In my apologetics on this blog, the main thing that I deal with is Islam. I deal with a few other topics as well such as cultural issues, abortion, church politics, etc. I’ve tended to stay away from Creation vs. Evolution debate because that’s not a main focus of mine. This doesn’t mean that I’m unfamiliar with the debate. A lot of people I know who do apologetics specialize in this area so its a debate that I’m around, even if I’m not directly involved. I’m actually quite well read on this topic and have studied it for quite a while. In fact I’ve probably read more of Charles Darwin than 99.9% of atheists, including biology majors.
In the above video atheist YouTuber Rachel Oates talks about life coming from non-life. She says that creationists claim that life can’t come from non-life and she gives her response.
In responding to atheists, you have to be able to deal with their sneaky tactics. They often like to play a bait and switch with terms. Let me give two examples before we tackle Rachel Oates.
How can you get something from nothing?
All atheists believe that something came from nothing; their only problem is explaining it. How can something come from nothing? Physicist Lawrence Krauss tries to answer this. What does he do? He simply tries to redefine the word nothing. Watch the video below, it’s short. He turns the word nothing into putty that he can mold into anything he wants and therefore cut the argument off at its source. Here’s his attempt at doing so.
So nothing is redefined to mean the opposite what what it actually means. Nothing is the absence of everything and Krauss knows it.
How did the eye evolve?
Evolutionists are good at explaining how something simple becomes complex. They’re good at explaining how a primitive eye becomes a complex eye. However, if you take away the eye and ask how it got there in the first place, they’re in trouble.
However, some sharp evolutionists like to play a game. Here’s a website that tries to explain how the eye came to be through evolution. This page was linked to on Richard Dawkins’ website so he has given it his stamp of approval.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Here’s the key paragraph:
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
I have put the key phrase in bold. A light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin. Do you know what that is? It’s an eye. Sure, it’s an extremely primitive eye, but an eye never the less. The primitive eye is referred to as a light-sensitive pigmented spot, and at this point they do the simple to complex routine. Don’t let them get away with it. It’s simple to complex disguised as nothing to simple.
Now to Rachel Oates. Let’s approach her thesis with these two examples in mind. After all, she tries to do the same thing. Can life come from non-life? Not by natural means so how does Oates get around it? She gives her definition of life as defined by the acronym MRS NERG.
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Nutrition
Exoretion
Reproduction
Growth
MRS NERG sounds like an acronym that one would learn in grade five to memorize for an end of chapter exam. Why do we need to go with this definition? Oates doesn’t go into organic vs, non-organic, whether it has DNA or RNA, or anything of the sort. Oates’ definition is MRS NERG which is quite simplistic. She admits that this excludes things like viruses which essentially refutes the definition.
Oates has done the same thing as Krauss and those who try to say the eye evolved by natural selection. It’s all a game of changing the meaning of words. Nothing becomes something, an eye becomes a light-sensitive pigmented spot and life becomes anything that fits the MRS NERG requirements.
Oates seems like a decent person; the type of person that I could have a discussion with about key issues. However, if we ever do have a discussion, she’s not going to be able to play the word definition shell game with me.
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.