That is what episode #4 of Creation Minute is all about. When people see the differences in the types of evolution, I believe that it will solve the whole "Does evolution happen?" debate.
Watch our new Creation Minute video Six Kinds of Evolution and see for yourself.
1. Cosmic Evolution—the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the big bang
2. Chemical Evolution—the origin of all 92 elements from hydrogen
3. Stellar Evolution—the formation of stars and galaxies from gas clouds
4. Organic Evolution—the origin of life from non-living chemicals
5. Macroevolution—the changing of one kind of plant or animal into another kind of plant or animal
6. Microevolution—changes within the same kind—like wolves, coyotes, and dogs being related to a common ancestor (Only this one is real science. The first five are never observed—only believed. They are part of religion, not science.)
Evolutionists claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time; however, this has never been observed, tested, or demonstrated. You're welcome to believe that happened, but don't call it science.
My Dad's new book, Help I'm Being Taught Evolution is a great book on this. Also, his booklet Are You Being Brainwashed discusses 20 different lies in the textbooks that need to be addressed.
Students continue to be duped into believing in evolutionism because terms are not clearly defined. In Seminar #4, Lies in the Textbook, we tackle this same issue head on! Kids deserve to know the truth, and the truth is this:
Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8, Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13
Please, don't be deceived any longer, repent and trust in Christ today!
22 comments:
Semantics is a big issue in the Creation-Evolutionism debate.Indeed it is. It shouldn't be, but it is. :(
Terms like "information," "kind," random chance," "science," "atheism," "naturalism" and of course "evolution" get thrown about by people who never bother to define them, and use them in contexts they clearly do not fit.
Other people happily proclaim false definitions of words, pretending, to use an example taken completly at random, that purely biological theories have something to do with cosmology, geology and chemestry, or that inferrences from evidence are not science.
And yet others happily jump from definition to definition, pretending all the while that they are still talking about the same thing. Sometimes they even combine this with points one and two, in a neverending cycle of dishonestly.
I'm trying to think of a good example, preferably laid out neatly in a 6 point list... Got any suggestions, Eric?
That's right kids, all you need are these magic words and *poof* you live forever, well not really you still die but then you live forever, really you should trust us, we have a book and it says so, come and worship our book with us, it has all the answers.
I love you guys, you're just to funny. I think I'll worship God instead of your book thanks, but you have fun with that.
I want to apologise for my previous post. It was sarcastic and accusatory, which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but I didn't back it up by pointing out where you had made mistakes.
Correction, I didn't back it up by pointing out where you had repeated mistakes your father had made.
I will therefore attempt to make amends, by correcting the errors I percieve in your list. Forgive me?
Cosmic Evolution—the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the big bangHas nothing to do with evolution. Indeed, the process you describe comes even before the Big Bang theory: the origin of time, space and matter is still unknown. There are many plausible hypotheses, but due to the nature of the universe, it is difficult if not impossible to provide evidence for any one of them. Examples are: a cyclic universe (ties with the big crunch theory, and planck mass rebounds), heirachial universes (black hole universes), string theory (multiple dimensions), an actual cosmological singularity, (in which the very concept of time and space becomes non-existent: this is probably the most similar to the 'nothing' concept you mentioned, which is in reality an oversimplification), and, of course, a God.
It takes faith to believe in any specifc theory, so I am agnostic on this issue. I accept the possibility of all the above options.
Chemical Evolution—the origin of all 92 elements from hydrogenAgain, nothing to do with evolution. This is known as nuclear fusion. We can observe it's effects directly by looking at the sun. We as a race managed to acheive it when we detonated the H-Bomb. It is what powers every star in the sky. You must be using some definition of "science" I'm not familiar with when you claim that this isn't science.
3. Stellar Evolution—the formation of stars and galaxies from gas cloudsSurprise! Nothing to do with evolution. Ever heard of a quasar? Well obviously you have now :D, but a quasar is a galaxy forming around a supermassive black hole. We can see them now, more than 13 billion light years away, because they were the brightest and most powerful celestial formations ever to exist in our universe.
We can also see stars in every stage of formation, from gas clouds, to gas clouds with new-born stars in them, to protoplanetary discs, to full stars with planetary systems, and everything in between. Aren't telescopes great? :)
Plus, all this is fairly basic cosmological physics, so much so that it doesn't even have a special name. It's just high-school cosmology.
4. Organic Evolution—the origin of life from non-living chemicalsDo I even need to say it here? Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution starts after life, in some form, already exists.
However, Abiogenesis is an extemely complex subject, and one into which a lot of research is focused. The results are tentative, but
encouraging: current evidence indicates that most of the necessary precursers are both certain to form on early earth, and certain to
react with each other. A new RNA reaction, which actually uses one of the components of RNA to fuse the other two together, is being
studied with good results. Your blog indicates that URL's will be deleted, but I can send you the link to an intriguing article on
the subject if you're interested.
(continued from previous post)
Macroevolution—the changing of one kind of plant or animal into another kind of plant or animal
Yay! Finally, something related to biology. Except that nobody has any idea what a 'kind' is in
relation to taxonomy, and evolution doesn't actually break the biblical definition of kinds. I'm not kidding:
each animal brings forth after it's own kind, even in evolutionary biology. What actually happens is that the 'kinds'
themselves change gradually. A fish will produce a fish, but it might be a fish that
can last a bit longer out of water than it's ancestors could. Eventually, we humans have to make a category called
'amphibions', if only to avoid calling everything fish. Birds are still dinosaurs, dinosaurs are still reptiles.
And, of course, macroevolution = microevolution * time; I'll point out what I think is wrong with your 'rebuttal' of this in a sec.
6. Microevolution—changes within the same kind—like wolves, coyotes, and dogs being related to a common ancestor (Only this one is real science. The first five are never observed—only believed. They are part of religion, not science.)Well you know what? The various physisists, astronomists, geologists and biologists reading this are going to be kind of surprised to find that they're doing reling and not science.
But not as suprised as the population geneticists who (according to your classifications) are the only ones doing 'science.' I'd be
hard put to find a group of people who more unanimously support the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time; however, this has never been observed, tested, or demonstrated.Err... didn't you just claim that microevolution was real science, and therefore has been observed, tested and demonstrated? The claim is, afterall, that they are exactly the same thing. But if you want more long-term evidence:
Observation: Nested heirachy of features and traits in modern mammals.
Observation: Intermediate examples of ancestor and decendent features in the fossil record, on 'mosaic' creatures.
Observation: Geographical positioning of similar species in similar areas, with variation increasing as reproductive seperation increases.
Observation: Speciation, of various insects and fish, in scientific history.
Observation: Genetic difference increasing and decreasing in syncronisation with the accepted model of ancestory.
Testing: Every time a fossil is discovered and dated.
Testing: Every time genetic difference between two creatures is compared.
Testing: Every time a new species is classified.
Demonstration: Computer simulation's, of both genetic algorithms and full scale hereditory environment simulations. I'm actually programming one at the moment: I'll send you a free copy when I'm finished if you're interested.
Demonstration: All forms of what you call microevolution. If you want something a bit larger, ask again 50 years from now. If you want something massive, come back a couple million years from now.
Finally: pleased to meet you, Eric! I'm Qu. :D
Did you know that Carl Linnaeus was one of the most important creationist biologists? Still he developed modern taxonomy using rules to describe similarities between animals and plants. He even placed humans among apes. His trees were later used to explain evolution.
The science of evolution is made up from a myriad of facts, together point to evolution.
Over the last hundred years every new fact that has been discovered has supported evolution.
Evolution is falsifiable but it has never been done.
Scientists are human and they do make mistakes but the theory of evolution is not built on any one finding.
Hey, great job in the debate on 97.1 yesterday. They sided with the evo guy but they haven't watch the dvd's yet.
I'm starting a second round of Creation Science classes at First Baptist Church of Arnold this Sunday so come visit us in STL sometime soon please.
God Bless!
-zac
Sigh. The Theory of Evolution as used in biology refers to the diversity of species via mutation followed by natural selection. Scientists don't really use terms like "macro" and "micro" evolution, but they were kind enough to define them for creationists: microevolution is change within species, and macroevolution is change between species. To say that microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't is to say that inches exist but miles do not. Note that creationists are not able to say what a "kind" is.
By the way, do you ever feed the starving or cloth the poor with the money you make from selling merchandise?
Tom W said...
By the way, do you ever feed the starving or cloth the poor with the money you make from selling merchandise?
Tom...you do not have to make $ from selling merchandise to feed the starving or cloth the poor.
Anyone...can do that. So you are free to join...Christian or not.
But you "must" be born again to "see" the kingdom of Heaven.
Don't get mad...just think.
(I admire everything you do for free!) Try this...when you go through the grocery store pick up 1 thing that you might want and when you go out of the store...give it to them.
I will usually give a gospel message as a bigger part of the gift.
Imagine, you give away a hamburger to someone about to jump off a bridge.
He doesn't realize that he could die...you do...what is your responsibility?
Don't get mad...just think.
I wonder why there is not a single response to any of comments regarding evolution here?
Eric?
To Alanrd67
It has been some time since I've read anything that made less sense.
Don't get mad, just think.
@Alanrd67: Your post reminds me of a video that I saw a while ago, with Tom Cruise babbling insanely about how only Scientologists can truly help people, because only Scientologists have the truth. Isn't it sad that your two very different belief systems lead to the same sort of inane babble? Your charity is made less effective because of your addition of a gospel message.
Well, as they say; "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
Pity...
Well I don't see that anyone one has pointed it out yet, so I will.
There are not just 92 elements. So far 117 elements are known.
Funny, Eric accepts that there are many many elements even though the proof of the elements can't be seen without the benefit of science.
Or did I miss something, could someone please tell me for my own education, what verse in the Bible lists the 92 elements?
It's not really your faith, Eric, which so much bothers those of us who appreciate evolutionary theory and science.
It's your dishonesty. You have to face that.
Galactic_Papa said...
"@Alanrd67: because only Scientologists have the truth. Isn't it sad that your two very different belief systems lead to the same sort of inane babble? Your charity is made less effective because of your addition of a gospel message."
It isn't my charity GP...I would rather do as I did...before I was aware of my sin/selfishness/disobedience to God.
Sometimes The Gospel message is made less effective because there is so much of my story in it.
It's not about what I do and have done in the name of Christ, but what He did for me and when I do anything "good" it is for His Glory...not mine, or Eric's or any Christian.
Matthew 7:21-24 explains this better than I could fill up this space. You have a Bible...or obviously free reign to "Google That".
May God open your understanding up to this simple truth.
Absolutely ridiculous. I commend you, Quasar, on your attempt, but keep in mind that facts are lost on creationists. They're misconstrued as poison and categorized under the Martin Luther doctrine that reason is the enemy.
If people want to believe the facts, they will. If not, they'll continue their delusion that a storybook is reality. Enjoy, guys.
Q said... "If people want to believe the facts"
The "fact" is that seriously honest scientists...understand that evolution...{no matter how much they cry...or how much they beg...} is still a..............drumroll...............theory.
If evolution is now a fact...please let me know the date that this all happened...unless they still take it by faith.
Then, as Mike Riddle says: "No thanks, I already have a faith. You tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about mine."
The fact is drum roll please Alanrd67 that Creationism is still an idea and not even a theory. Please let me know the date education system that taught you so I can make some recommendations.
No matter how many facts or lists creationists wish to make on what evolution does not have proof of. The 1,000,000+ pieces of it does still put it One million times better than the "idea" of creationism with there one piece of evidence for. I know that's all you need and that's great. However, why do you want to declare your faith a science???
Spector567 said...
"No matter how many facts or lists creationists wish to make on what evolution does not have proof of. The 1,000,000+ pieces of it does still put it One million times better than the "idea" of creationism with there one piece of evidence for."
Wow, I was able to piece together your desired message...so...
ok...all of life/design/creation/how it works together/mankind (did I say "kind"?) hmmm...the detail of atoms/cells/solar systems/the very fact you believe that you can trust your thoughts and communicate an idea. If you thought about it in detail, you would know it was not random accident and neither were you.
Otherwise your thinking is just a part of a random accident. Or... perhaps you are able to articulate due to being designed to do so.
Go to a doctor and try to have someone believe you are evolving so the mutation happening to you in any form should be left alone.
If you survive...guess you are the fittest.
Don't get mad...just evolve.
By the way...what is your 1 "proof" of evolution...the one that leaves no doubt.
Mine is through "Christ" the Creator.
Yours is through "Theories"...?
Don't leave home without it...I guess.
I just love that argument.
"Since I don't believe in a 'designer', then how do I think with this brain of mine? You must be 'designed' in order to be able to think with your brain."
That really is the most humorous of all the Christian creation arguments. It is right up there with the 'I don't believe in God being the source of morality, so I should a lying maniac... because I don't believe God is the source of morality, so... why bother being moral" argument.
Of course I think (how do I do that 'think' thing?) that your nutz (how do I know what 'nutz' is?) for using (how can 'use' things?) that argument (why should I bother to argue or care or even breath?)
But I love you anyway (how can I 'love'? ...well because I can silly.)
Next up.... the wonderful world of the ‘worldview’ and why atheists seem to contradict theirs....
(I wonder if God finds this as funny as I do.)
Alanrd67, please learn the definition of theory before using it as an argument.
Stating that something is a theory and not fact show a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. The scientific method is the base for all science and the reason you have a computer to type your half truth for all to see.
Information is the enemy of the creationist just as creationists are the enemy of progress and free thought.
Post a Comment