RECONNECT-It's been several weeks since I've made a new post (mostly due to the Fall semester beginning), but I haven't forgotten about the reasons why I started this blog. Over the past year, I have pulled a 180 degree turn regarding my views about some very important things in life. Religion, God, life, science, and evolution to name a few. Why, you might ask, have I experienced this change? The simple answer to this question is the fact that I broke down a wall in my mind that wouldn't allow myself to let in any possibilities other than what I had already believed. It was definitely not an overnight turnaround. Every neuron in my brain fought against letting go of what I had grown up to know. Finally, the dominoes started to fall, and I am so happy that they did. Everything that I had programmed into my mind was concrete (or so I thought.) I was so closed-minded to the point that I was saying I was open-minded only in denial. Regretfully, I have come to find out that I have believed some pretty ridiculous things in my 28 years on this planet. Talking snakes, ascendancy to Heaven (via "the Rapture"), homosexuals deserving Hell, and most of all, that an invisible God provided eternal life for me if I said a few words and believed.
Here recently while taking an economics class, the teacher had an interesting question. Is "greed" good? (It's from the Gordon Gekko Wall Street speech.) I thought about this for some time, and then I realized what it meant....incentives. Incentives are what humans seek in everything we do so I asked myself, regarding my views about Jesus, if I took out the incentive of Heaven, would I still worship Him? Well, the simple answer to this question is no, and when you think about the ridiculous amount of time that is consumed in worshipping and serving, it just isn't logical or rational to wager on one out of the thousand gods available just because your parents told you specifically to worship this one. I thought about how I could be using that time productively toward my REAL wife and daughter, to my REAL career, to my REAL hobbies. Not some fantasy that I had no proof of. Eternal life....what does that even mean? How could a human being ever have the capacity to understand infinity? It doesn't make sense, but I used to think it was perfectly clear. If you can understand infinite time going forward, then you can understand infinite time going backward, and that is where the fun begins regarding macro-evolution and the birth of our Universe, but I'll save that for another time. You see, if God exists, then He had a purpose for our lives, our race, our species, but that purpose allowed so much death and suffering. My question remains unanswered: how could an all-powerful, all-loving, perfect God, let His children suffer so much? 22,000 children die every single day from starvation and disease. Especially when we have at our "supposed" arsenal Matthew 21:22 at hand. I suppose this is because of "mankind's sin?" There would be nothing holding me back from saving my children from death no matter what means were needed to be used. No matter what master plan I had originally scripted, it would have to be altered because I would go to any lengths to save my daughter or wife from harm. Yet, the contradiction of free will and prayer cannot be answered by my opponents either. If Jesus spoke the infallible truth in Matthew 21:22, then why can't we pray away our disease? Surely anything is possible through prayer. However, no matter how hard we pray, AIDS and cancer remain prominent death machines that eradicate people all over the globe. And speaking of cancer: does cancer come from mankind's sin? The Bible says sin leads to death. I never stopped to consider the alternative, and for this, I am truly regretful to waste so many years....that prayer and God may simply be superstition; fictitious. The problems of infinite regression will always remain; if we were created, then who created the creator? You see my point hopefully, but what I ask is that we all see life through an unbiased lens. Letting go of the bedtime stories that our parents told us. Searching for truth using the scientific method to back up any claims. Living life free from religious dogma, and unaffected by what the local preacher says we must do to get to an unwitnessed, unproven place called Heaven. Letting our children have a choice instead of using fear of hellfire and eternal damnation as a means of control. Tithing, praying, worshipping, and most importantly, we may be wasting our most valuable time and efforts on something that is purely unsubstantiated. For what reason would I believe in these supernatural stories when I innocently laugh inside while reading my daughter a tale of Dr. Seuss? My aim is none other than trying to explain to others how religion can be bondage, and an open-mind that's able to explore all of the avenues of possibility is much more powerful than one that simply recites what their pastor or parents told them. Moraliy and religion can be separated. It is possible that mankind would have figured out that killing each other was a bad thing. Some apologists say without the Bible, we would have no morality. That is simply false. Without relgious control in our world, humans can understand how to make this world a truly better place. A place where questions can be asked, and other ideas and ways of thought are tolerated. One where truth is found, not simply believed.
In conclusion, I leave you with this anonymous quote that I was proposed when I used to militantly defend my Judeo-Christian God awhile back on a certain forum...."when you understand why you dismiss all the other religion’s gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
48 comments:
The Bible tells us that the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom, but it is not the end. 2 Timothy 1:7 says “for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a SOUND mind”. We obey God because we love him for all he has done for us, not because we fear him. But whatever reason gets us to believe the truth, what of it?
Like you (but from the other side), I feel that evolution is a bondage to materialism and an open mind that’s able to explore all of the avenues of possibility is much more powerful than simply reciting what their professor, evolutionist or news anchor told them. Morality and God cannot be separated, regardless of whether one thinks it can because the source of true morality IS God. Humans can only further mess up the world, not help it, just as Hitler and others used evolutionary concepts to murder millions. Bigoted evolutionists are completely intolerant of any other ideas and persecute others who disagree by harassing them, firing them from their jobs or filing lawsuits so that only their own ideas are heard.
In conclusion, the God of the Bible is the only one true God and there are good reasons for dismissing the others that have been invented by men’s fallible minds. Christianity is the only belief that claims to be founded by God and whose founder rose from the dead and did miracles like none other to prove its reality. As He himself said, if you do not want to believe in Christ because of his Words, believe because of his works. Christianity’s God is the only one that is backed by real science. It is the only God that has provided an accurate eye-witness account of our origins. Lastly, Christianity’s God is the only God who is alive today and willing to prove it to anyone that asks with a sincere heart.
Let me ask you a few questions that led me along the path of rejecting Jesus Christ as anything more than a mere mortal man, and led me to the belief in evolution as the answer to how we got where we are today. I will also point out that I don't reject the possibility that there could be a Deity out there that created us. I just don't think it's the Christian god any more than I think it's Zeus. If you can satisfy me by sufficiently answering these questions, that would be a major hurdle in pushing me back toward Christianity.
1. What was the point, biblically speaking, of the dinosaurs?
2. Is it more logical to say that the races and languages of mankind came from the tower of Babel or evolution?
3. Do gay people deserve to go to hell when they were born that way? Genetic evolution is on it's way to proving there is, in fact, a gay gene? If this is the case, then a person is born being homosexual and cannot help it. Therefore, that's like saying all down-syndrome children deserve hell if that's an abomination to god. It's not their fault, therefore unjust for your god to send them to an eternal hell.
4. Evolution explains why humans have several body parts that are not needed for survival. Why would your perfect god need to add a blind spot to our eyes? Wisdom teeth, appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, adenoids, coccyx, and finally...male nipples?
4. Do you think that it's possible that religion developed through evolution as an advantageous trait that actually is just produced in our minds? Just as in sports, home-field advantage in no way actually helps the home team win, but the psychological effect is well-documented through the win-loss statistics. But if I told you the fans shouting pushed the ball through the hoop, you would call me crazy.
I had prepared a final comment to your post, but I see you have responded. Thanks. I very much appreciate that. Since I already prepared a very long response, I am going to post that in 2 parts and then I will respond to your latest comments following that. Please, I mean no offense in my comments. I am responding with the same passion and conviction that you are. The strength of one’s comments usually gets returned with equal or greater strength. That’s human nature.
I’ve now read all of the posts on your site and have responded to many of them. It is unfortunate that some of your life experiences have caused you to turn your back on the Lord. Rebellion against God was the first sin of Adam and we have all inherited his sin nature because we are all his offspring, so it is not surprising this occurs today. Even those of us who have accepted Jesus as our Savior find our old nature popping up now and again. As it says in 2 Peter 2:21-22 – “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
Of course, it is very clear from your posts that you feel it is a very good thing to have rejected God. However Isaiah 5 tells us “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil… that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight...because they have…despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” And 2 Timothy 4 tells us “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables [i.e. evolution].”
However, it is only God’s grace which affords you the good life you describe, even if you do not acknowledge His involvement. Matthew 5:45 tells us “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”.
