aussiecreeder
04-18-2004, 11:04 AM
i am being having a consistent debate over at the PJ board about this topic, but with those liberals (hehe) i haven't being getting that far. anyway i wrote to Answers in Genesis, got a reply, sent a further reply and got this. Thought it might interest some.......
Actually, their argument on a what if origin is bogus, because if life
came from sort of alien form, how did it start with them? The same
question is still there, its just that they are trying to put it off to
a point where they do not have to deal with it. And if they admit that
life did have a supernatural origin, then that totally nullifies their
naturalistic laws governing the rest of history and thus they no longer
have support for evolution or millions of years. By admitting to a
supernatural origin, they open the door wide for the God of the Bible
which they often say cannot be allowed - see quote below by prominent
evolutionist Richard Lewontin. They are trying to throw up a smoke
screen so they don't have to deal with the real issue.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard Geneticist, "Billions & Billions of Demons",
The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, Pg. 31.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure
to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite
of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
However, the second smoke screen they are putting up is the bogus claim
of having so much proof for macroevolution. What they actually have is
what they call microevolution or speciation and then extrapolate it to
quantify macroevolution. The truth is, they have no evidence. They do
have many speculations and ideas and suggestions, many of which are
still openly disputed amongst themselves. What they do have is
speciation. Speciation is a real thing and we don't deny it. Actually,
it supports biblical creation more than it does evolution. Speciation
occurs when one population will no longer interbreed with another
population and produce viable offspring. What we find when this occurs,
is the reduction in the amount of genetic variation available to the new
population, causing differences in the members of the new population
that prevent fertile interbreeding with members of the parent
population. You see, natural selection actually does one of two things
- it either keeps a population stable or it drives it to extinction.
Neither of these are evolution friendly.
Macroevolution requires the addition of new information, enough to make
major changes. Yet, this has NEVER been observed. For more information
on this, I would recommend you obtain Dr Werner Gitt's book 'In the
Beginning Was Information,' and Dr Lee Spetner's book, 'Not by Chance.'
Again, I say that it is not about evidence. We all have the same
evidence and the same facts. The only difference are the personal
beliefs of the person interpreting the evidence. Some people believe in
billions of years and as such, their interpretations will reflect those
beliefs. We, on the other hand, start with the belief that God's Word
is the only source of truth and therefore, our interpretations reflect
that. It all boils down to one starting from the word of man who is
fallible, does not know everything and whose truth is always changing,
or with God, who is infallible, does know everything, has always been
there and whose truth never changes. For us, the choice is simple.
R.L. David Jolly, M.Sc.
Personal Assistant to the President/CEO
hope it clears up some misconceptions and causes some interestering debate.....
Actually, their argument on a what if origin is bogus, because if life
came from sort of alien form, how did it start with them? The same
question is still there, its just that they are trying to put it off to
a point where they do not have to deal with it. And if they admit that
life did have a supernatural origin, then that totally nullifies their
naturalistic laws governing the rest of history and thus they no longer
have support for evolution or millions of years. By admitting to a
supernatural origin, they open the door wide for the God of the Bible
which they often say cannot be allowed - see quote below by prominent
evolutionist Richard Lewontin. They are trying to throw up a smoke
screen so they don't have to deal with the real issue.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard Geneticist, "Billions & Billions of Demons",
The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, Pg. 31.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure
to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite
of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
However, the second smoke screen they are putting up is the bogus claim
of having so much proof for macroevolution. What they actually have is
what they call microevolution or speciation and then extrapolate it to
quantify macroevolution. The truth is, they have no evidence. They do
have many speculations and ideas and suggestions, many of which are
still openly disputed amongst themselves. What they do have is
speciation. Speciation is a real thing and we don't deny it. Actually,
it supports biblical creation more than it does evolution. Speciation
occurs when one population will no longer interbreed with another
population and produce viable offspring. What we find when this occurs,
is the reduction in the amount of genetic variation available to the new
population, causing differences in the members of the new population
that prevent fertile interbreeding with members of the parent
population. You see, natural selection actually does one of two things
- it either keeps a population stable or it drives it to extinction.
Neither of these are evolution friendly.
Macroevolution requires the addition of new information, enough to make
major changes. Yet, this has NEVER been observed. For more information
on this, I would recommend you obtain Dr Werner Gitt's book 'In the
Beginning Was Information,' and Dr Lee Spetner's book, 'Not by Chance.'
Again, I say that it is not about evidence. We all have the same
evidence and the same facts. The only difference are the personal
beliefs of the person interpreting the evidence. Some people believe in
billions of years and as such, their interpretations will reflect those
beliefs. We, on the other hand, start with the belief that God's Word
is the only source of truth and therefore, our interpretations reflect
that. It all boils down to one starting from the word of man who is
fallible, does not know everything and whose truth is always changing,
or with God, who is infallible, does know everything, has always been
there and whose truth never changes. For us, the choice is simple.
R.L. David Jolly, M.Sc.
Personal Assistant to the President/CEO
hope it clears up some misconceptions and causes some interestering debate.....