Creation / Evolution: Does it Matter what we Believe? - Mike Riddle

This video file is a 55 min seminar by Mike Riddle recorded October 2003 in Bellevue, WA. The program covers many biblical and scientific reasons to believe in creation. It also discusses why evolution and the Bible are not compatible.

The talk is based on his book of the same title that may be downloaded here http://www.nwcreation.net/riddle/creation.html. The PowerPoint file used in this program is available and may be viewed online or downloaded for personal use. A professional-quality DVD of this program may also be purchased.

Topics include:

Overview of the two models

7 biblical truths that declare the Bible and evolution are not compatible

*The process for creation
*The order of creation
*The cause of physical death
*The Genesis Flood (worldwide, local flood, or myth)
*The days of creation (literal days or long ages)
*The origin of life
*Jesus and creation
*Science and why it matters what we believe.

About the Speaker:

Mike Riddle is the president of Christian Training and Development Services - http://www.train2equip.com/index.asp - and currently travels around the country teaching and delivering seminars on the Biblical and scientific truths of creation as a full-time apologetics speaker for Answers in Genesis - http://AnswersInGenesis.Org. Mike has a degree in Mathematics, a graduate degree in Education, and has been involved in the creation ministry for 20 years

Seattle Creation Conference 2004 DVDs are available as a boxed set - http://store.nwcreation.net/secrco20.html.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Mike
• Riddle
• creation
• evolution
• believe
• matter
• Jesus
• God
• Bible
• Answers
• in
• Genesis
• death
• global
• flood
• local
• order
• origins
• abiogenesis
• science
• Northwest
• Creation
• Network
• faith

[dannytibi]

(cont...) in this way, we end up with completely unintelligible yet fundamentally related languages that if you had now knowledge of historical linguistics and simply compared a person who is speeking French and a person who is Speaking Dutch would never be able to conceive of the 2 as sharing a common ancestor (proto-indo-european). There is no barrier that will keep Dutch and French from continuing to evolve to the point where they both birth new and distinct language families.

[slaves4christ]

@dannytibi You've got a couple of problems. 1) The evolution of languages requires the input or addition of information from an intelligent source, something that biological evolution has no mechanism for.

2) Even the earliest languages were highly complex and did not begin as simple grunts like the evolutionists would hope for. But I suppose it would coincide with the idea of bio evolution, which has no way of creating life from non-life & the supposed early organisms were very complex.

[dannytibi]

@slaves4christ It is also important to note that my exemplification was meant to address the assumption of "boundaries" that cannot be crossed in evolution (biological or linguistic). I won't try to debate abiogenesis or the origin of language, the former because I am not a biologist, and the latter because it is a very controversial subject even within my own field.

[dannytibi]

(cont...) now speak closely related dialects of the same language, each successive generation brings new innovations in the speech habits of the population that the 2 dialects give rise to 2 distinct, albeit related languages. So now we have, germanic, slavic, greek and italic... within these proto-language the changes continue to accumulate to the point were germanic dialects are no longer mutually intelligible and give rise to a germanic family of languages. (cont...)

[dannytibi]

I'm not a biologist, my field of study is linguistics, but I understand biological evolution in more or less the same terms that I understand linguistic evolution: You start with one language, proto-indo-european, eventually populations are separated by natural barriers and each population gives rise to distinct innovations in speech pattern and pronunciation, gradually these changes accumulate to a degree that 2 populations who in the past used to speak essentially the same language (cont...)

[slaves4christ]

@dannytibi 3 Agapow, P. et al. 2004. The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 (2): 162.

4 Palumbi, S. R. 1994 Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Isolation, and Marine Speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25: 547-572.

[slaves4christ]

@dannytibi As leading scientists have admitted, "The very term 'species' is deeply ambiguous."3 Harvard's Steven Palumbi said in 1994 that "the formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology."4

...continued next post...

[slaves4christ]

@itzahazylife That would be micro evolution, which we all agree with. But you still have the same kind of animal

[slaves4christ]

@dannytibi "there is no agreement [among evolutionists] as to whether macroevolution results from the accumulation of small changes due to microevolution, or whether macroevolution is uncoupled from microevolution."

Allaby, M. (ed.) 1992. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology. New York: Oxford University Press.

[slaves4christ]

@dannytibi please don't make me laugh