I'm Having A Hard Time Believing In God.

[Mustard Seed 740]

Thanks for replying. There are many things I can say to continue the discussion, however your comment on evolution really bothered me.

Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions.

More details have emerged about the anatomy of Tiktaalik, the "fishopod" that bridges the gap in evolutionary history between swimming fish and four-legged land-dwelling animals. The new findings bolster its position as a key transition or "missing link" fossil.

Keep in mind, POPULATIONS evolve, NOT individuals. That is a huge misunderstanding that creationists seem unwilling to learn. There is no such thing as Cameron's crockoduck. It never could exist, and the theory of evolution never said it would. Nor is there a fronkey, or any other such nonsense. I suggest you read these books (Why Evolution is True and The Greatest Show on Earth) to get an idea of what evolution actually states as opposed to the gross caricature you seem to have in your head.

National Geographic published this article back in Feb, 2009. It does a nice job listing some of the better documented transitions we have (although not the only 7, just some of the ones that would be impossible to ignore without willful mental gymnastics). They give you Tiktaalik (like I did), Archaeopteryx, Amphistium, Ambulocetus, Homo Ergaster, Hyracotherium/Eohippus, and Thrinaxodon. And here is an even longer list of transitional fossils. Or if you prefer, the wikipedia list.

Michael Shermer tackles this assertion straight on.

1. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record, anywhere, including and especially humans. The whole fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. What about Neanderthals? These are all diseased skeletons-arthritis, rickets, etc., that create the bowed legs, brow ridge, and larger skeletal structure. Homo erectus, and Australopithecus, are just apes.

Creationists like to quote Darwin's famous passage in the Origin of Species in which he asks: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." One answer is that there are plenty of examples of transitional forms that have been discovered since Darwin's time. Just look in any paleontology text. A second answer was provided in 1972 by Eldredge and Gould when they demonstrated that gaps in the fossil record do not indicate missing data of slow and stately change; rather, it is evidence of rapid and episodic change. Using Mayr's "allopatric speciation," where small and unstable "founder" populations are isolated at the periphery of the larger populations's range, they show that the relatively rapid change in this smaller gene pool creates new species but leaves behind few, if any, fossils. The process of fossilization is rare and infrequent anyway. It is almost nonexistent during these times of rapid speciation. A lack of fossils is evidence for rapid change, not missing evidence for gradual evolution.

Scientific American adds this in an article debunking 15 unoriginal and poorly thought out false assertions by creationists:

1. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

And because I also have this at my fingertips, here is Calilasseia's reply to this oft debunked canard.

(14) The "no transitional forms" canard.

In order to deal with this one, I have the following to ask. Namely:

(1) Have you ever studied comparative anatomy in detail, at a proper, accredited academic institution?

(2) Do you understand rigorously what is meant by "species"?

(3) Do you understand even the basics of inheritance and population genetics?

(4) Do you understand the basics of the workings of meiosis?

If you cannot answer "yes" to all four of the above, then you are in no position to erect this canard. And, canard it is, as anyone with a proper understanding of the dynamic nature of species will readily understand, a topic I have posted at length on in the past. Indeed, you only have to ask yourself the following question, "Am I identical to either of my parents?" in order to alight quickly upon why this canard IS a canard. Your own family photo album supplies you with the answer here. YOU are a "transitional form" between your parents and your offspring, should you have any offspring.

If one chooses the long ages concept, then that one may as well cast out Genesis entirely as being false. Science does not offer any other possibilities.



It's funny how not one transitional form has yet been discovered to make evolution a scientific fact.



Yeah.....God spoke, and BANG, everything was there. Science has discovered that there is such a thing as infinite velocity.



Like I said before, reason and logic alone, before going to science, show that Genesis cannot be true in the context of evolution. Without Genesis, the rest of the Bible unravels and become meaningless.



Science can't do lots of things, but using it to prove a negative is, at its root, irrational.



Religion is whatever mankind makes it. Anyone can have religion, and anyone can be religious. What distinguishes people of faith from the purely religious is the Spirit within.



Placing the cart before the horse is nothing more than an exercise in futility....which is to say that any assumption that the Bible is subject to modern and historic science, rather than the other way around, well, that's indeed trying to get the horse to push the cart.



Apples to oranges....



Concepts do indeed change with time, culture, social morays, and traditions. Concepts about Hell are no different. However, the reality of that place has never changed....at least, not in the Mind of God.



This is false, or at least, the impression it gives is false. That belief you stated above was/is a belief of one or more of the sects among the Jews, not the entirety of Judaism.



I can indeed understand the many, many dilemmas people fall into head-long when they live captive to the externals of religion, science, and the human potential of "transcendent" living. The biggest problem most people have with the God portrayed within the pages of the Bible is His Sovereignty. Most people want a god whom they control....a god who reacts in predictable ways, and who answers prayers in the way they want them answered in step with their personal sense of right and wrong, good and evil, provision, equipping, and just plain god-in-a-box.



You use lots of "we" and "our". I presume you are speaking of yourself and others with whom you are acquainted.



When false religions die out, they do so because there is no real deity behind them to keep them alive and moving forward.



The character of all false religions are pretty much the same throughout.



Science fantasy can never create a true god capable of saving us from our sin any more than mere religion.



God looks upon hearts, not science fantasies concocted in the vain imaginings of humans.



There is only one true God, not many.



This is teetering on the precipice of sophism.



Whoever said one must believe in God by faith alone? Have you not read Romans 1? He has revealed Himself to all, in various ways, therefore not one individual having any excuse. My faith has behind it experiential dynamics that go beyond the Bible itself. That book is only the beginning.....the road sign that points to the One of Whom it speaks so that one may enter into relationship. Once relationship is established, one never has to rely on faith alone. Walking experientially means that the blinders are off, and one walks by way of that lamp at his feet, that voice in his spirit, and remains in the shadow of those Wings.

All that other.....stuff, such a mythology and eastern mysticism....man, that clamorous cacophony fades into the distant background of insignificance when one finds himself led by the Spirit of the One, true God.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions.

Then you stand pretty much in a very small crowd on the idea there is evidence of such intermediary forms. The best known names in archaeology continue to distance themselves from the presumption that empirical evidence has ever been discovered of actual transition from one species to another. The geological column exists nowhere on this earth.

Are there those who claim the existence of such? Yes, but they have yet to produce any evidence that has passed peer review to the extent that such findings are outside the scope of higher criticism. Referring to variation as proof of evolutionary change from one species to another is worse than "jumping the gun," so to speak.

But setting aside most of the other discussion about evolution (since there are other threads and sections of this forum for that purpose), you are still going to have to disqualify the Bible if you are going to hold to evolution as proven fact (which it isn't). Even Dawkins refuses to make such a claim. You have no choice but to completely cast the Bible out the window, and rely strictly upon your roman catholic traditions as your source for religious teaching and zeal. The two simply don't mix, and no, I am not talking only about a literal interpretation of the "days." That's too simplistic. It's too easy to twist around, never minding that it clearly states that morning and the evening were the umpth day. Some have tried to explain that away with such nonsense as, "Well, it must have taken millions of years for the earth to do one revolution...." Seriously....? The problems of trying to get the Bible to fit into the framework of evolutionary THEORY (not fact) go much deeper than just the "days" arguments.

If you cannot answer "yes" to all four of the above, then you are in no position to erect this canard.

The so-called "science" and alleged "in-depth studies" that, again, allegedly lead to the conclusions they present without the allowance for any credible accusation for preconceived bias is not only suspect, but also secondary to the theological issue at hand in this thread.

You do indeed have your vaticanic edicts to stand upon since even the vatican has fallen headlong into the errors of evolutionary preconceptions. Also of note is that it appears you have set your bar of acceptance down to that level, thus compounding the difficulty of convincing you otherwise. Paul of Tarsus demanded that we all "Prove ALL things....." (emphasis mine) Normally, the idea of having to cast the Bible out the door should disturb a devout catholic (not Romish, but pure catholics), but roman catholics seem to think they have an "out" through the various intrigues of the traditions of that religion. From where, then, can reason and rational thought be allowed to govern?

Indeed, you only have to ask yourself the following question, "Am I identical to either of my parents?" in order to alight quickly upon why this canard IS a canard. Your own family photo album supplies you with the answer here. YOU are a "transitional form" between your parents and your offspring, should you have any offspring.

There's nothing new or novel in some pointing at variations within the constraints of a "kind" as alleged "proof" of there allegedly being "intermediaries" and/or "transitions." We may as well believe in fairies, leprechauns and unicorns as well since there is as much evidence for them as there is for, let's say, a creature between dogs and cats that half barked, and half meowed.....

Without the Bible, what, then, is roman catholicism? That dude living in the vatican is left with having to claim he hears only from his god all his understanding about that god rather than relying upon that outmoded book you call the Bible. It's utterly irrational to think that evolution and the Bible can coexist as rational authorities in the thinking of reasonable people.

Jr

 

[ともこ]

Its hard letting go of certain sins because well...they feel good. You can't go sinning all the time then keep assuring God you want to change and that you really want Him. Then you're like those in Isaiah 29:13. "The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught."(NIV) You tell God you want Him, but deep down you want your sin too. Believe me I'm still struggling with this. I want to please God but I want to please my flesh as well. Thats why you've got to deny yourself for God like in Matthew 16:24 "
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."(NIV) If your going out and getting drunk is becoming a gap between you and God you need to cut it out. Set barriers for yourself, certainly do not trust yourself. I could be way off base here, maybe even projecting, but it doesn't seem like you're having a hard time believing in God, more like you are afraid of the implications of acknowledging Him and giving up certain pleasures. Whatever the case is I'll pray for you dude, experiencing doubts and having those fears sucks regardless of whats causing them.

You nailed it with this. I'm going through the same exact thing, and I don't like it! Now I know why. It's because I won't let go of my vices. Then I wonder why I think i'm being cast away from God. But even though I know God loves and wants me to succeed, how do I know he's guiding me? Why do I doubt him? Again, I don't like this! I also think i'm making this way too complicated than what it should be. Worry and doubt opens up the door for the devil to control you, that's what's he's doing. I talk to so many Christians and they either underestimate the power of satan, or don't believe he exists! That's foolish and dangerous thinking and provides that opportunity to him to manipulate you. People need to remember, he can be just as every bit as powerful as God, but in the end, the Good and Holy prevail. Today is just one of those days. I'm facing extraordinary odds right now. Not only my vices, but I got health problems too.

 

[SwordmanJr]

My understanding of the infinite vastness of God's power relegates Satan's power to nothing. If that's underestimating Satan, then it's good to be on the right side. Satan has only what the Lord allows him to possess. It will all be taken from him when he is cast into the lake of fire.