From Evolution to the Empty Tomb: An Apologetic “Best-Of”

Question from Kristi:
Science supports the idea that universe starts with simple organisms to more complex organisms, so how then can science explain algae forming humans? Humans have different features, fingerprints, colors, etc. so how then could a human go from an ape to a complex individual? How do scientists explain Biblical archaeological evidence such as the empty tomb or eyewitness accounts?

Answer by SmartLX:
You answer your first two questions yourself: Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms through the mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Humans had very early ancestors which weren’t actually algae but were of a similar size and complexity, and the fact that complexity often carries benefits exerted a pressure on all life to become more complex over time, and we’re talking a LOT of time. The individual features like fingerprints developed long before humans did, because other primates have them too. We just inherited them.

There is no archaeological evidence of the empty tomb because that would imply something had been dug up since. There is only the accounts in the Gospels and a few other accounts which may simply be parroting the Gospels. As for eyewitness accounts, the story is always different about whether the writer is the one who saw something and how long afterward it was written, but a lawyer will tell you eyewitness accounts are unreliable at the best of times, and a scientist will tell you eyewitness accounts count for nothing at all. Scientists don’t really bother to explain these things because they consider there to be nothing to explain, so far at least.

12 thoughts on “From Evolution to the Empty Tomb: An Apologetic “Best-Of””

  1. witnesses are actually worthless if they have any emotional connection to the fact and people they witnessed, and they cannot but have them. only a machine can be a fairly good witness. a camera. cos they have no emotions to the fact they are witnessing.
    not only that. witnesses lie for all sorts of reasons. also, the number of witnesses has no weight.
    things of the past are hard to prove.
    this is why a judge’s job is one of the hardest possible.
    my dad was a high court judge.

    1. Witnesses have no weight? The very fact that a witness is accepted in court, says that witnesses have weight. And when there are at least two, then their testimonies carry even more weight. When the testimonies corroborate each other it is accepted as fact unless someone can prove that there was some kind of coercion going on. The more witnesses there are, the higher the possibility that the truth will come out. That is one of the reasons the Bible is accepted as Gods word because of all the different copies that have been discovered. More than from any other writings that have been discovered. All saying almost the same thing from so long ago. It would be a monumental task to do today what some have suggested that the Bible writers way back when. All of the authors some how communicated over time and space effecting the greatest hoax of all time. All to make fools of all the world in the future. When two witnesses testimonies are given, one of the things that is looked at is, what the two witnesses have in common. Then what the two could gain from lying together. The veracity of each witness is considered. All of the testimonies are then sifted through to gain an insight of what the truth is. The same would be done if someone came forward with a picture or video. That person would be considered a witnesses. And that person’s life would be turned upside down to see if the evidence may or may not have been manufactured. Which is one reason much of the theory of evolution has very little traction today. Not only is there very little evidence, But it has been shown that evidence has been madeup, convoluted and fudged to put the theory of evolution in a better light. It on its own, can not stand. Those proponents who would say and do anything to be right, have built the foundation of evolution with hearsays and we believe’s that they think much of the they said happened, they have forgotten that there is no evidence to prove it. It is as if they said that the evidence is in the evidence room but when they go to dig it out the box is empty.
      Kristen asks “can science explain algae forming humans?”. To which SmartLX matter of factly responds “Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms”. You probably write this without gagging, having allowed this to escape your lips forsook long much like a smoker trying to take their first draw on a cigarette. The first few times the body voices it’s disapproval, but eventually it learns to accept the foolishness and resigns itself to a fate worse then death. So to the Atheists first time at looking at the so called evidence of evolution. The mind begins to ask how is all this possible. And it begins to voice its reason for not wanting to accept it,which is “no one has ever found any kind of proof that a simple organism has ever developed into a more complex organism. The theory is one imagined up in the contorted, illogical mind of someone who lost their ability to rationalize anymore. Their brains have been exposed to being forced to accept lies for so long that they are powerless on their own, to accept what is true. They have the testimony of history showing that each organism always only produces that same organism. They exhibit no changes of what they have been for what ever period of time the Atheists wishes to impose. And to get around this “no change” pitfall, they claim “not enough time has passed”. So they get out their textures and they collect “their” bacteria and fruitfulness and they poke and prod, they snip and snatch, they hem and haw, but in the end they still end up saying “not enough time has gone by”. Sure they now point to the adaptation process and claim “evolution”, but they need to now explain why they are trying to get away from their previous fanciful reason for seeing no change in species. The “not enough time has passed” reason. And so (here we go again), more made up imaginary, fast talking, smoke and mirrors, convoluted reasoning. And now they want to say that the adaptation is the new evolution. It doesn’t matter the fact that rhetoric species is not becoming another species. It doesn’t matter as to the fact that they have not even begun to understand how that species so readily is able to adapt in one direction and then when necessary, returns to the way it originally was. It doesn’t even faze them knowing that the adaptation appears to be already writen within the DNA programming of each species. No, all they see is the theory that is now showing their infatuation with. They push their infatuation to become a lust of believing their own lies. But just like a person who has become sick of their insanity they sometimes come down to earth and realize their insanity. Sometimes they settle for indifference and mediocrity. But others have gone on to seek the truth and that is why they become believers in intelligent design. Believers in God.

      1. Gerald, I think you have mixed together two separate things. Does eyewitness testimony get accepted in court? Absolutely, no disagreement there. Does the fact that eyewitness testimony is accepted in court mean that eyewitness testimony is credible and above reproach? Absolutely not. I have mentioned to you in previous topics on this website the studies done on the validity and reliability of human eyewitness accounts. For example I have often written about the classroom setting where someone runs in and steals something off the teacher’s desk and runs back out. The resulting “testimony” by the students will have a myriad of descriptions of the thief, including different races, heights, and even genders. Traumatic stress also greatly affects memory (and the killing of a religious leader you’ve been following, and the fear that you might be next, would certainly qualify for that). Time affects memory. You can verify all these things I am stating too by the way, you do not need to take my word for it.

        Of course, the whole notion of a believer such as yourself wanting to make the Bible credible because of eyewitness testimony is laughable to me, because you just as easily dismiss claims by Muslims of Mohamed flying to heaven on a winged horse, or Jesus appearing to Mormon founder Joe Smith and associate Sidney Rigdon, or Buddha traveling to other galaxies, or talking animals in Native American or Egyptian mythology, or people who claim being kidnapped by aliens. In other words, eyewitness testimony doesn’t count as nearly important in supernatural tales unless it supports YOUR supernatural tale.

        In fact, even talking about eyewitness accounts as it relates to the resurrection is pointless, isn’t it? There are ZERO eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Everything you read by Paul/Saul, and Matt and Mark and Luke and John, and in Acts, is someone telling you what someone told them. Since you talked about a court of law, let’s point out that third party telling is called heresay, and it NOT admissible in a court of law. The Bible is full of heresay, not eyewitness testimony.

      2. As a separate post, I’d like to address your statements regarding the so called consistency between different books of the NT. As has been pointed out to you previously, theistic scholars generally agree that around half the NT was penned by Paul/Saul. John was written 70 years after the death of Jesus, and that same writer probably wrote Revelations. Matt and Luke were copied off of Mark. The whole concept you put forth of independent writings for each book of the NT simply isn’t true. Add to that the fact that the Bible is the most edited, altered, and modified book in history according to Biblical scholars (pointed out to you many times before) and the claim of consistency and independent writings gets thrown out the window pretty easily…

  2. Kristi – As LX already pointed out, there is already plenty of material at this website that answers your questions about evolution. There is even more information contained in the comment sections of those topics too. There are also a lot of websites that be found with a simple google search of evolution that could have also answered your query.

    To go ahead and answer your question anyway, I will point you to the field of genetics as evidence that all life is related on Earth, including humans and algae. All living things share some of the same DNA. The more DNA they share, the closer they are related. We share a lot of DNA with the rest of the apes, hence they are man’s closest living relatives. We share less with cats and dogs, and even less with reptiles, and even less with algae. But some of our DNA is the same with all those creatures. You and I even have shared DNA with oak trees. This information, by the way, was discovered long after the realization via the fossil record, morphology, geology, and paleontology that all of life came from a very simple common ancestor a long time ago. Genetics is actually a totally independent confirmation of the tree of life.

    As to your tomb question, others have already answered that, so I’ll leave it be.

  3. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html)

    “To ChristianAnswers.Net HOMETo ChristianAnswers.Net DIRECTORY
    Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?

    See this page in: Hungarian, Spanish

    Photo copyrighted. Courtesy of Films for Christ.
    Chimpanzee
    Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

    Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

    Photo copyrighted.
    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

    Photo copyrighted
    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on Earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

    We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

    Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

    Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.
    What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

    Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

    Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error – averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

    Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.
    What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

    Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

    There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

    The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

    Notes and References

    However, Jeffrey Swartz, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Pittsburg, maintains that man is closer to orangutans in gross morphology. Acts and Facts, 16 (5):5, 1987. Return to text
    Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99-121). The resulting hybrid duplex material is then separated from single-strand DNA remaining and heated in 2 to 3 degree increments from 55o to 95o C, and the amount of DNA separating at each temperature is measured and totaled, comparing it to human-human DNA re-formed as duplex. If 90% of the human DNA is recovered with heating from the human-chimp hybrid, compared to the human-human DNA, then there is said to be 90% normalized percentage hybridization. Return to text
    Sarich et al. 1989. Cladistics 5:3-32. Return to text
    Ibid. Return to text
    Molecular homology studies could be quite useful to creationists in determining what were the original created ‘kinds’ and what has happened since to generate new species within each kind. For example, the varieties / species of finch on the Galapagos Islands obviously derived from an original small number that made it to the islands. Recombination of the genes in the original migrants and natural selection could account for the varieties of finch on the islands today – just as all the breeds of dogs in the world today were artificially bred from an original wild dog/wolf kind not long ago. It is interesting that molecular homology studies have been most consistent when applied within what are probably biblical kinds and contradict the major predictions of evolution regarding the relationships between the major groups such as phyla and classes (see ref. [6] regarding the latter). Return to text
    Michael Denton, 1985. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. (Burnett Books, London). Return to text
    Haldane’s Dilemma recognizes the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7×1011 years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape-like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic)—most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217. Return to text
    Author: Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D., Supplied by Creation Ministries International

    Copyright © 1997, 1999, 2001, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

    ChristianAnswers.Net
    Christian Answers Network
    PO Box 1167
    Marysville WA 98270-1167 Submit your Questions

    Creation SuperLibrary.com Christian Answers home page
    home pagedirectory
    Christian Answers Network HOMEPAGE and DIRECTORY
    Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional”

    Now. Please don’t just say not so and run back to the same “but evolution is true” spiel. Explain to me how these arguments do not apply to why we should not believe in Evolution.

    1. Gerald writes: “Now. Please don’t just say not so and run back to the same “but evolution is true” spiel. Explain to me how these arguments do not apply to why we should not believe in Evolution.”

      So you cut and paste an article from some website, and then demand that I do a detailed analysis of it and explain to you the problems with it? Maybe you should do your own research. I have serious doubts, given your statements in the past, that you even fully understand everything discussed in the article. I know for a fact that you didn’t fact check any of it. The first thing I did after reading it was check on the sequencing of the chimp genome, because the article keeps claiming a proper comparison has not been made between human and chimp DNA and in fact they state “Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.” The last copyright of the article was 2001. So I checked the chimp genome project. Guess what? It was finished in 2005…

      So a comparison between full sets of human and chimp DNA has been done, and human and chimp DNA are still closely related (96%). From the wiki article on the chimp genome project: “Gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions”. As is typical for the creationist nonsense that you find at the websites you like to visit, they don’t update their articles. They also don’t talk about other similarities in the DNA of the two species, like the ERVs in each genome being found in the same place of each species’ DNA.

      So this article, written longer than 16 years ago and last copyrighted 16 years ago, is out of date and does not contain accurate information. Once again I’ve had to fact check the pseudo-science garbage you pull from the website of your creationist masters, and have found it to be rot. When you going to wake up and realize that the people who are trying to support god claims have to lie to you in order to bolster your belief system? You’d think at some point you’d wonder why that is….

  4. Wow quoting Jeffrey Schwartz a proponent of mind-body dualism and intelligent design proponent is really great Gerald McDonald:

    “Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an American psychiatrist and researcher in the field of neuroplasticity and its application to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).[1][2] He is a proponent of mind/body dualism and appeared in the 2008 Film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that science should not be separated from religion.[2][3][4][5]”

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Schwartz

    Also using Creation Ministry is way off its a extreme pro-religious organization they do not want truth. They already have it and they do not care:

    “BASICS
    The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
    The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.”

    Source: http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

    So your post is useless if not then breeding and other experiments done in Experimental evolution would be nonsense and would not work. Take for example breeding of dogs its evolution in action even when its artificial done by humans but it shows that a organism can change over time.

    As for memories they are unreliable as hell and the more you age the more its worse. I know this from even personal experience with friends when we recall our “old times”.

    Thanks for reading this for those who are interested and I wish you a nice day.

    1. You truly are missing the point. And you are not realizing that your post supports creation.
      I am talking about the fact that even with all the breeding control, all that is being born from the controlled animals, flowers, bacteria, flies, or whatever, remain whatever it is that is being controlled. They are not morphing into another species. The algae is not becoming flies or tadpoles. They aren’t even regressing into a previous species, (like someone would know what it could have been before what it is now). And even though there has beven tons and tons of fossils unearthe, yet the Evolutionist still cannot show one fossil that can be used showing a morphing from one species to another.
      Now back to my first question of the many I have. Why do we not seeing the whatever started the morphing, or evolution, still going through first steps of evolution. We know that all the other simple organisms that are around today, (and there is no reason to suspect that the original life that showed up at the beginning, is no longer around), are carrying on doing what they do day after day. So why do we not see the same original “whatevers” working their magic as they first did when they first arrived?

  5. Come off it. You are talking as if there is no doubt to what you are saying. The only relation we share with apes or rocks, flowers or dirt is that God created everything. Science deals with observation, not speculation. There has never been any observed evolving of algea to anything else. Algae has only sprouted more algae. Bacteria has only developed more bacteria. Chimps always have baby chimps. And gorillas, gorillas. That is what science should be stating as fact. And leave the speculation in the speculation collumn. There aren’t even any fossils that support one species morphing into another species. All you have are assumptions without any supporting evidence. Even many of the scientists looking to prove evolution claim that there is no evidence supporting evolution. All of this adds to at the very least, a part stating that it all is pure speculation not fact.

  6. ” All living things share some of the same DNA”. Sure we share some of the same DNA. The Designer that made everything made the DNA. He knew how to use it. But He created all species, all organisms, simple and complex. Weaving DNA in different sequences to create each organism. A car shares some of the same parts a bicycle has, that share some of the same parts with a 747. That doesn’t mean that as all the parts the parts for a bicycle were in somebodies back yard someone tripped and was, boom, bang, out pops a car and then the jet. The same designs were useful for different species. And since no evolution has ever been observed, despite the fact that the believers of evolution claim that evolution needs to have many years to go by for something to evolve. Yet since they say evolution is happening, then we should be seeing get things evolving day after day. Since evolution has started, time has reached the point to have something evolving. But we still so not have anything supporting these claims from the Evolutionists.

  7. Once again, if there are similarities it is only because the design was good enough to use for more than one species. Look at what you are saying, even though there are so many similarities it is obvious that it takes more then just DNA similarities to make each species. Everything was designed to be what they are. And even though the scientists have been monkeying around with the DNA and yet whatever they do, species remains the same species. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *