God -- The Bible -- Science

PREFACE

What follows are my opinions.  They are not intended to prove anything and certainly not intended to offend anyone.  I view myself as a Christian but many of my Christian friends would disagree due to various doctrinal conflicts.  I don’t think God is exclusive to any specific religion and  is present in all religions.  It is not my intent to prove that God exists but rather to ask the Atheist to prove that He doesn’t.

What follows is my simple comparison of the Bible’s description of the creation to what science currently believes.  The important thing here is that while the Bible requires faith it is the same for science because neither can prove their positions.

God--the Bible – and Science

The atheist doesn’t believe in God but he believes in science and challenges those who believe in God to prove He doesn’t exist.  But when challenged to prove that God doesn’t exist the atheist cannot offer any scientific proof.  In fact Richard Dawkins – the High Priest of Darwinism – when challenged to explain how the complex DNA and RNA molecules came into existence as a random event he admitted he could not explain it.  Instead he said “it must have happened because we are here.”  The idiocy of this statement is lost on the atheist whose faith is in science.  But to believe that some random combination of chemicals could produce these complex molecules would lead to the logical conclusion that they could have just as easily combined into a birthday cake.  So it seems that science requires the same level of faith as faith in God requires.

Allowing for some poetic license it seems that the Bible describes the Big Bang or “First Cause” pretty well.  The Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void..  Science tells us that all energy was created with the Big Bang and was a swirling incredibly hot cloud of particles that eventually coalesced into the stars and the earth.  Then God separated the waters from the waters and divided the waters from under the firmament from those above the firmament.   According to what science believes the energies released began to coalesce into mass laden molecules and ultimately into the stars and planets.  Given some latitude for poetic license the Biblical description of the second day seems to track science.

On the third day God gathered together the waters into one place and let the dry land appear and the seas.  This seems to track the scientific belief that the Earth was formed out of the swirling mass of particles into our planet which was  incredibly hot and surrounded by gas.  As the Earth cooled the gases cooled and formed the seas and atmosphere.  The Bible and science seem to agree up to this point but then the sequence of events begins to diverge.  The Bible claims the next step was the creation of grass and trees  but the fossil record shows no plant life of any kind in the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian beyond something akin to pond scum.  The Cambrian fossil record shows an abundance of sea life but grasses and plant life first appear in the Ordovician period.   In fact the sequence of events between the Bible and the fossil record greatly differ from this point on, but it is the sequence not the actual events.  The Sun and the Moon are created after the Earth but science claims that the Sun was created first and the Moon after the Earth.  The first life appears in the Cambrian Seas and the Bible and science agree on this point but the Bible claims that flying fowl were created at the same time but once again the fossil record doesn’t show any flying animal until much later. 

This brings us to the sixth day which roughly equates to the Devonian period when land animals first appear.  The Bible lumps the rest of creation into this sixth day ranging from the creation of the first land animals to the creation of man.   The fossil record shows the evolutionary history of the Earth in much more detail than the Bible but roughly they parallel the development of life on Earth.    The huge difference comes with the creation of man.  The Bible is very clear that God created man in His image while the scientists point to the fossil record that shows a path from primitive apes to modern man.  This fossil record for mankind has some questionable entries and assumptions but even so the record is very clear that man did not appear fully formed as we know him today.  To accept the Biblical explanation would require God to look somewhat like Michelangelo’s version of God which would mean that God is tangible, Heaven is tangible or at least a physical place, and that Hell exists.  Furthermore, once God is accepted as real then Satan must be real as well.  

Since the Bible was written people have believed that if God created man in his image that when they look into the mirror they see an image similar to God.  But science tells us that everything in the universe is energy and that the Big Bang created all of that energy.  That would lead to the conclusion that God is energy and that when He created man he created man as an energetic image – which we know as our soul.  Our physical bodies are mere shells – containers for our souls while we serve our time on Earth.  Certainly it would be asking too much for science to accept this explanation because it would require accepting God, but viewing man ‘s soul as the image of God then the creation story in Genesis seems to closely parallel the scientific view of the creation.

As I said at the outset these are just my opinions and I have no proof of anything.  I simply looked at the Bible and compared it to various scientific articles and descriptions and found what I saw as parallels.  You may or may not agree.

White Cavemen

The Theory of Evolution continues to be taught and accepted as factual even though this theory has never met the strict rules of science. The fact is that all of the evidence offered in support of evolution is evidence of adaptation to the environment and not of speciation. How one animal morphs into another entirely different species has never been demonstrated but the glib answer has always been – mutation. That may be but it is not supported by transitional fossils. What have been described as transitional fossils could just as easily be examples of adaptation, so how species emerge remains speculation and is not supported by the fossil record or demonstration. And this brings us to human evolution, where we came from, how we got to be different colors, and why some people are blonde.

The Leaky family has turned human evolution into a family business claiming that humans evolved from a group of hominids in Africa. This claim rests on a series of bone fragments about three million years old and a few primitive tools. Recent discoveries of mostly bone fragments show that hominids are also found in Asia but what relevance this has to human evolution remains a little vague although scientists are convinced that these hominids are really the root species of Homo sapiens. That is the current belief is that these hominids adapted to their environment and through these adaptations they became human. That may be true but somewhere along the line the root species of apes became hominids – a separate species. Precisely how this happened is believed to be through mutation, but when you actually examine the whole series of proto-humans there seems to have been a lot of mutation going on without any real evidence.

In fact a large part of the belief that humans are descendents of these apes and hominids partially rests on the fact that the DNA of chimpanzees and homo-sapiens is almost identical with the chimpanzee’s being 98% human. Of course this proves nothing at all because that is tantamount to saying that Helium (a gas) and Lithium (a metal) are essentially the same because there is only one electron difference. Or to put this into another perspective the entire universal is composed of identical electrons, protons, and neutrons but how these are combined makes things unique and very different. So the DNA argument means nothing and now back to the hominids and why are cavemen white instead of black.

There is no evidence of primitive man in Africa just the hominids and the early humans are found in Europe. These early humans – the Neanderthals are believed to be white skinned. There is no evidence of primitive man in the Americas but there is some evidence in Europe and Asia, but no hominids. The hominids seem to be only in Africa but there is really no evidence of primitive man in Africa – just those hominids, which consist of bone fragments. But if those hominids evolved into humans – even primitive humans – then it seems logical that there would be some evidence of that. Some primitive art, skeletons, weapons, etc, but there is nothing in Africa other than what is believed to be primitive stone tools. However, primitive tools prove nothing by themselves since even some birds and other animals use tools, including Chimpanzees.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that Leaky is correct and that those hominids are in fact the human root species that separated from apes. Well apes are black with straight hair while modern Negroes are black with wooly hair. But all cavemen – that is primitive men in Europe are seen as white with blonde or brown straight hair. So the argument seems to be that the early apes separated into apes and hominids in Africa. Those hominids evolved into primitive humans and migrated to Europe, without leaving any evidence of their evolution in Africa but arriving in Europe as primitive humans with no evidence of their hominid beginnings. On arrival in Europe the black skin and straight black hair they started with became white skin and blonde or light brown hair in Europe. According to the rules of evolution these changes were driven by the European environment.

Black retains heat much better than white so why did the black skin of the hominids change to white in a colder climate? Currently the answer to this question is sexual selection both for skin and hair color. That is those early pre-humans with the lighter skin and hair were more sexually attractive leading to white cavemen with blonde hair. Assuming this is correct then where did the black and brown skins come from? We must believe that these early humans migrated back to Africa with white skin and evolved black skin because the darker people were more sexually attractive in Africa or that their evolutionary changes were environmentally driven. So we must believe that whites evolved through sexual selection while blacks evolved through environmental adaptation. This whole evolutionary structure begins to test the boundaries of credibility.

What about those brown skinned people that inhabit the Americas? All of these people we are told migrated to the Americas as homo-sapiens from Asia or somewhere undetermined. All of these early Americans have straight black hair with brown skin, not black or white. So is their brown skin the result of adaptation to environment, sexual selection, or mutation? What about the Amerindians? These people are seen as the Red Race and are not related to the brown race that surrounds them. What is their origin? There is no evidence they evolved where they are found but that they came from somewhere else, but where since they are not found anywhere outside of North America. Furthermore all of the races (out side of the Australian Aborigines) have black hair while only the white race has blonde, red, and brown hair. If these are mutations then why are these found only in whites? Are the other races immune to mutations?

So we must believe that humans evolved from apes with black skin, they migrated to Europe and evolved into white skinned people, who migrated to the Americas where they became brown skinned. The black skinned people either remained in Africa without leaving any evidence of their early evolution or migrated back to Africa from Europe and evolved back into black skin with wooly rather than straight black hair. The origin of the Australian aborigines and the American Indians remains a mystery unless they are examples of mutation. So the origin on Homo Sapiens remains unknown but speculative. Why Cavemen are white is based on sexual selection while blacks are the result of reverse adaptation. None of this is very convincing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution