for sure. Let's find some facts first, then we'll believe in God?


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Trish said, "I don't think that you will find many intelligent, well-educated, unbiased scientists, who prefer Biblical mythology to science."

-------------------------

But then again, I don't think you will find many intelligent, well-educated, unbiased clergymen, who prefer science-fiction to Biblical truth.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Lone Ranger,

The thing about clergymen, is that they are Christians ~ and (not surprisingly) many Christians believe in the Bible. Therefore, clergymen are not usually unbiased.

As I said, evolutionary scientists are mocked, yet creationists don't tend to condemn brain surgeons, or cancer specialists.

Do you consider those aspects of science to be 'science fiction', too?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

You may be interested in this:

'The God Delusion Debate' (Dawkins-Lennox)

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-len...


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

@Lone Ranger

I don't think you could find many intelligent, well-educated clergymen.


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Philanthropy2012 wrote:

"I don't think you could find many intelligent, well-educated clergymen."

-----------------------

Phil, I think you will run across 100,000,000,000 intelligent, well-educated clergymen before you come across the first specimen in the midst of evolutionary change (either living or in the fossil record). Happy hunting!

By the way, every day that goes by without producing the first shred of evidence (and there has been about 55,000 since Darwin smoked one too many joints while in the Galapagos Islands), is just another nail in the evolutionary coffin.

Evolutionists have never provided any evidence and they never will. In fact, the only evidence they provide is that humanity should be looking elsewhere for truth and inspiration, because evolutionary theory cannot deliver the goods...not now...not ever!

Shhhh...listen. Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of another 16 penny nail being driven into the coffin.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

What are you talking about? Evolution is fact. Google it :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Plenty of fossils have been found which appear to be 'intermediate' creatures.

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution.

I've written about this in my hubs, so there is no need for me to go into more detail here.

It is a strange myth that there is no evidence for evolution, and one which is repeated and repeated by creationists.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

Lone Ranger,

Here is a lesson on what Natural Selection is for kids, please read it and tell me what you can possibly disagree with :

http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index...

I understand that you're angry, but don't be, in a few generations all religion will be a thing of the past, there won't be anymore arguments.

Sleep well,

Philanthropy.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 5 years ago from London

Trish, I think he was just trolling.


wilderness profile image

wilderness 5 years ago from Boise, Idaho

Much of your "evidence" seems to be taken from your own experience. You have never seen a flash flood that could uproot a tree, and neither have I. Of course I was not around when the Utah lake drained through the snake river canyon in Idaho, carrying house side boulders for hundreds of miles. Nor when the straits of Gibralter broke open and flooded the Mediterranean. I imagine that either one would uproot a tree.

Hawkins has stated, after a lifetime of study, that there is nothing known in physics that would demand a cause for the big bang, but your experience is that everything has a cause, so he must be wrong. Of course, your experience (and mine) is not the the field of quantum mechanics and thus has nothing to do with the question, but you use it anyway.

It is a common failure to those questioning science; I don't understand it, and won't spend the years studying to understand it so it must be wrong. It doesn't work that way. Science is often wrong, but at least it tries. Religion's conclusions are based on exactly nothing. No evidence, no experiments, no testing - nothing but a desire to conform to pre-determined beliefs that came from ignorant peoples of 2000 years ago.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you wilderness for stopping by, and in response to your point of view I would recommend that you watch this trailer and maybe the whole film...http://youtu.be/xGCxbhGaVfE Have a nice day!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

BTW- I am not talking about uprooting a tree, which I have seen I am talking about a force that will em-pail a tree into rock. These petrified trees are not just one place, they are in several places though out the world! To me, I do not have to be a scientist to realise this must be a fantastic force. And the dinosaur blood and mummified bodies that makes one step back and say, hay wait a minute here! That is not from my own experience...but is does not add up! Watch the film then get back to me!


wilderness profile image

wilderness 5 years ago from Boise, Idaho

I doubt you will agree, but I found the link to be a sensationalist speech based on total ignorance. The speech is about promoting ID, repeatedly saying the people doing this are questioning Darwinism. Now Charles Darwin never discussed the origin of life on earth, and certainly not the origin of the universe, and neither does the study of evolution. Why then this huge complaint? It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or "Darwinism" (whatever that is)!

