So I Came From a Tadpole
I recently infrequently started visiting an atheist blog and some time back I spent a couple of weeks conversing back and forth with an atheist. Admittedly I don’t know all the info surrounding atheists, but one thing is for sure, they do not believe in a Creator.
The Big Bang seems to be considered the “beginning” and evolution seems to be the means by which man now exists. But reading this article here got me thinking.
According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang “is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.” Although, “Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.” The read is interesting and seems to favor a sci-fi movie theme. How they can easily discount a Creator but are unable to explain where all the matter came from to “start” this random operation to actually produce intelligent design is beyond my human ability to comprehend, and their ability to figure times that it took such and such to develop leaves me highly wondering exactly how much credibility can be put in such an unknown.
So one has the option of believing Genesis 1, that God created the heaven and earth, where the atheist asks, “Then explain to me this God”, or to embrace the Big Bang which I ask, “Explain to me this something from nothing”, or simply not give a hoot. Even as one has the option of believing by faith the Genesis 1 in that God has created mankind, or one may hope in the theory that mankind was randomly created from nothing which became something over millions and m…(hold on, let me get my calculator) time.
As for evolution, there is talk of micro and macro types. Microevolution speaks of changes that stay within a species. Macroevolution speaks of changes which move one species to becoming another species. Most Christians would find it acceptable and observable to agree with microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution the evidence is lacking. Although there are fossils that science would love to conclude that macroevolution exist, the notable proof that there are “missing links” shows that it is yet a hope and not a fact. It is often argued with viruses and moths as to the proof of evolution, but in both cases they remain viruses and moths; neither macro-evolve into some new species. The eye is a very detailed piece that speaks highly against such random chance as found in macroevolution thoughts.
Back to the article: They claim that Global “Warming will end some species”. My question is this: If evolution, as in macro, is true, then why are species dying instead of simply converting to a new species or adapting to the change in climate to survive? Surely if everything has evolve from nothing, and we are all connected to the same gene pool, and species have been evolving AND so has the climate over millions and millions of years why is it that we are not seeing evolution causing great change within species to convert to new species today?
One might believe they came from nothing, but I have faith I came from something.
The Big Bang seems to be considered the “beginning” and evolution seems to be the means by which man now exists. But reading this article here got me thinking.
According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang “is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.” Although, “Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.” The read is interesting and seems to favor a sci-fi movie theme. How they can easily discount a Creator but are unable to explain where all the matter came from to “start” this random operation to actually produce intelligent design is beyond my human ability to comprehend, and their ability to figure times that it took such and such to develop leaves me highly wondering exactly how much credibility can be put in such an unknown.
So one has the option of believing Genesis 1, that God created the heaven and earth, where the atheist asks, “Then explain to me this God”, or to embrace the Big Bang which I ask, “Explain to me this something from nothing”, or simply not give a hoot. Even as one has the option of believing by faith the Genesis 1 in that God has created mankind, or one may hope in the theory that mankind was randomly created from nothing which became something over millions and m…(hold on, let me get my calculator) time.
As for evolution, there is talk of micro and macro types. Microevolution speaks of changes that stay within a species. Macroevolution speaks of changes which move one species to becoming another species. Most Christians would find it acceptable and observable to agree with microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution the evidence is lacking. Although there are fossils that science would love to conclude that macroevolution exist, the notable proof that there are “missing links” shows that it is yet a hope and not a fact. It is often argued with viruses and moths as to the proof of evolution, but in both cases they remain viruses and moths; neither macro-evolve into some new species. The eye is a very detailed piece that speaks highly against such random chance as found in macroevolution thoughts.
Back to the article: They claim that Global “Warming will end some species”. My question is this: If evolution, as in macro, is true, then why are species dying instead of simply converting to a new species or adapting to the change in climate to survive? Surely if everything has evolve from nothing, and we are all connected to the same gene pool, and species have been evolving AND so has the climate over millions and millions of years why is it that we are not seeing evolution causing great change within species to convert to new species today?
One might believe they came from nothing, but I have faith I came from something.
God, the great I AM.
4 comments:
You ask how can someone who can't explain where all the matter came to start this operation easily discount a creater? This is a valid question. Perhaps I can help you understand my position. Your argument is the God of the Gaps Argument. Throughout mankind, man has constantly invoked a god to explain natural phenomena that they were unable to explain. The ancient greeks had Zeus to explain lightening, Apollo to explain the movements of the Sun, and Poseiden to explain the sea. These natural phenomena seemed so big and so great that only a Creator could explain where and how lightening came to be. We rightly dismiss their claims today as ancient man trying to explain their surroundings, but so many people continue to do the same thing today. The questions about the origin of the Universe are big questions, but we needn't fall into the same trap as our predecessors. We needn't fill every gap in our knowledge with a God. The truth of the matter is that we don't know, but we should use our collective efforts to honestly answer the questions that are before us without falling prey to the same false reasonings of our past.
As for evolution. Evolution isn't something to be believed. It is to be accepted or ignored. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution is not whether evolution happened, but how evolution happened. Speciation has occured in both the laboratory and natural settings. Here is a good site with respects to evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Lastly, evolution does not gaurantee that every species will survive. 99% of all life on earth is extinct. It's the survival of the fittest, some organisms are going to die when the environment changes. The environment isn't necessarily the cause of genetic variation, it is what selects the fittest genetic variation.
the alpha,
I appreciate your visit, your comments, and the spirit in which you wrote.
I may have to do a little more research and ponder a few thoughts here.
Although I disagree, I am glad you stopped by to share your position.
i agree with alpha in that societies have always had a need for a supernatural being, a god/goddess. does it stem solely from unexplained phenomena in nature? or is there consideration that it could come from the 'god-shaped' void within. and where does this void enter in that we should desire to fill it?
some other considered readings on this topic.. hugh ross.. or read the book, darwin's black box.
you were very gracious in your response to alpha... and i do appreciate alpha even commenting.
i like these kinds of postings and i've refrained from my ineloquent thoughts on the subject here. thanks for even approaching it. science is a passion, as is my christianity, and i find both can hold reasonable conversations.
"My question is this: If evolution, as in macro, is true, then why are species dying instead of simply converting to a new species or adapting to the change in climate to survive? Surely if everything has evolve from nothing, and we are all connected to the same gene pool, and species have been evolving AND so has the climate over millions and millions of years why is it that we are not seeing evolution causing great change within species to convert to new species today?"
Obviously there is much about evolution and natural selection which you fail to comprehend.
Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process. Of course, occasionally, genetic mutations in animals and plants (microbes mutate much faster) may give rise to inherently newer, related species, but generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time.
For a new species to develop, a few scenarios is possible: Cross breeding of similar breeds (Liger = Male Lion parent & Female Tiger parent), subtle, random mutations in the general population which favor natural selection,and possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population.
The truth is, evolution does not guarantee immunity from extinction. Nor does it automatically throw in raw species to make up the numbers.
And another thing. Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution.
Post a Comment