The phrase “Father, forgive me, I have sinned” might be an appropriate statement for generations of Evangelical Christians who demonized evolution as the enemy of faith. It’s not the first time in history that the church has misunderstood both science and its own theology.
Not 450 years earlier, it was the Roman Catholics who got it wrong siding with Ptolemaic astronomy claiming the earth as the center of the universe. A controversy lasting 200 years started in 1543 with Nicolaus Copernicus work, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, was heighten by Galileo Galilei’s house arrest by Pope Paul V in 1633 and the prohibition of Copernicus writings by the Church in 1758. The controversy concluded in 1835 when Copernicus books were removed from the Church’s index of prohibited books. And all for what? For the belief in the primacy of the earth as the center of the physical universe. At the time, to claim otherwise was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.” Theses events feels familiar when fast forwarded to the current religious dispute on evolution. Is evolution “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture?”
The Faith of Charles Darwin
In the opening words of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin quotes Francis Bacon,
“Let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word or in the book of God’s works, but rather let man endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.”
It may be a surprise to some that Darwin’s faith was that of a Bishop by his own account when he wrote the Origin of the Species. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species as a careful argument for God’s established laws of nature, that of natural selection. The Origin of Species handles Darwin’s new ideas with sensitivity to the static earth belief he is confronting, and by doing so, echoes a tradition in Enlightenment thinking, that God’s laws and nature’s laws were complementary, not in opposition. This similar sentiment was embrace by most scientists of the period, and most recently, with Albert Einstein who desired to know the thoughts of God through the language of mathematics. Even the US Declaration of Independence evokes this tradition with the statement “the laws of nature and laws of God” in its call to emancipate the new world from the old.
But Darwin’s observations are more than science and set the stage for the troubling debate on social reform of his day. In Darwin’s age, the established order saw disturbing disparities between the societal elite and impoverished suffering working class of the industrial age. Change was in the air and those who sought social reform quickly latched on to Darwin’s ideas as a catalyst for disruption. However, the church and established elite of England viewed the structures of society as the rightful ordering by God’s providence. This stagnant and oppressive cultural mold was support by the religious belief in a young earth and an ordained social class complete with the suffrage and squalor of the working classes. The puritan paradigm “be good and be blessed, be bad and be cursed” saw its fulfillment in the social structures of the time. Darwin, in part, seeks to understand the affliction of the poor and finds a rational in natural selection as laws of nature. By doing so, Darwin begins to break a religious notion of providence that justified the segmentation of society into rich and poor.
Science and Faith for Darwinism
For Darwin’s, faith and science were entangle in the liberating tapestry of knowledge of God’s works and word. Natural selection helped serve to debunk the Victorian myths of justified discrimination and fueled social reform. Social status as a result of natural selection shook the belief that it was order by God on the merits of the privileged. Perhaps the tragedy of reforms flight to Darwinism was the values they sought were the core values of the Christian good news, the gospel. But, the establish religious order was so far off its message that it was anything but good news for the poor and Darwinism help fill the void. Unfortunately, Darwinism, in the form of Social Darwinism, would later be used in the human rights debate at the turn of the 20th century. It was social Darwinism against the church that argued for the lesser status of the North American Indian. The church argued for their equality under God as made in the image of God as the foundation for equal treatment as human beings. Social Darwinism would later become part of the 20th century rational that shares responsibility for the killing of hundreds of millions of people in a single century (i.e. Marxism alone was responsible for over 100 million), a number significantly more than all the people killed by religious wars in all recorded history (less than 15 million).
Decoupling and separating the theological roots of Darwinism turned out to be risky business. For the atheistic believer, it opened Pandora’s Box of violence of man against man on a scale never witness before in history. Natural section, without its theological roots, is a very powerful argument for the strong over the weak as in Nietzsche’s concepts of man and superman. For the theistic believer who holds to the young earth theory, the separation of Gods works from word was a loss of intellectual credibility in the modern age. So what went wrong in the debate between the Evolutionist and Creationist? Why would those who are so commitment to truth reject truth and especially truth that liberates?
Lessons From the Past
What went wrong in the debate for Evangelical Christendom was the same fixation the Catholic Church had on Ptolemaic astronomy. For the church, it interpreted its theology too closely to the changing world of scientific knowledge, an association that the writers of the Bible never intented. By linking moral truth to the evolving body of empirical understanding, the church risks devaluing the original meaning of the Biblical writers. In turn, it sets up misleading tests for truth. So today, the picture of a Christian embracing evolutionary theory is analogist to oil and water. Most people would suggest that the two beliefs are a contradiction. To accept evolution is to deny God’s existence, and to believe in God is to stand against the theory that man came from monkeys. The Scopes Trial of 1925 typified these positions. The Butler Act of 1925 in Tennessee made it unlawful in state-funded educational establishments, “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” If we teach evolutionary theory in our schools are we not denying the Creator and the foundations of our moral authority?
As someone who shares a theistic world view, these polarized viewpoints are more monkey business then well thought out positions. In the case of the Scopes Trial in 1925, it started as a publicity campaign for the town of Dayton, Tennessee. George Rappleyea, a local manager in several mines, convinced a group of business men that a test of the Butler Act would give the town much needed attention. He convinced a local school teacher, Scopes, to violate the Butler act and the American Civil Liberties Union financed the case for Scopes. Today, the debate continues to serves the social agendas of prejudice and fear by the Christian right and secular religious (Richard Dawkins) rather than honest intellectual understanding and openness to the other.
Common Ground in the Evolutionary Debate
There are moderate positions like theistic evolution which harmonized natural selection with the works and word of God. Theistic evolution believes that biological selection is a natural process within God’s creation and allows latitude for science within revelation. Not surprisingly, this view is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, but also by Eastern Orthodox, Church of the Nazarene, Baptist, Anglicanism, and even within Judaism and Islam. To this list, there are many evolutionary biologists who are theist, believers in God. Here, evolution is not a theory that disproves God but complements our understanding of God’s creation. Like all scientific theories that “evolve” or are falsified over time, evolution may suffer its own death and room made for new ideas and understandings of the origins of species. Theistic evolution does not tie the truth claims of Christianity to a particular scientific viewpoint of origins, but remains open to what science can reveal. More importantly, theology is the moral anchor for scientific endeavors. Science has known sin, most notably in the 20th century where empirical knowledge by men is used against men in forms gas, weapons, and nuclear fusion in a historically unprecedented scale.
The history of science and theology demonstrate how scientific knowledge can fold nicely into our understanding of the “Laws of God and Nature.” In the case of Darwinism, how a scientific endeavor helped open up the works of God and loosen the bonds social stratification in 18th century England. Yet, it was hijack by reform movements who place man alone at the center of the universe, a dangerous cocktail that unleashed man’s most violent century. The moral of the matter for the believer and cause for our confession is not to enlist the dichotomy of thought that separates religion from science and untethers morality from empirical enterprise. Like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, faith should side on the glory of a rational God who established the cosmos.
Aletheia Forum 
Pingback: The Creation and Evolution Debate | Stock Market News - Business & Tech News
I would suggest that you rethink your position and do some true searching as to the nature of the controversy and the nature of true science. Darwinistic evolution is based upon assumptions that are unfounded and fit only superficial observations if viewed from the evolutionary lens. True scientific laws that are established and have never been violated negate the possibility of the evolutionary paradigm. You also need to do your research on Darwins “religious” beliefs, as he was not a Christian and his training were in a liberal branch of the “church” that denied the truth of scripture. As for quoting Bacon, you will find that he operated from the position that as we study God’s works, that we must understand them from the position of His revealed word.
You have done it again. Amazing post!
Pingback: The Creation and Evolution Debate | Stock Market News - Business & Tech News
There are a few reasons that Charles Darwin’s evolution theory could not be accepted:
a) How could human beings be evolved from apes as apes could not converse in human languages?
b) How could human beings be evolved from apes as apes’ languages do not sound alike as compared to human languages?
c) How could human beings be evolved from apes as all the voices of apes sound alike and none could be the same as human beings?
d) Some might argue that human beings speak in English languages nowadays differ from one country to another, such as, United Kingdom, Canadia, America, and Australia to prove that languages could be evolving. However, they fail to understand that the reason why English languages have been formed due to they tend to adopt words from foreign languages. Refer to the origin of English as spelt out in the website as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language
This website gives us a clear information that English languages have been formed not because of the evolution of languages but due to they have direct influence from West Germanic.
No matter how languages would have been transformed as a result of the influence of foreign countries, they are stil human languages and none of them would sound like apes.
For instance, if human languages would be evolved from apes’ languages, they would do the same to use apes’ languages that would be from regions or countries. How could human languages be evolved from apes as none of human beings could speak the same sound as apes? Not only that,all the apes’ languages sound alike and none of them sound like human languages.
Let’s give you an example. The word, computer, in English has been used in Spanish as, Computadora. In Portuguese, the word, English, has turned up to be computador. When the word, computer, in English has been used in Malay or Indonesian language, it would turn up to be Komputer. Don’t we find the similarity among them in writing. They simply borrow words from other countries and modify to be their languages.
Yet apes’ languages are entirely different from human beings. None of human beings sound alike as apes, how could human beings be evolved from apes?
No matter how apes’ languages differ from one region to another or from one country to another, all the apes sound alike. No matter how human languages differe from one region to another or from one country to another, none of the human languages sound like apes and not even one of their spoken words, sound like apes. How could human beings be evolved from apes?
e) All of the apes have black pupils and none of the apes have green or blue eyes’ pupils. Only human beings have green or blue pupils. As none of the apes have green or blue pupils, how could human beings be evolved from apes?
According to the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, all living things, whether they are plants, animals and etc., have a common ancestor. There are a few queries to be raised regarding the so-called, common ancestor:
a) As we know all living things, whether they are plants or animals or etc., need to have a couple, i.e. male and female, in order to produce the next living things. A single ancestor, such as either a male ancestor or female, would not have reproduction. How could there be only a single common ancestor in the beginning since it would have needed male ancestor as well as female of similar types in order to have reproduction? It is irrational to assume that different kinds of ancestors could perform reproduction. It is the same as a cow could not find a life-partner to mix with a rooster to perform reproduction. Certainly! If there would be common ancestor for evolution, there must be male and female ancestors with the same kind in order to achieve reproduction. To mention that all living things would have a common ancestor, is rather illogical. This is due to there must be male and female ancestors and they must be of the same kind to interact for reproduction. Not only that, they have to meet with each other instead of one was in one part of the earth and another was in another. Thus, the concept to have one common ancestor for reproduction does not seem correctly and this proves that evolution’s theory might not be true in reality.
b) If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters. As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolution’s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.
Refer to the website address http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ pertaining to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. It has been mentioned under the sub-title of ‘Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…’ that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. As Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes and that evolution is a slow gradual process, it implies that there would be a certain animals that would have the same gene as apes and that cause a certain group of apes to be able to evolve to human beings. However, there seems to be a missing link before the apes since which animals would be the appropriate predecessor right before the transformation to apes. As evolution is a slowly gradual process, certainly there should be the predecessor that could evolve into apes that could in turn evolve into human beings in the latter stage of evolution. As there is a missing link that which animals could be the predecessor just right before the apes, how Charles Darwin could link up every animal up to the common ancestor in which it could give rise to both bird and bananas?
Besides, the predecessor, that should be right before the selected apes that have the same gene as human beings, should have all types of genes that other apes have. This is due to this predecessor has to be the common predecessor of all the apes. Yet in reality, there is no animal in this universe that has all the genes of all the apes and these include the genes that could be similar to human beings. As there is no animal in this universe that has all the genes and these include the gene that is similar to human beings and the genes that are from other apes, there is a shortfall in Darwin’s theory of evolution since his theory could not be proven in the sense that how he could link up all animals and apes as well as human beings to have the common ancestor.
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm pertaining to the theory of evolution. It is mentioned in fourth paragraph that all living things have the same common ancestor under Macro Evolution. As mentioned early, there is a missing link for the predecessor right before apes. How could Charles Darwin establish the link between apes to human beings; and from apes to their predecessor right before apes; and even trace it back to the common ancestor? As there is a missing link among animals to link up every animal, such as, bird, man and etc., how could Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution be sounded then?
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence of Evolution – Homology. It is mentioned that many animals, that have similar bone structures, could provide the evidence of evolution. As bone structures of animals have been used for the evidence of evolution, it gives the implication that all animals with bone structures should be covered under the activation of the same gene and those that do not have bone structures should be treated as another. The common ancestor that could produce both sets of living things, such as, a group with bone structure and another without, should be one that would have bone structure. Or in other words, the common ancestor should be the one with bone structure so that he could produce living things with bone structure. Using similar bone structure as a guideline to determine the process of evolution would seem a little weird in the sense that this common ancestor could produce living things without bone structure despite this common ancestor were with bone structure. As using many animals that have similar bone structures so as to provide of evolution, would turn up to be unsounded in theory due to the common ancestor could produce living things with and without bone structure despite the common ancestor was itself with bone structure. Thus, it is not the good source for the proof of evolution through animals with bone structure since it would turn up that the common ancestor would seem odd that could produce living things without bone structure despite it was with bone structure.
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm pertaining to Evidence for Evolution – Embryology. It is mentioned that (ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages.
The discovery of similarity of embryos could also be located in the website address as follows:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm
There are a few reasons that different species in the same class of living things, such as, mammals, with similar embryos could not provide the proof of evolution:
a)There could be a possibility that all the living things, that we have currently, have been created with embryos with their own groups initially instead of by means of evolution or creationary evolution. If that could be so, the different species in the same class of living things with similar embryos should not be formed as the proof of evolution.
b)Despite the embryos could be identical among similar class of animals, the adults of the animals differ from one to another. As the end-result of the development of embryos from different animals differs from one to another, it does not provide the proof that all animals would be evolved from common ancestor. The same as all metals, such as, copper, zinc, iron and etc. Could we conclude that all metals have common substance that causes them to exist just because all are metals? By using the similarity of embryos to conclude that all animals would have the common ancestor, is simply the same as a person would comment that you are my close brother since you have hands and legs the same as me. It would be rather ridiculous for a person to speak to a fly that they are closely related since their embryos are alike and that they would have the same ancestor.
c)Let’s assume the existence of evolution and that embryos could be used to establish the process of evolution. As embryos have to be used for the grouping of evolution, it is rational to group all the plants embryos to be in the same group of evolution and all the animal embryos to be another. Thus, the common ancestor of both of these plant embryos and animals should be one that could produce both plant embryos as well as animal. As it would seem to be impossible to have such a common ancestor to reproduce living things with plant embryos and at the same time to have animal as well, it would turn up that using embryos as a guide to determine the existence of evolution would not be feasible. Thus, it is irrational to use the existence of embryos to determine the existence of evolution or else it would turn up that the common ancestor would turn up to be odd in which one could not locate to have such a strange creature in the past to have such a capability to produce animal embryos as well as plant simultaneously.
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence of Evolution – Observed Natural Selection. It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph under this sub-title that only the fittest survive. However, it has been shown from time to time that this logic does not sound truthfully in the sense that many animals, especially dinosaurs, have turned up to be extinct despite they were once the fittest in the past as compared to the tiny insects. The same as happened to Barbary lion (Refer to the website addresshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Lion) which has turned up to be extinct despite it looked tough as compared to some other lions that have existed nowadays. The same are for the fake of Atlas bear and Barbary leopard too. From the above examples it could come to the conclusion that the principality, that the fittest would survive, might not be true in reality. Some might well strongly support that human beings were evolved from apes and yet apes would still survive. Thus, the natural selection would not be the best source of the evidence of evolution due to some cases might not seem to work naturally.
Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm under the sub-title of ‘Evidence for Evolution – The Fossil Record’ in which fossils have been used for the support of evolution. The following are the comments that fossils might not be a reliable source to support evolution:
a) Animals could have been created initially to be that some might have the combination of features for a few groups of animals instead of these should be the result of evolution. If that could be so, there should not be any reason for one to use an animal’s fossil that contains the features of a few groups of animals to conclude that the animal in the fossil could be the common ancestor for these few groups of animals.
b) Nobody in this world did have eye-witness that the animals in the fossils would be the one that would evolve to the creature that biologists suspect to evolve to. To jump into the conclusion that the fossil should be the ancestor of a certain group of animals is rather speculative.
Let’s elaborate further for the example as indicated in the website address as above. No doubts Archeopteryx’s teeth and its claws on its wings might cause biologists to feel that it could be the common ancestor of both reptile and bird. However, there could be a possibility that Archeopteryx might not be the common ancestor of reptile and bird due to these three animals might have been created initially to have these appearances instead of these were the result of evolution. As we were not born at the time of the creation of reptile and bird and did not observe how reptile and bird were formed, there could be a possibility that reptile and bird were formed not as a result of evolution from Archeopteryx. It could be the co-incidence that Archeopteryx was created initially which teeth and claws on its wings seem to look alike as reptile and bird respectively instead of there were the result of evolution.
c) Let’s assume that evolution could be established. Animal fossils might not be able to serve as evidence due to the lack of evidence where it would come from or where it would go to. The placing of the animal fossil among animals so as to determine the process of evolution is rather a little speculation.
Let’s use Archeopteryx to be the elaboration. There are many different arrangements could be suggested in placing the Archeopteryx among the animals to determine which animal could be the ancestor. Let’s suggest the number of possibilities in placing Archeopteryx between bird and reptile:
1) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx in the middle of reptile and bird for the proof that reptile would evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to bird.
2) There could be a possibility to place Archeopteryx to be after bird and before reptile just to show that bird could evolve to Acheopteryx and latter to the complete piece of reptile.
3) One might assume Acheopteryx to be the ancestor for bird and reptile so as to place Acheopteryx right before bird and reptile.
d) There could be a possibility that these three animals are not related since their features have existed ever since the creation instead of through evolution.
From the above example, it is obvious that the discovery of fossil does not provide a clear hint about the process of evolution.
Let’s assume that Acheopteryx should be the ancestor of both bird and reptile. There are a few query has to be raised why Acheopteryx should be placed to be the ancestor of both bird and reptile:
a) It is irrational to use the teeth of Acheopteryx to comment that it must be the predecessor right before reptile just because both animals have identical shape of teeth. This is due to there would be a possibility that Acheopteryx and reptile would have been created initially with the same outlook of teeth shape instead of it was due to the result of evolution. As there could be a possibility of the initial formation of the existence of teeth for both animals instead of evolution, it is irrational to use Acheopteryx to be the proof that it could be the predecessor right before reptile. The same concept could be applied between Acheopteryx and bird.
b) There are animals, such as, bats, sharks and etc., that could have the same teeth of Acheopteryx as well as wings. To mention that Acheopteryx could be the ancestor of bird and reptile instead of others is a bit speculation.
c)How could Acheopteryx be treated as the ancestor of reptiles despite its body did not look bulky and with four legs as reptiles have? Other than the teeth of Acheopteryx, there is no similarity between this animal and reptiles whether in terms of bodies shape or etc., to jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would be the ancestor of reptile is a bit speculation. There has been no eye-witness in the past or any experiment that would have performed to prove that Acheopteryx could evolve to reptile or vice versa. To jump into the conclusion that Acheopteryx would evolve to reptiles is rather subjective or even through wild imagination. This conclusion has been arrived without any eye-witness that Acheopteryx did evolve to reptile. Or in other words, evolution is a bit guessing game to link up various animals through fossil. The same that could a person comment that you must be his son if both of you are so odd that have six fingers per hand? Certainly not! The same has to be applied to Acheopteryx that we could not confirm that it should be the ancestor of reptiles by simply observing its teeth despite its body shape and legs differ from reptile.
From the above analyses, it seems to be that placing an animal’s fossil could be some kind of speculation so as to determine what role, i.e. whether it was an ancestor of an animal or not.
Some biologists might argue that the word, fittest, in biology does not imply that organism that wins some objective contest of toughness, but it simply means that it is best able to survive and reproduce under the conditions it finds itself living under. However, they fail to understand that sometimes there are external factors that are beyond the control of nature in which animals could be facing extinct despite the surrounding environment might be suitable for them to survive and reproduce. The factors that could seriously affect or destroy animals’ lives and to cause natural selection not to be seemed be at work in nature are:
a)The sudden occurrence of natural disasters, such as, famine, Tsunami, Twister, earthquake, forests caught in fire due to extremely hot weather and etc., that could cause animals to be extinct despite animals might well be able to adapt to their surroundings for survivals.
b)Despite animals might have the capability to survive in their surrounding environment, they might be turned up to be extinct due to many hunters might kill them for the sake to use the part of their bodies, such as, skin, for trade or any other purpose.
Refer to the website address http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com/ and you would discover many animals are going to be extinct due to natural disasters and some through the fault of human beings.
From the above explanations, it is clear that sometimes it is beyond the control of nature that animals might not be able to survive as a result of natural disasters and the fault of human beings despite they might well fit to survive in their surrounding environments.
The website address in http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm has listed out the similarity of DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms starting with DNA sequence as follows:
The probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein could be found among different animals are listed below from the above extract: Chimpanzee (100%); Dog (99%); Mouse (99%); Chicken (75%); Fruitfly (60%); and Roundworm (35%). For the probabilities of the human gene sequence that codes for protein could be located animals above, there is an irregularity of human gene among these animals. The probability for roundworm has been found to have much lesser than fruitfly despite the size of the roundworm (35%) might be comparatively bigger in bodily shape as compared to fruitly (60%). Not only that, mouse should be smaller in size than chicken and yet tits probability could be far much higher at 99%. Dog could be no much better than chimpanzee whether in turn of its capability to adapt the environment or its body size and yet the probability could be at as high as 99%. As there is an irregularity of probability of human gene sequence that codes for protein that could be located among different animals, it is hard to jump into the conclusion that human gene sequence that codes for protein that animals have could be the outcome of common ancestor. This is due to it is rational to think that the smallest animals could have the lowest probability of human genes than the biggest as a result of evolution. The initial common ancestor might well be small in size. As and when the animals keep on evolving, the creatures would turn up to be bigger in size in each evolution with the improvement in the development of gene. As the probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein show irregular genes among animals, it does not seem to provide a clue that existing animals would have been formed through evolution. Why should there be an irregularity of human gene that codes for protein among animals?
The probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes that does not code for proteins among different animals are listed below: Chimpanzee (98%); Dog (52%); Mouse (40%); Chicken (4%); Fruitfly (-0%); and Roundworm (-0%). Again, despite the mouse is smaller in size as compared to chicken, yet the probability of human DNA that could be located in mouse is much higher than it. The dog is slightly bigger in size as compared to chicken and yet the probability of human DNA could be as high as 52%. Thus, the probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes among animals are irregular. As there are irregularity in the probability of DNA among the animals, it is hard to use these variations to conclude animals would have been evolved from time to time.
Let’s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:
a)Biologists did successfully clone animals in the past and even to use the gene to improve the animals. However, what they clone, it just improves the living thing instead of modifying it into different kind of animals. If they would clone any animals, such as cow, they still produce cow at the end of the experiment without causing it to stream out into different kind of animal, such as giraffe or etc. Has there any experiment been performed in the past that could develop into a more complexity of animals, such as, from micro-organism to worm or fly or etc.? If none of the scientists have done the experiment successfully in converting micro-organism into a worm or fly or etc., other than merely a micro-organism, the evolutionary theory is simply a concept without being tested.
b)As the common ancestor could be micro-organism or a selected plant, it is simply without bone structure or could be one that could have either plant embryo or animal. As this common ancestor could be an algae or fungi or archaea or protists or etc., how could it be able to be developed into both plants and animals with complexity of bone structure? Did biologists perform the experiment successfully to convert any of these living things into a more complexity of animal, such as, worm or fly or etc.? Or else, the evolution theory is just a concept without being tested.
c)As this common ancestor could be either plant embryo or animal, how could it be able to stream out into plants as well as animals? Or in other words, how could this common ancestor be able to produce plant embryo as well as animal despite it was simply either micro-organism or plant? Did the biologists perform the experiment in the past successfully to cause micro-organism to be able to convert into both plants as well as animals with complexity of nature?
Refer to the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant under the sub-title of ‘Evolution’. A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae has been drawn. There are a few queries pertaining to the reliability of the evolution tree:
There is a great work done in joining plants from one to another to determine the process of evolution. However, a query has to be raised whether the tree of evolution has been drawn through fixing the plants that ought to be there due to by comparing of feature of plants instead of through testing and observing the nature that these could occur. Let’s give you an illustration: From the chart, it could come to the conclusion that Chlorophyta was the predecessor right before the plants, i.e.Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese. Did any biologists see or did perform experiment that Ulvophyoese could transform into Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese as well as Trebouxiophyoese in the past? If they did not do the experiment and just fixed them into the evolution tree due to the feature and/or the nature of these plants, it implies that there was no eye-witness or experiment did in the past to prove that Ulvophyoese could be able to evolve to Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese.
Some biologists might comment that evolution tree might be done through thousands and thousands of individual bits of data–observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. As they did not perform the test whether the plants or animals could be transformed in accordance to the evolution tree that has been drawn, there could be a possibility that the evolution could not be workable as what has been laid out in the evolution tree. Besides, the plants could have been created in the beginning with identical features and they were not the result of evolution.
There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction. Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?Let’s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon. Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons: i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal. This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing. As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor) has to be grown backward instead of evolving. ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism? As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal? iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa? iv)According to the evolution’s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time. It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal. This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.
The following explanations are based upon the assumption that evolution did occur in the past and from then, to determine whether the support of evolution could be justifiable: Refer to the website address, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity.html, pertaining to evolution myths. The following are the extracts: Based on the above comment, there are a few queries to be raised concerning the acceptability of the phrase, you tend to lose it if you don’t use it: a) The living things, that do not use certain feature, such as, eyes, guts and etc., do not give the implication that they do not need it. There could be a possibility that they need it and yet unfortunately do not own it and be ended up that they would seek alternative choice of survival technique, such as living in the cave environment to avoid predators to attack, or else they might have to face extinction due to their vulnerable bodies that could expose to danger easily. Let’s assume that cave fish and tapeworms would have turned up to be without eyes and without guts respectively due to the cause of evolution. What makes the biologists so sure that the living things, such as, cave fish and tapeworms, would not use those things that other living things have and cause them to lose them? There might be a possibility that they would need those features and yet unfortunately they have turned up to be without them and cause them to live miserably in the worse environments, such as, cave. For instance, if a cave fish, that is blind, would swim out of the cave, it would be easily attacked by a large animal. Alternatively, it might have lost its way back to its initial habitat if it were to depart from the cave. In order to survive, the cavefish might have no choice but to live permanently in the cave environments. It is the same logic for a person that is born blind would not travel overseas. Not that he loses it as a result that does not use it, but that he has been born unfortunately to be so. The same is for tapeworms. The additional gut could help tapeworms with additional function such as it could use it for other purpose, such as, to prevent it to pass out from human body, or to use to store food or etc., instead of losing it. This is due to more function and more feature of the living thing, such as, tapeworm, would lead to be more adaptable to the surrounding environment. For starfish that has no brain, it does not imply that it needs no brain to think. There could be the possibility that starfish needs brain to think in order to get better technique to hunt for food or think of way to escape from predators. The reason that starfish is brainless could be due to it turned up to be unfortunate to be without brain despite they need it.b) The living things, that do not use certain feature, might retain the thing without removing. Have you ever seen roosters and hens that have extra flesh on top of their heads? Despite the additional flesh on top of their heads would serve no purpose on defending them, yet the flesh retains among them. This proves that the concept of ‘you tend to lose it if you do not use it’ could not be applicable in reality. The extra flesh hanging right below our human beings’ left and right ears would serve no purpose and yet retain. Roosters and hens would have their wings retain despite they could no longer be used for flying and yet retain. All these prove that the living things, that do not use a certain feature, might retain them. Thus, it is irrational to use the concept, that you tend to lose it if you would not use it, to support that complexity of animals could evolve to lower animals since many animals would retain their feature despite they might not use them.c) Evolution theory is questionable why complex animals could evolve into less complex animals. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a cave fish should be able to evolve into a more complexity in the sense that it could see in the dark as a bat with eyes that could visualize things in the cave. Instead, the cave fish has been born blind instead of moving forward or having positive evolution. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a tapeworm could grow bigger in size with guts to assist it to store more food or to prevent it be passed out from human bodies by its size or etc. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a starfish should grow with brain so that it could help it to think of better way in hunting food or to prevent the attack from predators. From the above analyses, it would come to the conclusion that it is not a justifiable reason to mention that living things could evolve into less complexity due to they tend to lose it if they do not use it. As there was negative evolution among animals, there is a question about the reliability of evolution theory. As evolution theory is questionable from scientific point of view, it is justifiable for one to uphold creation theory.
An attention-grabbing dialogue is worth comment.
I
believe that you need to write extra on this
subject, it might not be a taboo subject but typically people are not sufficient to speak on such topics.
To the next. Cheers
You really make it seem so easy with your
presentation but I find this topic to be actually
something that I think I would never understand.
It seems too complex and extremely broad for
me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!
Evolutionary theory has been found contradiction with the Bible.
a) The Bible supports that God created plants earlier than moving creatures or things and yet Evolutionary theory supports the reverse since it supports that single cells (moving creatures or things) were created earlier than plants.
The following are the extracted verses from the scripture:
Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After creating the plants, Genesis 1:21, “And GOD CREATED great whales, and EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.”
As the phrase, God created …every living creature that moveth (or moving creature), is mentioned in Genesis 1:21 and yet it is mentioned after Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants, it implies that God should have created plants earlier than the moving creature, i.e. single cells.
According to evolutionary theory, single cells were formed in the very beginning prior to their development into more complexity of creatures, i.e. plants. In the timelines of living things, single cells were placed to be in 3.6 billion years ago and yet the plants were created in 475 million years. Or in other words, evolutionary theory presumes that plants were created after the creation of single cells, i.e. living creature that moveth.
b) God created plants that bore fruits prior to His creation of animals and yet evolutionary theory shows the reverse. The following is the explanation:
Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After that, Genesis 1:20, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
As the phrase, yielding fruit, is mentioned in Genesis 1:11, it gives the implication that God should have created trees that could grow flowers prior to their yielding of fruits. The phrase, the moving creature that hath life and fowl, as mentioned in Genesis 1:20 gives the implication of the creation of animals. As Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants with flowers is mentioned prior to Genesis 1:20, it implies that God should have created plants with flowers prior to the creation of animals.
In the timelines, it shows the reverse. Animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet the plants that would grow flowers were created in 130 million years ago.
The discrepancies between the Bible and the timelines table have placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question.
Zuma, you’re making some big assumptions about the how the Hebrews interpreted order in their narrative. Order was not often chronological, but for emphasis, so the better question is what does the order as emphasis mean. What situation was Moses addressing in the context of the Egyptian religious culture and Exodus? This is the framework of it’s interpretation rather then modern evolutionary theory.
The Hebrews of Moses’ day would not have understood this as chronological time and to reinterpret it as chronological and impose an understanding of the text not inherent of that period strips it of the original meaning. With that approach, you can make anything mean what you want. Like the Roman Catholics who got it wrong siding with Ptolemaic astronomy claiming the earth as the center of the universe, it’s an easy mistake to make.
Timelines that has been established by archaeologists causes Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain.
In timelines table that was created by archaeologists, animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet plants were created in 475 million years ago. Those plants that would grow fruits and flowers were created in 130 million years ago. Or in other words, evolutionary theory supports that plants were not in existence during the creation of animals. The absence of plants would make Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain since how God could demand all animals to eat fruits from plants when they were not in existence initially. Thus, evolutionary theory does contradict the teaching of the book of Genesis 1:29-30.
Genesis 1:29-30, “Then God said, “…To all animals and all birds, everything that moves and breathes, I give whatever grows out of the ground for food.”
As God demanded all animals to eat food from plants, He should have created plants prior to the creation of animals as spelt out in Genesis 1:11 as follows:
Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”
Nevertheless, it is justifiable for God to place Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants prior to Genesis 1:29-30. They indeed perfectly match and are in sequential order without wrongly placed.
How could Christians engross in evolutionary theory when it contradicts the fundamental teaching of the Bible?
1. Is it justifiable for Old Age Creationists to use the phrase, Let the earth bring forth grass, in Genesis 1:11-13 to support that that God told the earth to bring forth plants and it brought forth through the work of the laws of nature that God instituted so as to support evolutionary theory? How about Genesis 1:20 & 1:24?
When God commented in Genesis 1 to allow the existence of substances or living creatures on the earth, it does not imply that God stood beside so as to allow them to generate from the earth through the laws of nature by themselves.
Genesis 1:6-7, “And GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And GOD MADE THE FIRMAMENT, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.”
As the phrase, God said Let there be a formation, is mentioned in Genesis 1:6 with the phrase, God made the formation, in Genesis 1:7, it implies God‘s direct creation even when the phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1. Thus, it is irrational to use the phrase, God said, in Genesis 1 to jump into conclusion that the existence of nature was the work of nature through evolution. Instead, it should be God’s direct creation.
The same is mentioned in Genesis 1:14-15 below:
Genesis 1:14-15, “And GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And LET THEM BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
As the phrase, God said let there be lights, is mentioned in Genesis 1:14-15 with the phrase, God made two great lights, in Genesis 1:16, it implies that God’s direct creation did follow after His commenting.
The same is also mentioned in Genesis 1:24-25 as below:
Genesis 1:24-25, “And GOD SAID, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And GOD MADE THE BEAST OF THE EARTH after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.”
The phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1:24 with the phrase, God made the beast of the earth, in Genesis 1:25 gives the same idea that God’s action in direct creation after His spoken words.
From the above examples, it could come to the conclusion that God did not make His words to be in vain since He would follow up with action in His creation. Besides, He did the work of creation personally and did not do as what Old Age Creationists mention that He did nothing but just to stand beside to observe the laws of nature to work itself up for the evolution.
The following are the verses that support that God’s direct involvement of His creation of all things despite the phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1:
Genesis 6:7, “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
Exodus 20:11, “or [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Isaiah 42:5, “Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:”
Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].”
Isaiah 45:18, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.”
Revelation 10:6, “And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:”
Colossians 1:16, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
As the phrase, For by him were all things created, is mentioned in Colossians 1:16, it gives an undeniable truth that God was the One that created all visible and invisible things on this earth. Unless Colossians 1:16 mentions that God did not directly create all things, it is then rational to support that He only played a part in assisting them for the evolution. As the phrase, God made, is mentioned in Colossians, how could Old Age Creationists support that God only stood beside just to assist the evolution and did not personally and directly created all things then?
There are a few possibilities that the serpent could have dialogue with Eve as mentioned in Genesis 3:
a)This serpent could be an unique animal that was created by God to be able to speak the same language as Eve;
OR
b)All the animals that were created by God did speak the same language in the past.
Which statement above is more suitable to describe animals in the past prior to the flood?
Genesis 11:1, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”
As the phrase, And the whole earth was of one language, is mentioned in Genesis 11:1, it implies that all the animals, i.e. dinosaurs, birds, lions, leopards, and etc., spoke the same language in the past. Unless Genesis 11:1 mentions that the whole earth was not in one language and one speech, it is then rational to assume that animals, such as, lions, tigers and etc., could communicate with human beings. This is by virtue of human beings spoke in one language and yet other creatures delivered their own speech that could not be understandable by human beings.
As all animals in the past could speak the same language, it is rational for serpent to speak the language that Eve understood.
As all animals prior to the flood could deliver the same speech as human beings, how could Old Age Creation treat the dialogue between the serpent and Adam to be spiritual allegory?
Nevertheless, it is justifiable for the serpent to speak the same language as Eve since the whole earth communicated in one speech and one language.
Some Old Age Creationists interpret the word, day, to be a thousand years or more due to the following reasons:
The word, day, in Hebrew is Yom and is defined by Strong Concordance to be:
1)day, time, year a)day (as opposed to night); b)day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day’s journey c)days, lifetime (pl.) d)time, period (general) e)year f)temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow
The word, Yom, in Hebrew could be translated as time in Genesis 4:3, Deuteronomy 10:10, 1 Kings 11:42 and Isaiah 30:8. The word, Yom, could be translated as year in 1 Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 and Amos 4:4. Besides, the word, Yom, could be translated as age in Genesis 18:11, 21:2, 21:7, 24:1, 47:28; Joshua 23:1, 23:2; and Zechariah 8:4. The word, Yom, could be translated as ago in 1 Samuel 9:20. The word, Yom, could also be translated as always in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23; and 2 Chronicles 18:7. The word, Yom, could be translated as season in Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7 and 2 Chronicles 15:3. The word, Yom, when used with the word, dâbâr, can be translated as “chronicles”. The word, Yom, when used in conjunction with kôwl, could be translated as continually. The word, Yom, could be translated as ever in Deuteronomy 19:9 and Psalm 23:6. When the word, Yom, is used in Deuteronomy 28:29 in conjunction with kôwl, it can be translated as evermore.
Some Old Age Creationists even mention that the words, evening, and, morning, do not refer to sunset and sunrise respectively since they mentioned that the sun was created on day four.
Discuss.
Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
The phrase, the light, in Genesis 1:5 implies the brightness of the day and the phrase, the darkness, in this same verse implies total darkness. If sunlight was not created in Genesis 1:5, why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If evening and morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should not refer to the darkness on earth and the light that shone on it, why should the phrase, the light Day, correspond to the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 and the phrase, the phrase, the darkness, in the same verse corresponds to the word, evening? The reason is simply that there should not be light and day if God did not create sunlight to govern the earth in Genesis 1:5.
Could the word, a day, be viewed from God’s way as a thousand years or etc.? No, it should not be since there is no day and night to govern God and that is why He treats a thousand years to be a day. To God, there is no evening and morning or even day or night to govern His activity. As the phrase, the evening, and, the phrase, the morning, are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, He spoke from human perspective point of view since there are nights, evenings, sunrises and sunsets to govern entire human race in this world.
Could the word, a day, be treated as a thousand years instead of restricting it to be a day? No, it should not be so since the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 is in singular tense. Unless the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 are in plural tense, we could treat them to be more than a day. This is by virtue of there are many evenings and many mornings in a thousand years.
If the sunlight were created only on day four, why should the phrase, the light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? This is by virtue of the entire heaven and earth in this world would be in total darkness if the sun were not created in Genesis 1:5. Why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5 when the entire world was filled with darkness as a result of the sun was not created in this world?
Should we assume that God should have created sunlight on the fourth day? No, it should not be so since Genesis 1:3, “(mentions that) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” If God should have created sunlight on day four, why should God mention the phrase, Let there be light, in Genesis 1:3? As we know all the light in this world is the reflection of the light from sunlight. Could we locate any substance that could give light by itself without depending upon sunlight in this world? If the light as mentioned in Genesis 1:3 should not refer to sunlight, what kind of light should it refer to that could stand alone to give light by itself without relying upon sunlight if the sun should have been created on day four then? Undoubtedly the light as indicated in Genesis 1:3 should be none other than sunlight.
Could we use Genesis 1:1 to support that God’s creation could be from a billion years and mention that the Bible is not inspired by God since it contradicts against Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that mention that His creation should be within six days? No, it should not be so since the phrase, the beginning, in Genesis 1:1 could be interpreted as the beginning of the first day. If that could be so, the creation of the heaven and the earth should fall within a day and there is no contradiction with the Bible. The following are the extracts:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Exodus 20:11, “For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Exodus 31:17, “It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
Nevertheless, the word, day, in Genesis 1 should refer to none other than a day instead of more.
God created the light in Genesis 1:4. The following is the extract:
Genesis 1:4, “And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” (King James Version)
God’s accomplishment in His creation of light as spelt out in Genesis 1:16 as below:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 does not give any sense of the travelling of light in reaching the surface of light. Instead, it implies God’s completion in His creation of light in Genesis 1:16 especially the word, made, is in past tense.
It is rational for Genesis 1:16 to mention with the phrase, God made, to be in past tense to refer to the light that He had created in Genesis 1:3.
The additional light that was created in Genesis 1:16 was starlight since stars were created in Genesis 1:16 so as to reflect the light from sun as spelt out below:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.” (King James Version)
Nevertheless, two great lights were created and one is from sunlight and another is from starlight. Thus, it is rational for the scripture to mention that God made two great lights in Genesis 1:16 so as to refer to the stronger light that He had created in Genesis 1:3 and lesser light in Genesis 1:16. Remember! The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 is in past tense. It certainly refers to the work that God had done in the past.
As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.
If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.
That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.
Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
■for the last 475 million years, land plants;
From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don’t tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.
Genesis 1:30, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.
Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?
When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:
Genesis 1:11-12, “God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.” (New English Translation)
The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.
In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.
The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.
Genesis 1:29-30, “Then God said, “…to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.” (New English Translation)
As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.
The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds had to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.
a) As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?
b)Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mention that all fall into sin by one man?
c)If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? Should Jesus Christ die for all creatures especially a single cell since all of them would have the same forefather, i.e. single cell?
Did God take more than a day to create the heavens?
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
By the word of the Lord were the heavens were (Psalms 33:6) he spake, and it was done (Psalm 33:9). Meditate the phrase, he spake and it was done. Super fast!
God finished all His creations and these should include the formation of stars (Genesis 1:16); the formation of land (Genesis 1:9) and the creation of all living creatures at the end of six days.
The heaven (excluding stars since its creation is only metnioned in Genesis 1:16) was created in the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:1. Whereas, the earth was created to be filled with water (Genesis 1:2), without land (Genesis 1:9), without plants (Genesis 1:11-12), and without any living creatures in the beginning of the first day (Genesis 1:1) and that was why Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was created initially without form and void.
The verses that support that He created the heaven at the time He finished His speech::
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Certainly the above verses should refer to Genesis 1:1. The heaven was created without stars since their formation was only in Genesis 1:16.
Thus, God did not include the creation of stars when He mentioned the heaven was created in Psalms 33:6 and 33:9.
As the timeline table has been found contradictorily as mentioned above, the reliability of the various means of dating methods, i.e. carbon-14 dating method and etc., has to be placed into question. This is by virtue of the timeline arrangement does follow the dates of fossils in which they were examined and computed by means of various dating methods. If the various dating methods were accurate, the whole timeline table would not turn up to be contradictory against nature and also the scripture. How could Christians treat the datum that have been computed through various dating methods to be the truth of God and to use their findings to conclude to uphold that they are correct and the interpretation of scripture must be wrong?
The following are the reasons to suggest God’s intention to let us realize the age of the universe and the earth:
a) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1 number the days of His creation of stars, light, animals, plants and etc.? God would not number the days of His creation by day 1, day 2 and etc. if He did not want to draw us the attention of the dates of His creation.
b) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis define a day to be governed by a morning and an evening as mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If a day should not be governed by a morning and an evening, why should the Book of Genesis repeat the same pattern in Genesis 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31?
c) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1:5 mention that light day is meant for morning and darkness is meant for night?
d) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He would not inform us that the heaven and the earth would be created in six days. Why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that the universe and the earth were created in six days?
Exodus 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
e) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 that He created them in six days and then stressed it in also Exodus 31:17? Common sense! If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He should only mention in Exodus 20:11 instead of stressing it again in the following verse?
The list of Darwin’s theory of evolution could be located in the website address, http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/.
As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.
Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.
The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question
The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/
In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.
The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.
a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.
b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.
c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.
d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.
Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:
http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell…
Refer to the website address, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8613.full. Evolutionary theory is full of hypothesizes:
You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:
Individuality is a complex trait, …… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..
The following is the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).
My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.
Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.
Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?
Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.
The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:
The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.
As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:
4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
– 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
– 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
– 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
Moon’s orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
– Earth’s original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
escapes Earth’s gravity.
– 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
– 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
– Earth’s atmosphere becomes mostly
carbon dioxide, water vapor,
methane, and ammonia.
– Formation of carbonate minerals starts
reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
– There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.
My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.
As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.
Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.
The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.
Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?
Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.
As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:
‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’
The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:
Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.
The following are the extracts:
Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?
Was Eve formed from Adam?
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?
Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?
The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.html , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time.
As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?