Trees embedded in rock - did the tree fall, become fossilized and have the rock form around it? Was it driven into mud that turned to rock? Don't know? Neither do I, but it is certainly possible.

An interesting sidenote - the wind from the Hiroshima atomic bomb impaled grass into the sides of trees. They looked like a lawn. If a man-made wind that left some buildings standing is capable of that, what can nature, it all it's fury, do at odd times? Just think - the dinosaur killer asteroid in the gulf of Mexico made Hiroshima look like a wet firecracker.

Mummified dinosaur. No mummified dinosaur has been found, at least not mummified as we use the term. An impression of skin, maybe, formed of rock or minerals but not a mummy as the ancient Egyptians practiced the art. Be careful of these "news" reports; they are written to give people an idea, and an idea only, of what is going on in the science of paleontology - in no way do the reports constitute a definitive report of what was found.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

Phil quipped:

"I understand that you're angry, but don't be, in a few generations all religion will be a thing of the past, there won't be anymore arguments."

-----------------

Well, Phil, you must have a crystal ball at your disposal to aid you in seeing the future. Hopefully this new toy will serve you better than the crystal telescope that enables you to see billions of years into the past. Now, all you need is a magic "seer" stone and you can become the next Joseph Smith, Jr.!

No, Phil, I am not angry, and why should I be? As I see it, I am on the high ground looking down. Evolutionists are the ones who have made the challenge and have not delivered one smidgen of evidence or proof since their unfortunate inception 160 years ago.

All you people do is look around your little circle and hope one of your oracles says something profound or a disciple of the Church of Darwin produces an outward sign of bravado such as an irreverent quip or fart while staring into his empty evidence locker covered with rust and cobwebs. These odoriferous emanations are sufficient to propel the evolutionary sail for yet another day and will keep its adhereants warm and satisfied.

No, Phil, Trish, and Wilderness, attacking Intelligent Design does not prove your point or bring any kind of credence or validity to your camp. You must come up with evidence that is more compelling than "Nebraska Man" and simply stating that Intelligent Design is rubbish is not a tenable argument.

Oh, and by the way, in just 10 trillion years the entire universe will have grown cold and the last light will have flickered out thus bringing an end to all things.

So, your lives, the lives of your children's children on down through the ages, including all acts of kindness, love, good deeds and all knowledge will forever be lost to oblivion.

This is the belief you have chosen and the belief your children will adopt from you...a pointless, meaningless existence without eternal reward; a life that has no ultimate purpose and one that will be forgotten through the passage of time.

I sleep well at night and am no stranger to peace, love, joy, and hope, but I know that deep down, that your current belief-system will not allow you to.


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 4 years ago from US

Nothing they find out could hurt my faith of God the Creator. I see it as being so difficult to not. How could so many things have evolved? Spontaneous too? How much easier to believe God. If we believe God what do we lose? If we don't? I just don't understand most people's reasoning.

Excellent hub.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

"Around and around will go were will it stop? Go only knows!" I find it somewhat humorous that no matter what us "Intelligent" people keep saying the Darwinist say it "sensationalism" while "their camp" can get all excited about a small primate fossil, calling it a "The Link" and the "eighth wonder of the world" until other scientist discover other similar fossils and realise that it was not as originally as they once thought.

The Bible makes it clear that man's understanding can never compare to God's viewpoint. The Bible claims that man does not have any excuse, that creation SHOUTS the handy work of God but men do not want to buy into it.

For two thousand years men keep saying that Christianity will disappear and yet the movement survives. Why is that?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

My thanks to LR and Pollyannalana for your support...All I can do is plant the seeds that may or may not help someone grasp that there is indeed a God and He desires to have a relationship with his children. If others do not grasp this all I can do is pray for them. Endless debate will not accomplish; and yet, I still have to shed as much light as I can when I can!


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

Polly said:

"Nothing they find out could hurt my faith of God the Creator."

-----------------

You are precious, Polly, and by your faith you are healed.

Keep up the good fight, HighVoltage, and continue to run with conviction for your prize awaits you at the finish line!

Evolutionists will never find anything significant. They have produced their share of hoaxes over the years and they have made mountains out of molehills, but to no avail.

In 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar, fishermen hauled in a living fossil called the coelacanth. Evolutionists knew this specimen from the fossil record and by using their best judgment, scientific knowledge and professional scholarship, determined that the coelacanth had died out 70 million years ago.

Suddenly, the the damn fish re-emerges off the coast of Madagascar (1938). Horror of horrors, the coelacanth is more or less a perfect replica of those found in the fossil record. The implication is staggering: If evolution is true, then the coelacanth had not evolved in 70 million years. But, instead of admitting defeat and losing faith, the evolutionist evolved their theory to state that only specimens that needed to change evolved. Huh?

In the end, isn't this what evolution is really about: re-inventing their theory and allowing it to evolve through the passage of time, to keep their hope of living a purposeless and meaningless existence alive?

Evolutionists are a people of great faith...far greater than mine. For they believe in something totally nonsensical and will believe this nonsense without one piece of verifiable evidence. Like Mormons and other cult members, they see through the eyes of blind-faith, yet in their delusion, claim they are moved by genuine authority.

And, if all things are equal between evolution and Creationism, they choose to endorse the belief-system that perpetuates hopelessness and promotes futility. There is no happy ending for the souls who are caught-up in this web of deceit. As the Bible wisely states, "Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools."

So, how can you save someone from utter foolishness when they are willfully ignorant? I don't know if one can, for there are none as blind as those who refuse to see.

Best wishes to all - L.R.


BakerRambles profile image

BakerRambles 4 years ago from Baltimore, MD

It has happened and been repeated throughout history. Science just cannot seem to get on the same level with each other on any given topic it seems. Great Hub, voted up and interesting.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

Science isn't a belief system. It's the gaining of knowledge, based upon discovery, observation, experimentation, testing hypotheses, etc, etc, etc. It's not a religion. It doesn't have 'believers' as such. People accept what makes logical sense, according to their intellect.

Scientific hypotheses are not always right, but that's ok, science is always a work in progress. As Dara O'Briain said, if science knew everything, then the subject would come to and end.

I do not understand why some religious people are so angry about science. They don't reject science when they or their loved-ones are in need of medical help ~ and plenty of other Christians have no problem with it.

It is a blatant untruth to say that evolutionists have no evidence. There is plenty of evidence.

Please read some unbiased literature and stop spreading these untruths. I hear them too often, from people who do not seem to have studied, or understood, what they are preaching about.

I have no problem with people believing anything they wish; but I do have a problem with people spreading myths and untruths about others. It is morally wrong.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

Quote from Lone Ranger:

"Evolutionists are a people of great faith...far greater than mine.

'For they believe in something totally nonsensical and will believe this nonsense without one piece of verifiable evidence.

'Like Mormons and other cult members, they see through the eyes of blind-faith, yet in their delusion, claim they are moved by genuine authority.

'And, if all things are equal between evolution and Creationism, they choose to endorse the belief-system that perpetuates hopelessness and promotes futility.

'There is no happy ending for the souls who are caught-up in this web of deceit.

'As the Bible wisely states, "Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools."

'So, how can you save someone from utter foolishness when they are willfully ignorant?

'I don't know if one can, for there are none as blind as those who refuse to see."

* ~ * ~ * ~ *

Dear, dear, dear.

How can one respond, except by repeating that 'there are none as blind as those who refuse to see'.

I can assure you that I am not foolish ~ and I don't recall saying that 'Intelligent Design is rubbish'. I believe that my arguments are far more logical and sensible than that.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Personally I do not think you are foolish Trish, even though there are many that think I am foolish for believe in the existence of God. I can not speak for LR for his view is more cut and dry than my own. It is quite obvious that you are a seeker, for you spend much time debating with those who disagree with you.

You have probably have noticed that I do not spend a lot of time debating on hubs that the views are hostile to my own. In fact your hubs are one of the few pro micro evolution hubs I comment on. For me I must pick my battles wisely and is why I doubt I will be writing many more hubs on this subject. I have done my best to try and present the reason why I have problems with the "evidence" that is presented by those who are convinced that evolution is presented in truthful.

Actually, after thinking about it, I will do one more hub on this subject; "The Evolution on Atheisms." This will be directed towards the "doctrine of disbelief" and comparing the reasons some have drawn the conclusion that there is no God.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

HighVoltage:

I got a little side-tracked and neglected to tell you that I thought this Hub was well-researched and well-written. I think you said what needed to be said...and you said it well! Thank you!!!

Please take to heart that you have done everything you can do. Those who are blind to the truth cannot be helped in most cases. Poor Noah did not get one convert in over 120 years, so do not allow your noble spirit to get discouraged.

In fact, I just learned that Earnest (from Earnestshub), died one month to the day after we exchanged some heated words on his Hub "The God of the Bible is a Psychopath" at the tail-end of September. I tried to convince this avowed God-hating atheist to change his course, but those whose ears are plugged cannot hear wisdom and those who are blind cannot see the truth. And so it goes.

Best wishes and keep running with conviction - L.R.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Another thing Trish is that when it come to brain washing the minds of our kids, I think you should check this out!http://www.discovery.org/a/605


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

I don't recognise the name 'Jonathan Wells', and I haven't read his book, so I cannot really comment, but, having read that article, I haven't changed my mind on anything.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

I think that you, too, are a seeker and I find your hubs good to read. You are not insulting and you have some interesting stories to tell.

I am sorry if I sometimes get side-tracked by others, who comment on your hubs, but that is often the nature of the comment thread :)

When I joined this site, I decided not to get involved in religious discussion, but I did ~ I suppose because this subject interests me greatly, for various reasons.

Religion has been very important in the development of human society and it has had a huge amount of influence ~ often of a very negative nature.

I can understand your reluctance to debate. I don't want to get involved in 'rows', but some subjects are too important to be ignored, I think.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Trish, that what I love about you...no matter what evidence is presented you stay true to your school! Also I will always be open too discuss or if you prefer, debate with you! There just comes a time when I have to say, "this is taking us nowhere." This what happened with people like Philanthropy2012, too me it seem he wanted to argue for argument's sake.


hoteltravel profile image

hoteltravel 4 years ago from Thailand

Controversies in science occur when it tries to explain what is already there - like the creation of this universe or evolution. As this depends mostly on the viewer's perspective, explanations may differ vastly. I feel, the more you study science, the more you will believe in God. I hand it to you for writing on a sensitive topic without treading on anyone's toes.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you hoteltravel for your observations, personally my goal is not attack anyone one for their views but to get them to look at the evidence and not reach a conclusion just because someone says something is true. People need to think for themselves.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

I definitely agree, Highvoltagewriter, that people really do need to think for themselves, but, of course, it isn't always that simple. Not everyone has the knowledge, or has had the education, etc, to be able to draw correct logical conclusions.

I often need to study what the experts say on a particular subject, because it may be something beyond my knowledge or understanding ~ many aspects of astro-physics, for example.


KellyPittman profile image

KellyPittman 4 years ago from Walker, LA

WoW. You did an amazing job with this.

My view on Science is that Science tells me HOW God did it. =)


somethgblue profile image

somethgblue 4 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

Should have broken that one up into two or three articles, that was a long read . . . "Is it just a quiescence that it these mummies" are you looking for the word 'coincidence'.

Yeah I gotta agree with you on many of the points but because it is so long it makes it kind of hard to comment on the whole thing.

'Science' was created as a way of supporting theories that can't be proven, so many latch on to it as 'proof'!

I like the phrase 'I play a scientist on Hub Pages' so true and would be a great title to your next Hub article!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

yea somethingblue, all of my evolution hubs are tad bit long and yet I know many pro evolution hub writers that write even longer ones! (like Trish_M who always commits on my hubs the question the validity of evolution. This a subject that is difficult to break into bite size chunks, but if I write another one like this I will make the attempt!


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

A Florida boy will push the limits, it is in his DNA. On a wave, a motorcycle, a trip offshore, or on a hub, he is going all out WFO. This hub does not cater to Hubber Frenzy Syndrome. There is no blow and go here.

You did a great job of laying everything out and supporting it with videos and images. What can a hub be? You can write about pancakes and sell maple syrup, or you can do a first rate, in-depth study. If you are brilliant, you can do it in a couple thousand words. Then your hub becomes a prime example of what can be done with the medium. It is now reference material.

It's like this . . . the stars are not in your head. An image is. At the end of this road, a tree falls over in the forest. It makes no sound, because you weren't there to hear it. In reality, it did make a sound. Sound does not require a hearer. Sound is there without an observer.

There is so much more to the world than matter. Matter . . . flesh. It is what we are carrying for now. Don't discount God. You will be embarrassed on the Day.

I will be back to read this again.


Cheril'Sword 4 years ago

Science tells us that time is an illusion. If this is the case, time can be Universally manipulated, not by intelligence, but by the e-motional consciousness that defines it. Rewinding time to redefine the conditions that explain prehistoric dinosaurs along with prehistoric man, is perfectly in harmony with Creation. Consciousness defines energy, but it is the brain/intellect that defines the body. The animals that Noah protected on the Ark were those that were created with Perfect Love. In order to make animals that were fearful and without love, time had to be Universally rewound. Our world has been attempting to catch up to make sense of all of this for the last 6000 years. This was when the dimensional mistake was made, and time or the 4th dimension was rewound to make a way for the error to be corrected.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Okay...if you say so...I never heard it put that way before. And who are these scientist who say time is a illusion?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

In regards to science thinking time is a illusion, I found this article interesting...http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/03/t...


travel_man1971 profile image

travel_man1971 4 years ago from Bicol, Philippines

Science is always done by trial and error method, right?

Even the theory of evolution has it's lapses, citing for one is the incorrect data on carbon dating. You can even date a chicken bone up to 5 million years, so it is not a reliable instrument.

The good of science is that it gives mankind methods on how to cook our food easily and wash our clothes through washing machine, as tangible examples.

It also aid us when doing medical operation easily, unlike in the olden times.

We are benefited by science, although, success in this field can be blinding at times (the discovery of anti-matter or grey substance, etc.).

We are not God, so we still have to ask for guidance and inspiration from Him if we are to alter his creations that will also benefit us, Earthlings.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Well said Travel Man, we are not God and we always must depended on him!


beingwell profile image

beingwell 4 years ago from Bangkok

Very interesting thought. Thanks for this hub!


Casimiro 3 years ago

Highvoltage, you make the very common mistake of many non-scientists. Just because they can not imagine the solution to something, they use that to say "therefore there must be a God". A scientist does not think that way. He or she recognizes there is a gap in our knowledge, but that doesn't mean one can simply pick a random solution, such as "it was created by God" to fill in the gap.

Most of your points in this hub are taken from sensationalistic sources who have their own axe to grind, not from peer-reviewed scientific sources.

Just the same, it was an entertaining read (especially the comments)!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you Casimiro for taking the time to read this, the bottom line for me is that the answer can not be found by "leaning on our own understanding." I have come to the conclusion that most of the problems in the world today is because we want to leave God out of the equation. To me, God is not a "random solution" to me, God is the only solution, and in the end, science will lead to God, but will science be able to see it?


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Interesting hub. Mostly un-scientific nonsense taken from religious liars with no understanding of science. Although I reject just about everything you have written as nonsense, I am actually interested in asking you a question regarding your last comment. Just exactly how have you come to the conclusion that "most of the problems in the world today is because we want to leave God out of the equation. "?

Presumably you can point at a time in the past where we did not do that as a point of comparison - can you tell me when this was exactly?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I know you will not agree with me, but I see lot of the problems that we have in this world today is because man is turning his back on God. I do not know what more I can say. for I do not see things as you see them.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

That is why I asked you to show me a time when this was not the case. I mean - as a frame of reference. When did we not do this and it was so much better than things are today? I am open to you being correct - I just want to know how you reached this conclusion. How could keeping god in the equation improve things? Give me some examples please.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Sorry - my last comment vanished some how. :( I am open to the possibility that you are correct, but - could you give me your reasoning? Perhaps show me a time in the past where we did not do this and maybe give me some examples of specific things that would be better if we included god in the equation.? Thanks.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Ah - you are removing my comments? Interesting that you have no answers for me.


somethgblue profile image

somethgblue 2 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

The sign for infinity is the figure eight which is a symbol for duality, two sides of the same coin.

Faith in the Creator of All and all the Universal Laws that go with his creation is one side.

The deciphering of these laws or 'science' is the other side of the coin.

They go hand in hand and when they are properly investigated, researched and discovered, both provide the same conclusions.

The reason we (humanity) is Blinded By Science is when it is used as a tool for conditioning the masses into believing a false doctrine. The same can be said for religion, because the belief in God does not require anyone to practice a certain religious belief but when we do it requires us to believe a specific set of tenants, that are often contradictory to science and common sense.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Sorry Righteous, I did not delete your post, I just have been busy with other things that I could not approve your questions. When did we not turn our back on God? Is that the question? Maybe during the founding of this country (the United States of America)? In my lifetime alone I seen a tremendous change in "our" approach and belief in God. I have also witness a change in our culture and economy that to me has not been positive. I believe this is because we are turning away from fundamental Christian beliefs. But of course you will probably disagree.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

That is the thing about God..His ways are not our ways and may not make sense to us!


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Ah - sorry.

So - you can't give me specific examples of this? What changes have not been positive? As I said - I am open to this being correct, but - blanket statements with no specifics are hard to talk about. What exactly would be better if we let god back in? Fundamental Christian beliefs? Like what exactly?

Gods ways do not make sense to you? I am now more confused. :(


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I am not god so there and there things about Him that I do understand. I am working on a hub that will go into the specific example. There are to many to go into on this post. This leads me to a question, do you not see that what is happening in the world as negative?


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

No - I think the facat that we have removed slavery from our society is positive - don't you?


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

And you really think slavery has been totally removed from the world we live in? If so, you have not been paying attention! There are many kinds of slavery that are alive and well in our society.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Yes I suppose so. But not the literal, own you, whip you, kill you sort of slavery. I think that is an improvement - don't you?

So - I take it you don't have any concrete examples you can show me? I see we have now turned the onus on to me instead of you. You are the one claiming that the change in our society is "bad" and that is because we are "turning away from god." I asked you to back it up and you have not done so. If you do so, I can respond but this blanket statement leaves nothing for us to discuss. Give me some concrete examples please - then we can discuss them.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Violence in schools is one, and I think if more focus is done on moral issues that are found in Christianity,we would not have as many shootings and other forms of violence we now find in the public school system. But let us return slavery, for are you not aware that there is a underground slave market though out the world?

I also feel that if people in our society would embrace the doctrines taught in the Bible, there would be much less greed in the world. And I am of the opinion that greed is behind most of the problems we now face.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

What doctrines are those? How to treat your slaves? Really - can you come up with something concrete? You want to return to slavery and segregation? Much less greed? How so? When was there no greed? When we loved god and slaughtered the natives? Seriously - make some concreter arguments please. You want to go back to slavery?

Moral issues? Divorce? Stoning adulterers? Be specific please.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Why? No matter what I say you are going to find fault or misunderstand me. I got better things to do!


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

I may disagree with you - yes. But - as you have not been able to back up your statement with anything at all, I cannot say. Your bold assertions that our society has progressed in a negative way and it is because we have turned our backs on god and fundamental Christian beliefs is untrue - isn't it? Otherwise you would have backed up your argument. But you did not so.... And I understand you just fine thank you.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

All I got say is that if you have been though what I have been though and seen what I have seen, you would have no doubt that there is a God and not only this, This God is connected to every thing we do and THIS God will be returning shortly to the world He created. If you read more of the Hubs I think would understand more about why I believe the way I do.

Now if you want a exact event or time in which our society turned awayfrom God, I would have to say that it would be in the 1960's. In fact a great symbol of this would be when Anton Santon LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan declared that 1966 started "The Age of Satan." This event was overlooked by a lot of people, but it to me, was the first act in our society denouncing God and embracing the attitude of self service. If you want more then check out more of my hubs!


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

So - segregation was a good thing and turning away from god meant ending that. Not interested in reading any more - sorry. If you had been through what I have been through and seen what I hav seen you would understand why I reject your nonsense.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

And that makes you Righteous? You don't even know what the word means! You should call yourself an "arrogant atheist" that would be more appropriate.


somethgblue profile image

somethgblue 2 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

Slavery was not and has not been abolished on this planet. The Civil War in the US wasn't even fought over slavery as we have been taught but was designed by the World's Bankers to weaken the US economy and change our political structure.

Most of the World's Population is enslaved by economic poverty, through limiting their ability to become self sustaining. Resources is what enslaves us, I make more money in one year than 5 BILLION people will make in their entire life.

30,000 human beings a day starve to death on this planet EVERYDAY! Dying of Starvation requires that you do not eat for at least two weeks! It is an incredibly painful way to die and yet it happens 30,000 times a day.

Why should any human born on this planet be required to pay someone else to continue to exist on it?

RA your limited narrow minded paradigm prevents you from seeing the BIG PICTURE, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on this planet.

Cows in America eat better, live longer and have a more humane existence than over 5 billion people on this planet.

Do not take my word for it Google 'starvation', read about slavery, understand your subject. Did you know that over 50,000 women and children are SOLD into sexual slavery every year?

For you to have the audacity to claim slavery doesn't exist is preposterous, childish and naive! Simply because you haven't researched the subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just doesn't exist in your pathetic little world, grow up!


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Yes - I have read enough lies and nonsense in this one article. When I asked you to back up your outrageous claims so we could have a rational discussion you failed dismally. I suggest you read some of my articles to understand why dealing with reality instead of spouting misinformation and lies is actually righteous. Now you start attacking me. OK - guess you are a real Christian then.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

No attack ....I just call as I see it! Now read what somethingblue has to say about your view on slavery. You came to my site I did come to yours!


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Please don't get so upset about something I did not say. What I said was "I think the fact that we have removed slavery from our society is positive - don't you?" I never mentioned people starving outside our society - nor did I claim slavery was gone from the planet completely

Not sure why you need to lie about what I said. Why do you need to do that?

Now - is is not a positive thing that slavery has been removed from our society?


somethgblue profile image

somethgblue 2 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

". . . to understand why dealing with reality instead of spouting misinformation and lies is actually righteous."

Do the research and then you will understand reality, instead of spouting a narrow minded paradigm fed to you by the Fake Stream Media.

It is called conditioning and you my son are the perfect example of how lies and misinformation is spread. The FBI has made it public that over 1 million women and children disappear in the USA every year . . . those are your slaves.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Aww. Sweetie - don't you understand the words? Please stop lying at me and go back to playing your video games. No wonder your religion causes so many wars. Odd you have so much time to play video games as you spend so much time working with the FBI. Show me the slaves please instead of making up lies. Disgusting. :(


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

So RA, the way I see it you are like the Bully who goes over to some other kid's sandbox and kick sand in their face and then complains when that kid punches them in the nose! And let us be clear, just calling yourself righteous, does not make you so. I once knew a drug dealer that used the street name Righteous, and yet the truth was he was just a drug deal that thought the name was cool. Doing good works does not make one righteous, for the righteous of man does not hold a candle to true righteous that only come from God! Now, go play in some other sandbox, I am through with you and your foolish closed mind! From now on I will hit the deny button every time you leave comment.


Righteous Atheist profile image

Righteous Atheist 2 years ago

Interesting anecdote. Is that as truthful as your other claims? Odd - still you have not been able to answer my question with any specifics. Why not? Go ahead and delete my comments - I understand - true righteousness is scary to such as yourself. Closed mind huh? Odd - I asked you to enlighten me and all you did was attack me. Got to admit it is very, very, very funny watching a science denier using a computer to spread it's anti science garbage, LOL


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Science denier? Man you did not even read the Hub, for I do not deny science, I just don't think it always correct with it's view. And by the way YOU started this little war now I am going to end it GOODBYE!


somethgblue profile image

somethgblue 2 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

Notice that this person does not defend their stance just alters the subject matter, the clear definition of a troll. No need to show you the truth if you are unwilling to see it, as Jesus said let those with eyes see and those with ears listen.

Your written words betray your limited narrow minded paradigm, the sheep has spoken, baa, baa!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 2 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yep, I don't have time for his foolishness!


Dortha 23 months ago

Pleasing you should think of somtehing like that

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working