Creation November 10 2009
How does one explain the existence of transitional fossils in the fossil record when the Bible repeatedly says species are to reproduce “after their own kind”? (Genesis 1:20-25)
Why would God create so many transitional species in the exact order they would have evolved?
Why does the Bible describe light being created before the Sun? (Genesis 1:3 & Genesis 1:16) Why doesn’t this square up with modern astronomy (or common sense)? In any case, how was a “day” measured without a star to orbit?
Why does the Bible describe plants being created before the sun – when science says the opposite? How did the plants photosynthesize? (Genesis 1:11 & Genesis 1:16)
Why does Genesis describe birds being created before land animals – when the fossil record says the opposite? (Genesis 1:21 & Genesis 1:24)
Why does the Revival Fellowship deny a literal interpretation of a worldwide Flood? (Is it contrary to modern geology?) Similarly, why does the Revival Fellowship deny a literal interpretation of the six “days” in the Creation week? (Contrary to modern astronomy?) If the pattern is in place for liberal interpretation when science calls for it – why then interpret creation literally?
Why is evolution treated differently from other scientific advances that are contrary to the Bible?
Why do pastors at the Revival Fellowship endorse scientific findings that disprove salt-damp-apparitions of Mary, debunk the Shroud of Turin and/or document the increasing frequency of earthquakes – yet deny an entire branch of science?
Why are Christian scientists trusted by the Revival Fellowship with the complex stuff (creationism) if they’ve got the simple stuff “wrong” (salvation message)?
Did God create a false fossil record to challenge our faith? Are we being tested more than we can bear? (1 Corinthians 10:13)
If God’s ways are higher than scientists’ – why are they quoted at Evolution vs Creation slide nights at all – regardless of their position?
Why is there no evidence of any creation ‘from nothing’ (Latin ex nihilo) in any branch of science? Why are there vast quantities of evidence of evolution in every branch of modern science?
By what process do we breed varieties of dog or horse today? If artificial section is a ‘plausible version of evolution’ in this context, why isn’t natural selection also plausible?
How do genes ‘know’ whether their ancestors were artificially or naturally selected? E.g. why can a species of plant or animal be manipulated by men but not by nature?
Wouldn’t this process provide a natural benefit to their offspring thereby creating a natural mechanism for the same sort of processes to occur?
Why does the biological or natural explanation make so much more sense than the supernatural?
If evolution was a world-wide conspiracy to discredit a creator-God, wouldn’t evolution be an anomaly in the scientific world? Instead, nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution (PDF) Why?
Why do comparative sequence analyses indicate so much shared DNA? Why would God create species to appear in ‘cousinship’?
Why would an ex nihilo Creator design ‘defunct’ pseudogenes in non-evolving species? Or such useless “junk DNA” within the human genome?
How did Adam name millions and millions of species? (Genesis 2:18-22) If there were fewer species ‘back then’, by which process did the newer ones appear? Again, why isn’t this reflected in the fossil record?
If God did take 13 billion years to create the universe (not 6 literal days) why wouldn’t He also create living creatures during the same length of time?
Or, if God took did take his time to create the universe but only the ‘in-His-own-image’ creation was formed from dust: why did it take so much more time to create the ’simple stuff’ (which is presumable less complex and less valuable) than the most valuable and highly complex organisms such as humans?
Why would God create a species from scratch with an organ like the appendix? Why would God sign-off his masterpiece with an Appendicitis-causing, near-pointless organ?
Why would God design our bodies to lack the ability to synthesize our own vitamin C? Why does our genetic code contain all the information required except one crucial gene which has mutated and “switched off”? Why would a loving God create most of the sequence for synthesizing vitamin C, but not all of it?
Why did God design the eye backwards, upside-down and with a blind spot? Or susceptible to angle-closure glaucoma, macular degeneration and retinal detachment?
Why do human fetuses grow a very thin coat of hair or fur before birth, and then shed it in their 8th month? Why would God add a completely meaningless step in human embryonic development?
Why would God design a koala’s pouch upside-down?
Why do embryonic dolphins have legs?
Why do whales have hind limbs and pelvic girdles?
Why do flightless birds have wings?
Why do ungulates have toes that do not reach the ground?
Why do dolphins have lungs – not gills?
Why do we have a coccyx bone?
Why do some snakes have non-functional hind limbs?
Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest that they had evolved and dispersed from their site of evolution? And why do they nearly always resemble those on the nearest continent or large island?
For example, why would God put lemurs in Madagascar and nowhere else?
Why put platyrrhine monkeys in South America only, and catarrhine monkeeys in Africa and Asia only?
Why no mammals in New Zealand, except bats who would fly there? Why does the flightless Kiwi still have useless wings?
Why would the creator put only marsupials mammals here in Australia, except bats who could fly here and those who could arrive in man-made canoes?
Why would God create ichneumon wasps, that paralyze their victim, then lay eggs inside with the promise of larva gnawing it alive from within? Surely God wouldn’t have thought this creation was ‘good’? (Genesis 1)
Assuming God used evolution as His mode of creation: why would He allow mankind to evolve for millions of years of soulless, brutal existence only to “add in” a soul later, and then show up a few thousand years later to change the whole plan with Jesus?
Editor’s note: this discussion started on a forum that has since been deleted. The following discussion is a response to these 4 questions:
1. Why does Genesis describe light being created before the Sun? This demands an explanation other than ‘God’s ways are higher than our ways’ etc
2. Why does Genesis describe plants being created before the sun, when the common sense (let alone science) says the opposite? For example, how did they photosynthesize?
3. Why does Genesis describe birds being created before land animals, when the fossil record says the opposite?
4. How does one explain the existence of transitional fossils if the Bible says species are to reproduce “after their own kind”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sharing a common ancestor does not necessitate “half-and-halves”. For more about this “Crocoduck” type thinking watch this YouTube video.
This website addresses some common big bang misconceptions. You may also enjoy reading up about the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Finally, the reason you have not seen a “fish grow legs” is primarily due to the slow evolutionary process. These transitional species may interest you: Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega & Panderichthys (especially the whole reproduce “after their own kind” thing).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This is all very interesting. I think trying to use the Bible to prove the existence of God is ultimately futile. Simply because we have observed throughout history that interpreting scripture is entirely subjective. You could justify helping a lady across the street using scripture, and you could also justify bludgeoning that lady to death using scripture. People have used the Bible to do amazing and wonderful things, and they’ve used it to justify war and mass genocide.
My point is, using scripture to prove the existence of God or creation is essentially saying “Look! I have proof that creation is real, why? Because the Bible says so!” “Look!, I have proof that Jesus was the light that helped the plants grow, why? Because the Bible describes Jesus as light!”Can you really define these findings as evidence? Evolution has a number of logical facts and observable evidence which is hard to deny. As the RF member two posts above me has demonstrated, trying to disprove evolution requires arcane rhetoric, acute scientific “postulations” AND a reliance on the word of God. All you need to do to disprove creation is say “well, I don’t believe in the Bible, its full of contradictions, it makes no sense, therefore I can not use it as an evidence resource”. To this, chritians will say “I can prove the Bible is true because I spoke in toniges and I saw my mum healed of a sore back” or something along those lines. Again, is this evidnece of God? I could s
imply talk about the power of the mind, the placebo effect, mass hysteria leading to delusional behaviour etc etc To this, a christian would most likely get offended and inform me of the literal lake of fire that I will be spending all eternity in because my mind failed to allow me to have faith in something that seemed to require a switching off of the mind.
The christian argument is always circular. What makes me laugh is the way christians say “show me evidence, show me evidence!” Surely it should be the other way around “show me evidence of God, show me evidence of creation” Show me evidence of Gods love, Not just love, but Gods love. I’ve seen the biggest athiests do amazing things without Gid, what is the difference?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Sorry have to correct my algebra, I just noticed what I wrote was incorrect.
m = E / c2.
thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello,
I wish to address the issues presented here for the last time as I believe that it is a shame for a true Christian to be caught commenting on a rubbish site such as this. However, unlike the author would claim, I am going to provide tangible discussion and evidence based on the Bible and know evidence to refute the claims made by that individual himself and direct any of those who are confused to the accurate path as it were. Please judge the author as critically as you may judge this post.
