Books - The Catholic Church & Science
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
and Darwin's DilemmaPosted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
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
For Further Study
Early Church Fathers on Creation out of Nothing (Free)
Books - The Catholic Church & Science by Benjamin Wiker and Creation Rediscovered
by Gerard J Keane and Science and Evidence For Design in the Universe
by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
Homology IS impressive, in the sense that it doesn’t prove evolution, but indicates a common Designer.
Evolution and Christianity contradict one another completely.
May God be with you, one way or another.
The same to you, ONV. God bless you, and have a happy Thanksgiving.
Thank you for taking the time to write that excellent rebuttal.
That is why evolution is a fairy tail/tale. Each flesh body mirrors that soul/spirit and it did not take eons of hot and cold and jumps from species to species to make each and every individual who they are. See I do not understand why evolutionists pretend to be conservatives. Conservatives believe first and foremost personal responsibility. There is no, none, nada, personal responsibility under the theory of evolution... TOE equals - everybody is doing it, whatever it happens to be on any given day.
THE JOHN T. SCOPES TRIALOh the folks in Tennessee are as faithful as can be
And they know the Bible teaches what is right.
They believe in God above and his great undying love
And they know they are protected by his might.Then to Dayton came a man with his new ideas so grand,
And he said we came from monkeys long ago.
But in teaching his belief, Mr. Scopes found only grief,
For they would not let their old religion go.You may find the new belief, it will only bring you grief,
For a house that's built on sand will surely fall.
And wherever you will turn, there's a lesson you will learn:
The old religion's better, after all.Then the folks throughout the land saw his house was built on sand
And they said, "we will not listen anymore."
So they told him he was wrong, and it was not very long
Till he found that he was barred from every door.Oh, you must not doubt the word that is written by the Lord,
For if you do, your house will surely fall.
And Mr. Scopes will learn that wherever he may turn,
The old religion's better, after all.You may find the new belief, it will only bring you grief,
For a house that's built on sand will surely fall.
And wherever you will turn, there's a lesson you will learn:
The old religion's better, after all.--Vernon Dalhart, 1925
The problem with this is that so called ‘old’ religion is not from God. No where in the whole of the Bible is there one statement, hint, or instruction this earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Or that all peoples came from only Adam and Eve.
The literal evidence demonstrates this earth is very, very, very old. No one can say with certainty how old. There was an age before the soul/spirit was placed in a flesh body. Now based upon the genealogy of the Adam the amount of time passed from his formation, is not that far off from 6,000 years. But that was not the beginning of time or the existence of the souls/spirit intellect. That is what makes evolution a fairy tale/tail. This flesh age has an expiration date affixed to it when the last soul/spirit is conceived in a flesh body. When? Only God knows.
I am unfamiliar with this notion. Where does it come from?
The Bible. For starters, Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
It is impossible to own something that does not already exist. The only reference to 'flesh' is the biological process of conception. I could spend hours quoting Scripture that demonstrates this flesh age is but for a singular purpose of giving the souls/spirits of that heaven and earth world (age) that was, of their own free will to take this flesh journey.
Paul says some were predestinated before the foundation of this world (age) meaning the casting down - overthrow of that first rebel. It is impossible to predestine something that did not already exist.
"Is your faith contingent upon scientists not being able to make simple life forms from raw elements and energy? So long as that bar has not been cleared you have faith, but when and if they ever do - your faith is shaken?"
If the accusation of ignorance is leveled at me, you might want to re-read my posts; I've stated there is no such thing as "simple" life.
Why would you think my faith would be shaken? If scientists managed to create life, it would be comparable to someone being washed up on a deserted island and finding a computer, figuring out how it works, taking it apart, and putting it back together, over years of study and work. But more importantly, it would prove that life indeed does require a creator, and not just building blocks coming together out of the primordial soup.
Now, let me see those same scientists take the dust of the earth, breathe into it, and create a fully-formed human being, and they'll have done something.
Even a single-celled amoeba - with a genome 100 times larger than a human - is incredibly complex. No kidding. You reached into the grab bag of what you thought would be the lowly amoeba - and pointed out its complexity. WOW! No kidding!!! How about a bacteria? It is about a thousand times less complex than an amoeba. Amoeba/bacteria? All the same when you really don't know much about biology I suppose.
So a scientists has to do magic with the ‘breath of life’? Or would, as I proposed, creating a life form from raw unliving elements and natural processes be enough to shake your “god of the gaps” theological faith?
If the laws of the universe are sufficient to produce life, that speaks to the grandeur of the lawgiver. Miraculous magic is so simple even a primitive child can understand it - yet such means seem to be, surprisingly enough, not in evidence. It seems the Universe runs just fine according to natural physical laws and mechanisms - no miraculous magic required - no gaps in human knowledge that need miraculous intervention. Gaps in human knowledge require further study of physical means - not supposition of miraculous magic.
That is why science is of use and creationism is useless and an intellectual dead end. Because discovery of the laws the govern the universe are applicable - while supposing that miraculous magic is the answer leads nowhere and to nothing - and is of absolutely no use.
Ah, yes, I stand corrected by the celebrated biologist, Dr. Allmendream. "About a thousand times less", huh? :)
Sorry, but a bacteria is not a simple life. Darwinian dogma teaches that bacteria was one of the earliest ancestors of human life, therefore it MUST be simple. Not so.
BTW, why do you apparently feel you need to be mocking and condescending? You seem a bit upset.
" So a scientists has to do magic with the ‘breath of life’? Or would, as I proposed, creating a life form from raw unliving elements and natural processes be enough to shake your “god of the gaps” theological faith?"
I answered that question, which you already asked, in my last post. Maybe you should read it again.
" If the laws of the universe are sufficient to produce life, that speaks to the grandeur of the lawgiver."
Who is this "lawgiver?" What are his laws and where can I find them? Are you speaking of God? We already have His word, which is incompatible with evolution.
"Miraculous magic is so simple even a primitive child can understand it - yet such means seem to be, surprisingly enough, not in evidence."
Well, we're discussing God's power, not "magic." The evidence is all around you, and it's being laid in front of you. You can open your eyes any time. Or not...up to you, of course.
" It seems the Universe runs just fine according to natural physical laws and mechanisms - no miraculous magic required - no gaps in human knowledge that need miraculous intervention. Gaps in human knowledge require further study of physical means - not supposition of miraculous magic.
That is why science is of use and creationism is useless and an intellectual dead end. Because discovery of the laws the govern the universe are applicable - while supposing that miraculous magic is the answer leads nowhere and to nothing - and is of absolutely no use."
Yes, the grand human intellect.....it's the be-all and end-all, isn't it? Scientists regularly make discoveries that they contradict a year or ten years later. Put all of your faith in science and you're going to be screwed.
Interesting the way you keep repeating "miraculous magic" in a rather condescending manner (and I would say a defensive one, as well). Nothing I say is going to make you believe in God or His works, so we may have to agree to disagree, FRiend.
And no, there is much evidence to suggest that bacteria are not the ancestors of more complex life forms, neither is it axiomatic that the descendant be more complex than the ancestor.
The virus, for just one example, is the most simple life form and it cannot exist without more complex life forms - thus it could not possibly be the ancestor of the more complex forms of life.
God is the lawgiver of the universe. Why? Do you know of another one?
The evidence is all around you - all you have to do is forget your ignorant supposition that you already know all you need to know and look at the evidence of the physical universe.
The fact that science adapts to evidence rather than clinging to a dogmatic primitive understanding is not a blow against science. The Bohr model of the atom may not be “correct”, and may someday be replaced by a more accurate and predictive model - but that doesn't mean the Bohr model of the atom was “wrong” - it was and is useful and predictive.
I do believe in God. Is it so hard for a god of the gaps theologist to escape the supposition that unless God created the universe through miracles that there must be no God or no need for God?
Right now stars are forming off in the universe through gravity and nuclear fusion. Are these stars not created by God? Is it not evident that gravity and nuclear fusion how God creates stars?
I'm certain you know as well as anyone that results from any poll highly depend on exactly how the questions are worded, their sequence, etc.
A lot of these polls are rigged to produce results the pollsters want.
Indeed, you expose your own game a bit with those weasel words "as low as" clearly hinting that by other measures "belief in God" could be higher.
This survey says 1/3 of scientists believe in God.
This survey says 1/2 of scientists believe in God.
This survey says 2/3 of scientists believe in God.
CofA: "Clearly they will flit from hypothesis to hypothesis, untll one or another is disproved or doubted.
Christians have the truth and should hold to it."
Has no one ever explained to you that science does not deal in "truth"?
"Truth" is a big word -- really, the biggest of all words.
"Truth" covers far more than physical facts and theories, and is mainly concerned with metaphysical ideas, ideals, ethics, religion, goals, beauty, etc.
Science, by definition of the word "science", knows nothing of metaphysics.
It is only concerned with what physical evidence tells us about the Universe as we see it.
Larger truths, such as mankind's fall from grace and redemption through Christ are simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
So, there is no such thing as a "scientific truth".
There are only scientific assumptions, confirmed data (facts), mathematical laws, hypotheses and theories.
Indeed, a first rule in science is: question everything.
And by definition of the word "science", scientists will never, ever, look for scientific answers in religious texts such as the Bible.
Sure, if it turns out that somehow science supports the Bible, or visa versa, that is always interesting to note.
But by definition, science must go wherever physical evidence leads it, regardless of any ancient text.
CofA: " 'Real' scientists---meaning those who believe in evolution, I assume---the majority of whom are atheists.
So, belief in God is okay, as long as you can find a way to fit it into atheistic dogma."
The definition of the word "scientist" is one who follows scientific principles (i.e., methodological naturalism) in his or her scientific work.
So, any alleged scientist whose work abandons those principles in favor of some religion-based doctrine is not a "real scientist" but only a poser.
Of course, in the realm of metaphysics, all scientists are as human as the rest of us, most believe in God and many practice their religion devoutly.
And so long as their religious beliefs do not skew their scientific work, they are still "real scientists".
CofA: "As I said before, evolution states man appeared recently, after millions of years of animals and other life-forms suffering, sickening, killing, bleeding, and dying.
The Bible states that suffering, sickness, blood, and death entered the world at the start, after the fall of man.
The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved."
As I read it, the whole Bible says no such thing -- one individual, Apostle Paul says, i.e.,
Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned..."
Now, since Paul is noted for speaking metaphorically, indeed metaphysically, one has to ask: precisely what does he mean, and what is the reality behind it?
Answer: doubtless Paul meant what he said, but neither his nor his readers' grasp on physical reality was grounded in science.
Nor was that necessary for them to understand the higher truths Paul pointed to.
And even today, those higher truths are unaffected by scientific discoveries.
Higher truths like sin and salvation don't depend on Apostle Paul's unique exegesis of Genesis, imho.
That's why any supposed "contradictions" with science don't need to be resolved.
CofA: "Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning.
Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately.
The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar."
First, the two verses are not actually identical.
In Matthew 19:4, Jesus merely asks:
Third, from a scientific perspective, God did create male and female from the beginning of life on earth.
Fourth, thinking logically, when exactly did "from the beginning" begin, and when did it end?
So, in what sense are we not still "in the beginning"?
Finally, anyone who believes in God must believe that God's plan for the Universe, including mankind, was there "from the beginning" -- that God in a sense created mankind in His plan even before the "big bang" (or whatever was the actual beginning).
Indeed, the Bible suggests, through use of words like "kinds" and "image" that what we see on earth was already present in God's realm before the beginning.
CofA: "There are other dangers inherent in theistic evolution.
We know that God is good, kind, loving, and perfect; theistic evolution misrepresents Him as a being who is the author of millions of years of suffering and death, by His own design."
First, words like "good, kind, loving, and perfect" are matters of perspective and understanding.
So a perfect God's self-understanding of just what is "perfect" might be somewhat more, uh, "complicated" than our own.
Second, there is no physical, scientific evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- suggesting ever a time in pre-history of the planet, without "millions of years of suffering and death."
Third, can you not imagine that, in God's own mind, our words "death" and "suffering" mean something different to God than they do in our minds?
Might physical "death" to God not seem less serious or permanent?
Might "life" itself only apply to human souls, not physical bodies?
And under such circumstances, might not our accusations against God for tolerating "suffering and death" seem a bit, well, uninformed?
CofA: "We know that God is the Father and Maker of all things; theistic evolution reduces Him to a "God of the gaps", to whom credit is given only for those things man can't explain."
I call that a false accusation.
Theologians might debate the nature of God, but I can't, not qualified.
However, it's pretty clear from the Bible and elsewhere that the Universe is not God, and God is not the Universe.
God is the Plan, Power and Intelligence behind and in the Universe.
God's physical laws rule the Universe, His energy the ultimate source (E=MC2) for everything we see.
So God is not just "of the gaps", but rather is the Lord of all scientific data, laws and theories.
At least that's how I see it.
CofA: "We know that we, as humans, are caught in sin, and the only way of redemption is through Jesus Christ.
Evolution makes the original Fall, and the concept of sin meaningless----therefore there is no need for a Savior.
Our very need for salvation is undermined."
Sin and salvation are metaphysical realities that cannot be addressed by science.
Sin is a function of our understanding of God, and of just how far we fall short of His glory.
As such, our "original Fall" entered the world only when humans began to understand God's requirements -- as recorded in Genesis.
So, "Our very need for salvation" is totally dependent on our belief in God, and is thus unrelated to the facts of evolution.
CofA: "The great majority of evolutionists regard Adam as a myth.
Yet Jesus was a direct descendant of Adam.
To accept the mythology of Adam puts one in danger of doing the same to Jesus and His redemptive work."
First, words like "history" and "myth" do not always mean what you might expect.
For example, histories are not always true, and myths not always false, especially when they point to higher truths about our human conditions.
And, I'll say it again, it's those higher truths which simply cannot be touched by any scientific discovery.
In the case of Adam's Fall, there's no historical proof either way, but the higher truth of it has been obvious to many for thousands of years.
As soon as we acknowledge God's supremacy, we become acutely aware of our own sinful "nakedness" and of our need for help in atonement.
So while precise details are irrelevant, the higher truth remains.
CofA: "There are more, but it's abundantly clear that believing in evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.
They contradict one another and cannot be resolved."
I humbly disagree.
Would also like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to respond to your thoughtful arguments.
I've much enjoyed the time spent here...
And thanks to all for your kind thoughts! :-)
There is no such thing as scientific truth? Absolute Rubbish. According to you then you can not prove your own existence by science. Subjectivist codswallop.
Do I? I don't remember yelling in caps and multiple exclamation marks.
When someone speaks of "miraculous magic", "useless creationism", etc., then yes, I assume atheism. What else would I think? Well....belief in a god of one's own design, perhaps. I'll concede that, since believing in God necessitates believing His word.
"your ignorant supposition"....."dogmatic primitive understanding"
More mockery, more nasty condescension toward the toothless hick who believes in creationism, am I right? Not a very good use of your enormous and enlightened intellect, is it? There seems to be some real anger going on here.
This isn’t about me, despite your numerous attempts to make it about me.
Would you consider the Pope an atheist for accepting the evidence for evolution?
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.
I like the way Mark Twain viewed the concept of God. He wrote: "The Being to me who is the real God is the One who created this majestic universe and rules it. He is the only originator, the only originator of thoughts, thoughts suggested from within, not from without ... He is the only creator. He is the perfect artisan, the perfect artist.
" As I read it, the whole Bible says no such thing -- one individual, Apostle Paul says, i.e.,
1 Corinthians 21: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned..."
Not sure what you mean by the "whole Bible". Just read Genesis, or, take the Romans Scripture you offered above, which proves my point---death entered through Adam, the first man. Evolutionary theory teaches death existed long before man.
" Now, since Paul is noted for speaking metaphorically, indeed metaphysically, one has to ask: precisely what does he mean, and what is the reality behind it?"
Yep, you're right..;.the Bible is a puzzle God uses to confuse us. Anything can mean anything, or nothing. ;)
" Answer: doubtless Paul meant what he said, but neither his nor his readers' grasp on physical reality was grounded in science."
Oh, okay. So throw out that whole "divinely inspired" thing, huh? Gotcha.
" Nor was that necessary for them to understand the higher truths Paul pointed to. And even today, those higher truths are unaffected by scientific discoveries."
Higher truths like sin and salvation don't depend on Apostle Paul's unique exegesis of Genesis, imho. That's why any supposed "contradictions" with science don't need to be resolved."
Your mistake lies in trying to reconcile the word of God with science; instead of the opposite, or "visa versa", as you put it. Trying to twist Scripture into a pretzel while wondering what on earth was REALLY meant isn't wise, nor is it necessary. Take it for what it says.
" CofA: "Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning. Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar."
" First, the two verses are not actually identical. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus merely asks: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female..." In other words, Jesus pointed rather vaguely at scripture."
LOL, nothing "vague" there. Did you miss the part about male and female made at the beginning?
" But in Mark 10:6 Jesus says directly: "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..." "
He was no less direct in the former passage.
"Second, any suggestion that Jesus "lied" is impossible, since he and his apostles obviously believed what they reported him saying, and were willing to die for his truth."
So the truth of the Bible is subjective, and Jesus "believed" what He was saying, so technically He wasn't lying. But He could be mistaken, I assume?
This is one of the inherent dangers of theistic evolution. It waters down the truth of the Bible and plants ideas that Jesus Christ is something less than omnipotent God and co-Creator in the flesh.
" Third, from a scientific perspective, God did create male and female from the beginning of life on earth."
Really? So what about the evolutionary timetable? It says man evolved over millions of years and is a recent arrival.
" Fourth, thinking logically, when exactly did "from the beginning" begin, and when did it end?"
Are we really going to descend into silliness like this? Really? I just had a thought...what if I'm really a washing machine?
Well....you've exposed my "game", so I guess the jig is up, right? (wink) Have a happy Thanksgiving, and God bless!
Please. Don't make yourself angry over definitions of words like "truth".
The word "truth" is not normally used in science.
That's in part because the entire scientific enterprise begins with an unprovable assumption called "methodological naturalism", which means science can only seek physical causes for physical events.
So the various categories of science begin with observations, or data, which when repeatedly confirmed are called "facts" (not "truth").
Data can be related by mathematical "laws" (not "truth"), and attempts to explain how and why are called "hypotheses" or sometimes "educated guesses".
A scientific hypothesis which can be confirmed by making valid predictions is called a "theory" (not "truth").
So the word "truth" is, or at least should be, reserved for higher level discussions -- of metaphysical, supernatural, religious, ethical, aesthetical, etc. matters.
As for your obvious alarm over some alleged "subjectivist" notion, I don't see that at all.
My existence is not a matter of "proof", but rather is confirmed as a fact by daily, hourly, even moment by moment observations.
Those are all matters of definitions of scientific words, of which higher "truth" is not normally one.
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.