Replies

1. You provide no link to the surveys supporting your outlandish claim.

2. The article you link was written by David Terrasso who has a degree in, wait for it - JOURNALISM.

3. The article you link has a disclaimer at the end stating that the article is one man’s opinion, and provides links to the greatest mysteries in science, which I have already explained to you includes the unsolved origin of life.

4. You demand validation of your hypothesis by claiming origin of life is included as part of the theory of evolution, using no other evidence than a groundless claim of universal acceptance.

5. You have used this straw man to claim the entire theory must be thrown out.

Using your own logic David Terrasso could be said to have proved that the mystery of the origin of life has been solved and should be added to the theory of evolution. He’s just as wrong as you are, but HE HAS MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU DO.

What’s next? Do we throw out Newton’s Law because it can’t explain motion of elementary particles? Do we throw out the Bible because there was no day and night until the fourth day of Creation when the Sun finally came along so days one through three are invalidated?

Also you may want to check your statistics. You now claim that 99.9 % of ALL people believe life was created from non-life by the process of evolution, which leaves no room for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other believers in Divine, spiritual or undetermined origin of life.

We could cite a hundred thousand sources showing that evolution means life springing from non-life.

What’s next? Do we throw out Newton’s Law because it can’t explain motion of elementary particles?

That is precisely the point. We must know the LIMITS over which Newton's Law is applicable. You must know your tools. You must know when a given tool works and when it does not work.

Newton's Law(s) is / are extremely useful -- within a certain range of validity. We can observe in real time, repeatedly, with repeated experiments, that objects behave exactly as Newton's formulae dictate.

But we then see that OUTSIDE of the range of valid application, there are categories where Newton's Law breaks down.

One is no more qualified to use a scientific law or theory without also understanding its limitations than one can get behind the wheel of an automobile who has never learned to drive a car.

Science does not work for understanding something that has ONLY happened in the past, and is not currently available to be researched in the present, particularly something that happened ONLY ONCE. That is outside the scope of valid science.

Do we throw out the Bible because there was no day and night until the fourth day of Creation when the Sun finally came along so days one through three are invalidated?

Well I think it was the third day, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE TO QUESTION whether "day" means a 24 hour day in the account in Genesis of creation.

Since there could not have been a 24 hour day until the sun and the Earth were created, it is clear that "day" in the Genesis account of creation is NOT the same concept as a 24 hour day.

Indeed, the word is not properly translated as "day" (24 hour day) but is properly translated as "period of time."

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that with God a 1000 years is a like a day and a day is like a 1000 years.

So do we have to doubt that "day" means a 24 hour period? Yes, I think we must.

Now, this is a big fight because those who believe the Bible want to assert the power of God. God could have created the entire universe in 7 seconds, much less 7 days.

Those who reject a 7 day creation are largely motivated by their DISBELIEF that God could have created everything in 7 days, which really translates into their disbelief that God could have created anything even in 7 trillion years.

God didn't need 7 days. God could have done it in 7 seconds, even 7 nanoseconds.

But that's not the point. That's a distraction.

The bottom line is that the Genesis account of creation clearly DOES NOT say that it took 7 24 hour days.

The Genesis account is consistent with God taking 15 billion years. Even more so because God is outside of time and time is meaningless to God. For God, 15 billion years can go by in the blink of God's eye, and God does not experience or live through those 15 billion years. God is above and outside of time. Time is God's play thing. So what to God is almost instantaneous could have "taken" 15 billion years in terms of how it looks INSDE the created universe.

A great creationist I heard speak explained that God trying to explain creation to us (the Genesis account) is like gold fish in a bowl sitting on the counter in a kitchen feeling the water vibrate and someone trying to explain that there is a truck driving past on the road outside the house, when the goldfish don’t know anything that exists outside of their goldfish bowl.

So whatever God says to us to explain creation cannot possibly explain to us the full understanding of creation, because we are inside the created universe, but creation took place OUTSIDE the universe that God was creating.

So for God to describe the time periods of creation is to explain something we cannot really understand.