You don’t really understand who I am as I have not yet graduated (honours is incorporated into 4th yr). So as you can see he has very little respect for current and potentially future Christians. I have considered Darwinism due to my interest in God and that the aforementioned attempts to discredit that interest. I should point out here that the second paragraph contains evidence of what I like to call “National Socialist Compromise Technique”, the author (Hitler in Germany’s case) attempts to establish common ground in a love for common principles (the glory of Germany for instance) and subsequently attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are dedicated fascists who will fight for “Deutschland Uber Alles!” So to get to the point he is trying to take me away and lead me far from my current fundament. A technique I have all well too much studied via my reading of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” for yr 12 English studies to elucidate this technique.
With regard to my individual postulates of “Review On the Origin of Species, Intra-Species Variation and Creation”, I admit that currently this is an unfinished article analysing the role of p53 in the postulated evolution from uni-cellular to multi-cellular higher organisms. This is in the process of peer review by experts in veterinary and pharmaceutical science. Hence, I will say that I will post this eventually to my facebook friends who have interest in the subject for their own learning to perhaps turn them to God himself. However, with regard to the requirements set out…my postulates simply aim to re-state current ‘evolution’ to ‘intra-species variation’ via disproving the accumulation of mutation in the genetic complement as a result of p53 regulation. Even now this process is demonstrated via studies in higher order multi-cellular organisms in cancer research and may be accessed via google scholar as a search engine, medical journals such as the Lancet, PubMed or New England Journal of Medicine, Hypothesis magazine and several tertiary biology texts that explain p53 function. The concept is currently attributed to the selfish gene theory, which itself is NOT a clear-cut evidence base for evolution and is avoided due to the simple question that arises “how does a bunch of dumb molecules know how to protect itself?”
Nevertheless, I can move on to confidently discredit the author’s “Genesis vs Common Sense” account which to remind you is the component of the discussion that aims to draw us away from our fundament.
Firstly, the process put forward by the author is accurate (refer to Genesis 1). However, as he stated we are unsure of whether these are literal days, or if these are periods of time. As recorded elsewhere in the scripture 2Pe 3:8 But,1161 beloved,27 be not ignorant, of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Hence, the scripture referred here is: Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided, the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Here we see light was created prior to the sun (vs14). However, what the author fails to take into account was that the light came from God. As we also read in scripture:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Here we see the inference that God is light. Hence, the Day and Night are actually references to the creation of TIME. Before and after we have NO concept of the issue in God’s word. We only see reference to creation while the term ‘Day’ is applied. When God was NOT in a period of creation, the period was termed ‘Night”. There are several supporting scriptures on this idea of glory in light and adversity in darkness. Hence, the orbit of the planets is irrelevant as this was not a concept prevalent during the era.
Secondly, with regard to the lack of light (from the sun due to its absence) to shine on pre-created plants would create an unfavourable environment for the photosynthetic requirements of the creation. Here the author again thinks with the natural mind. He fails to take into account that God was present in the creation process. Since God is light, that may provide the actual source for the photosynthetic process. We should also note that this was NOT intended to be a long-term source for photosynthesis, hence the creation of the sun in the very next period of time during the documented creation process. Thus explains the misconception.
Thirdly, I am very sceptical about the fossil record’s credibility. With regard to the opposite suggestion, my first reaction was “who cares?” But then I thought I should try address the issue. The fossil record is based on two main fundaments. The first being the apparently reliable degradation of a carbon isotope that is supposed to be prevalent in all living matter, and secondly the deepness of the discovered samples in the earth’s soil layers. I am critical of this not because of the processes performed, but our inability to verify them. We are unable to view a previously living organism, track its time of death and direct decomposition, and then track that development into the soil matter through a period of a million+ years. However, I prefer to apply validated processes and observe the apparent evolution prior to making postulates. The fossil record is only capable of verifying the last 100 years (since the inception of the concept and calculated degradation from known samples). It would be unwise to assume that this can be extended over an infinite period of time.
With regard to the shift of responsibility back to me (wise move I am a practising Spirit-Filled Christian), I am willing to provide final further thought on these matters. Court cases, as you would know usually do NOT constitute experts in the field, but rather judges and lawyers who would rather spend their time thinking about how to out-manoeuvre their opponent. If you believe the word of politicians and lawyers, you probably aren’t gong to get very far in life (personal opinion). However, with regard to the first article “sourced from wikipaedia” (as taught in tertiary education itself is NOT a reliable source of information) made this statement in opinion on the case (Edwards vs Aguillard):
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.
However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to “protect academic freedom,” that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state’s proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a “preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute.”
N.B. secular may be defined here as “of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations”
So we see here that the action in this case was designed to deliberately avoid making a decision that would favour a religion, which creation does. Thus according to these 3 principles the court followed, the government actually could NOT endorse creationalism as it would refute the first test (since it would approve religion and religious considerations). Hence it can be deemed as biased and poor evidence for actually refuting creation as a science if that were the aim. This rather demonstrates the poor documentation of the First Amendment with regard to actually providing a test that could truly test creation as a science.
I admit my postulates are still in a preliminary stage. But evidence exists (30 articles if you really want them, email me and they are yours).
Your crime in promoting that material is excusable. However I urge you to act to the one who has the authority to make this pardon ASAP. You’re not headed down a good track, sir.
Finally, with respect to the Amalekites, they were a tribe of people who promoted fornication, violence and abuse. In our society we do not even now respect such individuals. Hence, the God of the Bible may be labelled as ‘loving’ or even ‘good’ as he was attempting to eradicate such practices from human behaviour. At the time his agreement with Israel and the world was that the former nation was supposed to over-run Earth with the law of God if they would only obey and listen to that word (Deuteronomy 28). However, if they did the converse (such as you are now), then they would end up exactly like today (not much compared to what they could have been).
Happy reading I will not bother posting again…again if u want to keep my posts remove my name from it as I find it disgusting to be associated with such a site. May God open the eyes of the blind and blind those who think they see:
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have, no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Hi, If It’s True You Can Prove It
I presented 4 simple problems with the Genesis account of creation NONE of which were satisfactorily answered. Instead you attempt to confuse readers by being unnecessarily wordy and bombarding them with esoteric creationist rhetoric. I freely admit I may be wrong, but at least I am open to discussing the merits of BOTH SIDES, unlike you have demonstrated.
Surely my four simple questions have four simple answers?
QUESTION ONE:
Why does Genesis describe light being created before the Sun? (I specifically write, “This demands an explanation other than ‘God’s ways are higher than our ways’ etc”)
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANSWER:
This is a metaphor. Since you are proposing the Genesis account of creation is literal: the question still stands. The Bible needs to LITERALLY add up, mixing fact and allegory doesn’t cut it.
You also suggest that orbiting planets are “not a concept prevalent during the era”. This highlights my point! Why didn’t God inspire the author of Genesis with this commonplace piece of information? Surely this would have added authority to the story. Like you emphasize: the views of the author are no different from the people of that time (e.g. flat earth, fire breathing dragons, pillars holding up the sky, people living to 1000 years old etc).
QUESTION TWO:
Why does Genesis describe plants being created before the sun, when the common sense (let alone science) says the opposite? For example, how did they photosynthesize?
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANSWER:
Different question – same flawed answer. God is not “really” light, the same way the Good Samaritan didn’t “really” exist. You can’t back up a literal interpretation of Genesis (ie fact) with allegory or metaphor (ie analogy).
QUESTION THREE:
Why does Genesis describe birds being created before land animals, when the fossil record says the opposite?
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANSWER:
It’s not an answer! This is a personal opinion that directly opposes modern science. The same academic publications that document your p53 protein take these facts for granted. Provide one example of a textbook in your curriculum that concludes otherwise.
Interestingly enough, your skepticism only seems to take effect when investigating claims that oppose your own. This is intellectually discriminatory and dishonest – especially when you are preaching these ideas. (Let me preempt your response: I am not preaching, I am advocating a balanced look at both sides.)
QUESTION FOUR:
How does one explain the existence of transitional fossils if the Bible says species are to reproduce “after their own kind”?
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANSWER:
Again, this is not an answer. It’s a personal opinion that directly opposes modern science. This linear mode of reproduction negates ANY possibility of ANY intermediate species – WHICH THERE ARE HUNDREDS DOCUMENTED! As I’ve previously stated, how does one explain the Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik etc? Your incomplete, alternative theory raises more questions than it solves; see my site for more.
It’s ironic that a Christian scientist has to be so dishonest to defend the notion of a creator God.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
It is disappointing to hear your unfinished paper disproving evolution is only being reviewed by “brothers in the Lord”.
You justify God’s mass killing(s) by saying, “in our society we do not even now respect such individuals”. I think my point here should be obvious enough.
I am using Wikipedia as a reference tool as I want to remain accessible to people genuinely interested – not bamboozle them, as you are attempting to do.
Contrary to your assertion, the court cases cited *did* consult experts in the field. The lawyers you “wouldn’t trust” cross-examined leading experts in many fields of evolutionary science. The verdict: creation is “not science”. Not only is there ZERO evidence of ex nihilo creation – it is unconstitutional to teach it in American high schools!
Perhaps this discussion group can focus on answering the problems I document as opposed to debunking an established, 150-year-old scientific theory.
All I am suggesting is we take a BALANCED view of things. Things we have always taken at face value as being “true”. Surely you would encourage a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist to thoroughly examine their beliefs? Surely it would be dishonest and frustrating if they only “investigated” claims that reinforced their own views?
Like I’ve said elsewhere, how is one to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) when only ever “researching” one side of the debate?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“wouldn’t of that destoryed something like a atom bomb”
Oh dear? Modern astro-physics has established that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin outwards and that stars and galaxies are therefore diverging away from each other. Space itself is expanding. If E = mc2 then m = sqrt(E / m). So the answer to the question is indeed no, the big bang could potentially be the reverse process of an atomic bomb in which energy is actually converted into matter and not the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Perhaps it should go here if u pulled it:
Hi Jordan…I’m not sure what has got u so anti-RF mate. However, I briefly wish to address some of the issues you present in your site. Firstly being a scientist myself (in the field of pharmaceutical sciences and am currently in the honours program for the BPharm) we are required to have an in-depth knowledge of cellular processes. If we do NOT have this than it would be irrational to treat those cells as we have no understanding of our impacts we illicit on those cells. So I would hope by that reasoning you consider my thought as credible.
I too encourage anyone to investigate the claims made both by so-called high level science and so-called followers of God (including mainstream religion and the RF itself). However, I encourage you to provide credible evidence for any claims postulated. For instance, in your site Jordan you present the idea that there is an absence of Godly influence on the physically naturally occuring processes and that this is due to the natural selective process which you claim is validated. As you postulate, the apparant evidence for such a process is artificial selection. However, if you wish to discuss the genetic mechanisms, you would find natural selection is an impossible process…why?….p53 is a regulatory protein for genome integrity. We understand that proliferation of cancer cells typically occurs when this protein is defective in its function. allowing for the accumulation of mutations that lead to the promotion of growth stimulatory signals over growth inhibitory signals. He
nce the cell divides uncontrollably leading to the inevitable death of the entire organism (or individual of the specie) via irreconcilable nutrient defiency and delivery to cells required for survival. In the presence of p53 we do NOT see the accumulation of mutations (as required for natural selection) due to the apoptosis (programmed cell death) that is initiated in cells in which it is functional 100%. That’s why although we may have mutations present within our cellular systems, we do NOT always develop cancer due to the regulatory role of this protein.
How is this relevant you ask? If evolution is true, than we started out as unicellular systems. This means there were no humans, monkeys, gorillas, or fish…but that we were one cell living species like bacteria or viruses. It should be noted that unicellular systems do NOT contain a p53 regulatory mechanism. Hence they have the capacity to exponentially multiply (like a cancer). At some point when the cells come together to form colonies (the basic organism you need for the evolutionary process), the p53 protein would need to come into being. There is NO evidence for such a process! Also, to give u the advantage say there was that evolution, then the cellular system could NOT gain the genome requirements needed for higher order systems like the human or monkey…why?…look at bacterial colonies and look at humans, their genomes although similar in composition are actually greatly varied. That’s why we have cells that form the heart, lungs, teeth etc etc…look in the mirro
r…the p53 protein in the original colonial system you claimed existed (if u believe in evolution) can actually NOT accumulate the required mutations to get to the human level. Now the question arises about “what happens if p53 wasn’t there and came on the scene later on when we needed improved genome regulation?” I say to that “You would proliferate UNCONTROLLABLY as a cancer does”…so in other words, you would die due to lack of nutrients…?
Hence, I refer to the artifical and natural selective processes as “intra-species variation”. This means that species are capable of reacting to the impacts on their niche environments, but you would know they need an intact genome to do this…where did it come from Jordan? It had to be created…it can’t evolve due to the aforementioned regulation of the genome…
Now to the existence of God. The Bible (which is the most accurate Godly resource you know, that’s why I see the absence of the Quran (is that spelt right?) and the catechism of the catholic church in ur ramblings, that in Mark 16 there is evidence for a Christian and the process of putting God to the test appears in Acts 2:38. If this is NOT so (i.e. repentence, baptism, and holy spirit infilling evidenced with speaking in tongues legitmately), than how did you do it? You didn’t learn it, you didn’t put in on as it were, but you asked God and he “made u speak funny” as he did me and the 2000 or so other people at the RF and it didn’t only stop there, but I claim I was healed of osteoarthritis in my fingers, seen people be provided for from their poverty (i.e. bankrupt) to relative riches (i.e. own several houses), become wise (hehehe), and have peace of mind. Sure people in the RF make mistakes, but if you claim you don’t, well I think u really blew it with that site u poste
d. I’m of the opinion that people vary in their approaches and it takes time like kids going through school to develop a mentality that God can work with. For instance, I too would like to see more miracles and outreaching going on then there currently is, but I can’t be a hypocrite now and not do it myself, right? However, if you stop the nonsense now and turn back to God, why wouldn’t he take u up in his arms and prove himself yet again for the xth number of times. He is a God of great mercy and compassion and I’ll finish by saying to you “name me one (1) person that has gone against God or his words in their lifetime and lived to tell the tale about how he defeated the principles of God?” I hope you don’t become another casulaty to the long list of people who tried (e.g. Goliath, Pharisees, Saducees, Nebuchadneezar, Saul and King Saul, worshippers of Baal, Israel post exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Amalekites, Philistines, Haman, Jezebel, non-Isreali servants of King Darius
of the Medes/Persion Empire etc etc etc)
Happy reading :)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi, thanks for your comment :)
One thing I need to clarify – I am not “anti-RF” or “anti” anything, for that matter. I don’t want to be antagonistic or trouble-making. I am aiming to raise awareness to another way of thinking. I am not making any of my own claims, I am simply asking questions and, in most instances, these questions are referenced by scripture :)
Congratulations on completing your degree. In addition to your studies, I am sure you found it challenging studying Darwinism, given it’s direct opposition to the RF/your beliefs. I completely understand and empathise with the feeling of being told you are wrong by someone who is “educated”; I sat through highschool with my (proverbial) fingers in my ears when evolution was taught. I have since, as you know, reassessed my views on this topic; I hope you can let a little logic sneak into your faith department :)
As much as I am intrigued by your claim to disprove “evolution at the molecular level”, with respect, it is only speculation until it is published (or even peer-reviewed for that matter) it still has a lot more to explain than “solve”. For example, if your theory did “discredit” evolution: it would need to provide a new explanation for island and continental biogeography, geographical distribution, genetics, comparative anatomy, DNA sequencing, embryonic development and the sheer fact that artificial and natural selection are observable facts of life! (We are in agreement here, aren’t we?)
On the origin of the cosmos, the Bible has this to say. There are several inherent problems with this account – especially if the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. [As an aside, whether the the story is literal or metaphoric; whether we accept that the "seven days" are actual periods of 24 hrs or whether they represent much longer periods of time (billions of years) - either way there are problems with the Genesis account.]
Genesis vs Common Sense:
To elaborate, how does this narrow and linear mode of reproduction accommodate and/or explain the vast array of intermediate species that have been documented? Either the fossil record is wrong (or perhaps deliberately created ex nihilo to test our faith?) – or Genesis is; as any reproduction after it’s “own kind” NEGATES any possibility of transitional species. Again, this needs to be explained.
For example, and as previously mentioned, how does Genesis explain the existence of Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega or Panderichthys?
You request “credible evidence for any claims postulated” in reference to evolution. I would like to shift this responsibility back to you, if I may :) The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and painstakingly documented: the “evidence” for ex nihilo creation is zero. I am sure you are aware of several court cases where creationism was ruled “NOT SCIENCE”. (1, 2, 3, 4)
With respect, these need to be answered *before* presenting Jonathan Wells-style p53 red herrings. (Although, this study may interest you) Creationism is only as strong as the Bible’s account (reread that sentence).
Briefly, there are an array of unscientific ideas in the Bible; as I am sure you are aware. Some such examples include: the value of Pi being the integer 3 (I Kings 7:23-26 & 2 Chronicles 4:2-5 ), the Sun (not the Earth) standing still on command (Joshua 10:13), Jesus going ‘up’ to ‘heaven’ in the clouds, talking donkeys/snakes, people walking on water, axe-heads floating etc.
It is obvious the Biblical authors’ ideas were no different than their contemporaries at the time. What is one to possibly conclude? God is testing us? Surely this is more than we can bear?
These PDFs are downloadable on my site; I urge you to read them with an open mind. Think of Paul, urging Timothy, “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”. (2 Timothy 2:15)
Why Evolution is True (PDF)
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
This YouTube video explains some popular misconceptions.
Or, you may find these Christian-penned pro-evolution books interesting: [1, 2, 3, 4].
One final thought, in reference to the Amalekites you mentioned – have you ever actually read the story? What ultimately needs explaining – is how the God in this story still gets labeled “loving” or even “good”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I enjoyed your article on Tongues and have been reading through some of your other thoughts. I am a Christian (ex RF) so I obviously don’t agree with some of your opinions, but I like the fact that you’re thinking through these things.
You asked a question in a comment above that I would like to answer..
“Light was created before the sun and stars. This makes no sense. (In any case, how was a “day” measured without a star to orbit?) This demands an explanation – other than “God’s ways are higher than our ways” etc. ”
I’ve been thinking about this one recently and I think the light referred to here is Jesus. He is referred to as the light elsewhere and he was with God when the world was created (in fact it was actually Jesus who created it “the word who became flesh and dwelt among us”). Let me know what you think. :-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol or ever just thought do what the bible says dude
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Hi Laura :)
It is an interesting idea; Jesus being the light that photosynthesized the plants.
The problem with this suggestion lies in the fact that every reference to God or Jesus being “light” in scripture is strictly allegorical; not literal. Taking the creation story in Genesis literally means the whole account is literal. You can’t pick and choose.
As previously stated, God is not “really” light in the same way the Good Samaritan didn’t “really” exist. You can’t back up a literal interpretation of Genesis (ie fact) with allegory or metaphor (ie analogy).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hi Josh. You are right; the “RF place” has definitely influenced my idea of “God”. But I would venture to suggest that your personal circumstances have equally affected your idea of God. For example, chances are if you were born in India your last post would have been in defense of Krishna – not the Christian God.
You demonstrate the way in which circumstance can easily shape belief by suggesting the child you saw “healed” was somehow related to God. This event, in your mind, immediately validated your idea of God – not the aforementioned Krishna or Allah or Zeus or Baal etc. I would be asking myself why.
How do you arrive at this conclusion with this much accuracy?
How would you explain the myriad of personal experiences in every other religion?
Or in secular society? Are they all “of Satan”? Are they all deluded?
Your options are either to disregard their claim (“they’re lying”) or to say it was your God who healed the other – and surely both parties will be attempting this!
You can’t ignore the problems I present with Christianity just because there are “miracles”. Your concept of “miracles” are only valid if the Christian God exists and given your response, you have taken God’s existence and the Bible’s divine-authorship for granted; as you have failed to address any of the issues raised.
The sub-text of your ‘plea-to-the-miraculous’ seems to be: “who cares about the glaring contradictions, immorality and the anti-scientific nonsense: they are all irrelevant because miracles happen!” This is a little like saying, there are X amount of problems with aliens existing, but sometimes there are unexplained lights in the sky: therefore there are martians!
Finally, I do agree that sometimes “things happen” that appear unexplainable. However, the suggestion that “science of the gaps” points to God being the explanation is absurd. This illogical statement demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of science and utterly fails to differentiate the unexplained and the unexplainable. For the ultimate goal of science is to explain these gaps; in contrast to God, who not only fails to explain the gaps – but relies on them for his very existence!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This site is the work of the devil himself.
It is so sad that you have fallen so far from the truth you once had. It is worrying to see how easily you have ‘jumped ship’ from believing a “false doctrine” to believing in something else with as much eagerness and wholeheartedness as always. The books you have mentioned I have read many times and as usual, it is the same circular reasoning as there always has been. You call it God of the Gaps, I call is science of the gaps. What science does wrong is it views the world with the assumption that EVERYTHING is natural and within our understanding. This worldview has many pitfalls and allows scientists to make bold statements without having any moral or spiritual framework to set themselves within. There are things that science will never be able to understand.
I have literally seen a blind boy healed right in front of me. Mass hysteria you ask? The boy was 4 years old. He did not know what was going on. One minute his eyes were glazed and had a distance in them, the next minute there were pupils and he began touching things as he saw for the first time. What do you call that?
Are you really comfortable dismissing something of that nature?
If so, why?
I can’t answer why others are not healed, but miraculous and wondrous things can and do occur without logical explanations. Is this fair on those who don’t get healed? Perhaps not. But does this detract from hose who do? No.
If you’re OK with dismissing these things then fine. I think this RF place has made you bitter towards God. Approach him in a different manner, you may be surprised at what ‘spiritual’ awakenings you have.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I find this site amusing to read because all of it is true. If this website is anything; it’s PURE GOLD! Just reading these comments from people trying to rationalize the ways of the RF and make it sound reasonable is so funny. WELL DONE! Keep the good work up! :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Dear Josh,
This site cannot be the work of the devil as the devil does not exist. However let us assume for a second that he does, I believe the bible clearly states that in god is all things and therefore the creation, maintanence, the production, the idealogies, cognitvie process behind the posts put forward as well as the conflict itself is a product of god and therefore it is in fact god who is behind the site. That is the site is the work of god.
Don’t worry though god works in mysterious ways, so mysterious not even he/she has any idea what they’re doing. As neither do you apparently because blaming a fictional embodiment of all that is bad for the actions of human beings is indicative of larger systemic problems with our society.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dear If it’s true you can prove it,
You wrote this:
attempts to establish common ground in a love for common principles (the glory of Germany for instance) and subsequently attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are dedicated fascists who will fight for “Deutschland Uber Alles!” So to get to the point he is trying to take me away and lead me far from my current fundament.
Does Christianity not do the same thing? Do you not think the common ground in a love for an intangible omnipresent being and the common principles (the glory of God for instance) and subsequent attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are all dedicated christians who will fight for “Gott über alles!” So to get to the point he (christianity) is trying to take me away and lead me from my current fundament. Ok I think you get the point.
So you claim you are well aware of this “technique” and yet you fall willingly for it with christianity.
I staggers me that you cannot see the direct correlation between your own behaviour and that of Hitler in the way you tenaciously put your belief system above all else and use it to justify your fanatical world view.
In reading your post the words of the great Maynard James Keenan came to mind for me:
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dear Josh,
I don’t believe you when you say you have “literally seen a blind boy healed in front of you”. You are lying to yourself and everyone else when you say. I think you want to believe it happened.
This is just like Benny Hinn claiming he can heal people through the TV screen and then asking for $39.95 for his latest book.
Please don’t be so pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1