Creationism and Evolution in the Classroom

It was an interesting discussion and did help make up for the fact I missed the party at the Bell Museum on Thursday. Learned a few things I didnt want to, like 25% of public high school students are taught creationism in Minnesota. FUCK. Some of the questions/comments regarding the uber-awesomeness of us, specifically white anglo-saxon Americans, as the epitome of evolution left me feeling that we need to do much much more in the trenches in education. On the plus side I got to catch up with a number of colleagues I hadn't seen recently and meet Randy Moore and Mike Haubrich, so that was a success. Would have said Hi to you as well Greg, but you seemed to be fairly well mobbed.

On a side note I stopped by the creationist "science" fair on the way home just to undo all the good feeling I had from the panel discussion. I have a few comments to post later, but first I have a manuscript that needs immediate attention.

Lorax, yea, I would have liked to talk to you, but we'll get together for a beer or something. Let me know when you post on the TCCS Fair!!!!!!

I agree with your comments about the meeting.

Why would an educator need to resort to anything other than critical thinking to marginalize creationist theories. I find your 'tactics' humorous and sad. If you can't answer the simple questions a student might have without resorting to peer pressure, I'm glad I never had you as an instructor.
I don't care where the student gets his base knowledge from, but if he/she has a thoughtful question, it deserves a thoughtful answer.

Or maybe you're just too enlightened to be of any earthly purpose. I'm sure the alien seeders probably added a little extra fertilizer around your pod.

@askmieke - Didn't you read the post? PZ said that Greg was meaner than him. Greg's just a big ol' meanie. Besides, any creationist question is unlikely to be "thoughtful".

I agree, askmieke, that seems over the top. I have a couple of vocal creationists in my high school biology classes this year, and I am planning on breaking them down with logic and reason, but I'm not sure they have any. They are Concrete Operators, to be sure.

Hmm, wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the locus of belief in creationism for these kids is mostly in social pressure (from parents and other authority figures), would it?

askmieke, do you think that peer pressure is unfair when employed with adults and near adults?
I wonder what you think about the manner in which children are blackmailed into religions via sunday school/catechism/ and /or parentally enforced 'prayer groups' before they can talk?

I love your justification, oh enlightened ones. Even Craig feels he needs to 'break them down with logic and reason'. Children couldn't possibly have logic and reason if their conclusion differs from the enlightened ones.

How does that fit in the scientific process of:
# Ask a Question
# Do Background Research
# Construct a Hypothesis
# Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
# Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
# Communicate Your Results

Children couldn't possibly understand the difference between a rock and a brick. There isn't enough evidence to suggest anything other than erosion.

I think modern scientists are a perfect example of how intelligence has no place in science.

has anyone toodled over to the askmieke blog yet? Right wing wacko.

For college level classes, just treat students who believe in creationism the same way you would treat students who believe in astrology. If they are in college and taking biology course, they should already know the difference between science and pseudo-science. Depending on the goals of the course, you probably shouldn't even bother mentioning creationism. If the students are not prepared to accept evolution as the scientific standard, then they need to find out early so they can change their major.

It might be appropriate to bring up creationism in a course that is more focused on the history of evolution and also covers things like Lamarckism and the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, the same way it might be appropriate to bring up astrology or geocentrism in a class about the history of astronomy. However, if the class is supposed to give students a deep understanding of evolution, it is unfair to waste class time on creationism. The best thing to do is just ignore it unless a students insists on bringing it up in class. None of my biology teachers ever brought up creationism or ID and it worked out fine.

If I may, askmieke back up your points with some data with value. As a creationist or creationist supporter, what is the positive data to support your contention the creationism is right? Saying that some scientific information is wrong, thus your conjecture is right is bullshit and you know it (if you dont please shut the fuck up).

Why cant we debate this in high school and college and beyond forever? Why don't we spend time in calculas and algebra classes reiterating the fact that 6 comes before 7 not the other way around? Maybe devote a couple of hours to both sides and being respectful to all the moronic opinions of everyone. You know why we don't do this? Because we want to teach our students something so they can be competitive or at least useful members of society today not in 1600 or even 1859. You want some antibiotics when the present ones fail? You want some food when a resistant fungus starts wiping them out (say good-bye to bananas as you know them)? You want something to heat your house and move your vehicle when gas/oil runs dry? If so, please stop forcing us to spend hours and hours rehashing bullshit. If not, please bow out of the discourse so those of us who want these things can get them. Please stop forcing your reactionary fundamentalist crap on us. You dont like these things, fine ignore them dont use them, please dont see a doctor next time you are sick, almost certainly some equipment/treatment you receive came from these scientists with no intelligence. You can live your life however you want I won't stop you until you try fucking over everyone else's life with your narrow, mindless, devoid of real joy of nature and life, world-view of yours.

And no children CAN NOT have logic and reason to support their conclusions when they differ from the enlightened ones. Nuh Uh! is not a logical reason dumbass. What you mean, is a child's parental indoctrination not logic and reason. How fucking stupid to compare a child with someone who has spent years and years devoted to study and analysis. So your opinion is all that study and thought and work leads to a big enlightened conspiracy, because the conclusion differs from your 8 year old level understanding, I see.

Do me a favor askmieke, next time you need your car fixed, take it a kid, not an enlightened mechanic, same for any other services you need. Hell, they will probably charge you less and won't make you feel all intimated and stupid.

Damn, I could really take you up on that beer right now Greg!

First of all, Greg was talking about using that approach on his college students. We're not talking about wide-eyed children asking an innocent question that they haven't fully processed or analysed. We're talking about adults who, supposedly, have had 12 years worth of education, including education in the basic scientific method. He admits that his approach wouldn't be accepted in the lower levels of school.

The issue isn't that professors and scientists are pissed that children are applying logic and reason and coming to different conclusions, but rather that logic and reason are being thrown to the floor and pissed on by creationists in their increasingly desperate attempt to cling to a mythology that clearly cannot withstand even the slightest attempt at scientific methodology. Scientists would be the first to admit that, given sufficient evidence, they would be happy to change their positions on things. Can't say that about creationists, though.

Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive. They should be partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, seeking truths as they are discovered... that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.

If students are FORCED to see faith and science fundamentally opposed - science endangering and undermining faith, or faith obstructing knowledge - then distortions are produced on BOTH sides.

As a a man of faith, St Augustine wrote, âLet us seek with the desire to find, and find with the desire to seek still more.â

Let me add two points of clarification. Maybe three.

1) As stated, these are adults, not kids. This is college, not high school.

2) I never ridicule in answer to a question. Ever. This is not what I'm talking about. I raise the issue and and discuss it as part of a soliloquy in a large lecture format. The fact that in some cases I'm addressing questions that some people have in their heads is, well, the point.

3) Lots of other stuff happens in a class like this. This is part of a larger picture. I assure you that in the student reviews of this class, 80 percent of the students were basically satisfied, 19 percent totally loved it, and one percent ... well, that would be Askmieke. Can't please everyone!

askmieke.....YES! Science and faith are mutually exclusive. You can have faith that you are correct in assumptions, but must rigorously test them to be sure your premises are not false. The type of faith you are referring to, unless I am mistaken, has no place in a scientific arena. You cannot "take on faith" that you are correct, or that a statement is correct.

You are correct in the statement that faith obstructs knowledge, it always does, it stymies curiousity, it blocks reason. Those with religious bent challenged with information and observation beyond thier dogmas' ken can always fall back on the 'Great Mystery" and simply say "God did it".

Faith based religions (Thats all of them) Have no place ni the science class. They certainly have thier place in the teaching of Mythology, and even more so in History classes to illustrate the ignorance and poverty they engender.

Well it's sort of OT for the discussion part of the thread - but if you ask me Greg ... If online persona is telling- even a little bit- then I think you are waaaaayyy nicer than PZ. :-)

@Greg - You mentioned something at PZ's site about...

"If we could do what we really could do in HS, college would be an entirely different experience." ...

What would you like the HS teachers to do? Specifically?

I'll pass it on to my hubby - he teaches HS biology and earth science.

Nah, Greg's a Meanie, but we like him that way

askmieke: "Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive"

That may or may not be true, but what is sure is that pluggging the word "faith" into the sentence with the other three is like puttin the words "The father, the son, my last big shit, and the holy ghost" into the same sentence.

"If students are FORCED to see faith and science fundamentally opposed"

You have the order wrong mieke: it is you and others forcing and coercing kids into a certain viewpoint, if only because these kids from religious households suffer the primary indignity of being taught baseless hyperbole, and that often at the end of "the rod of punishment" before the schools ever get to the point of dealing with the problems you have created with such methods. Then, the schools are left to deal with undoing such brainwashing, which of course you see as children being "forced" into something.

First, Greg, you did seem pretty mean up there... :) Second, I've taken to calling the one really outspoken nutjob "Soul Man"... Thanks much to you for adding to the discussion, everyone on the panel was fun and informative.

askmieke: "Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive"

.

