Investigating Evolution
Dr. Carl Werner did what I urge everyone who believes in evolution should do...
Don't believe evolution just because you've been told it is true.
Don't believe evolution just because everyone else believes it.
Ask questions. Investigate.
Dr. Werner was educated in and committed to evolution. A college friend challenged him to prove evolution was true. He took up the challenge and spent 18 years studying geology, dinosaurs and extinction. But, although he wasn't sure what the problem was, he sensed that something was wrong.
So Dr. Werner and his wife decided to go and see the evidence for themselves. They interviewed scientists. Visited fossil dig sites. Over a ten year period they traveled to 60 museums in seven countries. They compiled hundreds of hours of video, 60 thousand photographs and 1,000 pages of transcribed interviews.
The result was that he failed. He could not prove evolution was true.
You can read about Dr. Werner's investigations into evolution in a new book: Evolution: The Grand Experiment.
Don't believe evolution just because you've been told it is true.
Don't believe evolution just because everyone else believes it.
Ask questions. Investigate.
Dr. Werner was educated in and committed to evolution. A college friend challenged him to prove evolution was true. He took up the challenge and spent 18 years studying geology, dinosaurs and extinction. But, although he wasn't sure what the problem was, he sensed that something was wrong.
So Dr. Werner and his wife decided to go and see the evidence for themselves. They interviewed scientists. Visited fossil dig sites. Over a ten year period they traveled to 60 museums in seven countries. They compiled hundreds of hours of video, 60 thousand photographs and 1,000 pages of transcribed interviews.
The result was that he failed. He could not prove evolution was true.
You can read about Dr. Werner's investigations into evolution in a new book: Evolution: The Grand Experiment.
Labels: evolution
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
15 Comments:
So the dillusion is starting to fall apart. There is a God who created us and we are accountable to Him.
One: failure to prove something does not disprove it.
Two: even if evolution was demonstrably false, it would not automatically mean the world was created by a christian god.
Many people don't understand evolution - but not everyone is stupid enough to think that it just because they don't understand it must be false.
The previous comment looks like it came from someone who is definitely that stupid.
Dear Anonymous #2:
One: The problem is that supporters of evoltion claim the evidence is overwhelming. That is a lie that leads the innocent into beliefs that are not true and which corrupt their lives and futures.
Two: There are only two options, either God created everything (Biblical creation for example) or everything created itself (evolution). Those are the only two options.
Since evolution is false, that leaves God or god (or gods) as the creator. The situation then is that you must determine who is the true God. Are you ready to do that?
Our creator tells us that we reject him because we have sin in our lives we are not willing to give up (sexual sin, lies, theft...). If we reject Him as creator, we think we can reject Him as having authority over our lives.
But God is our creator. He made the world. He owns it. He makes the rules. We are guilty of breaking the rules. We will be punished (hell) or we must find someone as a substitute (Jesus see www.911christ.com).
Most people don't understand Christianity (because Satan has blinded them), and are deceived into putting their faith elsewhere.
Hi BrickBalloon
There are only two options, either God created everything (Biblical creation for example) or everything created itself
I absolutely disagree in the strongest possible terms! Evolution is one of the 'theories' about how we got here. Christian creation is another. They are by no means the only two alternatives. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief for a list of about 50 others.
I invite you to think about this for a while. Even if they are the only two theories around (which you will have to concede they are not) just because one is wrong does not make the other right. What I am saying is that disproving one thing is not the same as proving another.
Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your comments.
Please carefully read your own reference, the Wikipedia article. Most of the creation stories talk about something that is not creation. The start with something that is existing, for example:
"In the beginning there was nothing except for the ice of Niflheim..." (The Norse "creation" story)
...and from that existing something the world/people we know today are fashioned. That's not creation. It totally avoids the question, "Where did the original 'stuff' come from?"
A few of the stories listed in the article describe evolution:
"nothingness gave rise to existence" (Taoism). This is exactly what evolution claims.
Some just avoid the question of creation. (Where did everything come from?)
The remaining few describe a god (or gods) as creating the universe. So which god are you going to believe in?
It's not just that evolution is being proven false. That same evidence is fully in accord with the Biblical account. For example, the continuing fossil discoveries that show the "various forms of humans" lived simultaneously instead of being part of a progression from one form to another, are in discord with evolution and in harmony with the Bible.
But instead of following the evidence, you are chosing the option of saying there must be a third alternative. An alternative for which there is no evidence. An alterntive that no one has even theorized as possible. You would rather put your faith in something that totally does not exist than to even consider God as your creator.
Why? Why put your faith in nothing? Why are you running from God? What is it that you have in your life that you don't want God to know about? (He knows.) What is it that you have in your life that you don't want to be held accountable for? (You will be held accountable for all you've done.)
Whatever it is, it is better for it to be dealt with now than to wait until God judges you, holding you accountable for all you've done... which means you then must pay the penalty you owe (we call it hell, the Bible calls it the second death).
Whoa there BrickBalloon, hold your horses :)
I'm saying that failure to prove one thing is not the same as proving another thing.
Now preaching aside, what do you think about that?
I ran into something interesting today that Jan Bagwell said: "A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything."
Suppose you have two options and you wish to determine which is true. So you look at the evidence. After 150 years of searching option two has no evidence to support it. So that makes option two highly unlikely. You are right, that says nothing about option one... except it does say that maybe you should seriously consider option one and at least honestly examine the evidence for option one (creation).
The evidence for Biblical creation includes eveything from an eye-witness report (the Bible) to an ever growing mound of human-collected evidence. The pieces of the puzzle are coming together and they point to creation by God followed by a world-wide flood about 4,500 years ago.
If you think there is a viable option three, what is it?
Christian creation and evolution are just two of the options. You've discarded the rest but I think that you're doing so as a matter of belief rather that rational thinking.
Likewise the matter of discrediting evolution -- the basis on which you do this is a christian book by Carl Werner, so that's again a matter of belief.
I didn't comment on this blog to try change your beliefs. The reason I commented was because there's a massive flaw in the argument. If you want to be taken seriously when you put an argument forward then you should take due care to make sure the argument is sound.
"Werner could not prove evolution was true" does not mean "christian creation is true" -- it does not mean anything other than what it says -- i.e. "Werner could not prove evolution was true"
Thank you anonymous for your comments.
You have singled out one post on a blog that has many posts on this subject, even though this is not the primary subject of this blog Yes, based on the information in one post you can only limit conclusions. But the available information is not limited to one pair of scientists investigating the claims of evolution. When the evidence supporting evolution is put to scientific examination it is found to be non-existent.
On the other hand the evidence supporting the Biblical account, including a world-wide flood about 4,500 years ago continues to grow.
For example, recent discoveries have shown that there is no evolutionary tree. Fossils are showing that the "different" humans lived at the same time. One human "type" did not give rise to another more advanced type. As more evidence is uncovered, and our knowledge grows, the preponderance of the evidence is supporting the Biblical view of creation, with the "evidence" based on guesses (not facts) that supported evolution being proven false.
The purpose of post we've been discussing, as stated in the opening sentence of the post, is to urge you to do as Dr Werner did; examine the evidence in an honest and unbiased manner. That is the challenge believers in evolution have been unwilling to do. It comes back to the question, what do you have in your life that you don't want God to know about? If the Bible is true (it is), what problem does that create for you?
Thanks for your response BrickBalloon.
so assuming I wish to do as you suggest, ---
"urge you to do as Dr Werner did; examine the evidence in an honest and unbiased manner",
--- what do you consider to be the best way to approach this examination?
Ask, "Why?"
I don't know you or what resources you have available. However, I know we all have biases. It's called a "world view." Recognize you have a bias, and our culture has a bias, and make an effort to look at both sides of an issue.
For example, the evening news just had a story about the Lucy fossil. The story assumed Lucy was a human fossil and that it provided the earliest example of bipedal locomotion (walking upright).
So I asked, "Why?"
This first took me to the web site of the Institute of Human Origins, a pro-evolution web site. They explained that one of the evidences was in the leg, "The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces) which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion." But they did not provide specifics. So I went looking for specifics.
I found another article on the Answers in Genesis web site (
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4366gc8-22-2000.asp ) that explained the angle in Lucy's leg is 15 degrees. An ape has an angle of zero degrees. Humans have an angle of 9 degrees. So does this mean Lucy walked upright? No. It turns out that the larger angle is typical of tree climbers like the orangutan and spider monkey.
So my suggestion is to not just accept what you hear, in particular if you hear it in the mass media. Ask why? And recognize that it takes time for all the facts to come out. Give new discoveries time (it takes years) for the facts to come out and be examined.
I'm sorry if this comes across the wrong way - I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it but your suggestion to just "as why" is a bit trite.
I asked how you suggest I approach such an examination. To suggest that two vast bodies of knowledge can be understood, compared and meaningfully evaluated if I "just ask why" and look at two websites is ridiculous, and effectively useless.
If that's all the advice you've got to give then I assume that you either have nothing real to contribute, or you have not the time or inclination to spend on it.
Dear anonymous:
I've delayed writing because I also do not wish to be confrontational, but what keeps coming to mind is to say, "Turn on your brain!"
If you are unwilling to question your inner assumptions (your biases), and consider a hypothesis other than the one you have already decided is true, then you are welcome to keep walking toward the cliff with a blindfold on.
I'm sorry, but your reply is very frustrating. If you can not see that I gave a simple example to show how easy it is to find information, and then realize that other questions can be researched in a similar manner (Google is a wonderful tool), I don't know what else to offer.
Yes, ask "WHY?" Don't just accept what you are told or what you hear or read. Ask questions! Statements are regularly made supporting evolution, with nothing provided to back up what is stated. It is assumed you will accept it as true. Don't just accept it, investigate WHY they think it is true (if they reveal that information), and WHY it may not be true.
You could read Dr. Werner's book mentioned in the original post: Evolution: The Grand Experiment. He's asked the questions and described the answers (or lack of) that he found. IT would be a great place to start.
And I have to repeat a question I've asked before. I'm not asking you to answer this here, but it is a serious question to consider: What do you have in your life that you don't want God to know about? This is the foundational question. We reject God as our creator, and thus the ruler of our lives, because we do not want to have to obey God.
Q: What do you consider to be the best way to approach this examination?
A: Turn on your brain!
This is the sort of response that a child might give, but you wouldn't mind, because you don't expect children to speak as adults do.
And I have to repeat a question I've asked before. I'm not asking you to answer this here, but it is a serious question to consider: What do you have in your life that you don't want God to know about?
Ok, so I don't understand your point of view, I'm asking questions, hence I have something to hide from god. Bit of a stretch..
I asked on the assumption that you'd be able to help/clarify, but I see that you can't.
That said, I don't claim to know your motivation in running this blog. You're entitled to put anything you like on here and there really is no way for a random reader to know if you're speaking truthfully, making it up as you go along or something in-between.
One way to judge the depth of what you say is to ask questions, so that's what I did - and this is what I got.
So why won't you read Dr Werner's book? You ask what to do, but there seems to be little interest in doing anything.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home