Christianity and Evolution

[Abemanden]

Hi, I'm new here and I have some questions I'd like to ask.

I'm in school and we are currently learning about the theory of evolution and such things, and my friends tells me that it contradict the bible and our faith, and I agree. Many of my classmates do believe in the theory of evolution, and some of them are even christians, they say that the theory of evolution are compatible with christianity. What are your opinions?

[Churchwork]

The Bible agrees our body comes from dust (Gen. 2.7) which you can take as being evolution. However, evolution can't explain how evolution came into being so it is a limited theory at best and does not address greater cosmological concerns or the sin problem adequately, so we go to what God gives us as the answer. About six thousand years ago when that body was fully formed, God breathed into that body of pre-Adamic man the breath of life directly creating the spirit of man and when it made contact with the body, the soul life was formed. Study it (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoulbody.htm) and present it to your class!

Make note this very important point. The first living organism could not have come by chance because scientists say there are not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to create even one single protein molecule, and you need at least a thousand molecules to create the simplest life. So God had a direct hand in this just as He did in creating the first Adamic man and woman about six thousand years ago with a spirit of God-consciousness, fully formed soul of self-consciousness and body of world-consciousness.

You are a free-willed human being made in His image; so in your own sovereignty, He gives you the choice and will not force a decision from you upon you. He leaves it up to you to decide. He produced the perfect proof which is His resurrection. He has done all He can do. Now it is up to you.

When you compare religions and world-views, Christianity comes out on top. Using the Minimal Facts Approach, you don't, not at first, need to concern yourself with the inerrancy of the whole Bible, but just focus on what most skeptical scholars agree that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. If you can't find an alternative viable explanation that stands up to the know data points, then realize this is the perfect proof for Jesus being God, salvation is through Him, and by not accepting this salvation for forgiveness of sins and eternal life, then God has no choice but to send you to Hell. He must do the right thing. That is His nature and holiness.

Feel free to print this response out to your classmates and the information in the link, and read the subsequent pages that continue the proof in that link to its necessary conclusion, which is to seek after the dividing of your spirit, soul and body (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm).

[Abemanden]

Hi, thanks for the reply. But how do you know that proteins cannot be produced? Science has found out a lot that we thought to be impossible, or untrue. Like for example that the earth is turning around the sun. I believe in God, and I believe that he created the world 6000 years ago, but why did he create so much "evidence" for scientists to believe the earth was billions of years old, and that humans evolved has from monkey-like creatures? Is he testing us?

[Churchwork]

I don't know any scientists who think the earth is only 6000 years old. What makes you believe that? What's wrong with the body being formed from dust, not from monkeys, but from pre-Adamic man? The scientific evidence we have now, that we didn't have before, tells us it is impossible for elements to turn into life without some Higher Power.

Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning.

The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.


There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25).

Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

[Abemanden]

Actually, I am starting to doubt the earth is 6000 years old.


The scientific evidence we have now, that we didn't have before, tells us it is impossible for elements to turn into life without some Higher Power

There are much speculation and research upon this, and they have not declared it impossible at all.


Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning.

Quite on the contrary, science knows quite a deal of what life is. Although difficult to define, one can list the properties in a satisfying way. Science cannot explain how life arose _yet_. Just because it cannot be explained at the time (and there is a lot of research on this) does not imply it's impossibility.


The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance.
It is you that is saying this, not scientists. Just because they don't have an explanation at this time, doesn't make it impossible. There are research upon this. Just because we didn't know bacterias spread diseases, didn't mean that bacterias didn't exist.


and there is no arguing with mathematics. Yes, I do argue with mathematics, I just don't argue _against_ it :).


There are approximately 1080 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

Again, there is no reason for that the existence of these molecules are based purely on chance events. No scientist are asserting this, and in the research field of abiogenesis they are trying to find which process made the molecules necessary for organic life. And i'd like to know where you have got the the information of your assumptions from.


"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25).
True, given that chance events would be the only possible way of them coming into existence.

Look at a car. It is unreasonable to think that the components and composition of components of this car is purely based upon chance events. This is analogous to John R. Baumgardener's argument, except that we _know_, how the car is built. If we didn't we could apply his argument, and thus conclude that god made the car. I find this ridiculous.


Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance.

Again, this is not necessary true. On the contrary, it is very unlikely to be true.


When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.
Of course natural selection is impossible if no living thing can replicate itself. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the eye is a product of natural selection. I don't see the point of that argument.

[Churchwork]

The point of this whole exercise is to show you that the simplest life can not come into existence from just the elements of the universe alone, but God would had to have brought those molecules together in such a way to form a DNA helix and first single celled organism. Just throwing all these elements together will not produce life. You can take apart all the parts of your toaster oven and shake them all about, and they will never assemble themselves back into a toaster oven. Never!

Don't get me wrong. I am not denying evolution, but telling you that any form of natural selection that does take place is not without the caring hand of God so that it is always just and righteously unfolding.


There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days (http://www.thebereancall.org/5488), pp. 224-25).

[Churchwork]

Since there is no natural independent causation to bring these molecules together to form life, therefore we know unequivocally God did it!


Of course natural selection is impossible if no living thing can replicate itself. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the eye is a product of natural selection. I don't see the point of that argument.
The eye is not a product of natural selection, because it can't replicate itself, just like if somehow molecules could turn into a protein molecule and a thousand of them come together to create life, that life still could not replicate itself. The eye exists because of the replicating ability given by God in creating the first single celled organism supernaturally.

This natural selection is what the Bible calls the body from dust (Gen. 2.7). Man is what He is now made in God's image and that will not change. The eye is as good as it gets as good as God could make.

Man will never be able to create life from elements. That is God's domain alone. Similarly, we know how a car is made, but it requires our hand, just as the first single celled organism required God's hand. Just putting all the elemental table in a box by itself will never create life.

Also, man can create robots, but man can't create souls with self-awareness having feelings, mind and will. Nor can man give robots a spirit of God-consciousness awareness with functions of intuition, communion and conscience. Man can't even resurrect the body of a robot or give the robot a body that senses the world around it with the 5 senses of world-consciousness. It can see but doesn't know it is seeing. It can touch, but doesn't realize it is touching. It can hear, but is not aware of itself hearing. Once it's chip is dead, that very specific chip's memory is gone permanently. Man has no mechanism to restore it. It is lost in the fire. Whereas God can resurrect your spirit, soul and body after you die-bringing you back just as you were in your awareness and specific memories but with a resurrected spiritual physical body in a most youthful and prestine state.

God can do a great many things you will never be able to do. Someone who is not of God will never humble himself to this fact and always try to exalt himself by thinking one day he will be able to figure it out. No! There are some things God keeps to Himself the human race will never fathom or understand. As it should be. God is infinitely greater than us. That's a whole lot!

[idontlikeapples]

The toaster analogy is extremely flawed. Abiogenesis can occur without a supernatural helping hand, just as evolution can.

[Churchwork]

You're missing the point. The toaster analogy is to show irreducibly complex components. Therefore randomness or infinite opportunity to mingle all components will never produce sentient life. Therefore God does form the body from dust (Gen. 2.7) through abiogenesis and evolution, but that is just the body. Man is also spirit and soul. Around six millennia ago, God breathed in His breath of life, directly creating man's spirit (spirit of God-consciousness and made in God's image which will never cease to exist), and when it made contact with the body the soul life was formed. Man was truly tripartite: spirit, soul and body.

[idontlikeapples]

No. You have a clear fundamental mis-understanding of how evolution works. The irreducible complexity argument has been debunked. Randomness is NOT how natural selection works. It is the complete opposite in fact.

[Churchwork]

I didn't say just randomness, I also said there could not be an "infinite opportunity to mingle components with never produce sentient life". Why avoid this part? These very fine elements such as atoms, quarks and strings can never come together to produce sentient life in their irreducible complexity. Therefore, it requires God's divine act. There is not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to form sentient life, therefore the origin of life and for evolution requires the uncreated Creator. Since the lesser can never produce the greater, we can be confident nature can't form sentient life. Evolution can't explain where it comes from, so as a big picture it lacks in this regard.

[idontlikeapples]

I didn't say just randomness, I also said there could not be an "infinite opportunity to mingle components with never produce sentient life". Why avoid this part? These very fine elements such as atoms, quarks and strings can never come together to produce sentient life in their irreducible complexity. Therefore, it requires God's divine act. There is not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to form sentient life, therefore the origin of life and for evolution requires the uncreated Creator. Since the lesser can never produce the greater, we can be confident nature can't form sentient life. Evolution can't explain where it comes from, so as a big picture it lacks in this regard.


5a. Self-declaring. Declaring assertions on a pedestal (pontificating) without an attempt to support them. Don't blow smoke!

1 infraction.

[Churchwork]

Where's the self-declaration? You still can't produce sentient life from nature, so you keep proving the point. How can that which is lesser produce the greater? Show it. Since nature therefore can not always have existed nor start up from nothing, the only option left is the uncreated Creator. Amen.

[Azazel]

Man will never be able to create life from elements. That is God's domain alone. Similarly, we know how a car is made, but it requires our hand, just as the first single celled organism required God's hand. Just putting all the elemental table in a box by itself will never create life.

FALSE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
it is done

[Faithful]

FALSE ALARM

"Putting all the elemental table in a box by itself will never create life" - this is not what they did at all. They created a simulator of the genitic code, artificial life.

"The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like..." not in actuality.

It has "been over-stated."

"A 'synthetic cell', although only its genome is truly synthetic."

These are just machines not able to produce self-consciousness or God-consciousness, nor will they develop to be able to do so. They exhibit not ability to mutate.

They are not technically organisms, because organisms can develop into sentient life.

Still we are unable to produce true organic life from the elements as they admit, it's "synthetic" unless of course you want to grant there was a mind that created the universe to bring about existing life over 13.7 billion years. But then you would be a theist.

Nobody in the article was declaring we have discovered how to turn the elements into replicating organisms. They need a mixer and a shaker, not an intelligent being like humans a priori, otherwise you are conceding an Intelligent Designer, thus you are confessing you are a theist. That's great! Love to hear it.

Their synthetic genetic code lacked the essence of life that can mutate itself into higher beings.

[Balstrome]

You know where you theists fail?

Have you ever tried to explain how your god did the work you claim him to have done.

What method did he use, on what materials which came from where, for how long and what abilities and skills or tools did he use.

These are the questions that science attempts to answer, and usually gets them right, but the theists never ever try and come up with an alternate magical answer that only a god could have done.

The thing is everything that exists in the universe, from the beginning until today, can and has been fully explained by science. And in that huge explanation, has there NEVER been a need to call for the input of a god to do the magic that only a god can do.

If you think I am wrong, then please point out one thing in this universe that only a god could do, it must be something that science can not offer any explanation as to how that thing came about.

[Faithful]

God created out of Himself. Only He knows how this can be done. We can't expect to be able to understand everything compared to an infinitely great God. Science can't answer these questions. What science can do is observe cause and effect relationships in the universe, the universe God brought into being.

Theism is true because since proves it to be true. Since nature can't start up from nothing, nor always have existed because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress were true, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated whom we call God. A mind is needed to create a mind since God also has a mind.

Science proves the resurrection of Jesus since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

The universe would not exist without God having created it; nothing in the universe would exist therefore if God didn't create the big bang. Praise the Lord!