Evolution, Creationism, Young Earth or Old Earth: What Does the Evidence Support Best ? 0114

Evolution, Creationism, Young Earth or Old Earth: What Does the Evidence Support Best ?

With a debate between Ken Ham the Biblical science guy and Bill Nye the evolutionary science guy coming up in February, I wanted to set the stage and stir the pot.

RC Sproul’s systematic theology series takes a more philosophical and logical take on creation. His argument states that there are 3 possible positions: 1) universe always existed, 2) a non eternal universe created by an eternal creator , 3) the universe created itself.
Something that doesn’t exist cannot create something that does. Something that currently exists must have been created.

Therefore, an eternal creator created a non eternal universe – non eternal in the sense that the universe had a beginning.

There are 2 audiences: those who profess christian faith and those who don’t. I generated 2 sets of arguments, 1 for each group. Feel free to publicly or privately message me.

Why should atheist and agnostics believe in creation:
1) Intelligent design requires a designer.
2) entropy doesn’t support simple to complex life.
3) death is chemistry triumphing over biology
4) where did matter come from?
5) the uniqueness & unlikeliness of the earth.
6) simple to complex never observed in nature.
7) vast distances do not require vast time based on speed of light.
8) similar genetrics point to similar design not evolution. Tree of evolution isn’t nor can be proven.
9) exponential population growth cannot support evolutionary timelines.
10) extrapolation presumes trends not provable.
11)millions of years not possible with most dating methods.
12) life comes only from Life.
13 ) fossils require rapid death under water in areas now above sea level
14) “transitional” fossils subject to speculation or falsification by dishonorable scientists who are led to lie for political or financial reasons.
15) dna mutations are a loss of information (evidence of devolution or entropic decay, not evolution or more complexity)
16) similar genetic code in animals and humans doesn’t require evolution, its just evidence of a common creator.
17) Genetic mutations cannot explain the “evolution” of more complex structures such as human eye ball or woodpecker head. Such structures would require simultaneous unsupportable or unsustainable intermediate forms.
18) radiometric dating presumes a constant decay rate and 100% original proportion, correlated to an expected age. They presume too much. Such dating often results in unstable, unreliable, or clearly wrong dating such as newer dates under older strata, young wood encased by “ancient” rock or ancient dates for known ( observed) recent events.

Why should should christians believe in creation?

1) Biblical faith
2)The Bible claims to be and is inspired , infallible and true. By faith, Christians believe this. If any part of it is false, none of it can be trusted. God is God or He doesn’t exist. If you accept unprovable theories of men as truth that contradicts unprovable Biblical claims, you believe fallible men over the infallible God. Only a fool would try to accept both.
3) No Adam, no Jesus. No universal original sin, no possible savior. If no Biblical Adam, Jesus wasn’t sinless because He would have lied about Adam, creation, and His divinity. The Bible is true or its deceptive. Its no small thing to accept the lie of evolution, it undermines actual truth.
4) No death before the fall. Eternal life has no death, no end. Death is a consequence of the fall. If God created us to be eternal, why would plants and animals have to die prior to the fall? In any case , the Bible record didn’t include any death before the fall but did say that everything in creation was cursed because of the fall.
5) Genealogy testifies to young earth. Adam to Noah 11 generations, Noah’s son Shem to Abram 11 generations, each man named and aged in years when they fathered each son. The same terms of day, month, and year used in creation, the flood account, and genealogies. Measurements of time become meaningless ( and therefore unnecessary ) if they can mean different things. But God included them, so they have meaning -a day is a day.
6) Testimony of a perfect God who was there at creation requires less faith than testimony of fallible men who weren’t there.
7) if Genesis isn’t reliable, how can Jesus be, since Jesus believed/testified to Genesis. Therefore Genesis is reliable!
8) Bible explains races, languages, and fossil record.
9) Carbon dating unable to date millions of years ( carbon 14 half life limits its use to thousands, not millions of years and is unreliable) and radio isotope testing is a unreliable method and accuracy corrupted/corruptible.
10) Most people (including other scientist and students) accept conclusions of scientist without checking their presumptions, actual and complete evidence and logic that is flawed or contrived.
11) Evolution requires a unbiblical world view that presumes there is no God, rejects or ignores supernatural causes, and replaces unobservable events, with unprovable theories, justified by random chance, extended timelines, and improbable and flawed logic.
12) The perceived vastness of space and complexity of dna and sub molecular design is proof of God, not proof of unbiblical-ly long timeframes. Something that appears a million light years away, doesn’t prove its a million years old. If God created everything, it is no big leap of faith to believe that He created light of these distant objects instantaneously in transit during the 4th day of creation.
13) if God doesn’t really exist, evolution is still impossible. But then, how did we get here?

So what fits best?

Entropy, complex intelligent design, frailty and lack of intermediate design and undisputed biblical claims and genealogy refute evolution. It takes far more faith to believe in evolution [complex from simple (not to mention where the simple matter came from) due only to random chance and enough time to make it seem possible, however unlikely]. The fact that the Earth can support life (the privileged planet) despite a delicate balance of forces, conditions, and matter present and necessary that naturally would diverge ( not converge ) requires a creator. Add to that, the Bible claims to be true and trustworthy. I will trust the Bible, until it is proven wrong. It has never changed or has been proven wrong. Although I believe it impossible, when that happens, i will be forced to throw all of it away. However, since it is true, inspired by God who does exist, probability that this will occur is near the probability that evolution is true ( ie as near zero as you can get) ! What is amazing to me is how some Christians are so easily persuaded by fallible men who weren’t there, using flawed arguments over the account of a infallible God who was there, who provided irrefutable testimony.

The Bible says what it says and was not intended by God or the inspired authors to be taken as allegory when it is written as literal. Parts of the Bible are literal and parts are allegory, symbolic, etc. The Bible loses its authority and power when we “interpret” it to fit our needs. Jesus took Bible history as literal, As did the other writers of old and new. Here is an article for you.

Answers in Genesis provides many scientific papers that explain how the evidence supports creation far easier than evolution can.

Classical “scientists” were Christians seeing knowledge about God and His creation. The Bible claims divine inspiration From God. God is the perfect scientist because only His knowledge is perfect! The Biblical history is true in Jesus’ day and in ours because its source (God) was true. Scientific belief is ever changing because its source ( man) is imperfect.

The Bible says God created everything in 6 days ( with a morning and evening). Later, God used the same word day to date the age of men. Why would God change the measuring rod of time without telling us? That would be lying.

If you take God at His word, how He did it is of lesser importance than what He did. But what He did say is 100% true. So the axioms or assumptions a scientist begins with will validate or invalidate their conclusions. Only with Biblically valid assumptions can valid conclusions be found. If you truly believe in the God of the Bible, the Bible must be your original axiom. Evolution’s axiom of natural ( ie godless) origins violated biblical truth.
Do you doubt divine inspiration/ revelation?

Until the 19th century AD, a day meant a day, a year a year , and the earth was thousands of years old.

Millions of years was only added and necessary for gullible people to accept the lie of evolution. If you reject evolution, you have no reason to think that creation took longer than the Bible said it did.

The Bible says what it says. There is unbiblical interpretations on all sides used to justify conflicting opinions.
The same is true in science. Fossils are imprints (snap shots of the Past). We weren’t there. Scientist speculate to fill in knowledge or data gaps . If they cannot recreate the process nor were there to observe it, it remains an unprovable theory. Assumptions such as carbon dating and stellar distances, light speed and observations are like fossils – snapshots of the past. Time and rates are not necessarily the same now as it was in the past or at creation.

All this means it is UNPROVABLE. Ie it takes faith. I have faith in the God of the Bible. I fully accept repeatable and observable science. I reject theories that violate what God said happened, based on God integrity and trustworthiness!

Old earth creationism says the Bible is wrong. I choose to hold on to Biblical truth until IT IS PROVEN WRONG!

For those who do not believe in the God revealed in the Bible, I challenge you to weigh both sides and ask yourself, which is more possible – God or evolution. Faith comes by Hearing the Word of God and by seeing the evidence God provides in His Creation!

God Bless


Checkout Related post



~ by az4christ on January 4, 2014.

19 Responses to “Evolution, Creationism, Young Earth or Old Earth: What Does the Evidence Support Best ? 0114”

  1. […] Recommended Article FROM https://az4christ.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/1140/ […]

  2. It is clear to me from your one-sided comments that you have either not studied science or have chosen to ignore what was taught. I trust that Mr Nye will expose the fact that the teachings of Answers in Genesis are NOT scientific but are wishful thinking and make-believe.

    • Can you be specific, or do you just want me to take your opinions as truth, too?

      • Your list was too long to address in detail. But your claim about entropy (second law of thermodynamics) preventing greater complexity is rejected even by most young Earth creationists. I discussed within my review at Amazon.com of ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution’.
        Ashley Haworth-Roberts

      • So show me an example of anything that naturally gain complexity without intelligent design! Our universe naturally goes from order to disorder. It takes energy to create work. Our DNA required a designer.

      • There is a wealth of evidence for species becoming more complex over geological time. I suggest you look it up online. I’m not going to do the work for you – sorry.
        I repeat – look at my Amazon.com review for the scientific evidence that entropy does NOT preclude evolutionary changes in an open system such as planet Earth which is heated by the sun.
        I predict, based on similar encounters online, that you are actually AFRAID to examine the available scientific evidence. Creationist websites such as AiG are highly biased and they do not submit their claims for independent peer review by fellow scientists.

      • Saying it can happen is a theory
        Observing it is necessary.
        You trust “scientists ” paid to prove the naturally impossible.

  3. Just to add that my comment regarding the 2nd Law is within the ‘Overview’ section at the start of my Amazon.com review here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R20EDOWA9ET8XI

    • Mutation of a gene doesn’t evolution make. Micro evolution isn’t macro evolution. Variation in kind is part of God’s design ( micro). Inter- kind evolution doesn’t happen.

      God Bless

      • What about all the evolution (including of creatures now extinct apparently) in 4,300 years after ‘Noah’s Flood’ that YECs of necessity believe in?

        Yes, I trust scientists more than preachers.

      • What evolution? Please be specific! Zero macroevolution has occurred in nature.

        I trust God, His Word, and His Spirit.
        Only preachers who are Biblical are Godly!

      • So where did matter come from?
        Where did life Come from ?
        Do you really believe that DNA designed itself ?
        Even frankenstein needed a body!
        Self Generation? Really?!

      • Thanks so much for guiding me to you review of this book. Your review is pointless. But other reviews are worth consideration.

        Just in case you missed it, here is one you must consider, if you actually are seeking knowledge and not as i suspect just a godless clueless atheist trying to escape God’s judgement by choosing deception over truth.

        I believe in The God of the Bible and trust His salvation promise to me. If i’m wrong, we share the same fate. On the other hand, if God exists and the Bible is true, i will not share your fate, but enjoy heaven and God’s love, instead. Evolution is impossible and against observable science, even if God doesn’t exist. But the Bible remains undesputed and true, So you better ask yourself, is evolution the deception you really want to die on?

        5.0 out of 5 stars This book is brilliant, a must read, July 3, 2011
        By John C. Heininger “johnhei” (Australia) – See all my reviews
        (REAL NAME)

        Having read Sarfati’s book with great care, yet again,after reading all the anti-Sarfati anti creationist subjectively based pro evolutionary GENERATIZATIONS,which turn out to be utterly false (as I will progressively show in future posts), I can assure readers that this book is absolutely brilliant, and no negative review I have read on this posting is objectively sustainable. Sarfati demolishes the entire Dawkins Darwinian paradigm, showing it to be an utter hoax that collapses like a pack of card when exposed to the light of reality. Don’t believe the anti-creationist rants on this excellent book. Read it yourself. As Israeli Prime Minister Begin once stated, “The dogs bark but the caravan goes on.”, as will Sarfati’s excellent book. Because it is based on reality, rather than evolutionary scientism.

        Dawkin’s book, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH has shown why naturalistic SCIENTISM BY ASSUMPTIONS is the flavour of our era, and is now that darling of the scientific establishment. Gone are the days when everything in science was regarded as “tentative” and “not necessarily the final word.” The scientific world is now on the impossible illusionary quest to define ALL REALITY using “limited” human insights and “finite” reason, to arrive at the “Theory of Everything”.

        The scientific world used solid verifiable science, provided by the principle of Methodological naturalism and the empirical scientific method. This foundation would serve as the foundation to launch the quest to discover the “Theory of Everything”, and thus determine ultimate nature of ultimate reality. A quest that would be founded on unverifiable “assumptions”,”inferences” and “explanations”as to what supposedly happen in the unobserved past, and what existence was supposedly all about. With hypothetical theories and theoretical “mind experiments” providing the new foundation of this naturalistic ideology. None of which can ever be scientifically verified by the scientific method.

        The underlying delusion was that “limited” human insights and “finite” scientific knowledge, would enable modern science to define the ultimate nature of ultimate reality. With the scientific world fully embracing a naturalistic Theory of Everything. Which the scientific world believed would answer the ultimate questions of life and existence.

        This delusion is founded on an unrealistic and unachievable quest! For it is impossible to achieve a “Theory of Everything” while ever unresolved mysteries and issues still exist, as they do, and invariably will. Said philosopher Jean Paul Sarte, “A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd.” As is the godless naturalistic worldview of raw materialism.

        Sarfati has tackled this gradual shift from verifiable and testable science, to unverifiable naturalistic ideology. In this book he takes on naturalism’s leading advocate and evangelists, Richard Dawkins. Cheered on by the established scientific order. Which has fully embraced the illusion that science can, and will, define ALL REALITY solely by natural events and material processes alone.

        Jonathan Sarfati’s book, THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH exposes the highly subjective ASSUMPTIONS underlying Dawkins’ “philosophical naturalism” and his “inference” based Darwinism. He presents the alternative theistic worldview, and offers a different interpretation of dating data.

        He, also exposes the “spin” and “bait-and switch” tactics of Dawkins. As can be seen in his ploy to change the status on Darwinian theory, as we shall shortly see.

        Dawkins’ “spin” starts with the opening statements in his first chapter – Only a Theory. His propaganda begins by creating the illusion that evolution is an undisputed fact, and that believing in evolution will not undermine peoples religion or faith. To this end he cleverly parades a large entourage of well known Bishops and Church leaders, including the Pope, who have uncritically embraced evolution. With Dawkins subsequently revealing that these [useful idiots] are driving the hearse to their own funeral. Making it blatantly clear, both in this book and others, including The God Delusion, that his real agenda is the destruction of the both faith and religion.

        In this book Dawkins emphasizes the strategic importance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Namely, to show that the living world would now be explained without reference or regard to God or the supernatural. Meaning, God was no longer needed, or wanted, to explain the origin and diversity of life and species. Demonstrating that with the growing acceptance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, the Biblical view of origins by special creation would became less credible, with the Bible itself increasingly regarded as myth or legend.

        Darwin well understood the far-reaching consequences of his theory. As did his many supporters, then and now. Darwin’s “God banishing” theory had immediate appeal to a sizable portion of the public who had no interest in God or religion, or were openly hostile to theism, Christianity, and the ecclesiastical establishment. Over time this would generate a vast global network of activists including atheists, agnostics, socialists, communists, leftist liberals, Unitarians, Humanists and others intent on establishing a new “godless” order. This oceanic swell of support for Darwinism would develop into a global tsunami that would sweep across the world, to flood the Christian landscape, and flush away the theistic Christian worldview.

        Darwin’s ‘bulldog’ Thomas Huxley saw the ecclesiastical establishment as the enemy of evolution and science. And his strategy was to “white ant” the ecclesiastical spirit and clericalism. Stated Huxley, “It is with this intent that I have subordinated any reasonable or unreasonable ambition for scientific fame, which I may have permitted myself to entertain, to other ends; to the popularization of science; to the development and organization of scientific education; to the endless series of battles and skirmishes over evolution; and to untiring opposition to that ecclesiastical spirit, that clericalism, which in England, as everywhere else, and to whatever denomination it may belong, is the deadly enemy of science.” – Autobiography (1890) Collected Essays I

        Every effort was made to have Darwinism entrenched in the public mindset, primarily in science, and also within the church itself. To this end Huxley, actively lobbied to have Darwin entombed in Westminster Abby, along with other notables, honored by both Church and state.

        The evolutionary “Trojan Horse” – specifically devised to make God and the supernatural both unnecessary and irrelevant – would naively be taken into the church. Ultimately embraced by large segments of the established church, including the Pope, Bishops, priests, clergy, and many professing Christians. All conscripted to drive the hearse to their own funeral. For Darwin’s buried presence under Westminster Abby was symbolic. His theory of evolution would stealthily and steadily erode the Abby’s theistic foundations. For, as show by atheist Denial Dennett, Darwinism would be the acid that would slowly erode Christian theology and culture, and dissolve foundational Biblical doctrine. As Darwinian’s and Dawkins intend.

        Dawkins naturally goes on to berate evolutionary minded Church leaders and pastors for hanging on to any residue of Biblical doctrine or foundational beliefs. States Dawkins, ” To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged they will protest that they intended a purely ‘symbolic’ meaning, perhaps something to do with ‘original sin’, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that. How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically?” (p.8)

        Dawkins then progressively spells out in great detail precisely why Darwin’s theory of “natural selection”, and the godless evolutionary continuum, eliminates the need for both God and religion. Thus revealing that Darwinism is truly the “Trojan Horse” built to penetrate the Christian fortress and city of God. While providing the foundation for rise and entrenchment of godless humanism and atheism. With Dawkins, the noted atheist and Humanist of the Year, leading the charge. Fully supported by fellow atheists, and the Humanist inspired and spawned global network, the NCSE included.

        Indeed, since the time of Darwin, evolutionary minded activists, comprising a vast global network of humanists, atheists, and countless evolutionary minded scientists, have furiously worked for over 150 years to entrench Darwinism as an established fact in mainstream science (until proved wrong). And secure sole and exclusive status for Darwinism in science education, to the exclusion of all else, particularly special creation by God. All were assured that Darwinism will never be proved wrong, as “explanations” and endless “assumptions” are invented to cover any and every contingency, making Darwinism unfalsifiable.

        It would be of interest to readers that not only did this global activist network specifically target politics and education, but would wage war with theism and Christianity through the courts. Starting in the U.S. with the Clarence Darrow orchestrated scopes trial, to get evolution into education. Building up to the U. S. Supreme Court challenge by foremost atheist Madelyn Murray OHair, to secure separation of Church and State. With the ACLU then using this separation to legally eradicate Christianity and Creationist views from science and public education.

        As noted by Dr. Paul Kengor, “Significantly, Darrow was an early ACLU member, founded in 1920 by fellow atheist, Roger Baldwin, who, at that point, was a pro-Soviet communist. As I wrote here previously, a huge component of the ACLU’s initial work was defending American communists. ACLU members and Communist Party members flocked to one another, with atheism a common bond.”

        The principle objective of all Dawkins’ books, including this Magnum Opus, has been to kick God and religion out of science, education, culture, and his pantheistic/atheist universe, especially the Biblical minded clergy and creationists. To this end, Dawkins book has a single minded objective. To show that the origin and formation of all living creatures is a “closed” evolutionary continuum. For Dawkins knows that for Darwin’s theory to work, it is essential that he prove that the evolutionary process is continual and unbroken. Only then could Dawkins account for the emergence of the vast verity of complex life-forms from the first simple form of life. Anything less would suggest that God had created the fundamental kinds, from which the vast variation of related species had emerged, just as the Bible stated.

        Dawkins thus opens with a salvo attacking those opposed to Darwinism, together with a solid rebuke of theistic evolutionists who still hold on to any residue of Biblical thinking.

        The next section of the first chapter looks at the nature of “theory”, as it relates to evolution, and is titled:


        In this segment Dawkins again engages in verbal “spin” to change the ground rules. And thus misrepresents the true character of evolutionary theory. (P.9) He starts by defining the two Oxford definitions of what “Theory” means, which is worth repeating.

        Theory. Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

        Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

        Dawkins then uses his ever repeated “bait and switch” tactic. States Dawkins, “Obviously the two meanings are quite different from one another. And the short answer to my question about the theory of evolution is that the scientists are using Sense I. while the creationists are – perhaps mischievously, perhaps sincerely – opting for Sense 2.”. His “short answer” simply switches the category of evolutionary theory, without justification, from the “unobserved” theoretical sense 2, to that of verifiable “observable and experimental” science sense 1, relating to theories that can be tested, repeated and publicly verified by the Empirical & Scientific Method.

        The sense 1 definition of “Theory” specifically states that it relates to “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by OBSERVATION or EXPERIMENT,. . . something KNOWN or OBSERVED”. The defining words being “established by observation or experiment.” and “know and observed.”

        Never in all of recorded history has anyone ever “observed” any life-form evolve into a life-form of a different kind. As Dawkins himself confessed. Said Dawkins, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while its happening.” (Interview, December 2004, PBS Network) Dawkins thus observed evolution without observing it happening. Makes perfect sense?

        This reality means that evolutionary theory is not verifiable by the empirical scientific method, and for good reason. Darwin’s Theory of evolution is based on “unobserved” and “unrepeatable” past events believed to have happened over a vast span of time, ensuring there could never be any observers. This reality makes it impossible for Darwin’s evolutionary theory to ever be established by the scientific method, as the theory of evolution cannot be tested, repeated, by experiment or by observation. Ensuring that Darwinism would forever remain an “unverifiable” hypothesis, and never anything more.

        This firmly placed Darwin’s Theory of Evolution firmly in Theory, Sense 2: “A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.”

        Darwinism appeals entirely to “explanatory power”. And thus amounts to ‘science’ by “explanations”, rather that experiment or observation. Based entirely on subjective presuppositions, interpretations, inferences, conjecture, predictions, and sheer speculation. Darwinism ultimately represents a vast multitude of “assumptions”, with no possible way of ever scientifically “establishing” any of them. As there is no way of ever establishing whether evolution happened one way, and not another way, or even whether it happened at all.

        The rest of the chapter one comprises lengthy verbal semantics and padding that goes nowhere. Dawkins second chapter is titled:


        The purpose of this chapter is to soften up the reader for the “giant leap of faith” needed to accept the Darwinian continuum, the continual unbroken evolution of life from the simple to the complex. This chapter could well be called the “perhaps” chapter – “perhaps minds were cowered”; “perhaps it was religious indoctrination”; “perhaps it was the daunting complexity of living organisms”.

        Similar “qualifiers” appear throughout the whole chapter, and throughout the whole book: probably, may, possibly, given, according to, view, thought experiment, etc. etc. Such qualifies appear everywhere in propaganda relating to Darwinism, and are the pervading characteristic of negative reviews on this site, and the suggested links. Exposing the highly speculative nature of evolutionary theory.

        Like Darwin, Dawkins argues throughout the book that there was no limit or boundary to variations, even though breeders and horticulturalists have universally found otherwise, Darwin included. For Darwin too was involved in breeding pigeons, and well knew that pigeons only produced a vast variety of other pigeons. Never anything else. No breeder or horticulturalists had ever seen one life-form evolve into a life-form of a different kind. not ever. All they had ever observed was the emergence of a vast variety of sub-species with reproduction limits, even with hybrids.

        Darwin argued that while it could not happen in domestic breeding, it could happen over time in the wild. This giant leap of “blind faith” had no verifiable basis, then or now, in spite of the highly imaginative mental gymnastics engaged in by Dawkins and his many disciples.

        So, Dawkins tries yet another ploy. SCULPTING THE GENE POOL. He attempts to undermine breeding limits by asserting that the wild cabbage is an “affront to essentialism and the immutability of species.” Says Dawkins, “The wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea, is an undistinguished plant, vaguely like the weedy version of a domestic cabbage.” Stating that horticulturists have selectively bred a vide variety of offshoots from this plant. But this too is “spin”, as horticulturists well know there IS a limit to what can be produced from the genetic rich pool of this wild plant. As is the case for the wild wolf, and every other life-form. A fact known to every breeder and horticulturist, and to Dawkins.

        Thus, in spite of 22 pages of verbal semantics and mental gymnastics this chapter proves nothing, and goes nowhere. His endless rambling about essentialism and Mendel’s Law and related discoveries, offers nothing in support of the “evolutionary continuum” from the simple to the complex. We simply discover what everyone already knows. That dogs produce a wide variety of other dogs; that cows produce a wide variety of other cows, and that cabbages produce a variety of other cabbages. In short, dog in, dog out; cow in cow out; cabbage in, cabbage out.

        Along with the origin of life and other unexplained phenomena, this reality remains one of the major problems for Darwinism, to this very day. While everyone has observed “micro” variation occurring in all forms of life, no one has ever observed a “macro” change taking place. One that produces a new and different life forms. None-the-less, Dawkins book is a gigantic effort prove otherwise. And he fully describes the attempts made by scientists (Richard Lenski etc) in the laboratory to show that this could happen, as confirmation of Darwinism. (p. 116)

        It turns out that this ‘unnatural’ selective experimentation is yet another variation within the same kind of life-form. Lenski puts lots of bacteria into the category mix and watches what happens over 20 years. And what does Lenski finally discover……wait for it …..bacteria, of another variety. Showing that Bacteria have the pre-existing capacity to metabolized, to ensure that they survive “as bacteria”, and not change into something different. Lenski showed that bacteria can develop the ability to metabolize citrate, and elsewhere even plastic, in order to survive “as Bacteria”. Thus, we observe the “preservation” of a particular category, rather than bacteria evolving into something different.

        All of which further establishes the Biblical view that everything was created and reproduces “after its kind.” A breeders know the limits of kinds, however defined. In short, bacteria in, bacteria out; pigeon in, pigeon out. finch in, finch out; fruit fly in, fruit fly out. End of story!

        However, Dawkins goes to great length to blur the limits of reproduction and cross breeding, intent on creating the illusion that there is no “natural” boundary or limits to variation. Even thought breeders know that in artificial selection there are cross-breeding limits, even with hybrids. Dawkins even admits that Darwin used a similar ploy in On The Origin of Species to “soften up” his audience. Fostering a mindset that would cause them to accept natural selection, and the “unobservable” evolutionary continuum. Says Dawkins, “He was softening his readers up to take delivery of his own great insight, the power of natural selection.” (p.42)

        This approach works to get the vast majority of his readers on side. All Dawkins has to do now is present the “incontrovertible” evolutionary “assumptions” that prove the “evolution is a fact”, until proved wrong.

        So, it’s time I shared with you a some of the “spin” techniques Dawkins and other Darwinian fundamentalist use to sell the goods. Its nice to know how the hard core Darwinians go about it, as you can learn from the experts, particularly Dawkins.

        So now its time to enter the Darwinian Wonderland to see how Darwinian fundamentalists play the dating “assumptions” game to promote their godless naturalistic scientism.


        How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth!

        ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don’t have any solid facts to prove your “assumptions”. As noted by New Scientist in The Dating Game, “Figuring out the age of the universe involves a SERIES OF ASSUMPTIONS about its geometry, expansion rate and composition.” [Emphasis made]. Knowing exactly how and when the universe was formed involves even more assumptions. As acknowledged by Kiri Bielby in The Coreshine Effect, “Astronomers know very little about the beginning of star life. . . . So when it comes to the birth of a star astronomers have been left in the dark – literally” (Cosmos Issue 36 December 2010 p.16)

        Of course, everyone and his dog knows that the universe is 13.57 Billion years old, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years – and, by extension, the solar system is not much older. These dating ASSUMPTIONS are really ‘rock solid’, and send the Bible “literalists” into a spin, placing them into an impossible position to defend. As unverifiable “assumptions” can be dreamed up to cover any and every situation. Which is why “explanations” of “unobserved” past events, using unverifiable “assumptions”, works so well.

        How the dating “assumptions” game is done:

        The key dating element is “assumptions”, and the key word is “time”. Which you will “assume” has been uniform and constant throughout all “time”.

        The Tools:

        First get your bag of unverifiable naturalistic presuppositions, inferences, predictions, explanations, conjecture, and speculations out. Then get your Uniformitarian “assumptions” clock machine ready.

        Now its dating “assumptions” time.

        THE METHOD: First make some preliminary “assumptions” to exclude anything other than “natural” causes. As these will destroy your entire dating assumptions and methods.

        1. Assume that God does not exist, and never created anything.
        2. Assume that God was never involved at any time, in any way.
        3. Assume it’s “impossible” for God to create a fully functional universe.
        4. Assume that the natural material world is all that exists, or can exist.
        5. Assume that the universe made itself, and naturally formed everything.
        6. Assume that “science alone” can determine the true nature of ultimate reality

        Now, add your Uniformitarian cosmological “time” assumptions.

        7. Assume that “time” has been UNIFORMILY CONSTANT throughout all of time.
        8. Assume that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not relate to time.
        9. Assume that Relativistic Time Dilation plays no part at any time, at any place.
        10. Assume that Cosmological Relativity never affected “time” in any way.
        11. Assume that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including

        Now, add your “unalterable” Uniformitarian geology clock time “assumptions”.

        12. Choose only a naturalistic clock.
        13. Assume only slow processes involved throughout all of time.
        14. Assume initial conditions, set time at zero.
        15. Assume that there was no major factors or catastrophe/s involved.
        16. Assume nothing else has ever interfered with clock.
        17. Assume the clock was always same gradual speed
        18. Assume that you know everything about what happened in the past.
        19. Assume that there is nothing you don’t know about how things age.
        20. Assume your uniformitarian dating methods and results are confirmed.
        21. Interpret all data to conform to deep time.
        22 Ensure the same “assumptions” apply to all your dating methods.

        The ASSUMPTION Dating Game Outcome:

        You can now ASSUME that it all happened by natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God.

        And ASSUME that God is no longer needed to account for the universe or anything else, as it all happened naturalistically.

        Thus, you can ASSUME that the universe and earth are “really” old.

        More important, you can now ASSUME that you know exactly how the universe and everything else formed, including all living creatures, and even the Hawaiian Islands. Even though you have no way of ever knowing whether it happened that way, and not some another way. (unless you have access to a time machine.)

        These “assumptions”, together with multitude of unverifiable “assumptions” underlying philosophical NATURALISM and DARWINISM, will enable you to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics and verbal semantics to show that the “inferences” underlying your many “assumption” are fully supported by all the other “unverifiable assumptions”, including all those above.


        You will need to know that if any of the above assumptions are wrong – your dead.

        As you CANNOT prove that God does not exist or was not involved – YOUR DEAD!

        Your dead empirically because. . .

        Unobserved and unrepeatable past events can never be verified by the scientific method. Thus, your hypothetical naturalistic “assumptions” will always be based on unverifiable “inferences”, as there is no possible way of ever establishing that “unobserved” past events happened a particular way, and no other way.

        Your dead philosophically because. . .

        The delusion of NATURALISM is founded on an unrealistic and unachievable quest! As it is impossible to achieve a Theory of Everything while ever unresolved mysteries and issues still exist, as they do, and invariably will. Said philosopher Jean Paul Sarte, “A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd.”

        Thus, it is impossible for you to ever establish that life and existence is solely the result of natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God and other transcendent realities. As your insights will always be “limited” by “finite” human knowledge and understanding. Meaning, that you will never ever be in a position to know, that you really know, that you really know. In which case all your naturalistic assumptions have no rational or scientific foundation.

        Your dead scientifically because. . .

        Foundational scientific realities reveal that the universe had to be optimally formed and fine tuned from the very “beginning”, or we wouldn’t be here.

        Scientists universally acknowledge that the universe is moving from an initial state of minimum entropy, to a final state of maximum entropy. Meaning, that the universe must have “started out” in a state of maximum information, order and usable energy.

        States noted physicist Paul Davies, “Mystery surrounds how order has emerged out of chaos in the universe. The present orderly structures and complex activity has somehow arisen from the featureless ferment of the big bang, in apparent defiance of the second law of thermodynamics which requires that order decreases, rather than increases, with time. The resolution of the paradox may concern the peculiar properties of gravity.”

        Davies is not disputing the FACT that the universe started out this way, but rather the “mystery” and “paradox” as to how it could ever happen naturalistically. His appeal to gravity goes nowhere, as gravity is merely a “distortion” of space-time, and thus could not have ordered or organized anything.

        There is also the matter of the fine-tuning of the cosmos. Many fundamental traits, forces, and physical constants–like the charge of the electron or the strength of gravity–make it appear as if everything about the physical state of the universe were tailor-made for life. Some researchers call this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that” but rather “just right” for life.

        Scientists universally acknowledge that sub-atomic particles were precisely balanced at the very “beginning”, otherwise there would be no universe, and no you.

        Scientists likewise universally acknowledge that all the cosmological constants were precisely tuned from the very “beginning”, otherwise there would be no universe, and no you.

        Scientist further universally acknowledge that the most unique molecule in the universe, the water molecule, was also there from the very “beginning”.

        The WATER MOLECULE not only has unique properties that allows it to exist as a gas, liquid or solid within a very short temperature range, but also has a unique arrangement of hydrogen atoms, displaced by 120 degrees, that allows water to move up all plant life against gravity, without which no like could ever exist.

        As revealed by New Scientist, “Water’s quantum weirdness makes life possible.” States New Scientist, “WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. Water is one of the planet’s weirdest liquids, and many of its most bizarre features make it life-giving. For example, its higher density as a liquid than as a solid means ice floats on water, allowing fish to survive under partially frozen rivers and lakes. And unlike many liquids, it takes a lot of heat to warm water up even a little, a quality that allows mammals to regulate their body temperature.” Concludes New Scientist, ” We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list.” (25 October 2011 by Lisa Grossman. Magazine issue 2835.)

        All of which points to the reality that the universe and life started out in an optimum entropy state. For if the foundational structure of the universe was fully formed and fully functional from the “beginning”, as it appears, it is probable that everything else started out in fully formed and functional state, as well.

        Which is precisely why everything ever observed in natural world and in the fossil record is also fully formed and functional, as Stephen J Gould well noted.

        Which is why 40% of Americans have trouble taking Darwin’s, and Dawkins, evolutionary Wonderland seriously. Darwinism not only represents naturalistic SCIENTISM BY “ASSUMPTIONS”, but also amounts to believing the unbelievable, and thinking the unthinkable!

        Dawkins Darwinian Wonderland is rightfully seen as a magical place where an “effect “(the Chicken) is not only “far greater” than the cause (the amoeba), but also a mystical world where everything happens in reverse. Where an effect is also “opposite” to the cause.

        It’s a Darwinian Peter Pan Netherlands where: Existence comes from non existence; Chaos produces order; Explosive disorder, produces superbly integrated cosmic order; Ever increasing entropy, produces ever decreasing entropy; Natural laws appear without a lawmaker; Mathematical regularity and predictability appears without a cosmic mathematician; Atomic and cosmic fine-tuning happens without cosmic tuner; life comes from non-life; information from no information; vastly complex DNA coding, without a coder; genetic messages, without an author; consciousness from non-consciousness; mind comes from mindless matter; the subjective from the purely objective, and personal from the impersonal.

        It’s an imaginary place where mindless, unfeeling, uncaring, violent “cosmic events”, combine with mindless mutations and unfeeling, uncaring, amoral, and ruthless “natural selection” to produce loving caring, altruistic, human beings, with a conscience. Together with an innate sense of what is right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust; holy and unholy.

        The Darwinian Wonderland

        Msy God save you and bless you!

  4. Clearly it is a waste of time attempting to educate people like you.

    • I’ve dug as you asked me to, and I provided detail that refute evolution, Dawkins, and you. You, it seems, are the unteachable one.
      But you are right about one thing, our dialog is probably a waste of time.

      • It is a waste of time because you simply dismissed my review as ‘pointless’ and would not consider amending your comments about entropy. You also assume that I am motivated by atheism rather than by scientific realities. And I am very familiar with John Heininger’s review – as you will see from the comments underneath it. Though he was somewhat verbose (like me) his only real ‘argument’ was that because evolution cannot be viewed directly therefore it ‘must’ be false (he also put words in capital letters too often).

        I used to be an evangelical Christian here in the UK by the way – but after a breakdown 20 years later I concluded that God never showed up. But I am not prepared to elaborate further about that as that would be off topic.

        Had I come across YEC apologetics at the time I would have rejected them. There are SOME scientific arguments that Christians are entitled to use ie apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life on Earth, or the complexity of much of the life we see. But arguing that the universe is just 6,000 years old, much as some Christians desire that to be the case, cannot honestly be done (unless you honestly believe God has planted masses of highly conflicting evidence for billions of years as some kind of bizarre test of orthodoxy for today’s church). Which is why some creationists accept an old universe and Earth, despite that sitting ill with Genesis and genealogies.

        As I hope Bill Nye will demonstrate using logic and scientific explanations for those watching his debate with Ken Ham.

        Thank you for not censoring my comments.

      • Thanks for the reply. If 6000 years is your issue, consider this. Time has been shown not to be constant but relative. I have other posts that question what we know and presume. 6000 years for us may be vastly different elsewhere. Vast distances do not necessarily require vast time frames. The flaws in assumptions can cause us to reach false conclusions. My point is that the bible claims to be true and hasn’t been proven wrong. Only the Bible account of creation addresses issues that explain our existence. All other human attempts are seriously flawed. No one can prove that what the Bible claims isn’t true. We weren’t there. I pray that God will lead you to rethink your position and ask God for understanding, repentance, and salvation. Let God be your Lord and Savior, so He won’t have to be Your Judge.

      • Einsteinian relativity – which I am fairly familiar with ie its to do with whether you are on a very fast moving body or not – cannot be used to argue for a 6,000 year old universe or Earth or both. I’m no cosmologist but people like Jason Lisle make ‘special pleadings’ eg about the speed of light being much ‘faster’ in the past. I consider such apologetics completely dishonest and unscientific (and unlikely to win scientists to Christ though some former scientists have embraced such AFTER conversion for purely theological reasons).

        Not trying to have the last word but sorry I cannot let that one go.

      • So you believe there is repeatable testable undeniable proof that the Biblical account is false? I maintain that no one does. That faith in only natural causes isn’t scientific but rebellious. Since it cannot be scientifically proven, it remains an implausible theory to deny the undeniable – creation proves the existence of a creator. My position also takes faith. But my faithful position is supported by our observable world. Order to disorder, sinless to sinful. Only God can explain the big bang, entropy, and salvation. Jesus means “He who saves His people from their sins”. Evolution doesn’t explain where matter and energy came from or how complex creation can naturally evolve in a universe that is deteriorating. Rocks don’t defy gravity without help. People don’t choose salvation either with help. Jesus Helped me. I pray He will Help you. He is our only hope.

        God Bless

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: