Since its conception, this site has hosted several heated discussions on evolution and creationism. Unfortunately due to the fundamental differences in each camp, I feel that the creationists truly don’t understand Evolution nor do they appreciate the vast amount of human intellect and scrutiny that has been poured over it.
My goal with this article is not to humiliate creationists for their beliefs, but rather to educate them with respects to evolution. With countless evolutionary resources online, it is intimidating for the inexperienced to get started. This is where you guys come in. I want you to help build a solid reference on what evolution is and more importantly what evolution is not. There are many misconceptions about evolution that I think need clearing up.
Another aspect I’d like to tackle is some of the typical arguments that creationists use. One that comes to mind is the human eye. Creationists have long declared that the human eye is just too complex to have come about randomly. Well there are actually two problems with that statement. The first is that evolution can’t evolve complicated structures. The second problem is that creationists see evolution as random acts where things just magically happen.
I’d like everyone here to list the common misconceptions about evolution and the truths behind them.
If anyone else has thoughts on what should be covered here please share’em with us. My goal is to make this a permanent post that will serve as a resource for future debates.
I’ll start us off with this great resource for evolution. It’s heavy on videos, slides, and interactive exercises. Check out this short clip on the evolution of the eye and see how nature could be the greatest “designer” of all :)
Related posts:
- Evolution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evolution!
- Evolution — South Park Style
- Evolution Is A Religious Deception
- Evolution Vs Creationism - Simpsons Style
- Evolution Frightens Me
March 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Talk Origins’ Index of Creationist Claims shoots down every creationist claim current in existence. That’s a good place to start http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
March 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
By arguing with the creationists you give there arguments substance. You cannot win a debate with someone so ignorant and closed minded. The best strategy would be to undermine there arguments not by structured debate but by ignoring them like spoilt children and if for example some legislation promoting it was raised then to deride those responsible for those idiocy. There can be no rational debate with the irrational.
I would however draw the exception at children as there minds may still not be closed to new ideas. An extensive campaign against parents that indoctrinate anything apart from rational thought in there children would be a good way of spending money if it were donated to such a cause (I understand fundamentalist Christians donate money in large amounts to argue creationism - so why not those who wish to ensure that humanity doesn’t go into the cess pit donate money for some kind of a posing advertising campaign?).
March 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I always think the EvoWiki is a great resource:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
But I’m getting the awful feeling the site isn’t being maintained anymore.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I agree with Kipman. Although I do it entirely too much, arguing with supernaturalists is a lost cause. As Thomas Paine once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
To argue with Creationists is to give their “theory” equal footing with everything we know about biology. The only time Creationism should be confronted is when they are trying to force their pseudo-science into public schools. Then, you ask them to put up or shut up. If they can’t test “God dunnit” in a science lab, then it ain’t science.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I have to admit that arguing with those who use dogma not reason as the basis of there proposistions is a waste. It’s like arguing against the Flying Spaghetti monster. We all know it’s crap, but none of us can prove. Likewise we all know god is crap, but it’s impossible to disprove his existence as he can’t be measured.
However, there are those whose minds are not totally closed to reason and maybe we can help them see things more clearly. I think some of the fundies who come to this site to berate us for our lack of faith could possibly be fighting with their faith, but not yet ready to renounce it. If we can help one of them, that would be cool.
Anyway, Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment. It easily explains the eye or whatever you chosen thing is. It does it through gradual “evolution” from simple to complex over time periods that are so great that you only need a small change every so often. It’s not random, because natural selection picks traits that are most suited to a given time and environment. But you already know this.
Have a great one. I’m still spinning over the discussion I had yesterday with Mohamed over his namesake being a paedophile. He doesn’t think that’s bad. I’m not talking about back in the prophets time, but now. He thinks it’s ok for a middle aged man to get engaged to a 6 year old girl and have sex with her at 9. Which in all civilized countries is most definetely rape. And Mohamed sees himself as enlightned.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I gotta tell you Skids,
My buddy was married and living together with two young-ish women for like 2 years in an open poligamous relationship. Not the same as Muslims mind you; but I gotta say, anyone who can deal with mutiple wives has to either be more enlightened or talented than you or I. Then again, maybe if the women are submissive enough, they don’t have emotions or opinions like western women?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far. There are many religious people who would be interested in discussing evolution if they had some knowledge of it. Many avoid the topic because they lack that knowledge and feel embarrassed when it shows.
So before you all count out our religious friends give them a chance… you might be surprised.
gasmonso
March 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
gasmonso: “So before you all count out our religious friends give them a chance… you might be surprised.”
Sorry dude. If they want to discuss it without jamming dogma down my throat. I’ll happily do it ’till the cows come home. I’m all for discussion. Just not interested at the moment with refutting sky fairies.
Shaze: “Then again, maybe if the women are submissive enough, they don’t have emotions or opinions like western women?”
I think you said it brilliantly yesterday dude when you said it’s up to the women of those countries to rise up. Problem is, if they don’t know they have the choice or their real fear of violence is so great, it would take people far braver than I to stand up for equality.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far.”
I think I could get something up, but I’ve been too busy. Hell, I come here today and there’s what looks like a verbal atom bomb in the last thread. When I get a chance, though. I think this is important, because we need to be civil. Being civil might not convince those that want to yell at the top of their lungs that they’re right and we’re wrong or get them to even consider, but they’re not the point. It’s about people who are willing to listen to what evolution is and is not, even if they don’t agree. Otherwise it really is pointless.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Snurp: “It’s about people who are willing to listen to what evolution is and is not, even if they don’t agree. Otherwise it really is pointless.”
I’ll second that. As for the verbal atom bomb. I know I was most definetely involved in that there. Maybe I’m a bit emotional but if somethink looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I’ll call it a duck.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far.”
Sorry… I always forget that the readers exist to please the site owner. Probably people are tired of this discussion.
But seriously gas, maybe the lackluster response is because this work is already done? (links to references already posted) Why replicate the effort? Just so references in discussions here can be local links?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hi Gasmonso,
I disagree with Slunk - I think you are on to something. What is already written about evolution is usually highbrow and mainly preaches to the choir… and while we will never enlighten the zealots, we CAN enlighten the fence-sitting and rational religious moderates who the zealots hide behind if we can give them something that is easier to digest.
I think a lot of people lean towards creationism because of the single misconception that evolution is something “random”.
It beggers imagination to think that living things could fall together “by chance” - and so evolution seems ridiculously counter-intuitive, just like the FSM.
I think step 1 should be to address this - move the discussion away from mutation and towards selection.
Point out that NATURE seperates “the wheat from the chaff” - no jealous sky fairy requried.
Focus on lots of common real life examples of who *doesn’t* get to have grand-kids and why. Explain that Natural Selection is just the law of the jungle - it’s not magically selecting who lives, rather it is reliably and ruthlessly selecting who dies - or who never gets a date. Once you understand that, evolution becomes obvious.
“Evolution” is not an actual thing - rather it is the side-effect of two other things, “inheritable variation” and “natural selection”. It is much easier to make the point about these seperately.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I think one of the problems is believers have had it instilled in them that they are part of god’s great plan. That their piddling life matters in the great scheme of things. So, when it’s explained that their existence is just the end result of gradual, ruthless selection, they baulk at the idea.
But to paraphrase Mark Twain when he saw the Eiffel Tower, such a great structure was created for the smallest speck of paint on the top. That’s how believers see it. The whole vast, unknown universe was created with themselves as the apex.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
@Skids
If someone has an emotional reason to not let go of creationism, then they are not going to let go except for another emotional reason, e.g. avoiding ridicule, or conversely seeking something they want, like a decent education and job.
Some people however aren’t that emotionally attached one way or the other to creationism or evolution, but just dismiss evolution because they have a lot of trouble getting their head around the subtlety of it all. Remember that as many as 50% of Americans are below average intelligence!!! ;-)
I think this site already has the ridicule bit covered quite nicely, what I think is missing from teh intrawebs however is a clear and *simple* intro to evolution for those who have tripped up on comprehending that is deliberate and systematic, not random.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I’m not sure the basis of evolution is that subtle. To me it seems quite simple and straight forward.
No creatures (excepting identical siblings) are alike.
These differences can be to our advantage or disadvantage given the current environment.
Your chances of surviving and having healthy young are enhanced by having differences that give you advantage.
That is simplified, but I think it gets the general idea. And I resisted the temptation to bite at your 50% of Americans comment. See! No ridicule.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Oh, I forgot, we don’t live in a natural environment, so we have sort of taken a lot of selective pressure off ourselves. Just in case anyone says “buy why don’t people who get haemophilia die then?”
March 27th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Yeah - I know, it’s straightforward - I don’t know how people don’t get that, but somehow they don’t. I reckon to get it across it often takes repetitive, simple examples.
As for taking off selective pressure… aren’t selected not just for survival, but also for reproductive success (which surviving happens to be rather important to!!)? Doesn’t modern living seem to help more survive, but reproduce less, so from an an evolution standpoint it might even be that we face much more severe selection pressure - e.g. remembering to have kids?
P.S. no offence intended with the 50% comment - it was a statistics joke!
March 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Hold on skids, I didn’t say that’s moral that old guy to have relationship with with 9 years old, but I’m talking about now, then it was something ok from girl physical stand point and from enviroment, and I said she never complained about him, on contrary she loved him so much and a lot of stories proved that, and I showe also it was done for the good of Islam, since she memorized 2000 quote of our prophet, so please don’t assume or try to put words in my mouth, I hope I made my self clear.
Gasonmo,
Evolution never made sense to me , and it will never. There something to be created to in oreder for us to exist, Big bang and the other fairy tales don’t make any sense, just stupid assumption has doesn’t even make sense.
again and again, you theories assumed that we came her by chance, and talking statistics, it needs trillions of accidents to happen for human being to exist, which I don’t know where is these accidents would come from.
Humane-being created as a man and woman, and when they make love they get childern, count to me how many accidents has to happen for first man to exist, and then for a woman to exist, or may be it started with a man and then he was so smart and he colone him self and then by accident the colone was a woman(I got new theory), I think that would better than Darwin theory LOL.
And don’t forget about the rest of uncountless species, and how they perfectly created.
If you look deep enough there is one answer for creation, is a GOD.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Mohamed: “I didn’t say that’s moral that old guy to have relationship with with 9 years old, but I’m talking about now, then it was something ok from girl physical stand point and from enviroment, and I said she never complained about him, on contrary she loved him so much and a lot of stories proved that”
So you do concede that the prophet was amoral. You say that’s mitigated by the fact that this 9 year old was physically mature and didn’t complain, but actually praised him? The fact that she was or wasn’t physically mature is of no consequence, as is her putative like of her situtation. It’s up to the adult to act like an adult not a child to say it’s ok.
As for your characterization of evolution as a fairy tale. That’s your religion making you call something that has been thought out well, with countless examples the opposite of what it is. Do you actually understand the slightest bit about evolution?
If god created man so perfect, why does he have an appendix. Evolution explains that easily enougth. How does your amoral prophet?
P.S. Recovered Catholic, I got the joke, just thought I’d tack on my bit ;)
March 28th, 2007 at 12:57 am
As I said before, i Beleive in evolution to certain limit, evolution happens but not far to explain how the human being created, for appendix, that’s the part that I agree with evolution on, but not further than that evolution is just tool helps species to exist and go on.
I studied evolution and I know about, I’m not that deep though, but there is no way that would creat human being.
The other thing I would assume that you are an expert in evolution, would you explain how the evolution said about man and woman and how they got differnt part, and the man exist first how long it took for him to have a woman, and he didn’t died before evolution produced another woman.
Please consider me stupid or ignorant, just answer this question.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Mohamed: “The other thing I would assume that you are an expert in evolution, would you explain how the evolution said about man and woman and how they got differnt part, and the man exist first how long it took for him to have a woman, and he didn’t died before evolution produced another woman.”
I’m not an expert, just an interseted amateur. How did men and women get their different parts? Sexual dimorphism? The same way all species that exhibit differences between the genders I suppose.
Man didn’t first exist without females. That’s religious dogma. There was no Adam and Eve. There was no first man who waited around for a woman to appear. People are just the current stage of evolution. Go back in time and we would look different, we would have different features, be more like our anscestors we shared with the apes. We would still have male and female pre-humans. All the way back to the point where sexual reproduction gained the creature an advantage over asexuel reproduction.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“I’m not an expert, just an interseted amateur. How did men and women get their different parts? Sexual dimorphism? The same way all species that exhibit differences between the genders I suppose”
You still didn’t answer my question, so how the Apes existed and apply the same question, how they got the gender, and if you are not an expert, please some expert or evolution god(lol) tells me please.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:23 am
As I said we evolved from an ape like anscestor, this in turn evolved from a previous anscestor. You can go back until the first living organism.
Gender, as I tried to explain above evolved when it proved advantageous to survival. Sexual reproduction allows a greater mixing of genes which allows better opportunites for surving changes in the environment.
What you now see as massive differences is just the end result of slow evolution from creatures that had no sex to male and female. One thing you don’t understand is that we don’t have all the steps. So there may not be a fossil of the first male/female creatures. But that only proves we don’t have that step. It doesn’t mean there’s a god.
This might fry your mind: You do know that all men, start off life as women? Long before you were born, you were female. You male organs are actually the clitoris and ovaries, that have descended to the surface during your early life. This change is caused by hormones, and is well understood.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:27 am
My question will be simple this time. who created the first living oragnism?
March 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Here’s a link for you that may answer better than I.
Evolution of the sexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
March 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
The first organism is simple. The conditions were such in that time that life could spring from the available chemicals. This may seem near impossible, but it only had to happen once. And it makes a lot more sense than a creator or god. Also the proof that it happened is that we are here.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Here’s a link that might help, then again it is wikipedia and probably has some evolution hating guy putting in his dogma inspired stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisms#History_of_life
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
No comment.
At least I can tell you one thing, I have explanation for my question wihch leads to it’s a God with out rfering you to a link.
Mostly when people don’t have answeres they direct me to Wikipedia.
I don’t all of these nonsense research and all of these fairy tales, that it’s not even proven scientifically, it’s all based on theories.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
March 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
“hat it’s not even proven scientifically, it’s all based on theories.”
You obviously don’t understand science or how it works. Theories aren’t stories, or guesses, they’re explanations based on empirical evidence. The can’t be proven, only disproven. As I said before, we don’t have all the answers, we haven’t explained everything. Maybe we never will. But an imaginar sky fairy called god doesn’t help.
“At least I can tell you one thing, I have explanation for my question wihch leads to it’s a God with out rfering you to a link.”
Since you love proof so much, prove to me that god exists. Or show me how I can prove he doesn’t exist. Until you can do that, you are not using your mind.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Or should I say, you’re not using you mind to reason, just using it to repeat illogical dogma.
I gotta go Mohamed. Thanks for the discussion. I like you, just not your ideas. Have a good one.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I like you too man, but it’s the same for your ideas, i don’t agree with it, at least you are civilized.
Thanks
March 28th, 2007 at 3:09 am
You foolz! Don’t you see that peanut butter too disproves evolution??
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/peanut_butter_a.html
;)
March 28th, 2007 at 4:19 am
What happened Mohamed? You didn’t prove the existence god or give me a method to disprove his existence! You seemed so sure that he existed. Bummer hey?
;-)
March 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
If the evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to becomer a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists today can make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available. They should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence for evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build the cell, from scratch, eg. the raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.
JIM
March 28th, 2007 at 7:37 am
I didn’t see any of these mentioned so I’ll throw it in here. I apologize if all of this has already been addressed here.
Misconceptions of Evolution:
1. The THEORY of evolution.
This is a big one. Many people think the word theory here means it’s up in the air. The word “theory” in the science community is more like a saying “world view”. It’s the way we put all the facts and laws together and understand them. Other theories are quantum, germ, and relativity. All of which most people believe. Evolution is in no way up in the air.
2. the Big Bang
The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Many people put a whole series of supposed events, (big bang, stars, creation of solar system, creation of earth/moon, first life on earth and then evolution) together. These are all separate events in the scientific community. Some are more solid than others. evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the first life on this planet even. It takes over shortly afterward. All evolution says is that we all have common ancestors and that we diverge from there. Honestly, I’ve heard young earth creationists even say this. They just think it happened much more recently.
3. Chance
There is very little chance in evolution. Animals pick and choose who to mate with, and nature itself weeds out the weak. There is supposed chance in many of the other previously mentioned theories however. I’m married and have two kids. I choose who to mate with because of A). she was alive (low standards here :) ) and B). I found her to be someone I’d want to spend my life with.
Those are the three big ones.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:50 am
The thing I don’t understand about ID/Creationism, is where did the creator come from? Was there an earlier creator who created the creator who created us, or did the creator always exist?
MaxieZ: The reason the Big Bang is related to evolution is that it is the beginning of the clock. Before the BB there was no life, so we know with absolute certainty that all evolution has taken place since the BB.
Chance has plenty to do with evolution. By knowing the probability that a mutation will take place, we can judge how often we expect to see a mutation. We just don’t know how often those mutations can be expected to provide an advantage over the non-mutated.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
“Evolution never made sense to me , and it will never. There something to be created to in oreder for us to exist, Big bang and the other fairy tales don’t make any sense, just stupid assumption has doesn’t even make sense.”
Incorrect matter can spring into exsistance due to quantum effects. I’m sorry I lack the physics books on my person to explain it, but go look it up. Infcat if you had an empty universe and all eternity a big bang event would be a certianty no matter how low the probobility.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Skid,
God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.
What do you have to prove the evolution, nothing, just punch of retard ideas doesn’t qualify to even make a story, the funny thing that people who beleives in evolution as therory for existing think they are smart, and they are so fool if they look close enough.
God challanged people in quran to create an ant(which is so small and it’s not as comlicated as human being).
Can you do that, not even that I will lower it to you as Jim says before, create a simple cell, nothing more.
It’s not going to happen for sure because you can get all the ingredient, but where are you going to get the life for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skid,
You choked when I asked you how create the first life organism, so what do you want to say, you are going to direct me a Wikipedia link.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Jim says
“If the evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell. “
While the Origin of Life is very different form the Origin of Species and a very different theory, you are in luck, chemists have done just what you wanted to have done.
Sidney Fox (and many others) has been a big researching in this department and has created in the lab from “raw materials” protocells that show the abilities to 1) metabolize, 2) grow, 3) reproduce, 4) respond to stimuli, and 5) some forms of inheritance. All of the basic requirements of life created in the lab from not only “raw materials”, but “raw materials” that may well have existed in ancient pre-life Earth.
List of articles from Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fox+origin+of+life+protocells&hl=en&lr=
The second point Jim, is that there is no such thing as “chance chemical reactions.” Chemistry is very deterministic, the exact opposite of random. You mix some chemicals together under certain conditions you get certain yields of very specific products. This is basic chemistry.
I accept evolution not because any “source” says so, but because I have studied the evidence and found it overwhelming. The origins of life, I don’t have nearly the confidence about, but this is to be expected. We are talking about a singular event that happened billions of years ago (the origins of life) vs. an event that has happened over and over and over for billions of years and left a huge pattern of evidence for us to study (the origins of species).
What is pitiful and not humorous is that otherwise intelligent people continue to form opinions upon subjects they know very little about, and seem to do so with much authority for some reason, and ask for things that have already been accomplished.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
There you go as well mohamed, the creation of a primitive simple cell in the lab by scientists using raw materials. I doubt that will change your opinion of anything as dogmatic views of reality are oblvious to real evidence.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“Build the cell, from scratch, eg. the raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.”
Ummm… Even if we were able to build the simplest of cells from scratch, it wouldn’t prove a thing, about how nature did created the first cell. We know exactly what lighting is and where it comes from, but that doesn’t mean we can make it happen (yet). This doesn’t prove that god makes lighting bolts when hes angry.
It took a very long time for the first cell to evolve from collections of self replicating chemicals. Cells weren’t the first building blocks of life to pop into existence.
“Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available. They should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence for evolution for THEMSELVES.”
The main reason people believe evolution is because it makes sense. The reason you don’t believe it is because you don’t understand it, and you’re religious. You didn’t say anything religious in your argument, but I know you’re religious because the only reason people don’t believe evolution is that it contradicts religious doctrine.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
This is not really related to the issue but why do people have such distrust and hatred of wikipedia?
Of evolution, I am very bad at teaching even the most basic things to people but to me evolution is truth as we know it at this moment. It might change and I have nothing against that.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Here is another set of articles to preview at your leisure detailing the abilities of these lab created protocells:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11542056
Everything from metabolism to the formation of the all too critical ATP and even selective formation of peptide chains.
Abstract of article discussing how alive these are and answering the critics saying they are only 50-75% alive because they lack “genetic” coding for inheritance.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
oops last link was left off,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1891592&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
March 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hello gasmonso,
I have a few misconceptions about evolution that I’d like to be able to reference easily.
Misconception 1: Evolution cannot explain where life came from in the first place.
Actually, this is not a misconception, evolution does not explain the origin of life. The misconception really is that evolution should be able to explain abiogenesis (the creation of life from nonliving things). Abiogenesis is a completely different topic. Evolution only address how species change over time, not how life came to be in the first place. That’s a pretty big gap that God can still fill ;)
Misconception 2: Micro-evolution had been demonstrated, but macro-evolution has not.
Micro evolution inevitable leads to micro evolution. In other words, micro and macro evolution are not separate processes that need separate validation, but different manifestations of the same underlying processes.
Misconception 3: Evolution is random and is so unlikely to produce complex things as to be impossible.
Evolution has two primary components, genetic mutation and natural selection. While mutations are random, natural selection is anything but random. If you have two nearly identical animals, say deer for example, but due to a random mutation, one is slower than the other. Now a predator is chasing them. Which one will survive is not a random 50/50, but strongly in favor of the animal without the mutation. Thus the faster gene is non-randomly and naturally selected for.
Those are three big misconceptions that I often encounter.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
sidfaiwu, well stated, i’d add that evolution is more than just how species change but how new species originate and by extension how existing species go extinct.
I’m always amused about the accusations that evolution is a “random process” and the odds are too great. I always say, “Natural selection is a SELECTIVE process, and a selective process is the exact opposite of a random process.”
No one thinks that when a horticulturalists selects certain variants from a population to breed to create a certain kind of rose as random. Its so damn obvious that the process is selective. The only thing that has changed is what/who is doing the selection, human vs. nature.
I’d also add that nature is a much more efficient selective agent than man has ever been. Think about it. Nature selects on every possible trait, down to even microscopic or biochemical traits, any trait that has an impact on survivability and creates an advantage/disadvantage. Man on the other hand only selects on a few highly visible or desirable traits, the color and size of the flower or fruit for instance.
Man also has only been doing active selective processes for barely 10,000 years, but yet has been able to create things as different as cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, and cauliflower all from the same wild ancestor or change corn so dramatically you would not know it from its wild ancestor.
When people try to discount the power of natural selection to create great diversity I always have to just shake my head in amazement. Do they not understand the basics of what a selective process can do on a population of variants?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I agree that’s its almost impossible discussing evolution with creationists. I do semi-sympathize with part of their view…it IS amazing how we function and what makes us work as we grow and learn, etc. Nature is fucking amazing. But to think it’s as easy to be just created by something more intelligent is just ridiculous. Evolution is also pretty fucking amazing. Theists who at least accept science get more respect.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
eriday:
I understand that, but my point is the validity of evolution has nothing to do with how the universe started. Granted there has to be a universe and a planet for it to have happened on earth. However, there are alternatives to the big bang. No matter how that part happened doesn’t matter. You could also say that a creator did everything up to kicking off life and we could still have evolution being self guided.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Mohamed: “God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.”
So in other words, you have no proofs other than the word of amoral (and you agreed yesterday that the profhet Mohamed was amoral) that you read about in a book as proof that this god exists. Lovely circular logic. I have a book that exists, this book says it’s god’s work, therefore god exists. It’s called begging the question Mohamed. It’s sad you sink so low.
As for the creation of life, which isn’t evolution. Read above. As they’ve said all that is needed is the right chemicals. Scientists have done experimental stuff in labs, etc which show it can happen. But even if it they couldn’t. It doesn’t mean your book, written by your amoral prophet is fact. We know that the Quran is full of fallacies and contradicts itself. It only works if you believe there is a god. Of which you have no proof. You can’t provide proof.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
This is going to be a long post. I think I can answer some of the questions that arose here.
About evolution in general I would like to point out that we shall evade talking about “nature” doing the selection, etc. since there is no plan and hardly a direction in evolution. Things simply happen and prove to be beneficial for survival and/or reproduction afterwards. So prey animals don’t evolve into running faster in order to escape their predators. They simply do, for no reason. In the end, of course, the faster ones survive, seemingly giving the development a direction, but only in retrospective.
About the artificial cell: In case you do not know it, I’ll introduce you to Escherichia coli. It is a bacterium that lives in our intestine, is very important for our existence and has thus been studied in detail. It is one of those organisms whose genome is completely decoded and is generally seen as the best resarched organism in science. But even this stupid single-cell organism contains hundreds of proteins of which the function is unknown. To answer the question: The production of a living cell is not yet possible, let alone a multi-cell organism, since cells are by no means simple. I’m leaving out the protocells that have been mentioned in earlier comments, since they are more primitive than the most simple life forms today. However, all that needs to be done is further resarch. It is foreseeable that the artificial production of cells will one day be possible (although I see little use in this, since natural reproduction does the job easier).
How did life evolve on earth? Look up the Miller-Urey experiment (in a serious science book if you don’t like Wikipedia). What these guys did was a simulation of earth’s early atmosphere, containing only basic inorganic compounds. The water was heated and further energy was led into the system via electrical sparks (simulation of lightning). After a week, organic compounds were found in the flask, about half of the amino acids that make up our current pool of amino acids today. The protocell experiments show that amino acids can be self-sequencing. Long chains of amino acids are called proteins. Arranged in the right order they can form complex bonds (a certian type of chemical bond) with metals and other organic molecules, which makes them biological catalysts, called enzymes. So much for the origin of enzymes.
So where did DNA come from? Actually, DNA has a mother that is called RNA. RNA looks similar (if the molecule is drawn on a sheet) but is less stable and does not form double strains like DNA. However, it is more versatile in its functions. RNA not only carries genetic information (today, mainly DNA is used for information storage, being more stable [evolution, anyone?]) but can also perform tasks similar to enzymes. Anyway, the chemical difference between the two is rather small (a single hydroxy group that is in a certain place or not). They consist of a phosphate-sugar backbone and nucleic bases, the latter forming the genetic code through their sequence.
Sugars are simple organic molecules that can form spontaneously. No source on that, but my chemical knowledge tells me so. Phosphoric acid is one of the most basic inorganic compounds and phosphates (the salts of this acid) are the most common form of the element phosphorous on earth. In an aquaeous solution, phosphates can and will form esters with organic hydroxides (alcohols and sugars). So the formation of the RNA backbone is quite likely.
Adenine (one of the five nucleic bases found in DNA and RNA) can be formed from hydrogen cyanide, also a very basic inorganic compound. A friend of mine has actually conducted such a reaction in a lab to produce adenine in order to produce another substance from adenine. The other nucleic bases can be formed in similar ways. Interesting about this is that some of the most important compounds of life stem from one of the most unhealthy compounds.
So there we are: Enzymes, DNA and RNA can be formed from basic inorganic compounds. But they’re not the only molecules that make a cell a cell. Extremely important is the cell membrane. It separates the inside from the outside, enabling the cell to maintain chemical conditions that differ from the equilibrium conditions on the outside. In fact, this is one of the basic rules of cell biology: Cells are never in thermodynamic equilibrium with their environment. If they are, they are dead. This gap in conditions enables the cell to use chemical potentials (such as pH differences) to convert energy. But that’s not the point here. The question I was going to answer is: Where does the membrane come from?
The cell membrane consists of a bilayer of phospholipides. A phospholipid is a fat molecule (glycerol triple esterified with fatty acids, all quite simple in structure and likely to form spontaneously) in which one of the fatty acids is exchanged with phosphate. They can be seen as cylindric molecules featuring a hydrophilic “head” and a hydrophobic “tail”. Similar to simple fatty acids and tensides (soap, simply put) you’ve probably been taught about in school, with one difference: The simplified form of a tenside is more cone-like, while phospholipides are cylindrical. If you solve soap in water you’ll notice that it turns turbid (maybe I’m using the wrong vocabulary here, I mean “no longer clear”). You have been told in school that this is due to the soap molecules sticking their hydrophobic tails together, forming a so-called micelle. Numerous micelles spread light and make the water turbid. Now, phospholipides are cylindrical rather than conical and thus form bilayers with their lipophilic tails in the middle and their hydrophilic heads on the outside. There is no magic involved: The bilayer is the thermodynamically optimal arrangement for phospholipids in an aquaeous solution. Essentially, this bilayer is a membrane. If it encloses a small space, it seals it from the outside conditions.
You see: Throw in the typical early earth atmosphere and some energy, give it some time (one billion years will do) and you get primitive cells.
So why did life evolve on earth, not somewhere else in the universe?
There are solar systems over solar systems with stars over stars with planets over planets in the universe (and there are theories [yes, only theories] that suggest that there are even universes over universes in some ten dimensions, but I’m not going to talk about that). There are certain conditions that need to be met to make life evolve as I described it: Liquid water, a certain composition of the planet’s atmosphere, not too much gravity to hinder the development, not too little gravity to make the planet keep hold of its atmosphere, et cetera. But with the vast number of planets on the universe, it would be a true wonder if life had not evolved on one of them. Now we are sitting on this rock and ask ourselves why we are here and not somewhere else. It’s like asking why you were born in country X instead of Y. It just had to happen somewhere.
What I find much more interesting is the following question: Why does anything exist instead of just nothing? To me, the aforementioned ten-dimensional theory helps a bit, but in fact, science can never explain this miracle (because if there are ten dimensions, why do they exist at all?). At this point it is up to everyone him/herself to decide what to believe. I for my part chose not to believe in a reason behind all this. I simply feel better this way. But I would not dare take someone’s faith away at this point.
All right. Questions answered and again it’s late when I should be sleeping. But I hope this explanation solves some miracles, while it leaves room for one that can never be solved. Miracles are cool, especially the miracle of existance, so enjoy!
March 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
So there you have it, atheist gives a dense (I mean in terms of needing more than a rudimentary understanding of the natural sciences) but logical explanation and Mohamed invokes the call to higher authority to demonstrate he has no idea.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Mohamed, I was just reading some of your quotes about your prophet. You say it is wrong to judge him by today’s standards. By the standards of his time, his murdering, stealing and marrying of children were normal. I don’t think that’s true. I think those acts would always be bad. But back to my point. You use him as an inspiration for people of today. But by your own word he is a terrible person by today’s standards. How can you say that he is a good person today, when you admit what he did is unacceptable? If he is a role model for today’s people, he has to be judged by todays standards.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:45 am
@skids
no doubt. once again, the whole point of, if ‘the prophets’ message was divine then wouldn’t it be as current today as it way back then? mind you, i am sure mohamed is going to come back with some dumbass statement on how we don’t understand the ME culture or how we didn’t study kuran (sp?) properly. its all f-ing bullshit if you ask me… hey mohamed, you are worhshiping a pedophile desert bandit! how does that feel?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
atheist, gives quite a bit of detail on some specifics, but I would go well beyond the Miller-Urey experiements done back in the 1950’s. That would be a starting point at best. There is tons of new research done since then on this perplexing question of how life arose.
However atheist at the end said this that caught my eye
“At this point it is up to everyone him/herself to decide what to believe.”
Or how about just saying “I don’t know.” Isn’t this the most honest answer one can give when talking about things that we can’t really know and we “must decide to believe”? It’s my answer when someone asks me why does anything exist at all, which I agree completely with atheist, is a most amazing question and really fun to think about.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Also for a good read up on the subject, although a little dates (1998) now, I highly recommend Major Transitions in Evolution. The first 6 chapters of this book deal with the origins of life and reviews the research and problems done to that point. It also examines the competing hypothesis, the definition of life, and the requirements of life and possible avenues of how life could have evolved (note this is “chemical evolution” not “biological evolution”).
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Hello atheist,
Your comment is very good, but largely misplaced. A majority of your comment is dedicated to justifying abiogenesis (the genesis of life from non-biological materials), which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life forms change over time, not how they came to be in the first place.
I’m afraid your post just emboldens ID supporters misconception that the theory of evolution needs to explain abiogenesis to be a valid theory. The theory of evolution never claims to explain the origin of life on this planet. A separate theory, based on the experiment you mention might do the job.
The reason this misconception bugs me so much is that we don’t yet have a unified, well-supported theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is a unified, well-supported theory. Mistakenly associating it with the origin of life opens up a huge gap that creationists think they can use to refute the entire theory.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hi sidfaiwu, I think atheist did write a good article, but probably covered more ground than necessary. As you will read above, I had an argument with Mohamed, who took the usual line that believers do, that is, if science can’t explain everything, then it must be god.
Ridiculous argument. I mean it may as well be the flying spaghetti monster. The great thing about science is we have to be humble and admit we don’t know it all, we don’t have all the steps yet, and may never. Believers site this as a weakness, and act as if having a jealous sky fairy covers all the steps and all is explained.
If jesus or mohamed knew it all, why didn’t they say people would one day look at a box that had moving images sent from another place to describe tv? or that we would find the bones of animals that lived millions of years before god got around to creating the earth?
Science has the humility to say it doesn’t know everything and change theories or throw them out from time to time. Religion still clings to the same mysoginistic dogma.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I’d just like to tack this on to the whole “Micro-macro” thing. Regardless of what you call the process, they are still handled by the same mechanic, genetic variation selected by environmental pressures. Saying that Micro-evolution happens but then saying that you doubt Macro-evolution is like saying that, depending on you definition of Macroevolution, that I can take steps but can never cross the street, or I can take steps towards the other side of the street but you doubt that I can propabilistically take the last step to finish the trip.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
sidfaiwu: You’re right, of course, that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. I just felt like the topic needed some explanation. Some of the believers among our community seemed to be interested not only in evolution but also in the origin of life. Also, I hope the article was interesting for the pagans as well and gave them some arguments for future discussions.
Yet I think there is a connection in that the theory of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis: Thermodynamically speaking, life is a pretty odd state for matter. Life is a very ordered state (low entropy) but matter is driven towards an unordered state (high entropy). Naturally, any aggregate that is assembled simply by chance would disintegrate by chance as well. But once there were the first cells with mechanisms to persist and to procreate (also assembled by chance), they shifted the odds. That’s why there is a lot more life on earth today than would assemble in a dynamic equilibrium. I think it’s fair to call it (in principle) an evolutionary mechanism that those cells persisted that had the drive to do so hardwired in their genome.
I guess this paragraph also contributes to Jones’ post about the interconnection of micro and macro evolution. But keep in mind that sometimes scale does matter (keywords: quantum mechanics, nanotechnology).
Anyway, one theory being applicable to another one does not mean that the falsification of one would automatically falsify the other. Believers, please listen to sidfaiwu and me. Stop thinking the two theories were bundled! :)
March 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
@Skids:58
That is also known as “argument from ignorance” - if YOUR theory cannot explain just one thing, then some other theory which has no evidence at all must be correct.
I like this form, which I think is even more obvious:
@Mohamed:
OK, so I accept that evolving by accident is ridiculous - so are you happy now that we can we agree that the Vedas are correct, and what is written just below here in italics is true? If not can you please tell me why not?
Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’ A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:27 am
“Anyway, one theory being applicable to another one does not mean that the falsification of one would automatically falsify the other. Believers, please listen to sidfaiwu and me. Stop thinking the two theories were bundled! :)”
atheist, I myself am a Theist and consider “evolution” and the debate over the existance of God two seperate debates. Evolution is largely a non-issue to me in the debate over the existance of God. The problem is that many atheists try to make the point that because “evolution happened” that makes the existance of God impossible. Many mistakenly assume that “evolution” makes God dead. But many creationists also spend too much time worrying about evolution. I think it’s ignorance in general, on both sides, not only believers.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
@kale
i doubt many atheists, despite not believing in a god, will use evolution for such purposes. one thing is certain, genesis is garbage and theory of evolution can be used to demonstrate why the bible simply can not be the literal word of god…
i am really shocked that in the 21st century we are still having these kinds of debates anyways…
March 31st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Kale, I agree with you. I also think that none of the points that I laid out prove or disprove the existance of God. You probably recognised the smiley behind the text. I don’t really think a sentence like “please stop thinking this” will actually make people do so.
My aim is not to make believers loose their faith. If it is truly faith it doesn’t need proof. But I do argue with them about the way they live it. I can get along with them pretty well if religion doesn’t keep them from acting responsibly - contrary to many other posters here I think this is possible for religious folks as well. Boris explained it well: Taking Genesis literally is the problem.
And yes, there are ignorant atheists, too. Those that I encountered are mostly pubertal kids who need a reason for feeling superior to someone else.
Unbelievers, please listen to kale and me: Don’t try to use either the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis as an argument against the existance of God! ;)
April 1st, 2007 at 1:55 am
“Boris explained it well: Taking Genesis literally is the problem.”
How can you not take Genesis, the first book of the Holy Bible, literally and still believe in God? I don’t think “God” gave Christian the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe to be true.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
@Kyle:65
Dude, it’s a self-validating fairytale. They can make shit up as they go along, so they do. I know how it works, I used to do it :-/
@Kale:62
Well said - evolution/creation and theism/atheism are seperate debates…. except that if you become convinced of either biblical litteralism, or alternatively, the “I know there is no god” type of atheism, then you don’t have the option of making up your mind on creation/evolution, only one option becomes possible.
Still, well said - for you, there is hope ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
@Mohamed:
“God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.”
What I would really like to know, and no theist has ever been able to explain, is why miracles happened only when we had no way to record them properly, or even examine them. Why aren’t miracles happening anymore as soon as there is a prestidigitation expert (”magician”) or scientist in the room? I think it’s because either the sleight-of-hand doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, or it was all hearsay — with people embellishing the story and inventing with every retelling.
It should be so easy to come up with an obvious, irrefutable miracle proving God if it existed, but it never, never, never happens. It’s like someone bragging and claiming that they can beat any athlete in the world but never attempting it. One gets tired of the empty claims. Wake me up when there’s evidence or “proof” that can be admitted in court.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
@atheist:
“Unbelievers, please listen to kale and me: Don’t try to use either the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis as an argument against the existance of God! ;)”
I’d like to note that as we’re discovering that God was not needed to explain this, that, and that over there, and this too, and so on, the realm of God is ever shrinking. So, in a way those theories and all of science are indirect arguments against God, whether or not it’s wise to use them as such. Attacking science makes sense from a religious point of view, as science diminishes the role of God. If it’s not evolution it will be another theory, and another, and so on. It’s been that way for a long time. After time, the theories get co-opted as a “tool of God” — I’ve heard evolution described that way.
I also note that God is shrinking in a reverse entropy kind of way: the more information we have, the less God there is, so God is akin to disorder and ignorance. Therefore ignorance is key to the strength of religions.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Hello NoReligionIsPeace,
I take a bit of exception to this. You are correct in general. Throughout history, what people believe is God’s direct role in the natural world has diminished throughout history as our knowledge increased. This still applies to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God and other versions of the Deity as well.
But serious theistic thinkers realized this during the enlightenment and decided that a ‘God of the gaps’ concept fails reason. Our increasing knowledge demonstrated our own ignorance of the nature of God. Thus, what they did was rethink the concept of God that admits our ignorance of It and the natural world. One can define God as the ultimate cause of everything. That is, God is why there is something rather than nothing.
What an adherent, such as myself, to this deistic God must remember, though, is that this is _all_ one can know about the nature of God. We must remain agnostic about all other properties of this being. It might be complex, like an intelligence, or It might be simple, like a singularity. It might have a personality, it might not. It might be omnipotent, it might be next to powerless. All things in the universe may ultimately have a natural explanation, or some things may require intervention. We simply don’t know.
Our increasing knowledge does nothing to diminish this more mature concept of God. Thus evolution cannot be used as evidence against the existence of such a Deity. What it can do, as Dawkins so eloquently points out, is give us reason to admit the possibility that God is not complex, but simple. Such a deistic view of God admits our collective ignorance of both God and natural laws.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
I kneel at the altar of sidfaiwu. You perfectly described the enlightened view of God that I failed to explain. I do not believe in God, but I like religious people who have come this kind of faith to which science is no rival.
Kyle: That’s how to not take Genesis literally and still believe in God, I suppose.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
@sidfaiwu:
I wonder if even asking “what is the ultimate cause of everything” makes sense — it sounds like a loaded question to me. It presupposes that there is a single cause that can be isolated (from what), and that temporal-causal thinking applies — we still don’t really know what time is. Supposedly the order of events depends on the observer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_Modern_Physics), which messes with my mind. So, “what is the ultimate cause” could depend on the observer? Our understanding of “It” is certainly limited by the rules we exist under. However, “It” may not be subject to any of them.
I guess using “God” as a shorthand to the presumed answer to the question is just as good as “42″ ;). However, I doubt that we are able to correctly formulate the question (which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try — personally, I prefer “Why does the universe exist?”). I also don’t see how the answer needs to be a “being” — that sounds antropomorphic to me (besides, can a being exist without a universe? It created the universe, but it couldn’t exist before creating it. What do you mean by “before”?).
Thanks for your interesting post — I learned something and you made me think. I have a headache now, though ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hello atheist,
Thanks for the compliment. Though I am a theist, I am not religious. This is because I do not know if God is worthy of worship, or if It desires certain behaviors of us, or even if It can posses desire. I am very suspicious of religions because they claim to already know all the answers when clearly they don’t. I also think that the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the universe we live in. Because of this, I cannot think of any profession nobler than that of research scientist.
Hey NoReligionIsPeace,
“It presupposes that there is a single cause that can be isolated (from what), and that temporal-causal thinking applies”
I actually quite agree with you on this. I recognize the difficulties associated with ‘ultimate’ temporal-causation. I generally use that sort of causation because it is simpler to explain. I only offer the following explanation when challenged on this point.
I understand ‘causation’, in this context, as ‘necessary for the existence of’. In this sense, electrons, protons, and neutrons ’cause’ atoms, atoms ’cause’ molecules, and molecules ’cause’ lifeforms.
This form of causation (I think it actually has a name, but I don’t remember it right now) is different from temporal causation. It doesn’t rely on the potentially particular way we happen to perceive time and causation. At the root, we know that the existence of space-time causes everything we know of in the universe. My question is ‘What causes space-time?’ If the answer is ‘nothing’, then space-time is self-caused, and meets my definition of God. That would make me a pan-deist (God = the universe).
This is a possibility that is new to my theology. It was added thanks to Richard Dawkins, who pointed out that the ultimate cause need not be complex, though he failed in proving it must be simple.
I’m afraid I didn’t do much to help your headache. You probably see why I typically stick with the simpler, temporal version, even though I don’t accept. I hope the aspirin is working :)
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
sidfaiwu:
I gather that you took “a bit exception” to my implication that the role and importance of *any* God diminishes as science progresses. I initially really meant the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, but let’s talk about yours.
It sounds like you solved the question of God by adding a layer of indirection (computer science joke: every problem can be solved by adding a layer of indirection, e.g., pointers). It sounds to me like claiming having solved a problem by postulating that there exists an envelope somewhere in the world with the correct answer inside and saying “that’s my answer!”.
If the answer is so remote and unknowable, is it still relevant? Perhaps a God like that is not at odds with science, but is it meaningful? I think it’s not at odds simply because it can’t be reduced any further or get any weaker as a concept. It certainly is not important (apart from the idea that you wouldn’t exist without It) in your daily life, as you admitted.
I’ll try to get my hands on something Dawkins wrote, though. Thanks for the discussion!
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Wikipedia in Simple Engligh describes Evolution very well (and simply):
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wki/Evolution
Part of the theory bit says:
While this misses out some details, this is the absolute core of the theory which everyone discussing evolution should (but sometimes does not) understand.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Hello again NoReligionIsPeace,
I’ll give you a bit of background. I am a mathematician by training. Because of that, I place a lot of importance in ‘there exists’ type proofs. ‘There exists an integer of the form N^2-1 that is not prime’ is a significant proof in number theory. I’ve often taken my mathematical ability and apply it to my passion for philosophy.
The proof that there exists a self-necessary Thing that is ultimately necessary for the existence of all else is significant in and of Itself. Our ignorance of the nature of this Thing (or even Things, in the case of dependent co-origination) shouldn’t diminish our interest in It. Since It exists and causes all, It is worthy of our philosophical and scientific efforts.
The very fact that there is something which is self-necessary is very exciting. It demonstrates how little we know about the universe.
Lastly, I never claimed that God is unknowable, just unknown (or unrecognized). Also, I never claimed It is remote. It could be space-time itself, which isn’t remote, and is certainly relevant.
You are welcome. Thanks for the discussion as well. I hope it will continue once you research some Dawkins ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi,
The talkorigin website is a great resource. Thoroughly referenced with vetted research from solid sources.
Wikipedia is nice and all but be careful as it is neither peer reviewed nor a vetted resource. Sometimes you have to do a little digging with multiple sources and verify things to make a valid point instead of regurgitating something from a singe source that might be wrong.
I would like to comment on those that rationalize that it isn’t worth arguing with the “ignorant” and “close minded” I think this is ignoring a larger threat.
Do not mistake fundamnentalist obsession with stupidity or ignorance. Some of these people are quite intelligent in their narrowly focused zealotry. Many are well funded and politically powerful. They may have a ridiculous need to take the bible literally, but their obsession is a danger to all rational thinking people as they will not stop until their religious supertstition and bigotry rules the rest of us. Think Christian version of an Ayatollah.
At the risk of sounding paranoid or like a conspiracy theorist, the Creationist agenda now is to use a phased “wedge” approach and push their pseudo-science (”Intelligent Design”) with the hidden agenda to advance a Christian Theocracy.
Case in point: recently I had the displeasure to watch “the Privileged Planet” at the urging of a co-worker. It seemed reasonable at first but it quickly turned out to be a slickly disguised piece of propaganda posing as a NOVA style documentary. I previously was unaware that Intelligent Design was made up almost entirely of Creationists.
A little digging revealed that “Illustra Media†(who made the DVD) and “Discovery Media†are the same company. Discovery media makes videos about the “endtimes†and other fundamental Christian superstitious drivel. see http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm
Illustra media’s is part of the Discovery Institute which in turn is actually the same old Creationist crew.
I wasn’t the only one duped by these assholes: The Smithsonian almost fell for this pseudo scientific pap see this article: http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html
A quote: “The well-documented purpose of the Discovery Institute and its arm, the Center for Science and Culture (originally the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), is to drive “wedges” between materialistic science and the rest of society and to redraw science and culture along evangelical-Christian lines.”
When, after intense media attention, the religious nature of the film came into the open, the Smithsonian withdrew its cosponsorship, stating: “We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.” They allowed the film to be shown but turned down the payment. ”
Also -this article from Americans for the Separation of Church and State sums up the Discovery institute nicely: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
Also worth reading is how these jerks hid their sources when getting PBS to make their “Unlocking the Mystery of life” available (your tax dollars at work helping to advance the creationist wedge strategy)
See this from the National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp
This is just one example. All of this shows what a small group of organized, intelligent and ruthless assholes can do- and I call them assholes because they claim to be “Christian” and their deceptive practices, misrepresentation and concealed bigotry is the epitome of hipocrisy.
Thanks
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 am
Miracales ended with appearence of Muhammed, that’s what he promised, mircales here means that kind that will change the face of the earth like Noah when the flood came, or Mosses when he splitted the sea.
There are still mircales, where you see it and it’s not going to change your faith.
Still there is one mircale on the earth(Quran)
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
And of course I just have to ask, what, exactly, makes the quran a miracle? Other than, like every other holy book, it is a miracle that anyone reads it and actually believes the stuff in it?
It also strikes me as spectacularly convenient that god decided that about the time that their “prophet” made an appearance, which just so happens to correspond with the start of modern society, to stop showing off with all the grand miracles. The ones that prove he/she/it exists. A time where individuals learn to read and not just the scholars. A time where written history really begins to take off.
Why is it that those ancients are more deserving of indisputable proof of gods existence? If you even try to say that we have indisputable proof now, I swear I will never even remotely take one of your posts seriously again.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
@mohamed
both the bible and the kuran are to some extent based on the same piss-poor jewish mythology. why is one a miracle and not the other?
as far as noah goes, its as much nonsense as anything else in genesis. i mean really people… come to think of it, there must be a good reason its the first chapter: if you believe that nonsense, you’ll believe *anything*.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
The people who take the bible as literal history amaze me.
The story of Noah is one of the fables that stand out the most in fact. Ok, this guy builds a ship out of wood, big enough to hold two of every critter plus enough food for over a month for all of them (what did you feed the lions?). There are so many physical and logistical impossibilities in the whole Noah story it absolutely requires gods intervention in every single stage of the process.
Then, you have to ask yourself why god was so personally involved in people’s day to day existence back then with not a peep from the big old fairy in the sky in the last 2 thousand years. Oh sure, people claim miracles on a daily basis, but you are going to have to do better than a smudge in a pizza pan.
The whole god thing is comical in the extreme and the more I think about it the weirder it gets that people actually believe in the gods of the major religions. They REALLY and TRULY believe this stuff?? :)
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Mohamed,
Thanks for the explanation about Muhammed’s promise, I didn’t know that. It’s awfully frustrating, though, how it prevents scientific validation. It reminds me a little of how some people claimed being able to hear the dead by recording tapes in cemetaries. To discourage people from using scientific verification, they were scaring them with stories of how the dead can keep haunting you if you try that “incorrectly”. It hurt me that my mother would believe their claims and disregard all the flaws and causes for doubting them that I pointed out. I guess she *wanted* to believe.
To go back to evolution, I agree with others pointing out that some people will believe what they want no matter what. To make them understand evolution would require a scientific foundation that they don’t have and possibly just can’t be built. As the saying goes, “Don’t try to teach pigs to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig”. That is, unless pigs get elected in positions of power. That’s one of the problems with democracy: asking people to decide on things for which they have no qualifications…
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
“Democracy is one of the worst systems ever invented; It is only better than all the others that have been tried”
Just wanted to drop a quick note here about a conversation I had with two (religious)moslems who turned out to take Evolution as a fact and the story about Adam and Eve as a metaphor. Turns out people like this exist in every religion after all… (I’m just sharing my amazement here, nothing to see!)
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Again,
I mentioned that mircales which means mrcales change people to beleive in god again, hearing the dead could be mircale for this person.
Quran is mircale where it comes from illetrate person didn’t know how to read or write, he wasn’t even know by writting poems, and he came with this Quran.
The mircale still stand, which there is challange in the Quran if you can get section like Quran, and no body could, I know some of the dreamers here in this site, would say that on the internet people did, which is some nosense don’t make any meaning.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Quran is mircale where it comes from illetrate person didn’t know how to read or write, he wasn’t even know by writting poems, and he came with this Quran.
But how do we know that this man really was illiterate? We’re really having to take that on his word. Maybe he just hadn’t done anything really that noteworthy at the time and then suddenly makes a wonderfully poetic work. JK Rowling wasn’t even heard of until she wrote Harry Potter but the very first book she wrote was enough to rocket her to the status of world fame (please don’t take offense at me comparing the Quran to Harry Potter, it’s just the best analogy that I can think of right now).
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
OK, I have skimmed through your threads of banter, and am curious. I accept creation for various reasons, but that’s not why I am entering this arena. I have never had evolution explained to me be an evolutionist. I’m sure that my view of your beliefs have always been created in a controlled environment. Does that make sense? I have always been taught evolution from a creationist. So, if you are willing, start with evolution 101. Some of you spoke earlier of the glimmering hope of converting one of the lost sheep that have gone astray…well, my mind is open…but I must warn you, I am not easily swayed. I am a natural analyst and will have questions.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I would be careful what you ask for, AJ. It’s dangerous around these parts. I would like to put something up to help you, but I haven’t the time currently. Perhaps by the weekend, if I remember. I am not a biologist but a philosopher by trade (if that can be called a trade :) ), and so I think I could help with just clearing up some of the vagueries before a more serious discussion could start. To be honest I myself have read very little of this thread, partly because of the time thing, and partly because these discussions seem to all follow the same direction. Hopefully we can get a better start.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:41 am
the blind watch maker is the best documentary i’ve seen explaining evolution in a easy-to-understand manner.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848
And it’s hosted by a strapping young richard dawkins, to boot.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Ù‹Well Mohammed I think there is really no way to say “X wrote something like Y” especially if Y has lots of value in the eye of the judge.
I didn’t see anybody yet who wrote something like Tolkien’s Silmarillion or Roddenberry’s Andromeda… Sure there is some stuff that’s similar, but nothing that would qualify “he wrote something exactly like it”
Anyhow, here’s something you might wanna read, a complete Surah written from scratch(alas not by me):
سÙبْØَاَنَ الَّذÙÙŠ خَلَقَ Ùَقَدَّرَ (1) ÙˆÙŽ رَÙَعَ الْشَّمْسَ ÙˆÙŽ الْقَمَرَ (2) ÙˆÙŽ Ùَتَقَ الْسَّمَاوَات٠وَ أَنْزَلَ الْمَطَرَ (3) ÙˆÙŽ خَلَقَ الْجÙنَّةَ ÙˆÙŽ الْبَشَرَ (4) ÙˆÙŽ شَقَّ الْبَصَرَ (5) ÙˆÙŽ ÙÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ‚ÙŽ الْØَجَرَ (6) ÙˆÙŽ Ùَجَّرَ الأَنْهَارَ تَجْرÙÙŠ بÙقَدَر٠(7) Ø£ÙŽØ¥ÙÙ„ÙŽÙ‡ÙŒ مَعَ الله٠الْعَظÙÙŠÙÙ…Ù(8) كَلاَّ ÙˆÙŽ الْمَطَرÙ(9) ÙˆÙŽ الْتّÙرَاب٠إÙذَا زَÙَرَ (10) لَتÙبْعÙØ«Ùنَّ Ù…ÙÙ†ÙŽ الْØÙÙَر٠(11) زÙمَراً زÙمَراً (12) Ùَيَعْلَم٠مَنْ ÙƒÙŽÙَرَ (13) أَنَّ الْعَاقÙبَةَ Ù„Ùمَنْ شَكَرَ (14) ÙˆÙŽ صَلّى ÙˆÙŽ Ù†ÙŽØَرَ (15) ÙˆÙŽ صَدَّقَ بÙالْقَدَر٠(16) سَيÙجْزَوْنَ الْنَعÙيمَ الأَكْبَرَ (17) يَوْمَ تَإÙزّ٠الأَرْض٠أَزًّا (18) ÙˆÙŽ تَرÙزّ٠الْرّÙعÙÙˆÙد٠رَزّاً (19) ÙˆÙŽ تَنÙزّ٠الْقÙبÙÙˆÙر٠نَزّاً (20) Ø°ÙŽÙ„ÙÙƒÙŽ يَوْم٠الْنَّÙÙير٠(21) ÙˆÙŽ مَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا يَوْم٠الْنَّÙÙير٠(22) يَوْمَ تَعْصÙÙ٠الْعَاصÙÙÙŽØ©Ù (23) تَتْبَعÙهَا الْقَاصÙÙÙŽØ©Ù (24) ÙˆÙجÙÙˆÙÙ‡ÙŒ يَوْمَئÙذ٠رَاَعÙÙÙŽØ©ÙŒ (25) عÙÙŠÙÙˆÙÙ†Ùهَاَ وَاَجÙÙÙŽØ©ÙŒ (26) خَائÙÙÙŽØ©ÙŒ نَازÙÙÙŽØ©ÙŒ (27) ÙŠÙŽÙ‚ÙولÙونَ يَا لَيْتَهَا كَانَتْ الْزَّائÙÙÙŽØ©ÙŽ (28) ÙˆÙŽ كَذَّبَتْ قَبْلَهÙمْ قَوْم٠نÙÙˆÙن٠بÙالآَجÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (29) ÙˆÙŽ قَاَلÙÙˆÙا مَاَ لَنَا Ù…Ùنْ Ø¢ÙŽÙÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (30) ÙَأَخَذْنَاَهÙمْ بÙالْعَاَجÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (31) ÙˆÙŽ أَرْسَلْنَاَ عَلَيْهÙمْ نَاَرَاً ØَاَمÙÙŠÙŽØ©ÙŒ (32) أَخَذَتَْهÙمْ ÙÙÙŠ الْقَاَئÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (33) Ùَكَاَنَتْ الْقَاَضÙÙŠÙŽØ©Ù (34) لاَ يَمْلÙÙƒÙÙˆÙÙ†ÙŽ Ù…Ùنْهَاَ ØَاَمÙÙŠÙŽÙŽØ©ÙŒ (35) Ø°ÙŽÙ„ÙÙƒÙŽ بÙأَنَّهÙمْ كَذَّبÙÙˆÙا بÙالآَجÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (36) ÙَادَّارَأÙÙˆÙا ÙÙي٠الْسَّاَÙÙÙ„ÙŽØ©Ù (37) جَزَاء الأَيَّاَم٠الْخَاَلÙÙŠÙŽÙŽØ©Ù (38)
Guess I’m hijacking the thread here…
April 4th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Ok,
Agony,
ÙˆÙŽ خَلَقَ الْجÙنَّةَ ÙˆÙŽ الْبَشَرَ
why you put that god create the heaven and the human being in one sentence, do you have a reason for it, if you think that Quran about putting some words to make a music, you are wrong, when people who study quran and question it, they ask about why this word came after that word, and they study the possibility of getting better word than what’s in the Quran, and yet they couldn’t to replace one word in Quran to get better meaning.
I’m not good in Arabic, but if somebody knows a good Arabic,they will find a million mistakes in what you wrote.
Again Qurab is not a bout ryhme, you misunderstand me,it’s about a language structure.
Beleive me, a lot of people tried to find a better words, they couldn’t, so good luck for you.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Hello AJ,
A great explanation for evolution from a biologist’s point of view can be found by clicking here (provided by The University of California Berkeley). There is a lot of information there, but take it a bit at a time and in order and you’ll understand the basics of the theory of evolution from the non-creationist’s point of view.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:25 am
AJ - At the risk of sounding like a putz, if you believe in something as fantastical as god and creationism you ARE indeed easily swayed. Quite gullible indeed. You believe in a crazy fairy tale without a shred of evidence. You will probably claim you have seen evidence, but if you do you are redefining the word. Feelings in your tummy when you read the bible are not evidence. Nor is a vague cross shaped set of branches in a tree in your yard.
Mohammed - It has been addressed, but just because a couple of millennium after the fact it is claimed that some illiterate dude just magically wrote the quran does not make it a miracle. More than likely (by a grossly large margin) it is a lie and a hoax. You are going to have to come up with more than stale old hearsay on that old my man.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Michael- thanks for your thoughtful input. I however am trying to approach this with an open mind and am not interested in participating in a dogmatic debate. You have no idea of my reasoning for accepting creation to this point, and you have greatly underestimated my intellect. If speaking of fairies and such is all the persuasive evidence you have to offer…thanks but no thanks. I’m sure you will respond with something sharp and witty, but unless you would like to talk intellectually…I’m done. And, yes, you can speak of creation from an intellectual point. Although obviously you have never explored that option with an open mind or else you would know that it is far beyond a “feeling in you tummy”. I have always been taught that any theory of how we arrived to this point ultimately requires a leap of faith. I am searching to find where you guys have to jump off, or if you arrive safely to your conclusions never missing a step. By the way, I don’t trust cross-shaped branches, pictures of Mary in a shovel, or images in the clouds. I truly want to explore the evidence. Next time, I wouldn’t be so quick to alienate an open mind. It really doesn’t add much credibility to your cause.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:28 am
AJ:
Alright, so I have myself a snow day here in the middle of nowhere, so, if you’re not really feeling like looking through the links others have provided, I think I could help to get a few basic things out of the way. Remember, I am not a scientist, and I’m feeling way too lazy to look stuff up, so I’m just going with what I know.
1. Evolution: The Basic Idea
You have a group of birds living off on some island. They are all pretty much the same. Now, every so often, there is a bird born with some weird mutation. One might be born with stunted wings, one with screwed up legs, etc. For the most part those birds die quickly and life goes on. However, at some point there is a bird that is born with an unusually large beak. Now, these birds eat nuts. They can open smaller ones or eat from ones with broken shells, but they can’t open bigger nuts. However, the bird with the larger beak can. So, he’s got a big advantage, since he can eat what other birds can’t. Now from here we can go in two directions. 1.) Perhaps there is a bad season and few seeds are found. Most of the birds die out. The one with the bigger beak, however, can get more food, and so survives. He reproduces with the remaining birds and his abnormal beak is passed on (assuming it is a genetic trait). 2.) This bird migrates to a new area where he doesn’t have to compete at all, and reproduces with the birds there. Either way, a distinct new bird arises.
This description is not perfect, and may not even be scientifically accurate, but it’s the idea in brief. It’s basically common sense. Dogs with three legs won’t last long in the wild. Animals that can’t find food or compete will die. Those who have the right traits will survive and reproduce. This brings me to my second point.
2. The ‘Niche’ Issue
One major creationist claim, which the “eye argument” falls under, is the level of perfection and adaptation found in species today. How could they be so perfectly adapted to their environments? One answer is God. Another answer is that it was no easy path. The reason living things fit so well with their environment is that if they didn’t, they would die. Simple. Of course, when you get to things like the eye, it probably isn’t something that came up overnight. True enough. However, I would say that the eye, along with other senses, is merely the result of a long line of related sensations of a lesser level of precision. In frogs, a rather ancient animal set, there are no ears like ours, but membranes that sense vibration. This might be seen as a simpler ear.
3. Complexity
“Why don’t things always get more complex?” is one form of objection. The important thing to keep in mind here is that complexity = jack if it doesn’t help you to survive. Complex eyes are nice and all, but moles seem to get along well enough without using them. Traits that allow species survival are #1 over any other way of describing characteristics. If we didn’t have a good use for eyes, we probably wouldn’t have them. The same might be said for intelligence. Evolution doesn’t put man as being on a pedestal just because he can have abstract thoughts. Rats do very well without such things. They’ve simply adapted to our environment like we’ve adapted to the world. The same goes for mosquitoes. They are stupid as hell, but they reproduce so fast that they continue.
4. The Odds
Here I go back to the eye. Okay, so perhaps the eye is the result of lesser progressions over a long period of time. But seriously, what are the odds of all those little evolutions not only taking place, but being successful, being genetic, and being passed on? They must be astronomical. And indeed they are perhaps smaller than that. Evolution would be very uncomfortable with a 6,000 year old earth because evolution typically takes a long, long time. The chance of a mutation is low. The chance of its being useful is so much lower. The chance of survival is much lower than that, and reproduction much lower than that. But, given billions of generations of billions of animals, it can happen.
I saw an article a couple days ago about a man who is locked in a prison hospital room because he refuses to wear a hospital mask. This man has Tuberculosis. Not regular TB, mind you, but a strain that resists all current treatments. If it got out, we could not cure it. This is an example of odds in action. Some creationists ask to see evolution in us right now, or in other animals right now. Well, you won’t see it. Frankly, we don’t reproduce fast enough. However, viruses do. They are in countless trillions number-wise and reproduce on a scale of hours or minutes. As a result we see the direct consequences of evolution when ’superbugs’ appear that are resistant to current treatments. Does it happen often? Statistically, hell no. But there’s so damn many that even with our few years on earth we can see it happen. Many experiments on evolution have been done in the past on fruit flies simply because their generations are short. If you want proof of the process it’ll likely be found here.
One last note here should be brought up about time. Like I said above, our generations and those of most animals are too long to measure by experiment. This time thing can be seen as a problem for evolution due to the demonstration problem, but we must remember two things. 1.) Compared to most other species, humans and larger mammals in general live pretty long lifespans. We simply can’t measure evolution in ourselves right now. 2.) Unless you’re a Young Earth Creationist, you believe the earth has been around for a long, long time. Certainly long enough for some evolution to at least be likely.
5. Evolution and God
This part I’m not going to go too in depth into because frankly matters about God can go on forever.
a. Does evolution discount God?
Not necessarily. The reason evolution doesn’t talk about God is simply because it hasn’t found a reason to. Remember, in science you try to avoid introducing things unless you feel there is some certainty that they can be shown to be involved. Creationists might respond by saying that perfection, time, or other things lead to God. However, in science you would prefer first to go with the more tangible, and second go with the “we aren’t sure yet” responses before going to God. When God is posited as the Creator, you are saying a lot that science can’t support (i.e. being first, being intelligent, all-powerful, etc according to the standard view). Scientists would typically say, “Whoa, slow down.” In short, scientific theories probably won’t posit God until he “shows Himself” (which I think we can all agree won’t happen anytime soon).
b. What about the origin of the universe?
Evolution claims nothing there. Evolution is just meant to systematically explain what we see in the here and now, and go from there to a likely explanation of hypothetical events. Specifically, it deals with species in competition for limited resources, and so the origin of things isn’t involved. For all an evolutionist knows, maybe God did create things. From there we can get the “Divine Clockmaker” view. Evolution doesn’t discount that. Instead we must go to theories like the Big Bang or the constant universe, but that’s a story for another time.
6. A final note on one particular criticism
I think I’ve done an all right job of explaining some criticisms of evolution up to this point, but there’s one in particular that I didn’t get to address and that really bothers me. It goes like this: “You say there were small changes over time according to evolution. But nowhere in the fossil record do we see these changes clearly. There are gaps.â€
I have two responses. The first is that the image typically connoted by this description is that a bird, for example, will over time start to develop a beak that’s a little bigger, and then the next generation a little bigger, and so on. I find this doubtful. Mutation is rarely so clean.
The second response is this. We have fossils of thousands of animals, right? But how many animals have lived and died from the origin of living things until now? Trillions? The odds of an animal 1.) having a body that can leave a fossil, 2.) dieing in a way that leaves a fossil (i.e. no oxygen, buried and basically cemented over, etc), and 3.) being found by us is incredibly small. Of course there are gaps. Even if we find all the fossils on earth it is still likely that there will be massive gaps. We’re just doing the best we can with what we’ve got.
—
I hope this is a good help for you, AJ, and for everyone else. If there are any corrections that someone more knowledgeable than me would like to make, feel free. I’m sure there’s more than one thing I wasn’t right on. If there’s any questions or need for elaboration, I’ll try to respond if I can, but if anyone else thinks they can give a worthy response, go ahead. I just wanted to create a good starting point.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Hello Again AJ,
Please don’t miss the link I provided in comment #90. One thing to keep in mind in this discussion is that none of us are experts on the subject. Also, it’s not really that we believe in evolution per-se, but that we believe in the scientific method’s ability to reveal (or at least approximate) reality. We believe in evolution for the very same reasons we believe in the inverse-square law of gravity (the gravitational force between any two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them). Most of us have never done experiments to directly verify this, yet we believe it anyway. The reason is that the scientific method, which produced the law of gravity and the theory of evolution, has a proven track record of producing practical models of reality. Thanks to the theory of gravity, we’ve been able to put satellites in orbit around our planet and greatly improve our ability to communicate and navigate the globe. For a list of practical results of the theory of evolution, see this webpage.
The danger of asking non-biologists to explain the theory of evolution is that they may not have a full understanding of the theory. Again, I’ll use the more familiar analogy of the theory of gravity. Many people, especially here in the States, think that the theory of gravity states that the force of gravity is constant. While true locally (on the surface of our planet), this is an incomplete understanding of the theory.
With that caveat, I’ll try to explain the basics of evolution. Basically it is descent with modification. We have noticed for centuries that the offspring of biological life forms have characteristics of their parent(s) with other modifications (thanks to recessive genes and the occasional mutation). In fact, farmers have been using this knowledge since the dawn of agriculture to select certain plants to breed because of their desirable properties. This is known as artificial selection. We have done the same with dogs, resulting in multiple breeds.
What Darwin provided us with is the realization that the environment selects which individuals breed; aka, natural selection. Unlike artificial selection, there is no intelligent agent that is selecting the species for its own self interest. Natural selection occurs, well, naturally. Those with traits that decrease its abilities to survive and breed will be much less successful at passing on those traits on to the next generation. Eventually, those traits will disappear entirely.
That’s the start of the basics. There is a lot more to it, but I want to give you the chance to absorb this much and ask questions.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Very well done, Snurp. Once again I see what I like in this site’s community: We come back to talking sense more often than the average flame board. Since you asked for additions, I’ll throw in one.
You mentioned the reproduction of viruses in paragraph #4. Please note that viruses fall out of the definition of life. They do not reproduce themselves. Instead they manipulate living cells to use their reproduction mechanisms on them. However, the example is all right, viruses are subject to mutations as well.
No time for more additions now, although I still have some on my mind. Need to sort them first.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Thank you, atheist. I think I can still maintain that statement though by switching ‘viruses’ with ‘bacteria’. After checking, tuberculosis itself is a mycobacterium, and so counts as life. But you are right, the example works either way. Basically, in short generations with large populations we can see mutations actually working in a way that supports evolution.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Thank you all for your input thus far. I’m a stay-at- home wife, and haven’t had the opportunity to have such intellectual conversations among the “Desperate Housewives” set. I am looking into each post and the links given. You all seem very intelligent and I look forward to picking your brains about this topic.
Thanks again.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
AJ says “I have always been taught that any theory of how we arrived to this point ultimately requires a leap of faith.”
You have been taught wrong.
One can derive theories on how we have arrived to this point by examining the evidence.
Once one has derived a theory (such as Darwin did) many others can start using it to make testable predictions from that theory. Then they can start testing those predictions.
Over time a successful theory will accumulate more and more successfully tested predictions.
If a theory fails to make a successful prediction, it either must be modified to accommodate the phenomena it could not accommodate before or it must be completely rejected.
The Theory of Evolution makes a huge number of predictions. These predictions have been tested literally thousands of times. There have been modifications to the theory as new data is accumulated and it fails to account for some predictions, but no failure has put the theory in jeopardy of completely being rejected. No failure has came even close.
By the way the process I described above is how all modern science works. Whether its the medical research behind the prescription drugs you are taking or the science behind the semiconductors in the computer you are using or the science behind the Big Bang theory or the Theory of Evolution. They all work the same way.
1. Make observations
2. Devise Theory
3. Make Predictions from Theory
4. Test Predictions and try to falsify them
5. Revise Theory or reject it completely for any failed Predictions
6. Repeat 3-5 over and over again
There is no more “faith” in my acceptance of the Theory of Evolution than in the theories behind the semiconductors running in my computer. Both theories work, both make successful predictions, and both continue to churn out results.
Creationism, especially of the so-called scientific kind, has yet to make any predictions that have stood up to any level of substantial testing. Until it does, it does require a huge leap of faith to accept.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
PS
AJ, I posted my description of science above because to understand any scientific theory once must understand the basics of how science works. This is critically imperative when it comes to trying to differentiate between a scientific theory (like evolution) and a non-scientific idea (like creationism).
Also to put things into perspective, almost all scientists spend their entire careers in steps 1 and steps 3-5 in my list above. Only a minority of scientists actually devise a “theory” (Darwin, Einstein, etc.) and this is usually a lifetime adventure in itself, or especially now a days teams of the brightest minds in the field. And all such theories are built upon the foundation of work done by other scientists conducting steps 1 and 3-5 and even other scientists who failed at step 2 in creating a successful theory.
Finally to elaborate a little more on my last paragraph from my previous post. Creationism as a scientific theory has been falsified now for well over 100 years, well before Darwin. Religious dogma has kept it around as a scientific idea, but it has failed to make any critical testable predictions, and like any other failed theory was sent to the waste bin.
You may say that I have put my faith in science and that is my “leap”, but I would say that is a very small leap indeed, considering the performance of science over the last several hundred years. Despite having a head start of thousands of years over modern science, no other tool humans have ever used has produced so much useful and accurate information about the natural world as science. Whether it was supposed divine revelation, philosophical thinking, or diving the innards of chickens or the stars, nothing even remotely compares to the huge success of science in revealing to us how the natural world works.
When it comes to relying on a tool that has proven so useful over so many that have not, I have a hard time saying that has anything to do with “faith.”
April 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
AJ: I really don’t want to get in a back and forth with you but your initial post came across to me as a high and mighty creationist deeming to talk to us poor lost souls. I get a little sick of creationists thinking they know anything when they believe the most insane things. After re-reading your post I recognize that I may have read into it more than was there.
I stand by my point though, if you believe in creationism you are easily swayed since there is not one iota of proof of anything the creationists say. I don’t have a competing origin story to offer though since evolution does not address that. I personally am not arrogant enough to claim to know how we all got here. Unlike almost all creationists.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Whew!…Soaking it all in…I have some preliminary questions starting to form. I need to do some more looking into a few things. Does the theory of evolution discount or go against any other laws of science. I’m not a scientist by any means, but in what little I have learned, I definitely have some questions. First of all, from your scientific backgrounds, why is it still a theory? Why is it not the law of evolution?
bloody_peasant,
I certainly acknowledge the numerous times that science has been correct in decoding the past and predicting the future. I do however need evidence on this particular matter. I am not alright accepting it based on “science says so”. They have been wrong before.(I really say that with a matter-of-fact tone. The last thing I want to do is inspire an emotional debate. That’s the problem with this type of communication…inflection can be lost or misconstrued. So please continue to share with me on a just-the-facts basis.) You mentioned there are some predictions that the theory has failed to prove, and some that have withstood the test. Can you be more specific?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Hello AJ,
I’ll address one of your questions: “…why is it [evolution] still a theory?”
This question stems from a common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Conversationally, we understand theory to mean ‘a guess at a possible explanation’. In science, this is a hypothesis. A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that has been supported by observation, experimentation, and/or data.
Also, scientific theories have varying degrees of support, based on the proportion of observations, experiments, and data that support the theory. Here is a list of well supported theories:
The theory of gravity
Germ theory
Plate tectonic theory
The Big Bang theory
Cell theory
atomic theory
The theory or relativity
The theory of evolution
Newton’s theory of motion
Note that many of these commonly go by the term ‘law’ instead of ‘theory’. One example is the law of gravity. This often happens in physics when a theory is extremely well supported. Biology does not adopt this term, even though it means the same thing (the law of germs just doesn’t sound right). Despite the different terminology, gravity is still only a theory, just like evolution.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu,
Your input on theories vs. laws makes sense. Also, thank you for the info in #90. I am reading through the tutorial. It will take a bit of time, but I have already found it useful. Thanks.
Hi vk0,
I have downloaded the video and plan to watch it soon. Thank you.
Snurp,
Thanks for starting with the basics. That’s where I’m at with all of this. It’s greatly appreciated.
I hope to return with many probing questions!:)
April 4th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
AJ,
I’ll get back with you tomorrow on some specific predictions, failures and successes
I’ll add to the theory vs. law.
A law in scientific terms is an simple observation that appears to be universal (although not always, see Newton’s Laws of Motion for an example). The Law of Gravity for instance says two bodies pull at each other at some constant force directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the distance between them. It is usually distilled as a mathematical formula.
As you can see the law of gravity is pertty simple. It makes really only one prediction and it doesn’t explain anything about “how” gravity works.
The Theory of Gravity (Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to be more specific) explains the how. In addition it makes many predictions. It is way more powerful than the old law from a pure production of knowledge standpoint. It will NEVER become a law. Theories do not migrate to laws. A working successful theory is the ultimate product of science and its most powerful product.
Laws on the other hand are simple observations that are usually incorporated into a working theory (e.g. the Law of Gravity is an observation that is included as part of the Theory of Gravity).
As for your other question, does the Theory of Evolution go against any laws of science. I know of none. If it did then either 1) the Law isn’t always consistent or 2) the theory is wrong. For example Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does contrast Newton’s Laws of Motions under certain circumstances, but Einstein’s Theory’s predictions have been validated and Newton’s Laws were invaldiated under those conditions, thus the Law was wrong and the Theory was right.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
check out my page myspace.com/hominidae
i have a blog about misconceptions
April 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
the theory of gravity talks about how 2 bodies of matter effect eachother.
So, in order to make that theory into law you need to:
first clear the entire universe of matter, then you add 2 hydrogen atoms with a distance of the least amount possible between them, you then monitor them for an infinite amount of time. you then move them to a distance of *2, and monitor them again for an infinite amount of time.
once you’re placed them in a infinite amount of distances of eachother and monitored them for an infinite amount of time each, you start with a helium (is that the next one) atom, and with all the other atoms and combinations thereof.
then you to the same with more than just 2 atoms, up to infinite, each with an infinite amount of volumes of each of the infite atom-amounts.
I probably forgot a few infite amount of experiments, but wouldn’t this be what it took to make a theory into law?
Oh, and all this information is very interesting, especially AJ’s response to it, keep it coming.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
@vk0:
I think that would make a theory into a fact(don’t forget to test the infinite number of velocities, energy levels, charges, isotopes… who knows? some things might make a difference)
mind you this is all terminology here, and I think you essentially mean fact when you say law, but as stated in post 102 by sidfaiwu the word “law” in physics is used in a rather lose fashion, and I didn’t hear about any new theory being called a law.
Perhaps the term has it’s origin in newton’s time when the *law* of gravity was kind of a holy grail to scientists… but I have not heard the term used often to describe any new theories. Maybe gravity seemed so undefyable and the theory seemed to universal that they gave it that law…
Okay I think I should stop blabbling about semantics and terms when there are more important matters at hand to discuss.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
This is all very enlightening. I think it is a subject worth having a clear and definitive answer for. It is one of the first things stated about evolution in the creation circles. The fact that it is referred to as a theory. Meaning there is still a bit of proof undiscovered. I think you have answered it pretty well. What I am getting is that because it is virtually impossible to have the perfect absolute controlled experiment to prove once and for all, then one must look at all the supporting evidence and tests thus far to draw a “conclusion”. But is there the one defining study that ultimately, undeniably, and definitively answers the question? Not, exactly. Is that correct? Please know that I am trying my best to convey these thoughts intelligently. I must admit I am slightly intimidated amidst such educated company. But, under the veil of anonymity…I press on. ;)
April 4th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Brave on, AJ. The intellectual rewards are worth the risk of temporary embarrassment. Anyway, your intellectual quest seems honest, so you’ll probably find nothing but encouragement from almost all of us. Even if you are not convinced in the end, at least you will understand our point of view a lot better.
It sounds like you got the gist of what a theory is and why evolution is ‘just’ a theory. Evolution is the best working model we have to explain the diversity of life on this planet. That model is constantly being refined as more data comes in. It’s not a perfect model for the exact reason you mentioned: it is impossible to have a perfectly controlled experiment and test all the possibilities.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Can we *please* start talking about the “law of selection” and “law of inheritance” and “law of mutation” then?
And welcome, AJ. Having seen the way your questions have brought the discussions back to Gasmonso’s original purpose (and with appologies to Voltaire), I think that if you did not exist we would need to invent you ;-)
April 5th, 2007 at 5:53 am
@AJ,
Theoretically you could do an experiment and find that any theory that we have is completely wrong, and thus eliminate if from existence.
What happens practically is a bit different, a theory as old as Evolution or Gravity already explains a lot of things that the new theory would somehow need to explain as well, so what we see is that the theory is usually extended and refined(sometimes in most unusual ways)
I’m still an undergraduate student so I’m not the best one here to give examples, but I think the wave/particle duality of light is a good example. Maxwell had made some pretty cute equations that explains all there was about electromagnetism(which includes light) but later on it was found that unlike maxwells equations suppose, light is not made out of waves; Light is _both_ waves _and_ particles at the same time. So right now we use maxwell’s equations to calculate a good deal of things that have to do with light, but we use quantum physics to explain some more sophisticated parts of it.
The point is, although Maxwell’s equations were proven to be “wrong” when talking about light, they are still used to explain light in a broad range of cases. In some cases it is not enough(for example the photo electric effect) and this is where we start using the extended version(which would be too complex to use in the cases where Maxwell’s equations are used)
So basically anything that would come to replace the Theory of evolution in case it is proven wrong/incomplete would have to explain a great many things Evolution does explain, and thus will most likely have some of the aspects of evolution in itself.
I hope I’m making some sense here…
April 5th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Recovered Catholic says,
“Can we *please* start talking about the “law of selection†and “law of inheritance†and “law of mutation†then?”
We do, at least for inheritance, the Laws of Inheritance are typically discussed as two separate laws from Gregor Mendel, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment (or sometimes Mendel’s First and Second Laws to take a page from Newton).
Again like I discussed above these are simple observations. Each observation (made by Mendel at the time) makes only one basic prediction and does not explain anything about the “how.” The “how” is documented in the Theory of Genetics which makes tons of predictions.
The Law of Selection would be a mathematical Law though. If you take a random population and select for certain members you’ll eventually end up with a fixed population.
The Theory of Gravity will never become the Law of Gravity even if you were to follow vko’s instructions above. The Theory of Gravity (Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity) talks about how gravity works by theorizing it works not due to a force, but because of a curved space and time continuum.
Law of Gravity == Simple Observation that Appears Universal
Theory of Gravity == Explanation of HOW Gravity Works
A Theory will NEVER become a Law. They are two very different things.
Next AJ says
“Meaning there is still a bit of proof undiscovered.”
Science does not deal with “proof” or proving anything. Proving things is the realm of mathematics and formal logic. This is true even for so-called Laws. All bodies of knowledge in science are open to being overthrown if new evidence rears its head. Newton’s Laws are a perfect example. There are no ultimate definite answers in science because it is a working body of knowledge and it acknowledges that it is impossible to know everything.
Let’s look at Germ Theory for an example. It is a widely (although not universally) accepted theory stating that one of the causes of diseases within both animals and plants is the infection of various microbes (bacteria, virus, fungi, etc.) It makes many predictions that a lot of modern medicine is founded on. The fact that it works and its predictions have been shown to be true over and over is why it is so widely accepted.
But tomorrow, a scientists testing a prediction based on Germ Theory could invalidate the entire theory. Is it likely? No, to many successful predictions have been accumulated for this theory for that to be likely, but it is not impossible.
If you are looking for absolute certainty than you will have to look somewhere else other than science. However if you are looking for a tool that has proven itself over and over in discovering useful information and making testable predictions about the natural world then science is it.
PS Agnoy’s post is dead on and well stated.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:25 am
bloody-peasant’s point on science versus logic can’t be stated enough. Modern science is based for the most part on inductive reasoning, which never reaches 100% certainty. To do so a theory it would have to be tested against all possible outcomes ever possible. Induction isn’t proof. If you want 100% proof you have to stick with deduction, which is basically logical proof and has to do largely with contradiction. So, for example, it is impossible for you to do X and not X at the same time, thanks to the Law of Excluded Middle (i.e. I cannot sit and not sit at the same time). If you wanted to show that inductively, you would have to have -all possible- examples of sitting and not sitting -ever- happen and see if you could get the two to happen at the same time. Also, I second Agony’s post.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hello bloody_peasant,
“A Theory will NEVER become a Law. They are two very different things.”
The first half of this statement is correct, but their is not complete agreement over the second part. See this website for a counter description. From the article:
That being said, we should focus on what all scientists agree on about the use of the two terms, for AJ’s sake:
1. “A Theory will NEVER become a Law.” A theory is not a ‘law in transition’.
2. More importantly, the terms are not hierarchical. A law is not ‘better than’, or ‘above’ a theory.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:58 am
@Snurp:
Proof by induction is well accepted in computer science and mathematics. For example see http://www.math.sc.edu/~sumner/numbertheory/induction/Induction.html
Also, when I studied Physics, we had to formally and mathematically prove a number of things. Einstein’s theories were largely the result of mathematical manipulations. My point is that sometimes science isn’t just observing and making up a model for those observations. That is the realm of purely empirical science, and it is largely considered a “lower grade” of science. More respect tends to be given to frameworks that can condense and articulate our knowledge to explain simultaneously a great number apparently disconnected empirical theories. Sometimes you can prove C given A and B and come up with a new theory. Sometimes given theories A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, theory I becomes almost necessary or self-evident so that the set of smaller theories fits with a greater principle.
Finally, what I’m driving at is that evolution is such a good fit with all the rest of what we know about biology, that if you reject evolution, you reject or at least cast doubt at the same time on so many other things (gene expression and regulation, genetic inheritance, bacteria that can choose to use sexual or asexual reproduction, plasmid exchanges between bacteria that carry antibiotic resistance genes, the mecanisms for DNA damage and repair, retroviruses, etc…) that your position appears preposterous to someone who is familiar with those other theories. The more someone knows about molecular biology, the more evolution makes sense. Now, is it reasonable to consider training every person in molecular biology so as to convince them of evolution?
April 5th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Oh, I forgot to mention that most scientists do see a distinction between the two term. Many draw the line between the two precisely as bloody_peasant describes, others say laws are mathematical descriptions.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Now for predictions :D
Evolution literally makes millions of predictions because its a theory that applies to all living things. So it is useful to talk about the predictions it makes in broad categories and then look at specific examples of tests.
The first prediction I’ll cover is one at the heart of the theory.
If you apply a selective pressure on a population for certain inheritable traits then the nature of the population will change over a period of generations towards the selected traits.
Some definitions are critical:
Species: A group of organisms that are biologically capable of reproducing. This means they can successfully mate (their sexual organs can make proper contact), the male sperm can impregnate the female egg, and the genetics allows for proper viable fertilization.
Population: A group of organisms that are of the same species that not only can biologically reproduce, but are actually able to physically reproduce (not geographically isolated for instance). For instance two groups of fish in two different land locked lakes are two separate populations.
Inheritable Trait: A trait is any feature of an organism, from gross morphology (bone structure) all the way to minute biochemical traits. It is inheritable if it is wholly or partially influenced by the organisms genes. For instance a severed finger is a trait, but it is not an inheritable one. A lot of research goes into determining how much a trait is inheritable, especially for complex traits that have multiple genes and environmental effects affecting them (e.g. height or intelligence).
Selective Pressure: This means that certain members of that population with the desired inheritable traits are selected to have a better chance to live and reproduce. It is taken that not all members of the population will survive and reproduce. Some members will perish or due to other reasons fail to reproduce.
*****
Now the first example of this prediction, was both an observation that was key to Darwin forming his theory and is one that is utilized heavily and you can see its results every time you go to a nursery to pick out some new flowers or to buy some new vegetable seed varieties.
This is typically called “artificial selection” because it is people making the selection instead of natural causes within an organisms natural environment, but the principles are the same. A horticulturalist or breeder starts with a population of an organism and selects for certain desired traits, say a certain color, flavor, or level of hardiness, and lets those that display the desired traits the most to reproduce for the next generation. This selective process is repeated from generation to generation.
Even more striking is that as one might predict from the main prediction above, if one applied a different selective pressure to one population and another selective pressure to a different one then the two populations will diverge and become different from each other. For instance I might select for a large red fruit in population while selecting for a small hairy orange fruit in another. Over time the two populations will begin to look dramatically different.
Interestingly enough, people have been doing this type of selective breeding long before anyone conceived of the Theory of Evolution, for well over 10,000 years in fact. And they have created some amazing divergent organisms. Animal examples include all the different breeds of dog, cattle, and chicken. Plant examples include the very dramatic differences between broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts, all of which were derived from a single wild species that looked nothing like its domesticated cousins. Corn is another great example having been selected from a species of wild grass that looked nothing like the corn we eat today.
Here’s another small interesting side prediction related to corn. Modern corn that has been through several thousand years of artificial selection is susceptible to certain diseases. Well it may be that some of the wild cousin species of modern corn may have evolved resistance to these diseases on their own have the genes to fight these diseases. Such a species was discovered in Mexico (Zea diploperennis) and now it is being researched on how its genes can be used to make resistant corn.
Next would be finding examples of this type of selection in wild populations. This isn’t an easy subject, but if you are interested there is an online book that covers how it is done and some examples here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MYk1XbelDssC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&dq=examples+of+natural+selection&ots=x0p9IDOF1b&sig=Uq1xucYnD9XIbxOdIf33hv8fhKk#PPR7,M1
Hope that gives you a start
April 5th, 2007 at 9:29 am
sidfaiwu point well taken, but I still take issue with the notion that the term law was tossed in favor of theory because we realized laws were not absolute. They are still very different things no matter how absolute either is.
Please see this site for a great read on the two and on “proofs”. Its a short read I have recommended many times.
From the site
“Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.”
Theories on the other hand do explain them. And there is the difference between the two.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Thanks, bloody_peasant,
That’s a great site (content-wise, the formatting leaves a lot to be desired). I am now convinced that you are right (after reading about laws vs theories on many sites now). They are different things, despite my original description. I appreciate the education.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am
sdifaiwu I find the site you linked to be somewhat misleading, for instance it says
“The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn’t really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.” (emphasis mine)
Here we see confusion between a theory (an explanation of how something works) and a hypothesis (a prediction made by a theory that can be tested). There is no blurry line between the two as they are two very different things.
The fact that the M-theory is largely untested is either because it makes few or no predictions or (as is the case) those predictions have yet to have been tested because they are very hard to test.
A great example is the recent Bose-Einstein Condensate. This was predicted by Bose in the 1920’s in his theoretical work on the nature of light and extended to matter by Einstein in his theories of relatvity. These theories described the “how” and make many predictions. But because of limitations on what we could technically do in the 1920’s no one could test these predictions, but they were still Theories in the proper sense.
Now thanks to super cooling and other new technologies we have been able to test one of the predictions of this special state of matter at near absolute temperature and find that the predictions do hold true in 1995. This led to additional hypothesis testing into quantum mechanical interference (aka teleportation of matter) and really really cool stuff :D
Here’s a good read of that theory and later hypothesis testing including new discoveries that the old theory don’t account for (an example of a failed prediction that will eventually lead to the theory being modified or overthrown by a superior theory).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate
April 5th, 2007 at 9:58 am
sdifaiwu sorry didn’t mean to beat a dead horse, I guess we cross posted. However the read on the Bose-Einstein Condensate is still worth it as it is really really cool :D
LOL agreed on the format of that site, a web design wizard apparently they are not :D
April 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Quite a bit of new info today. I think I have a grasp on the subject. I’ve impressed myself with my new understanding of such issues as theory vs. laws.:) I am seeing that eventhough it is a small and calculated step of belief to trust in certain scientific theories, ultimately there is still a bit of a trust issue. There seems to be a chain of things (theories) that must be true. Building blocks, if you will, and the stack seems so tall that it can become mind boggling to break it down and examine each to approve validity. It probably just seems logical and natural to accept such things if you have studied them at depth for a length of time. When you are new to science, it can feel like shaky ground. Does that make sense? Thank you all for your explanations. You’ve been very patient and understanding. The next question that comes to mind has to do with another topic I don’t fully understand. It is also a card that creationist pull out when discussing evolution. The theory of thermodynamics. I won’t even try to explain my understanding of how the topic applies. I do know they (creationist) mention something about entropy and something about how all things left to their own will move toward chaos which would somehow contradict certain areas of evolution. That’s the bits and pieces. Can anyone fit them together and explain. Thanks.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Aah, thermodynamics. That is a tall order for me, I was not most attentive on thermodynamics lectures.
But of entropy I have some knowledge. It is one of those terms which is misunderstood either intentionally or because one just do not understand it properly. If you replace entropy with dispersal then it is easier to understand.
Thermodynamical entropy is not chaos and disorder but dispersal of energy as it seeks to find equilibrium.
Simplification for example would be hot water aka “energy” which is poured to a cold container. The container would not remain cold for long as the energy “heat” of the water would spread to it. The water would lose heat or energy in the process the heat disperses also into the container.
Equilibrium in a such situation would be when the water and container are of same temperature, the original energy has dispersed to the system.
Hopefully someone has clearer explanation as I fear that is tad unclear.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hello AJ,
The second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law that states in a closed system entropy tends to increase. The emphasized portion is the part of the law that creationists either ignore or do not completely understand.
A you can think of a ’system’ as any defined space. A system can be the space inside your living room or the space taken up by the earth and its atmosphere. A closed system has no energy flowing into or out of it. Since energy is constantly flowing into the earth from the sun, the earth is not a closed system. For that reason, entropy can, and does decrease on this planet. This decrease in entropy is what makes evolution possible.
A good analogy is to think of flowing water. In a closed system, no water flows into the area and no water flows out of it. Think of a fish bowl. The water is perfectly still. There is no complexity in the water, just utter uniformity. The water has maximized its entropy. Now consider an open system, part of stream, for instance. Because of the flow, water patters emerge in the form of eddies, or whirlpools. These eddies have complex, spiral patterns, and lower entropy. No such complexity is possible in the closed, still water system. The only way eddies can form is in open systems with water flowing through them.
Life on is like those eddies. Evolution is like the forming of whirlpools in the flow of the sun’s energy. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it might help.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Hi Jagannath,
Thanks for the explanation-I think I’ve got it.
Hello sidfaiwu,
Thank you for your examples. You have a gift for explaining complicated concepts in a way that’s easy to grasp.
OK, that’s good. The resource I was drawing from stated an opposing view, but after looking at the facts and several definitions, and of course your very clear explanations, I am convinced the earth is an open system. So, that closes that question. The next question dives into explaining where the earth began. Is it true that evolution supports the Big Bang as the origin of everything?
April 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Okay, I need help again. After reviewing my resource I realize that they have said that the universe is a closed system. But, tell me if I’m wrong, the earth is an open system within a closed system then? And if the sun which is in the universe is pouring energy into the earth’s system then that is how things (evolution) is able to take place in a closed universe. And if the universe is closed, does that mean that over time it will reach a state of equilibrium? And if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then what sparked the initial evolution of the existing matter into what it is today? And where did that existing matter originate? This is exciting. I am really stoked (and yes I said stoked) about the doors of knowledge being flung open. I couldn’t wait to get a free moment to research the laws of thermodynamics. Am I an official geek now or what? ;)
April 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I Think I mentioned above that evolution and the Big Bang are two separate fields. The Big Bang is only one of several theories that tries to explain how the universe began. The Big Bang is, I believe, the most widely accepted among scientists.
As far as I know the two aren’t scientifically linked, and I could see evolution without the Big Bang. You could say that God created the universe and allowed things to happen from there (the Diving Clockmaker idea I mentioned above).
It is important to keep in mind that evolution doesn’t explain absolute origins. It tries to explain change from A to B, but it may not be sure where A came from. Might be God, might be a Big Bang, might be that it just is and always has been, etc. Nevertheless, once we had living things that started competing for resources, then the evolutionary process began.
However, I’m don’t know nearly as much when it comes to these kinds of theories, and so I leave the rest to those more knowledgeable than I.
April 6th, 2007 at 5:55 am
@AJ
According to what I know there is absolutely no link between the Big Bang and Evolution(other than both being the most accepted model to explain certain things)
And about open and closed systems, yes to the best of our knowledge the universe itself is a closed system, and it will reach a state of thermal death(when all energy is spread uniformly across it) at some time. Until now this is the fate of the universe as we could predict it(at least according to the best of my knowledge).
But this does not mean that you can’t see packages of energy at different places during the process of dying. Let’s get back to the water example. I have a cup of water at room temprature, I throw a rock into it which is VERY hot(imagine it as our sun being thrown into our solar system) You will see nice patterns of vampor/water and even some hissing. Those patterns have greater complexity than either uniform water or the rock, yet they do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
About the beginning of the universe. We really don’t know yet what caused it, string theory has a nice explanation for it, but string theory isn’t even a theory yet as no one could come up with an experiment to falsify it. So the prevailing answer is we don’t know, but not knowing doesn’t mean we need to throw an almighty being into the mix(which would raise more questions than it answers)
Oh and matter can be converted into energy or energy into matter. so it’s the total amount of energy&matter that is constant. Perhaps there was lots of dormant energy in this universe before it(for some reason) exploded the way it did? We don’t know, perhaps we never will, but we’re doing our best to.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Hello AJ,
Thanks for the compliment. It can be a bit of a curse, though, because I tend to over explain things and accidentally insult peoples’ intelligence. It drives my wife crazy.
Your questions have become much more difficult to answer. Keep up the great work! The easiest to answer has already been addressed, but is worth repeating: The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are not related. There are some philosophers who connect the two, but science does not. I especially like Snurp’s explanation on this in comment #127.
Also, as Agony alludes to in #128, matter can be created and destroyed, since we now know that mater can be converted into energy (this is how nuclear power and bombs work). In fact we know exactly how much energy, E, can be created by converting mass m. It is proportional and the constant of proportionality is the speed of light, c, squared.
E = mc^2 (how’s that for geeky)
Here are the two most difficult questions you asked:
“what sparked the initial evolution of the existing matter into what it is today? And where did that existing matter originate?”
This gets to a question I have about the early universe and thermodynamics. I had a very strange moment in my last year as a graduate student. I was in an advanced thermodynamics course and thus had entropy on my mind quite often. One day, we had a guest speaker visit our math department to describe how he used mathematical analysis to discover the existence of a previously unnoticed galaxy that is being absorbed by a larger galaxy that it ran into.
The introduction of his presentation had a neat little animated demonstration on how galaxies first formed after the Big Bang. The universe was represented as a black cube (a closed system!) and the matter in the universe was represented as white pixels. After the Big Bang, matter was spread randomly and almost evenly across the entire black area. The animation showed time passing and the effect of gravity cause the white dots to spontaneously converge into many distinct galaxies.
I realized that what I was witnessing was a closed system in which entropy appears to have spontaneously decreased on a universal scale! This is a huge violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics! How is this possible? It seems that gravity is an entropy reducing force in nature. I’ve never had this apparent contradiction adequately explained to me. Does any one here have any knowledge of this?
So the answer to your first question, “what sparked the initial evolution of the existing mater into what it is today?†is, at least partially, gravity. Though ‘evolution’ in this sense has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, since mater doesn’t have decent with modification.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hi Sidfaiwu,
“I realized that what I was witnessing was a closed system in which entropy appears to have spontaneously decreased on a universal scale!”
This is exactly my question. Earlier when I mentioned, “Are than any other laws that the evolution theory contradicts?” This is what I was stumbling with, but I really wasn’t sure at the time if it was technically sound. After learning a bit more, it is a formidable question tnat I’ve yet to find an answer to. Again, tell me if I’m wrong, a closed system is closed unless there is some type of energy flowing in. Is gravity considered a type of energy. I definitely need to understand gravity better. Where does it originate. I guess my question is: “How was gravity present way back when, and is it a type of energy?”
April 6th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hello AJ,
Well, evolution doesn’t contradict any other theories, but gravity appears to. I am skeptical as to whether it really does.
A system is closed is no energy is entering and no energy is exiting the system. Think of a bathtub of still water. Pull the plug and water flows out. In such a situation, a whirlpool can form, even though no energy is entering the system. This is possible because energy is leaving the system, making it an open system.
As science currently understand gravity, it is not energy. Gravity is caused by bends and kinks in space-time. Matter literally bends space-time. To better explain this, I’m going to use another analogy. Think of the universe as a thin rubber sheet. Now place a bowling ball on the sheet. The sheet then bends under the weight of the bowling ball. Now place a marble close to the bowling ball. Since the sheet is bent, the marble will roll towards it. It is attracted to the bowling ball because of the bend in the sheet.
Again, the analogy isn’t perfect, but I think it will help. The main difference between the sheet and the universe is that the sheet is two-dimensional, and the universe is three-dimensional.
The rest of your questions address ultimate origins of things. Where did the matter-energy come from in the first place? Where did all the physical laws, such as gravity, come from? The truth is, science does not have a good theory and probably never will. The Big Bang theory says that everything expanded from a singularity. Well, where did the singularity come from? Why did the singularity expand (what physical law caused it)?
Theology has similar problems. If the ultimate cause is God, where did God come from? Why does God have the traits He/She/It posses? I also think that theology will never definitively answer these ultimate origin type questions.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I read somewhere that you are a theist. That basically means a distant ‘god’ that set things in motion, but gives nothing and requires nothing, right? So, did you come to a place in science where the thought of intelligent design seemed the most likely. I’m just asking because an evolutionary theist intrigues me.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I believe he’s a deist, which is not intelligent design. I think i means he believes that some ‘god’ got things started, but didn’t necessarily even know we would be created, and still probably doesn’t. It is not a scientific concept whatsoever, more of a philosophical one. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending deism.
I don’t see the point in it myself. It always seemed like it lacked the security blanket end of religion, but held on to some of the logical missteps. I think Sid’s tried to answer why he’s a deist before, but I seem to remember not getting a definitive answer. I could be wrong, but I still am interested in why he’s a deist. Perhaps a deist could shed some light?
April 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Hello AJ,
Your Father is correct, I am a type of deist. Unlike myself though, most deists do accept a type of intelligent design (ID). The type of ID deists accept is different from that of creationists. Deists largely believe that the laws of nature where designed, including evolution. They believe that God created the universe knowing that rational creatures would eventually evolve. This is the old evolution-is-a-tool-God-used-to-create-us idea. After creation, God became ‘hands off’, so to speak, and never intervened in the universe.
What I have in common with deists (and most atheists, for that matter) is that they value rationality above all other human traits. My flavor of deism is weaker than most. I reject ID because I see evidence of spontaneous complexity in the universe. Also, I am almost complete agnostic about the nature of God. See my conversation with NoReligionIsPease starting at comment #69 on this post for a good description of my deism. In short, I admit our extreme ignorance, especially when it comes to ultimate cause ideas. If you or Your Father still have questions about my beliefs, please ask after reading those comments.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Don’t get me wrong Sid, I have the utmost respect for you, and agree with pretty much everything you post here, but I still don’t get why you’re a deist.
Weak or not, being a deist means that you BELIEVE the universe was created by an intelligence. You hold a belief with absolutely no evidence. While most of your stances are rational… I just don’t see it in this one. Why is it that you believe the universe was created by an intelligence? Why rule out the possibility of a purely natural creation of the universe, when we have no evidence either way?
April 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
While on the topic of creation of the universe and entropy:
Not that i have anything to say that hasn’t already been said alot better than i ever could. I do fell i should mention “the last question” sci-fi short story by isaac asimov.
Although i’m sure most have already read it, AJ may not have, and everyone else can easily read it again.
http://ciscoslackers.com/question.htm
April 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hello Your Father,
Your respect is both appreciated and reciprocated.
First allow me to clear up a couple of misunderstandings about my deism. I do not claim to know if God is intelligent. Also, I know it’s a fine point, but I think ‘created’ is the wrong word. I prefer the term ’caused’. Also, I am not 100% sure that God caused the universe in the temporal sense. I think that the universe is the natural result of the existence of God. God ’causes’ the universe in the same way that atoms ’cause’ molecules. It’s simply that molecules could not exist without atoms.
You are right, though, that I have no evidence for my belief in God. My belief is philosophically based. Reason dictates that there must exist a self-necessary (or self-caused) thing in the universe upon which all others ultimately rely for their existence. I call this God.
Lastly, I do not rule out the possibility of an entirely natural explanation for the universe. If space-time ends up being the self-necessary thing, then so be it. In that case I am a pan-deist. But contrary to what most atheists think, I see no reason to believe that the ultimate cause is simple. They have given me reason, though, to admit that the ultimate cause may be simple. What I admit is that I am ignorant about the nature of this self-necessary thing.
I hope that helps you understand my deism.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Okay I’m not gonna take part in the Deist VS Atheist thing here because they look like two faces of the same coin to me: as long as reason stands above all else, all is good.
Getting back to thermodynamics, I think gravity is only causing a temporal decrease in entropy, a force that works during the _process_ of increasing entropy.
Taking the model that the whole universe will be pulled together again by gravity into a singularity this would make sense, since entropy would be at its maximum again…
Okay I don’t know if what i’ve written up here contradicts any of the more recent findings(does the universe actually expand indefinitely?) but it just came to me when I read your post and thought I’d write it down.
So are we done with evolution here and talking about how our universe formed?
/me puts his biology books back on the shelf and takes out the astrophysics books
April 9th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Sid,
I think ultimately, this will break down to semantics and the definition and nature of belief etc… I think your concept of belief is so liberal that its just another word for atheism (as I see it).
I don’t know if you are one, but I know people who don’t like the stigma of the word “atheist” so they call themselves other things (usually agnostic), but when it comes right down to it, we’re in the same boat. They don’t believe in any gods (THE definition of atheism).
April 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi Everyone:
Think. Think about the possibilities of thinking HOW both evolution and creationism flows together. Now the real learning begins…
Now before coming down the throats of anyone, think about this carefully. For example, if one has not studied BOTH evolutionism and creationism (the Bible verses), then there is not the full understanding of HOW we, animals and things (i.e., nature, chemicals, etc.) came into existence. If you know you exist, therefore, you know you must have come from somewhere. Nothing comes from nothing.
Fun inquiry and debate!
Ker
April 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Ker, take a look at post #51 for a theory about how life did come into existence most probably. But please note that in the natural sciences there are two theories about this matter: The theory of abiogenesis, describing how life started, and the theory of evolution, describing how lifeforms changed over time once they existed. They are largely independed of each other. You may want to refer to posts #57 and #60. None of the theories claims to know it all, so if you think you can add to them, feel free to do so (use scientific methods).
April 14th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Scinetific methods doesn’t work all the time, so how you expalind super natural things, like ghosts, like black magic?
April 15th, 2007 at 2:38 am
@mohamed
dude, are you for real? ghosts and black magic? that is just crazy talk. drugs, psychosis, cheap tricks… so many ways to explain such “phenomena”…
April 15th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Paranormal phenomena often have a physical explanation. Seveal studies (1, 2, 3 , and others) suggest that the feeling of ghosts may be an acoustic phenomina.
Black magic can probably be explained in the same way as normal magic. Some are frauds - search youtube and google video for James Randi who does a good job exposing them. Also look out for the scary work of Darren Brown; who is a magician whose tricks could easily be described as “black magic” if he didn’t tell you how it was done (usually using psychology).
Coincidences are just that - humans are bad at estimating the odds on events happening.
There are many things science can’t explain, but dark arts and ghosts aren’t among them.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:13 am
It would be interested to know what kind of a supernatural things and magic is not explained by science? I mean throwing out the ’scary’ words is one thing but examples with sources would be nice.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I just read this article on The Skeptic Society’s website and felt I just had to share:
I love it! This quote illustrates that the ‘Old Earth’ creationists are spiritually more sophisticated than the ID crowd. They literally have more faith than creation ’scientists’!
August 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
EXPANSSION,QUANTUN,THEORIES,ARE EXPOSED AS FOOLISH AND IRRATIONAL. BE THE JUDGE
We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expanssion of the universe, and the quantun or microorganisim. To understand it with reason,thee first subject we are confronted with is God.Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, “The fool has said in his heart,/There is no God.” This sentence may also be translated as “The fool does not want God in his heart.” The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: “They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds.”Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, “For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.”THREE KINDS OF PEOPLEWhether you claim to be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.PROSECUTIONIs there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather.Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say “no.” I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.QUALIFICATIONSMany people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.NO ATHEIST IS MORALOnce at a gathering at the University of Nanking, I remarked that no atheist is moral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. The next day, while I was speaking, they came and shuffled their feet in an attempt to distract me and the audience. The next day when they came again, they made funny gestures and faces at me and carried on continuously throughout the speaking. On the fourth day the vice-president of the university, Dr. Williams, came and said to me, “We had better change the place of meeting. These students are infuriated by your assertion on the first day that atheists are not moral. Today they are not going to use their feet and lips only; they are going to use their fists. I heard that they will be waiting at the entrance of the hallway and will jump on you when you step in.” I went along with the arrangement and conducted the meeting at another place. On the way to the meeting I walked alongside many students and listened to their conversations. Although many did not agree with me and felt uneasy about my preaching, they wanted to come back. One among them remarked, “Mr. Nee said that people who have no God have no sense of moral responsibility. This is perfectly right. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his feet and jest while others are delivering a speech? Yesterday they caused such a disturbance in the meeting, and today they are going to come to fight. This is surely not what an honorable person would do. There is no doubt that those who do not believe in God do not have moral decency. Let us go to the meeting regardless of what they plan to do.”Once a young man told a preacher, “When I was young, I seriously believed in God. But now that I am in college. I can no longer believe in Him.” The fifty-year-old preacher patted the young man’s shoulder and said, “My son, you do not believe in God anymore! Let me ask you a question: Since you have been converted to be an atheist, have you advanced morally? Has atheism helped you become better? Has it made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?” That young man felt ashamed. He admitted that he had gone downhill morally since his denial of God. The preacher pressed on: “I am afraid that you are not really saying that you believe there is no God, you are just hoping that there is no God.”DO NOT JUDGE ACCORDING TO HOPEMany people are not really convinced that there is no God; they merely hope so. They would rather that there were no God in the universe. For them it would be much more convenient in respect to many things.I myself was one of those people. When I was a student I claimed that there was no God. Although I was extremely strong in my claim, something within me seemed to be protesting and saying, “There is a God.” I knew deep in my heart that God exists. But my lips refused to admit this so that I could have an excuse for sinning. By declaring the nonexistence of God, going to sinful places was justifiable. If there were no God, I would become bold to sin. When you believe in God, you dare not do certain things. When you do away with God, you feel free to commit the worst sins without any fear whatsoever. If you sincerely hope to raise your moral standard by asserting the nonexistence of God, then your arguments are still plausible. However, the only reason men claim that there is no God is for an excuse for lawlessness, immorality, license, and indecency. For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, “Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?” If your hope is merely for an escape from justice, you have lost your ground already.IS MAN THE GREATEST?One day a young man came to me and said, “I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything.” We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, “You are really great!” Then I walked to the other side of the room and looked at him from another angle. “That is right,” I said deliberately; “You are great! In Kiangsu province there are thirty million who are like you. There are at least four hundred million of your kind in China. The world contains only two billion who are the same as you are. Do you realize that during the last few days there has been a flood in the south? The dykes along the river are in jeopardy. The whole population in Hsing Hwa with more than two hundred thousand people have been recruited and rushed to the dykes in a panic. They are carrying earth with them to reinforce the banks. The repair work is still going on.”Suppose that the world is recruited to hollow out the sun. A hole is drilled through the surface, and everyone has to remove a load from the inside. Assuming that no one will be burned to ashes, do you think that they can do the job? Even if all the people themselves were inside, they would not fill up the sun. That is not all. If you put several hundred planets the size of Earth inside and started shaking it, you would still find that the sun would be very empty inside. How many suns are there in the universe? Do you realize that the number of solar systems is in the hundreds of millions?”HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?I then said to the young man, “And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.”CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDSOF TIME AND SPACE?Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, “I saw God today!” He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, “You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God.” He asked for an explanation. I said, “Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole, or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself.”This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.”THE EVIDENCESome will immediately step back and say, “I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not.” Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.THE UNIVERSEFirst, look at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONSThe universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them.What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified Being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one.Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe were created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.CHANCE EVENTSWhat are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATIONNow let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother’s womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year’s calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.MICROORGANISMSLet us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.IS IT OCCUPIED?Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, “Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves.” We walked out and waited for the owner to return.By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart,/There is no God.” Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.CHANCE OR DESIGNThe universe has to be created by Someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECTOne witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man’s heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world.As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as “man.” At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.THERE IS GOD IN THE HEARTDo we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving –God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear.By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: “You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it.” I said, “Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.”THE WORDS AND THE HEARTA young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, “Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already.” He said, “What do you mean?” I went on to explain: “Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side.” He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, “You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?”Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning yourself will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God.
posted by SOWER @ 6:42 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Saturday, August 4, 2007
CONSIDER THIS SCIENTIFICALLY AND OBJECTIVLY
I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God’s existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.
In the past few thousand years man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man’s inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.
But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God’s attitude? Do you think He would say, “I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about Me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!” Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.
A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man’s life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God’s life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, “Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?” Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict’s desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.
There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelational religion? Revelational religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man’s thoughts are often useless fancies. God’s revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasonings to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.
We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?
If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locate the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.
Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.
We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.
After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, “Thus saith the Lord,” at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speakings of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the most noble persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, “Why are you so strong against the Bible?” He answered, “If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me.” This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone, and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.
Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.
What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God’s book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God’s revelation to man.
This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.
If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God’s hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.
There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: “Christianity is buried here.” They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fibre of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God’s word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.
This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.
Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half are for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.
If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it.
posted by SOWER @ 9:02 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC?A LIAR? PLEASE YOUR VERIDICT.,
God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God’s intention is to reveal Himself to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
Let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, “All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds.”
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to myself, “This is my chance.” I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, “Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends…” But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, “This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart’s intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together.”
We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.
This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven, my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God’s holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God’s righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God’s purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be yourself. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.
How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, “I and the Father are one.” We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, “I and the Father are one,” it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? “The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning Me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, are making Yourself God” (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus’ words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?
Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven” (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, “No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai.” If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony.” He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what is the purpose behind these words. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like “heaven,” “above all,” “out of heaven,” etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, “But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working.” He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, “Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?
John 6:46 says, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father.” Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? “I am One who testifies concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies concerning Me.” The question in verse 19 is most interesting: “They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: “And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” The preposition “from” in this verse is ek in Greek. It means “out of.” That is how it should be translated. He said, “You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world.” This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-ti. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: “Are You greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are You making Yourself?” How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, “Your father Abraham exulted that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: “The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Now please pay your attention to Jesus’ answer in verse 58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.” Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-ti was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him either a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.
We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know…” Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: “…that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father.” Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: “Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him.” It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God.
One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, “Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.” Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, “Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?” Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God!
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question.
Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did.
Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie?
Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, “If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!”
Please read John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Verse 14 says, “And
August 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
My ADD will not allow me to read all that crap, but it seems you’re relying an awful lot on the christian bible as a source of fact and knowledge. Thats a horrible mistake, the bible is in no way factual, it was written by a collection of anonymous men 2000 years ago, most of the statements made in it have been proven completely false, and lets not forgot that it teaches intolerance towards others. Does it really make sense to live your life based on a book like that?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Nice cut & paste, I got bored after few lines but I think maybe the gist was this
Meaning, there is none. Refuting a theory cannot be done without first understanding the theory and this quote shows that the writer lacks even basic knowledge.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Wow, lucky us. The room of your post ran out.
One thing I must give you. Your powers of copy-paste are indeed mighty, but unfortunatly, I have better things to do then read that wall of text.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Ok, I found a better formatted, more readable source of the same text, but before I start posting replies the size of a small novel, I would like to know if you’re ever coming back here to defend your argument (well, someone else’s argument)
September 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
SCIENTIS CAN’T CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH.
First I thanks to the conversations that are on line do to the blog, the Atheist of Delusion like:Free thinkers, atheist united. Where is God? Do I even believe in God? Is God real??? The God debate.Can scientist calculate the age of the earth?
The matter if there is a God and that he created the earth is already settled. That he is talking to man in a writing manner and by revealing himself to man and who is this God has been answered by means of scientific explanation.
http://theatheistofdelusion.blogspot.com/
Is to matter of the age of the earth, that we will focus on.
Rafael.
Nee.
We believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and every word of it is inspired. A very grievous thought in the mind of godly ones is that men have despised and opposed His Word. God’s children are grieved because men do not respect God’s statutes. Among the sixty-six books of the Bible, Genesis has been subjected to the most doubt. Those who oppose the Bible often try to overturn God’s clear revelation with geological ages and prehistoric discoveries. The evidences in geology prove to them that the earth has been in existence for tens of thousands of years, and that the record of six thousand years of history in the Bible is untrustworthy. In the name of science, the world hurls its attacks on the book of Genesis.Many dear brothers in the Lord are not that scholarly (the author being one of them) and become lost in this storm. Although geology does not form part of our meditation, for the benefit of all, we will study the Word of God by the Lord’s grace at the commencement of our meditation and will consider how perfect is His Word, so that we can silently behold His beauty in His presence.Genesis is God’s revelation, while geology is man’s invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong. Thank God our Father that He has given us such a complete revelation. If there are any incompatibilities between God and man, we would rather give up man and accept God. If there is no incompatibility, should not feeble human beings all the more believe in the revelation from heaven?Men often laugh at the ridiculous stories of creation circulated among the Chinese, the Babylonians, and other countries. No scientist has to spend much effort to refute these myths. The reason is that there is not much weight to these traditions. This is why they have not attracted much attention. But men’s attitudes towards the Bible are very different. The very fact that they have tried their best to resist the Bible proves the power of the Bible. They cannot treat the Bible the same as the traditions of the nations because they have recognized the extraordinary nature of the Bible.All those who have read Genesis 1 cannot fail to marvel at the beauty of its record. How ordinary it is, yet how marvelous! It is a plain record and contains no theory or arguments to prove its authenticity. The writer of the book was not bound by the book, but was transcendent above its record. The true author of the book is the One who is far above the universe it describes—God.Had the recorder of the book, Moses, written this book according to his own learning and ideas, his thoroughly Egyptian-trained intellect would surely have been influenced by the Egyptian theory of creation. Yet who can detect a trace of Egyptian philosophy in Genesis 1? Why is this? It is because God was the One who inspired Moses to do the writing. Otherwise, how could Moses know that the land came out of the water? This is, of course, a fact established by geology and is a modern discovery. Had Moses not been inspired, it would be difficult to explain this fact. As to the development of life on earth, although the Bible does not support the theory of evolution, it does not altogether reject the fact that there was a progression. First, there were aquatic organisms, and then there was man. Would not a scientist marvel at the record of Moses? The omniscient God must surely have given inspiration according to facts; those who were inspired by such an omniscient God cannot be in error.Yet the Bible is not a textbook of science. Its goal is to guide sinners “unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Nevertheless, the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science. Many of the definitive statements by geologists in the past have been overturned! Many of their assertions have been proven wrong. Cummings said, “Geology has made mistakes in the past. It is possible that it will be wrong again. The hasty and loud assertions by those who are not too familiar with its theories may be proved inaccurate again.”Since the Bible is not a science textbook, it only mentions the “whats” of creation without mentioning the “whys.” Science is interested in the “whys.” Of course, in many cases it is successful in doing this. But one must not overturn the “whats” with theoretical “whys” just because man’s finite mental research has come into conflict with God’s record. What God said are the facts because He knows everything. If the world wants to study what God has said and why He has said it, it must not hold on to its own ideas while rejecting God’s authority. It is a good thing to have wisdom, but there is one kind of foolishness which is more blessed.Among Christians, there is a popular theory that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of general introduction, and that the work of the six days is actually an expansion of the record of verse 1. In other words, they consider the words “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” as merely a subject of Genesis 1. They say that in the first sentence the writer wrote down a summary of what he was about to say, after which he went at length into an explanation of this sentence. After telling us that God created the heaven and the earth, Genesis goes on to tell us the condition of the earth after creation, and how He created light, air, the land, the plants, and the animals day by day. This popular theory considers Genesis 1 as a record of the creation of the universe, and that the universe was created out of desolation. If we study the first chapter of the Bible carefully, we will see the error in this supposition! This erroneous supposition, not the Bible itself, has put the church into a great debate with the world. This supposition gives men the excuse to say that Genesis is incompatible with geology and casts doubts in the minds of many young people concerning the accuracy of the Bible.In Hebrew, the original language, there are altogether seven words in Genesis 1:1. Each of these seven words has independent meanings. God’s inspired record does not say that at the beginning of time, God molded the heavens and the earth into being, or that He made them out of some elements. It says that the heavens and the earth were created.How clear is the word created! To create is to make something out of nothing; it is to create something out of void. It is not to make something out of some existing elements. The word create is bara in the original language. “In the beginning God bara the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The word bara is used three other times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1) “And God created (bara) great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good” (v. 21). (2) “So God created (bara) man in his own image” (v. 27a). (3) “In it he had rested from all his work which God created (bara) and made” (2:3b).To create is to make something out of nothing. The great whales and every living creature do not have an outward body only, but a life-element within them. The only way that this can be done is through God’s direct work of creation. This is why it says that God created the great whales and every living creature (1:21). There is a very good reason for the Bible to say “created” instead of “made.” In the same way, although man’s body was made from the dust, 2:7 tells us that man has a spirit and a soul which cannot be made from any physical material. This is why the Bible says that God created man according to His own image.In Genesis 2 there are three words for the act of creation: (1) Bara, which means to make something out of nothing. We have covered this briefly. (2) Asah, which means to make. This word is very different from the first. Bara is to make something out of nothing, while asah means that there is some raw material first, and then something is made out of the raw material. A carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create a chair. In describing most of the work during the six days, this word is used. (3) Yatsar, which means to complete, has the sense of a potter molding a piece of clay into shape. This is the word used for formed in 2:7. Isaiah 43:7 shows the relationship between these three words: “Everyone who is called by My name, / Whom I have created, formed, and even made for My glory.” To create is to make something out of nothing, to form is to mold into shape, and to make is to work from some material.Genesis 1:1 uses the word bara. The phrase in the beginning is a further proof that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is no need of any hypothesis. Since God has said this, man should believe. If man wants to fathom God’s work in the beginning with his finite mind, he will only expose his own presumptuousness! “By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). Furthermore, who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning the creation?God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The heaven does not refer to the heaven that surrounds our earth but rather to the heaven of the stars. This “heaven” has not changed since the creation of the universe. Although the heaven has never changed, the condition on earth has changed!If we want to understand Genesis 1, it is very important to differentiate between the earth in verse 1 and the earth in verse 2. The condition of the earth in verse 2 was not the condition at the beginning of God’s creation. In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, His creation was perfect. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, the condition of void and confusion in verse 2 was not the original condition at the time of God’s creation. How could God possibly have created an earth that was void and without form? We can answer this question by reading one verse alone. “For thus says Jehovah, / Who created the heavens— / He is the God / Who formed the earth and made it; / He established it; / He did not create it waste, / But He formed it to be inhabited: / I am Jehovah and there is no one else” (Isa. 45:18). How clear this is!The word waste in this verse is the same as the word without form in Genesis 1:2, which is tohu in Hebrew. Unfortunately, translators of the Bible have not used the same word in both places. “He did not create it [the earth] without form.” Why then does Genesis 1:2 say that “the earth was without form”? It is easy to find the solution. In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that God created then was not void and without form. Later there was a cataclysm, and the earth became without form and void. Verse 3 does not refer to the original creation, but to a restored earth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then during the six days, He re-created the world. The world in Genesis 1:1 was the original world, while the world in 1:3 is our present world. Genesis 1:2 describes the transitional condition of desolation after the initial world and prior to our present world.We do not base our explanation on Isaiah 45:18 alone (even though Isaiah 45:18 alone is sufficient as a proof). We have other evidences. According to Bible scholars, in Hebrew the first word in verse 2 is a conjunction, which should be translated as and. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void.”The “and,” according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5:1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. — G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, p. 31.Therefore, what follows in Genesis 1:2 is not a detailed explanation of the record in 1:1, but an independent, distinct, and later event. The creation of the heavens and the earth is one thing, and the earth becoming without form and void is another. Later we will explain why the earth became void and without form.About a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the word was in “the earth was without form” should be translated became. Dr. I.M. Haldeman, G.H. Pember, and others also pointed out that this word is the same as the word became used in Genesis 19:26. “And she became a pillar of salt.” If the same word is translated became in 19:26, why should it not be translated the same way here? Even the word became in 2:7 is the same word as in 1:2. Therefore, it is not hypothetical to translate 1:2 the following way: “And the earth became without form.” When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was not without form and void. Later it became such. Let us read a few more verses:”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exo. 20:11). Comparing these two verses, we can see that the world in Genesis 1:1 was very different from the world in 1:3. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, but in the six days, God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. There is a vast difference between create and make. One is to have something from nothing, while the other is to improve the things that are in existence. The world can make, but it cannot create, while God can both create and make. This is why Genesis says that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Later because of the cataclysm, the earth became desolate, and “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exo. 20:11).Second Peter 3:5 through 7 says the same thing. The heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Verse 6 speaks of the world flooded with water, which is the earth that was without form and void and that was under the water in Genesis 1:2. “The heavens and earth now” in verse 7 is the restored world after Genesis 1:3. There is a clear difference between God’s work in the six days and His work of creation at the beginning.The more we read Genesis 1, the more we will see that our explanation above is the proper one. In the first day light was called into being. Before the first day there was already land, but it was “without form, and void” and was buried in the deep under the water. On the third day God did not create the land; He merely caused it to appear. F.W. Grant said that the work of the six days merely put a new order to the earth; it did not create something out of nothing. The earth was there already. The Bible never says that the earth was created during the six days. Grant also said, “At which point did the first day begin? Some may think that it began from desolation. Yet this is not true. The `evening’ on the first day indicates light had been there since the beginning. `The darkness he called Night,’ yet the `evening’ is a darkness that is already under the control of light.”In the first day God did not create the light; He merely caused the light to appear on the darkened earth. In the same way in the second day, He did not create the heaven. The heaven there was not the heavens, but the atmospheric “heaven” which surrounds the earth. This was not created then. Where then did the atmosphere come from? Our answer is that it was created in verse 1. Therefore, there was no need now to create; there was only the need to restore.”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no detailed discussion here. We do not know if the primordial world was created in an instant or became what it was through an endless period of time. We do not know if it was completed in a few thousand years or millions of years. We do not know the shape and the size of it. All that we know is that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” We do not know how many years there were between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. We do not know how long ago God created the heaven and the earth, and we do not know how many years after the creation of the primordial world did the desolation of verse 2 occur. But we believe that there was a long period of time between the perfect creation at the beginning and the later change into something that was without form and void.”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” How much later was it that “the earth became without form, and void”? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period. But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth’s surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it.But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history. If the Bible has not said something, science can conjecture all it wants. But science cannot form conjectures on what the Bible has already said. After we understand the first two verses of the Bible, we can be assured that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. All the attacks by geology on the Bible are beating the air. How wonderful is the Word God has written!We are not saying this to please science. God’s revelation never wavers before man. We do not give up the Bible’s authority in order to accommodate man’s inventions. If there are any contradictions between the Bible and science, (and we would expect there to be some, because fleshly man is always at enmity with God), we have no intention to reconcile and annul these differences. The above assertion was not proposed after some geological discoveries, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with science. There were men in the ancient church who spoke about this. At that time, geology was not yet in existence! When men like St. Augustus interpreted Genesis, the world did not yet have the term geology!A Christian does not trust in human wisdom, but in God’s Word. We need nothing other than the sure rock of the Bible. As long as we have the “it is written” (Matt. 4:6) in the Scripture, everything is solved. Unfortunately, many apologetics have forgotten their ground; they change the words of the Scripture to accommodate man’s teaching. An example is given by A.W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, the apologetics enthusiastically reported that much of the Old Testament history was verified! This turns things upside down! Does the Word of God need verification? If the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the Assyrian tablets have no historical error. If they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablets are in error. Worldly men and vain scientists will of course scorn at our logic. But this only goes to demonstrate God’s Word which says, “But a soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually” (1 Cor. 2:14). We must never lower ourselves to appease men. It seems like a good idea to change the Bible to suit man’s taste, but doing so changes the true nature of the Bible.How wonderful is Genesis 1! It devotes only one verse to the description of the first creation! It uses only one verse to describe the desolation of the world! This is far less than the thirty or so verses that describe the restoration of the world! Who can come up with a composition that matches the record of Genesis 1? The subject is difficult, yet the explanation is clear; the facts span a long time, yet the description is simple. It does not talk about science, yet it is scientifically accurate. Who except God can compose such a writing? The reason God did not say more than this is that He only intended to show man His own relationship with man. J.N. Darby said:This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God…But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man…Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings…Thus also, regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it. — The Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, reprinted 1970, p. 9.Indeed, God’s revelation is not given to satisfy human curiosity, but to manifest His Godhead, the world’s sinfulness, the way of salvation, and the coming glory and judgments.The present worldly knowledge is indeed dangerous. Unless God bestows grace on man, man would boast in himself and use the knowledge he acquires as a basis to oppose God. How difficult it is for an intellectual person to humble himself! Man can search for knowledge as much as he wants. But God will not supplement this with His revelation. This is why He does not say much in Genesis 1. Our present need is not more science, but deeper spiritual fellowship. Only this will reap real fruit in eternity. We have to praise God the Father because He is full of love! He not only created us, but re-created us, and made us a new creation in the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus! How sweet is this name! God has given us His Son. What a marvelous grace this is!
THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND AFTERWORDS DESOLATION
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth perfect. Later, after an unknown period of time, the earth which was originally good became waste and empty, without any life whatsoever. God then rose up to recreate the world; He restored the desolate world in six days. In the next chapter we will study the work of the six days. Now we will consider why the world became desolate. How could God allow the work of His hands to be destroyed? Why did such a catastrophe come upon the once beautiful earth? There is probably no other reason besides sin.
The question we are considering has no perfectly clear explanation in the Bible. Nevertheless, we can find many shimmering lights in the Word of God which will enlighten us concerning this question and which will enable us to have a little more understanding concerning the former world and the cause of its desolation. Only the Word of God can guide us and our thoughts. The understanding of His Word, regardless of the question being discussed, always brings us edification. The greatest vanity is the reasonings in man’s mind which do not rest on the foundation of God’s Word.
Although in reading Genesis 3 we cannot find Satan’s name, we all know that the serpent was Satan’s vessel and perhaps was even the embodiment of the devil. Revelation 12:9 says, “And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth.” Genesis 1 gives no record of the creation of Satan. Where did he come from? This is a problem. Furthermore, we can see many evil spirits in both the Old and New Testaments; we meet them even more frequently in the Gospels. Where did they come from? We also do not see the creation of angels in the six days of work in Genesis 1. Where, then, did the angels who are frequently mentioned in the Bible come from? These questions are all related to our subject. Since the creation of the angels and the other supernatural beings is not recorded in Genesis 1, which covers the work of God during six days, we know that they were not created during that time. Since they were not created within these six days, when were they created? The only explanation is that they were creatures of the former world—the original, perfect world.
As the fossil remains clearly show, not only were disease and death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter. And the fact proves that these remains have nothing to do with our world; since the Bible declares that all things made by God during the Six Days were very good, and that no evil was in them till Adam sinned…Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world and have a sin-stained history of their own, a history which ended in the ruin of themselves and their habitation. — G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, pp. 34-35.
By reading Jeremiah 4:23-26, we see the reason why the earth became waste and emptiness. Verse 26 says that it was due to “His [Jehovah's] burning anger.” Why was the Lord so angry? It was probably because of the sin of the creatures at that time. Isaiah 24:1 says that “Jehovah now makes the earth desolate.” Why would the Lord destroy the earth of His original creation? Judging from the history of our own world, we can answer that it was probably because of the sin of the earth’s inhabitants which forced God to judge them.
We have said before that when we read Genesis, we do not see the origin of Satan. As we look into the cause of earth’s desolation in the beginning, our mind will naturally think “an enemy has done this” (Matt. 13:28). Other than attributing the cause to Satan, it seems that we cannot find any other clues in the Bible.
We will study a portion of the Bible which seems to tell us the origin of God’s enemy and thereby we may know the condition of the former world and the cause of its becoming desolate. Let us now read Ezekiel 28:1-19. These nineteen verses are divided into two sections: (1) verses 1-10 concern the prophet’s warning to the prince of Tyrus, and (2) verses 11-19 concern the prophet’s lamentations upon the king of Tyrus. The first section, a word to the prince of Tyrus, is easy to understand. He was exalted with pride, considered himself God, and thought that he was wiser than Daniel. Due to his progress in commerce, he became puffed up. Therefore God punished him, causing him to be slain and destroyed by the terrible of the nations. Soon after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldeans came and destroyed Tyre. Josephus believed that the prince of Tyrus was Ithobalus, who was called Ithobaal II in the history of the Phoenicians. Since we know that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, it is not difficult for us to interpret verses 1 through 10. But when we read on from verses 11 through 19, we find many places that we do not understand. Since this portion of the Word is very much related to the subject which we are studying now, we quote the text in full:
Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezek. 28:11-19).
This section is indeed hard to understand, for it contains many expressions which cannot be applied to any mortal man. If the “king of Tyrus” were only a mortal man, how could we explain the things in verses 11 through 15? How could the king of Tyrus have been in the garden of Eden or upon the holy mountain of God? How could he have been the anointed cherub that covered the ark? None of the things mentioned here had been the experience of the king of Tyrus. We cannot explain this section simply by spiritualizing it. It is unfair if we spiritualize the interpretation of a section when we encounter difficulties in it.
I believe that the first section (vv. 1-10) addressed to the prince of Tyrus was a word spoken to King Ithobalus II, and the second section (vv. 11-19), the lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, denotes the coming Antichrist. Verse 2 of this chapter speaks of Tyre “in the midst of the seas.” By reading Daniel 11:41-45, we know that when the coming Antichrist will be in Palestine, perhaps he will dwell at Tyre. That is why he was called the king of Tyre here. Moreover, Antichrist is Satan incarnate; therefore, numerous expressions in this section refer to Satan himself. Mr. Darby said, “Verses 11-19, while continuing to speak of Tyre, go, I think, much farther, and disclose, though darkly, the fall and the ways of Satan, become through our sin the prince and god of this world.” Dr. A. C. Gaebelein also said that the king of Tyre is a type of the last great sinner (Antichrist), that behind this evil king, we see another power that is Satan; Satan was the power behind the king of Tyrus then, and he still is the god of this age now, who rules the nations of this world.
If we have studied the Scriptures carefully, we will realize that the justification for merging Satan and Antichrist in this passage into one being is not contrary to the general teachings of the Scriptures. We know that, although human beings have their own will, their walk is either directed by God’s operating (Phil. 2:13) or by the operating of the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2). Human beings are never totally free. Ordinarily, human beings are under the control of the evil spirits. Sometimes, in important matters, Satan himself, in addition to the working of evil spirits, will also participate in the work. Hence, we see him personally coming to tempt Christ in the wilderness. Later, in trying to hinder Christ from going to the cross, he personally used Peter. After that, in attempting to destroy Christ, he entered into Judas. Eventually, on the world stage he will be united to Antichrist. Scripture says that the works of Antichrist are “according to Satan’s operation” (2 Thess. 2:9); it is Satan who “gave him his power and his throne and great authority” (Rev. 13:2). Since Antichrist is the incarnated devil, the Holy Spirit speaks of him together with Satan in this passage. In these few verses, the superhuman aspects all refer to Satan himself, and the remainder to Antichrist. Since our purpose is not to study the question of Antichrist, but to know the creatures of the former world and the cause of its desolation, we shall put aside the verses in this portion concerning the Antichrist and concentrate on Satan, who is related to our subject. Now let us consider the words that refer to Satan.
Ezekiel 28:12 says that Satan (Note: “Satan” is the name used after he had sinned; he was called the “son of the dawn” and also “Daystar” or “Lucifer” (Isa. 14:12) before his fall. “Satan,” which means “adversary,” is his name after the fall. For the sake of convenience, we shall call him Satan in the following paragraphs.) “sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.” This depicts his condition before he had sinned. He was superior to all the other angels. Phrases like “sealest up the sum,” “full of,” and “perfect” reveal that he was the greatest of all the creation. God had put him above all the creation. Being “full of wisdom” probably refers to his understanding of God’s will; if this is true, he might have had the office of a prophet already.
The first part of Ezekiel 28:13 says, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.” When we read Genesis 3, we indeed see Satan there. However, he was not being covered by “every precious stone”; he was tempting Adam and Eve. Hence, the two gardens of Eden are not of the same time. In Adam’s garden of Eden, Satan had fallen, whereas here, it clearly depicts the situation before his fall. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be earlier than the one at Adam’s time. If so, then it must not have belonged to the present world but to the previous one. This garden of Eden, like the coming New Jerusalem, had many precious stones, such as sardius, beryl, etc. The garden of Eden where Adam lived was not like this. The Bible focuses only on the trees and does not say anything concerning their being covered with precious stones. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be different from that of Adam and is much earlier. His being covered with the precious stones reminds us of the precious stones on the priest in Exodus. He probably had been appointed by God to be a priest. The latter half of the verse says, “The workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee.” In the Bible musical instruments are used by kings. We see how David played the harp for king Saul. When the king of Babylon was destroyed, the sound of his lutes were said to be brought down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11). And when the king of Babylon was pleased, various musical instruments were played (Dan. 3). Satan was a king at that time and these musical instruments were given to him by God.
The first half of Ezekiel 28:14 says that he is “the anointed cherub that covereth.” Anointed indicates that he is consecrated. The work of the cherubim is to lead men to worship the Lord (Rev. 4:9-10; 5:11-14). Therefore, his work in the beginning was also to lead the creatures at that time in the worship of God. This also refers to his priesthood.
The latter part of verse 14 says that he was “upon the holy mountain of God” and had “walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” The holy mountain of God probably is the place where God’s glory is manifested. As the priest of God, he would, of course, stand before Him to minister. What does it mean to walk “up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”? Ezekiel 1:26 reveals that the position of the cherubim is below the throne. Now when Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel up the mountain of Sinai, “they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness…And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount” (Exo. 24:10, 17). The paved work of sapphire stone in the appearance of devouring fire probably was “the stones of fire.” This indicates that Satan enjoyed a very high place, right below the throne of God, and was very intimate with God.
Verse 15 says that he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, but that later God found iniquity in him. All of God’s creation was perfect; God is not the author of sin. Iniquity was initiated by the archangel who sinned. He was created and given a free will by God just as we were. Unfortunately God’s created angel abused his freedom! And how many people are still following his footsteps!
The first part of verse 16 says that by the multitude of his merchandise they have filled his midst with violence, and he has sinned. We may refer this word solely to Antichrist. During the end time commerce will be very prosperous (Rev. 18). Many sinful things will be brought in because of this. This can be proven by history.
Nevertheless, the same clause may be applied to Satan. Mr. Pember points out that “the word translated `merchandise’ may also…signify `detraction’ or `slander’; and we know that the very name `Devil’ means `the slanderer,’ or `malignant accuser’” (Earth’s Earliest Ages, p. 52). Thus, we can find out the meaning here. We see how Satan accused Job and tried to destroy him with insidious acts. Also in Revelation 12:10 we read, “Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night.” The casting down here probably corresponds to the casting of Satan out of the mountain of God in Ezekiel. The reason for the casting out in Ezekiel and in Revelation is one and the same, that is, accusation (or slander). Perhaps what was recorded in Ezekiel was the conviction of Satan by God and what was written in Revelation was the sending of Michael by God for the execution of that conviction. Then why would God still allow Satan to remain in the heavens? The reasons seem to be: (1) the time of God has not yet come, and (2) His own children need the furnace to purge away the dross still in them.
Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the cause of Satan’s fall. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and his wisdom was corrupted by reason of his brightness. The king of Babylon as described in Isaiah 14:12-14 bears much resemblance to this verse. Many servants of God believe that the Holy Spirit is not only pointing out the king of Babylon, but in a deeper sense, the cause of the fall of Satan who was behind the king of Babylon. In my view, the record in Ezekiel reveals the cause of his pride, while in Isaiah it shows the manner in which he exhibited his pride. It is probable that after comparing himself with God’s other creatures, his heart was lifted up. In the end he tried to exalt himself to be equal with God and thus suffered God’s judgment. “How you have fallen from heaven, / O Daystar, son of the dawn! /…But you, you said in your heart: / I will ascend to heaven; / Above the stars of God / I will exalt my throne. / And I will sit upon the mount of assembly / On the sides of the north. / I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; / I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:12-14). Since he was so proud, God punished him. His authority in the heavens was removed and abolished by God. The remaining part of the prophecy in Ezekiel is not relevant to our subject, and we shall stop here.
From the prophecy contained in this passage in Ezekiel, if our interpretation is correct, we can see how God created Satan the fairest and wisest of all His creatures in the former world and made him their leader. God placed him in the garden of Eden, which was long before the Eden of Adam. The things in the former garden, if not altogether different from those of the latter garden, were at least more numerous than the latter. They resemble the future New Jerusalem. He was a prophet there, teaching all the inhabitants of the earth with his wisdom to know how to serve God. He was also there as the priest of God, directing them in the worship and praises of God. He was also the king among the creatures, having been placed in a position that was above all the creation. He must have been in such a condition for a lengthy period of time (v. 15), but because of his sin, he became the greatest enemy of God.
So far we have covered the origin of Satan. We shall now proceed to cover Satan’s angels and demons, which are under him, and to investigate how they fell and how this affected the earth, causing it to become waste and void.
From the New Testament we see that under the hand of Satan there are two living beings: (1) angels and (2) demons. Let us first look at the angels. Matthew 25:41 speaks of “the devil and his angels.” Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon’s “tail drags away the third part of the stars of heaven, and he cast them to the earth.” The stars denote the angels (Rev. 1:20). Therefore 12:9 says, “And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan,…he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.” These angels were probably the ones established by God in the beginning to assist Satan to rule the world. They were “the congregation of the mighty” and “the gods” in Psalm 82 (cf. John 10:35). When Satan fell, they either conspired or sympathized with him. Therefore, they fell together with him and became today’s “rulers,” “authorities,” “world-rulers of this darkness,” “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies” (Eph. 6:12). Note that the numbers are plural. These angels are not disembodied demons; they have ethereal bodies. This is why the Lord promises that the children of resurrection will be like the angels in the heaven.
Satan has another class of subjects, the evil spirits. Demons and the evil spirits (or filthy spirits) are the same. We can tell this by checking with the translation of the Mandarin Bible. In Matthew 8:16, it firstly mentions the demons, then the spirits. But the Bible translators, seeing that the Holy Spirit used the words “demon” and “spirit” interchangeably, translated both into “demons.” In Luke 10:17 the word “demons” is in the original language, but in verse 20 the word “demons” should be “spirits.” In these two verses of the Bible we see the Lord Jesus acknowledged the “demons” and the “spirits” to be the same and thus the Chinese Bible translator again translated both as “demons.” Matthew 17:18 speaks of the Lord casting out a demon, yet Mark calls this demon an unclean spirit and dumb spirit (Mark 9:25). Demons and spirits are the same.
These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world. They helped Satan in his sinning; or, perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits. Although we cannot find any clear evidence in the Bible to confirm this theory, we can find some clues. In Matthew 12 we see the situation of a demon when he left the human body. He became helpless and wandered about. Besides the human body, he could not find another resting place. Therefore, he eventually returned to his original place, the human body. If they were not disembodied spirits, why did they have to enter into man’s body? As we read Luke 8, we see how the legion of demons was unwilling to leave the human body. When they had no way to remain in the human body, they even entered the bodies of the swine. Presently in the world they still cling to human bodies. Even some believers are unconsciously possessed by them. They are different from Satan and his angels who do not like to enter human bodies. Satan and his angels still have a spiritual body, but the demons do not. Their character and liking seem to prove that they are the disembodied spirits. Since they are disembodied spirits, where were they when they were disembodied? We know that the spirits of all the dead are in Hades. So, where do these spirits come from? They must have come from the former world. While they were alive, their habitation was probably the former world where Satan exercised his rule.
In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18 shows that the world created by God in the beginning was not waste and empty. Since this verse speaks of the original world, one expression suggests to us the existence of mankind in the previous world. It says, “He is the God / Who formed the earth… / He did not create it waste.” This clearly refers to the original creation. Following this it says, “He formed it to be inhabited.” This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race.
As we read the Bible further, we find clues which indicate that there is a detention place for the demons now. The legion of demons in Gadara must have known this. They were in great fear and begged the Lord that He would not “order them to depart into the abyss,” (Luke 8:31) because they would be tormented there (Matt. 8:29). Mr. Pember says that this “abyss” in the original language is abussos; and that “in some passages, such as the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse, this term is evidently applied to a fiery hollow in the centre of the earth: but it is also used for the depths of the sea, a meaning which accords well with its derivation” (Earth’s Earliest Ages, p. 60). In the future Satan will be detained in a bottomless pit in the center of the earth. This is revealed in the book of Revelation. The demons are also detained in an abyss now, yet some of them still have freedom. We must wait until God’s appointed time comes for them to be completely shut inside. This abyss is probably different from the one in the heart of the earth; it is in the sea. Furthermore, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when all the prisoners will have been thrown into the lake of fire, there will be no more sea in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1). However, there may be only one abyss that is divided into two parts.
There are other clues concerning the sea being the place of detention for demons. In the Septuagint Bible, the word “deep” in Genesis 1:2 is the same as “abyss” here. We have said that these demons are probably created races who lived in the first world. This corresponds to what we read in Genesis 1:2 because they originally lived on the earth. After sinning, their bodies were destroyed by God; their habitation was judged by God and became without form and void. The whole earth was covered by water and was characterized as “the deep.” It follows then that the spirits of the races at that time were in this “deep”! Finally, on the third day when God restored the earth, He commanded the earth to come out from the water and called the gathering of the waters the sea. This earth was prepared for mankind in the new world. Where then have the former demons gone? We can spontaneously answer that they went into the sea. As we read Revelation 20:13, we often do not understand why the sea will give up the dead which are in it. It is understandable to say that death and Hades will deliver up the dead which are in them, but why will the sea give up the dead which are in it? The common interpretation is that the sea surrenders the bodies of those who are drowned. If so, then the earth should also give up its dead because there are more bodies buried in the earth than in the sea. Yet the earth does not give up its dead. Therefore, the sea will give up the spirits of the imprisoned ones and not the bodies of the dead. Men’s spirits are in death and Hades; the Bible does not say that the spirits of man are kept in the sea. Then whose spirits will the sea give up? It will give up those who are from the other world, that is, the former world. The sequence here indicates this. “The sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them.” Those who lived in the former world died first. Therefore, they will be the first beings to be given up; then, we who are of this world will follow after because every man will be judged in his own order.
Thus far we have seen the probable origin of Satan, his angels, and the demons. As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible. Many Bible scholars, Dr. Scofield being one of them, believe that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to the condition of Genesis 1:2, in which the earth was without form and void. Although the context of this passage is the desolation of Judah, these few verses of the Scripture have a notably broader view, as if God caused the prophet to view the desolation of the earth in the beginning. If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was “the fruitful land” and “its cities” (v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became “waste and emptiness” (v. 23).
From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth, the paradise, and the princes, etc. If we are not mistaken in our meditation, we can draw a conclusion concerning the first world and the cause of its desolation as follows: In the beginning of “time” (as opposed to eternity) God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was not waste (Isa. 45:18) but very beautiful and perfect. On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great. Before God created the earth and human beings, He had created the angels (Job 38:6-7). He assigned Satan, whom He created, as the leader to be above all the angels. Satan, the most beautiful and wisest of all, the prime of all God’s creation, dwelt in the garden of Eden. God made him the ruler of the world; therefore, he was called “the ruler of the world” (John 14:30). Many angels were under his rule, and these angels shared in ruling with him. Then, because of his position and honor, he became proud. Due to pride, he rebelled and lifted himself up to be equal with God. He was not satisfied with being a creature, but desired to be the Creator. Therefore, he slandered God before the people and accused the people before God. God found out his iniquity and condemned him. When the time comes, he will be cast to the earth. One third of the angels (Rev. 12) followed him in rebellion and, therefore, became the angels of the devil. God has prepared hell for them (Matt. 25:41), and when the time comes, Satan will be cast into it. In the former world, the inhabitants of the earth, being under Satan and his angels’ rule, were also deceived and filled up with sins. (We can readily understand this when we consider our world situation today.) Therefore, God’s anger was fierce, and He completely destroyed the earth and all the races therein and locked up many spirits in the abyss in the sea. These evil spirits, angels, and Satan himself formed the kingdom of darkness. We do not know how long this period lasted.
Later, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters again, and the Triune God began His restoration work on the world. After His restoration of the world, He created Adam and his wife and asked them to guard it, so that there would be man on the earth to cooperate with Him in heaven to stop Satan’s power. Perhaps God used Adam to test Satan to see whether he would repent. However, he came to tempt Adam; therefore, God cursed Satan. Because Adam fell, he could not bring the world which was under Satan’s rule back to God. On the contrary, the world Adam received from God’s hand was given anew to Satan. Since angels and mankind had failed, God came in the person of the Son to be a man, the last Adam. The Lord Jesus became God’s prophet, priest, and king. When He was on this earth, He was God’s prophet without blemish. When He was about to die, He was able to say, “The ruler of the world is coming, and in Me he has nothing” (John 14:30). At His death all who are in Adam were crucified in Him. He was able to include all of the old Adamic creation in His crucifixion because He is God, and He is able to continue on as the new man. His human living had nothing to do with Satan. Through His death and resurrection, He regained the world lost by the first Adam. Every sinner, who is destined to die in the old Adam, can return to God and be saved if he rejects the first Adam through the death of the last Adam and joins himself to Christ in life. This is the meaning of believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, whoever believes in the Lord Jesus becomes an enemy of the devil. In everything he attacks us, and in everything we resist him, his angels, and the demons. This is God’s purpose in saving man, and this is a real spiritual warfare.
Satan was judged once on the “holy mountain of God,” and he was judged again on the hill of Golgotha. He has been convicted, yet his judgment has not yet been executed. When the time comes he will be cast down from heaven and when the Son of God returns to this earth, he will be cast into the abyss. After one thousand years he will forever suffer in the lake of fire. Now the Lord Jesus holds the authority which Satan had abused, and He will hold it until all traces of rebellion disappear. He has brought His own blood into the Holy of Holies and has cleansed the heavens; He is now a Priest of God. When He returns, it will be the time of the restoration of all things. He will be a King, ruling this world from heaven with all the overcoming saints, in the same way that Satan ruled with his angels in the former time. At that time He will teach the inhabitants of this earth to know God’s will and to worship God, in the same way that Satan did in the former days. The situation in the millennium will be like the situation in the world before Satan sinned.
Christ will restore all things to the condition in the “beginning” in order to accomplish God’s original purpose. After this He will burn up the whole world, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which the righteous will dwell.
Therefore, as God’s children we ought to have a deeper enmity for the devil. For thousands of years God’s only purpose has been for man to be joined with Him to destroy Satan’s authority. Our God is a law-abiding God. He will not take back by force the world which was lost through man. Therefore, He sent His Son to become a man in order to regain what man had lost. We, men who have been saved, ought to cooperate with the unique “Man,” the Lord Jesus. In our life, in our work, in our environment, in our dwelling, and in the world, we should resist the works of the devil. Our resistance is in firmness of faith (1 Pet. 5:9), and not by means of fleshly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), which is the way of social reformers who are being utilized by the demons.
Satan was wise and beautiful! But because of his pride, he ended up in complete ruin. It is dangerous for frail mortals to esteem themselves wise and beautiful! Beware, lest being lifted up with pride, you fall into the judgment of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Being self-exalted with pride is not a blessing to man; wisdom rests only with those who fear the most high God Jehovah.
THE RECOVERY OF THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS
We have seen that in the beginning God created a perfect world. Later, because of the sins committed by Satan and those who dwelt on the earth, they and the earth were judged by God, and the earth became without form and void. Now we will see God’s work of restoring the earth.In the book of Job, Job mentions the failure of Satan’s rebellion in order to show that it is foolish to dispute with God. “He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? which removeth the mountains, and they know not; which overturneth them in his anger; which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars” (Job 9:4-7). When did God do this? When did He shake the mountains and the earth, and alter the position of the celestial bodies due to man’s stubbornness towards Him? Since the time of Adam, such an act of God in the world has not been seen. This passage must be a description of God’s judgment on Satan and on the earth under his dominion when he rebelled. At that time God shook the earth and overturned the mountains. The calamity came so swiftly that the mountains were overturned unnoticed. In addition to the earth, the positions of the celestial bodies were also affected. Because of God’s judgment, the sun disappeared completely and the stars did not shine. The world was plunged into darkness. There was no sun and no heat was produced. Consequently, this led to the glacial epoch on this earth. Then, after a long period of time, possibly due to internal heat at the earth’s core (Rev. 9:2), the ice gradually melted. However, the sun had not yet appeared and the stars were still “sealed up.” When the Spirit of God began to move, there was the deep, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.Job not only mentions God’s judgment, but also His work of restoration. He says, “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, / and treadeth upon the high peaks of the sea; / which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, / and wonders without number” (Job 9:8-10, Heb.). The phrase “spreadeth out the heavens” indicates God’s work on the second day. God divided the waters with a firmament in their midst, and this firmament was called Heaven. So the “high peaks of the sea” probably indicates the waters above the firmament. The phrase “maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades” indicates God’s work on the fourth day. The word “maketh” does not mean creates but fashions. God did not create stars at this time, but He fashioned anew the existing stars. In Job 9:7 it says, “Sealeth up the stars.” This shows that the stars already existed. Genesis 1:16 says, “He made the stars also.” This was a restoration to their condition before they were sealed. Having read Job’s word, we are more convinced that our exposition is correct.In Genesis God began His work of restoration. He called out for light because the face of the deep was dark, and this light divided the light from the darkness. There was light before, and now light came back. Some mockers have said, “How could there be light without the sun?” However, science no longer laughs at this kind of record in the Bible, and recently science has proven Moses’ words to be correct. The record here is “non-science”; it is not “anti-science.” The book of God is not intended as a science textbook, yet the word of God is not erroneous according to science. Man now understands that besides the sun there are other sources of light. Light is an energy from an unknown source that produces vibrations of the ether around the universe. This vibration is beyond human imagination. (Of course, the light that we now see relates to the burning of the sun as well as other sources of light.) But scientists cannot tell us about the sources of this energy. Concerning this point, they are fully in darkness; but faith knows. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). It is most pitiful that while there is God, who is the source of all positive things, and in whom everyone should believe, people still reject Him and prefer to grope in the dark, considering it unscientific and superstitious to believe in God’s Word! But we are so happy that we not only have God, but that He is also our Father. It does not say that light was created or brought into being by God on the first day. Light has not existed for merely six thousand years. Before light came, darkness was confined to one place, the face of the deep (i.e., the whole earth). Darkness was confined to this one assigned place. When light appeared, it appeared in the same dark place, the whole earth. When God said, “Let there be light” (v. 3), the whole universe was not in darkness. God was merely commanding the light to appear on the surface of this earth.In Moses’ time, science did not know of other sources of light besides the sun (such as the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights). But Moses still recorded that God called out the light first, then made the sun to appear. If this was not a revelation of the Holy Spirit, how could he have made such a statement? Thank God that He is not limited by the ignorance of people. The more the scientists understand the natural laws established by God, the more they realize that the Word of God is worthy of all acceptance.”And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (v. 5). God did not create the light here because it had existed for a long time; He just called out the light. When did the first day start? Someone said it was from the time when the earth was “without form and void” (v. 2); however, that is not the meaning here. “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (v. 5). “Morning” was the time when the light of the first day appeared. If there were no light before the first day, then the “evening” mentioned here does not make sense. The “evening” came first, and then “the morning.” If the morning indicates the time when the daylight first appeared, and if there was no light before the first day, then the evening would indicate the darkness before the light, which would be the prolonged darkness mentioned in verse 2. If that were the case, would not the first evening have been too long? If the evening of the first day was the darkness in verse 2, then the first day would have started from the darkness of the formlessness and void. But Genesis clearly does not consider the formlessness and void as the first day. Hence, before the “evening” of the first day, there was light already. However, this light was not shining on the earth. God called the darkness Night, but “the evening,” being different from the night, was a darkness under control of the light. For this reason, light existed before “the evening” of the first day; otherwise, how could we differentiate between the evening and the morning? Furthermore, the Bible does not say that God created light on the first day; He just commanded light to appear. Where was the light from? If it was not from the earth which was without form and void and in entire darkness, it must surely have been from the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth. This is a further proof that the world we are in now is a restored world.We should know that each of the six days is a twenty-four hour day. In the Bible a day is often used to represent a period of time, such as “the day of the Lord,” etc. But the six days are not six periods. No reader without preconceived opinions would consider these as periods of time. Whenever the Bible uses “day” to stand for a period, there is no numerical indication associated with it. If there is a number before the day, it must indicate the time of one revolution of the earth. Furthermore, it clearly states “the evening and the morning were the first day” (v. 5). Combining evening and morning as the first day is an indication of a twenty-four hour day. Moreover, God later established a Sabbath, according to His own rest on the seventh day. The Sabbath in Exodus 20 is a twenty-four hour day. If the seventh day is a twenty-four hour day, then the six preceding days must also be twenty-four hour days. Again, if we consider these six days as six geological periods, then what corresponds to the “evenings” of these geological periods, and what corresponds to the “mornings” of these periods? Furthermore, if these six days correspond to six geological periods, there would have been no grass or trees on the earth before the third period, and there would have been no animal fossils on the earth before the sixth period. But this is not the case, because there is no separation between animals and plants in the geological st
September 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
If anyone read the last post, care to give a synopsis?
September 7th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
basically if science and genesis don’t match, then it’s science that must be wrong. same exact arguments mohammed used to portrait quran as a scientific book… verbal masturbation really…
September 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Well, I checked the link given and well this excerpt seems to sum up some points. To what I am not sure.
Seriously, is the writer serious?
September 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
yeah, esp. the crime part is true.
that’s why the most atheist countries have the lowest crime rates.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Heroes still beats every other show out there.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:00 am
I am smitten by the way you covered this topic. It is not often I come across a website with absorbing articles like yours. I will make a note of your feed to keep up to date with your incoming updates.Just brilliant and do continue up the solid work.
March 14th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Thanks for the info mate. Im going to bookmark your webpage in Facebook if thats okay…
June 24th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I had to replace my previous Polaris 180. I used it for 10 years and it was already over eight years old once I purchased the house. The 280 cleans the pool very properly with minimal maintenance. I put a 12 inches nylon sock (6 for $1.00 at the greenback store) over the exit going contained in the bag and alter it each three-4 weeeks. This fashion I don’t have to scrub the bag. The 280 has a straightforward to handle bag, a wider suction mouth and the back circulate system to move it from locations to places in the pool each 5 min. assist to make a perfect job. Polaris sent me freed from cost a G-9 coupler to hook it up from my old .75 inch pool wall return.
August 11th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
some bowling balls are heavy and i accidentally dropped one on my foot. it is quite painfull.-~