The God Problem, Part 6: God is a Circle
In this sixth and final part of the series on god, consider an extension of the problem seen in Part 5. If god is defined as a being not of this reality, then nothing in this reality can be brought as evidence in favor of it. The God believer has defined himself into a corner. Since humans are creatures of this reality, and we grew up and evolved within this reality, we are inherently incapable of knowing anything beyond this reality, which means that if god exists, we cannot know it. Therefore belief in god is unwarranted, and unjustifiable. If it is unjustifiable, that means it cannot be justified, which means it cannot be accepted.
Typically, if not always, the god believer must point to some evidence, argument or idea that originates or has its basis within this natural reality as justification for the existence of god (again, because this is the only kind of thing we humans can know or understand). This inevitably leads to circular logic in that god is justified by something in natural reality; and natural reality, the religious will argue, owes its existence to god.
For example, many offer the complexity of the universe as justification for an intelligent creator. Aside from the simple invalidity of this argument in its own right*, this approach prompts a question: One knows the universe is complex, but how does one know the universe even exists in the first place? The answer the religious will give is simply that the universe was created by god. And how, in turn, does one know that god exists? The answer was already given: the complexity of the universe. Circularity. This same kind of circularity applies to every argument for the existence of god, because every argument that can be created is based on evidence or observation rooted in this natural reality. There is not a single argument that can be proposed that is not rooted in natural reality.
It is important to note that this circularity occurs because the religious will never say “the universe exists” as a first assumption. The first assumption is always that god exists. From this, it follows that the universe exists. If one starts out by assuming that the universe exists, if one assumes this without evidence, on faith, then by definition one does not need god to explain the existence of the universe—one is already accepting the existence of the universe. For this reason, the religious should first assume that god exists, and from there it follows that the universe exists, because god created it.
So the bottom line is that god cannot be proven. The very notion of God, by definition, has ensured this. During the course of this series, we have seen why the idea of “God” is highly problematic, because of the idea of omnipotence, the definitional relationship between god and reality, the notion of the supernatural, and the logical and argumentative issues with “proving” God in the first place. There are many more issues with the idea of God that can be explored, but this series alone is reason enough not to believe. Now, after all this, I am still willing to say that there might be a divine. Just as I am willing to say that, somewhere in the universe, there might be a leprechaun, or a unicorn, or a Loch Ness monster. But that’s not very impressive company.
————————————————
*Because something is complex, it does not follow that (1) it was created, or (2) even if it was created, that it was created by an intelligence, and (3) in fact the universe originally was not complex, and subsequently became more complex on its own.
MORE ARTICLES:
1. Lets use logic, as you say it. Why would man create a god, who tells you to abandon you own ways of sin (which many people dont want to)? Besides, if the only logical belief, or fact, as you say it, is naturalism, because of its logical existence, then why would man want to belive in God in the first place? Maybe because, as the bible tells us, the humans have a spirit, who so desperately wants to have contact with a deity, namely God? This assumption is provable, or at least logical, as recent researches shows that only 10 % of the world are atheists, while all other believe in some sort of supernatural existence. But then rises another question, how can a God, who is so good and loving exist in such an evil world? Einstein gave a very good answer to that: What is the oposit of light? Darkness, Does darkness exist? No it doesnt, darkness is not an actual matter. For what is darkness? Darkness is the abscence of light. Whereever there is darkness, there is no light. Sin is therefore tha abscence of God. Where sin is, God isnt.
2. Is it reasonable to think that God created this world, only to abandon it later? That isnt very logical at all. The Bible tells us that God loves all of humanity, so why would He leave us on our own to find our way to Him? Our own sin and pride would only stand in the way. The most reasonable thing to say is that God shows himself to man, whether it is by miracles, answering peoples prayers or by the life of Jesus Christ.
3. So lets say that God does not exist, and this world just came to existence on its own. There are at least 2 problems with this assumption.
Nr 1. The theory of big bang and evolution does not give an answer to mans sinful behaviour. But what is sin? Sin is defined as “breaking Gods law”. If there is no such thing as God, then why do people sin, if there is no God to sin against? Man is assumed to be a creature who prefers to be in a “herd” or “pack”. Then why do people kill eachother? Not even wolves can be observed to kill one another. Besides, there have been many observations of unspeakably horrid actions made by man, that not even animals do. Survival insticts? Higly unlikely.