I for one don't think that faith deserves the prima noctia any longer. If people want to have faith with their science, toodles and talk about it at church or in philosophy class. But if you think that college professors should waste valuable lecture time (3 hours per week for a 3 credit course,) trying to help some students reconcile their faith with science then the students who are there to actually learn the science of evolution, then their money is being wasted.

Take it outside of class if you must, but leave everyone else the time to get the most possible out of the lectures.

Stacy, since you were not there, I've produce proof for you. Here.

Mike: Yea, but were it not for the Catholic Church, Latin would be a totally deal language and you would not be able to say that.

What people don't understand is that in science, not all ideas have validity. They stand on their merit, and they're not to be debated by high school students, who don't even have the entry level skills to discuss anything in the academic arena. There is no "controversy," and even if there was one, high school students aren't qualified in the slightest to form an opinion.

Creationism doesn't get to cut in line. It has to undergo the same ruthless process that every other scientific theory goes through. They want "respect," but they don't want to earn it. My opinion is they shouldn't even be given the time of day in a science classroom. I'm totally with Greg, that it should be shunned and laughed at, not discussed and debated. Peer pressure is a powerful tool, and I think that's brilliant.

Greg, you have some cojones. I admire that. :)

Hmm, wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the locus of belief in creationism for these kids is mostly in social pressure (from parents and other authority figures), would it?

Exactly. As they say, you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. (We do try. It doesn't work. Arguing with a creationist is like talking to a wall.) But you may be able to peer-pressure someone out of a position that they only adopted because of peer pressure. In that respect, it's a legitimate approach.

In an ideal world, rational argument would suffice. But no creationist believes in creationism for rational reasons.

Nemo gets to the heart of askmeikle's strategy. He,she,it objects to the use of a method precisely because they see and fear its effectiveness.

Lorax: Saying that some scientific information is wrong, thus your conjecture is right is bullshit and you know it (if you dont please shut the fuck up).

No, this is how science supposedly works. But when scientific collapse does not serve the scientific 'theory' the claims are not backed down. So the science becomes a lie.

How fucking stupid to compare a child with someone who has spent years and years devoted to study and analysis. And of course, by this you mean years of indoctrinated thought.

Out of the mouth of babes comes truth very often.

AZ: "If you can't answer the simple questions a student might have without resorting to peer pressure"

You've misunderstood the good doctor. He does not slam the students who are asking questions. He produces this argument as part of the class introduction, and goes back to it at random times later on. I have had the great pleasure of seeing this. I still think of it and laugh some times.

Ron: No, this is how science supposedly works. But when scientific collapse does not serve the scientific 'theory' the claims are not backed down. So the science becomes a lie.

Wrong Ron, absolutely and without question wrong. Let me explain by example: One person says "Ron is a space alien from Alpha Centari," but another person counters "No, Ron Creationist fucking moron." Are those the only two options? Maybe Ron is a troll? Maybe Ron is channeling a recently decent douche from a mega-church. Scientific questions, puzzles, controversies do not equal GOD. Its a failed idiotic logically dead position. So, find a real problem with evolution theory, fine that does not mean your fucking weak ass excuse for a deity created you and your brain dead body.

Out of the mouth of babes comes truth very often.

I read some of the original "Kids say the darnedest things" book my grandmother owned. I recall some very funny things, even insightful things based on my adult interpretation of what they said. But you know what, no insights into advanced sciences. No fruitful ideas for combating malaria or dealing with the economic problems the world is dealing with. Hmm, maybe kids say deep truths to you Ron, but some of us actually advanced beyond grade school depth of understanding and thought.

I read some of the original "Kids say the darnedest things"

Did you ever see the original TV show?????

Lorax, your ad hominem attacks are unjustified.

Science works by excluding ideas. There is no way to exclude the idea of god, so a Godless proposition is not tenable. Once God is allowed to remain in the picture, the probability of Intelligent Design (if you like to call it that) or creation, at least of the origin of life, is impossible to miss.

Greg, not quite old enough to see the original shows although I did watch the Irish Rovers with my grandmother. Also I tossed up a post on this discussion and the creation fair, not too much raw info on it though.

Ron, ok you got me. I apologize to all those instructors I have had over the years for failing to understand the nature of science. 20 ought years of training and advanced learning was lost on me. Praise Jeebus. Let me take your approach. There is no way to exclude the idea that Ron is an imbecile, so an intelligent Ron proposition is not tenable. Once imbecility is allowed to remain in the picture, the probability of ignoring Ron and his weak ass (if you like to call it that) or stupid argument, at least in relation to science, is impossible to miss.

BTW Ron, I did not use any ad hominem attacks. If I said you were a moron, therefore our arguments are stupid, that would be ad hominem. I said, paraphrasing, that you are making moronic statements and may be a moron and used sarcasm and your own "reasoning" to point out why you FAIL. Your arguments fail on there own demerits. For example, in the proceeding paragraph the fact that I raise the argument that you may be a moron is not an ad hominem attack, but a way to show how your argument is fails any kind of analysis (notice I didnt say rigorous or deep analysis?)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. -Peter 2:1

Up yours Ron. -Anonymouroboros 11:15 P.M.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Genesis 11: 5-7

Hmm, mine sounds like someone doesn't want humanity to come together as one in the pursuit of knowledge. Also something about confounding language. I recognize this pattern...

Yay for random bible quotes! Seriously, I went to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm and grabbed a random thing from the absurdities list.

God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20

Thanks god, I was just thinking about that bit today; specifically, David Brin's imaginary Franciscan (in Earth) who identified the naming of ALL the animals as a task unfinished by Adam (interrupted by other events in the Garden) and still requiring to be done, as a sacred mission for mankind. Including the animals on other planets.

I occasionally get one of several varieties of proselytising Xtians on my tours at the Fossil Centre (not often: they'd have to find and pass through a couple of doors to get to my lab, so there are selective steps involved), and once or twice I've brought up the 'name the animals' meme to demonstrate that us biology types are really doing the Lord's work. 'Course, few religiots have read as far as Chapter 2.

askmieke:
"Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive."
WRONG
Science and faith are mutually exclusive.
Instinct & intuition are something else, and I will not comment on those.
BUT
Faith is DEFINED as: "Belief without evidence"
Whereas science is a process BASED on evidence, and evidence, and more evidence .....
Now, can you see how this could cause, shall we say, a few problems?

Particularly when "the faithful" state that: "God/our church/our priest/allah/Mohammed says this, so it MUST be true..."
And then scientific enquiry shows that this is not the case, as in Galilei, Bruno, evolution (fundie muslims won't accept it either ...) Vavilov etc .....

Oh, and Ron is quoting an "authority" which has NO RELEVANCE in a science discussion.
Unless he wants to believe in the Earth as portrayed in and before Job, where it is plainly NOT spherical, and the waters are kept in special places ...
Erm, thought not!

What Atheists fail to understand is that Darwin only challenged the literal belief of the story of Genesis, Darwin didnât put forward any convincing theory to disprove the divine completely. This is the reason why leading scientist Sir John Houghton, who is an evangelical man of integrity, could say: âCreationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief.â

Personally I have no problem in believing in miracles. If God created the world in six literal twenty-four-hour days then it was a miracle. The problem with creationists like Ken Ham and the people over at Answers in Genesis is that they try and use the laws of science to âproveâ the literal story of Genesis. But if they ever succeed (which they wonât) the only thing theyâll accomplish is not prove God but rather to disprove Godâs miracle!

I believe that Ron is threatening some of us. Not in an up front kind of way, more like a my daddy is gonna get you little kid kind of way. I think this makes at least the third time you exhibited tendencies associated with an intellectual 8 year old.

Dear Lord, my name is Ron. I am one of your staunchest defenders. I know its a sin to murder so I was wondering if maybe you could smite some people who don't agree with me. Please, pretty please? Oh and I love me some baby jesus and all too. Amen

Rhys: Who cares? It isn't science to replace one unknown, the origin of the universe, with another, God. That explains nothing.

What AtheistsCreationists fail to understand is that Darwin only challenged the literal belief of the story of Genesis, Darwin didnât put forward any convincing theory to disprove the divine completely.

Yes yes, anyone having read Darwin is quite aware that he skirted the issue of divinity and even descent of man quite a bit. He just killed ID 130 years before it was created by tackling Paley's Watchmaker and the complexity of the Eye. Not to worry, Creationism will eventually catch up with Darwin, and _then_ they get to play with the Modern Synthesis.

The rest is quite spot on. Creationism is bad for science, but the Library of Alexandra is now virtual, it can never be burned down again. The progress of science can only be slowed by hurting education and funding.

Religion on the other hand, creationism does a lot to muddy the waters of faith and gnosis. In the end creationism is going to do more damage to faith than the science it was created to remove.

Short version is this is a science based world, and teaching something so easy falsifiable and linking it to faith is a brain-dead proposition. Despite this, the creationists do it for the short term gain since anything taken on faith isn't immediately questioned.

"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâyes, even his own lifeâhe cannot be my disciple."" -Luke, 14:25-26

Do you hate your family, Ron? Why?

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -Lev, 27:6

Would you sell your children as slaves, Ron? Are women worth less than men? Why?

If the bible is the true word of god, why are you so adverse to following its every command?

To paraphrase Asimov, any person of reason cannot disclude the vague possibility of a deity. However, it is dishonest to say that that possibility is anything but roughly zero.

If roughly zero is what you want to believe in, great. Just don't expect a serious discussion of it during a science lecture.

Refer to website address http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02 pertaining to question 2 (Isnât evolution just a theory that remains unproven?) that was raised.

It is mentioned in the 3rd line of the paragraph that a science theory stands until proven wrong â It is never proven correct. This statement is a bit ridiculous in the sense that a theory might come from someoneâs imagination through logical link among all the facts and yet nothing could disapprove this theory and it could be established to be part of the science.

Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes. Some might say that human beings could be originated from bears or polar bears since these animals also have almost the same physical bodies as human beings. Both bears as well as polar bears could hold things with their hands. Some might well argue that their physical bodies changed to adapt to their physical bodies to the ultimate form of human beings. Why was it that Charles Darwin needed to suggest that human beings would have evolved from apes when bears and polar bears could be used to be another source to support his theory? All these queries prove that his theory was simply from his own imagination

As Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes to accept his so-called, evolution theory, which was the ancestors of the apes? Which was the predecessor of apes? Or in other words, there would be a time when plants would evolve to animals through the process of evolution? Could we find evolution theory be a little ridiculous in which plants could develop to the extreme to animals?

Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm pertaining to the evolution theory.

The following is the extract under the sub-title of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise:

âDarwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all relatedâ¦â

Great to know that birds and the bananas have the common ancestor. Many queries have to be raised pertaining to their common ancestor: Which was the predecessor of birds and bananas? Which animal was the best to be the predecessor of birds in order to be evolved to the ultimate birds? Which animal that had the beak and feathers as the same as birds to be placed as the predecessor of birds? If you would mention that there were either Pteranodon or Pterodactyl or Petinosaurus or Quetzalcoatlus or Rhamporphydon or Archaeopteryx or Avisaurus or Piksi or Confiucionornis or Haopterus or Microraptor or Rahonavis or The Pterosaur or Rhamphorhynchus, then a question will be raised that who was the predecessor of any one of these dinosaurs? Why was it so? How was it happened?

Birds and bananas are two different sources and yet Charles Darwinâs theory supports that they have the common ancestor. Further questions have to be raised: What made the common ancestor to stream out into two entire different groups and that is one could not be stationed at a place (such as, plants) and another is movable (such as, birds that could fly around). To allow common ancestor to evolve into plants and to station at one area would simply restrict its movement. Donât you find it as poor redevelopment as going backward instead of evolving or advancing.

As Charles Darwinâs theory supports that birds and bananas have their common ancestor, what would be the proof that they have the same ancestor despite all their features and functions are different?

JT@45:

As Charles Darwinâs theory supports that birds and bananas have their common ancestor, what would be the proof that they have the same ancestor despite all their features and functions are different?

DNA.

Of course, someone with half an IQ point could have figured this out. This hypothesis that you lack even that much intelligence is further supported by your choice to revive a more than 2 year old thread.

Jason Tannery--

You are aware, right, that Charles Darwin was a nineteenth century scientist?

At the time Darwin wrote, no hominid fossils from sub-Saharan Africa had been discovered. There was no known way to find the age of the earth. The word "gene" had not even been invented.

Nobody knew genes were made of DNA until around the end of World War II--more than sixty years after Darwin died. The first hominid fossil from Africa was discovered in the 1920's. The first dating method using the half-life of a radioactive isotope was worked out around 1940. The age of th earth wasn't worked out until the 1950's. There were puzzling questions about the distribution of modern species that weren't answered until the development of plate tectonics in the 1960's. The near-universal genetic code wasn't worked out until the end of the 1960's. The discovery of hox genes that showed the common ancestry of all animals came in the 1980's. The amazingly similar genomes of chimps and humans were worked out in the 2000's.

And all you've got is, 'Darwin might have said we were related to bears'? Yes, he might have-- and his friend Thomas Huxley, who was a superb comparative anatomist, would have mopped the floor with him. Huxley could already prove we are closely related to apes back in the 1860's.

The point, here, is that scientists have been *trying* to disprove evolution for over a hundred and fifty years. And time after time, some new, totally-unexpected discovery has come to light, that supports evolutionary theory even more strongly.

And then you come in with questions that have been studied for years, and expect that somehow the whole, intellectual edifice will crumble from some simple question you imagine no one else has asked. You're like a fly buzzing around Pike's Peak-- annoying for the rest of us, but highly unlikely to knock down Pike's Peak.

Evolutionary theory has been found contradiction with the Bible.

a)The Bible supports that God created plants earlier than moving creatures or things and yet Evolutionary theory supports the reverse since it supports that single cells (moving creatures or things) were created earlier than plants.

The following are the extracted verses from the scripture:

Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After creating the plants, Genesis 1:21, “And GOD CREATED 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.”

As the phrase, God created …every living creature that moveth (or moving creature), is mentioned in Genesis 1:21 and yet it is mentioned after Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants, it implies that God should have created plants earlier than the moving creature, i.e. single cells.

According to evolutionary theory, single cells were formed in the very beginning prior to their development into more complexity of creatures, i.e. plants. In the timelines of living things, single cells were placed to be in 3.6 billion years ago and yet the plants were created in 475 million years. Or in other words, evolutionary theory presumes that plants were created after the creation of single cells, i.e. living creature that moveth.

b)God created plants that bore fruits prior to His creation of animals and yet evolutionary theory shows the reverse. The following is the explanation:

Genesis 1:11, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." After that, Genesis 1:20, "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

As the phrase, yielding fruit, is mentioned in Genesis 1:11, it gives the implication that God should have created trees that could grow flowers prior to their yielding of fruits. The phrase, the moving creature that hath life and fowl, as mentioned in Genesis 1:20 gives the implication of the creation of animals. As Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants with flowers is mentioned prior to Genesis 1:20, it implies that God should have created plants with flowers prior to the creation of animals.

In the timelines, it shows the reverse. Animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet the plants that would grow flowers were created in 130 million years ago.

The discrepancies between the Bible and the timelines table have placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question.

... unless ....

Timelines that has been established by archaeologists causes Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain.

In timelines table that was created by archaeologists, animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet plants were created in 475 million years ago. Those plants that would grow fruits and flowers were created in 130 million years ago. Or in other words, evolutionary theory supports that plants were not in existence during the creation of animals. The absence of plants would make Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain since how God could demand all animals to eat fruits from plants when they were not in existence initially. Thus, evolutionary theory does contradict the teaching of the book of Genesis 1:29-30.

Genesis 1:29-30, “Then God said, “…To all animals and all birds, everything that moves and breathes, I give whatever grows out of the ground for food.”

As God demanded all animals to eat food from plants, He should have created plants prior to the creation of animals as spelt out in Genesis 1:11 as follows:

Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”

Nevertheless, it is justifiable for God to place Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants prior to Genesis 1:29-30. They indeed perfectly match and are in sequential order without wrongly placed.

How could Christians engross in evolutionary theory when it contradicts the fundamental teaching of the Bible?

1.Is it justifiable for Old Age Creationists to use the phrase, Let the earth bring forth grass, in Genesis 1:11-13 to support that that God told the earth to bring forth plants and it brought forth through the work of the laws of nature that God instituted so as to support evolutionary theory? How about Genesis 1:20 & 1:24?
When God commented in Genesis 1 to allow the existence of substances or living creatures on the earth, it does not imply that God stood beside so as to allow them to generate from the earth through the laws of nature by themselves.
Genesis 1:6-7, “And GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And GOD MADE THE FIRMAMENT, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.”
As the phrase, God said Let there be a formation, is mentioned in Genesis 1:6 with the phrase, God made the formation, in Genesis 1:7, it implies God‘s direct creation even when the phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1. Thus, it is irrational to use the phrase, God said, in Genesis 1 to jump into conclusion that the existence of nature was the work of nature through evolution. Instead, it should be God’s direct creation.
The same is mentioned in Genesis 1:14-15 below:
Genesis 1:14-15, “And GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And LET THEM BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
As the phrase, God said let there be lights, is mentioned in Genesis 1:14-15 with the phrase, God made two great lights, in Genesis 1:16, it implies that God’s direct creation did follow after His commenting.
The same is also mentioned in Genesis 1:24-25 as below:
Genesis 1:24-25, “And GOD SAID, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And GOD MADE THE BEAST OF THE EARTH after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.”
The phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1:24 with the phrase, God made the beast of the earth, in Genesis 1:25 gives the same idea that God’s action in direct creation after His spoken words.
From the above examples, it could come to the conclusion that God did not make His words to be in vain since He would follow up with action in His creation. Besides, He did the work of creation personally and did not do as what Old Age Creationists mention that He did nothing but just to stand beside to observe the laws of nature to work itself up for the evolution.
The following are the verses that support that God’s direct involvement of His creation of all things despite the phrase, God said, is mentioned in Genesis 1:
Genesis 6:7, “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
Exodus 20:11, “or [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Isaiah 42:5, “Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:”
Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].”
Isaiah 45:18, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.”
Revelation 10:6, “And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:”
Colossians 1:16, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
As the phrase, For by him were all things created, is mentioned in Colossians 1:16, it gives an undeniable truth that God was the One that created all visible and invisible things on this earth. Unless Colossians 1:16 mentions that God did not directly create all things, it is then rational to support that He only played a part in assisting them for the evolution. As the phrase, God made, is mentioned in Colossians, how could Old Age Creationists support that God only stood beside just to assist the evolution and did not personally and directly created all things then?

Some Old Age Creationists interpret the word, day, to be a thousand years or more due to the following reasons:

The word, day, in Hebrew is Yom and could be interpreted as more than a day in Strong Concordance:

1)day, time, year a)day (as opposed to night); b)day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day’s journey c)days, lifetime (pl.) d)time, period (general) e)year f)temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow

Some Old Age Creationists even mention that the words, evening, and, morning, do not refer to sunset and sunrise respectively since they mentioned that the sun was created on day four.

Discuss.

Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

The phrase, the light, in Genesis 1:5 implies the brightness of the day and the phrase, the darkness, in this same verse implies total darkness. If sunlight was not created in Genesis 1:5, why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If evening and morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should not refer to the darkness on earth and the light that shone on it, why should the phrase, the light Day, correspond to the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 and the phrase, the phrase, the darkness, in the same verse corresponds to the word, evening? The reason is simply that there should not be light and day if God did not create sunlight to govern the earth in Genesis 1:5.

Could the word, a day, be viewed from God’s way as a thousand years or etc.? No, it should not be since there is no day and night to govern God and that is why He treats a thousand years to be a day. To God, there is no evening and morning or even day or night to govern His activity. As the phrase, the evening, and, the phrase, the morning, are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, He spoke from human perspective point of view since there are nights, evenings, sunrises and sunsets to govern entire human race in this world.

Could the word, a day, be treated as a thousand years instead of restricting it to be a day? No, it should not be so since the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 is in singular tense. Unless the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 are in plural tense, we could treat them to be more than a day. This is by virtue of there are many evenings and many mornings in a thousand years.

If the sunlight were created only on day four, why should the phrase, the light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? This is by virtue of the entire heaven and earth in this world would be in total darkness if the sun were not created in Genesis 1:5. Why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5 when the entire world was filled with darkness as a result of the sun was not created in this world?

Should we assume that God should have created sunlight on the fourth day? No, it should not be so since Genesis 1:3, “(mentions that) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” If God should have created sunlight on day four, why should God mention the phrase, Let there be light, in Genesis 1:3? As we know all the light in this world is the reflection of the light from sunlight. Could we locate any substance that could give light by itself without depending upon sunlight in this world? If the light as mentioned in Genesis 1:3 should not refer to sunlight, what kind of light should it refer to that could stand alone to give light by itself without relying upon sunlight if the sun should have been created on day four then? Undoubtedly the light as indicated in Genesis 1:3 should be none other than sunlight.

Could we use Genesis 1:1 to support that God’s creation could be from a billion years and mention that the Bible is not inspired by God since it contradicts against Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that mention that His creation should be within six days? No, it should not be so since the phrase, the beginning, in Genesis 1:1 could be interpreted as the beginning of the first day. If that could be so, the creation of the heaven and the earth should fall within a day and there is no contradiction with the Bible.

As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.

If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.

That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.

Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
■for the last 475 million years, land plants;

From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don't tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.

Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.

Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?

When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:

Genesis 1:11-12, "God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good." (New English Translation)

The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.

In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.

The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:

for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;

In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.

Genesis 1:29-30, "Then God said, “...to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so." (New English Translation)

As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.

The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds had to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.

It was not archaeologists. It was paleontologists.

a) As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?

b)Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mention that all fall into sin by one man?

c)If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? Should Jesus Christ die for all creatures especially a single cell since all of them would have the same forefather, i.e. single cell?

Did God take more than a day to create the heavens?

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens were (Psalms 33:6) he spake, and it was done (Psalm 33:9). Meditate the phrase, he spake and it was done. Super fast!

As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes

Bzzzzz. You lose right there: you've just proven yourself to be too stupid/dishonest to consider further.

God finished all His creations and these should include the formation of stars (Genesis 1:16); the formation of land (Genesis 1:9) and the creation of all living creatures at the end of six days.

The heaven (excluding stars since its creation is only metnioned in Genesis 1:16) was created in the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:1. Whereas, the earth was created to be filled with water (Genesis 1:2), without land (Genesis 1:9), without plants (Genesis 1:11-12), and without any living creatures in the beginning of the first day (Genesis 1:1) and that was why Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was created initially without form and void.

The verses that support that He created the heaven at the time He finished His speech::

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Certainly the above verses should refer to Genesis 1:1. The heaven was created without stars since their formation was only in Genesis 1:16.

Thus, God did not include the creation of stars when He mentioned the heaven was created in Psalms 33:6 and 33:9.

As the timeline table has been found contradictorily as mentioned above, the reliability of the various means of dating methods, i.e. carbon-14 dating method and etc., has to be placed into question. This is by virtue of the timeline arrangement does follow the dates of fossils in which they were examined and computed by means of various dating methods. If the various dating methods were accurate, the whole timeline table would not turn up to be contradictory against nature and also the scripture. How could Christians treat the datum that have been computed through various dating methods to be the truth of God and to use their findings to conclude to uphold that they are correct and the interpretation of scripture must be wrong?

Theistic evolutionists support that they could be saved even thought they support evolutionary theory.

However, they do not realize that they have sinned against God when they mention that the scripture supports evolutionary theory and yet, in reality, He did not and does not mean it.

The scripture was God’s inspiration. God was the One that directed different writers to write the whole scripture at different times. As the scripture is God’s inspiration, It is irrational for us to treat God’s name to be in vain and to comment that the scripture mentions it when He did not and does not mean it in reality.

Could we use God’s name to be in vain to comment that He did mention the entire universe and all the things in this earth were the work of evolution when He did not mention it nor mean it?

Exodus 20:7, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deuteronmy 5:11, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

The following are the reasons to suggest God’s intention to let us realize the age of the universe and the earth:

a) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1 number the days of His creation of stars, light, animals, plants and etc.? God would not number the days of His creation by day 1, day 2 and etc. if He did not want to draw us the attention of the dates of His creation.

b) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis define a day to be governed by a morning and an evening as mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If a day should not be governed by a morning and an evening, why should the Book of Genesis repeat the same pattern in Genesis 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31?

c) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1:5 mention that light day is meant for morning and darkness is meant for night?

d) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He would not inform us that the heaven and the earth would be created in six days. Why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that the universe and the earth were created in six days?

Exodus 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

e) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 that He created them in six days and then stressed it in also Exodus 31:17? Common sense! If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He should only mention in Exodus 20:11 instead of stressing it again in the following verse?

The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:

http://www.google.com.sg/images?hl=en-SG&q=mountain+top+seashel...

The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

The list of Darwin’s theory of evolution could be located in the website address, http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/.

As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.

Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.

The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question

The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell...

Zuma,
Evolution is supported by mountains of convergent, coherent evidence. I have little doubt that most if not all of your claims are explained by established science. In all likelihood you are not interested in science, or you would have sought the answers out, instead of posting your piffle here.

Even assuming evolution had been disproved (it hasn't been), that would not mean creation was proven, nor would that mean a supernatural being was responsible, nor if a supernatural being were shown to be responsible, it would not show that the specific one you worship was responsible. Each one of these claims would need to be established, but nobody has been able to do so.

You see, there is much more evidence involved than merely disproving evolution, I am convinced that you haven't the slightest clue regarding the magnitude of disproving evolution, because scientists have been trying to do this for over a century and a half.
You have wasted your time, no-one is interested in your drivel.

Since it is you who choose to promote this dross, as Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You have a lot of work ahead of you. Faulty logic, and ridiculous claims will have no part to play in this endeavour.

Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-...

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not 'little green men,' says NASA director

As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had "made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO." ’

The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

Refer to the website address, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8613.full. Evolutionary theory is full of hypothesizes:

You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:

Individuality is a complex trait, …… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..

The following is the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).

My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.

Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p... , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
“Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
"It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

The same is supported in other websites below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu...
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis...

Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?