Real Christians Cannot Believe in Evolution

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macro evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

Read entire article here: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

The article you posted is an intellectual abomination. If Christ is the Truth, Morris is antichrist. His work is filled with misconceptions, willful misrepresentations, blatant errors, and lies. It has been thoroughly debunked by many scientists, including many who are evangelical Christians [see here, here, here, and here]. It is worse than worthless because it has misled countless Christians. The fruit of his tree is rotten to the core. He is the poster-boy of how fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who profess it.

If you think there is any validity whatsoever in his article, then you should begin by defending his absurd and erroneous assertions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But remember, I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and my graduate work specialized in the Second Law in Quantum Systems. This doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that I know what I am talking about when it comes to the utter ignorance Morris displays in his article.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Hey there Henry,

The article you posted is an intellectual abomination. If Christ is the Truth, Morris is antichrist. His work is filled with misconceptions, willful misrepresentations, blatant errors, and lies. It has been thoroughly debunked by many scientists, including many who are evangelical Christians [see here, here, here, and here]. It is worse than worthless because it has misled countless Christians. The fruit of his tree is rotten to the core. He is the poster-boy of how fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who profess it.

If you think there is any validity whatsoever in his article, then you should begin by defending his absurd and erroneous assertions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But remember, I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and my graduate work specialized in the Second Law in Quantum Systems. This doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that I know what I am talking about when it comes to the utter ignorance Morris displays in his article.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

First, I don't need to defend Henry Morris' “assertions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” he has more than capable defenders of his own to do that, and I could defend no one in that field for I know not.

The basic knowledge I have on Evolution comes from what I have read about it through the years. I have read the evidence given by both sides, and from what I personally have concluded is: I find it impossible to believe in Evolution where it seems you need more faith to believe in Evolution, that everything came from nothing, than to believe in a Creator God.

Even Evolutionists so much as admit to this as seen in Henry Morris' article, or are these also “willful misrepresentations”: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/


“The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

"Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions."26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."30

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

First, I don't need to defend Henry Morris' “assertions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” he has more than capable defenders of his own to do that, and I could defend no one in that field for I know not.

The basic knowledge I have on Evolution comes from what I have read about it through the years. I have read the evidence given by both sides, and from what I personally have concluded is: I find it impossible to believe in Evolution where it seems you need more faith to believe in Evolution, that everything came from nothing, than to believe in a Creator God.

Hey there Henry,

I'm glad you are pursuing this issue. It is obviously of central importance since you believe that the truth of evolution would disprove Christianity. Of course, not all Christians would agree, since many accept the evidence for evolution as fact yet remain Christian, such as Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome project.

One thing I don't understand is why you believe the claims of Henry Morris. He has been totally and absolutely debunked. The fact that you don't have the expertise to judge in this matter should make you agnostic, at best, about his claims.

Even Evolutionists so much as admit to this as seen in Henry Morris' article, or are these also “willful misrepresentations”: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/

“The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

"Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions."26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."30

God bless---Twospirits

All those quotes tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of evolution. You could just as well present quotes from people who believe in the flat earth. You couldn't disprove modern cosmology that way!

But let's take a look at the quotes.

“The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."23

Morris lied. There is nothing "atheistic" about believing in natural causation of natural phenomena. Or what? Do you think that the trajectory of a baseball can be explained only by assuming God sent an angel to carry it? Of course not. Christians agree with science that no supernatural explanation is needed for the trajectory of a baseball. It is determined entirely by natural law (Newton's Laws of motion, or Einstein's theory of relativity if you want to be really precise). DOES THIS IMPLY THAT PHYSICS IS ATHEISTIC? Of course not! That would be absurd. A physicist can be a Christian while asserting that no supernatural explanations are required to explain natural phenomena.

This is how Morris deceives his readers. He fails to tell them that scientists treat evolution just like any other science. All scientific fields - physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, evolution - reject supernatural causation as an explanation. That's the meaning of "science." Therefore, either Morris is saying that all science is atheistic, or he's a willfully deceptive liar. In either case, what he said is flat-out wrong.

I like to focus on one point at a time, so I'll let you respond to this before addressing his other quotes.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I'm glad you are pursuing this issue. It is obviously of central importance since you believe that the truth of evolution would disprove Christianity. Of course, not all Christians would agree, since many accept the evidence for evolution as fact yet remain Christian, such as Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome project.

One thing I don't understand is why you believe the claims of Henry Morris. He has been totally and absolutely debunked. The fact that you don't have the expertise to judge in this matter should make you agnostic, at best, about his claims.

I didn't say I wish to pursue this issue, I only wanted to acknowledge your post. I certainly do not wish to pursue something outside my field. And simply wanted to let you know from my studies on Evolution where I stood on the matter.

You say “many accept the evidence for evolution as fact yet remain Christian,-” Speaking for myself, yes “Micro-evolution” has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution.

When you say I believe in the claims of Henry Morris, is not quite true. He is but “one” of many scientists who have come to those similar conclusions I have read in my studies on the subject. I only presented (chose) and posted that article as being “representative” of how the many others view Evolution also.

All those quotes tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of evolution. You could just as well present quotes from people who believe in the flat earth. You couldn't disprove modern cosmology that way!

But let's take a look at the quotes.
“The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."23
Morris lied. There is nothing "atheistic" about believing in natural causation of natural phenomena. Or what? Do you think that the trajectory of a baseball can be explained only by assuming God sent an angel to carry it? Of course not. Christians agree with science that no supernatural explanation is needed for the trajectory of a baseball. It is determined entirely by natural law (Newton's Laws of motion, or Einstein's theory of relativity if you want to be really precise). DOES THIS IMPLY THAT PHYSICS IS ATHEISTIC? Of course not! That would be absurd. A physicist can be a Christian while asserting that no supernatural explanations are required to explain natural phenomena.

My point in posting those statements was to show that there are two sides to a coin because you said about Morris “His work is filled with misconceptions, willful misrepresentations, blatant errors, and lies.” So I showed that so do Evolutionists blatantly lie to promote their agenda. Since the early days of their founding doctrine they have a notorious reputation of lieing about Evolution and their findings through the years; and this has been well documented.

This is how Morris deceives his readers. He fails to tell them that scientists treat evolution just like any other science. All scientific fields - physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, evolution - reject supernatural causation as an explanation. That's the meaning of "science." Therefore, either Morris is saying that all science is atheistic, or he's a willfully deceptive liar. In either case, what he said is flat-out wrong.

I like to focus on one point at a time, so I'll let you respond to this before addressing his other quotes.

His point in giving those statements from Evolutionists was to show they will do anything to promote their agenda in the minds of people. He is speaking of atheistic scientists not Christian scientists.

I personally don't wish to pursue this, but someone else may wish to chime in who may be more knowledgeable than I on this matter, if so please do so guys. Richard wishes to focus on one point at a time so come on guys join in.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I didn't say I wish to pursue this issue, I only wanted to acknowledge your post. I certainly do not wish to pursue something outside my field. And simply wanted to let you know from my studies on Evolution where I stood on the matter.

You say “many accept the evidence for evolution as fact yet remain Christian,-” Speaking for myself, yes “Micro-evolution” has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution.

When you say I believe in the claims of Henry Morris, is not quite true. He is but “one” of many scientists who have come to those similar conclusions I have read in my studies on the subject. I only presented (chose) and posted that article as being “representative” of how the many others view Evolution also.

Thanks for taking time to acknowledge my post. I appreciate it.

Your assertion that "Micro-evolution has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution" is false. Both have been observed.

If his writings are any indication of his scientific knowledge, Henry Morris is no "scientist." His writings are filled with the most ridiculous errors that have been totally debunked for decades. He convicts himself all the more when he refuses to repent of his errors and deceptions.

My point in posting those statements was to show that there are two sides to a coin because you said about Morris “His work is filled with misconceptions, willful misrepresentations, blatant errors, and lies.” So I showed that so do Evolutionists blatantly lie to promote their agenda. Since the early days of their founding doctrine they have a notorious reputation of lieing about Evolution and their findings through the years; and this has been well documented.

First, if Morris is a liar, then Morris is a liar. It is absurd to say "Well others do it too!" That doesn't exonerate Morris and it shows a contempt for truth.

