Evolution: Mixing Science and Anti-Science

creation_day_genesisA lot (the vast majority, actually) of people call themselves, creationists, and that’s good. Even though some of these mix bad, scientifically-unsupported ideas with creation science, that’s still better than believing in scientifically impossible materialistic evolution.

But while being partially right is better than being completely wrong, is it really sufficient to hold to an idea or ideas that are scientifically untenable and wrong?

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. This means that I believed God created the universe and everything in it, but I also believed God probably used evolution over billions of years to make the universe (earth, in particular) the way it is today.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

But that was before I realized that evolution is not supported by science.  You see, even if you mix in a little creation science and suppose that God kick-started life in the beginning (materialistic evolutionists have a harder time still, having to explain how life began when science demonstrates that life does not–never, EVER has–come from lifeless materials), you’re still left with the fact that evolution has never been observed taking place either in the lab or in the field. Even after watching countless quickly-reproducing generations of bacteria for decades, in the end, you still have…bacteria.  And that’s also without getting into the materialistic evolutionist’s problems of dealing with matter coming into existence from nothing, disorganized matter (that came into existence from nothing) spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms of matter, etc.

Not only did I not realize that evolution isn’t supported by science, I also didn’t realize that evolution simply doesn’t fit what the Bible says about how the universe came to be.  Read it for yourself. You just can’t make evolution fit the Genesis account without all sorts of wild gyrations and “creative” interpretations of what is stated pretty plainly and simply. Evolution and billions of years also won’t fit the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have to believe one or the other, evolution or the Bible; they can’t both be right.

I also didn’t realize that there are many scientifically supported creation science theories that fit the evidence we see in the world around us–and those theories usually fit the evidence better than materialist and evolutionist theories. Not only is evolution a bad theory, there’s no need to believe in a bad theory for lack of a good one.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

So all the gyrations I used to do, believing in gap theories, day-age theories and all that, were not only completely  unnecessary, but they harmonize with neither the Bible nor the materialistic evolutionist’s account.

In order for a belief to be reliable, it must be logically consistent, and it must conform to observable evidence. If a belief is contradicted by either logic or observable evidence (or both), it cannot be a reliable belief, and should be abandoned.

Materialistic evolution is contradicted by observable science on many levels. Therefore, it cannot be a reliable belief.

Theistic evolution is contradicted by both observable science and by the Bible. Therefore, it, too, cannot be a reliable belief.

Only taking God at his word (i.e. believing he meant what he said) is supported by both observable science and by God’s account of the creation of the universe. Creation science is the only belief that is consistent within its own framework of assumptions, and that is supported by the evidence.

So objective analysis makes it pretty clear where we should look for answers about ourselves and the universe in which we live.



This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • DCM7

    Uh-oh, another “evolution” article. I expect to see the comments any time now along the lines of “All the qualified scientists say it’s true, so it must be true! And you’re an ignorant idiot if you don’t accept that!”

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, evolutionists are usually so insecure about their faith that they feel compelled to rush out to any article that reveals their emperor has no clothes and try to reassure themselves.

      I remember a commercial that got a lot of air time when I was a kid: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

      • DCM7

        Well, it’s to be expected. For the person who refuses to answer to God, pretty much everything depends on their ability to convince themselves that he isn’t real in the first place. Evolutionism may be a pathetically poor attempt to explain creation without the Creator, but it’s the only one they’ve got.
        Or, as someone has said, “A lie is a poor substitute for the truth, but it’s the only one that’s been discovered so far.”

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Indeed.

          You know, as scary as it is to face up to the fact that you’ve been wrong about something, I’ve always found it even more scary to consider ignoring the fact that you’ve been wrong about something. That’s why I no longer believe in evolution.

  • franklinb23

    Actually, there are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution, but that it was a “guided process”.

    I am certainly not a young Earther, but I also do NOT find some core elements of evolution plausible. Micro-evolution? Sure. We see it with bacteria and viruses.

    However, I don’t see how a complex biological system (such as the circulatory system) can exist as a partial construct and sufficiently enable an organism to live long enough to reproduce and pass that genetic material on to another organism. It defies reason to think it could happen.

    This is basically the problem of irreducible complexity, and I’ve yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory explanation from a scientific standpoint. A circulatory system without a heart gets you nothing. You won’t take your first breath, let alone exist to pass this mess on to something else.

    That being said, while creation is complex, it is also odd. It also doesn’t really provide a moral narrative in itself if taken for what it is. Life in all its cycles seems to require a certain amount of predatory behavior as well as death, disease and suffering. You have to look at some transcendent explanation (outside of nature) to explain nature. To me, the “natural law” implies nothing more than nihilism.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, I used to be one of those Christians who believed in evolution…until I realized the things I outlined in the article.

      “Micro-evolution” isn’t evolution at all, certainly not in the sense it is intended by Darwinists/evolutionists/materialists. Small changes within a particular type of organism fall within the overall genetic diversity that, according to creation science, each “kind” (e.g. canines, felines, etc.) was originally created with. That, and the relatively small number of mutations that occur (due to the decay of The Fall) which do not produce NEW genetic information and are almost always negative for the organism. In the end, even countless generations later, a dog is still a dog, a cat is still a cat, etc. (You may end up with Dobermans and poodles, etc. due to genetic manipulation and isolation, but you still just have a variation of a DOG).

      You’re absolutely right about irreducible complexity. There are countless examples of biological functions which have no purpose without the whole (or at least a much greater portion of the whole).

      What many honest people fail to take into account when observing our universe is that it was never intended to operate in the state in which we now find it. In other words, God created it in a perfect state (i.e. without death, without disease, without sin), and because of humanity’s rebellion (humanity was set in authority/dominion over creation), all of creation fell under the curse just like an entire company would suffer along with a CEO who got busted for some major crime. We were never intended to get sick, grow old and die, and animals were originally created as herbivores (as were people). As the Bible puts it:

      20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:20-22)

    • DCM7

      “This is basically the problem of irreducible complexity, and I’ve yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory explanation from a scientific standpoint.”
      It’s always good to hear from someone who has that level of insight and honesty on the subject. If anything, you’ve made an understatement.

  • Eric Collier

    I claim the opposite story. I once believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and the universe was created in 6 days. Then I looked at the evidence, blushed with embarrassment, and, to quote scripture, put away childish things. I know you have statistics on your side-most Americans swallow the whole creationist pill. But statistics don’t decide what’s scientific and what’s mystical twaddle.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      You’re right: numbers and statistics don’t determine what is logical and scientific, and what’s mystical twaddle. It’s a pity more evolutionists don’t seem to realize that that when they preen about all the obtuse scientists who buy the unscientific hypothesis of evolution.

      Me, I blush with embarrassment that I ever put such blind faith in an idea like evolution that is scientifically contradicted on several fronts within the framework of its own assumptions.

    • DCM7

      “I once believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and the universe was created in 6 days. Then I looked at the evidence…”

      I’d be interested to know what “evidence” you looked at, and how thoroughly, honestly and critically you looked at it. That part is missing from your story. And I have a feeling that’s not the only thing that’s missing.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if you had questions about the Bible vs. evolution when you were younger, and got thoroughly inadequate answers from people who were supposedly equipped to defend the former. Or perhaps it wasn’t so much that “evidence” changed your mind, as it was that you had other reasons for turning away and grasped at whatever “evidence” would seem to do the trick.

      I speak as one who has looked at the evidence, as cited and interpreted within both viewpoints, enough to know that said evidence doesn’t remotely begin to support evolutionism, and has to be forcibly manipulated just to appear that it does. When I hear someone say they looked at the “evidence” and thus HAD to accept evolutionism, I know there’s something wrong with that picture.

      • Eric Collier

        You’re right about one thing. Initially
        my initial loss of faith had nothing to do with evolution or science,
        about which I knew little at the time. It was pretty purely about the
        faith itself—beginning with the numerous ways it failed to satisfy
        me personally, for example, the realization that I had never had a
        true “religious experience”. Never felt the “presence”, let
        alone the “closeness” of God. The common and facile response of
        Christians to that problem is that I was failing to put every
        personal resource possible into the effort. How do Christians know
        every doubter’s personal mind, and so many other things, so
        intimately? They think they know it because their faith, the enormous
        personal emotional investment they’ve put into it, demands it.

        Then I started delving into a study of
        the Bible, the history of the Church, the evolution of Christian
        doctrine, and related matters. I found the Bible to be an appalling
        compendium of Bronze-Age myths and Stone-Age mentalities. The
        problems start on page one—six-day creation, Adam and Eve,
        succumbing to the insidious machinations of a talking reptile, and to
        their natural curiosity, for which all mankind, and animalkind, must
        lug around the terrible burden of Original Sin from birth! Why is one
        supposed to take this sort of mystical woo any more seriously than
        the things to be found in Hinduism, Santeria, or Scientology? From
        there it proceeds to pile on the tall tales, delusions, moral
        outrages, scientific errors, and contradictions in drifts.

        True, once one abandons all that sort
        of thing, one is committed to scientific materialism and evolution.
        Evolution is a devilishly complex discipline encompassing many other
        scientific disciplines and I’m a long way from a comprehensive grasp
        of it. That’s one reason it is so much less popular than creationism,
        which any child can grasp. Evidence? Start with the fossil record,
        which is a painstaking accumulation of the remains of creatures, most
        long extinct, starting with the simplest and most proto-typical, up
        through successive strata, clearly becoming more and more like
        creatures familiar to us. Nothing in one strata ever recurs in higher
        strata. It is the record of a massive phylogenic progression from
        one-celled organisms to homo sapiens—or at least it has every
        appearance of that. Could our conclusions from such empirical data be
        wrong? Sure, but you can’t say there is any paucity of evidence. The
        evidence, too, encompasses many different scientific disciplines, and
        it is mountainous.

        What is your alternative? A lot of ancient campfire tales set down in moldy old scrolls and your sad unquestioning faith in them. I may be wrong about all this, but don’t say I have reached my conclusions thoughtlessly.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Not having a true “religious experience” or feeling the presence of God don’t necessarily mean you aren’t putting your full “resources” into it. That could be the case.

          But it could also indicate that you really actually never did become born again. Feelings are untrustworthy, and they come and they go. But to have NEVER felt the presence and closeness of God seems to strongly indicate that there never really was a genuine relationship with your creator to begin with.

          Yes, the Genesis account might seem silly…unless it’s true. The fact that in thousands of years of skeptics trying, not a single historical or scientific error has been found in the Bible’s claims, this speaks incredible volumes for its credibility even on the parts which seem fanciful to our jaded eyes. If you had a friend who had never, ever told you even the slightest lie or exaggeration then suddenly told you something hard to believe because it was outside your experience, I think you would probably give that friend a great deal of benefit of the doubt because of their track record of veracity.

          The account of a talking reptile seems incredible…unless you consider that a being who could create an entire functioning universe out of literally nothing at all could EASILY make a talking snake…especially if that snake was inhabited by the spirit/intelligence a higher being (i.e. Satan).

          The claims of Hinduism, Santeria and Scientology? Not supported by observable science, and they can’t logically or consistently answer the “big questions” of life, certainly not in harmony with the observable evidence.

          Even the religion of evolution (and yes, it IS a religion, because it takes a LOT of faith to believe in something flatly contradicted by science, and it also seeks to answer those “big questions” of life) isn’t supported by observable science and can’t answer the “big questions” in a manner consistent with observable evidence.

          As I pointed out, evolution has never been observed either in the field or in the laboratory. Sure, plenty of hopeful people GUESS that this or that MIGHT be a sign of evolution, but it has never been observed. Even after closely watching countless generations of bacteria reproducing over the past several decades, in the end, at best you have some strains of bacteria with LOST genetic information…and nothing but bacteria in the end.

          Meanwhile, the Genesis account, explains the origin of all the different types of animals, and can explain the fossil record and mass extinction of many organisms (i.e. the global flood, as well as the extreme climate changes that no doubt came during and after that flood).

          If the Bible was filled with historical and scientific errors, it would be easy and even logical to write it off as “campfire stories” and “Bronze Age myths.” But not only has there not been a single scientific or historical error found in the Bible after all these years of skeptics trying, the Bible is proven right again and again, ahead of many scientific and historical studies.

          I highly encourage you to read it again with a fresh set of eyes, with the same kind of benefit of the doubt you’d give to a friend who had never, ever lied to you or been wrong before. You might be surprised at what you’ll find.

          • franklinb23

            What’s wrong with saying that the Bible can make a truth statement without it being historically true? After all, Christ used allegory to make a point. Does the “serpent” in Eden need to be a literal talking snake?

            Evidence seems to show that there is at least one historical discrepancy in Scripture: namely, the date of the nativity. Luke puts it during a census which we know to have occurred after Herod died. Matthew, however, places it at a time when Herod was alive. It’s possible one of them was wrong about the date of the birth of Christ. If so, so what? Does when something happened matter as much as whether it happened at all?

            Hinging your entire system of faith on whether the Bible is true in a certain way seems to be setting oneself up for a crisis of faith when these narrow interpretations reveal flaws.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Like any piece of communication, what is said must be taken contextually to be understood correctly. Yes, the Bible uses allegory in places, symbolism in places, even hyperbole and other devices in places. But the overwhelming majority of the Bible is presented literally and to be taken as fact.

              The Bible refers to the serpent in a literal fashion. It refers to the serpent as a “beast of the field,” i.e. an animal. While it is possible that there actually was a species of talking snake in the Garden (who knows for sure exactly what the situation was in the perfect world God originally created, versus the marred and fallen one we see today?), since the Bible elsewhere points to the role Satan played in the downfall of humanity and creation, it seems more likely that Satan (a powerful being, albeit a created one, in his own right) took control of this serpent and spoke through it.

              Regarding the alleged date discrepancy, based on what I’ve read, it is much more likely a misunderstanding about some of the events that occurred 2,000 years ago, details of which have been lost or near-lost in the mists of history. I’ve read better explanations than this one, but I’m in a hurry and found this one quickly, so I’ll offer it up for consideration: http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

              Yes, if one hinged their entire faith on whether the Bible was, say literal in everything it said would indeed be a sure-fire way to end up dooming one’s faith-and for no good reason, since, as I pointed out in my first paragraph of this comment, everything must be understood CONTEXTUALLY.

              But those parts of the Bible which are clearly contextually intended to be read literally and factually, those MUST be true and accurate…or the doctrine of infallibility of the Bible comes crashing down. And if the Bible can get it wrong on historical or scientific facts, then it is also unreliable about the claims it makes about God, the condition of man, our relationship with God, and how we can make our relationship right with God. In other words, it becomes nothing more than some pretty good advice that may or may not be on the money. What’s more, the Bible makes the claim that it is God’s word, i.e. God’s message to humanity, and since God is too powerful and all-knowing to make factual errors in his message, then either (a) he isn’t infallible (hard to believe, for a being powerful enough to create an entire universe and organize everything in it), or (b) the Bible ISN’T God’s message…in which case, we’re on our own without a reliable testament to tell us about God and how we can be right with him.

              I hope that helps.

            • DCM7

              “What’s wrong with saying that the Bible can make a truth statement without it being historically true?”
              Technically, the Bible can’t be said to be true unless it is historically true. Besides, there isn’t any real reason to believe the Bible isn’t historically true — at any rate, certainly not in the “all of this is fiction” way that people frequently, and baselessly, claim.

              “Does the ‘serpent’ in Eden need to be a literal talking snake?”
              I think it’s reasonable to take the “serpent” as being a manifestation, or even a symbolic description, of Satan. Doing so doesn’t require saying that the Bible isn’t “historically true,” however.

              “Luke puts it during a census which we know to have occurred after Herod died.”
              Your specific example may be a case where “we” thought we “knew” something that turned out to be incorrect. I don’t know in this particular case, but it wouldn’t be the first time. As someone involved in archaeology has said, “The Bible tends to be proven right in the end.”

            • Edward MacGuire

              There is no record of any census in which all people in the Roman world went to their ancestral villages/cities to be counted for taxation purposes. The whole idea is silly. Why would you go to your place of birth for a census? This got into the bible because the old testament said the messiah would come from the city of David and Jesus was born in Nazareth. To make it appear he was born in Bethlehem the authors of the new testament concocted the census story.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                You know there was never a census conducted in this manner because…you were there? In every province and district of the Roman Empire during a number of years spanning before, during and after the time of Christ? Because the Romans left an authoritative record stating “We never conduct a census in this manner?”

                How many times are things conducted and carried out different than the normal way of conducting them? Even in this day and age of easy documentation and highly prolific communication, how often does the United States government do things in different ways from one day to the next, from one place within the country to the nex? How much more so might things be different in an empire spanning three continents, encompassing multiple cultures and languages, and NO instantaneous communication? There’s no possibility one governor might have imposed requirements that some other governors did not impose? There is no possibility that there were several such censuses, and we simply have no record after the collapse of an empire, 2,000 years of war and disease and strife, and so on? Sure.

                How many things about history, especially 2,000 years ago, do we not have a record of? How many things from history, especially 2,000 years ago, do we only have ONE account of that fact? I dare say, quite a few things about which we have no facts whatsoever, and quite a few where there is only ONE account regarding that fact. Yet because this account comes from the Bible (a document with an unparalleled record of veracity), you automatically assume it is wrong…even though there have been a number of facts about which the Bible was the ONLY account…only to have archaeology discover and affirm these facts later on. Somehow, I doubut you’d react the same way if a writing from, say, Tacitus, or Pliny (or even some unknown schmuck who happened to write it down and it was dug up in a Roman trash heap) had been the ONLY known surviving document to make such an assertion.

                Even today, with a person’s place of birth documented on birth certificates, being anchored to one’s place of birth remains important to government identification (if you’ve never experienced having to give your POB, ask anyone who has been in the military and has put it on a million forms). How much more so 2,000 years ago before universal birth certificates, and before the use of surnames were universal and often people were known as “Joe of Alexandria” or “Mike of Athens”?

                Quite simply, the author of the Bible had no reason whatsoever to concoct an untrue story about a census because they “had to” get Jesus born in Nazareth. If they needed to make something up, they could have easily have made up a story that few people would have known about and very few people could have refuted (e.g. Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth to visit family, Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth on business, etc.).

                The fact that this event was tied to specific historical events (that a large number of people of that era would have known about, and have been able to refute, had it been a lie, makes the account even more credible.

                If it’s noteworthy the lengths some people will go to in order to believe something, it’s even more amazing the lengths some people will go to in order NOT to believe something.

          • Eric Collier

            Yes, I agree that I never had those feelings to begin with—-nor did I claim to. That’s the point. I never had them. Some people are prone to such experiences, and some aren’t. I’m actually very grateful that I am not prone to them because, in my opinion, they are wishful-thinking fantasies.

            “Yes the account in Genesis might seem silly…unless it’s true.” What a weird statement. Same could be said for every fairy tale, pagan myth & UFO abduction whopper told around the campfire. How do you know your tales are true? Because you read them in the Bible, which you believe to be the revealed/inerrant word of God. If you address no
            other question, Bob, try to address that one: why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? And try to do it without throwing bible verses at me, which means nothing.

            What would you look for in the way of evolution happening in the field or the laboratory? A fish turning into an amphibian? A cat turning into a dog? Evolution does occur in the field and the laboratory, even if it is what you call “micro-evolution”. But if organisms can change at all over the short time-spans that can be experienced and observed by mortal people, why can’t major changes occur over millions or billions of years? Because you don’t believe the earth (or the universe) is that old! But why not? Because your holy book implies it is only thousands of years old, and your holy book doesn’t
            lie because it is written or inspired by God. Why do you believe that? Because “it has been proven true again & again”. Can you give me an example of something in the Bible that has been proven true? I don’t mean some place that actually existed, like Jericho, or some historical figure like Nebuchadnezzar. I mean a miraculous event. Perhaps you believe the Resurrection has been proven true. Can
            you elaborate on why?

            (Incidentally, Genesis nowhere says that “the serpent” was Satan. It was able to deceive A & E not because it was Satan, but because “the serpent was the subtlest of the beasts of the field”. The story would be just as silly and fanciful if it WAS Satan, but because Christians believe it was Satan just goes to show how fancifully they can mis-interpret what the Bible actually says. And what it actually says is flaky enough without re-interpretation.)

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              I don’t think a “feeling” is an absolute determiner of whether someone has been born again or not (it isn’t about feelings, after all). But the experience (of having one’s eyes opened to the truth, of being forgiven for all of one’s wrongs, of being BORN AGAIN) is so transcendently significant, most of us experience a profound emotional response.

              I can understand why you might find my statement about the Genesis account to be weird. But that is true of any truth that was previously undiscovered. It was probably considered “weird” when lightning was discovered to be nothing more than a physical phenomenon. It was probably considered “weird” when people first began to hear that a balloon full of gas could carry people high into the air. It was probably considered “weird” when people first began to hear of a contraption made of wood and fiber could fly. There have been any number of surprising truths I (and I’m sure you, and virtually every person on earth) have encountered that I had not previously considered before. Until I saw proof of them, they often seemed rather silly and sometimes quite literally incredible. Yet the fact that they had previously been outside my experience and my grasp of the proof did not make them any less true.

              How do I know the Bible is true? Through a variety of evidences and rationales. For one thing, despite millenia of skeptics looking for flaws, the Bible has never been found to contain a single historical, scientific or moral error. No other written work comes within 1,000 light years of that kind of accuracy. So not only does the Bible have a tremendous record of veracity (so great that many of its claims are LATER confirmed by hithertofore undiscovered scientific principles and archaeological finds), that same record of unparalleled accuracy points strongly to a divine source.

              The fact that there are so many verifiable claims (i.e. things we can see, touch and know with empirical certainty) the Bible makes, makes the yet-unverified (by extra-Biblical means) claims believable, especially when you consider that if Genesis 1:1 is true (i.e. there really is a being powerful enough to create the universe), then every claim that comes after that is gravy. Why should a being powerful enough to create an entire universe and fill it with galaxies, stars, planets and organisms somehow be unable to make a “talking snake” or the movement of the earth around the sun stand still for a few hours, or divide a body of water temporarily, or any of the other “silly” or “weird” or otherwise “incredible” claims of the Bible? That’s like saying a guy who could build a car from scratch wouldn’t be able to open its door or paint it a different color.

              Regarding proof of evolution, yes, we’d need to see one organism turning into a completely different (i.e. not within the genetic variation inherent in that type of organism) type of organism.

              Could an organism, over vast amounts of time, slowly transition into a completely different type through mutations, etc? I suppose it’s theoretically possible, but until this process has been observed and recorded to have taken place, any certainty that it can is premature. Is it possible that pigs could fly? Well, maybe (after all, we’re still discovering new organisms on this planet), but until it is actually observed, it’s just conjecture. So you see, evolutionists need at least as much faith to believe in their claims as the Christian does-more, in fact, because for naturalistic evolution to have occurred, the first life form would have had to spontaneously transitioned from lifeless materials to a life form, and that’s something that after all these years, science still tells us DOESN’T happen. So not only is the first critical step of evolution not supported scientifically, it is actually contradicted by science.

              Regarding proofs that the Bible is true, I was initially going to cite any one of several archaeological or scientific claims that the Bible made centuries ahead of empirical, extra-Biblical verification, but you said you weren’t interested in that. As for the many miracles, rationally speaking, how WOULD you establish empirical proof of a transitory event that happened thousands of years ago and the physical proof of that event has long since turned to dust and beyond? There’s just no practical way to do that (which is convenient for those predisposed NOT to believe in the first place). But as I alluded to earlier, if so many of the concrete historical and scientific claims of the Bible have stood the test of time (with an unparalleled record of veracity), does it not stand to reason that other claims (even ones that defy the laws of nature…performed by the person who CREATED those laws of nature) are likely to be true, also? For example, in a court of law, a witness who has been found to tell lies is quickly dismissed as unreliable, while a witness with no proof of having told falsehoods or inaccuracies is deemed to be an acceptable source of testimony, even though physical proof of what they say may simply not exist.

              Why do I believe the Resurrection is true? In addition to the things I’ve already stated here, consider the large number of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (after having been beaten to a pulp, nailed to a cross, then stabbed in the side by a Roman soldier to ensure he was really dead) after his death. Consider also that if someone was trying to “fake it” in the Biblical record, why would they have made the claim that the first people to see the resurrected Jesus were two women (at a time when society didn’t consider women to be reliable witnesses)? Because the Bible wasn’t written with a mind to the prejudices of a given era, but was written simply to give a factual account of that which happened, regardless of whether the details of those events were convenient to the claim or not. But there were literally hundreds of witnesses to his resurrection, with the those portions of the Bible written within the lifetime of many of them, so such claims could have easily been refuted if they were not true. But they weren’t refuted. Consider also that the apostles were willing to go to their brutal deaths for their beliefs. Yes, there are religious fanatics of some religions today who are willing to blow themselves up for their god…but they are acting out of faith (or an unverified belief) where the apostles would have KNOWN it if their claims were a lie…yet they went to their deaths because they could not deny the reality they had witnessed of a risen Jesus.

              Additionally, I also know the profound difference that the teachings of Jesus have made in my very being since I put my faith in his claims. I was once a foul-mouthed, drunken, promiscuous hell-raiser…and after coming to the conclusion that the truth-claims of the Bible were true, my heart, mind and life literally did a 180, and I now abhor what I once embraced,and embrace what I once thought was “silly.”

              Finally, yes, the Bible does point to Satan as being behind the serpent. Genesis alone does not, but like many things, the Bible needs to be read in its entirety to learn everything that can be learned about something. For example:

              And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

              And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years (Revelation 20:2)

              Though the details are not full enough to be sure of it, I suspect Satan took control of the serpent (cunning, though it may have been, even without Satan’s influence) and used it to lead Adam and Even into doubting that God had their best interest in mind.

              I hope this helps.

            • DCM7

              “Evolution does occur in the field and the laboratory, even if it is what you call ‘micro-evolution’. But if organisms can change at all over the short time-spans that can be experienced and observed by mortal people, why can’t major changes occur over millions or billions of years?”
              You’ve unwittingly pointed to one of the most fatal problems with the whole evolutionary scenario.
              Yes, organisms can change in short time-spans. No one disputes that, and no one has to. The problem is that the nature of these changes never lines up with what it would take for big-picture evolution to be true. To put it very simply, the changes always either remove genetic information, or they rearrange the genetic information that already exists; they NEVER create new genetic information. (That’s why, for example, dogs can diversify into different breeds of dogs — almost always less fit for survival than their ancestors were — but they can never become anything besides dogs.) In fact, there is no known natural mechanism by which genetic information could possibly be created.
              This fact alone puts evolutionism completely out of the realm of science and completely into the realm of fantasy. Nor is it by any means the only such fact.
              And, yes, I’ve looked into the various ways that evolutionists try to get around this fact. I’ve seen the excuses, the fallacies, the logic games, the bait-and-switch, the supporting hypotheses that don’t play out in real life. But the fact remains, and the desire of evolutionists to somehow explain it away will never make it go away.

        • DCM7

          “I found the Bible to be an appalling compendium of Bronze-Age myths and Stone-Age mentalities.”
          You did not “find” the Bible to be any such thing. What you “found” was things that would lead you to believe such a thing, because that’s what you wanted to “find.”
          Such a statement, like others in your post, amounts to little more than childish name-calling. That doesn’t inspire confidence as to your rationality on the subject.
          “Evidence? Start with the fossil record…”

          You make the usual cheap assumption that you’re talking to people who haven’t lifted a finger to actually look into the evidence. The fact is, as much as you’d like to believe otherwise, we *have* looked at the evidence, and we’ve looked at it from both viewpoints.

        • AJCastellitto

          I found your first few paragraphs much more compelling than the rest….. For me its about Jesus as healer, savior and deliverer….. Not works, religion or perfect experience. We can do no good neither can our fellow Christian outside the Spirit and Grace of God

  • AC700

    The probability that Santa Claus can get every child a gift under the tree in one night is better than the multitude of things needed to occur for molecules to man evolution to be even minutely plausable