Response #6 to Pastor Al

By Merle Hertzler

Here is the next comment posted to me by Pastor Alfredo Martinez Jr. at my blog.

What do I put in place of evolution? Genesis chapter 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all living things. Both matter and life came from God. Evolutionists do not have a clue where matter and life came from they only have fairy tales that need your faith. Now, I am lobbying to change the textbook curriculum in our public schools. I want to replace the evolution theory with TRUTH AND WITH SCIENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN! If a child asks where did life originate, let us have the character to admit the truth. Let us respond, "At the moment we have not proven anything scientifically. However, we have two philosophical theories that both require faith. First, we have the evolution theory, that life evolved over a million and million of years. Second, In the beginning God created everything." If evolution was proved and a fact then it would not be a theory. You have referred me to websites and I have looked at them but it is all relative. To me, all these websites put on a song and a dance. They dazzle you with sneers at creationalism and confirm the statements that they have all the evidence but thats it. Natural selection explains the variety within a species. No matter how different a dog is, it is still a dog. Natural selection fails to provide evidence of one species changing to another species, no matter if billion of years have gone by. Do you really believe that time has a way of experimenting and deciding which organ or cell or tissue works best? In a time where there was no eye, how did time know how to create and eye? Or, ear, sonar, etc? You keep saying that it's all possible given enough time. When will you realize that time, no matter how much is given, cannot create complex organisms? Given all the time in the world, not even you can create a living organism unless you are God. Evolution truly is a fairy tale for grown ups. You rather believe in man than in God? As a former christian I'll remind you what God says about this attitude, "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." Jer. 17:5 However, I have the character to admit that faith is required to believe that God created everything, (Although, I cannot see anything contrary). You however, can not admit that evolution is a faith. You have to believe that life spontaneously occurred without proof. You need to believe in a primorial soup without proof. You need to believe that time somehow had wisdom and experimented and invented organs without proof. You have to believe that that species changed into different speceies without proof. I admit that there are many questions that we will never have an answer to or that I will have an answer. Nevertheless, I do not need an answer to every question because it is insignificant to accomplishing the purpose why God placed us on earth. I am at peace. I do not understand why you are so driven to understand how a zebra came into being? However, in a couple of more years we will all have the privelege to stand before God and ask him. At the moment I seek more important answers as to how to please God with my life.

Here is my response:

Pastor Al,

You have referred to both evolution and the beliefs of another party, and you have told us that facts and evidence can be produced for both parties. At least you admit that facts and evidence can be produced for evolution. I agree. After all, the fossil record does show that the earliest life forms were simple, and that life progressed with time. And the fossil record is filled with intermediates that appear in the fossil record between simple creatures and the creatures with advanced features. So there certainly are plenty of facts and evidences supporting evolution.

But you refer to another "party" which you claim also has facts and evidence. Apparently this "party" teaches that species never evolve from another species. What facts and evidence support the views of that party? Please answer.

The evolution "party" teaches the first zebra came something like this: It evolved from an ancestor horse species that migrated to Africa. There it met many new predators, and so it evolved special defenses. Those individuals that had stripes survived better than others because they were harder for predators to see. Eventually, the "horses" developed striped camouflage. Those individuals that had a nasty disposition were better able to fight off the many predators, so eventually this species became more hostile than other horse species. They evolved into zebras.

Interestingly, you acknowledge that the great dane, the Chihuahua, and the poodle all descended from the same species of wild dog. If these breeds all descended from wild dogs, why is it so difficult to believe that the modern horse and the zebra descended from a common species of wild horse? If you think the Chihuahua and the great dane micro-evolved from the same ancestor species, why can't you also believe that the red fox species, the gray fox species, and the cape fox species all evolved from a common fox ancestor?

What do I put in place of evolution? Genesis chapter 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all living things.

Well, many people have different interpretations of Genesis 1. Do you take it literally, that God spoke the word and suddenly zebras spontaneously appeared, for instance?

We have found fossils of many horse species that are older than the oldest zebra fossil. How do you explain it? My explanation is simple: These ancient horses lived long before the first zebra. What is your explanation?

Both matter and life came from God. Evolutionists do not have a clue where matter and life came from. They only have fairy tales that need your faith.

There are differences of opinion as to where matter came from. Some evolutionists think it came from God. Some think it came from a previous universe or from the nature of reality itself. That question it totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is whether new species of animals evolved from a previous species.

Now, I am lobbying to change the textbook curriculum in our public schools. I want to replace the evolution theory with TRUTH AND WITH SCIENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN!

With all due respect sir, many would prefer that scientists determine what is scientific, not you. Can you see how some might look at your writings and conclude that your expertise lies in fields other than science?

What do you want textbooks to teach about ancient life? Do you want them to say that there were dinosaurs millions of years before zebras, or do you want them to say that zebras and dinosaurs were created together? Unless you answer such basic questions, why should we want you to select our children's science textbooks?

If evolution was proved and a fact then it would not be a theory.

Excuse me, but could I take a minute to help you understand what scientists mean when they use the word "theory"? Scientists use "theory" to refer to a well substantiated explanation of an aspect of nature. They do not mean a guess. For instance, scientists talk of gravitational theory. (See gravitation.) When they speak of gravitational theory, they do not mean that it is only a guess that things fall to the earth, Rather, gravitational theory refers to that realm of knowledge explaining gravity. Similarly, the Theory of Evolution is that body of knowledge explaining the origins of species. Scientists refer to both gravity and evolution as theories in the scientific sense of the word. They also refer to gravity and evolution as facts. See Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Can you understand that a person who misunderstands what scientists mean when they use the word theory might not be the best person to select the science textbooks for schools?

You have referred me to websites and I have looked at them but it is all relative. To me, all these websites put on a song and a dance. They dazzle you with sneers at creationalism and confirm the statements that they have all the evidence but that's it.

The sites do not merely claim they have evidence. They list the evidence. The one site list dozens of valid studies that detail the evidence. How else can you explain the nested hierarchies of living organisms? How else can you explain the progression of the fossil record with time?

Natural selection explains the variety within a species. No matter how different a dog is, it is still a dog. Natural selection fails to provide evidence of one species changing to another species, no matter if billion of years have gone by. Do you really believe that time has a way of experimenting and deciding which organ or cell or tissue works best? In a time where there was no eye, how did time know how to create and eye? Or, ear, sonar, etc? You keep saying that it's all possible given enough time.

The eye could have begun as a light sensitive spot that allowed simple creatures to navigate based on the direction of the light. A depression at that spot could have increased the sensitivity. The depression could have deepened, and the opening could have narrowed, creating an eye similar to a pinhole camera, thus allowing rudimentary focusing. A transparent layer could have grown over the opening to protect it, and then that layer could have filled with fluid, making a lens. Meanwhile, the light sensitive surface could have increased in sensitivity and complexity, forming a retina. All of these stages of the eye are similar to eyes found in creatures today. Of course the evolution of the eye would have taken many millions of years, but there is no reason to believe it could not have happened.  See Evolution of the Eye.

And where do you think the eye of the zebra, for instance, came from? Did the first zebra pop into existence with its eye fully formed? May I remind you that these kinds of spontaneous creations do not happen? Creatures don't just pop into existence with organs fully formed.

You have to believe that life spontaneously occurred without proof. You need to believe in a primordial soup without proof.

But isn't that what you teach, that the zebra spontaneously popped into existence via the hand of God? Here you seem to be arguing against your own view! You seem to be saying that complex creatures did not spontaneously appear. I agree. Zebras did not just pop into existence.

I admit that there are many questions that we will never have an answer to or that I will have an answer. Nevertheless, I do not need an answer to every question because it is insignificant to accomplishing the purpose why God placed us on earth. I am at peace. I do not understand why you are so driven to understand how a zebra came into being? However, in a couple of more years we will all have the privelege to stand before God and ask him. At the moment I seek more important answers as to how to please God with my life.

Okay, so you don't know how the first zebra came into existence? If you don't know which method God used, why do you insist that he didn't select the method of evolution?

And  you want to lobby to change the textbooks, but you don't care to even venture a guess as to how animals came into being? You seek answers to questions other than the question of the origin of species? Then wouldn't it be better to leave the selection of science textbooks to those who do have a pressing concern about the answers to such questions?

    -----------------------------------

I anxiously await to hear your facts and evidence that shows that zebras came into existence in the way that your party believes, and not as a result of evolution from a wild horse species..  

Merle