Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Creation vs Evolution

CBC is all up in arms for a Conservative MP defending an Ontario MPP  for stating on twitter he doesn't believe in evolution.
James Lunney, a federal Conservative MP, is using his Twitter account to come to the defence of an Ontario Progressive Conservative who told reporters last week that he doesn't believe in evolution.
The British Columbia chiropractor, first elected as a member of Parliament in 2000, has jumped into a fray that started last week in the Ontario Legislature.
Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls, who represents the province's Chatham-Kent-Essex riding, was heckling the provincial education minister on Wednesday when the matter of human origins came up.
Education Minister Liz Sandals was responding to PC criticism of her government’s new sex-education curriculum when she quipped that a PC government "could opt out of teaching about evolution, too."
"Not a bad idea," said Nicholls, who later clarified his position to reporters in the lobby.
"For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy.



Oh the horror, someone who doesn't believe evolution!  Must be a backwards neanderthal hick!
Even some scientists have discovered that The Big Bang may not have been the origin of life as what was once thought.
If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

Here is a very good source for case for MP Lunney's creation belief is Ian Juby , a creation scientist from Canada who explains why it's mathematically impossible for evolution to have occured.   
You can also catch Ian Juby at IanJuby.org 




Another good source that supports James Lunney's  creation stance is Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith from Creation Magazine. 
In this video they point out scientific evidence for a recent creation.   Please take the time to watch it.

 
I am on the same page as Dr. Lunney, I believe in creation. There had to be an intelligent designer.  Here is why I agree:
1. Fossils do not show evolution.
Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.1
2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.
Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5
Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.
3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.
Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.
Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.
4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.
Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.
Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.
These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator.8 But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.

13 comments:

  1. What does the Pope believe in? Is he an evolutionist? Funny the media never seem to ask Catholic Liberals, in particular Justin Trudeau, what they believe in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a very good question. I am an evangelical christian. I don't what Catholics believe. The media party doesn't ask Justin what he believes about creation vs evolution, only notice what Conservatives believe, funny that eh?

      Delete
    2. All mainstream Christian denominations (Catholics, Anglicans, etc) accept evolution. Only fundamentalists with a literal interpretation of scripture do not. Outside the USA, they are a pretty insignificant minority among the world's Christians.

      Delete
  2. The pope has said evolution is real., god did not just wave a magic wand.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pope-francis-evolution-is-real-god-did-not-wave-a-magic-wand-1.2076772

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pope need to read his Bible. Right through out in the first Chapter of Genesis it states "God said" when he created all that is on the earth. God spoke everything in existence by His word.

      1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

      2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

      3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

      4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

      5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

      6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

      7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

      8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

      9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

      10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

      11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

      12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

      14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

      15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

      16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

      17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

      18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

      19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

      20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

      21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

      23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

      24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      Delete
    2. In the New Testament Jesus spoke about creation.

      Mark 10:6-9King James Version (KJV)

      6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
      and

      Matthew 19:4King James Version (KJV)

      4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

      Delete
    3. A bit confusing because he now accepts evolution yet still proclaims that God "created human beings.."

      Delete
  3. I tend to see the old testament as a work of metaphor. But I also believe God is beyond understanding.
    Put it another way, while the Old testament is metaphor, its been translated over centuries, from a time when written works where of a more prosaic nature than a fact by fact. It was done that way so that the listener would be more likely to remember the spoken word. When something like that gets translated that often over generations, a simple concept given in the orginal text can get lost in translation.
    Now add the inability to understand God and its fairly easy to start arguing about the minute details of scripture.
    As to that.
    The concept of the almighty can be summed up as follows.
    Even if you could fully explain God to someone, it would be like trying to explain quantum physics to an earthworm.
    You may have a phd in the subject, but the earthworm lacks the sophistication to understand what you're saying.
    To the evolutionists I say.
    Where did that first cell come from and where did that first particle for the big bang come from?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I tend to see the old testament as a work of metaphor. But I also believe God is beyond understanding.
    Put it another way, while the Old testament is metaphor, its been translated over centuries, from a time when written works where of a more prosaic nature than a fact by fact. It was done that way so that the listener would be more likely to remember the spoken word. When something like that gets translated that often over generations, a simple concept given in the orginal text can get lost in translation.
    Now add the inability to understand God and its fairly easy to start arguing about the minute details of scripture.
    As to that.
    The concept of the almighty can be summed up as follows.
    Even if you could fully explain God to someone, it would be like trying to explain quantum physics to an earthworm.
    You may have a phd in the subject, but the earthworm lacks the sophistication to understand what you're saying.
    To the evolutionists I say.
    Where did that first cell come from and where did that first particle for the big bang come from?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where did that first cell come from and where did that first particle for the big bang come from? We don't know - there's the difference - we are not afraid to admit that we don't know. Saying that God did it just doesn't cut it in the 21st century world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all you need to understand who God is. Here is a link that might help you.
      https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/attributes.cfm

      There is so much evidence to support creation out there you just have to do some homework. Go listen to some videos from the sources I sighted above. I implore to watch some. To help you here is a link to more videos from Ian Juby.
      https://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
      Here is a link to more Creation Magazine videos.
      https://www.youtube.com/user/CMIcreationstation

      Delete
  6. So are you essentially saying you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and humans were created in their modern from. Otherwise the dinosaurs either didn't exist or roamed the earth alongside humans and the Ice Age never existed. I have no problem with religion, but religion is not a substitute for science rather it complements it by answering questions science cannot, not trying to argue against science.

    The reality is no credible science actually believes in the Young earth creationism. It's been completely disproven and those arguing their wrong just look silly. One is free to believe what they want, but I would hope our politicians are knowledgeable and debate is about values not facts as all should agree on facts. Rather believing in God doesn't mean believing the big bang and evolution don't exist. One can believe God created the big bang and the earth some 3-4 billion years ago and it was God who created the conditions for humans to evolve. What they cannot claim without being disproven is the earth is only 6,000 years old.

    Besides the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and New Testament in Greek and not the modern version of those languages, but ancient ones so the translation is likely to be less than perfect. What is important is the general message, not every minute detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I am saying the earth is around 6,000 years old. There are all kinds of evidence to support that a young earth like recently Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in fossils.
      "Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

      Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”) "
      https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/
      That is only one piece of evidence. There is many more pieces. I recommend to do some research.

      Delete

This is my home. I hope you respect it. I will not tolerate profanity or anything that is not suitable for family consumption.