Response #1 to Pastor Al
By Merle Hertzler
After an opening exchange at my blog, Pastor Alfredo Martinez Jr. posted the following comment.
Here is my response:
You object to evolution, but what do you put in its place?
Mainstream science says that the modern horse and zebra evolved from a small animal similar to a fox, known as Hyracatherium. Where do you think the first zebra came from? Did it suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere? If so, may I remind you that the sudden emergence of zebras out of nothing is a violation of the laws of nature? Are not such creations of animals completely impossible? You might argue that they would be impossible, but not if you add God to the picture. Okay, and what if you add God to the evolution picture? Would you still insist that evolution is impossible, and that it is even too hard for God? No? Then why should anyone reject evolution because you perceive it to be impossible (unless God did it) to embrace a creationist scheme that is clearly impossible (unless God did it)?
So your argument-from-impossibility seems to be vacuous. We must first look at the evidence to see how the first zebra, for instance, came into existence. Once we establish that point from the evidence--and I think we will clearly see that the zebra came as a result of evolution--we can ask whether God needed to push the process along, or whether it could have been driven by nature.
Let's look at your arguments, which are shown in red.
Let's discuss evolution. On your website you mentioned you were once a defender of creation and your argument was the genetic code until you realized that there were intermediate forms. What happened to your genetic code argument? The genetic code argument is stronger than ever. So strong that it makes it impossible for one species to evolve into another species.When I was a creationist, my argument from the genetic code was weak. It was based on an analogy with high level computer codes. It is true that higher language codes cannot easily be modified one byte at a time with each state of the code being viable. But that analogy does not apply to life. Life forms can change their code one codon at a time, and still yield viable creatures. I abandoned my argument, because my argument was not valid.
Yes, I believe in micro-evolution but we are talking about macro-evolution.What do you call billions of years of micro-evolution? Would that not produce macro-evolution?
According to genetics it is impossible for species to evolve into other species. Therefore, how can you have dug up intermediate forms? You still have to prove that it can happen in genetics.New species have evolved. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Mutations? It only harms and weakens the organism. It has no wisdom or effect on the DNA to enable it to evolve into a higher form.Many mutations are neutral, and some are beneficial. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html.
There are no intermediate forms because it is proven by genetics that it is impossible. There are deformed humans, there are extinct animals and then there are hoaxes like Piltdown man.How do you explain all of the fossil animals similar to modern horses and zebras? What are the Hyracotherium, Epihippus, Mesohippus , Miohippus, Merychippus, and Dinohippus, if not intermediates? And why do we find those creatures buried in strata older than 2 million years, but no modern horses there? And why do we find modern horses in strata younger than 2 million years, but no Hyracatherium? And why is there a progression in these fossils, if they are not intermediates? See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html.
That is why, not one top evolutionist or scientist have any evidence to prove evolution. It is all in the imagination where they exercise faith.I thought you said you were once where I am. How is it that you appear to be unaware of the vast evidence for evolution? See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.
Merle, can you see the beauty in DNA? It is impossible for a single cell to have spontaneously developed because the DNA is complicated. It is a code or a language that could only have been given by a superior mind. Can time think? Time has no wisdom no matter how many million of years pass.The beauty of DNA? Well, it does some beautiful things, but it is often not a work of beauty. Our genes have large portions of junk introns inserted into the code. Our cells must cut this junk out every time they use the code. It works, but the process is not exactly a marvel of beauty and efficiency.
Evolution goes against the law of bio-genesis and the law of entropy. According to the Scientific Method, Evolution should be discarded as a theory.
The laws of bio-genesis say that complex creatures do not rise instantly out of raw materials. They in no way say that evolution is impossible. Entropy (randomness)does not need to increase where there is a flow of energy through the system. There is plenty of energy flowing into and away from the earth. So evolution does not violate these laws.
And now you tell me: How about the concept of instant creation of zebras out of nothing? That would seem to me to be a massive violation of the laws of nature. If violation of the laws of nature eliminates a hypothesis, it seems the instant creation hypothesis has been eliminated.
Our minds will never believe in God. Even if God appeared to you in a burning bush, your mind will find a way to disprove his existence. Even if there is solid prove of miracles such as the opening of the Red Sea, our minds would find a way to convince us that it did not happen, yet Israel exists today because of the power of God.
If the Red Sea were to part, and it was clearly documented, we would all believe that the being that did that would be marvelous. But would this prove that this being created the universe? It would seem that, to establish that claim, we should rightfully ask for more evidence.
And by the way, the evidence indicates that the Israelites slowly infiltrated Canaan, and did not invade in a massive army coming through the Red Sea and Sinai as the Bible says.
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7. Here we understand that our very own mind in not only God's enemy but our enemy.I am sorry you see the human mind as the enemy of God and self. I see the human mind as the crowning glory of the universe. That is why I am a humanist.
Our mind wants details and details and facts and facts. It will never stop. You have to stop at one point and simply trust in God.
Years ago many died of smallpox. Some people simply trusted God, and learned to have faith that God was allowing all this death for his mysterious purposes.
Others studied smallpox, wanting details and facts. They found out what caused the disease, and how to cure it. I am glad they did not stop-and-simply-trust-God. I am glad they wanted the details and facts
Details and facts: You would not have a computer if folks like Maxwell did not seek out details and facts. I love details and facts.