Evolution problems: Did the earth come into existance all at once?

This clip is from our series, “The Scientific Evidence That Proves God Created.” It answers the question: What problems does knowing the universe started 13.7 billion years ago cause for evolution?

Video 1

Video 2

This clip is from our series, “The Scientific Evidence That Proves God Created.” It answers the question: What are some of the problems with the evolution theory?

Video 3

This clip is from our series, “The Scientific Evidence That Proves God Created.” It answers the question: Why does the earth have to have come into existance all at once instead of in stages as evolution suggests?

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Evolution problems: Did the earth come into existance all at once?

  1. tildeb says:

    Tildeb: 13.7 billion years is not enough time for life to emerge through random means? Says who? The evidence here on earth suggests that there is plenty of time.

    Defend the word: What evidence? Where is it? I’m still looking for it?

    Tildeb: “Everything in the universe points towards life, towards design.” Oh really? That must explain why there’s such a profundity of life throughout our tiny bit of the cosmos (sarcasm). Life, it seems, is the exception and not the rule… so far as we currently know. That indicates the opposite, that the universe is generally hostile to life. And design? What kind of designer keeps destroying galaxies like the popping of bubble-wrap and relying on cosmic chance for not crashing into things?

    Defend the Word: You have your ideas mixed up, if you listen closely what they say you will not only understand that they go on with the received knowledge but also support modern science so your criticism is unjustified. What they are arguing is that this material resulting from explosions you so strongly object to was needed to start life on earth. So you like to invoke chance when it suits you, how convenient, Christians have long been arguing that you need more then chance, and as much is clear from what we know.

    Tildeb: A bias by science teachers towards naturalism? What a keen observation. I wonder what the alternative might be: divination? revelation? Of course it’s naturalism because that’s the only method we CAN know. That’s not bias: it’s called empiricism and is the foundation for epistemology which justifies ontology. Without naturalism, science would be called theology. Gee, maybe that’s why these men seem to frown on science… right up until they require its knowledge to transmit their message electronically. (Sigh) Is it me, or do such people only prosper by the willingness of others to accept their covert hypocrisy?

    Defend the Word: You really must brash up on your philosophy of science, there is such thing as theistic naturalism and people in this video are scientists who also happen to be Christians and you trying to paint different picture is just not going to win any arguments.

    Tildeb: And yes, we should see this “divine fingerprint” of a creator in nature, one that exists in place of and in contrast to natural mechanisms. Guess what? We find perfectly reasonable natural mechanisms.

    “We’re not seeing evidence for evolution; we’re seeing evidence for a divine fingerprint everywhere we look, in every scientific discipline.”

    (Sigh) This is simply a lie. An out and out falsehood. That[s equivalent to saying we’re not seeing evidence for gravity; we’re seeing evidence for divine heaviness. Of course we’re seeing nothing but complimentary and compiling evidence for evolution everywhere we turn and it doesn’t have to be this way if there really were a divine fingerprint somehow different than what would be produced by evolutionary means. Yet in all life we study it is this way, from genetic abnormalities copied trans-species to the recreation of cellular life encoded artificially. The natural mechanism we call evolution is a fact and it works and it successfully predicts and it can be falsified and it is repeatable. It meets every requirement of good science and easily meets the challenge of becoming a theory.

    Defend the Word: I’m sure we have covered this before, things are not so simply true because you say they must be so. Secondly look at the gene repair system, and reconsider what you just said, yes there are copying errors, but as I said before this can be explained, Christians don’t demand perfect universe it is Atheists who need to build straw man argument who insist that Christians must believe it to be so. Any artificial work is a great testament to the complexity and need for the external influence and as such must not be misappropriated by those who claim that this happens in natural world.

    Tildeb: It does so because IT’S TRUE. This kind of assertion that is diametrically opposed to good science and the valid knowledge it brings to us through this kind of inquiry is anti-science, anti-inquiry, anti-reason, and anti-intellectual. In short, it’s deplorable lies to favour their cherished religious beliefs and these guys simply do not care about what’s true. This kind of religious belief that refutes what is true with such bland lies and willful deceptions in the name of being pious is hypocritical, duplicitous, and ignorant. And that’s what’s being peddled here: willful ignorance in the name of god.

    Defend the word: How one sided can you go with this? I have mentioned before that there are many scientists who also happen to be Christians, evolution does not stop them some accept it others accept small parts of it like me with Micro evolution and yes there are some who completely deny it. But your assertion is unjustified and could also be classed as wilful ignorance, deceptive (Distorting the truth) and most certainly hypocritical invoking one principle when suited to them and in the same breath deny it in the next when it is clearly showing that things like chance are improbable and you simply need more then that. In other words you continue to make statements that are deeply ingrained in your world view. Your thinking is driven by your religion (Atheism) your faith in its accuracy is remarkable but equally lacking when comparing it to the fundamentalist Christians.

  2. tildeb says:

    The big difference between science and religion here is that science is a tool focused on assessing the validity of its propositions. Religion has absolutely no way to test any of its ideas, and its proponents seem to like it that way — it gives them free rein to promote imagination over evidence and revelation over experiment.

  3. I strongly disagree and evidence is this blog and there are many more of this kind. You will find again and again Christians testing their faith with the Philosophy, Logic, and Science. So your feeling about is understandable due to many Christians who continue to display complete contempt for science but it is not correct as there are many thousands of Christians who apply same criteria, Historicity, Archaeology, and Use of Science. All of these are continuously used by most apologists

  4. Harry says:

    ”Thats equivalent to saying we’re not seeing evidence for gravity; we’re seeing evidence for divine heaviness.”

    THAT….was priceless.

    ” bias by science teachers towards naturalism”

    You’ll tend to find most educated people will have a bias towards evidence.

    Saying otherwise is like accusing a doctor of having a bias towards medicine.

  5. krissmith777 says:

    The title of this post is a dead give away to how much the poster knows about evolution…

    Evolution says nothing about how earth came into existence. That is cosmology/astronomy.

    Evolution deals with the biological change in living things AFTER life began . . . AND ONLY that.

  6. Nobody is saying that evidence is to be ignored in fact your attempt to portray people like that is telling about your lack of understanding that issue is not anti evidence but anti bias towards naturalism. A very sad thing is that you can’t see that your purely naturalistic world view is blinding you from seeing the truth. Evidence often points away from purely naturalistic and towards higher intelligence, that must have been involved rigging earth in favour of life. It is lack of knowledge and understanding of the complexity that we see daily but take for granted that makes people blind to the fact that natural laws are lined up to prop up life.

  7. That is not strictly true anymore, evolutionists have acknowledged and this includes Dr Dawkins that origin of life (Biogenesis) is just as part of the process of evolution i.e. starting of the first life is equally important question as is the fact that you must move things up the hill from less complex to more complex. (Thing to consider here is that some of the most primitive bacteria requires more complex organisms to predate on, so you get chicken and egg problem i.e. which came first simple bacteria or more complex one that it needs in order for simple one to survive).

    You will hear many evolutionary biologists tell us that we are made out of the star dust, and that all necessary particles can be found there. So I’m afraid I will have to disagree with you on this one very strongly. I hope I understood correctly your objection and hope that this answers your objection satisfactorily.

  8. Harry says:

    Evidence often points away from purely naturalistic and towards higher intelligence, that must have been involved rigging earth in favour of life.

    The same evidence points to the fact that are hundreds of known planets NOT rigged for life.

    You are saying

    Earth is special because we live on it and therefore we must must have been made special for us. It is utterly circular.

  9. harry says:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/07/why-tibetans-breath-so-easy-up-high/

    Thought you might be interested. Especially since you only ever cite vidoes made by old nobody christians who like to feel self important while not being challenged.

    I mainly post it because it goes against this whole notion of it is so improbable for these mutations to happen.

  10. I don’t mean to be rude but you show you lack of knowledge and understanding, this is not something that Christians have introduced. In fact it s a known subject that has made many Atheists, into deists that includes Antony Flew. Why do you think prominent scientists are scratching their heads? Are they less capable then yourself? You show that your preference for your world view, is blinding you from seeing things objectively. I hear loads of emotional objections but very little of real evidential substance which you so often demand.

  11. What are you on about, you will note that at no point here on this blog have either I or people quoted here engaged into denying the fact that we have mutations that are adjustable to the environment we dwell in. That however does not mean that we will continue to change, I don’t see anyone who evolved from Humans that is today breathing under water. Small changes yes big changes no, that has been and continues to be my assertion on this process we call evolution.

    So yes we have evolved often showing signs of fluctuating and frequently understanding that once our environment is undisturbed we find the best balance etc, etc. It again shows that you continue to misunderstand what is being said this is what we call Micro not Macro evolution which is well documented and as far as I know no educated Christian has any objection to.

  12. misunderstoodranter says:

    misunderstoodranter: There is not micro and macro evolution – there is just evolution. A species wasn’t just born – an ape didn’t give birth to a human one day. It is tiny slices over a geological time scales – so in other words we are all intermediary species – you are an evolved version of your parents and your children are an evolved version of you, it is just that the changes are so small you can not normally see them in complicated life forms. However, such changes can be observed – take the breeding of dogs – which is artificial selection, breed two dog species together and you get changes. Most of the dog species you see today are the result of hundreds of years of artificial selection by man – that’s just hundreds of years. Evolution talks about natural selection (i.e. not man made) over millions of years.

    Defend the Word: How do you explain the sudden raise of life between the periods of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian time? That sudden explosion of life kind of destroys your argument. This is why we have punctuated equilibrium theory and rather then having the tree of life you have something that resembles comb with some spikes suddenly appearing seperately.

    As I said before we have evidence for changes and dogs are good example and if you have read my comments in the past you should have taken good note of that. Darwin knew this and unfortunately he just added two and two and made it to be hundred. He (Darwin) however had a very good excuse, his knowledge of science and micro bio chemistry was very limited. But for us today there is no excuse to ignore complexity that could not evolve partially as function would be lost unless multiple parts are evolved together at the same time.

    And this is precisely what evolutionists don’t advocate, so you are stuck with either programmable large jumps in complexity or gradual increase in function that must move with the purpose programmed in the blueprint which knows that even though for the first million years your knee will not function eventually you will be able to use it as all parts are finally in place. Either way you have higher intelligence being involved and either way you must acknowledge that our conclusions could be justifiable if we assume that this could rightly be called God.

    Likewise I see loads of assumptions coming from you but very little consideration on the topic in question. Interestingly enough you can be sceptical when it suits your cause but show great faith when it does not, and this is despite the fact that palaeontologists will insist that there is no such evidence for evolution from the bones we have available. This is why people who like evolution to be true have to invent them as you can see from the early history of this theory.

  13. misunderstoodranter says:

    Defend the Word previously: “How do you explain the sudden raise of life between the periods of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian time? That sudden explosion of life kind of destroys your argument.”

    Misunderstoodranter: What you are referring to here is the fossil record. First, we don’t need the fossil record to exist to prove that evolution is true – the fact that the fossil record exists at all is just a bonus. Secondly, the time you describe was inhabited before hard bone had evolved to such an extent that it could be fossilized. This is why jelly fish are hard to find in fossils, as are invertebrate worms etc. It is easy to disprove evolution by reversing this argument – show me a fossilized version of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian time, the reason you can’t is because it had not evolved yet – if god had created everything at once then we would surely have a fully formed rabbit in the pre-Cambrian time.

    Defend the word: That is a very common assumption that you do not need skeletal evidence and this is why people that agree with you continue to make such a big booboo. If you are going to be scientific about this and if you don’t have time machine then you will definitely need some kind of forensic evidence. And if you don’t have one don’t simply make it up. Your argument about the rabbit is standing on its head and you show that you don’t understand the argument at all. Nobody is arguing against limited evolution but the explosion of life goes against everything you stand for and you just have to deal with it. So let’s stop pretending and creating the straw man argument as there is none to be burned.

    Misunderstoodranter: However, you are side stepping the point, evolution happens today, right now; cows, pigs, sheep, dogs, plants and crops from banana’s to mangos, potatoes to tomatoes have all undergone dramatic changes with artificial selection by man – that is to say the ability for plants and animals to evolve is already there, we know this because we use it and have done so for years. Darwin simply says that natural forces can cause the same effects in species, and given a large enough amount of time (i.e. geological time scales – disputed by some religious people) and some sort of restriction or advantage new species will emerge. You don’t need biochemistry, or DNA analysis to see this reasoning, the fact that we now have this technology and it supports Darwin’s theory is further evidence that his theory is true, not less. This means that if we kept on breeding dogs with different species of dog we would end up with something that doesn’t necessarily look like a dog, or can breed with another dog.

    Defend the Word: Yes there are changes but as they say what goes up must come down. It was Darwin’s lack of knowledge and his enthusiasm for the new theory that took him step too far. But what is your excuse presumably desire to be asserted as intellectually sound person. We also know that dog breeding has led to many difficulties and disabilities in modern dogs so much so that there is now an outcry to protect the poor animals. On the issue of chance i.e. geological and external changes i.e. pressures on our environment and plenty of time you forgot to add one more it’s called hocus pocus and hey presto. This is all hypothetical and is heavily reliant on the use of our imagination and not much evidence. What we see today is often these changes are very bad for the organisms that are being observed so your argument simply does not hold water.

    Misunderstoodranter: Where you argument fails horribly, is that you recognize geological time frames, you ignore the findings that can checked in practically any museum, to support your faith that states that god created everything in its current form. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

    Defend the Word: Again you make assumption here, I have no time frame of my own and I do not subscribe to any other teaching. I simply agree that possibility is likely on the other hand I would welcome you to show me the bones that are not manipulated i.e. finding single tooth and reconstructing entire primate. Also great distortions and use of artistic licence as they say is ever present in the modern scientific community. As they say in the nerd word “imagination shows us the way”. We must be little bit more grown up about this and use little bit more common sense and greater amount of analytical reasoning. Faith is a great thing but even for faith we first must observe some evidence and we must always question our faith when evidence to the contrary becomes apparent.

    Misunderstoodranter: I am not cherry picking the evidence to fit a theory, but you are cherry picking the evidence to fit your belief – which is intellectually dishonest.

    Defend the Word: Let me see, I demand bones and observation and use current information and you demand that we should accept “evidence” of our imagination, who is being intellectually dishonest here?

  14. misunderstoodranter says:

    Defend the Word previously: “Yes there are changes but as they say what goes up must come down.”

    Misunderstoodranter: Another misunderstanding about evolution – there is no advanced species, evolution adapts to the current state of the environment as long as it has time to do it – the notion that man is more evolved or more advanced than a dolphin is utter rubbish – evolution does not make that claim.

    Defend the Word: Yet again you are building the straw man in order to destroy him. Who said anything about grading quality????

    Defend the Word previously “It was Darwin’s lack of knowledge and his enthusiasm for the new theory that took him step too far…”

    Misunderstoodranter: A step too far in to what? Understanding nature better than we have ever understood it before, to the point where we can use his theory to develop crops, plants and animals with better yields in order to feed a world with a growing population? Or a step to far, in that he burst a religious bubble and actually gave people something to think about other than a stack of ‘thou shalt not and though shalt dos” and shook a powerful institution to such an extent that the rational public saw through deception of the church, and replaced it with reason instead?

    Defend the Word: You must be joking, genetics, biology and physics could exist quite happily without the theory of evolution. Just goes to show how you like to bring smoke screen to serve your purposes.

    Misunderstoodranter: Come on DTW – give the man some credit – his theory didn’t just get written and forgotten about it is used today, and tested today, and backed up by the outcome of its use – you, me everyone on earth benefits from his knowledge. This isn’t homeopathy, this is a founding theory to modern biology used in real science for real practical uses that have results that you benefit from directly – without it your life would be demonstrably worse.

    Defend the Word: I did give him some credit I said he did not have access to modern science like you and I have. In fact on one or two issues he was quite troubled about his theory. So credit to him on that too.

    Defend the Word previously “We also know that dog breeding has led to many difficulties and disabilities in modern dogs so much so that there is now an outcry to protect the poor animals.”

    Misunderstoodranter: Evolution is about tradeoffs – plants put energy into perfume and color, not to look nice for us, but to look nice for bees and other insects so that they can breed easily, because breeding is a big driver of evolution.
    Back to dogs – yes, the poor animals that simply would not exist if they had not evolved that way through artificial selection. Natural selection favours advantages to the species – the artificial bit is that man over rides the advantages for his own gain, for example a cow with bigger udders, to yield more milk – yet set it free in the wild (with predators) it would surely die because it can’t run fast enough with big udders – but in a controlled environment like managed land (with no natural predators) it will prosper and can be intensively breed until it can no longer breed because of some other trade off.

    Defend the Word: Boy are you missing the point, dogs are selectively interbreed in order to give them certain characteristics. Further human intervention is recorded in the farming world of which both prove human intervention moves things up for our benefit therefore proving my point that you have to tinker with things to get them moving upwards. And any change as you pointed out correctly left to its own devices would revert to their original state. Therefore again proving my original point you ignored so many times before.

    Misunderstoodranter: A dog with funny face to make it aesthetically pleasing will get fed and looked after by is owner, and re-breed and survive over generations – these animals didn’t evolve naturally they were selected artificially by man – that is why they exist in the form that they do! No artificial selection equals no bull dogs, no ornamental fish, no big yield crops, no big yield farm animals…
    You are side stepping (and belittling) the real observation here and that is that animals and plants evolve; we don’t make them evolve, we encourage evolved traits by selectively breeding them in generation after generation in controlled environments artificially set by us.

    Defend the Word: Your word against mine, however skeletal evidence testifies against your conclusions. Animals get bigger, smaller stronger etc they don’t change from fly to crocodile this is why even today we have thousands of missing links.

    Misunderstoodranter: If we set our interbreed species of animals free, they would continue to evolve naturally without interference by man, and we would expect to see changes over time, with changes aligning with benefits in strength needed for survival within the environment that they now inhabit, the ones that cannot adapt quickly enough would simply die out – this has been shown to be true in small animals like bacteria, and larger animals and plants.

    Defend the Word: I have no problem in accepting that the environment is the main driver in the process of evolution. What is you your point here, I have stated this many times before.

    Defend the Word previously: “That however does not mean that we will continue to change, I don’t see anyone who evolved from Humans that is today breathing under water.”

    Misunderstoodranter: That’s because it would be an intermediary species like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
    What you are ignoring here is the need to survive, we do have evidence for example that whales evolved from land dwelling animals, that returned to the sea – this evidence can be seen in the fetuses of dolphins and whales, as well as their fossils – which show legs forming, as well as fossil evidence, and the odd living specimen.
    http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/hind_limb_buds/

    Defend the Word: What you do is take their word for it, without questioning the logic of it. I have posted video on this blog about number of changes mammal would need to move back into the oceans. It’s not simply changing breading mechanism, you have to alter skeletal structure; skin needs to be transformed, adopted for the new environment. Any such move would require multiple changes, let me rephrase that significant changes big jumps and according to the theory of evolution you need plenty of time and gradual, I mean very slow change.

    Defend the Word previously: “And this is precisely what evolutionists don’t advocate, so you are stuck with either programmable large jumps in complexity or gradual increase in function that must move with the purpose programmed in the blueprint which knows that even though for the first million years your knee will not function eventually you will be able to use it as all parts are finally in place.”

    Misunderstoodranter: A knee did not evolve as a knee, it evolved as something else, which evolved into something else and so on. One of the biggest reasons humans suffer from back ache is because we evolved from walking on four limbs to standing upright, our backs are still evolving; no one would design a back like ours for standing upright from scratch – especially an all knowing intelligent god.
    But you will insist that the back ache is all part of god design, like wisdom teeth, the intestinal appendix, smallpox, aids and malaria… that’s some design, a design that is so cruel, so unbelievably painful, that humans have to develop medical advances that are nothing short of a miracles to overcome faults in a design that an all knowing god created.

    Defend the word: You are unfortunately making statements that are not backed by reason and logic. How about crediting back ache to our life style that we spend most of our working lives siting down rather than moving. How about the environment change that is being destroyed by greedy, inconsiderate humans. How about the fact that the bible accounts for human fall into the sin and therefore bringing entire creation into destruction. Stop blaming God for what we do, secondly even if by some chance you prove that God is not good, that does not prove that he is not there, does it? Your reasoning is driven by preconceived well established but also well refuted arguments that are proving to be out of favour with most of those who are willing to listen not selectively pick and choose what they like.

Comments are closed.