ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Question That Evolutionists Cannot Answer

Updated on July 23, 2019
david tee profile image

Dr. David Thiessen is an educator, writer, pastor, and speaker. He has authored several books on a variety of topics including Archaeology

Evolutionists claim we do not understand evolution

This is the fallback declaration every time a person stumps and evolution supporter or proves that the theory cannot work. For many people who side with evolution, the unanswerable questions are not a serious problem to them.

They hold out hope and use faith that some day scientists will provide the answers to these questions they cannot answer today. Unfortunately, those days may be long in coming and if they do arrive, will do nothing for present day humans.

Having studied the theory, read many books by evolutionary supporters and discussed the theory with those who accept the theory as fact, I have asked many questions they cannot answer.

The response I normally get is that I do not understand the theory. I do understand the theory quite well and better than most evolutionary accepting people. The process does not exist and never has existed. There is nothing to understand.

What brings me to that conclusion

What brings me to that conclusion are many unanswered questions and the existence of God. I know and believe God exists thus the evolutionary process cannot exist. We cannot have two explanations of our origins and we cannot marry the two explanations because God did not say that he used an evolutionary process to create life.

There is one unanswered question,out of many, that evolutionists have failed to respond every time I ask it. It is lack of information and the failure to rationally & logically respond to the question that has lead me to understand that the process cannot exist.

The unanswerable question

How can an unthinking, unknowing, unintelligent, mindless, emotionless, et al, process that also lacks foreknowledge, wisdom, understanding, compassion, justice, knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil as well as the difference between morality and immorality direct and help develop life as we know it today?

The people who accuse Christians of being irrational and illogical because the believer uses faith seem to be very irrational and illogical when presenting their process to the world.

Since the supporters of the evolutionary process cannot even explain how it became involved in life on this planet, it makes perfect sense that they cannot answer this question either.

Some points to ponder

Some evolutionary scientists say that we humans learnt good and evil, right and wrong, morality and immorality from the animals that came before our species. Yet, those same scientists cannot explain how those animals, who know nothing about those standards or even the meaning of those terms, could develop those terms especially when they do not practice any of them in daily life.

As for the rest of what exists in humanity, they have no clue where those characteristics came from. The process of evolution does not possess any of them, so how could it direct life to develop such concepts when it cannot even recognize what they are or how they should be applied to life.

A medical example

When you take a close look at the evolutionary process, it is hard to see how it could help develop anything, let alone a complex life system filled with a variety of life forms that possess specific properties to meet specific medical issues.

The evolutionary process is not a life form so how could it understand that the future life forms it is developing would need specific medicinal elements found only in plants that would help those life forms heal?

The process doe snot have foreknowledge so such development would be an extremely lucky guess and the odds are astronomical against it taking place. Millions of plants developing by chance to such degree that they hold a vast amount of medical solutions is inconceivable.

It is irrational to think that a mindless, etc., non-living process could produce these medicinal properties in lesser life forms to help higher life forms grow healthy, especially when the process has no concept or understanding of life or life forms.

Understanding the evolutionary process

As one studies the evolutionary process, there seems to be only one rational and logical answer for its existence in the minds of scientists and other creation rejecting people.

The theory, no matter how you slice it or look at it, simply cannot and does not work. There is a good chance that many evolutionary scientists accept that reality but cannot speak publicly about it for many reasons/

The one rational and logical reason why it still is pushed throughout the scientific classrooms, etc., is that the unbelieving scientist wants humans to be top of the evolutionary chain.

They do not want to be subservient to another being, even one that is as benign as the evolutionary process. They reject the God who created all things for this very reasons. These people do not want to be a servant of a greater being than themselves.

They want the origin of life process to be their servant. They want it to do their bidding instead of them humbling themselves and doing the bidding of God or some greater force.

In other words, they want to commit the same sin that got Satan cast out of heaven-- they want to be greater than God. They want to be in command instead of being commanded

Some final words

The evolutionary process does not exist. That has been proven over and over again but stubborn unbelievers do not like nor want to accept that answer. They also do not want to accept the fact that micro-evolution does not exist either.

Those mutations and other developments they see are not the product of any evolutionary process. They can’t be since no form of evolution exists. It can’t because a lifeless, et al, process cannot implement change in life forms.

To get to the point where every thing we know exists in the world, emotions, righteous standards and so on, there has to be a supreme being who is alive and possess all those attributes.

That being has to have foreknowledge to make sure the right plants grow with the medicinal properties we need. And on it goes. That is the only rational and logical answer to any question.

That supreme being is God. The only one who could create everything we see and possess in this life. There is no other being like him. We know this as man has tried to find one for 5,000 to 10,000 years without success.


© 2019 David Thiessen

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      Also, the verse, 'the fool has said there is no God' applies to science and a majority of scientists. They may think there is no God but they are not following God's instructions to find him.

      Instead they are making up their own rules and then making a declaration. It is like the person who claims that there is no such thing as football as they use baseball rules to find evidence for football

      The scientist will not find God by following their own ways and making declarations. They have to follow God's instructions to get to the truth

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      There are certain things that are true and science has nothing to do with them. it doesn't take science or a scientist to prove that 'what goes up must come down'

      anyone can see that. Too many people elevate science to a spiritual platform and try to replace God with it. They think nothing can be decided without science and that is putting too much authority and responsibility on such a limited field.

      So i will stand by my statement as science is rarely correct

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      8 months ago from UK

      What you call nitpicking, I call irony. You speak of science being untrue, but if you genuinely meant that, you'd reject everything ever developed by it. Since you don't do that, it's clear you're happy to cherry pick the parts that benefit you.

      If that's not the intended point you were trying to make (though given our history, it certainly seems to be your attitude), I would suggest you make your arguments clearer.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      I have had many discussions with different people over the years. One of the things I have found is that people will 'interpret' your words and have you saying things you never said or even hinted at.

      it is quite frustrating as no one goes for the truth nor do they confirm that what they think you said is actually what you said. They just assume, then attack what they thought of and do not come anywhere close to what you actually did say.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      Lol, David, it’s what to be expected of people who can’t even repeat what they have read. It goes in their head and then something happens in there that makes it come out as something you never said!

      He takes what you said “The Bible is true and science is not following God or the Spirit of Truth thus science will always be in error” and restates it out of context as something you never said.

      “How can science be untrue?”

      That’s not nitpicking, that’s simple ignorance.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      sigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh................ another nit picker

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      8 months ago from UK

      How can science be untrue? You would not be able to post on a website via any means if not for science. In fact, there would not be an Internet.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      I am denying Welford access as he is here for his own agenda and does not want to discuss anything or openly. The Bible is true and science is not following God or the Spirit of Truth thus science will always be in error

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- you misrepresent everything I have said. I am done with you now

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      As far as I can tell, your notion of what constitutes evidence is the Bible - nothing else fits that bill. OK - I am perfectly happy to examine that evidence, and I have indeed done so, and so have many other people, all with an open mind. This evidence simply does not stand up to scrutiny unless it is approached in the same way that all other such ancient documents are approached.

      When this is done, great truths are indeed revealed, but not the ones that you assume, based on the fact that your mind is not open at all, because you start from the premise that it was all written by God and cannot be questioned.

      That is why I wonder whether you know what the word evidence means. Just try going into a court of law and saying to a judge - here is the evidence, but the court may not question it?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- no you are asking people to ignore the truth and go with your interpretation. Then you are asking them to examine your evidence your way and as you reject evidence given you and as you refuse to examine their evidence.

      The only people starting with a conclusion are those who reject creation and accept evolution. They are not open minded and reject creation without being able to prove that it did not happen.

      They also do not examine their own evidence with an open mind.

      You are a time waster because you do not do what you ask others to do.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David, I am not arguing against the Bible, but against some of the interpretations that are made of it. Philosophy of Religion is a respected branch of philosophy - you do not have to be religious in order to understand its philosophy.

      I only ask that people actually examine the evidence, without fear or favour, and come to conclusions based on sound reasoning and the application of logic. If you start with the conclusion and reject anything that challenges it, you are not applying reason and logic!

      The same can be said of simply refusing to answer questions to which you have no answer.

      So - in what ways am I being dishonest? You made that claim, so is this a question that you are prepared to answer?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T- I am not going to be responding t him if he continues along that track of commenting. He is just a time waster at best. He is not honest in his investigations either

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      David, I know, this is a common problem with many hubbers. Their egos take over the minute they put their “opinions” in print, it’s like their comments become their egos, their sense of self-esteem or self-importance and so their reaction is how dare you take issue with their opinions!

      We on the other hand base our opinions on what can be proven to be true, our egos are disassociated from our opinions. We don’t point to our “credentials” or “training” as proof our opinion is correct. That behavior is always a red flag.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T--"as well as being trained in the arts of arguing - spotting logical flaws and challenging arguments that were weak for one reason or another"

      Welford thinks that getting a secular degree makes him an expert on the Bible and its use. he comes from a deluded position of darkness and can shed no light on any discussion

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T-- well said. I am not responding to Welford anymore as he just does not listen to anything. Instead he wants to nitpick

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Wesman-- being absurd does not help your case

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      I am merely repeating what has been said many times before, by people who are far more highly qualified than I am because they have spent a lifetime investigating the contents of the Bible and its sources.

      My first degree was a Joint Honours in English and Philosophy, which meant that I was able to study literary texts and appreciate how they were created, as well as being trained in the arts of arguing - spotting logical flaws and challenging arguments that were weak for one reason or another. That is probably why the texts of the Bible interest me so much - I approach them with no religious belief of my own and am fascinated to see how other people use (and misuse) them for that purpose.

      What do you mean by "what Timothy said"? Surely somebody with your Biblical knowledge would know that the two epistles were written TO Timothy and not BY him?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      Cults base their cult upon the idea that the Bible is full of mistakes or falsehoods and replace it with so called new revelations from God supposedly God trying to fix what the Bible got wrong.

      “Welford’s Bible” if he wrote what he believes would fit right in with these various satanic cults, Mormons, The Urantia Book, Islam, the list goes on and on of cults that either replace or add to the Biblical Scriptures.

      To give credence to the idea that the Scripture is not the Word of God who cannot lie simply opens the door to Satan, the father of lies. It actually reduces Bible based Christianity to the level of being a cult! Nothing could make Satan happier.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      So you can’t believe what Timothy said about all scripture? Timothy is a liar according to Welford.

      All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally “is God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

      According to John, Peter was a liar too.

      Peter said “the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Pet. 1:23-25)

      Oh yes, John and Mathew were liars too, or if not then Jesus was a liar.

      Jesus said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34-35). In fact, He said, “one jot or one tittle will by no means pass away from the law till all is fulfilled” (Mat. 5:18). These speak to the Bible’s infallibility.

      The Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words.”

      Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      You just did respond to him. Are you coming or going, David?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- You are wasting my time and i am not going to respond to you

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      Can I just confirm something? Are you really saying that when the Gospel writers quoted texts from the Hebrew scriptures that had not actually read those scriptures (in translation) but were simply scribbling down words dictated to them by God?

      Are you saying that they were acting like automatons in some sort of trance, being utterly unable to do anything other than scribble away words that they had not thought of themselves? Interesting!

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      You would learn so much more - and also confirm your faith - if you let yourself actually read and understand the Bible as words on a page, written by human beings, because "human authored", and translated and copied, is precisely what it is. You can say "divinely inspired" if you like - and most Christians do - but "inspired" is not the same as "dictated". If the Bible is divinely dictated then so many valid questions go unanswered.

      I recommend that you read "The Bible For Grown-Ups: A New Look at the Good Book" by Simon Loveday. I guarantee that you will absolutely hate it! However, it will give you new insights that will better prepare you to answer critics like myself.

      You like to use reason - you do so in the article that these comments are based on - but so do other people. However, in order to convince people like us, you need to use reasons that can be debated and which stand up to scrutiny. Simply saying "I am right because God says so" will never convince anybody who does not start from the same standpoint.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- please stop[ writing like you are the only one who knows anything. They did not rely on those scriptures but on the Holy Spirit. Stop trying to make the Bible a human authored book.

      God knows how to lead the translators to the right word to use. He isn't leading you as you reject him and the truth

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      The gospel writers relied on a Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint - written around 150 BC. This translated the Hebrew word aalmah (young woman) into Greek as Parthenos, which means virgin. There was a word in Hebrew for virgin, which was betulah, but the Greek translator made a simple mistake, because the original text in Isaiah (which has absolutely nothing to do with prophesying a Messiah, by the way) merely said "a young woman will have a baby". It happens - all through history it has happened and will continue to do so.

      Matthew and Luke, who were the only gospel writers known (and there were many more than the four chosen to appear in the NT) to cover the birth of Jesus, thus felt compelled to weave their stories around the notion of a virgin birth.

      No - I am not rejecting the truth - I am doing my darnedest to discover it and explore the margins between history and myth - a fascinating study if you are prepared to approach everything with a truly open mind.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T- probably as he is that obvious. He looks for minute points to justify his rejection of the truth but he can't do it as everything else just doesn't make sense.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      Dave, it appears you have come to the same conclusion as when I said

      “John, restating and misstating what I think and making that your argument is nothing more than raising a straw man and having to use that tactic shows that your argument is so weak you cannot logically rebut anything I said which is not as you characterize it. If you insist on playing that game I have nothing more to say to you ...”

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- you refuse to see the truth and make minute annoying points to create a problem when there i snot one. Some things are left to common sense.

      For example, your young woman point. It is not a mistranslation but you will refuse to accept and acknowledge the truth so it is pointless to provide one to you

      Also, you seem to make God powerless and incapable. That makes talking with you a complete waste of time. Do you really think fallible humans can change God's word and he will not do anything about it?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T- that is how good evil is at deception

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      It does not surprise me that you choose not to answer my question, because this what you always do when you do not have an answer. You will always fall back on your usual platitudes and refuse to face the challenge of defending your position by producing cogent reasons for what you say.

      The Bible has remained the same? You mean that it was written in English? Was it sinful to translate it? I assume that you cannot possibly mean this, but surely you have to admit that translation errors can be made, simply because not every language puts things the same way - there are all sorts of subtleties that can be missed.

      One excellent example of this is our notion of the virgin birth of Jesus. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation - by the writers of the Greek NT - of a Hebrew word that simply means "young woman".

      Incidentally, there have indeed been many attempts to change parts of the text down the centuries - leaving aside the translation issue - and by no means all such attempts have been failures. This can be proved from internal evidence, as revealed by scholars who look at such things as use of certain words and phrases, length of sentences, etc.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      David, I’ll never understand how people can pretend to accept God as the creator of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient, holy and perfect, a loving, just, infinite God (the God of the Bible) and then doubt that He could reveal Himself in-errantly through His Word using 40 different authors (whom he created) over thousands of years (he is not bound by time).

      I guess it is just an indication of how fallen and depraved sinful men are.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford-- everything in the Bible is true because God does not lie.

      As for original documents- yes we have seen them. we see them everyday. the Bible has remained the same since it was first penned. of course sinful men tried to change the bible but have failed every time

      as for your If question, it is ignored

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David,

      You accuse me and others of assuming that something is true and then refusing to accept anything that conflicts with our assumptions.

      Why do you not see that you are doing precisely that yourself?

      I heard someone say once that if it said in the Bible that 2 plus 2 equaled 5, they would believe that it was. Is that your opinion too?

      And before you reply, please do not say that you know that this is not said in the Bible - the point at issue is IF. Do you take the line that everything in the Bible is true, because it is said in the Bible?

      If your answer is Yes, I would like you to say what you mean by "The Bible", bearing in mind that the books it contains have gone through many changes down the centuries, due to translations, copying, and various insertions and deletions. Nobody knows what was in the original documents, because nobody, for centuries past, has ever seen them.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- you want an explanation read Genesis that is the only true explanation

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T-- you must be an AIG or Answers in Genesis man. Your comment is textbook answer with them. Historical and traditional evolution cannot be reproduced, for the reasons I listed.

      Also, there is no reason for why evolution would stop at any given point. If true and since it is a process it should be doing the whole life development from square one all the time.

      What that means is that we should be able to see it actually take place but we can't. Not because it supposedly takes millions of years but because the life forms would be in existence in their different stages today.

      The fossil record also does not support the evolutionary process as all fossils found bring us fully developed creatures. Evolution is read into these pieces of evidence and not taken out of it.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      All well said David.

      There are two different kinds of science; observational and historical. Historical science deals with the past and is not directly testable or observable so it must be interpreted according to your worldview.

      The Bible is the foundation for science. Non-Christians must borrow biblical ideas—such as an orderly universe that obeys laws—in order to do science. If naturalism were true—if nature is “all there is”—then why should the universe have such order? Without the supernatural, there is no basis for logical, orderly laws of nature.

      To say Christians reject science is a lie. We affirm and support the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins. So why all the disagreement?

      IF AN IDEA IS NOT TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE, AND FALSIFIABLE, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC

      Therefore evolution should NOT be considered science, nor should the big bang “theory”

      They don’t even qualify as scientific theories. They can’t be tested or repeatable or falsifiable. You cannot go back in time.

      Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. In naturalistic science any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      "There's this idea that because science does not hold all the answers right now, at this given time, that it can somehow never provide answers, even though it's provided many answers on various subjects throughout history"

      #1. when non-evolutionary scientists provide clues and evidence for a non-evolutionary origin, they are attacked, shouted down, removed from membership and other scientific positions and so on

      #2. science is incapable of discovering the truth because it is not designed to find the truth. it is only designed to ask questions

      #3. Scientists are not looking for the truth. they are looking to create an alternative origin idea that contradicts the truth and the Bible. Most of their recent work has been to prove evolution true which they cannot do

      #4. scientists are not objective and work under the assumption that evolution is true. that is not how science is to operate. they use pseudo scientific procedures, like predictions, to make sure they get what they want

      #5. you do not get it, science is not compassionate or fair etc., it claims to have the truth today yet what about the people who died thousands of years ago? why were they deprived of this truth? why are they discriminated against and kept from the truth? how is that fair?

      With the Bible and God everyone has had the same truth and have access to it every day. That is compassion and being fair.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Ben- evolutionary science cannot be taken seriously because it changes every year. if science was seeking the truth and evolution was true, it would never change.

      You also ignore the fact that there is a legitimate reason for the variety of creation and flood stories. After Noah and his family died out, it would be easy for the people to alter the truth as they strayed from God. Most likely, the creation of different flood and creation stories began after Babel took place.

      Science hasn't ruled out a creator because it cannot prove the original conditions for evolution, it cannot describe or verify how evolution works, it cannot prove and verify which species was the original one that started it all, plus, it cannot show one incidence of information gathering to make evolution process work- even Richard Dawkins can't do it

      the only reason you accept evolution is because you can't humble yourself and accept God and his word

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford, you are wrong and mis-state the nature of both science and the scientific method. There is no evidence for an evolutionary process. everything is read into the artifacts discovered and there is no ability to verify the scientists conclusions that they got the order and process correct.

      evolutionary scientists start with a supposed finished product and work their way backwards without any evidence to support their views. They also cannot conduct one evolutionary experiment showing that their ideas are correct.

      there is no evidence supporting evolution although there is a lot supporting creation

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      T,

      Scientific method is all about trying to prove that mistakes have been made. Theories are advanced and evidence gathered with a view to showing that the theories must be abandoned or revised. When this proves to be impossible, the theories must be accepted.

      Theories that are beyond doubt - because the evidence is overwhelming - include those of the age of the Universe being measureable in billions of years - not 10,000 - and that of Evolution, which is where this discussion began.

      Of course science does not deal with supernatural matters. These only add a layer of confusion that is totally unnecessary.

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      8 months ago from UK

      In my experience T, David often rejects science when faced with any scenario where science and the Bible come into contradiction, even when there is clear evidence for the scientific viewpoint. To be more precise, he does this if his *literal interpretation* of the Bible comes into contradiction with science. Take this discussion around evolution. Nor is he the first theist to suggest that science cannot be taken seriously if it does not hold all the answers.

      When science rules out a creator (or more precisely, when science simply doesn't draw a definitive conclusion on the subject, because science deals with observation, not supernatural elements), it isn't wrong. There is no evidence for a divine being creating the cosmos. We have several different creation narratives (which do we choose from, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, to name but a few with their own creation story), but we have one set of observations and scientific study, and whether we're using physics, geology or chemistry, we tend to arrive at similar conclusions. That's not co-incidence.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      Well Ben, you are the first to interject that idea into this discussion.

      I doubt if anyone here has that opinion because if it is science which is in the pursuit of the truth it will eventually provide the true answers. Science has been wrong often throughout history but only proven wrong when it has been in search of the truth to correct false conclusions.

      Science that rules out the possibility of a creator is not science however. Science can not prove there isn’t a creator so to rule it out is prejudicial and an obstruction to finding the truth, therefore not true science.

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      8 months ago from UK

      There's this idea that because science does not hold all the answers right now, at this given time, that it can somehow never provide answers, even though it's provided many answers on various subjects throughout history.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      John, restating and misstating what I think and making that your argument is nothing more than raising a straw man and having to use that tactic shows that your argument is so weak you cannot logically rebut anything I said which is not as you characterize it. If you insist on playing that game I have nothing more to say to you except maybe you should do some study on the inerrancy of scripture. I an not your teacher.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      T,

      You seem to think "The author of the Bible is God" answers all the questions. But no - it does not, and what is more it takes away all the fascination of reading it for what it is - a collection of ancient documents with many variations and inconsistencies that provide evidence of many minds at work.

      You have also not answered my question - what exactly do you suppose God wrote? The book in your hand or the original documents that have been copied, re-copied, translated and edited many times over down the centuries?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      "but you simply are not intelligent enough to do so.

      Your inability to interpret language is tragic. An all out tragedy. I'm sorry for you."

      These words keep you and your comments from being approved. You will need to sincerely apologize and not insult again

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Wessman- you are being illogical and absurd in your examples. 2 plus 2 doe snot violate God's word nor his declarations. The same goes for a cashier's calculations and so on, although you may want to double check their math as their ability to add and subtract are suspect.

      When science contradicts God's word and says that God erred in his declaration then they have violated biblical rules, called God a liar and a sinner and more.

      We reject those words, calculations and more from science because they insult God, are wrong and not even close to the truth. Both God and Jesus said to believe them. Secular science doe snot believe God and looks for a sinful alternative which leads people away from the truth.

      People like you.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T - this has been something I have known for years. I respond to them because I am providing information to those who do not participate in the discussion.

      These are readers only and a few good words may influence their thinking and keep them from making a spiritual mistake

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      See what I mean David.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      If someone who rejects God says that two plus two equals four, am I supposed to reject that?

      I mean, you did say to reject things which come from people who reject God, and so I want you to be consistent.

      Next time you buy gasoline, or groceries, and the person at the register isn't a Christian, then you MUST reject their calculations, simple math or not, for what your change is.

      You SAID to reject things from people who reject God.

      You've not shown me anything that I believe to be wrong. I'm sorry, but you simply are not intelligent enough to do so.

      Your inability to interpret language is tragic. An all out tragedy. I'm sorry for you.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      David, excellent points, common sense actually but like I said, it’s a waste of time trying to reason with people who will not show respect for those who have devoted their lives to the study of scripture while they likely have never seriously studied it.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Wessman- science i snot what we are to accept. most of it comes from unbelievers who reject God and exclude him from their work. To go with science over God is saying you believe science and say God is wrong.

      how can you say you accept and follow God as the most powerful being, etc.,when according to you science knows more about what he did than God himself does.

      how can you say you follow God when according to you he is shown to be wrong and corrected by fallible sinful and unbelieving humans?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      But John the Bible isn’t any long document. It’s author is God, it claims to be the word of God so If you believe anything in it about God you must believe it all to be innerant because God is perfect, God doesn’t lie, God doesn’t make mistakes. You can't believe in an omniscient, perfect, just and loving God, creator of everything, the God described by the Bible and then say oh but his revelation of himself and his plan for humanity is full of errors or just a story because he is so incompetent he doesn’t know how to or is incapable to reveal himself accurately to his creation....that is what would be weird.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      T,

      "If any part of the Bible is not true, why believe any of it". What weird logic! By the same reasoning, if anything in today's newspaper is incorrect, nothing in it - including, presumably, the date at the top of every page - is free from doubt.

      Any long document can contain errors. The Bible contains plenty. You have to remember that what you are looking at is the result of many copies being made, and copies of copies, not to mention translations. All of these can contain variations, some accidental, some deliberate So nobody knows with certainty what the original words were.

      So, if God wrote the Bible, which version did he actually write? The original words that nobody today has seen, or the version that sits in your hands today, having gone through all the changes I have mentioned?

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      LOL@David. Here's a guy who thinks he knows everything, and rejects long settled and basic science.

      I don't think rejecting basic knowledge is 'Christ-like.'

      In fact, Christ never spoke of the biological sciences, and so, it would seem as though speaking of the biological sciences is NOT Christ like.

      Oh I definitely believe Moses. His fantastic allegory continually inspires me.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      John, obviously you are wearing the wrong glasses. One can read any book and using only their own perspective totally misinterpret it’s meaning. To get it right, to understand what is written you must investigate (the Bible), not from the perspective of a fallen sinful human being which we all are but from the perspective of the author, the creator of the universe and your savior, after all it is His Word, not yours.

      The Bible itself explains you cannot understand it if you do not first believe He is God and God is it’s author. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

      If any part of the Bible is not true why can you believe any of it?

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      It all depends on the glasses you look through when reading certain texts. My glasses are not those of religious faith, but those of analyzing texts as texts and taking on board the vast amount of work that has been done by scholars down the centuries and which appreciates that many motives were at work when the various passages were written and copied by multiple authors.

      Using the latter perspective reveals some fascinating insights into why the books of the Bible are as they are, which those wearing "faith goggles" could quite easily miss.

      You clearly prefer your approach - I'm quite happy to stick with mine!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @T- thank you for those words. You certainly came in at a good time. I agree with you as well

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Wessman-- The term Christian means Christ like. If you want to be like Christ, you would believe Moses as he did

    • tsadjatko profile image

      8 months ago from now on

      David, I’ve found that it is senseless to try and argue the truth with anyone, especially a Christian, who has no respect for those who seriously study the Bible in context of the entire Bible and who jumps to denigrating those who seriously investigate questions about Genesis or evolution in light of God’s word choosing worldly explanations over scriptural evidence.

      “How did the other biblical authors (besides Moses, who wrote Genesis1) and Jesus interpret them?” From my reading and experience it appears that most people who consider the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis have never asked, much less answered, that question.

      To begin, consider what God says about the way He spoke to Moses in contrast to the way He spoke to other prophets. In Numbers 12:6–8 we read:

      Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?”

      So God says that He spoke “plainly” to Moses, not in “dark sayings,” that is, not in obscure language. That strongly suggests that we should not be looking for mysterious, hard-to-understand meanings in what Moses wrote. Rather, we should read Genesis as the straightforward history that it appears to be. An examination of how the rest of the Bible interprets Genesis confirms this.

      When we turn to other Old Testament authors, there are only a few references to Genesis 1–11. But they all treat those chapters as literal history.

      The Jews were very careful about genealogies. For example, in Nehemiah 7:61–64 the people who wanted to serve in the rebuilt temple needed to prove that they were descended from the priestly line of Aaron. Those who could not prove this could not serve as priests. First Chronicles 1–8 gives a long series of genealogies all the way back to Adam. Chapter 1 (verses 1–28) has no missing or added names in the genealogical links from Adam to Abraham, compared to Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. The author(s) of 1 Chronicles obviously took these genealogies as historically accurate.

      The fact that before the flood people lived 100’s of years and only shortly after the flood did life spans decline suggests a world wide change in the environment due to the immense upheaval of the flood era that affected human lifespans. There is no reason to assume mankind as created in a utopic garden and pristine world with perfect genetics only lived to a lifespan characteristic of a corrupted fallen earth after the catastrophic flood. The earth as created was far different from that which we find after the flood.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      *YAWN* Okay smart guy. Be a creationist.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Wesman- that does not make Genesis an allegory and no Jesus did not speak in abstract language, He is clearly understood by those who believe him

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      @Welford- There is nothing to explain. God gives longevity to whom he gives longevity. The Bible also tells us that God cut the amount of time man has on this earth to roughly 70 years. But not all live that long and some live longer

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      LOL! Jesus spoke in abstract language almost CONSTANTLY. So Jesus is the son of God. Moses was the friend of God. Why would Moses NOT also speak in abstract language.

      In fact, Moses was a master of speaking an abstract language, and thus, the allegory of the creation.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      If every word of Genesis was absolute truth, how do you explain people living for hundreds of years apiece - nearly a thousand in the case of Methuselah - whereas that is far from the case today?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      #1. the ancient stories are mere evidence of man's straying from God. They had the truth but did not accept it then let their unbelief alter the truth into the accounts you now read about

      #2. God tells the truth, we could not trust one word in the Bible if Genesis was an allegory, that includes John 3:16

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Why are you so convinced that Genesis is not an allegory, when so many ancient stories and documents so clearly are, because that is how people wrote and spoke at that time? And why do you suppose that Moses was the author of Genesis?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      Genesis is not an allegory and Jesus said in John 5: 45FF that if you do not believe Moses how will you believe him.

      Oh and stop using words like nitwit etc. If you cannot be respectful do not post here

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Calling God a liar? Interesting phrase. Were I to be a creationist, a nitwit like Ken Ham, or some horrible thing like that. I'd basically be 'calling God a simpleton.'

      The beauty of the creation allegory in Genesis is that it works just as well for the extremely simple and the extremely wise.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David, OK - if that is not evolution, what is it? How do you explain that sequence of events?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      that is not evolution but reading into what is found what you think took place. you have no verification that concept is what actually took place.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Of course there is evolution. How else do you explain that if a population of birds, all of the same species, flies to a group of islands, on which the food supply differs from island to island, over a period of time the birds will develop features that make them best able to survive in that environment, and will eventually be so different that they are unable to interbreed with birds from other islands, thus forming new species?

      That is evolution.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      You are in error and should stop calling God a liar. There is no such thing as evolution and never has been.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

      Wesman Todd Shaw 

      8 months ago from Kaufman, Texas

      On the very small life level of bacteria and viruses, we see evolution very very quickly. What worked to fend the tiny fiends off last year may not work this year, and this is because of evolution.

      Sure, there are many many holes in evolutionary theory. I don't have a problem with that, myself, as humans are not especially brilliant, or perceptive, and the human doesn't have a very good concept of where he stands in the universe.

      The human very often thinks himself or herself especially profound, which isn't a terrible thing, but it is certainly common, and prevents the random human from seeing as much of reality as he or she otherwise could see.

      I'm very Christian. Not an especially good example of one, but I'm one of those people who don't see an issue between evolutionary science and Genesis. Sane people know an allegory when they see one, I think.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      Sorry but that applies to those who accept and support evolution

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      "Like all of evolutionary evidence"? The problem with some people is that they simply do not know what the word "evidence " means.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 months ago from Philippines

      I have read about a couple recent discoveries and like all of evolutionary evidence, evolution theory was read into the artifacts by the researchers involved.

      the only thing supporting evolution are people's imagination

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      8 months ago from UK

      David, there is a huge wealth of material supporting evolution.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      I am not the one denying reality.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David, You clearly live in a world that is inhabited by almost nobody else! Denying reality is not a good sign!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      If you had read some of my articles I already address that issue. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

      God made everything to work in a certain way, When Adam sinned, corruption came into the world it caused God's perfect construction to malfunction.

      None of those malfunctions can be construed as evolution in action. Why don't we credit evolution? Because it does not exist, it would be wrong, it would be lying about what took place and on it goes.

      There is no natural process, especially an unthinking, unknowing,, et al, one at work. Everything goes according to how God made it under the sinful and corrupt influences that entered the world.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      But there is masses of evidence of evolutionary processes occurring in far more recent times than when you imagine the Creation to have taken place.

      If you isolate members of a species - on an island for example - and this subset encounters threats that do not affect the main body of the species, changes will become apparent that represent survival mechanisms that have been evolved by that subset - always assuming that it does survive.

      How do account for these if not thanks to the mechanisms of genetic mutation? You might call this God's handiwork, but why not accredit it with the name Evolution? Or are you simply quibbling over the name of a natural process?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      Your response is illogical and irrational as well as using apples to compare with oranges.

      The concept of evolution contradicts God's word and calls him a liar. Plus it is false teaching. Using the internet is like using a car. neither are in the Bible and neither violate God's instructions, contradict God's word nor calls him a liar.

      There is no such thing as evolution. What you credit evolution for actually is God's handiwork in action and yes God created everything fully developed without needing imaginary process to develop them

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      I just wonder how far you would take this logic. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Bible about communicating via the Internet, but you appear to be doing exactly that.

      The processes of evolution can be seen very clearly in the modern world as creatures develop to suit their changing environments. We can see, for example, bacteria evolving to make them resistant to anti-bacterial drugs.

      If you think that Creation happened around 10,000 BC, what exactly did God create? Living things that are exactly as they are today? Surely not!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      I will let you think on those points for awhile

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Interesting! I particularly "like" number 5 - this is a principle that would produce some fascinating conclusions if adopted universally!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      First off, evolution does not exist,never has and never will. It is a construct from sinful unrepentant minds and as the Bible says, walk not in the counsel of the ungodly.

      Second, accepting the concept of evolution would mean rejecting God, his word and calls him a liar,

      Third, God's requirement of faith would be violated and have people doubting God. We have faith (or belief) in God and his word. That is what God wants.

      Fourth,it would be violating God's word on true and false teaching by accepting evolution over God's truth.

      Fifth, there are no ancient manuscripts that supports evolution but there are thousands supporting God's word

      Sixth, while there are verifications for creation there are absolutely none for the theory of evolution

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David, Can you answer this question, please: What is it about belief in God that precludes acceptance of the mechanics of evolution?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      10 months ago from Philippines

      I have read Dawkins and you are mistaken

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      10 months ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Have you read anything written on evolution by Richard Dawkins? His books provide answers to all the questions that you think are "unanswerable".

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)