Nr 2.The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations.
“applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years.” (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) “To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!
*Note that this simulation was sped up one- one half trillion times, and even so the probabilty was small.
This problem follows up to:
4. You said : Because something is complex, it does not follow that (1) it was created, or (2) even if it was created, that it was created by an intelligence, and (3) in fact the universe originally was not complex, and subsequently became more complex on its own.
Nr 1. Complex design does prove intelligent design. Without a baker, there can be no cake, without a painter, there cant be a painting. But still, life is so much more complex than just a cake or a painting. The chance for life to come into existence on its own is even lower than zero ( see problem 3 nr 2 above).
If you are an atheist, you have got all these problems on how the world came to be on its own, and many other problems that contradict non-creationism. But, if you believe in a God, who is powerful enough to create an entire universe, with all its complexions fomr the start, then there is not a single problem with it. God just spoke the world into existence, its as simple as that.
1. “Why would man create a god, who tells you to abandon you own ways of sin (which many people dont want to)? Besides, if the only logical belief, or fact, as you say it, is naturalism, because of its logical existence, then why would man want to belive in God in the first place?”
That’s a great question. The reason religion and the belief in supernatural things has arisen in human history is two-fold: (1) because humans did not understand the world (why is it hot today, why is my wife pregnant, why did the crops fail this season, why was my neighbor’s child born with a deformity, why is there a day and night, etc), and needed some way to explain it all, and (2) because humans needed a moral compass. For example, for the most part, they knew instinctually killing innocent people was bad from a survival standpoint, but since instincts are unconscious, humans needed a way to make this idea more real and conscious and binding. So they eventually came to believe in a larger power or powers that were the source of these kinds of laws. The belief in higher powers had the added advantage of providing the basis for reward or punishment after death if someone did not follow these laws during life.
A third major factor in the development of religious belief that many have identified is that the powerful upper classes of society used them to control and placate the lower classes. For example, the priestly and warrior classes that ruled society developed a religious system that justified a hierarchical and oppressive social order as “divinely mandated,” hence the Divine Right of Kings in Europe, the caste system in Hindu India, and the worship of the Pharaoh as a god in ancient Egypt, among many others.
“Where sin is, God isnt.”
But I thought God is everywhere?
2. Give me a reason to believe anything the Bible says.
3. “So lets say that God does not exist, and this world just came to existence on its own.”
Who says that this world came into existence on its own? This universe, yes, through the Big Bang, perhaps. But what about a larger reality outside of this universe?
“If there is no such thing as God, then why do people sin, if there is no God to sin against?”
You’re getting it wrong here. If there is no such thing as God, then there is no such thing as “sin.” The term “sin” only has meaning within certain religions. If those religions are false, then “sin” is a meaningless concept, rendering your question here moot.
“Man is assumed to be a creature who prefers to be in a “herd” or “pack”. Then why do people kill eachother?”
This is a great question. It is answered through evolution and human history. You will find your answer if you look into the concepts of “in-group” and “out-group.” Humans historically have felt love and affection and moral obligation to members of their tribe, their family, their clan, or their ethnic group. And they have felt mistrust and hostility toward people who are not members of their group. This largely explains why people have engaged in genocide–it is an unfortunate outcome of the human tendency to prefer in-group members and resist or attack out-group members. Appropriately, this tribal morality is seen very clearly in the Old Testament world of ancient Israel.
“Not even wolves can be observed to kill one another.”
Of course they can. In fact, almost all creatures in the animal kingdom can be observed to kill each other.
The probability issue you mentioned has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the origin of life, which is indeed little understood by modern science, although improving currently. There have been some interesting breakthroughs in the field recently.
“Complex design does prove intelligent design.”
Nope. There are countless phenomena in nature that are complex and orderly, that are clearly not designed by any intelligence. A hurricane, for example, is an extremely complex weather system that exhibits some order; it arises spontaneously. There are many chemical compounds that arise spontaneously, that nevertheless have very complex molecular and atomic structures. Or look at stars: they are complex, with complex chemical reactions fueling them, following definite life cycles, and yet they arise spontaneously out of gas clouds in space.
Moreover, this argument that complexity proves design has a fatal flaw: it compares the objects and laws of nature to nature itself. In other words, why should the container be assumed to follow the same properties as the contained?
1. The human race is sometimes a mysterious being. We always tend to want answers, to know how things work, to be certain of our survival. The answers on how things work can be observed in nature, but not why. That is where God step in. He created this world and everything in this world for our pleasure, because He loved us. The Bible does not necessarily promote anything that is “unscientific”. In OT there is even a verse( I do not remember where it was) that says that the moon does not actually shine. About 1500 years later, man found out that the moon reflects the light of the sun. However, there can be unscientific answer for example found in the Quran. the Quran says that Allah placed the mountains on the earth to stabilize it. Today we know that it is because the earth moves that mountains are created. The Bible does not oppose that fact. If the bible were to tell all scientific fact way before they were discovered, it would not be very realistic at that time. the Bible is written for all ages.
The third option you mentioned is indeed an evil deed. God never intended man to rule over another man. And I too grieve over the missuse of the Lords name for personal gain.
2“Where sin is, God isnt.”
But I thought God is everywhere?
First of all, where does sin reside in? In mans heart! And He cannot enter into a mans heart without allowance. If he were to, He would be contradicting the fact that man has his own free will. Man can choose whether or not to believe in God (proof of His love).
3. Did you ever consider that this “larger reality” could be God? Besides, how can you denie God, but still say that there is a Larger reality? (Big bang promotes the very nonexistence of God, since it denies that God created the world)
4. The Bible specifically tells what sin is. And man has a tendency to commit each and every one of them, i.e. lie, kill, steal, commit adultery and so on. Sin has always been, and will always be, sin. And if there is no such thing as God, and you say that the term sin does not exist, then why does man still do this? Evolution cant, no matter what people say, account to mans sinful bbehaviour! Where did it come from? Why is it there? If it does not provide better survivability, then why does it stay there?
5. My apologies, I presented the fact of animals wrong. Animals kill to survive. Man kills too. But just bacuse I kill someone who can testify against me in the court, for example, does not necessarily point to a survival instinct, but rather escaping judgement.
6. Evolution and the “orign of life” joins hand in hand, becuse it explains how the first cells came to be and evolve over time.
7. This is the part where the “probabilty issue”, as you say it, should fit in well. The chance for this world to come to existence without a creator is astronomical! The world is to organized to originate from chaos (Big Bang)
To say that big bang did it all is as likely as a tornado flying over a junkyard, assembling an entire Boeing 767.
8. Of course there is a difference with the container and what is contained! Without the container, the contained would just seperate from one another. There would be chaos. Hey, if there is no container, then the contained cant be called contained, as there is nothin containing it.
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory — it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, “God must have designed it”?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
a. It is all they have been taught.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, “Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening.”
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
11. Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
“In OT there is even a verse( I do not remember where it was) that says that the moon does not actually shine. About 1500 years later, man found out that the moon reflects the light of the sun.”
And yet the very first passages of the Bible say that the sun, moon and earth were created in the span of 6 days. In reality, it took billions of years. Not very scientific. The Bible fails the test of science. Even though it might get lucky a few times, just like many other ancient religious books.
“And He cannot enter into a mans heart without allowance.”
So then God is not all-powerful? If He is not all-powerful, why call him God?
“Did you ever consider that this “larger reality” could be God?”
Could be. Then again, it might not be. Nobody knows. Anybody who says they do know, is wrong. The difference between agnostics and religious people: neither one knows, but agnostics admit they don’t know, while the religious don’t admit it.
“Besides, how can you denie God, but still say that there is a Larger reality?”
I don’t deny God. And I don’t say there is a larger reality. But there might be. Until we have reason to believe one thing or the other, we have no reason to believe either one.
“And if there is no such thing as God, and you say that the term sin does not exist, then why does man still do this?”
The term “sin” is just your way of describing human behavior. It’s the same behavior, no matter what you call it. You’re just using a different word to describe it in religious terms. The behavior is still there, whether religion is true or not. Pretty simple.
“Evolution cant, no matter what people say, account to mans sinful bbehaviour! Where did it come from? Why is it there? If it does not provide better survivability, then why does it stay there?”
Yes it can account for it! It depends what you are referring to. For example, if you are talking about murder, first of all, almost no one murders, because humans have evolved a certain ethical sense against killing the innocent. Secondly, as I already said, it is very easy to see how hostility to outsiders can have an evolutionary advantage: if people are willing to kill outsiders and protect their family and tribe, their family/ tribe is more likely to survive, overcome threats from outsiders, and reproduce, than otherwise. Pretty simple.
“Evolution and the “orign of life” joins hand in hand, becuse it explains how the first cells came to be and evolve over time.”
Evolution deals with how life developed once it was formed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the initial formation of life. It’s like how to manufacture a car, versus how the car is repaired and changed once it has been manufactured. Two completely different things.
“Of course there is a difference with the container and what is contained!”
Ah, interesting! So then what makes you think that the container follows the same laws as the contained?
You said:
“Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.”
No one who understands evolution thinks it has anything to do with the universe. The fact that you seem to believe this, indicates you unfortunately are not very well versed in the theory of evolution. It also means I have little reason to respond to many of your questions. Once you learn more about it, then you can call me.
Most of your questions about evolution have simple answers. Some of them are not answered yet by evolution, but progress is being made all the time. If you were to study the theory of evolution, you would know that significant progress has been made just in the last 10 years, for example.
Here’s a question that has a clear answer:
“How did thought evolve?
Thinking developed as the brain became more complex. The brains of mammals became more complex over hundreds of thousands of years as more complex brains could survive better in the wild–by recognizing patterns, better predicting predators and prey, developing more reliable methods of mating, learning things about the environment, and being better able to avoid poisonous or dangerous food, for example. Humans evolved thought because it gave us an advantage over simpler, non-thinking creatures. We would be able to recognize patterns better, predict animals’ behavior better, develop strategies for mating and hunting and preparing food better than other animals, etc.
Here’s a question that doesn’t have a clear answer yet:
“With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?”
There are no cells that are capable of sexual reproduction. I think you are referring to multicellular organisms. There is not a clear answer yet, but I think one possibility would be that the very first organisms in question were capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction.
And here’s a question that makes no sense at all:
“What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?”
Umm, not much. No one believes that. I’m not sure where you heard that from. But wherever you are getting your scientific information, it is not a very reliable source.
I would love to keep answering all of your questions, but I have many things to do, including work. I recommend that you learn more about the theory of evolution from reputable scientific sources because the answers you are looking for are out there.
And again, some questions are not yet answered by the theory of evolution. But the same could be said of EVERY SINGLE other scientific theory. So if you are going to reject evolution on that basis, then you must reject almost all of science as well.
This will be the last one of my posts, hopefully, and it is what I can summarize about why I believe in God.
1. MOON DUST
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.
Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.
2. MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth’s magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth’s magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth’s core are responsible for the earth’s magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.
3. FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one “connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let’s take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.
Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching’s book, The Neck of the Giraffe – Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching’s book.)
1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile’s.
In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.
One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.
2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.
3. It had teeth.
Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.
4. It had a shallow breastbone.
Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.
Recent examination of Archeopteryx’s feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today’s flying birds.
5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird’s.
This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.
6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.
This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.
This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.
This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, “It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived.”
And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.
In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
“…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?”
Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.
4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Darwin said that embryological evidence was “second to none in importance.” The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.
The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed “gill slits” (left over from fish), “yolk sac” (left over from the reptile stage), and “tail” (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.
The yolk sac does not store food because the mother’s body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the “yolk sac” is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.
The “tail” is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.
Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.
5. PROBABILITY
This fact I have already showed you, but I will bring it up again.
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
“applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years.” (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) “To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!”
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the “Bible Science Newsletter,” August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don’t yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.
2. This view is plain false. In the 1800′s, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)
3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.
4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.
5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.
6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these “vestigial” organs, but we still have them.
7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.
8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not “old ones” dying out.
9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.
8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah’s flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner’s hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.
10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.
In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.
Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences
Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%
Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences
Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%
Dr. Denton states, “There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish.” The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!
11. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
12. DINOSAURS
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.
Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.
Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.
However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.
“But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that’s impossible!” Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.
There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or “Brontosaurus.”) Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.
13. SUN’S DIAMETER
The sun’s diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago. It would have reached as far as to the earths surface, ergo the earth would have been destroyed.
14. NILE RIVER’S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile’s flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
15. EARTH’S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing 0.00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
16. WRITTEN RECORD
The 22nd edition of Robert Young’s concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.
17. THE BIBLE
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas.
“This will be the last one of my posts, hopefully, and it is what I can summarize about why I believe in God.”
Funny you should say that. Because although this is your post, I doubt these are “your” words. Suspicious of this extremely lengthy comment, especially on the heels of another extremely lengthy comment, I began to wonder if you were (like another creationist I once interacted with on the blogosphere) taking liberties with the copy-and-paste operation.
So I did a google search of an excerpt of your comment, and happened upon this webpage:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm
Isn’t that interesting! The reader will notice that Josef’s comment is ALMOST ENTIRELY LIFTED from this webpage!
Not sure if this was his actual source for this text, but if you do a google search for any extended excerpt of this text, you will see essentially the SAME essay is reproduced perfectly on dozens of webpages and blogs, by different “authors” and commenters. It really is uncanny.
Curious, I did the same thing with Josef’s previous lengthy comment. Aha! The same thing! Yet again, almost the entire essay is reproduced on many pages on the internet.
So how far does this deception go among internet creationists? Doesn’t really matter, does it? The fact is that many creationists on the web are really bereft of original ideas, and willing to knowingly violate proper argumentative etiquette to make some “point.” Not very “Christian” behavior, if you ask me.
They depend on their authorities to spoon feed them arguments and clever rhetoric, which they think is sufficient to “zing” those of us who accept evolution, as Josef seems to think here.
Pretty pathetic.
In a way, I am glad that Josef has graced me with these comments, as now perhaps my blog will benefit in the search engines!
Anyway, needless to say, Josef, you have not addressed my points or arguments, but rather have completely ignored what I said, and tried to monopolize this page in a very disrespectful and deceitful manner.
To not even bother to address my arguments indicates two things, (1) you are not prepared to discuss these ideas, and (2) you have no argument.
I already indicated that you need to research and learn more about evolution, as you seem to think it deals with much more than it actually does. This is typical of creationists. And they wonder why they keep losing in the courts (here in the US).
But I frankly doubt how honestly you want to evaluate these ideas, or if you are solely interested in dogma in the face of contrary scientific evidence.
This is not to say that many of the points raised are illegitimate. Creationists do raise many important questions about evolution. But, in spite of themselves, they end up strengthening the theory of evolution, because their real intentions (of irrationally defending their ancient beliefs in the face of modern rational evidence) became clear long ago. With every major objection that creationists have raised solved or otherwise dispelled by scientific advances over the years, creationists have reliably moved the goal post time and time again.
In any case, I have little obligation to address these issues, as I have already addressed some of them above, and far more significant scientific minds than me have effectively confronted most of these challenges. Creationist case closed.
And oh yeah, what happened to the subject of this blog post?? Another common tactic of creationists and fundamentalists is to just respond to every single argument made by the non-religious by complaining about evolution, regardless of what the actual subject is. Not very honest, to say the least. Could it be they really have no effective argument?
If you really put your back into it, you have the abbility to disprove just about anything. But let me say this : Do you dare to risk your soul, just because you did not want to believe? Are you 100% sure that there is no God? What if there is? And when your life ends, arent you going to think “Why didn’t I believe?”
Lets say it like this:
A christian has nothing to lose by being christian. The christian doctrines tells you to live a life full of love, truth and righteousness. And by believing, he/she has ensured that his soul might be saved, if there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.
An atheist puts his/her own life at risk. In the process of denying God, he/she might lose his soul, with 50/50 chance.
I dont know about you, but I think I’d rather be on the safe side, not just to save my own soul, but so that I might have the chance to save other people to Jesus.
Dont wait up, turn to Jesus, ask for His forgiveness. For you might die tomorrow, in a week, a month, a year. You never know when it is your time. Save yourself.
“If you really put your back into it, you have the abbility to disprove just about anything.”
That’s just an excuse. Given certain basic and fundamental axioms or assumptions, there are things that are clearly true and clearly not true.
“But let me say this : Do you dare to risk your soul, just because you did not want to believe?”
You’re assuming that such a thing as a soul exists. Prove it. Moreover, unsurprisingly, you seem to think that I “don’t want to believe,” or that I am “afraid of God’s judgment,” etc.
What creationists and fundamentalists such as yourself fail to realize is that I am not “afraid of God.” I know that is what is said in the Bible–that people “choose” not to believe in God because they don’t want to be judged, because they are too “proud,” etc–but that does not mean it is true. (BTW, you still have failed to demonstrate why anyone should believe in the Bible.)
What you need to understand is that I truly, deeply, am not convinced of the truth of the existence of God. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting God, or wanting or not wanting anything. It is a matter of logic and truth. In this blog post, and many others, I have demonstrated that God fails the logic test many times over.
Also, how can I be “afraid” of something that has not been proven to exist?
“Are you 100% sure that there is no God?”
No. That’s why I wrote in the VERY ARTICLE THAT YOU ARE COMMENTING ON:
“Now, after all this, I am still willing to say that there might be a divine.”
If you would actually read my article before writing a comment on it, maybe you would see that.
The point is not to disprove the existence of God. The point is that God cannot be proven through logic, and that the idea of God, as defined, violates logic on a number of levels.
“A christian has nothing to lose by being christian.”
Good old Pascal’s Wager. Of course they have something to lose! What if Islam is the true religion? What if Hinduism is the true religion? What if Zoroastrianism is the true religion? Then the Christian most definitely “loses” by being Christian.
“The christian doctrines tells you to live a life full of love, truth and righteousness.”
All defined according to Christian terms. So you need to accept Christianity in order to accept these things. This is called circular reasoning. Human-based, real world morality leads to much better outcomes of love, peace, happiness, wisdom and truth than anything any Christian or any religion could come up with.
“And by believing, he/she has ensured that his soul might be saved, if there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.”
Correction: you are betting that the Christian God exists. Which is just one conception of God out of thousands that have ever been developed. One chance in thousands. Still like those odds?
You are also still assuming that the “soul” exists. Why?
“Save yourself.”
I recommend two things: (1) do some research on Pascal’s Wager, because I think you will be intrigued, (2) come down off your high horse and realize that you might be wrong.
Listen to the arguments of people with different perspectives. Really listen. Think about it. Read my articles (in this series and others). Don’t try to understand these ideas in light of the Bible. Try to read and understand them on their own merit. Think about the logic yourself. Just try it.
There’s nothing to be afraid of. If God really exists, surely he can withstand a good intellectual challenge, right?
Nice essay! I would have agreed in the past that the idea of God is nothing more than a paradoxical, sophistic concept. However I’ve come around after reading this far out theory on the telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html
It’s fairly similar to this philosophical, theory-of-everything paper on scarcity posted in the comments of the above article,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33829028/The-Scarcity-Hypothesis-v2-1-0
Between the two essays, I think there’s a great deal of logical rigidity and physical evidence to support the argument. So I have to admit the idea may in fact warrant serious consideration.
We live in a strange world!
Matt, thank you very much for an interesting contribution to the discussion. I think I would sum up the ideas presented in those two essays as “the naturalistic God.”
What is interesting (and I too have considered this possibility myself many times) is the idea that humans or similar sentient creatures may eventually achieve a God-like status in intelligence and power.
However, several key aspects of “God” are not included in these ideas. The first is that God is uncreated–a hallmark of traditional theism. God has always been considered to be the “uncreated creator” or the “uncaused first cause.” This is one of the most logically problematic aspects of God’s nature (if God can be uncreated, then why not the universe? In which case, belief in an uncreated universe makes just as much sense, etc)
The second is that God lies outside of reality. Specifically, natural reality. God is considered to occupy a supernatural realm, and the same goes for his angels and saints and demons and heaven and hell and all the rest of it. But the notion that humans or another species may eventually achieve immense power and intelligence is totally devoid of any supernatural. It all can be considered and proposed within a purely naturalistic framework.
A third aspect is infinity. Although humans may someday achieve incredible power, far above and beyond anything we can comprehend today, that does not mean it will constitute infinite power. The average human enjoys power far beyond anything an insect could comprehend or process, but the human’s power is nevertheless obviously limited. Moreover, the very concept of “infinity” presents its own logical problems in its own right.
But God is always defined as being “infinite” in power, in knowledge, in love, etc. This is possible, presumably, because God occupies a realm outside of natural reality, and all the limitations thereof, but what about us humans, or another species that exists within this natural reality? Are we not inherently limited by natural reality itself?
One may argue “no” we are not limited, because we have supernatural power or presence, but then one must go about proving that the supernatural exists.
So I am certainly intrigued by those kinds of ideas, but I do not see why it should sway me or anyone else any further toward accepting the idea of “God” any more than I already am open to it, as an agnostic.