jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Evolution Hangs Itself in 20 Years

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

In 1990, Dr. Tim Berra was Professor of Zoology at Ohio State University. His book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, was published that year by Stanford University Press. In a nutshell, Berra and his publisher maintained some of the highest academic standards in the world. The purpose of Berra’s book, as can be inferred from the title, was to show that creation is scientifically untenable. Berra believed that some academicians had been too easy on creationists. He felt it his job “to inform the public that creationism has no scientific validity and is a threat to the growth and spread of knowledge” (p. viii). In addition, he asserted that those who believe the biblical account of creation “have chosen to abandon reason and evidence in favor of dogma and blind faith” (p. ix). In chapter five of his book, Berra purported to refute 16 creationists’ arguments, and concluded: “There are others, but they are all of the same character—scientifically inaccurate, willful, or devious” (p. 132).

The irony of Berra’s caustic attack on creationism is that the very ideas he claims to see and denounce in creationists’ arguments are the concepts that plague his reasoning—namely, arguments that are scientifically inaccurate, willful, and devious. For instance, in his first chapter, What Is Evolution?, Berra compiled a list of several of his most “powerful” evidences that “prove” evolution. In that list he included embryology.

The embryos of vertebrates that do not respire by means of gills (reptiles, birds, and mammals) nevertheless pass through a gill-slit stage complete with aortic arches and a two-chambered heart, like those of a fish. The passage through a fishlike stage by the embryos of the higher vertebrates is not explained by creation, but is readily accounted for as an evolutionary relic (p. 22, emp. added).

Of course, the scientific community has known for over 120 years that mammal, reptile, and bird embryos never go through a gill-slit stage. This ridiculous and vacuous claim was first propounded by Ernst Haeckel in the late 1800s, but was almost immediately proven to be false (see Harrub, 2001; Wells, 2001). Even the late Stephen J. Gould, one of evolution’s most outspoken proponents, denounced Haeckel’s fraud as an atrocious black mark marring the reputation of science (2000, 109[2]:42-50). Yet Berra paraded the long-debunked gill-slit mantra as evidence against creation.

As further confirmation of the superiority of evolution over creation, Berra listed horse evolution. On page 45, he included the oft-published diagram of the tiny Hyracotherium supposedly evolving into modern Equus. Again, this alleged horse evolution scenario has been shown to be false for more than five decades. The late Dr. George Gaylord Simpson admitted, “The uniform, continuous t***sformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In his 2000 article in Natural History, Gould soundly criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformation surrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109(2):45, emp. added].

In another glaring instance of scientific inaccuracy and/or willful deviousness, Berra included the English peppered moth in his chapter titled “The Explanatory Power of Evolution.” Under the heading “The Peppered Moth and Industrial Melanism,” Berra asked: “Can even air pollution drive evolution?” (p. 56). He then trotted out the standard canard that “the moths typically rest on lichen-covered tree trunks and branches, and their main predators are birds” (p. 56). He even included pictures of moths resting on tree trunks. Yet this information was shown to be false years before Berra wrote his book (see Wells, 2000, pp. 137-157).

Embryology, alleged horse evolution, and English peppered moths are just a small sample of the vacuous “evidences” that Berra used to allege the superiority of evolution over creation. The point to be made, however, is this: Berra was a recognized authority on zoology, whose work was published by a leader in the academic world. Yet at the time it was printed, the arguments had already been refuted, and in a mere two decades, they have become so glaringly false that the book is useless as a polemic in favor of evolution. The evolutionary community claims that a strength of evolution is its self-correcting nature. All that really means, however, is that every 20 years new evolutionary “evidence” has to be produced because the previously fabricated material has been so thoroughly debunked. How many times will evolution have to be refuted before it is discarded? Unfortunately, there is no end in sight to this vicious cycle.

REFERENCES

Berra, Tim (1990), Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.

Harrub, Brad (2001), “Haeckel’s H**x—Continued,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2049.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Wells, Jonathan (2000), Icons of Evolution (Washington, D.C.: Regnery).



Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

cold iron Loc: White House

I just have one question....How long is one day to God?

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Questions that I have chewed on for many years:

1. How long was a day/night to God?
2. Did God live by a 24 hour per day timetable?
3. Is it possible that God's day lasted eons?
4. Is it possible that God, in His infinate wisdom, created.....then allowed His creation to change/adapt over time guided by nature?
5. Is it possible that regardless of the passage of time, God created evolution so that eventually man will have become what God intends us to become by using free will to grow rather than being "ordained" as such?

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

credo quia absurdum est

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Your moniker is apt.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Turtullion. Good.

So is your point that in your.mind God is limited therefore what I asked is beyond Him?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Answer: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation. Also, it is not defining a day because it doesn’t say ‘a day is a thousand years’. The correct understanding is derived from the context—the Apostle Peter’s readers should not lose heart because God seems slow at fulfilling His promises because He is patient, and also because He is not bound by time as we are.

The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years—to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same.

The fact that the passage is actually contrasting a short and long period can be shown by the fact that Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 (Peter’s statement ‘do not forget’ implies that his readers were expected to recall something, and this passage has this very teaching). This reads:

‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’
This is synonymous parallelism, where a long period of a thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. But those who try to use this verse to teach that the days of Genesis might be 1000 years long forget the additional part in bold. For if they were consistent, they would have to say that a watch in the night here also means 1000 years. It’s difficult to imagine that a Psalmist (Psalm 63:6) is thinking on his bed for thousands of years or that his eyes stay open for thousands of years (Psalm 119:148).

The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mere mortal man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.

In any case, the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is defined by the context there—the Hebrew word for day, yôm יום , is used with the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and the days are numbered (first day, second day, etc.). Whenever yôm is used in such a context, it is always an ordinary day, never a long period of time. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Also see my response to ColdIron also

First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle Peter actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

What is the context of 2 Peter 3? In this passage, Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Another point to consider is that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This in itself is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years. (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis chapter one God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis chapter one?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any unbiased reader today can do the same.

Finally, even if 2 Peter 3:8 could be tied to the length of the Creation days (logically and biblically it cannot), adding 6,000 years to the age of the Earth would in no way appease evolutionary sympathizers. A person could add 600,000 years or 600 million years and still not come close to the alleged age of the Universe. According to evolutionary calculations, one would still be 13+ billion years away from the Big Bang and four billion years this side of the formation of Earth. Truly, even an abuse of 2 Peter 3:8 will not help Day-Age theorists.



Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

[quote=jack sequim wa]Also see my response to ColdIron also

First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle Peter actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

What is the context of 2 Peter 3? In this passage, Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Another point to consider is that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This in itself is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years. (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis chapter one God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis chapter one?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any unbiased reader today can do the same.

Finally, even if 2 Peter 3:8 could be tied to the length of the Creation days (logically and biblically it cannot), adding 6,000 years to the age of the Earth would in no way appease evolutionary sympathizers. A person could add 600,000 years or 600 million years and still not come close to the alleged age of the Universe. According to evolutionary calculations, one would still be 13+ billion years away from the Big Bang and four billion years this side of the formati Ion of Earth. Truly, even an abuse of 2 Peter 3:8 will not help Day-Age theorists.



Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.[/quote]

Yes, I know this. This is why I asked questions the way I did. They were rhetorical.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I thought I remembered you being on point in other discussions, have a great day and God Bless

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

At times I attempt irony. My way of coaxing people to think, consider more than one viewpoint.

Guess I'm not good at it.

My point is that it takes a lot if brass to act like we understand how God works. To limit Him to our understanding is is to have no faith in His supremacy.

Does it matter if it took 6 of our days to create, or 6 of His?

Either way, it was He who created. His work.

Does it matter if earth is a few thousand years old, or several billion?

Is it possible that all that is, all happened by accident? Which has the greatest odds of probability? All being a chance accident, or design?

Why do the majority of scientists world wide, including theoretical mathematicians choose design?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

The universal language is mathematics. My wife a 4.0 student while getting her J.D. in law, just for fun updated her Calc 1,2,3 and also took Philosophy (the highest math know to man). She is busy taking classes at two universities so doesn't have time to explain to me in detail, but states there are 140 pages in the bible that is mathematics and has written equations arguing with others that understand that higher math. Math dose not lie, and as technology increases, science continues to prove the accuracy of the bible.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Absolutely correct.

There is a show on cable TV that attempts to use science to disprove the bible. It is fascinating to see some of the "scientific arguments. Some are so foolish that they end up supporting scripture.

Another show looks for t***h. It is now showing how the Shroud of Turin has been proven to carry the image of a man by using 3D computer graphics. It prove the image was not a drawing but rather an actual 3D image t***sference.

One by one the excuses fall leaving only t***h of scripture.

Nickolai

Who knows but what evidence is there for creationism ? The Hubble space telescope captures proto planetary systems in various stages of formation. There over 1000 in M-42 nebula in the Orion constellation but there is no Hebrew standing in space commanding that some one turn on the lights

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

So you claim that man should be able to see God through a telescope?

Rather limited vision isn't it.

Is it so hard to believe that God created, continues to create, and also created evolution?

Why? Ask Him.