ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Evolution Theory - Fact or Fiction?

Updated on November 18, 2014
Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. (1:20, Romans)
Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. (1:20, Romans)

Do you believe in Evolution Theory?

The question of whether or not we believe in Evolution Theory is asked in much the same way as questions of faith – Do you believe in God; do you believe in Jesus Christ; do you believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit?

Often posed by researchers and interested persons, the question itself – do you believe in Evolution Theory – reveals the truth that it takes faith to believe in all that is postulated within the theory. Why is faith needed? For the same reason it takes faith to believe in God and creation. We cannot see God with natural eyes (though the reports of those seeing with spiritual eyes are countless), nor witness the ancient events of creation. Likewise, we cannot ourselves see a long-ago “common descent from a universal ancestor” central to Evolution Theory.

Faith is needed for belief in Evolution Theory further because that which we witness in life contradicts the idea of any uncreated magnificence. We see that creation by someone is involved in all that is brilliant and excellent – music, paintings, writings, buildings, computer programs, medical equipment, and on and on. We witness order and greatness not arising without a purpose or plan, but rather only from very specific and intelligent design.

Do believers in the Lord (the Word in the flesh) tend to oppose Evolution Theory? Some believers take the stand that God used the process of evolution as proposed within evolutionary theories in his acts of creation. Others believe that there exist some elements of commonality in the proposed processes or events set forth by evolutionary theorists and the process of creation, so that evolutionary theorists may be accurate in some assertions and far off in others. Still others believe that evolutionary theorists and scientists are radically off on many or most of their assertions based on faulty assumptions, limited findings, use of faulty methodology, faulty interpretations, biased selection, and so on. While Christians may have differing interpretations of Scriptures and differing levels of opposition to Evolution Theory, our belief in God stands in opposition to any godless assertion that evolution and related phenomenon account for our universe apart from the will and actions of God. The unifying truth recognized by believers is that God is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen, as revealed by the Holy Spirit and the Word, and that in one form or another truth has been revealed through that Spirit and Word.

While many believers in God question Evolution theory, the opposition certainly is not limited to that centered on the faith of believers. Many frequently noted limitations and problems of Evolution Theory will be addressed, including those that are scientific, logical or philosophical in nature. The significant limitations and widely noted problems point to a vital question related to the necessary role of faith in the theory’s acceptance – Does belief in the Theory of Evolution require substantial faith because the theory ultimately lacks provability?

Separating Fact from Inference within Evolution Theory

We’ve all heard it – “Evolution is a fact”. But what exactly is fact when it comes to evolution? We evolve – that is we adapt and change over time – and this happens through mutation and natural selection. No arguments here. We can make observations of this within the laboratory, just as we can witness it in daily life, and few would argue against this evolution of life as fact. Believers generally understand that God has put natural laws and driving forces into place to shape the world. We praise God for making creation to change and adapt, thereby surviving and thriving, just as we praise God for the great multitude of ways he has designed the universe so magnificently.

But what about the inference that we all descended from a universal ancestor long ago? Or the suggestion that the “driving forces” of evolution (mutation and natural selection) occurred without ultimate design or direction, yet (because of a theoretically great amount of time) somehow caused the vast array of all that is within the universe to occur so precisely and brilliantly?

The key word is INFERENCE – inferences cannot truthfully be said to be factual. At best the claim can be made that it appears to evolutionary scientists, for example, that based on their findings and interpretation of those findings, we evolved from a universal ancestor long ago (others have far different interpretations of the findings). Yet we know this is NOT the way the theory is presented. Rather we are taught these mere assumptions about long-ago life (based on particular interpretations) as factually as we’re taught the observed, factual changes we witness.

What is the Evidence and What Does it Really Reveal?

The evidence for Evolution Theory is in large part that for the occurrence of what has been labeled by some as “microevolution” – evolutionary change within a small group of organisms or species, especially within a short period of time. This is readily studied and observed within the laboratory. But does the occurrence of microevolution necessarily imply anything about a common descent from a universal ancestor? No such implications are necessary, given the obvious and necessary role of microevolution to current life – microevolution is necessary for life to survive in changing environments. Without the ability of life to “evolve” in this manner, various life forms would quickly go extinct. Thus we would expect and predict microevolution as a necessary part of creation.

Given the necessary and predicted role of microevolution, there is no real need to theorize further about evolutionary events. We could just as logically predict that while the various types of creatures must necessarily contain a mechanism for adaptability and survival in changing environments (which would lead to changes within the types and new species), if types are to be maintained, then we expect to see inhibitors to greater evolution of the various distinct creatures. Much evidence supports such a prediction – we witness distinct types in life and in the fossil records; we find evidence from fossils that many ancient creatures exist in strikingly similar form today (“millions” of years later); we see that mutations are detrimental; we see that interbreeding of different kinds often produces sterile offspring, and so on.

“Macroevolution” refers to any changes at or above the level of species, so that it refers to greater change, such as the splitting of a species into two (speciation) or the change of one species into another over time. A more direct way to study macroevolution is to examine the fossil evidence; however, this stronger type of study has often yielded findings that contradict the theory, and overall has not proven strongly supportive of Evolution Theory. To study and provide indirect evidence for macroevolution, evolutionary scientists make predictions that would be necessary if macroevolution were true, and then see if those predictions are indeed found to be true. This indirect type of evidence is circumstantial, and cannot legitimately be said to prove Evolution Theory (in much the same way that “correlational” studies cannot be said to prove causality because there always exists the possibility of a third confounding variable that is responsible for the correlation). While attempts are made to present various circumstantial finds as strong evidence of Evolution Theory, the truth remains that the evidence is all similarly weak evidence based on its circumstantial, indirect nature. In fact, regardless of what “evidence” is purported, because Evolution Theory lacks the ability to directly observe macroevolution and universal common descent in the distant past, the theory does indeed lack provability!

While many understand that Evolution Theory ultimately lacks provability, the evidence from fulfilled predictions may be seen as more or less supportive of the theory. It becomes critical to understand that any predictions should not be able to be accounted for by alternative explanations if they are to be taken as truly revealing or supportive evidence. Evolutionary scientists report that the predictions they’ve made have been shown to be true. For example, evolutionary biologists predict that if all life descended from a common universal ancestor, then organisms will be very similar in their structures and mechanisms responsible for the basic life processes, and this prediction has proved to be true. The vital question for this merely circumstantial evidence becomes – is there an alternative explanation for the similarities in structures, mechanisms, DNA and such?

Alternative Explanations through Creation

Setting aside the many overzealous attempts to “prove” Evolution Theory that turned out to prove nothing but a troubling willingness to use manipulation and fraud, let’s assume truthful and full reporting of all evolutionary finds. Are there other explanations for the findings? Remember for a finding to be truly revealing, it is important that no alternative explanation exists. If other explanations do exist, then a finding reveals nothing. The following may illustrate: If it were theorized that a woman named Pat had once been a boy, people could make several predictions that should be true, and then determine if the predictions were indeed true. They might predict they’d find Pat wore only pants as a youth, played sports, wore no make-up, wore short hair and so on. If all their predictions turned out to be true and consistent with their theory, could they then say they’ve proven that Pat was indeed once a boy and this is now fact? No, of course not, because there yet exists an alternative, true explanation – Pat was simply a tomboy and all their predictions were accounted for by this fact, not the false idea that she had once been a boy.

How about an alternative explanation for that rightly predicted commonality amongst the structures and mechanisms of various forms of life? Purposeful creation provides that explanation – Surely a Creator who is “common” to all life, and who purposes that life for greatness and durability, would be inclined to use the same magnificently effective mechanisms and structures for all that created life. Since the design works so brilliantly, wouldn’t we expect to see that it was used throughout creation? The existence of a “common Designer” at least as readily explains similarities amongst life forms. Further, if we take note of the message that God’s process for creation involved the land producing the creation (as noted in 1:11, 1:24, Genesis), and thus all creation was likely formed from common elements and in common fashion, we would have many of the same expectations as evolutionists.

“Scientific” Explanations Only – No Higher Truth Allowed

Even though creation provides the alternative explanation, it does not necessarily provide an explanation that is considered scientific (it is not limited to science and is not fully testable), therefore it may not be included within the “scientific” explanations, and so it remains as the often unstated yet truthful alternative to Evolution Theory. Whether believers view creation as occurring through similar evolutionary processes as described in Evolution Theory (yet at the command of God), or instead they see creation as an entirely different process than anything proposed within Evolution Theory, believers generally agree that the truth of creation will never be fully amenable to scientific study. God alone knows all the mysteries of creation and he has not fully revealed them to anyone, as full knowledge and wisdom belong to him alone. Thus there exists a gap between ultimate truth and that which is controllable and knowable by humans and their scientific methods. The scientific method may contribute to greater and greater earthly knowledge, but that knowledge has tremendous limits and ends quite abruptly at the naturally observable. God alone gives wisdom and knowledge from above, and such knowledge is not limited by that which is observable in the natural realm.

The conclusion for the believer? Creation (in one form or another) does in fact account for that which is predicted and found true by scientists, but likely will not be given its place of truth within the scientific community because it is not in whole part a testable, scientific theory, but rather will always be beyond our earthly understanding and ability to test. The believer comes to truth by God through the Holy Spirit, not by the teachings of any human or the so-called “knowledge” of any age.

Spiritually Based Concerns with Evolution Theory

Those who honor the Word or the Scriptures as inspired by God are more or less inclined to question the truth of Evolution Theory, depending on specific interpretations of Scriptures (e.g., literal versus symbolic) and depending on beliefs regarding the transmission of the Spirit-inspired message (e.g., whether or not God corrected every human thought given within his Spirit-inspired message). Evolution Theory contradicts heavily with a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture, though not necessarily a figurative or symbolic interpretation. Even a more literal interpretation of the Word may be viewed as somewhat varying in the considered incompatibility with Evolution Theory, depending on the understanding of various factors (e.g., If the universe was created in a rapidly sped-up manner, for instance, then that which occurred in a timeframe similar to a literal six days would appear AS IF occurring over an extended time period, and would in this area be more compatible with current theories).

Some believers who are not attached to any particular interpretation of the creation account within Scripture are nonetheless hesitant to embrace Evolution Theory for a variety of reasons, including 1) its attempt to control and explain that which is beyond full human control and explanation; and 2) the belief that it MAY contradict the Word and truth, and so caution is used where the believer has no direct revelation related to the creation account.

Surely we do not want to embrace anything that stands opposed to the true Word of God – that is to Jesus Christ, the Word in the flesh. Remaining faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, we avoid union with anything that is of the world rather than of the Holy Spirit. To deny the Word is to deny our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Word!

We see that Evolution Theory has amongst its strongest proponents those who exalt human wisdom, bring forth questions regarding the existence and involvement of God, and ultimately seek to undermine or do away with God’s place as Sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe. While Evolution is nothing but a proposed process that would necessarily still need a Creator, the goal of many advocates of Evolution Theory is to reduce or eliminate the role of God our Creator.

General Concerns and Arguments against Evolution Theory

Beyond the concerns related to faith and the Scriptures, many (believers and others) have numerous scientific, logical, philosophical, and other concerns with the Theory of Evolution and related theories. Many have noted that the evidence in fact does NOT line up with Evolution Theory, though great attempts are made to manipulate findings to fit with the theory and to silence anyone who opposes the beloved theory. It is not the intent here to cover all of the arguments against Evolution Theory, but simply to highlight some of these. The following are some of the significant and often noted concerns and problems with Evolution Theory:

  • Concerns related to the astronomically complex universe (which we learn is ever more complex in all areas than ever previously assumed, so that a single cell is as complex in its workings as an entire city) and the IMPOSSIBILITY of our infinitely complex world without divine design (this concern/argument is not limited to that of “irreducible complexity”). Concerns here relate to the absurdity and lack of believability inherent in the idea that our remarkably and incomprehensively designed universe, and our astoundingly designed bodies, minds/souls and spirits could ever result from little more than the interplay between mutation and natural selection, at the “direction” of nothing but natural processes. Atheistic evolutionists appear to grossly underestimate the complexity of all that is within us and our universe.
  • Concerns related to the evident beauty, meaning and majesty of life, especially human life, and the implications inherent in any godless evolutionary and related theories regarding an element of purposelessness, meaninglessness, hopelessness, eventual doom and the like.
  • Concerns related to the revealing lack of DIRECT evidence for macroevolution or the “vertical” transition of one kind into another more complex kind (direct evidence of “horizontal” transitions abound and microevolution is a well-established fact). While such vertical transitions are said to have occurred in the distant past and the “defense” is that they cannot be expected to be directly observed today, the absence of direct evidence nonetheless necessarily limits Evolution Theory. As noted previously, this absence of direct evidence for theorized past events is the reason Evolution Theory lacks provability, in much the same way our beliefs in God and creation lack provability.
  • Related to the overall lack of direct evidence are concerns regarding the unmet expectation of a multitude of new kinds (rather than simply new species) continuing to gradually arise, apart from interbreeding of different kinds (often producing sterile offspring). Conceding that apes and monkeys are not proposed as the ancestor of humans, we thus concede that according to the theory we would not expect a modern monkey or an ape to evolve into a human (and so would not see any at stages between a monkey or ape and human). However, the concern nevertheless continues regarding the lack of evidence that monkeys and apes are gradually turning into an altogether different kinds of creatures, and likewise the lack of evidence that humans are turning into any different kind of creature (as opposed to simply more evolved or different apes and monkeys, or a simply more evolved human). Even the defense that this occurs “too slowly” to observe does not satisfy the expectation that some kinds should more evidently be well on their way to becoming a new kind of creature altogether. We have a multitude of monkeys, but they are still monkeys. We have a multitude of apes, but they are still apes. And humans are, well, still all humans.
  • Concerns related to the basic similarities of humans made in God's image. While some people tend toward racist views that emphasize the differences amongst humans, the truth is that the human race is an extremely homogenous group. For example, differences in IQ scores amongst various groups are quite small considering the potential for great differences. The most basic needs, behaviors and such of humans are very similar. If Evolution Theory were accurate, we would expect to see those groups who were on their way to being something other than humans altogether.
  • Concerns related to the missing fossil evidence for the theory, despite the logical prediction and expectation in this area. Of the utmost importance, the fossils (while quite revealing and supportive of alternative explanations) have failed to reveal the proposed “molecules-to-man” evolution.
  • The unaccounted for great gaps found between kinds, which in fact fulfill the predictions of contrasting theories that do account for the great gaps.
  • Striking fossil evidence that greatly conflicts with (and many assert disproves) Evolution Theory, such as that related to the Cambrian Explosion – Within a relatively short time known as the Cambrian Age, at least 100 phyla suddenly appeared fully formed, with nothing but single-celled (and a few very primitive multi-celled) creatures before them.
  • In further contradiction to Evolution Theory, the ancient Cambrian creatures resemble the creatures of our day. If Evolution Theory were true, the creatures of today should have within the time estimated at millions of years, radically evolved from the creatures found from the Cambrian Explosion.
  • The striking conflicts between the more direct fossil evidence and the human or computer created “evolutionary tree” and subsequent phylogenies or phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees have exhibited a multitude of problems, including their failure to display extinctions known to exist and the mentioned failure to match fossil evidence.
  • The failure of Evolution Theory to account for the fact that the differences between organisms are greater than the similarities amongst them.
  • Due to the lack of direct evidence for macroevolution and universal descent, comes increasing reliance on merely “circumstantial evidence”, such as similarities in DNA, which is particularly weak evidence and reveals nothing if accounted for by alternative explanations (See “What Does the Evidence Really Reveal”).
  • Concerns related to the Law of Increasing Entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), which many note contradicts Evolution Theory. The counter argument is that the Law of Increasing Entropy is limited to “closed systems” and the universe is an “open system” (e.g. open to the energy of the sun); however, in cases of decreasing entropy (increasing organization) in open systems, a guiding program and a mechanism for conserving energy have been needed (and such factors as heat from the sun are known to increase entropy, not promote organization).
  • Concerns related to the fact that more “vertical” change has been detrimental rather than beneficial. Observed scientifically, mutations are disorganizing, not organizing mechanisms. In this way, Evolution Theory appears to stand opposed to that which has been observed scientifically. We might go so far as to say that since this is a finding of science, evolutionists oppose science in this area, in the same way persons of faith are accused of opposing science based on their beliefs.
  • Concerns related to our own observations in life that blind chaos and disorder do not ON THEIR OWN become beautiful, meaningful, useful or magnificent order. We ourselves are the witnesses that only design and creation in life results in superior form and function, or excellence of any kind, such as that created by humans in the areas of music, art, architecture, life-saving techniques, and so on. Belief in Evolution Theory seems to represent an effort to turn a blind eye to this witnessed fact of life and to imagine a life of the reverse of the natural rule.
  • Concerns related to the unavoidable limitations and inadequacies regarding human findings and the piecing together of finds, as well as the limitations and inadequacies in human interpretation of findings, and the like. The obvious fallibility of human effort and the inability of humans to account for all the countless unknown factors.
  • Limitations and inaccuracies in methods utilized for scientific study.
  • The inability of any one of us to witness ancient events.
  • The inability to recreate the atmosphere or life as it was in ancient times (e.g., early earth’s true atmosphere).
  • Concerns related to the withholding from students and the general public of documented contradictory findings and evidence against evolution.
  • The use of manipulation through drawings, computerized images, exaggerations, misleading photographs and the like. This often represents an attempt to make us believe by “seeing” (young students are especially vulnerable to belief through this falsified form of presentation).
  • The inability to rule out all alternative explanations for predicted circumstantial findings, especially those that relate to the acts of Deity. The inability to understand or control for that which occurs outside the natural realm or the natural laws of possibility. The ever present possibility of unseen confounding factors.
  • Concerns related to the unwarranted confidence in an unproven (and unprovable) theory full of limitations, demonstrated inconsistencies with many findings, and so on. Here we find concerns related to the rigid, forceful presentation of Evolution Theory without proper recognition of its limitations and fallibility, and the related demand for absolute acceptance of the theory instead of encouragement of either an open-minded or a questioning approach. Unfortunately, many have experienced ridicule, mockery and the like used by many evolutionists to obtain control and force acceptance of the beloved, even idolized theory.
  • Concerns related to the dishonest and fraudulent activities of overly zealous evolutionists that have been exposed, and the implications for the potential untrustworthiness of evolutionary scientists and others who are overly biased and motivated in one direction. Examples include the infamous “Piltdown Man”, falsely created from the remains of various animals and a human, and the frequent textbook use of Heackel’s infamous embryo drawings that gave false, manipulated similarities in the embryonic development of various animals.

Atheistic Push for Evolutionary and Related Theories

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (4:3-4, 2 Timothy).

Evolution Theory is esteemed greatly by many atheists for a very particular reason – it is claimed that the theory does away with the NEED for a Creator, and thus aids the one who does not believe and desires not to believe in God. A combination of random mutations and nonrandom processes of natural selection are said to ON THEIR OWN fully account for all we see and experience within ourselves and within our universe. It is theorized that given enough time, all that exists within us and our world was capable of coming to be without any design or intelligence. While many recognize that a process (such as that proposed in Evolution Theory) would need a Creator as surely as anything else, it is a common occurrence for the claim to be made that evolution requires no Creator.

Amongst atheists, we often find ridicule of anyone who questions or disagrees with any aspect of Evolution Theory, as well as rigid control over what findings and interpretations are presented. Popular online sites, for example, may permit such unscientific writings as that related to terra cards, for example, yet restrict any links to creationism websites. Many atheistic evolutionists mock and label those with faith in the Creator. Given the extreme response by many devout evolutionists toward anyone with differing views or simple questions, we have begun to recognize the exaltation of Evolution Theory as a form of religion itself. Anyone who opposes the “god of evolution” will suffer the wrath of the allegiant followers of Evolution Theory.

Whether believers lean more toward belief in creation through evolution (or a similar process) or lean toward creationism, they understand the ultimate hand of the Creator in the process. Given that some believers are content to consider that God may have used evolutionary processes in his creation, the question arises – Why the great controversy over the current Theory of Evolution?

The theory’s godless presentation of the universe, our bodies and all that is within us as merely resulting from natural processes is a supremely dangerous presentation in that it places a stumbling block in the way of belief for those who have not yet met the Lord. We have been given all of creation as a powerful testimony to the existence and nature of God. To look at a sunset, a mountain, a flower, a horse, and certainly a newborn baby is to know something of God. It is written: “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” (1:20, Romans), and “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” (19:1-4, Psalm).

Yet for more and more people, Evolution Theory as currently presented is silencing the testimony of creation about the Creator, and it appears that this is the very goal of those who most faithfully seek to promote Evolution Theory and exalt the god of evolution.

A Call for Educational Reform

What should be presented within our public educational systems? Should we include Evolution Theory, Intelligent Design, Creationism, simply a disclaimer that we have conflicting evidence and no proof of how life came to be? Should Evolution Theory be given preference and should it be given a voice of authority? Should any theory on our existence be given a voice of authority, or can we acknowledge truthfully that they are all unprovable? Exactly how should this area be presented? Should we acknowledge the always potential but unobservable existence of factors outside the realm of scientific study? Should we even mention that which is not scientific? Should we emphasize attained knowledge or limitations and fallibility? How can the system better educate in such a way that encourages exploration, consideration of all factors, openness to possibilities, and an understanding of our current limitations when teaching about life?

Some may consider Intelligent Design, Creationism and alternatives largely “scientific” theories with supporting evidence (certainly there is much evidence, though often not acknowledged or permitted). Yet many believers concede that due to the degree of untestable, unknowable, supernatural phenomenon within the details of God’s creation, the truth of what occurred does not likely fit neatly into a purely scientific model, as it involves much more. In one sense, the push to fit the TRUTH into a scientific theory minimizes that which occurred at God’s will and command. However, the push for divine explanations to be classified as scientific is understandable, based on the current thought that only that which is purely scientific should be presented as a viable alternative. Current thought appears to be that 1) we must give the impression of great knowledge and control over our universe, and 2) because theories that acknowledge the divine hand of God cannot be presented in a similarly known and controlled manner, the most amenable to human knowledge and control (currently the Theory of Evolution) should be presented as accurate and authoritative in its content and assertions.

Modifying the presentation of current theories, thoughts and possibilities would aid in reducing many of the conflicts and problems centered on controversial teaching within our schools and universities. Greater encouragement of questions and exploration, the allowance of differing views and beliefs, and the acknowledgement of yet unknown possibilities and unobserved phenomenon would benefit young minds, which may someday impact our understanding and world. Great caution should be exercised by leaders in educational systems who must avoid limiting or misdirecting students, and this includes honestly presenting findings and theories as fallible, rather than attempting to give authoritative voice to that which is limited and unascertained.

Taking a Stand as Believers in the Lord

The multitudes who have met the Lord will continue to acknowledge God’s role as Creator of the universe. Yet for the sake of others, including our loved ones, we cannot sit by passively and let the deceiver blind the eyes of the masses, convincing them that God’s hand can be removed from his creation. In response to the prophesied and now occurring fall from faith and truth in our day, it is vital that Christians unite in belief in our Creator and Lord, regardless of any differences in understanding of specific processes or time frame for creation.

Though attempts are made to silence believers and limit their voice in educational and other settings, we will not and cannot be silenced. October 18 has been set aside as Creator Day (aka Creation Day) – a day for believers to annually unite and declare the eternal truth that God is our Creator and Lord. This may be done through simple celebrations of our Creator and enjoyment of the creation, such as singing praises around a campfire or visiting the mountains or lake; or through declarative parades, festivals and parties in which creation-themed costumes or t-shirts demonstrate to the world our belief in our Creator.

We are involved in one of the most pressing spiritual battles of our day. Attempts to distort and deny the Creator are in full force, and we must take care to stand firm in our faith and present the truth to those who will hear with spiritual ears. The insistence that godless processes played out without the hand of the Creator in forming our universe, our bodies, souls and spirits, and all that is unseen but real and beautiful within the world – love, hope, faith, dreams, joy, peace – is a blinding force within our day, and we must stand together in the unity and power of the Holy Spirit, offering everlasting truth and light to those who will receive from the Lord.


“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.” (1:25, Romans)

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Brie Hoffman profile image

      Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan

      Great article. Have you seen the Genesis movie that Ray Comfort made?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Thanks, Brie Hoffman. Haven't seen the movie, but might check it out,

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Cat, you do write very well, there are a few things I think that in fairness to your readers needs to be checked. I don't think you were attempting to purposely mislead anyone, however when you stated "In further contradiction to Evolution Theory, the ancient Cambrian creatures resemble the creatures of our day. If Evolution Theory were true, the creatures of today should have within the time estimated at millions of years, radically evolved from the creatures found from the Cambrian Explosion." It could be seen as an attempt to mislead people because during the Cambrian explosion.

      • All life was aquatic.

      • Most life was relatively small.

      • Many animals had unusual body layouts.

      Therefore nothing resembled life on land and therefore your statement isn't very truthful.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Thank you, Rad Man. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if life was aquatic, relatively small, possessing unusual body layouts, and didn't resemble life on land, then we would not expect evolutionary changes within millions of years?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      More than 500 million years have passed since the Cambrian explosion. Life then didn't resembler life now and it's seems deceitful to say that not much has changed since then. We don't find evidence of cats or wolves from the fossils from the Cambrian time, we do find them later however. All science is doing is following the evidence.

      Additionally, there are many example of new species, take us for example, but if you need to see it in action study the Zebra, Donkey and the Horse or the African and Asian Elephants.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      Everything requires a Creator--except your god, of course. Have you ever considered that your god may have used evolution in his plan for all living things? And you are way off in some of your claims as Rad Man pointed out. I think you may have erroneously used a Creation site for your info about the ancient past.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      The particular life forms found from the time of the Cambrian explosion still resemble these particular life forms today. So, for example, the starfish from "more than 500 million years" ago still resembles the starfish we see today. That is what I was speaking of, not other differences in life between then and now.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Hello Randy Godwin. Many believe that God used evolution. They still acknowledge and praise their Creator. As discussed in this article, there exist too many weaknesses, contradictions, limitations, merely circumstantial evidence, and so on for me to accept Evolution Theory.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Oh I see, you just want to look at how some creatures haven't changed much and ignore every single other animal. The thing about evolution is that if it finds something that works it doesn't need to change it.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      The animals that were found haven't changed much. The theorized changing of other animals is based on weak, circumstantial evidence and inferences.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      I don't think it's fair to say that the fossil and DNA records are weak and circumstantial. I can see you are not sitting ideally by.

      The animals that were found evolved into what we see today. Do you have any evidence that all land animals came from elsewhere.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      According to Evolution Theory, the animals that were found evolved into what we see today. It is their responsibility to show this in ways that are not merely circumstantial and do not rely on mere inference if they want to call it factual. As it is, alternative explanations for all current findings exist, all its "evidence" is indirect and circumstantial, and evolution theory contradicts many findings and truths of life. It is not only an unproven theory, but because it must rely on inference and circumstantial evidence, it is not even provable.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Your alternate theory is GOD DONE IT with no explanation of where God came from. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Fossil and DNA are direct evidence of evolution.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Fossil evidence is more direct; however, the fossil finds have not been very supportive of Evolution Theory (too many gaps, etc.). Much of the fossil evidence supports theories that predict gaps rather than transitional creatures. Evolutionary scientists present a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as similarities in structures and DNA, but because there always exists the possibility of alternative explanations for these similarities (and we'd expect them as a result of a common Creator utilizing his own magnificently designed and functional structures, DNA and such), this evidence is weak and can't prove Evolution Theory. Evolution Theory makes inferences and inferences are not facts. We can't infer common ancestry or macroevolution from microevolution because microevolution is a necessary, predicted truth of creation (without it creation would quickly go extinct), and because there appear to exist inhibitors to macroevolution (witnessed mutations are detrimental, inbreeding often produces sterile offspring, etc.).

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      No, Zebra's breed with Zebra's just fine, but Zebra's and Horse's produce sterile offspring because they are not longer the same species and can't return to being the same species. This is another example of what happens when you separate a species long enough for them to evolve to a new or different environment. The African and Asian elephants are another example and there are many more. The fossil and DNA evidence support this. They are an example of animals in transition.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Zebras becoming other kinds of zebras and elephants becoming other kinds of elephants are examples of microevolution (as are dogs becoming other kinds of dogs). No one debates these necessary, adaptive changes according to environment.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      I'm still wondering where you get your scientific info from, Cat. Do you realize that just because something is labeled a 'theory' it can still be proven to work? Did you ever stop and think about the extreme rarity of fossils from millions of years ago? Do you really expect an overlapping display of fossils showing the evolution of a creature over these eons?

      It's really too bad you have such faith in a mythical creature and so little in reality. Nuff sed!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      When Zebra's can not longer mate with horses or donkeys they have become something different. Much like humans and chimps, although we only hope humans and chimps can no longer produce viable offspring. When African elephants can no longer produce viable offspring with Asian elephants it become what you call macro evolution.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Randy - Yes, theories can be proven to work, but Evolution Theory (unlike many other theories) is particularly weak because its evidence is circumstantial (therefore proving nothing) and it relies heavily on inference. Since there is a specific reason microevolution exists (for survival of the species), we cannot infer from the fact of microevolution that macroevolution occurred, and especially not that it occurred consistently and brought us from "molecules to man".

      Fossils are rare, yes, but not too rare to give us a lot of distinct kinds.

      Rad Man - Let's say the African elephants become so different than the Asian elephants that they can no longer produce viable offspring with them, and this is considered an instance of speciation. Could we infer from a case of speciation that all things necessarily experienced a similar event and all came from a universal common ancestor? No, this is still an inference. We witness many inhibitors to speciation - the detrimental effect of mutations, the sterile offspring produced by inter-mating of many animals - and these suggest that inhibitors were placed within types to predominantly maintain those types.

      And, forgive me for this, but I'm sure some have already tried to produce offspring from humans and chimps, so it's probably more than just a hope that they can't produce viable offspring.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      So your god made animals which look alike but can't interbreed with their lookalikes? And they were originally as they are now, is that correct? So it's simply coincidental they look like each other because your god ran out of ideas on how to make completely different looking creatures? You're really stretching your beliefs to the breaking point, no? lol!

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Surely changes do occur and we recognize relations between certain animals. Animals change, animals go extinct, etc. But all things considered, many remain remarkably the same due to the inhibitors to RADICAL changes. Changes that encourage survival indicate only the magnificence of our Creator who made creation to adapt and survive, and further inferences from this simple truth are not necessary and cannot be ascertained.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      You have much less proof of your god than evolution does, Cat. Sorry about that, but the truth will set you free. I too was indoctrinated into Christianity at an early age but was intelligent enough to not buy into the contradictions of the mere men who wrote the novel you are betting your soul upon. How did you learn about your god?

    • Brie Hoffman profile image

      Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan

      Christianity is a relationship not an indoctrination. It takes much more faith to believe that everything came from nothing.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      "It takes much more faith to believe that everything came from nothing."

      I assume you've never studied about anti-matter by your comment, Brie?

      And does your comment speak for everyone or merely yourself? Just because you believe this doesn't make it true you know. Or do you?

      How old were you when you were 'taught' about a god, Brie? An easy question you may, or may not, deign to answer, but we'll see how honest you are at any rate. :)

    • Brie Hoffman profile image

      Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan

      I don't just believe, I KNOW because I have met HIM as have all true followers of Christ. On the last day Jesus will say:

      Depart from me evil-doers, I never KNEW you.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      Yes, I do believe you are a Christian, Brie. Many of your cult have a habit of ignoring questions they do not like to answer. Cool you've met Jesus! Does he look like all of the paintings of him in the churches? Is he really blond with blue eyes like some of the Creationism sites claim? Inquiring minds want to know! lol!

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Randy - When you are the witness yourself, you require no proof to believe. Others who hear your testimony may demand proof, but you yourself already know the truth. It is as Brie says - I know because I've met him. I've walked with him and talked with him... In Spirit form he has no hair or eye color. The only time I saw a vision of Jesus Christ in a person form, it was a silhouette in a doorway with bright light around. In Spirit form he comes in waves and jolts, in warmth, in power, in light, in peace, in joy, in an intensity you can't imagine until it happens. It is sometimes like being "high", it could sometimes knock you over if you let it, it sometimes takes you to an alternate existence you might say. Sometimes it is simply peace and comfort and you rest in him. With eyes closed I often see growing nostrils as the Spirit comes, as if God is breathing him into me. Initially the outpouring of the Spirit is intimidating and I first rejected it and pushed it away; now I seek it and wish I experienced more of it. As for age, my earliest memories are running around in nature WITH GOD in Spirit form.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      You guys still refuse to answer any of my questions as if they were never asked. Yes ma'am, I want to be like you guys. Simply making lofty claims and deigning to back them up. I assume you and Cat inherited your religion as have most believers, no matter the god or gods involved.

      I'll leave you alone now as I'm obviously not going to find out anything worth knowing on this hub. I'll pray to my god Moe for you guys. I am a believer in Stoogism as you might have guessed. Whoop, whoop, whoop,woop! lol!

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Randy, I missed your question - How did you learn about your God? I was told about God by my mother, but wasn't told much especially about the Holy Spirit. I never saw or heard about the outpouring of the Spirit or manifestations of the Spirit. The first time I experienced it, I pushed it away because it was so foreign and overwhelming to me. Most of what I've learned about God has been learned from God himself.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Cat, I can't help but notice you seem to be very fundamental/extreme in regards to religion. If you were born in a Muslim household in a Muslim country you most likely would be considered an extremist in the eyes of Islam as well. Possible joining up with ISIS as so many extremists are doing.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Wow, Rad Man. If you knew me at all, you wouldn't say I'd ever join up with a group like ISIS. While I confess to a variety of flaws and shortcomings, one God-given strength God placed within me from the start is a merciful heart, and I can't stand to see anyone hurting. I had to "toughen up" to stop overly empathizing with bugs that were struggling and dying. I wouldn't be a part of a group like ISIS no matter my circumstances.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      The women of ISIS say they feel safe and enjoy living as God intended. I'm not saying you are violent, but what I am saying is that you seem to be fundamental and extreme, if you were born a Muslim you would still be fundamental and extreme. You would be the same person you are now only you would be praying to another God or another version of God. It's something to think about.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      I am a person of extremes, no doubt, but I don't condone violence and I can't stomach the suffering of anyone (I'd rather even the most evil person just cease to be rather than to suffer). I understand the idea of what you're saying, but the truth is that God picked out the time and place for each one of us, so it wouldn't ever be as you say. I am his child because of his mercies and grace. I humbly acknowledge that it was not because of any merit of my own, and I am eternally grateful for his salvation. He desires that all come to know him. So we spread the word of truth in the hopes that people everywhere will receive the same mercies that we have by the grace of God.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 2 years ago from Southern Georgia

      Yes Cat, I realize you were told about your god at an early age. You inherited your beliefs just as most believer's--no matter the religion--do.

      "God picked out the time and place for each of us."

      Predestination makes the whole biblical scenario redundant, Cat. Why would a god need to run us through the whole thing if he/she/it already knows the outcome? Some bored creature if that is indeed the case. :(

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      I don't think her religion teaches her to lie, but it doesn't prevent her from lying and that's the problem.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Sorry, ED, but I deleted your post. Calling someone a liar is inappropriate. If you have something of value to say and can be kinder and more respectful, please feel free to post again.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Hmm, but when someone says "However, the concern nevertheless continues regarding the lack of evidence that monkeys are gradually turning into any different kind of creature altogether, and likewise the lack of evidence that humans are turning into any different kind of creature altogether (as opposed to a simply more evolved monkey, or a simply more evolved human)." as a way of attempting to convince gullible people that evolution isn't possible because God done it. Not only do we have different kinds of monkeys and apes, but we also have new world monkeys and old world monkeys as well as lemurs and a host of other primates. So while it's not polite or appropriate to call someone a liar what do you call someone who purposely misinforms?

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "So while it's not polite or appropriate to call someone a liar what do you call someone who purposely misinforms?"

      From wiki:

      Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

      Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole .

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      So while it's not polite or appropriate to call someone a liar what do you call someone who supplies disinformation to persuade others that a particular god exists?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      What disinformation would that be, Rad Man? The true difference between fact and inference? The true difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? The true fact that many unknowns exist? The true concerns that various people have with evolution theory, including contrasting evidence? The true limitations and fallibility of human findings, interpretations, etc.? What exactly are you referring to? Your previous expressed concern was based on a misunderstanding - I was referring to particular creatures that had not changed or evolved despite "millions" of years (e.g., starfish) and you mistakenly said (either here or in a forum) that I was saying there were no changes in life since this time. So what exactly is this "disinformation" I've provided?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      ED - Any posts that resort to name-calling will be deleted (another of your posts was deleted because of additional name-calling). You can challenge the ideas and such, but please do so respectfully and without personal attacks and name-calling. Thanks.

      ED and Rad Man - There are two problems with your accusation that I've provided "disinformation", for which ED provided the definition: 1) The basic information I provided to challenge evolution theory is true and accurate. I understand and acknowledge that all humans are fallible and that misinformation may slip in this work, as in any work. If any misinformation slipped in, I apologize. 2) You are not in a position to distinguish between misinformation and disinformation, which requires knowledge of intent. God judges the heart; humans without such knowledge given them must judge only by appearances and such. Please stop judging and attributing negative intent to my words. Thank you.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Stating that there is a lack of evidence that primates have evolved into different species is disinformation. And it's disinformation used in order to propagate propaganda. Old and new world monkeys are very different and each species is different. Humans and chimps are not the same species, but have evolved from the same species, and the evidence for that is overwhelming. The fossil records are conclusive on there own, but attempting to deny the DNA evidence and spread the disinformation for Jesus is not be being honest perhaps even with yourself.

      What is the intent of this hub?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      To say that different kinds of monkeys are very different does not change the fact that they are still monkeys and still much more similar than different! Dogs likewise are very different, but still very much dogs. I believe speciation can occur, but it doesn't change the fact that inhibitors to macroevolution exist, and that we will not see the astronomical changes that are theorized about. More importantly, we can't just make a lot of inferences based on the changes we see because ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THOSE CHANGES DO EXIST - We MUST change in order to survive, so any theory must necessarily predict changes / microevolution; the evidence for evolution theory - common descent and such (not "evolution" if referring to microevolution) - is ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL; we cannot reach conclusions and claim to have PROVEN anything based on inferences and circumstantial evidence. No, the evidence is NOT overwhelming that humans and chimps have evolved from the same species. The fossil record is anything but conclusive. As for DNA, they're not even 99% similar in DNA as many claim, but this appears to be an instance of disinformation when we carefully consider what they're referring to when they say the DNA is 99% similar. And we're similar in DNA even to a mosquito, but that doesn't mean that the Creator didn't make us all very distinct.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Dogs can interbreed, Monkeys can only breed with it's own kind. Apes and monkeys and lemurs are all primates, but not the same species.

      Suggesting that mosquitoes are as closely related to us as chimps is more of the same. The genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%, or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans. Given that our common ancestor lived between 4 and 7 million years ago 2% is not much. Besides fossil and DNA evidence we also have immunological distances as evidence all leading to the same conclusion.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "ED and Rad Man - There are two problems with your accusation that I've provided "disinformation", for which ED provided the definition: 1) The basic information I provided to challenge evolution theory is true and accurate. "

      No, you are only providing nonsense. You have no clue about evolution. Please stop spreading lies.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      You should actually try learning something about evolution instead of just making up lies, Cat. Here you go, some basic stuff, will you actually read it and learn or will you just ignore and keeping making up lies?

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/ev...

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/e...

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Yes, primates includes a lot of different animals, along with humans, all lumped together because of at least one similarity in a wide range of attributes. Nonetheless, all the different kinds of Lemurs are still Lemurs and all the different kinds of monkeys are still monkeys. So when you speak of monkeys changing, they are still monkeys (and still more similar than different). And when Lemurs change, they are still Lemurs (and still more similar than different). Again, we recognize these changes that are necessary for adaptation and survival. There are inhibitors to greater change, especially for humans, by God's design. Humans will continue to adapt and change, but will not become a different creature altogether until transformed by the Holy Spirit.

      It's inaccurate to say that the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%, as they are only including the overlapping DNA when they make this misleading claim. The difference is more like 30% or so. I wasn't suggesting that mosquitoes are as closely related to us as chimps; rather, I was making the point that we also have much DNA similarity to mosquitoes (something like 40% similarity versus the 70% similarity to Apes), but even with significant similarities (whether 40% or 70%, you're going to get HUGE differences. Our Creator used DNA in a very similar way for all because it was a brilliant and wonderfully effective design for life.

      Evolutionary scientists can keep making the same claim over and over because of similarities in "this, that and the other thing", but all these similarities provide nothing but WEAK, inconclusive evidence. It's nothing but circumstantial "evidence" and it's ALL accounted for by the alternative explanations discussed.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      What was I think? I was looking at what the experts in genetics think when I should have just asked you. The experts say 98%, claiming you know different without suppling any evidence is yet another example of your disinformation for Jesus. Evidence shows that primates have evolved into apes, old world and new world monkeys and lemurs to name a few. We see no evidence of chimps or humans millions of years ago, but we do see plenty of evidence of our common ancestors. Why is that?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      You shouldn't be taking my word for it OR the experts' word for it. You should critically examine what it is they're doing. And if you find that they are only looking at the overlapping DNA, so that it is really 98% of the overlapping DNA that is similar, then it is misleading to say simply that 98% of the DNA is similar. There are many experts who have pointed this out.

      I have no opinion / belief regarding the age of the earth, but if the earth / universe is young and appears old because of natural disasters and such, then nothing is millions of years old. If the earth / universe is very old, or was created outside of time, and we know that humans were created subsequent to animals, then we would expect to find humans coming onto the scene after animals, even potentially millions of years. You must also understand that we are necessarily limited by that which has to date been found.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      You all can argue about this subject until Rad Man grows a brain or ED regains penile function for all I care, but either way, the theory of evolution via the speciation concepts involves more storytelling than the Bible itself. I don't even follow any religions but I still realize that the mechanistic theory of existence is a Grade-A load of steaming dung. Yeah, I asked a flying squirrel the other day how he developed wings to glide from tree to tree while all the others ones of his type didn't and the poor squirrel said, "I evolved this way because the first time I flew without wings I failed so miserably in a rodent-like fashion, that I woke up the next day with a magical pair of gliders on my back that were totally up to my disposal." LOL! A pignose frog woke up one day and said, "where in the hell am I?" Ha-ha!

      This entire subject is hilarious. It is a shame that I have such a busy schedule offline or else I'd check back more often for laughs on a regular basis.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Thanks for your comment, Insane Mundane. I'm glad you can at least find humor in it.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Thanks for the laugh Insane.

      Yes, Cat I'm critically examining the evidence and what I see is evidence of evolution. Perhaps you should be critically examining your bible?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Rad Man - What do you think are the weakest areas of Evolution Theory, or any areas you question?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Finding common ancestors. Does it surprise you that hippos and whales are closely related? If you were looking for a live mammal to support the back to water evidence for the whale would you stop and the hippo.

      What do you think are the weakest areas of the bible?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Thanks for your response, Rad Man. I'm not really surprised that the DNA of hippos and whales is similar.

      The "weakest" part of the bible would be the human part. In the inspired Word, the message and/or vision given by the Holy Spirit is pure truth. But humans (inspired by the Holy Spirit) were chosen to give the message and now translate the message. They use phrases common to their time, they attempt to tell of visions from their own limited knowledge and language/vocabulary, and so on. So I'd say the human aspect is the "weak" part.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      I'd have to agree, the biggest problem is the entire bible is a human construct.

      Have you ever studied the laryngeal nerve in mammals the giraffe in particular? It can't be explained by design, but most certainly can by evolution.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      The entire bible was given by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. So it is of God, but we might say a little "muddled" by the humans.

      It looks like the laryngeal nerve in mammals (especially the giraffe) appears to many people to be an example of "imperfect" design, and some thus conclude it supports evolution rather than design theories. But there are some problems with this, including 1) the fact that there have been found benefits to the design that on the surface appears to us inefficient; 2) even if we don't understand or know the benefits, it doesn't mean that they don't in truth exist; 3) It may be that God who has designed and set all into motion does not necessarily "perfect" all things here on earth; We are "wonderfully" designed, not necessarily "perfectly" designed here on earth, as perfection appears to await the new heavens and new earth.

      This brings up an interesting point. We see for ourselves how MAGNIFICENTLY the human body, the bodies of the animals, the earth, and everything around us functions, and yet the desire of us miserable, critical, ungrateful humans is to point to something we believe is less than ideal in its design and efficiency? They searched the world and our bodies and found this nerve they THINK should have gone a more direct route, and this is supposed to counter our recognition of the design necessary for all the brilliantly and wonderfully efficient and marvelous aspects of life that are BEYOND COUNTING! Yuck!!

      It's kind of like how God gives us life and breath and sends the rain and gives the crops, and we humans and animals live and eat and drink and are satisfied, and yet forget to appreciate every breath and drink and bite of food, and we fail to make sure people everywhere are fed, and then we turn around and point our fingers angrily at God.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      I think you missed the point of laryngeal nerve in mammals (especially the giraffe). In fish and more primitive animals the position of this nerve makes sense, but when longer neck had evolved the never had to take the same trek as it couldn't simple take a new shorter path. So in the case of the giraffe the nerve runs the length of it's neck twice rather than once resulting in it not being about to make sounds. This shows that these long necks had evolved from short necks rather then simple design.

      As for the bible being given by humans by the Holy Spirit, that's simple wishful thinking. The Holy Spirit would have known what a day was, would have know not to kill girls found not to be a virgin on there wedding day and would have know it is immoral to keep slaves and beat people with clubs. Those rules would however come from slave owners wanting their many wives to be virgins when they were bought at 13 years old.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      Cat, so have you now confirmed you have no interest to learn anything about evolution? You will continue to make up lies about it?

      Evolution is fact, there is no weakness about it. If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would know it is a fact, but instead, you are choosing to be dishonest.

      Is it your religion that teaches you to be dishonest or is that just you?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Rad Man - The nerve may make sense in both fish and in the giraffe. An animal with a very long neck may benefit from the nerve running the length twice. Or conversely, the giraffe may have begun as a shorter-necked animal and adapted to its environment (so that it could reach the only leaves high up), with a resulting complication. Most of us understand that microevolution is a necessary aspect of creation in order for any animal to survive. So changes within the giraffe may play a role in what we find in the animal today.

      A lot of assumptions, inferences, and very selective attention / considerations go into Evolution Theory as humans make their attempts to figure it all out and put their spin on it. Evolutionary scientists search desperately seeking that rare "flaw" as they perceive it (or supposedly "leftover" characteristic) amongst all the countless brilliant and magnificently designed phenomenon witnessed. But while everything else so "magically" perfects without design in the fairytale world of evolution, why on earth would this nerve in the giraffe be an exception?

      The Holy Spirit gave the message and/or visions within the Word; people conveyed the message and spoke of the visions. I understand that a lot of the laws given to the Jewish nation prior to the day of Jesus are difficult for us to understand or accept (e.g., death as the punishment for fornication and adultery). The wages of sin is in fact death, but praise be to God - through Jesus Christ mercy triumphs over judgment!

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      ED - "Evolution is fact, there is no weakness about it"; "You will continue to make up lies"... Your empty assertions and empty accusations are just boring me now.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "the fairytale world of evolution"

      It is quite obvious you are not going to learn anything about evolution, yet you will say things like that.

      Do you know the meaning of the word, "dishonest"?

      - behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way.

      - intended to mislead or cheat.

      Don't you realize that the vast majority of people on the planet understand and accept evolution as fact? The reason for that is the that they took the time to understand it, which you are refusing to do.

      Again, see above definition.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "Your empty assertions and empty accusations are just boring me now."

      Are you so afraid of learning about evolution that it will jeopardize your religious beliefs? That is the truth, isn't it? C'mon, be honest. Tell us the real truth why you refuse to learn about evolution?

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      ED - What part of Evolution Theory is it that you think I don't understand? Understanding does NOT equal acceptance. People, including "experts", have believed all kinds of things throughout time and it doesn't make those things true and accurate. Isn't that one of your beloved "logical fallacies" you're using now?

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "What part of Evolution Theory is it that you think I don't understand? "

      It appears you don't really understand any of it.

      Tell me, what are the two main postulates evolution requires?

      "Understanding does NOT equal acceptance."

      That is very true, but there isn't anyone who hasn't accepted evolution after understanding it, including the last couple of Popes.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      I liken it to someone saying they don't think the earth orbits the sun.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Dang, people still waste time (or meaningless moments) in their life chattering about evolution like it has anything to do with creation? I'll waste some time and say that the two doesn't relate... Everything evolves and adapts; duh! It is the overly-eager-to-bash-religions-type-people that like to take a few common facts and run with it (begin the magnificent storytelling process of evolution), were it becomes a religion of some sorts. The concepts of speciation and the primordial soup hooey is where the ultimate theory goes bunk albeit I bet there are many of y'all that still call it science. LOL!

      Hey, I just read a comment that said "there isn't anyone who hasn't accepted evolution after understanding it, including the last couple of Popes," and had to vote myself in. I understand it just fine. The theory isn't "scien~cey" enough for me, nor does it satisfy basic programming models or justify the ongoing substrate from this planet in a specific speciation kinda way. In fact, the entire thing is boring hogwash with loads of glaring errors.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      " In fact, the entire thing is boring hogwash with loads of glaring errors."

      But, of course, we know you are completely incapable of pointing out any errors.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Here's an old paper that only covers a fraction of some of the glaring errors:

      http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

      Good grief, I'd have to quit my full-time job to go over all of the other ones! By the way, the errors multiply by the day...

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      Like I said, you are incapable of pointing out any errors, most likely because you don't understand evolution and wouldn't know where to begin.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      Here's an old paper that only covers a fraction of some of the glaring errors:

      http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

      Sorry, but those guys have no clue what they're talking about. They accept "microevolution" yet completely denounce "macroevolution" without understanding they are the exact same process with the only difference being time. Funny stuff, dude.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      No, macro-evolution and/or "the concepts of speciation" involves a totally different "history" that contains more storytelling than the Bible itself. Seriously, it is extremely funny stuff!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      What an Insane amount of lies. We have numerous examples of animals who are at this moment changing from one animal to another (can no longer produce viable offspring). And we do have many example of human fossils that show a progression. Fossils from the same spot in africa. If I have time I'll come back to that and read more lies for Jesus.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Is a cat a fossa or hyena or meerkat?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man - If you get lies for Jesus, it won't be from me. I've listened to both sides for years, and I'm yet to see any real difference. Science is in fact science and I'm all for it. The speciation concepts of Evolution amounts to a bunch of storytelling history with no factual evidence. Sound familiar? How's those walking whales doing, by the way? That hump on the back did all that in the fossil record? Wow! What's next? More paid "peer-reviewed studies" for a new drug? LOL!

      * By the way, a 'cat' (by the way you use the term) equates to silly semantics, not actuality.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      So if I were to show you a live animal with two nostrils on top of his head you'd reject that as an animal that bridges the gap? You really think it makes sense that whales have to breath air and have their flukes aligned like feet rather than like fish? They just happened like that? They just appeared. LOL

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Yeah, it is a swimming mammal. I don't get the big deal. Should I hate on the dolphins or whales first or both? Ha!

      Sort of like I don't get how you think global pollination was synchronized with bee-like life and flowers, yet it was by chance in a randomly evolving world of DNA per science. LOL!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Sure throw a red hearing in the path. Please explain the swimming mammals. Do you want to see one with two nostrils on top of his head? I'll show you one that comes into the water and one that stays in the water.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      I'm not really interested in ancient crocs or whatever else they have pretended to come up with while using various ancient fossils. I've read a lot of that crap before. Red herring? What, the one where you can't explain the evolution of global pollination? Or how natural selection and random mutations couldn't cut the mustard for evolving sophisticated echolocation systems in some of these swimming mammals like dolphins and small whales? What's next from you, the aquatic ape theory? LOL!

      I have to go to work... Have fun playing as a feign evolution scientist today; ha-ha!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      More red hearings, we can get to those other distracting topics when and after we resolve the mystery of swimming mammals. I'm not talking about any cold blooding animals, only mammals.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "What, the one where you can't explain the evolution of global pollination? "

      That's odd, I can find all kinds of peer reviewed articles on global pollination.

      Do you actually know what you're talking about there, Mr. Insane?

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "I'm not really interested in ancient crocs or whatever else they have pretended to come up with while using various ancient fossils."

      Doesn't matter, evolution can be shown as fact without the need of fossils.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Short for time right now, but to quickly address your deep concern about this subject:

      I've read many claims about this subject (including peer-reviewed crap from biased individuals and paid-off imbeciles) and how they must force-feed co-evolution into their model to try to make the global pollination issues make sense. As somebody once said in a post about this subject I wrote on another site, they agreed by saying macro-evolutionists have no choice but to assert that bees evolved in parallel with flowers. The first flower that evolved distinct male and female pollination mechanisms would have died immediately without a helpful bee hovering nearby.

      Anyway, that is an entirely different subject. The next thing you know, we will be talking about how flies originally spawned from wet areas or the magic from plant consciousness.

      I haven't even had a chance to get back to the walking whale miracles yet. Ha-ha! I may tune back in tonight for another laugh; cheers!

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "The first flower that evolved distinct male and female pollination mechanisms would have died immediately without a helpful bee hovering nearby.

      ...we will be talking about how flies originally spawned from wet areas or the magic from plant consciousness."

      Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have any idea how plants and animals of today evolved? Seriously. You should do some reading.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Everything evolves and adapts. However, the history of evolution involving speciation concepts contains too much storytelling for my liking. It is not science by any stretch of the terms whatsoever. I do have a slight problem with the ones that go around chanting how a Raptor turned into a turkey, for example. If you don't understand plant life, pollination or co-evolution theories and whatnot, that is not my problem.

      Plus, it would be so easy to just go visit some trending websites with all types of hogwash available that I could copy & paste into my brain in hopes I'd brainwash myself into this religion of yours or whatever, but it's just not my thing.

      By the way, do you believe everything you are told from the "scientific community"??? For example, back in the day, they used to say that all of those big land dinosaurs like T-rex, etc., were all cold-blooded. I never agreed with that, either. Then, years later, some of the "experts" are starting to think otherwise albeit they had most of y'all fooled at the time.

      Same concepts, really. Hearing about "living fossils" as excuses for species that have been found after being thought to have been extinct for millions of years yet they haven't, really gets old, for yet another lame example.

      ...Too many creatures and concepts not explained by this dull theory. Hell, it can't even explain flying squirrels, the bombardier beetle that damn-near blows flames out of its bunghole, and, uh, too many to list. I've even heard people debate about the Alectura lathami before. LOL!

      I suppose that evolutionist worshippers also cover the basics like blood clotting and photosynthesis in their theory as well, right? Seriously, you should do some reading with a clear head. In the mean time, I hope humanity quits evolving backwards as a whole.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "the history of evolution involving speciation concepts contains too much storytelling for my liking. It is not science by any stretch of the terms whatsoever."

      Do you actually know anything about evolution or have you just been surfing the Christian propaganda sites?

      So you actually know what science is and how it works or do you just assume scientists are faith believers?

      When you start out telling childish lies to adults, it only serves to diminish and credibility you may have had.

      You really must think we're dense.

      "For example, back in the day, they used to say that all of those big land dinosaurs like T-rex, etc., were all cold-blooded. I never agreed with that, either. "

      That was an assumption based on three pieces of evidence. It was never touted as fact or theory, only an assumption. Here are the reasons:

      1) Some dinosaurs were very big, which led researchers to believe that they had correspondingly slow metabolisms (since it would take a huge amount of energy for a hundred-ton herbivore to maintain a high body temperature).

      2) These same dinosaurs were assumed to have extremely small brains for their large bodies, which contributed to the image of slow, lumbering, not-particularly-awake creatures (more like Galapagos turtles than speedy Velociraptors).

      3) Since modern reptiles and lizards are cold-blooded, it made sense that “lizard-like” creatures like dinosaurs must have cold-blooded, too. (This, as you may have guessed, is the weakest argument in favor of cold-blooded dinosaurs.)

      But, of course, we know much more about dinosaurs now, because of the process of science.

      " they had most of y'all fooled at the time"

      How incredibly childish to say so. The only people who were fooled were those who accepted it as fact. Would that have been you?

      "Hearing about "living fossils" as excuses for species that have been found after being thought to have been extinct for millions of years yet they haven't, really gets old, for yet another lame example."

      Sorry, but I can't understand what you're mumbling, there.

      "Hell, it can't even explain flying squirrels, the bombardier beetle that damn-near blows flames out of its bunghole"

      There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on both those subjects.

      Oh yes, you probably aren't aware of the existence of peer reviewed journals.

      "I suppose that evolutionist worshippers also cover the basics like blood clotting and photosynthesis"

      Again, plenty of information about those subjects, too.

      But, it's highly likely you're completely oblivious to anything scientific.

      Again, if you actually have something that is not just word salad being tossed about, let's hear it. So far, I only hear bleating.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Again, you have nothing but the same gobbledygook that I have seemingly heard a million times already. If you are that gullible to resort to such pathetic copy & paste hooey from Joe Blow's website that I read about in the '90s, then so be it. By the way, speaking of name-calling, dear retard, before the Internet they proclaimed it as a fact, even in the textbooks at school, about all of those Dinosaurs being cold-blooded. I was evidently one of the few during that time that thought otherwise. Years later, some folks started to catch on.

      Troll away with your usual...

      Oh, I'm glad that you trust in your peers so much. I do not, but mainly because most people have extreme, self-induced cognitive impediments along with brain fog and verbal diarrhea... LOL!

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "Again, you have nothing but the same gobbledygook that I have seemingly heard a million times already."

      No, you have not heard very much, that is a fact. You have yet to produce one single thing that shows you know what you're talking about.

      "dear retard... Troll away with your usual..."

      Uh-huh. Who's the troll?

      "they proclaimed it as a fact, even in the textbooks at school, about all of those Dinosaurs being cold-blooded."

      Since, you're still in school, perhaps you can show us? If not, you're just blowing more hot air.

      "I'm glad that you trust in your peers so much. I do not"

      It's actually called "peer-review", a process that is quite important as it vets out valid theories.

      I can see you're not aware of this process, so I provided another link for you to study. Along with the ones for evolution, you'll have enough reading to keep you bust a long time, perhaps long enough to see you graduate high school... or probably not.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      I know what a peer-review process is. LOL! I've been out of school for years. I'm sure your so-called "education" comes from selective sites on the Internet, most likely. Plus, peer-reviewed articles from a circle jerk of people studying an incorrect model means absolutely nothing.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      " I've been out of school for years."

      What grade did you drop out?

      "peer-reviewed articles from a circle jerk of people studying an incorrect model means absolutely nothing"

      Did you get that from school or after you dropped out?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      I didn't drop out. I have a full-time job, too. I guess your MO is trolling on the magnificent Inter~Webs. Congrats! Keep that basement clean... Lawl!

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "I have a full-time job, too. "

      Flipping burgers or sweeping floors? You don't show any understanding of science whatsoever. Do you have anything else to offer other than childish rants?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      No, not at all, but even people with those occupations would probably still have a one-up on you. I haven't seen anything from you, either. The theory you worship isn't even real science, so there is really nothing compelling me to embark upon. Childish insults seems to be the jive that jiggles your jargon.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "The theory you worship isn't even real science"

      Sorry, but that is an obvious and very childish lie. You know it and I know it. '

      What is interesting is the fact that you would blatantly lie in public. Why would do that? Do you have no morals or ethics at all? Does your religion teach you to lie? How is that one can be so dishonest? How does that work? How are you able to face yourself in the mirror when you know you're lying?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      I've heard biologists and other scientists say the same thing before about your jaded theory of nothing. Plus, I really do not consider it science by any stretch of the term! At least to me, it isn't scientific enough and involves too much storytelling for my liking. If you enjoy that type of stuff, then good for you.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "At least to me, it isn't scientific enough..."

      And yet, evolution stands firm as hard science, this is common knowledge. It is based entirely on facts and evidence. Sorry, that you don't understand that. There is a very small minority of folks who are considered "scientifically illiterate", who tend to also assert the same things as you. They are quickly going the way of the dodo as information and knowledge spreads across the planet like never before, educating people everywhere, weeding and vetting out the dodos.

      Don't be one of them, learn something. Do it before it's too late. :)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Sure thing... I'll jump on the first cruise ship that presents a valid scientific model. Until then, I'll steer my own battleship into deep waters.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      " I'll steer my own battleship into deep waters."

      Bon voyage to Davy Jones locker.

      "Okay, now let’s talk about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming.

      This level of science illiteracy may explain why over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution."

      http://www.technologyreview.com/view/407346/216-mi...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      "Stupid is as stupid does." ---Forest Gump

      Yeah, there are less idiots out in the deep, but mainly because there are less people.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "Stupid is as stupid does." ---Forest Gump

      It's always good to learn and quote from those who show more intelligence than can be written by oneself. Well done.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      I was just matching your quote, because simply stating the obvious is pointless. I don't need you to tell me that the majority of humans are of lower intelligence. However, if you think you are so smart, then why would you waste time trolling on HubPages? I was rarely coming here before, but I like to pop in for an occasional laugh. What's your excuse? Slapped away from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database again? LOL!

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "I was just matching your quote..."

      Matches the quote? LOL.

      You do realize the quote I provided was about scientifically illiterate people, some who actually don't understand evolution. It's not a quote from an actor in a movie.

      "if you think you are so smart"

      I never said I was. But, at least, you seem to think so.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Ha-ha! You really do have reading comprehension issues. I matched your quote, as in "stating the obvious." Good grief... Talk about people who have trouble reading. *Sigh*

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      Sorry, but the quote I provided talks about "scientifically illiterate" people who don't believe in evolution, that would be you, yes?

      Is that what you mean by stating the obvious?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      It was stating the obvious when you quoted "Okay, now let’s talk about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming."

      Uh, like, duh! Most people find the comic section mind-boggling, much less a 6th grade science book.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      It was stating the obvious when you quoted "Okay, now let’s talk about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming."

      The same people who don't understand evolution. It seems the quote fits you to a tee. That would be stating the obvious?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Let's see... Microchips and global warming are included in macro-evolution? Wow! I did not know that! Thanks! Ha-ha!

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "Let's see... Microchips and global warming are included in macro-evolution? Wow! I did not know that! Thanks! Ha-ha!"

      Yes, I know you didn't know that, they are all science related subjects, so it stands to reason.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Microchips and global warming are not included in your asinine macro-evolution worship, you senseless bozo. It was a joke that you obviously didn't get. Good grief, you are even more dense than I originally thought.

    • EncephaloiDead profile image

      EncephaloiDead 2 years ago

      "you senseless bozo."

      Tell us how you really feel. LOL.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Well, I could have said a lot worse, considering all of the empty twaddle you have provided thus far for the community at hand. Then again, I may reach for that imbecilic repellent spray here before long, so who knows. LOL!

    • oceansnsunsets profile image

      Paula 2 years ago from The Midwest, USA

      I believe in evolution, in terms of us being able to observe small changes over time. I think it is undeniable. I don't think evolution is responsible for our origins however, or for the beginning. So whatever is being "believed" in, has to be a sufficient cause for the effect we see. Not a lot fits that bill. God does fit that bill. I think he made a way for us to know about him while not being forced to believe or worship him. I think that is an amazing thing, and I am thankful.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Oceans, why again would he make a way for us to know about him while not being forced to believe or worship him again while wanting us to know about him and worship him?

      Peace.

    • Cat333 profile image
      Author

      Cat333 2 years ago

      Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Oceansnsunsets. I agree that evolution - small changes over time - is an undeniable fact of life. God's wisdom is so far beyond our comprehension - he knew exactly what was needed to create and sustain this brilliant universe. I lose faith in the theory of evolution at the point of the inferences about early life. But I am not a biblical literalist necessarily, and I do understand those who believe macroevolution was utilized in creation. No matter differences, together we worship our Creator and Lord.

      Yes, what an amazing way he has of giving us himself without forcing himself!

    Click to Rate This Article