Is evolution a made up story and not proven but the Bible is?

Question

Wiki User · Answer

As some are looking from an evolutionist or scientific view, I must answer from a Biblical perspective. There is evidence of a catastrophic flood that occured tousands of years ago. Even scientists are warming to this idea! If you want the details, say and I'll post it here. Fact - If you believe in the big bang theory, then you must believe that a city the size of NY, can appear out of the blue. Not just the city - everything within it - people, houses, malls with elevators and everything else. Just to appear, just like that. It's the same chance occurence happening just like the Big Bang supposedly did. Look at dating fossils/ clumps of earth / methods of dating - hello - not accurate! Example Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old. Slight discrepancy? Um, yep. What about a further example from a lava flow off the coast of Hawaii. When dated with the carbon-14 method, the flow appeared to be less than 10 000 to 17 000 years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates of 160 000 to 43 million years. A rock sample from Nigeria was dated at 95 million years by the potassium-argon method, 750 million years by the uranium-helium method, and less than 30 million years by the fission-track method. What about the monkey thing? Our DNA is 98% the same as monkeys thus proving we evolved from apes. But consider our DNA is also 50% exactly the same as a banana. Going by the logic, surely we should resemble bananas a little bit more -perhaps that's why some of us are slightly more yellow than others or that some of us have dry skin that peels? Or can it point to the fact that everything in creation has share the same designer? Evolution to the testHow does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter ... (it is taken) from a belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it." Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846 when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster said it was "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages. The Bible Bibical doen't mean mythological - there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be disproved What does the Bible claim about itself?

The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16. "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. "The scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35. It claims to be inspired. It was written by men who were guided by the Holy Ghost. It cannot be broken or proved untrue. Yes there are many versions of the Bible some less accurate than others and some which completely crosses out chapters and paragraphs and edited to high heaven to suit whatever denomination (NIV, cough). Personally, I choose the KJV. Biblical doesn't mean unscientific - God is the creator of everything. A. "He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.

B. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth."Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.

C. "To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25. Long before scientists knew, God said air has weight.

D. "By Him [Jesus] all things consist." Colossians 1:17. The word "consist" here literally means "hold together" or "cohere." Many Bible translations put it "hold together." This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, "Why doesn't the atom fly apart?" Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn't. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together. The Bible says that mysterious power is the Creator, God Himself The Bible is unreliable - false For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did, indeed, exist.

Critics also said that Bible-mentioned kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Once again, it has now been confirmed they did exist.

Skeptics also said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), neither of which they said existed at the time. They, of course, know better today.

At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah who reigned during the divided kingdom were authenticated only from the Bible record, so critics charged fabrication. But then archaeologists found cuneiform records that mentioned many of these kings and, once again, the Bible record was proved accurate. Critics have repeatedly been proved wrong as new discoveries confirm biblical people, places, and events. It will always be so. Back to the Noah thing - When God destroyed the Earth at Noah's time, he allowed the rain to fall. God spoke and the world was destroyed. The Bible further mentions that God promised us he'd never destry the entire Earth again by means of a flood which puts to rest why the waters of the Earth does not do the same again. Although people may like to believe God and the Bible is food for the gullible, the same can be said about Evolution which is a religion in itself. == Horrible question, rhetorical in that it gives information, false in that the information given is wrong. Evolution is not a story, it is a fact/theory. It is a proven and observable fact that species change over time. Three hours, some bacteria, and a microscope can verify that. On the other hand we have the theory of of evolution, which is in fact suppported by a large amount of data. Your claim that the bible is proven is 100% false, just look at the story of Noah's ark which is complete bull. If there was enough water on the planet to reach up to the highest mountain the water would be doing that. Simple property of water. So we see that the bible is not proven true and does indeed carry falsehoods. == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Evolution is not real. People think it's real but it's not. But the problem is other people think it's real because science said so. The truth is that there are things people have found that prove evolution to be false.The reason why some believe evolution is because science said they have proved it. I'm not against science but evolution is not science. I used to believe that God made evolution. Now I know God made us in 7 days. Evolution is not science. If the Bible is proven, then faith is worthless. Since the Bible teaches that you are saved by faith, that puts you in a rather bleak situation.

[Sarcasm is a valid literary technique that can be used to make a point. It is so used in this post. It has been double checked to insure the contents are on point and relevant.] Evolution a made up story? Unbelievable! Who would do such a thing? Of course it's a made up story! Science is funny like that. When a group of facts is surveyed (and there is always a bunch of facts lying around), some investigator or another will eventually have the brass to suggest that these seemingly disparate bits of data are related by a central thesis. Do these guys have too much time on their hands? What a shocking display of temerity! Why do we, as a society, tolerate this? So this guy Darwin went on a boat trip. And did he take time to hit the duty free shoppes, belly up to the buffet, catch some rays or check out the babes in the aerobics workouts? No. He ruined a perfectly good cruise by thinking. Had he been in the sun too long? He was puzzled by what he perceived as the "natural workings" of the world around him and sought to explain it. He was obviously seeking public humiliation and, in general, a damning from all Christendom (now and in perpetuity) for having the intestinal fortitude to offer that things are the way they are because they "evolve" or "develop" over time, which he did. Darwin was familiar with the ideas of a number of investigators of the era, and when he looked at the way things around him worked, it occurred to him that the way things worked in the past may have given rise to present observations. He came up with the idea of the tree of life. Was he high? Had he lost his mind? Did he have a death wish? Get real. The theory of evolution is founded on science. Real science. Not rhetoric and philosophy. Imagine people having the gall to view the world they live in through the lens of science. After all, it's just the way things really work. Would you get on an airplane that was not designed and built based on science? And actually fly in it? How much "proof" is necessary for science to be accepted? How much? The gifts of technology we employ every day are based on science. The world we live in is entirely - entirely! - propped up by science. From the infrastructure that supports out communities to the buildings in which we live and work to the vehicles we commute in as well as all the tiny "intrusions" of science into the daily activities we engage in at work or at play. Every time we take a bite of food, we take a bite of science, either in the propagation, transport, processing or preparation of it. What's it gonna take to make you see the light? Science is truth! But the theory of evolution is still in part a theory because it can offer nothing to illuminate the genesis of life. Still! Cool your jets! Wrap yourself in your faith. That's what is taught. Your faith is a shield. A shield against the tide of dark forces rolling across the land. (And they are, in case you haven't noticed.) Faith will protect you. It will! But faith is not an excuse to be stupid or to fail to use the finest of His gifts - intellect - to measure the world. Only a fool sells science short. And only a fool sells God short. The sustaining idea behind faith is that it is born of the one-on-one relationship between God and man. And as an aid to man, God has inspired this most extraordinary work, the Bible, to help us negotiate our path through the landscape of life. The Bible is a guide, a roadmap. It's the original GPS and navigation tool. It is not a bludgeon to beat down anyone who might want to think for himself. It most certainly is not a battering ram to use against science. The Bible is proven by the faith of the individual using it. Science does not seek to strip a man of his faith. Only to tear away his ignorance. What a sad and sorry objective. Imagine having a structure that examines the world using the mind of man as a lever to open it up. That, and then having as its goal the bringing of light. How much more can one of His gifts be dishonored than that? For shame. Book the scientist and his followers a one-way ticket to hell for their blasphemy. Or continue to let the light of faith reveal the shape of the stones in the path beneath the feet. And use the staff of science as an aid, a walking stick, in the long trek ahead. If you find evolution conflicts with the Bible, and you base your beliefs on the Bible, consider this: --Do you worship the Bible? Or do you worship God? --The Bible was written by men. --The Bible says God created man from mud. Evolution says man came from mud. --Adam and Eve were banished from Eden for sampling from the Tree of "Knowledge of good and evil." Evolution teaches that man evolved from a less intelligent creature...say, one that didn't know good from evil. The Bible tells a story where Man changed from sinless (as an animal would be) to sinful (as modern man is) by eating from the "tree of knowledge." Wouldn't that in itself be an evolution? Do you contend that Man is not an animal? The Bible also says we have a soul. The Bible refers to the "Beast" as Satan. If a Man is an animal, but with a soul, then wouldn't a man without a soul be nothing but an animal, in other words, a beast? --If creationists believe the Bible is the word of God, then maybe they should listen to what the Bible is saying. --Aren't all the works of God in the Old Testament performed using the forces of Nature? Why didn't God just Zap the Pharaoh? Why didn't God just pick up the Jews and set them on the other side of the sea? He used nature (including man, who is a part of nature) to accomplish his will. Why wouldn't he then use nature to create man and every other creature on earth? The answer, of course, is that He did use nature. It's called Evolution. One may take the point of view that there isn't a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. And they would be correct. "What's up with that?" you ask. Simple. The (huge) mountain of evidence (and one that keeps growing, by the way) already existed. Evolution, the fact, and it's latest construct (MES), came along later to explain it! Of course evolution is correct.! It was "tailored" to be so! Tailored to fit the facts! The fact is that evolution is incontrovertible. Life changes its shape over even a "short" span of years; it can be clearly demonstrated that life evolves. And because life can evolve, even over the period of a lifetime, surprise! it does! Imagine what it can do over a millennium. Or an eon. Or two....

== ==

Much of the bible is not proven at all. One example is that God supposedly created everything in 7 days. Now the first written record of this was jotted down by Moses (I think it was) some 2500 years after it supposedly happened. That means it was passed down word of mouth from generation to generation for more then 2 millennia. Over that much time, the accounts would change and the final telling could be far different from the original version. To understand it better get 10 people together. Write down 2 or 3 sentences on a subject. Now take person 1 into a separate room and show him/her the paper. Let them study the paper as long as they want. Now you leave with the paper and send the second person in. Person 1 tells person 2 then person 1 leaves and person 3 enters and so on until the last person has been told. then the last person writes down what they were told and you compare the original with the end result. You will see that it is different. Now take the more complicated accounts like what is in genesis and have them passed down word of mouth for 2500 years and you will find major changes from the original event.

Stating the bible has been proven as a way of discrediting evolution is nothing more than a vain attempt to trivialize an important science because it disagrees with what is in the bible. If the Bible is real history as it claims, then one would expect to find some evidence of it being so. The archeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson, has documented 5000 specific discoveries in his field which directly support the historicity of the biblical record. He and others also record that not one fact has been unearthed which contradicts the Bible. Many of these are in areas previously thought to be in error.

Darwin and Wallace and many others since them assembled much data which they believed supported their theory. People like Ernst Haeckel and others who were zealous believers in evolution assembled data which later turned out to be fraudulent. What is surprising is that, even though known to be fraudulent and non-scientific, the doctrine of embryonic recapitulation is still espoused by some supporters of evolution even today.

The great mass of scientists maintain belief in evolution, even though there is a great mass of contradictory scientific evidence against is from a wide variety of disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, physics, geology and astronomy.

Many people regard the Bible to be a made up story and evolution to be a fact. Many others regard the theory of evolution to be a made up story and the Bible to be proven. Whatever side one takes, there is nothing like a good look at actual facts - not taking what one has always been taught and also trying to lay aside cherished presuppositions as much as possible.

Contrary to what many people believe, there are many Christians who regularly look at the facts as the Bible specifically encourages them to do. Having done so personally for over 30 years, I have found that many attacks on the Bible are based on simple misunderstandings of it and many of the alleged certainties surrounding evolution vanish when closely examined. I have also never found the Bible itself to be in error, although my and others understanding of it can be.

Having said all that, I would not say evolution is a made up story. What I would say is that the evidence does not support it. This is even admitted by a number of evolutionists themselves in a wide variety of fields. It would also be true to say that the Bible is proven in many places where it can be. Much in the Bible is most certainly a matter of faith, although it is never 'blind faith' -the Bible knows of no such animal.

It really doesn't matter what any of us think about the creation of Earth or the Universe. It is quite possible that both theories are in some way correct. We can easily prove micro evolution, but the evolution of species turning into complete and totally different species has not yet been proven. If there is a God (I do believe there is), he is probably laughing at us for debating this subject so hotly for many years. I think in the end all will become apparent. So scientists keep it up and search for the truth, and church-goers, move with the times and try to not stop science and spread some good in this world, because Lord knows that not a one of us is good enough. So work hard, look for the truth, and don't lash out at ideas we can barely comprehend.

Wiki User · Answer

Opinion: Evolution is a fairy tale. 1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."
3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.
4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new species has not been witnessed during known history.
7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.
8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.
9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.
10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).
13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.
14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.
15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)
16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see: