Robert Newman
Banned
hi Robert!
i've read the posts on this thread and i do believe you are a serious and involved person when it comes to the subject of evolution/ creation or creation/evolution. but i can't help being amazed at how you seem to be sure of what you're saying. to be honest i always had problems with certainty. since you're into science, i'm sure you know it. in many domains it's called the principle of precaution (at least that's how we call it in french). what i mean is that since there is still room for speculation in both sides on this topic, how would we be sure if fish was created as such, or if my super-grandfather was an ape? those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general. and again i respect your erudition concerning the topic.
there were times when people KNEW what science was. later they were shown that they did not. thanks there are people with great stamina like Copernic, Galileo.
Hi there Sunwaiter,
You correctly ask how I can be sure of these things. Well, let me explain this.
Firstly (as I've already said) belief in creation IS a matter of faith, isn't it ? Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove creation. And I've said so from the very start.
But the 'theory of evolution' (so-called) is said to be science. It's taught in schools and colleges worldwide. In fact, its exponents say they have lots of hard evidence. Don't they ? Does it require any sort of faith to be an evolutionist ? Let's ask this simple question. Does it ? No, the evolutionist says he doesn't believe evolution is a matter of faith. He tells us he is simply being honest - with the facts of science. Doesn't he ?
So let's leave faith to one side. We either have it or we don't. Let's just see what the facts of science actually say. Whether they support the theory of evolution or if they do not. THAT's the issue.
You might believe there is no scientific alternative to evolution theory except creationism. But that is wrong, for the reasons I've just given above. In fact, the discoveries of science not only show 'evolution' is wrong but they also suggest something that CAN be proved. They suggest that the very same species we see in nature today are the SAME species which have existed throughout the entire history of life here on Earth. They are not different species. They are the very SAME species.
This view is, of course, able to be checked. The same as the views of evolutionists. Isn't it ?
So, I repeat, whether we have faith or not, let's see if species are really immutable, permanent, in nature or if they have 'evolved' from other species.
You say you 'always have problems with certainty'. Why ? Why do you have problems with certainty. Surely there are much greater problems with uncertainty. No ?
I am certain that the heart pumps blood around the body. I am so certain of it that I guarantee the heart will pump blood around the body for as long as man studies the body. Don't you agree ? Are YOU certain of that fact. I am certain that water is wet. I am certain that we cannot live without water. I am certain that science presupposes order in the universe, and not chaos. In fact, science is founded on certainty - the certainty that order exists and that it can be studied. I am certain that geology as a science exists because I see evidence for order. I am certain that science exists because it is the discovery of and the study of order in the finite realm. I am certain of it. And so are all scientists.
Why do you say then that you 'always have problems with certainty' ? There are countless examples of things which are clear, unambiguous and certain. Aren't there ?
It's simply that 'evolutionists' don't know what they are talking about. They invent fantastic, absurd, scenarios and they claim to have lots of 'evidence'. No sooner do we examine this evidence, scientifically, than it collapses in a heap and is proved to be false. So why do we teach this nonsense ?
Nature teaches us that 'species' exist. Doesn't it ? But when we ask an evolutionist for a definition of species he will look at his watch and then excuse himself. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about. But he tells you that 'species have evolved'. From 'other species'. In this game it's obvious that they can use anything to 'prove' their circular argument.
But the laws of nature say evolution has NOT happened. It says (and you can see it in the LAWS of heredity, for example) that a 'species' is really a living creature which belongs to a set, a group, of other living creatures known today as a 'genus'. Doesn't it ? A species is a very specific and not a vague thing. And a single species can exist in countless different forms. The same species. Isn't that true. Isn't it true that, for example, a particular species of flower can exist in many varieties ? Yet all these varieties are of one and the very same species. We should not confuse varieties with different species, should we ? But the evolutionist does so all the time.
You say 'those who say the behold the truth terrify me in general'.
Then, in that case, those who say the earth revolves around the sun terrify you also. Those who say that oxgen is an element, as is copper, and as is gold, terrify you also. For they are sure of it.
If evolution theory is taught in our schools shouldn't we have the right to know what is true and what is not true ? Shouldn't it be exposed as a fraud if, in fact, there are many powerful arguments against it ?
Regards