Evolution vs God Video.

By brad, July 20, 2013

I recently watched the Evolution vs God video which I felt was fantastic. Here is the video:

 

Ray Comfort visits a number of universities and questions students and teachers from various fields. All those interviewed have faith in the evolutionary world view. ie, the world as we know it came about by natural processes alone and that all life stemmed from a common ancestor.

I enjoy learning more about the creation / evolution debate and hold fast to the fact that we are the result of a wonderful plan set in motion by an intelligent designer – God. The Bible tells us in Romans 1v18 that men will try and suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

The truth spoken of here is that we all know that there is a God and that He Created the universe and everything in it. including us. So why would anyone want to suppress the truth? In other words, why would anyone want to deny the truth and pretend that God isn’t real?

Well if there is no God, then we don’t have to follow his rules – we can go about doing whatever we want. The problem for this mindset is that there is a God, he has given us rules and there are consequences for deviating from these rules. (Just as a loving parent would set in place rules for their children).

So back to the video, Ray asks some quite straight forward questions to evolutionists who unsurprisingly are unable to answer the questions. Or if they do, their answers are filled with untestable and unverifiable assumptions.

I guess the big question was

“Can you give an example that demonstrated Darwinian Evolution”

Darwinian Evolution is a theory that all life came from a common ancestor and for this to happen, one kind (or one family) would have to evolve into another kind. The answers kept coming back basically the same however the evolutionists would come back with changes within a kind not changes from one kind to another.

Variations within a kind certainly does happen, infact we can see it all around us today. It is good testable science. eg – you can get two different species of dogs, have them mate and you will end up with a different kind of dog. This is an example of changes within a kind. Or one that evolutionists enjoy using is the bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Again, this is good testable science however it does not explain molecules to man evolution. The bacteria are still, bacteria even after the change.

The video will be freely available for you to view on youtube early August. If you would like to support the ministry of Ray Comfort, you can purchase a pre-release copy from the evolution vs god website:

http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/

 

 

 

  • Phil Stilwell

    I thought this capsulized the video fairly accurately.
    http://evolutionvsgod.wordpress.com/

    • admin

      I appreciate the reply Phil. Although the cartoon doesn’t quite make sense on a number of levels.

      Firstly, when a language evolves over time it is still a language. This can be related to variations within a kind or ‘family’ which is observable.

      Secondly, we can observe evolution within a language and it’s even documented (for example, see the following link detailing the Oxford dictionaries new additions over time.) Even LOL has been added…

      http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/what-s-new

  • alebilox

    goodbye your webpage was good, until the bible stuff came around.

  • admin

    alebilox – I am sorry to hear that. You’re certainly welcome here anytime (as is everyone) but I have a passion not only for electronics and programming, but also for my faith in Jesus Christ.

    I’m not sure if you will see this message, but i’d like to send you a PICnDuino as a parting gift. Could you let me know if I could send you one?

    Cheers,

    -Brad

  • alebilox

    Sorry about that was a hard day, i will not go away, you are free to do and to think. Thank you about the PICnDuino but you don’t need to do that. 😀

  • admin

    alebilox – We all have bad days now and again 🙂 I’d just like to point out again that no matter what you believe, you are more than welcome to drop by the site and browse through whatever takes your fancy.

    As for the PICnDuino, i’d still like to send one out to you.

    Could you please email me your address to brad#bradsprojects,com (replace the # with a @ and the , with a .)

  • Sam Greenaum

    What are the biggest problems with the scientific explanation for how life came to be the way it is? And why is the Christian explanation, brief though it is, better? Why do you think evolution is impossible?

    I think it’s unfair to say “imaginative” in reference to the numbers. That is indeed a problem some people seem to have. Yes, life today does rely on some very slim chance occurrences. OTOH conceiving a hundred million, or a billion years is something people aren’t used to doing. Given long enough, and a big enough planet, all sorts of unlikely things become certainties. As long as nothing stops them, they carry on.

    There is SO MUCH evidence for the scientific point of view. For every stage. I’m sure you know, as someone with the technical mind you seem to have, that a few currently unexplained problems don’t make a theory worthless.

    “Faith” in the theory of evolution is not the same as religious faith. For one thing, like all of science, the theory can change. If any evidence crops up that positively disproves a scientific theory, we change the theory, not attack the evidence. Science is, and always has been, our best-fit guess that explains the evidence, with the least amount of added factors. The simplest explanation that fits the facts.

    I’m sure you won’t argue, when I say that the Bible’s only source of authority is in it’s own words. It’s only recently been investigated using proper historical methods. And a lot of “holes” have cropped up there, too. But that’s ok. If Christians want to live according to the words of Jesus, they’d be people I’d be happy to know. I agree with much of the advice Jesus gave on practical, Earthly matters, simply because as independent statements, standing alone, they are logical and, to me, moral. The Golden Rule being the most obvious one. No faith in gods is needed to see that that’s a good idea.

    I would argue that morals a person thinks out for themselves, are greater than morals accepted on authority. Unless you witness God actually sending down the words himself, unless he appears in the sky one day and tells us, then how do you know that he’s the true source of them? Of course, the answer is faith, which is certain knowledge despite lack of independent evidence.

    I think I’m a very moral person. Pretty much all of my morality is based on “do as you would be done by”, or “how would you feel if you were in their shoes?”. “Be nice to people and don’t cause hurt needlessly”. All stuff I came to myself, but I think they’re pretty good.

    I might like to chat more about this later if you’d like to.

    Sam.

    • Brad Slattery

      Hi Sam, thank you very much for taking the time to write your post 🙂

      There certainly are quite a number of things to address, but at the moment I might just keep it to a couple of points. Your opening paragraph talks about the scientific explanation and the Christian explanation, effectively separating the two. I think what you are getting at here is the evolutionary explanation vs the creation explanation – would I be correct in saying that?

      It is a common misconception that it is a battle between God and science. In fact, this is precisely the tactic that many atheists / evolutionists use to try and discredit creationists. Science is all about studying the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Both creationists and evolutionists ‘do science’. In fact the very fact that we are able to use the scientific method is evidence against evolutionary theory because how on earth could you trust your experiments if you believe the world came about by random processes? How can you trust that the laws of physics aren’t in themselves evolving?

      You then ask the question ‘Why do you think evolution is impossible?’ Which is a good question but I need for you to define what you mean by ‘evolution’. Evolution certainly is possible and we observe it everyday! In fact, the very words that I am using at the moment to write this I.E. the english language, is in itself – evolving. Do you know that new words are added to the dictionary each year? Did you also know that over time, words in the english language have actually changed meaning? That’s evolution in progress!

      Evolution also occurs within living beings BUT this has only ever occurred within the same kind. In fact both evolutionary scientists and creation scientists observe these changes everyday using the scientific method. There is no evidence of one kind evolving into another kind and this is exactly what darwinian evolution is all about.

      You then said ‘There is SO MUCH evidence for the scientific point of view’ (again by scientific I am assuming you mean evolutionary point of view). Could you please show me evidence that supports darwinian evolution I.E. one kind turning into another?

      I’ll leave it there for now so as to not draw this post out. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to write this post 🙂

  • Nick Halderman

    I feel like it’s a mistake to try to pit religion against science in this way. Science and religion are interested in different things. Science seeks to understand the mechanical workings of the world; this lets us do a better job of predicting how our actions will change things. Religion seeks moral and spiritual guidelines, so that, having predicted the likely outcomes of various possible courses of action, we can choose between them, and seeks a philosophical perspective on life, so as to let us cope with things that happen beyond our control. The two can be complementary rather than adversarial.

    For my part, I’m an atheist agnostic–I believe there isn’t a god, but I acknowledge that’s not provable–and I also see evolution as a scientific fact. But I don’t see those two things as particularly related. Evolution doesn’t preclude the possibility of a god; it would be entirely possible for evolution to be simply a method for god to create things. My belief that there isn’t a god, and my specific disbelief in the Christian God, has more to do with the ways in which religions so clearly reflect specific human foibles. Religions have human fingerprints all over them, and that makes the idea that they are pure renderings of the message of God extremely suspect, particularly since there are such a number of religions, and they contradict one another.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the best-supported theories in science (where “theory” means “explanatory structure,” not “hypothesis”). Microevolution has been directly demonstrated in labs, and macroevolution is extremely well supported by the fossil record. The video focusses heavily on the question of “evolution between kinds,” but neglects to define “kinds”, which is problematic. The entire structure of the theory of evolution revolves around the idea that evolution is gradual–any particular change in an organism will be extremely small. But after a large number of extremely small changes, the resulting organism will no longer resemble the original organism. The evidence for evolution, then, consists of a large number of “transitional” fossils: fossils which illustrate that, at various times in the distant past, there have been organisms which were intermediate states in these sorts of changes. One example is the record of the evolution of humans, where we can demonstrate a number of intermediate species, such as Australopithecus afarensis, which share traits both with modern humans and with modern chimpanzees, by virtue of being closer to the common ancestor of the two.

    Now, it’s true, this doesn’t happen fast enough to be directly observable within a human lifespan. So to see this as evidence, you first have to believe that fossilization is a real phenomenon, that radiocarbon dating accurately reflects the age of things, and so on–but these are in turn supported by large bodies of evidence within their respective scientific fields. But one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions, and these are testable, providing further evidence–and the theory of evolution is no exception. In connection with our recent understanding of DNA, the fossil record allows us to make predictions–in particular, it allows us to predict the degree of similarity between the DNA of two modern organisms, based on the age of the fossils indicating a common ancestor. This has proven extremely reliable. It’s also been possible, using this kind of comparison, to associate particular segments of DNA with features they produce in the organism–and to isolate these DNA segments and insert them into other organisms to produce the same feature in a different organism. An example of this is the insertion of jellyfish fluorescence genes into the rabbit genome, producing a bunny which glows slightly under a blacklight. More importantly, we use this technique routinely to coerce bacteria into manufacturing useful compounds for medicines.

    And this, finally, is what it all boils down to–evolution isn’t just a single, independent idea. Everything we know about modern biology fits with evolution so precisely and so thoroughly that it simply wouldn’t make sense for it to be wrong, and the evidence that modern biology works is everywhere. It doesn’t make sense to assume that all the scientists are wrong because they’re so clearly making effective use of the theory.

    But again, I don’t feel this conflicts with religion at all. Most of Christ’s essential teachings are beautiful, and a lot of the core morals of Christianity–love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek, charity, humility, sacrifice–these are things that I, too, consider the highest of moral aspirations, even if, being fallible, I frequently fail to uphold them. The religion, in other words, seems to me to be working very effectively as well! But when you present this as a dichotomy–there’s science on the one hand and religion on the other, and you have to choose sides–a lot of people are going to choose science, because science is producing amazing new developments daily. A lot of people will choose faith, too, of course, because the communities associated with faith give people a lot of strength and comfort. And besides, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, science works whether or not you believe in it, and that means even those who choose faith get to enjoy the technological benefits of science.

    But I do really think that’s harmful, because it makes people reject evolution, and it makes people resist having children taught evolution. People who refuse to understand evolution cannot contribute to modern biology, and we’re teaching enough people that way that we are likely harming our ability to develop this critical kind of science.

    And even for the non-biologist, there’s a beauty to the idea of evolution, because as a systemic explanation it’s so efficient; understanding evolution is a powerful introduction to systems thinking. It’s similar to looking at patterns emerging from cellular automata: you start to be able to think about how a small set of rules, replicated widely, will produce large-scale behaviors. And this is so powerful, it applies to virtually everything–from vaccines to economic policy to traffic control to twitter. Understanding the way that a very small-scale but very consistent interaction can produce a particular large-scale result is a really important skill in the modern world, and evolution is a perfect example of that. Wolfram called this “a new kind of science,” but I think it’s more accurate to call it a new kind of mathematics, since it really started more than a century ago with Fatou and Julia working on fractals and iterative functions.

    I, and I suspect most atheists, don’t really want to strip you of your faith or morality. Morality is a wonderful trait (and in sadly short supply), and faith tends to give people community, strength, and support. I would not want to take those things away from anyone. But I do feel, very strongly, that science is the best way to understand the world, and I think it’s important to recognize scientific evidence as evidence; and I feel it’s extremely important for people to learn to think critically and with keen logic, even when emotion or faith would tend to influence their line of reasoning. So I really would like to convince you that your faith need not be in conflict with science.

    Sorry for the really long comment, and yes, I realize that this is a topic about which you probably don’t really want to have anyone change your mind. But you seem intelligent and genuinely inquisitive, so I thought perhaps you’d like to hear a genuine response from someone with an opposing view, even if you find it ultimately unconvincing. 🙂

    • Brad Slattery

      Hi Nick, thanks very much for taking the time to write your thoughts and I apologise for the delayed response, I have been quite busy!

      One of the things I would really like to emphasise is that it is not pitting religion against science, this unfortunately is a very common misconception that people have. I certainly agree with you with respect to science helping us to better understand the mechanical workings of the world. I love science!

      The argument is essentially ‘bad science’ vs ‘good science’. For example, I have been working on a little USB device that gives you a readout of the USB voltage, current draw and power consumption. I have had to run numerous experiments with this device with all sorts of USB ports, USB chargers, mobile phones and other USB powered devices. I made a spreadsheet with data from all of these devices and was able to use this data to make my device more accurate. That is what I would categorise as ‘good science’ running actual experiments to come up with a solution or an enhancement to a circuit.

      Now on the other hand you can get some ‘bad science’ this is where I feel a lot of evolutionary theory fits in. For example, you made mention of ‘Australopithecus afarensis’ with perhaps the most famous example being Lucy. If you do some searching around the internet you will find that evolutionists can’t even agree on what Lucy actually is / was. This is because a bunch of Fossils found in the ground is open to pre-suppositions and assumptions. In the case of Lucy, they did not find a complete fossil but rather had most pieces of the puzzle missing, in fact – Lucy’s skull was completely smashed to bits. How then can we know what she looked like?

      Archeologists found a knee bone kilometres away from Lucy’s dig site and they pieced it together with Lucy because they assumed it was from the same species. Back in 1974 they attempted to date Lucy’s fossils by using the potassium argon radiometric method however they gave this up due to numerous reasons but one being that they felt the samples were tainted due to volcanic rocks in the area being chemically altered. They then dated Lucy’s remains in the early 90’s using the Argon Argon radiometric dating method. However we have to assume a number of things when using this dating technique.

      1. We need to assume that there is ZERO argon in the volcanic rock at the time of the eruption.

      2. We need to assume that the half life of argon is a constant and has been constant since the universe began.

      In fact, there have been dozens of recent eruptions where samples have been taken of the volcanic rock and have been found to be multiple millions of years old.

      I guess what I really want to stress here again is that the big issue is not God vs Science, but rather the video is highlighting ‘bad science’ which in this case comes in the form of Darwinian Evolution.

      The fact that we can ‘do science’ I believe, is evidence in favour of a creator. We can trust our senses, we can trust our repeated lab tests, we can trust our brains – we can because God created us. On the other hand if we are the result of random chance where we are just a bunch of random chemical reactions, how could we possibly trust anything? how could we trust our randomly mutated eyes, how could we trust that what we are seeing is actually what is really there? How could we possibly trust our thoughts and calculations?

      On another note, why would anyone even care about any of this if we truly are the result of random chance, mutation and natural selection?

      I certainly do agree with you with respect to micro evolution. This happens and we can observe it in the lab! Now that is good science right there 🙂 However to say that because micro evolution is a fact and so therefor macro evolution must also be true – is just plain wrong. For example we can observe bacteria becoming resistant to certain antibiotics through mutation and/or horizontal gene transfer (which is a built in feature of bacteria). These changes lead to a loss of functional systems in the bacteria which can cause it to become resistant to certain antibiotics.

      I liken it to this: If I were to cut off both of my arms I would say that is a bad thing, but wait! This means that I am now immune to tennis elbow! If I were to keep evolving then perhaps I would lose my feet, legs and ears also. But then this is the opposite to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to work. We need to be getting better not worse.

      Sorry for my rambling on I should really finish it off there, I have a big day of renovating tomorrow!

  • dalek moore

    The universe does not think we think for the universe.
    The true book of every thing is written in the rocks of earth and as with the universe you need an open mind to read both those books .
    There is no God God is a fairy tail an evil invention of fools who over countless years have murdered any one who disagrees with the idea of what ever god they believed in this is EVIL ..

    • Brad Slattery

      Thanks for your comments dalek. Though I find it interesting that you say that there is no God and then in the same sentence you write about evil. In order for evil to exist, good must also exist. In order for good and evil to exist, there must be moral absolutes for which to differentiate between good and evil. In order for moral absolutes to exist there must be a moral law giver. But this moral law giver is precisely the one who you say does not exist. How then can you say that something is evil?

  • Thomas

    Brad,

    I discovered your website this evening, looking for NES-to-Arduino code. Thank you very much for sharing your work with us.

    I applaud you for spreading the word of God on your website.

    Take care, and all the best.
    Thomas

  • Steve

    I dont see how somebody who is intelligent enough to create these projects can believe in ID or what rubbish Ray Comfort spouts.

  • Steve

    A bit of reading about Ray.

  • brad

    Hi Steve, I have to agree with you that Ray has said some pretty questionable things that I would not agree with. However if we leave that aside for the moment I’ll just make a comment on the first part of your sentence.

    If I could reword your comment it seems you are saying something like this:

    “The electronic projects on this website clearly demand an intelligent designer however can’t you see the universe and everything in it which is incredibly more complex do not demand an intelligent designer.”

    If I have missed the mark in anyway please tell me where my reworded comment falls short. Also I would like to know more about what you believe / your world view as I would appreciate continuing this discussion.

    Kind Regards,

    -Brad

    • Alrhgit alright alright that’s exactly what I needed!