Girl_4_God said:
Here is some of my reserch:
This is an excellent example of why you should not try to learn about evolution from creationists. There is so much wrong with that article I scarcely know where to start.
By the way, I don't see where that article came from. If it is online, could you please post the url? If it is not on-line, could you please tell us what book or magazine it came from?
Evolution vs. Creation
[/center]
Since the publication of Charles Darwins book Origin of Species in 1859, there has been controversy between evolutionists and creationists. The controversy has been characterized as an argument between the bible and science, but the real argument is between science and evolution! Evolution interests everyone because of its impact on spiritual matters.
He goes wrong right here in the first paragraph. Evolution is scientific. Why else do you think the vast majority of biologists consider it to be the most important theory in biology?
Second, properly understood, evolution ought to have
no impact on spiritual matters as it does not discuss them at all. That is why people of very different spiritual views such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists can all agree on evolution---because it does not impact on spiritual matters.
If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned.
False
If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal;
False
but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.
This is still true if evolution is true.
Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative.
False. People accept the truth of evolution based on the evidence which support it. There is no other acceptable reason to agree with evolution.
The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God. One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.
False. There are many third choices.
The Greeks explanation for the origin of life is called spontaneous generation, the faith that living things can arise from nonliving things. One Greek Philosopher taught that living creatures were produced by mud.
Something Christians also believed until Pasteur proved otherwise.
All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct.
Incorrect. The processes of abiogenesis are nothing like the concept of spontaneous generation.
Furthermore, abiogenesis (life from non-life) is a different concept than evolution. Even if it did take a super-natural miracle to create the first life-form, it would still be a fact that the first species evolved and all subsequent species also evolved. Evolution is a process that occurs in populations that are already alive. It does not apply to the first formation of life.
Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation.
False. Evolutionary processes can be observed, have been observed, can be tested and have been tested.
While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:
1. Earth is a sphere suspended in space. Isa 40:22, Job 26:7
Neither verse supports the earth being a sphere. Isa 40:22 the earth is described as a circle (not a sphere) over which the heavens were spread out
like a tent curtain. Tents are spread out over a flat area, not a sphere. The same basic image is used in Job and just a few verses later it speaks of God drawing "a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness" . The circle was drawn to show where the limits of the waters that surrounded the earth would be.
The proper interpretation of texts like these depends on knowing the scientific views of the writers at the time it was written. Attributing scientific discoveries from millennia later to such verses is a very bad way to read the bible.
I assume that you are studying English in high school. You might like to check out the meaning of "anachronism". This kind of interpretation is a sort of anachronism.
2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8
No problem here. While the ancients would not have expressed themselves in scientific terms, they were aware of evaporation and rain and connected them.
3. The universe is running down. Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:26
Neither verse speaks of the universe running down. Isaiah is speaking of God's judgment which is contrasted with God's salvation. The Psalmist is simply referring to the impermanence of creation as contrasted to the eternal existance of God.
4. Ocean currents flow through the sea. Ps. 8:8
The phrase "paths of the sea" is too vague to connect decisively with currents. It could just as well refer to migration paths or navigational routes, for example.
5. Blood sustains life. Lev. 17:11
Yes, pretty obvious long before blood circulation was discovered.
6. The universe is made of invisible things. Heb 11:3
That is rather over-reaching it. The writer is not talking about atoms, but about the invisible realm of the spirit out of which the physical world emerges.
7. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered.
Job 22:12, Gen. 15:5, 22:17, Jer. 33:22
Beyond numbering yes. Incredibly distant, no. Stars were believed to be fixed in the firmament and no farther away than the sun and the moon. Gen.1:14-18 The firmament was believed to be near enough that a high tower could reach it. Gen. 11:4
8. The winds form a circulatory system. Eccles 1:6
Yes, while the ancients might not have thought of an air circulation system, they were aware of regular changes in wind direction.
9. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12,14
This is an error of interpretation based on a misunderstanding of how the English language has changed since the KJV was first published. "turn" in this passage means simply "change". In the days of King James, the two words were close synonyms. We still use "turn" in the sense of "change" when we say "She turned 16 last week." or "The milk turned sour." The original Hebrew also says "change" not "turn". There is no implication of the earth turning on its axis. In fact all biblical references to the earth speak of it standing firm and still on its foundations, not turning or moving at all.
10. Mans body composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:7, 3:19,
Ps. 103:14
Yes, just like the bodies of all living things. This is also supported by the theory of evolution.
So, although the bible gets some things about science right, it does not have a perfect score by any means.