Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Essays for Lent: Creationism or Evolution?
StayCatholic.com ^ | 2001 | Sebastian R. Fama

Posted on 02/22/2012 10:03:14 PM PST by Salvation

Creationism or Evolution?
by Sebastian R. Fama

Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? Well, we believe that radio waves exist and we can’t see or touch them. And we believe it because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. We turn on a television and we see and hear someone who is many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture. Disconnect the antenna, and there is no picture. Obviously the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Thus we can know that radio waves exist even if we cannot see or touch them.

Similarly, we can know that God exists because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. For instance, the fact that we exist is an indication that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldn’t that explain our existence? No, not at all. A look at the evidence will show us why.

Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process. Creationists claim that a look at the facts rules out the theory of evolution. Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves.  As we saw earlier, radio waves are not observable by the senses - their effects are. Likewise, God is not observable by the senses, but His effects are. Thus we can know that God exists even if we cannot see or touch Him.

The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang) and over millions of years this mother of all chaotic events formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our own planet cooled down, a variety of complex and delicately balanced ecosystems consisting of tens of thousands of species of animals, fish, plants, and bacteria were formed by chance. All of this supposedly evolved from a burnt rock, which is all the earth would have been after cooling down. Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars and the brightest minds?

But what about the fossil record, isn’t that evidence of evolution? Hardly! Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy. But more important is the fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!

What is a transitional form? Imagine that you are watching a cartoon illustrate how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fish’s fins begin to shrink and change shape until they have formed legs. Each frame of the cartoon would be a transitional form. If evolution takes millions of years, then there should be billions of transitional forms for each evolved group. But we find no such thing in the fossil record. Even in the earliest fossil layers we find completed, complex life forms, such as clams, snails, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. No one has been able to find fossilized ancestors for a single one of them.

Another problem arises when we realize that even the so-called "simple" life forms are not really simple. Today we know that a cell is one of the most complex structures known to man. In a book titled "The Evidence for Creation" by Dr. G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland and Larry McLean, we find the following on page 113:

"The cell has turned out to be a micro universe containing trillions of molecules. These molecules are the structural building blocks for countless complex structures performing chains of complex biochemical reactions with precision… a single cell surrounded by a cellular membrane exhibits the same degree of complexity as a city with all of its systems of operation, communication and government. There are power plants that generate the cell’s energy, factories that produce enzymes and hormones essential for life, complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one location to another and membrane proteins that act as barricades controlling the import and export of materials across the cellular membrane."

In the nucleus of every cell is the DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s. Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?

Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.

But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.

Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.

Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.

Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; creation
This should be an interesting series of essays.
1 posted on 02/22/2012 10:03:24 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

Essays for Lent Ping.


2 posted on 02/22/2012 10:06:39 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
"... the simple will never produce the complex... "

In that case, for God to be able to do all the wondrous things God does, God must be complex and intelligent. Who designed God? How can God's complexity arise from nothing?

If God is eternal, how does God choose a moment to begin Creation? The Infinite Regress becomes a problem, if it truly is a problem.

If God is outside Time, then how could God produce a change in the circumstances, given that change requires Time to pre-exist and elapse, in order to allow the change in the circumstances? If Time were a "created" thing, then the situation changes from one without Time to one with Time operating it. How can a demarcation exist to separate the two situations, if Time were yet to be "created"? In other words, without Time, the situation without Time and the situation with Time running in it would be super-imposed, in other words, the two situations would be simultaneous, which is a self-contradiction. You cannot do something and not do the same thing, simultaneously. Likewise.

Points to ponder, no doubt.

3 posted on 02/22/2012 10:42:44 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves.

Creation idiots. Radios are sensing radio waves. The theory for electromagnetism is understood and intact, and it allows engineers to arrange and size components to SENSE the f'n radio waves. Why this crap again. If the creationists think sensing God is equivalent, what is the theory that permits Muslims? How do you calculate it?

4 posted on 02/23/2012 12:10:30 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Perhaps time is more of an illusion than anything else just as time and space are. All is digital information. All things are made by the Word of God, or in other words the Information of God.


5 posted on 02/23/2012 12:33:18 AM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

Benedict XVI also says humans must listen to ‘the voice of the Earth’

-snip-

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/

6 posted on 02/23/2012 12:51:50 AM PST by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Oy.

The argument about transitional forms is not an argument against evolution per se, it is an argument against gradualism. If evolution proceeded (as Gould and Lewonton argued) by long periods of stasis and short bursts of rapid change--punctuated equilibria--then it stands to reason we'd see very little in the way of transitional fossils.

Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.

Not at all. Any sexually reproducing species has a measure of genetic variability in the population to begin with. That's the point of sexual reproduction. So, in this model, when this bacteria struck, it would wipe out a large proportion of the population except those individuals who had the correct distance between microvilli.

Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over.

Look, here's what we know. We know that the geologic strata contain what looks to be a succession of living things deposited at different times. Living things, I might add, which are different from the ones alive today. Now if our author here rejects evolution, then he must be willing to posit a *miraculous* special creation for every single one of those organisms. That's of course possible. But responsible theologians remind us that if we start positing miracles as an explanation for anomalous data we have just destroyed the scientific method. Miracles can occur, but they are not the ordinary means of God's operation. The ordinary means of God's operation is nature.

People need to stop thinking about it in terms of "creation OR evolution", and need to consider whether this is a case of "creation BY evolution". We know God created. That is a fact. What no one has really been able to explain is exactly how. In my opinion, evolutionary theory offers us, for the first time, a glimpse into *how* God actually put together different organisms from the slime of the earth.

7 posted on 02/23/2012 1:06:55 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Yep, that was a very bad analogy.


8 posted on 02/23/2012 1:08:28 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
If God is eternal, how does God choose a moment to begin Creation?

You are assuming that 'time' has always existed. Ever hear of the "big bang". That is when God created 'time'. God indeed is eternal but eternity is a concept that man can not imagine since we exist in time and not outside of it.

9 posted on 02/23/2012 4:45:50 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

Read on ahead of that part of my previous comment: If the Big Bang is when God “created” Time, then how is it possible for God to cause the change in the circumstances where it transitions from one without Time into one with it? If God’s realm is “timeless” then both these phases of reality are simultaneous because Time is the only demarcating entity of change and Time “doesn’t exist” until it is created.

By the way, recent discoveries in astronomy point to what is known as the Flat Universe, and this is one that allows a Cyclic Model to be feasible. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are other phenomena supporting such a model. So, there is no substantiating proof that Time “began” with the Big Bang - as if a prior Universe didn’t exist before it.


10 posted on 02/23/2012 5:05:20 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

For my part, I don’t need to know whether the universe just happened or was created. I know that there is an objective reality independent of me. I base my morals and ethics on reason based on that reality. Yes I believe in a creator, but it would not change anything morally or ethnically either way. There are natural laws governing man according to his nature and they are not difficult to reason out.

I don’t need to know if there is life after death either. I just want to live every minute of my life as a gift and I know that some day I will find out as we all will what happens next.


11 posted on 02/23/2012 7:06:19 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This website is misleadingly called 'staycatholic' while the essay is NOT consistent with Catholic teaching on the subject of creation and evolution.. it is more in line with young earth creationists who still insist the earth is 6,000 years old. Wonder what God has to say about lying or misrepresentation?

It is particularly funny to see the 'big bang theory' derided, and this claiming to be consistent with Catholic teaching, when it was proposed by a Catholic priest in the first place; Monsignor Georges Lemaitre.

Some excerpts for a summary of true Catholic standing on the issue...

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Source

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
12 posted on 02/23/2012 7:10:17 AM PST by battousai (Conservatives are racist? YES, I hate stupid white liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Ethnically was supposed to be ethically.


13 posted on 02/23/2012 7:18:49 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

14 posted on 02/23/2012 7:22:02 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin; Salvation; wideawake; Ethan Clive Osgoode
For my part, I don’t need to know whether the universe just happened or was created. I know that there is an objective reality independent of me. I base my morals and ethics on reason based on that reality.

So the fact that a meaningless, random, utterly coincidental universe just happens to objectively exist leads inevitably to morals and ethics?

Who'da thunk it?

15 posted on 02/23/2012 7:22:47 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It seems the rest of the site is consistent with Catholicism so I will take back what I said about the name, however this essay does not belong there I fear.

Another interesting link for those interested in the true stance of the Church with respect to current cosomology, etc..

http://www.youtube.com/user/EWTN#p/search/0/ETBssDRsM74

Fr. Elliot Spitzer discussing his book on the subject on EWTN, he also has a show on Friday evenings, but they don't have those up on youtube yet; "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God".
16 posted on 02/23/2012 7:24:39 AM PST by battousai (Conservatives are racist? YES, I hate stupid white liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battousai; Salvation
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation . . .

Since the position of the author of the essay is permitted by the Catholic Church, what are you complaining about? If both positions are permitted, the author has every right to hold and defend that position.

This website is misleadingly called 'staycatholic' while the essay is NOT consistent with Catholic teaching on the subject of creation and evolution.. it is more in line with young earth creationists who still insist the earth is 6,000 years old.

You mean this belief isn't permitted? But I thought you just quoted an "authentic" Catholic source that said it is? Since when does "both positions are permitted" mean "one position is forbidden?"

Just how long do you think it's been since the Catholic Church itself was "young earth creationist?" If a religion is "unchanging" as Catholicism claims to be, then nothing should change . . . should it?

17 posted on 02/23/2012 7:31:25 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

No. Morals and ethics are a choice whether based on objective or subjective reality. Did you not see that I used the word “reason” in there. Of course if you reject reason then we have nothing more to say to one another.


18 posted on 02/23/2012 7:35:01 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: albionin
No. Morals and ethics are a choice whether based on objective or subjective reality. Did you not see that I used the word “reason” in there. Of course if you reject reason then we have nothing more to say to one another.

Oh, excuse me. I was not aware this was still the eighteenth century. Where's my powdered wig?

The problem is, "reason" is 100% amoral. It can be used for any purpose, moral or immoral. A mass murderer can use "reason" every bit as well as you do, sir (or madam).

The only "natural laws" are those that say things like "if you jump off a cliff you will fall." There is no "natural law" promoting morality or ethics.

19 posted on 02/23/2012 7:44:04 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: battousai

I thought they looked good too. So that’s why I posted the first one. This is not my area of expertise, so I’ll let everyone else discuss it.

Personally, I’m a creation person.


20 posted on 02/23/2012 8:00:32 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: battousai
Ten pages of "Creation" entries in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
21 posted on 02/23/2012 8:03:36 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The two are not mutually exclusive. God created it, I believe and acknowledge, but there is just too much evidence of millions of years and thousands of life forms to deny evolution.

Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!

There are transitional forms. Two examples are the horse and the elephant. The predecessor of the horse, Eohippus was a toed animal but the transition to hoofed had begun. A couple of others (names forgotten, no time to look 'em up) retained the remnants of toes until the earliest modern horse which lacked them.

There are animals which were clearly pre-elephants and elephants in the fossil record that no longer exist, but there are no modern elephant fossils found at the same age levels. That seems to indicate a transition.

God created all, but it is presumptuous of us to put Him on a 6000 year timetable. If we accept His Son's sacrifice we will see Him someday, and I'm sure He will answer our questions.

22 posted on 02/23/2012 8:07:24 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

I don’t accept your premises. What does the eitheenth century have to do with anything? You say that there are no natural laws promoting moral values or ethics. There is, The law of identity. Your argument is that reason is impudent in questions of values. I disagree.


23 posted on 02/23/2012 8:30:42 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Morality?

1 Samuel 15:3.


24 posted on 02/23/2012 8:35:32 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you.


25 posted on 02/23/2012 12:04:18 PM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Also, our idea that there isn't any time in eternity I don't think is exactly correct, because in The Bible it says that His going forth has been been from everlasting. In order to "go forth" you would think there to be a context of some kind of time. Our time is actually likely a block of different time, even in kind, than the time of eternity past and, present and future. Likely a much limited form of time than His.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

26 posted on 02/24/2012 4:41:27 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Yet another exercise in false dichotomy. It must not be considered that God created life with the ability to evolve.

You must choose between evolution and divine creation and be left with inextricable conclusion that if evolution happened, there is no God.

27 posted on 02/24/2012 4:50:46 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

The problem is that without Time, all events and actions become simultaneous.

So, God, if not under Time, did everything simultaneously in God’s realm. In other words, things such as before and after do not apply. This brings about irreconcilable consequences when God tries to order sequential events.


28 posted on 02/24/2012 7:40:05 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
This brings about irreconcilable consequences when God tries to order sequential events.

For us, maybe, but not for Him. That's why He's God. Interesting, though, to try to figure it all out!

29 posted on 02/24/2012 9:21:37 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

You do not like an analogy & you insult people by calling them “idiots.” This is not the ‘proof’ of evolution.

Please, provide a >link where we can actually >watch something evolve. The camera has been around just about as long as the ‘theory’ of evolution. Do you know anyone that has seen something ‘evolve.’

Please don’t tell us how many ‘scientists’ are in agreement as science is NOT a popularity contest.

The fossil record produced so far has only ‘proven’ = there are a >lot of old fossils in the ground. Where be those ‘missing links’ as folks have been digging in the earth for a long time. There are so many fossils in the earth that scientists generally want only the >spectacular dinosaur fossils.

There has been a great change in the ‘theory’ of evolution. The scientists use to think evolution was due to very small changes over a long period of time. Now the ‘popular’ theory is> evolution is the result of cataclysmic events.

There is a reference to electromagnetism theory being understood & intact. Please tell us >what is electromagnetism made out of? What is gravity made out of?
To say it is a “force” does not >actually tell us what it is made of.

When we listen to the “big thinkers” in the scientific community talking about the structure of the University, they speak about subatomic particles as being some sort of >fuzzy ball of a type of energy. The “big thinkers” even go further & say: if we were to >freeze the entire Universe to zero Kelvin, everything in the Universe might just disappear.

That sounds like Religion & ‘The End of Days’ beliefs common to many religions. Do we live in a ‘materialistic’ world or did ‘something’ cause a ‘Big Bang’ of energy that started our Universe into existence?

Creation of the Universe by God means there is a final Judgment according to Christianity.

It would be of interest to the religious people on freerepublic if the believers in evolution would post comments on: The purpose of life here on earth. & Whatever it is they see as ‘the purpose life.’ & Why is it the purpose?

Can answers be provided without insults?


30 posted on 04/19/2012 1:23:58 PM PDT by gghd (A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson