Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: evolution and the age of the earth

Expand Messages
  • Sara Mansell
    Hi Gary, This whole argument brings up the most basic question - Who created the Creator? It is the most commonly asked question, but no one has ever come up
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 31, 1998
      Hi Gary,

      This whole argument brings up the most basic question - Who created the
      Creator? It is the most commonly asked question, but no one has ever come
      up with an answer to satisfy me. You say that when we look around we see
      that the trees and the body HAD to have been created by something
      *sentient*, but where the heck did "he" come from. (for purposes of argument
      I will refer to the Creator as God or he)

      Looking around in my room I see computers, lamps, chairs. Say all of them
      had to be made by someone, and they could never have come into existence on
      their own. On a larger scale, I see trees and rivers and land, and you say
      that those had to be created by someone as well. (I will pretend I agree
      for a moment). If I look even on a larger scale I see planets and
      galaxies and stars and nebulas, and I suppose they needed to be created as
      well. Looking the farthest, I see God looking down on his little universe,
      and He needed to be created as well.

      Or did God just pop into existence?? Or was he ALWAYS there. Well, if you
      believe he was always there, and if you can wrap your head around that one,
      then I don't see how you could have a hard time grasping evolution, or the
      big bang, or all of the other theories that science has come up with.

      Now the other part of your argument states that you can't throw a bunch of
      metal bits into a box and come out with a watch. Maybe so, but when all the
      little molecules in the universe were bouncing together and bonding, there
      was no set goal that it had to reach. In fact, the molecules and atoms
      themselves were a random thing that "popped" into existence. When the very
      beginning phases of evolution started, there was no "game plan". It is just
      as likely that human life came to be, that any other type of scenario could
      have come to pass. Things bounced off eachother, sometimes attracted,
      sometimes repelled, and by pure chance and pure chance only, two things came
      together that were able to stick despite the harsh conditions. These atoms
      were not *meant* to come together, they just *did*.

      No, you can't throw metal bits in a box and come out with a watch or a
      toaster or a chair, but chances are after millions of years, you won't have
      exactly the same bits you put in that box, and they won't be in the same
      shape or condition. The bits of metal in a box is a bad example anyways,
      because what you are looking at is a tiny tiny closed experiment. In the
      real world, there are billions upon billions of factors that would come in
      to play. Those bits of metal floating in space for example, may mix with
      other things out there and become a planet. Or they may land on an
      asteroid, decompose, and contribute to that asteroid getting an atmosphere.
      I could go on and on.

      You said, ">Now you can look at evolution from another vantage point. The
      idea of evolution is that somewhere back when, lower objects, through blind
      chance, became higher
      >objects, until finally life came into existence. And finally the fish
      became birds, and birds became animals, and animals became monkeys, and
      monkeys became man,
      >and so on, whatever path that the evolutionist wants to go."

      My point exactly is that evolution does not say that lower objects become
      higher objects. They just become different, and they change and change, and
      usually that means becoming more complex, as things are added. Just like a
      snowball rolling down a hill, they gather more and more things that "stick"
      to them.

      You said, ">And yet they accept the theory of evolution by blind faith,
      because there's no evidence of it anywhere. "

      This kind of makes me laugh. Usually "Faith" is a word that the religious
      use. Blind faith that there is a God, a Creator. Gary, in my opinion,
      there is no evidence of a creator. There is only the Bible, which in my
      opinion is just a book written by primitive people. (there are some merits
      to the bible, but i will not get into that now)

      You said, ">Now the fact is, the scientific law itself indicates that
      exactly the reverse is so, that that which is more complex will gradually
      deteriorate into that which is less. That which is more useful will
      deteriorate into that which is less useful. And we can illustrate this very
      easily. If you have a brand new shining car, and you put it out in a vacant
      field, according to the evolutionary idea (and this almost sounds like a
      caricature, and really it is. But nevertheless it illustrates the point.),
      if you left that car
      >long enough, let's say a few hundred thousand years, pretty soon that car
      would become a more useful object. It would become even more shiny and
      bright and wonderful than when it was first put out in that field. Now we
      know that just exactly the reverse is true.
      >
      >If you put that car out in that field and then come back ten years later,
      it will have rusted, it will have begun to deteriorate all over. And if you
      came back a thousand
      >years later, the odds are that the whole thing would have been completely
      returned to the dust of the earth."

      Again you are assuming that there is a specific goal that evolution is
      working toward. Evolution is not a sentient being. It does not choose to
      make a shiny new car. The disintigrating car is part of the rules of
      nature. Evolution is not anti-nature. It is completely in tune with the
      laws of nature.

      Evolution does not see "usefull" and "not usefull". The car does not become
      more useful by HUMAN standards. No indeed, human standards go more against
      nature than with it. The human body itself goes very much with the laws of
      nature.

      With your argument about sediments in the oceans.... this is a huge, huge
      debate. Age of sediments in the ocean is only a tiny bit of evidence in the
      chain of evidence of how old the earth is. How about the age of dinosaur
      bones, and carbon dating? You can't enter into a debate about the age of
      the earth without writing an entire book. I don't know much about the
      sediments in oceans, so I can't say whether I agree with you or not...
      sorry. :)

      In any case, your letter was extremely thought provoking and I'm always up
      for a good discussion about Creation. :)

      sara


      >Message: 1
      > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:52:38 -0500 (EST)
      > From: garycraig@...
      >Subject: Evolution and the Age of the Earth
      >
      >First of all, the Bible is very emphatic that God created the heavens and
      the earth. It you look, for example, at Exodus 20, here we find a very
      straightforward statement in verse 11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven
      and earth, the sea, and all that is
      >in them, and rested the seventh day." Now that's a flat statement that is
      not contradicted anywhere else in the Bible.
      >
      >Moreover, this is what Genesis l teaches, that on Day One He created this,
      and Day Two He created that, and so on. So, to begin with, the Bible
      indicates very clearly
      >that God created the universe.
      >
      >Secondly, when you look at creation, you can immediately see that a Creator
      was required. Now you look around your room. And you see a lamp, you see a
      rug on the floor, you see things on the walls, you see doors and doorknobs,
      and all kinds of things. How many of these things came into existence
      without some kind of a mind thinking it out and making those objects? Well,
      not a thing, was there? Not one thing. Anything that you see in your room
      was made by someone. There's no possibility that any of those objects, your
      chairs or your furniture, or the lamp, or the light fixture, none of these
      things could ever have come to pass in billions of years without somebody
      making them.
      >
      >Now the same is true when you look at the part that man did not make. You
      look at a plant. Could that have come into existence by blind chance or
      billions of years,
      >anymore than your chair could have come into existence? Somebody had to
      make it. It had to be a Creator. And when we look at the things that man
      makes, they really
      >aren't complex at all. That chair is really a fairly simple object. Even
      though you or I may not be able to make it, nevertheless, compared, let's
      say, to all of the mysterious and wonderful ways that your fingernail is
      made, or then you can start talking about your finger, and then your arm,
      and then your whole body, such a complex and mysterious and wonderful
      object, that could never have come to pass by chance, anymore than that
      chair could have.
      >
      >So the world itself cries out that there must be a Creator. There must be a
      Creator, just like your room cries out and says that somebody must have made
      these things. They did not come to pass by accident.
      >
      >Now you can look at evolution from another vantage point. The idea of
      evolution is that somewhere back when, lower objects, through blind chance,
      became higher
      >objects, until finally life came into existence. And finally the fish
      became birds, and birds became animals, and animals became monkeys, and
      monkeys became man,
      >and so on, whatever path that the evolutionist wants to go.
      >
      >Now if that was possible, then it would also be possible for you to take a
      lot of little pieces of metal, and wood, and anything else that you could
      lay your hands on, and you could put them in a box. And then you could start
      shaking that box. And if you shook that box long enough, according to the
      theory of evolution, eventually a beautiful typewriter would come out, or
      maybe a wristwatch, or maybe something else would come out that was useful,
      because this is the theory of evolution, that by blind chance certain
      molecules got into right relationship with other molecules, and pretty soon
      things began to develop that were worthwhile.
      >
      >Well, of course, on the face of it that's utterly ridiculous, isn't it?
      That's utterly ridiculous. Fact is, evolution is one of the most impossible
      theories that one could ever imagine. It is so absolutely impossible to
      think that that newborn baby somehow
      >has evolved from something else. That's utterly impossible to contemplate.
      But because men's minds are blinded, and because they absolutely intuitively
      don't want to admit that there is a God, because if there is a God, it means
      there's a Judgment Day. And if there's a Judgment Day, it means they've got
      to answer for their sins. And so they are convinced that there must not be
      a Creator. There has to be evolution.
      >
      >And yet they accept the theory of evolution by blind faith, because there's
      no evidence of it anywhere. There is no evidence. Everything in the creation
      cries out
      >that there's a Creator, there's a Creator, there's a Creator. Everywhere
      you look. the evidence is there that there's a Creator. And yet they cling
      tenaciously to the idea of evolution by the blindest kind of faith, and the
      most tenacious faith, without realizing how blind they really are.
      >
      >Another reason the evolutionist clings to what he clings to is that the
      idea of evolution is that the world has been around for millions and
      millions of years. And if this is really so, then the world ought to
      continue for another several million or billion years. And therefore, if
      there was the slightest possibility that there was a Judgment Day, it's so
      far down the trail that we don't really have to worry about it. And so the
      theory of evolution is very attractive from that standpoint.
      >
      >The theory of evolution holds the idea that that which is less complex
      becomes more complex. Or, to put it in another way, that which is less
      useful can gradually become more useful, because everything began from an
      amoebae and worked up through the ranks, until finally we have man as the
      highest expression of the evolutionary process.
      >>Now the fact is, the scientific law itself indicates that exactly the
      reverse is so, that that which is more complex will gradually deteriorate
      into that which is less. That which is more useful will deteriorate into
      that which is less useful. And we can illustrate this very easily. If you
      have a brand new shining car, and you put it out in a vacant field,
      according to the evolutionary idea (and this almost sounds like a
      caricature, and really it is. But nevertheless it illustrates the point.),
      if you left that car
      >long enough, let's say a few hundred thousand years, pretty soon that car
      would become a more useful object. It would become even more shiny and
      bright and wonderful than when it was first put out in that field. Now we
      know that just exactly the reverse is true.
      >
      >If you put that car out in that field and then come back ten years later,
      it will have rusted, it will have begun to deteriorate all over. And if you
      came back a thousand
      >years later, the odds are that the whole thing would have been completely
      returned to the dust of the earth.
      >

      >So, you see, the theory of evolution is exactly contrary to the laws of
      science themselves. The theory of evolution is not scientific in any sense.
      It is not practical, it is not logical. But it is a requirement for unsaved
      man, who desperately is trying to kid himself' that there is no judgment
      upon his sins, because the theory of evolution is based on a universe that
      does not have a God.
      >
      >And therefore, if there is not God, there need not be hell. There need not
      be a Judgment Day.
      >
      >According to the Bible, the earth is 13,000 years old. As I have tried to
      work out the chronology of Genesis 5 and Genesis 10, I believe that creation
      occurred in
      >the year 11,013 BC and the Flood occurred in the year 4990 BC.
      >
      >Now incidentally the oceans themselves, completely apart from what the
      Bible says, give very mute testimony to the fact that the earth is very
      young. In the oceans we of course have minerals, or elements, ions of
      elements actually would be a proper term to use, which are a product of the
      continental masses. As the rains fall on the continents, there is erosion,
      isn't there? And the dirt and the rock flecks, and so on, are swept
      eventually into the streams. And from the streams they finally find their
      entrance into the ocean.
      >
      >Now if scientists could measure the amount of silicon (which is one of the
      elements that's very common throughout the world) flowing in these ocean
      streams into the, ocean every year, and make an estimate of how many tons of
      silicon went in, and then if they could estimate the amount of silicon that
      actually was in suspension in ocean water, then they could obtain a figure
      as to how long it took for this silicon to
      >come into the ocean water.
      >
      >Now according to the theory of scientists who are talking about the age of
      the earth, the earth is four and a half billion years old, and our present
      oceans are at least 150,000,000 years old. And so you would think that
      therefore elements have been flowing into ocean water for a long, long, long
      time. Well, I actually went to the Earth Science Library at the University
      of California at Berkeley, where there are many,
      >many excellent books written by scientists, who know nothing about the
      Bible and have no relationship to the Bible. These are simply scientific
      books on ocean water.
      >
      >And it is indeed true that scientists have measured and estimated the
      amount of the various elements that are going into ocean solution every
      year. And they have also
      >measured the amount of these same elements, or ions of elements, that are
      in ocean solution. And to their amazement, at least eighteen of the elements
      that are in ocean solution are in such short supply that they would have
      been furnished by less than 1,000 years of continental weathering. Now this
      is exactly what one would expect if the earth, after all, was only very
      young. And you have some very hard droughts, and so you have differential
      erosion, and so some of these elements would be going into ocean solution
      very slowly, whereas others would go more rapidly.
      >
      >Then I thought, "Well, maybe the ocean water is saturated, super-saturated
      by all of these elements, and they've all been going out as sediment on the
      floor of the ocean." But scientists, again, have written that nowhere in the
      world is any ocean water super-saturated. That is, nowhere is there a place
      in ocean water, on an average basis, where conditions prevail that heavy
      precipitation would occur, because the ocean water cannot contain any more
      elements.
      >
      >But then I thought, "Maybe in spite of the fact that there is not a
      supersaturated situation, maybe elements could go out of ocean solution by
      some unknown process,
      >and maybe the sediments on the floor of the ocean would have something to
      say about this." But, again, the scientists have been doing a lot of work
      studying the
      >ocean floor. And they are frankly amazed that vast areas of the ocean floor
      are almost bare of sediments, which is exactly what we would expect with a
      very young
      >earth that's only 10 or 15,000 years of age, and where the erosion has only
      been occurring for this length of time.
      >
      >Now scientists, of course, are puzzled about this. And they now have
      concocted the idea that the floor of the ocean is like a great plate, that
      is slowly on sliding under the continental masses. And as it slides under
      the continental masses, the sediments ale cleaned from it. Now that's
      straight speculation. There's no measurement that they've ever made of the
      floor movement. It is straight guess work because, again, they will not
      accept the Biblical statement that the earth is very young.
      >
      >But, you see, in this ocean water, the oceans are dramatically proving to
      us that the earth is, after all, very young, on the order of l0 or 15,000
      years. And the Biblical statement, I believe, shows us that the world is
      only 13,000 years of age.
      >
      >Thank you for your time and may the Lord richly bless you.
      >
      >-Gary Craig
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------
      >Get free personalized email at http://email.lycos.com
      >
      >
      >___________________________________________________________________________
      ____
      >___________________________________________________________________________
      ____
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.