Second, it wouldn't matter if some individual here or there told a lie in their misdirected attempt to prove evolution. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the matter. This is called the Genetic Fallacy. It is extremely common amongst ignorant creationists. The fact that creationists persist in this logical fallacy shows how their religion has corrupted both their minds and their morals.

Third, not one of those quotes proves that evolution is based on any lies at all.

Fourth, your assertion that evolutionists "have a notorious reputation of lieing about Evolution and their findings through the years" is false. It is true that there are a few notorious cases (e.g. Piltdown man) but it was the evolutionists who discovered the hoax and corrected it. And evolutionists continue to publish the hoax because science is opposed to lies. Indeed, the Piltdown hoax is number 5 on the list of the 10 Greatest Lies in History. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists seek truth and willingly acknowledge when they are wrong, whereas professional creationists are the most dishonest and deceptive group I have ever seen.

Your insistence that a whole field of science is based on lies indicates that you have no concept of how science really works. If evolution were false, it would have fallen under its own weight a long time ago. No one could use the theory of evolution if it were false. But hundreds of thousands of scientists use it every day with great success.

It's like Henry Morris' claim that the second law did not apply before the fall. This indicates he has an absolute ignorance of science. He doesn't understand consilience - the unity of knowledge. Physics and math and geology and biology and evolution are all consilient. You can't just "turn off" the second law and expect the universe to work because the same laws that give rise to the Second Law operate in all other systems.

His point in giving those statements from Evolutionists was to show they will do anything to promote their agenda in the minds of people. He is speaking of atheistic scientists not Christian scientists.

That's not what he said. He said that evolution was atheistic because it rejects supernatural causality. Therefore, he rejects all science as atheistic.

Why don't you just admit the truth of his error? Why would you think to defend him? He is wrong.

I personally don't wish to pursue this, but someone else may wish to chime in who may be more knowledgeable than I on this matter, if so please do so guys. Richard wishes to focus on one point at a time so come on guys join in.

God bless---Twospirits

I hope you continue to pursue this. I think it is very important because you have been so seriously deceived by lying Christian creationists.

And I hope others join in too.

[CWH]

Thanks for taking time to acknowledge my post. I appreciate it.

Your assertion that "Micro-evolution has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution" is false. Both have been observed.

If his writings are any indication of his scientific knowledge, Henry Morris is no "scientist." His writings are filled with the most ridiculous errors that have been totally debunked for decades. He convicts himself all the more when he refuses to repent of his errors and deceptions.


First, if Morris is a liar, then Morris is a liar. It is absurd to say "Well others do it too!" That doesn't exonerate Morris and it shows a contempt for truth.

Second, it wouldn't matter if some individual here or there told a lie in their misdirected attempt to prove evolution. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the matter. This is called the Genetic Fallacy. It is extremely common amongst ignorant creationists. The fact that creationists persist in this logical fallacy shows how their religion has corrupted both their minds and their morals.

Third, not one of those quotes proves that evolution is based on any lies at all.

Fourth, your assertion that evolutionists "have a notorious reputation of lieing about Evolution and their findings through the years" is false. It is true that there are a few notorious cases (e.g. Piltdown man) but it was the evolutionists who discovered the hoax and corrected it. And evolutionists continue to publish the hoax because science is opposed to lies. Indeed, the Piltdown hoax is number 5 on the list of the 10 Greatest Lies in History. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists seek truth and willingly acknowledge when they are wrong, whereas professional creationists are the most dishonest and deceptive group I have ever seen.

Your insistence that a whole field of science is based on lies indicates that you have no concept of how science really works. If evolution were false, it would have fallen under its own weight a long time ago. No one could use the theory of evolution if it were false. But hundreds of thousands of scientists use it every day with great success.

It's like Henry Morris' claim that the second law did not apply before the fall. This indicates he has an absolute ignorance of science. He doesn't understand consilience - the unity of knowledge. Physics and math and geology and biology and evolution are all consilient. You can't just "turn off" the second law and expect the universe to work because the same laws that give rise to the Second Law operate in all other systems.


That's not what he said. He said that evolution was atheistic because it rejects supernatural causality. Therefore, he rejects all science as atheistic.

Why don't you just admit the truth of his error? Why would you think to defend him? He is wrong.


I hope you continue to pursue this. I think it is very important because you have been so seriously deceived by lying Christian creationists.

And I hope others join in too.

Oh, RAM will love me to join in.

Everything in science is nothing new; King Solomon, one of the ancient wisest man said, "there is nothing new under the sun". Everything in science is already known by God. Can God create His creation without using scientific principles? Think about Fusion energy of the sun, the magnetism of the earth, the aerodynamics of the flights of birds, the sonar location used by bats and dolphins etc. People just don't realized that what man is doing in science is actually learning from nature which is created by God. Since man is studying science from the creation of God, it is the therefore the study of God's creation known as Creationoogy. There is no such thing as natural laws but laws of God because natural laws were created by God. Not all laws are universal. Try living on the planet Venus and we will have to rewrite some of the principles of density, gravity, climatology, thermodynamics etc. Try calculating using the base of 8 instead of our current base10 and you will find mathematics quite different and complicated. Remember, the Bible said, "you (i.e. Man) are gods".....with a small g. And in the far future when Man became like God with his technological and scientific advancement and started creating the suns, planets, plants, animals etc. will we be using scientific principles in these creations? Obviously, Yes. Therefore, science is Creationology.

God Bless Creationology.

[jce]

Thanks for taking time to acknowledge my post. I appreciate it.

Your assertion that "Micro-evolution has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution" is false. Both have been observed.

Hello there Richard my friend!

I checked out this link and maybe I missed something, but in the first illustration it was stated that a new species of mosquito (of all the darn things to be introduced) was identified. I'm not sure, but I think what Henry was referring to was not a new type of insect within the insect species, but say a new dog from a beetle, or a new cow from a fish, or a new human from a turtle. That's kinda what I was thinking when looking for observed changes to make the connections. I know that you have stated in earlier posts that all living creatures are linked by a common DNA. Did I overlook or miss something here?

God's Marvelous Grace be upon you Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello there Richard my friend!

I checked out this link and maybe I missed something, but in the first illustration it was stated that a new species of mosquito (of all the darn things to be introduced) was identified. I'm not sure, but I think what Henry was referring to was not a new type of insect within the insect species, but say a new dog from a beetle, or a new cow from a fish, or a new human from a turtle. That's kinda what I was thinking when looking for observed changes to make the connections. I know that you have stated in earlier posts that all living creatures are linked by a common DNA. Did I overlook or miss something here?

God's Marvelous Grace be upon you Richard.

John

Hey there John,

That link gives evidence of speciation that has happened recently enough to be directly observed. It was given to refute Morris' false assertion that speciation has never been observed. The idea of "a fish becoming a cow" involves huge time spans and so cannot be directly observed. Such things must be inferred from evidence like DNA, the fossil record, and the phylogenetic tree. These three witnesses are independent and mutually confirming. And the evidence coheres with the entire body of biological science which is, as you know, used all over the planet by hundreds of thousands of working scientists every day. This is why scientists are so confident that evolution is a fact.

The creationist opposition to the science of evolution is a pathetic joke because the opponents are utterly ignorant of the science they reject. It is no different than an ignorant hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 asserting that calculus is bullshit. It really is on that level of absurdity.

This doesn't mean that there are no unsolved problems with the theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution, but those problems have nothing to do with whether or not evolution has occurred. This now is an incontrovertible scientific fact no different than gravity and electromagnetism. To deny it is the moral equivalent of asserting that the earth is flat. That's how ridiculous the whole creationist movement has become.

Henry Morris was not a real scientist. He didn't understand the most basic facts of science. For example, he suggested that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not exist until Adam sinned. This is utterly absurd because you can't just "turn off" the Second Law and have the rest of the laws continuing to work. He did not understand that the Second Law is not itself a fundamental law independent of the rest of physics, but rather a law derived from the statistical mechanics of systems involving many particles. It would exist in any conceivable universe that followed laws like Newton's Laws of Motion or the more modern Quantum Theory. For the Second Law to fail, all physics would fail. This was the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation (which unfortunately was never finished).

Henry Morris has made fools out of all the Christians who have accepted his absurdities. Anyone with any knowledge of science can immediately recognize his errors. His refusal to repent even when his errors were exposed shows that he was not merely self-deceived, but a grossly immoral man.

As you can see, I take willful deception very seriously. To me, it is one of the greatest crimes against humanity. It is one of the primary reasons I rejected Christianity as a whole. Though there are plenty of good Christians, they are not good because they are Christian but rather in spite of it. I've never seen any reason to think that Christians have any relationship with God different than anyone else. On the contrary, the fact that Christians tend towards lies, deceit, and self-deception to protect their dogmas proves to me that their religion, like all fundamentalist religions, corrupts both their minds and their morals.

I'm really glad you joined us in this conversation. As I said to Twospirits, it is of central importance.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh, RAM will love me to join in.

Everything in science is nothing new; King Solomon, one of the ancient wisest man said, "there is nothing new under the sun". Everything in science is already known by God. Can God create His creation without using scientific principles? Think about Fusion energy of the sun, the magnetism of the earth, the aerodynamics of the flights of birds, the sonar location used by bats and dolphins etc. People just don't realized that what man is doing in science is actually learning from nature which is created by God. Since man is studying science from the creation of God, it is the therefore the study of God's creation known as Creationoogy. There is no such thing as natural laws but laws of God because natural laws were created by God. Not all laws are universal. Try living on the planet Venus and we will have to rewrite some of the principles of density, gravity, climatology, thermodynamics etc. Try calculating using the base of 8 instead of our current base10 and you will find mathematics quite different and complicated. Remember, the Bible said, "you (i.e. Man) are gods".....with a small g. And in the far future when Man became like God with his technological and scientific advancement and started creating the suns, planets, plants, animals etc. will we be using scientific principles in these creations? Obviously, Yes. Therefore, science is Creationology.

God Bless Creationology.

Thank you for sharing your private interpretation of the Bible and Science. Unfortunately, you merely made empty assertions. You forgot to provide facts supporting them. For example, to assert that "natural laws were created by God" is nothing but an assertion. I could just as well say that they were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So who is right? I have just as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you do for the imaginary god that you invented. I've been reading your posts for years, so I know that many of your beliefs directly contradict Christianity. This is why I know that your god is made up in your own imagination.

[David M]

Good morning Richard

I am trying out the multiple quote feature as I wanted to reply to several things you stated in as many posts. I think I have got the hang of this now. Also, I have just switched the forum page to WYSIWYG mode. I should have found this earlier. It helps when using colored text to review posts written instead of having the html tags in the post.

Thank you for sharing your private interpretation of the Bible and Science. Unfortunately, you merely made empty assertions. You forgot to provide facts supporting them. For example, to assert that "natural laws were created by God" is nothing but an assertion. I could just as well say that they were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So who is right? I have just as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you do for the imaginary god that you invented. I've been reading your posts for years, so I know that many of your beliefs directly contradict Christianity. This is why I know that your god is made up in your own imagination.

We all have the problem of not being there at the beginning to know exactly what happened. Is is arguable that we have the intelligence to understand, even if we could go back in time to the very beginning. The same question has been with us for as long as man has been on the earth. Whether you credit the question to God or man, this question has been with us long before science came on the scene; "Where were you at the beginning?" All answers by man to the question of what is the beginning, are as a result of man extrapolating backwards in time. Why should I believe in the answers that man gives? How do I know that extrapolation is correct? Even the very best intentioned and honest person on the planet cannot be trusted to know all truth with absolute certainty.

Hey there John,

That link gives evidence of speciation that has happened recently enough to be directly observed. It was given to refute Morris' false assertion that speciation has never been observed. The idea of "a fish becoming a cow" involves huge time spans and so cannot be directly observed. Such things must be inferred from evidence like DNA, the fossil record, and the phylogenetic tree. These three witnesses are independent and mutually confirming. And the evidence coheres with the entire body of biological science which is, as you know, used all over the planet by hundreds of thousands of working scientists every day. This is why scientists are so confident that evolution is a fact.

The creationist opposition to the science of evolution is a pathetic joke because the opponents are utterly ignorant of the science they reject. It is no different than an ignorant hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 asserting that calculus is bullshit. It really is on that level of absurdity.

This doesn't mean that there are no unsolved problems with the theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution, but those problems have nothing to do with whether or not evolution has occurred. This now is an incontrovertible scientific fact no different than gravity and electromagnetism. To deny it is the moral equivalent of asserting that the earth is flat. That's how ridiculous the whole creationist movement has become.

First of all, I would drop all the adjectives like absurd and ridiculous. I have realized for some time that anything you say can just be said back to you. Your claims sound just as "ridiculous" to me. I can simply say the same thing and substitute evolution for creation; "That's how ridiculous the whole evolutionist movement has become". We shall argue for ever using phrases like this.

You think man is capable of finding out everything and I accept it as fact that he will not. The theory of Evolution remains an unproven theory. The problems (gaps) are massive stumbling blocks yet you dismiss these, just as you dismiss words recorded in the Bible that could affect your thinking. You accuse me and others of nitpicking, yet you expect us to believe your arguments when you dismiss important words in the Bible. I and many other intelligent minds can understand science and that is why I have to believe in the Creator who has given us the the simple reasons why and how we are here, which science does not give the answers to. The Bible (whether regarded as fiction or not) amongst all the books, is the book that best gives us the answers to life's questions. The Bible has a coherent message (though you have yet to realize that) and tells us the purpose to life. Hope is not something that science can quantify and hope of eternal life is not something science can deal with or can provide. Until science can answer the questions the Bible gives the answers to, I will side with the Bible.

Henry Morris was not a real scientist. He didn't understand the most basic facts of science. For example, he suggested that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not exist until Adam sinned. This is utterly absurd because you can't just "turn off" the Second Law and have the rest of the laws continuing to work. He did not understand that the Second Law is not itself a fundamental law independent of the rest of physics, but rather a law derived from the statistical mechanics of systems involving many particles. It would exist in any conceivable universe that followed laws like Newton's Laws of Motion or the more modern Quantum Theory. For the Second Law to fail, all physics would fail. This was the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation (which unfortunately was never finished).

Henry Morris has made fools out of all the Christians who have accepted his absurdities. Anyone with any knowledge of science can immediately recognize his errors. His refusal to repent even when his errors were exposed shows that he was not merely self-deceived, but a grossly immoral man.

As you can see, I take willful deception very seriously. To me, it is one of the greatest crimes against humanity. It is one of the primary reasons I rejected Christianity as a whole. Though there are plenty of good Christians, they are not good because they are Christian but rather in spite of it. I've never seen any reason to think that Christians have any relationship with God different than anyone else. On the contrary, the fact that Christians tend towards lies, deceit, and self-deception to protect their dogmas proves to me that their religion, like all fundamentalist religions, corrupts both their minds and their morals.

As you said in another post, "we are not too far apart". I disagree with a lot of Christian sects/religions/doctrines and you reject them all. Starting afresh, I think you ought to have as much skepticism for Evolution as you have now for God. You know I have said (and which still remains to be proved to you) that the only way God is proved is by what He has predicted for the future. You have only to convince yourself of one of those predictions in order to prove God and if that was accomplished, all the other problems you have regarding God would have to be resolved somehow. Is there one proof that can convince me of Evolution? Evolution is a man-made concept which should be regarded as a work of fiction the same as you now ascribe to the Bible. You tell me that the Bible is not inspired and I should not be believe it, so what makes any books written about Evolution any more believable?

I expect there are zealous supporters of Evolution who have got their explanations wrong just as Henry Morris got his explanation of the introduction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong. Whilst he might not have got everything wrong, I am prepared to believe someone else and not bother with him. I could use someone else to say the same things that I think he got right. That goes for all the Spong(s) and anyone like him, who we are referred to on this forum. Once again, I will argue the meaning of the Bible from the Bible. We can continue to disagree on the authenticity of the Bible, but that does not stop us getting to the truth of what the author(s) intended the reader to know. That is the fundamental point of our discussions on this forum in relation to what the Bible says; What does the author intend us to know? At least when all the Bible has been studied in this way, that would place us in a better position to agree with the Bible as a whole or reject it totally. Weighing the evidence, my balances show there is more evidence in favor of the Bible. There has not been enough evidence against the Bible to make me change my thinking. Your evidence to prove that God does not exist must be so powerful and irresistible that I will be persuaded to agree. Keep trying to convince me. Keep puffing at my spiritual house to see if you can blow it down.

Thanks for taking time to acknowledge my post. I appreciate it.

Your assertion that "Micro-evolution has been proven scientifically, but not Macro-evolution" is false. Both have been observed.

I accept that new species are found and that new species arise., but this is not proof to me of Evolution. The opening line on the page the link takes us to says; "new species of mosquito found". It is new, but it is still a mosquito; it is of the same kind. If we cross a Red Indian with a Chinese (or any combination that has not yet been done) will we not create a new species of human? Surely what we call "race" we can say is a species of humans. We are not creating different kinds by cross-breeding. Science has got to the point of crossing ethical boundaries and those boundaries will be crossed because it is the same temptation that was with Eve at the beginning. Unless God does intervene and many things are coming to a head that makes God's intervention necessary, as they they say; "all hell will be let loose".

Fourth, your assertion that evolutionists "have a notorious reputation of lieing about Evolution and their findings through the years" is false. It is true that there are a few notorious cases (e.g. Piltdown man) but it was the evolutionists who discovered the hoax and corrected it. And evolutionists continue to publish the hoax because science is opposed to lies. Indeed, the Piltdown hoax is number 5 on the list of the 10 Greatest Lies in History. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists seek truth and willingly acknowledge when they are wrong, whereas professional creationists are the most dishonest and deceptive group I have ever seen.

This is a generalization I would like to agree with though I and Twospirits do not fit in with "professional creationists". You may be right to say what you have, but you can be wrong with what Twospirits and I think.

Your insistence that a whole field of science is based on lies indicates that you have no concept of how science really works. If evolution were false, it would have fallen under its own weight a long time ago. No one could use the theory of evolution if it were false. But hundreds of thousands of scientists use it every day with great success.

You will have to explain how the theory of Evolution is used to great success. The theory remains a theory to me, because it has not been proven. A new piece of jigsaw found to fit part of the picture is not evidence that the piece belongs to that jigsaw. Until all the pieces have been fitted together no-one can be sure that all the pieces belong to the same puzzle. The picture is only complete when there are no gaps to be filled.

It's like Henry Morris' claim that the second law did not apply before the fall. This indicates he has an absolute ignorance of science. He doesn't understand consilience - the unity of knowledge. Physics and math and geology and biology and evolution are all consilient. You can't just "turn off" the second law and expect the universe to work because the same laws that give rise to the Second Law operate in all other systems.

That's not what he said. He said that evolution was atheistic because it rejects supernatural causality. Therefore, he rejects all science as atheistic.

Why don't you just admit the truth of his error? Why would you think to defend him? He is wrong.

I would not defend Henry Morris and I would prefer not to refer to him and I would use someone else now that you have pointed out his error. I do not like to quote other people unless I have to when arguing from the Bible. I agree that Henry Morris was wrong to say what he did about the Second Law of Thermodynamics as you have quoted him, though I would not disagree with him on everything he said. Occasionally, I find I agree with you. I agree when you are correct and disagree when you are incorrect; in both counts you can say; "that it is your opinion". Whenever I hear Evolution promoted in the Media, I do not hear any credit given to a Creator. Creation and Evolution appear incongruous together. I know there are Creationist thinkers who are scientists. To my way of thinking, science is not religion, which Evolution and Creation are.

Scientists are free as anyone else to choose which religion they believe in. I am interested in science and can understand science more than someone who is not interested in science. Science employs mathematics to explain its findings. Mathematics and modelling lie behind our understanding of science. We cannot see the atom, but we make models of it to help us visualize the atom. We have equations (mathematical models) to define the motion of objects such as electrons, photons, and planets, and these models work for us. It does not mean that the mathematical models are perfect. We have a symbol for infinity and we have the concept of infinity, but our minds cannot deal with large numbers and infinity is way too large to handle in our mind. Even the value of pi is a never ending fraction going on to infinity, so any value we use of pi is not as precise as it could be. We are living with models and equations to help us understand the physical laws that do not change, only our understanding of the physical laws change. This is why science has inbuilt uncertainty. God has declared through His word that He does not change and that God's promises do not change; I am convinced of that. That has to be disproved by Evolutionists as much as Evolution has to be proved; neither of which they have done to my satisfaction.

I do not know that anything I have said above will change anything, but let's keep trying to reason things out.

David