You claim to want a world “where truth is found in science, not [Christian] stories”. From that statement, it is clear that you now “worship” science instead of the Christian God. Yet, nearly all of the “truth” of science you enjoy today was founded (or expounded) by creation scientists (including natural selection), most of whom believed in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago. They found no conflict between God and science. Why do you? The fact is there is no conflict between God and science. The conflict is between the religious belief of evolution and the scientific facts of God. Evolution is no more science than the Easter bunny. It is a religious presupposition stemming from the fallible imaginations of the ancient Greeks, long before Darwin and others used it to deny God. Are you “open minded” enough to consider that?
You also tend to lump Christianity in with every other religion and then draw gross conclusions about Christianity based on the activities of other religions. The fact is that Christianity represents reality and is very different than any other religions in significant ways. Therefore, activities and consequences of false religions should not be erroneously attributed to it.
In addition, you tend to base gross conclusions merely on your own experience. While there is nothing wrong with utilizing our own experience, in your case it is quite unique. The more common theme is evolutionists having a change of heart and breaking through the mold to accept creation theory instead. Children of Atheists tend to become atheists just as much (and probably more so) as Christian children tend to be Christian. If Christians are brought up in “bondage” as you claim, there is no less bondage in the atheist’s home. Bottom line, we are all individuals. Only God knows the heart. People make lots of claims but we can rarely ascertain if they are speaking the truth. However, we can always trust that God speaks the truth.
I notice that one of your favorite books is “the greatest show on earth” by Richard Dawkins. Have you read “the greatest hoax on earth” which is a marvelous and accurate repudiation of the nonsense and fallacies presented by Dawkins? If you are truly open minded and the quest for true knowledge is your passion, then perhaps you should read the greatest hoax and add it to your favorite book list as well.
I’m curious. You talk about a prior devotion to God. Had you ever accepted Jesus as your Savior? I will leave you with a quote from 2 Timothy – “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves…despisers of those that are good…Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth...Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
God bless and I pray that the Sprit will guide you to the Truth.
You speak of evidence, yet you gave me nothing but Bible verses. Using the Bible as proof is like using a comic book to prove Superman is real. And you didn't answer a single question from my post that I asked.
The open-mindedness I'm talking about is using evidence to guide our beliefs. For many years, I too used the Bible as my evidence, but when I began looking outside of the Bible, I saw "red flags" that deserved much more research. Upon this research, I found that evolution is a much more logical way to explain our existence as humans than the literal Bible interpretation.
And in conclusion, if there was no incentive for you to believe so adamantly about your god, would you even care? There's nothing in it for me to choose evolution over Jesus other than freeing up the valuable time left that I have on this earth. Who's incentive is greater? Heaven or freeing up days in my life that can be used for other things? Heaven is the greatest reward of all. That is why religion is so powerful. Not because you love Jesus so much. It's because you want that ultimate reward. This behavior only further supports evolution because we are all selfish. Even through altruism, we are in it for something. I will admit to speaking rather harshly in some of my posts, but it's all with the best intentions. I want people to see the same "light" I have seen.
Ok, I guess I did see that you were more agnostic than atheist, but I tend to lump these together because they usually result in the same rhetoric and actions. It’s hard to understand how you can lump Jesus and/or God into the same basket as “Zeus”. There is infinitely more evidence for the existence of God than there is of Zeus. It’s like lumping George Washington in the same basket as the Easter bunny (no pun intended). The following are answers to your specific questions:
1) I’m not sure I understand your question about dinosaurs. The purpose of dinosaurs is no different than any of the land animals that God created. You should be aware that God created all the original kinds of animals as vegetarian. He told us that he created the plants as food for all of the animals. It wasn’t until after the flood that He allowed the consumption of meat (although this was probably occurring in disobedience to Him before that). There are many animals, even today, that have sharp teeth that are vegetarians. Sharp teeth are good at ripping apart fruit and bark. It wasn’t until the fall (after Adam sinned) that things began to degenerate including mutations in our genetic code, which at the time of creation was perfect. The Bible tells us that thistles, thorns, pain and suffering also resulted from the fall. Carnivorous behavior began to occur sometime after the fall.
2) The tower of Babel. Although as I’ve explained in a previous post, the races didn’t originate from Babel, only languages. You may not have seen that post yet. I’ve responded to your comment about Babel somewhere else. If after reading that you have further questions let me know.
3) You are speculating presumptuously about homosexual behavior. There is absolutely no evidence of a “gay gene” despite decades of research. Gays are NOT born that way. It is clearly a choice. We all have natural tendencies to sin. For example, many people are born as alcoholics. Since they cannot help it and it’s not their fault, why is this behavior considered bad? How about child molesters or murderers? They’re just born that way and cant’ help it. Therefore, it’s unjust for God to send them to hell. Homosexuals may have a tendency for that behavior but they don’t have to act upon it. A kleptomaniac may have a desire to steal something, but they don’t have to act on it. I may think my best friend’s wife is really hot, but I don’t have to sleep with her. A man may be attracted to another man, but that doesn’t mean he needs to do you know what. An unrepentant homosexual deserves the punishment of hell no more so than anyone else who has sinned and disobeyed God’s commands.
4) All of the body parts you mention have been scientifically demonstrated to provide vital functions for our bodies. This refutes the notion that they are “vestigial”. In addition, the blind spot in our eyes is a result of the excellent design of our eyes when looked at as a whole. If you are interested I can provide more details. Creation theory explains all of these things much more satisfactorily. After the fall, our genetic code and the genetic code of all of God’s creatures began to degrade. Copying mistakes occurred (mutations) which rendered some of our organs less efficient or damaged. This is just as good and better an explanation than evolution, considering that we have only observed de-evolution in living things. We have never seen NEW information or body parts arise. Damaged, degraded and mutated organs only show things are getting worse, not better!
5) No, but I’m only talking about Christianity here. Other religions are fallible ideas originating through the imaginations of men (but many having their original source in memories of the real God). However, God left us accurate eye-witness accounts of our real history so that disputes evolution and the idea that Christianity evolved. Christianity is not a religion per say. It represents reality and truth. However, I have another logical reason that religions did not “evolve” that you may find more interesting. I acknowledge Dr. Theodore Dalrymple (a non Christian) for this revelation. If the idea of God evolved, then all possible beliefs (including a belief in evolution) fall under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations. Since a belief in God is considered false (and only a product of our evolutionary imaginations), then all beliefs (including evolution) cannot be known to be true! We should test all beliefs according to arguments in their favor, independent of their imagined origins, which makes the argument from evolution completely irrelevant.
The Bible IS evidence! It claims to be God’s Words to mankind. Why would you summarily dismiss it? A comic book only claims to be a fictitious story, so that is why we treat it that way. I hope you see the obvious difference. If you read my post, you would have seen that I had already crafted that response before your reply, so I posted it anyway. I have subsequently answered your questions.
You may have once used the Bible for evidence, but apparently you decided that you would prefer to believe the fallible imaginations of men instead of God. I find the Bible’s eyewitness accounts of our origins much more consistent with the scientific evidence than evolution which is chock full of “red flags”.
I was going to comment about your fascination with the “reward” or “incentive” of religion in my original post as I see it is a common theme throughout your blog. I don’t mind the “harshness” of your posts, if you don’t mind my likewise response in return. I do take offense, however, at you telling me what I supposedly believe. I’m telling you what I believe in my comments and we should respect that we are each telling each other the truth. If not, then we might as well throw in the towel.
I accept the existence of God because He has proven his existence to me personally. I obey His commands (to the extent of all the strength I can muster), because I love Him. I love him because of all the grace and mercy and blessings He has bestowed upon me (I say this with tears). I humble myself before Him because He is the creator of the universe and everything in it. His wisdom knows no bounds. No man can possibly imagine the joy of heaven or the pains of hell. How then can these be incentives? And what if they are for some? What does it matter if it leads them to the truth?
Okay, so basically you're telling me that you refute evolution and the 99.9% of scientists from the many different fields that all support evolution are just wrong. http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm That's one estimate. Another estimate found that out of 480,000 scientists, only 700 of them believe in creation-science. That holds no weight to you evidently, and the DNA mapping we have now that, in and of itself, all but proves evolution, means nothing to you I guess. Scientists are seeing evolution occur in micro-organisms in labs. Bacteria developing resistance to drugs doesn't strike you as an evidence for evolution? I suppose 99.9% of the world's scientists are under the influence of Satan's conspiracy to rid the world of Christianity. Maybe that is more logical and rational to you than the evidence driven scientific method.
I have just found that there is a bit more logic in believing in the many years and the many scientists who devote their lives to this research over a book written thousands of years ago with talking snakes, immaculate conceptions, resurrections, and a man living inside a fish.
I will concede this much; you definitely must have much more faith to believe in the things you believe in than I must have to believe in the things that I do.
The final thing that I would like to say to you is that I believe that every child should have the ability to choose what they want to believe based on their own findings and critical thinking. I want a world that doesn't tell their kids from the beginning that "you are a Christian," or "you are a Muslim." I will certainly never tell my daughter how to think or what to think. I will show her all sides and all options, and answer her questions if she even bothers to care about religion. I believe most humans, when given the opportunity, will choose evidence over superstition. This is my dream for the world. One day, children will not be born into families that spread fear that stems from being told they will go to hell if they don't believe the way their parents do.
It's been fun debating with you. I hope all goes well for you with your life and faith. Thank you for your time. Good day and good night.
I suppose I’m not really surprised you would resort to logical fallacies to support your position, but I guess I was hoping for better. Obviously, popular opinion does not dictate truth. If it did, then you would need to change your beliefs since the majority of Americans reject evolution. Of course, they’re just ignorant folk and should really be listening to atheist evolutionist elitists on what they should believe. Nevertheless, your contention that 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution is flatly wrong and your link provides no substantiation for that number. It is inaccurate for several reasons. First of all, it depends on what people are asked. If you define evolution as change over time, as many do, then I would certainly believe in that as well. In addition, not many scientists are going to admit to not believing in evolution when it could cost them their jobs! Based on surveys I’ve seen I’d put the number closer to 60%. Regardless, hardly any of them actually use evolutionary concepts in their work.
What’s more significant is that surveys show up to 99% of leading evolutionists are atheists, 94% of the National Academy of Science is atheist or agnostic and upwards of 60 percent of college biology teachers are atheist. You wouldn’t expect them to believe in something other than evolution when they deny the existence of God in the first place, would you?
DNA mapping presupposes evolution; it in no way “proves” it. DNA mapping can be interpreted just as easily to support creation theory. Scientists DO NOT see evolution occurring in micro-organisms in labs or in bacteria developing resistance to drugs. These are examples of adaption within a created kind, not evolution. I’ve never seen a bacteria changing into anything other than a bacteria, have you? This adaptation occurs through the LOSS of genetic information, exactly the OPPOSITE of what is required for evolution to take place. A belief in evolution requires much more faith than I can muster. I prefer to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of creation theory. If you’d ever like to actually look at the evidence instead of spouting atheist rhetoric, I’d be happy to oblige.
I can only take your word that you will bring up your daughter as you say. However, I highly doubt that you will provide an unbiased opinion of creation theory when you don’t even appear to be very familiar with it yourself or accept the existence of God. I’m sure you didn’t mean that you wouldn’t tell your daughter “how” to think since giving them the ability to discern truth from fiction is a good thing. Nevertheless, if you believe most humans will choose evidence over superstition, then why do you believe in evolution? The scientific evidence is on God’s side, not on the fallible superstitions of men.
"You wouldn’t expect them to believe in something other than evolution when they deny the existence of God in the first place, would you?" -raisemeup
Did you ever think that maybe the REASON that they ARE atheists is because of the massive evidence for evolution that they've uncovered?
Anyways, I am asking questions for my readers to think about. I'm not here to prove evolution. Obviously we now know that you have all of the answers so we should just stop our skepticism and accept Jesus right now. Right?
And if my math skills are up to par (which I'm sure they are undoubtedly inferior to yours by your condescending attitude) if out of 480,000 scientists being polled, only 700 of them believed in creationism, that equals 0.14% of these scientists being creationists and 99.86% being evolutionists. And that was in 1987 in America, a country which has among the MOST support for creation science within the scientific community world-wide. But, I will concede that this "support" doesn't "prove" evolution. It just shows that logical, scientific evidence all but confirms evolution as a fact. However, you think that I should just read your Bible as the end-all evidence for young-Earth creation. "LOL"
As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23
"I’ve never seen a bacteria changing into anything other than a bacteria, have you?"-raisemeup
No, because I'm 28 years old and my eyesight is not equipped to see micro-organisms. Not to mention the fact that it takes millions of years for macro changes to take place.
There's a few articles you might find that will talk about evolution in bacteria.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080401_mrsa
http://www.therubins.com/geninfo/resistant.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html
Although I'm sure none of this will satisfy you (because you evidently know everything already and the scientific community is massively mistaken), I'll go ahead and give you the opportunity to check these out.
Oh, almost forgot to post this link for a little information on DNA and what it means for the debate of creation vs. evolution. Please excuse the title. I don't think your "pesky" at all. Just arrogant and condescending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=related
@ Raisemeup. You claim that the bible is evidence yet this is a vast exageration. Massive amounts of it are suspect due to internal inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating eyewitness or physical evidence. The bible would be treated as a biased or suspect source in any arts subject because of this. The biggest laugh comes from people quoting stuff from a book the is based on the idea that a god exists as being proof that this god exists. On this line of logic Rupert the bear becomes evidence of talking bear that wear clothes. We have no evidence that a single prophet saw god. We have claims of miracles missed by the egytians, romans and even the jews themselves. We have stuff which is flatly refuted by scientific evidence.
@Maws. I think there is this misconception around the world that the gospels were written, firsthand accounts of Jesus Christ, and this is just simply not true. From everything I've read, his disciples were illiterate and the gospels are anonymous 2nd or even 3rd generation accounts of hearsay. I had explained kind of the same thing to RAISEMEUP earlier, and that's the fact that just because a book claims to be the infallible word of God doesn't, in fact, prove it.
@Maws – Come now, “massive amounts of it [the Bible] are suspect”? Let’s stop speaking in generalities. I’ve already refuted a prior post of yours which insists that there are contradictions. There is not a single supposed contradiction in the Bible that has ever held up to scrutiny. In addition, there is not a single historical or scientific fact from the Bible that has ever been shown to be false. Archeologists are constantly making new discoveries that confirm the accuracy of the text and scientific discoveries continue to confirm God’s Words including Genesis. Do you believe in Plato or Caesar? There are thousands of times more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for either of those two. If every Bible in the world was destroyed today, it could be almost totally reconstructed from ancient secular sources alone! The evidence that the prophets talked with God is that thousands of their predictions came true! And as far as miracles go, they are happening today and apparently YOU missed them!
@ragzy – ragzy, ragzy, ragzy….somewhere you tried to tell me that evolution must be true because so many scientists support it. Well, the vast majority of Bible scholars claim that the Bible is firsthand accounts. Why don’t you believe them? This is more evidence that we simply believe what we want to believe. And you’ve discovered this fact from “everything I’ve read”? Stop reading the works of a few misinformed atheists and start reading the massive amounts of scholarly work out there from the experts who say that these accounts were written in the lifetimes of the apostles! Many of the works themselves are signed by the authors. You think they were simply counterfeits? What other book claims to be the infallible Word of God? If there were a bunch out there, perhaps we could argue about which one is the real one. If a book claims to be the Word of God, it’s worth taking a very close look at. For a good readable work on the history of the New Testament accounts of Jesus, I would suggest the book series by Lee Strobel, particularly “the case for the real Jesus”.
@Maws – which reminds me, you must not be familiar with how historical science works. The Bible is a book that claims to be God’s Word. There is nothing unscientific or laughable for scientists to investigate its accuracy and validity. Since it has been shown to be accurate in almost every detail, I would say that’s pretty good evidence that it is what it claims to be!
@Raisemeup. I have already given two examples that do prove inconsistencies in another post. Archeologists have found what? As to evidence I believe Plato and Caesar exist because they wrote books, and turn up in the writings of others who are contemporary. We know Caesar existed because he is the uncle of Octavian and we have the eye witness testamony of his funeral and his actions as pontifex maximus and dictator. There is virtually no verification of jesus. That is not to say I don't believe he didn't exist. I just don't believe the miracles and mysticism. As to the writers I tutor theology students and all the scholarly opinion on the gospel writers say one of them may have been contemporary but the others were adaptions written 70+ years later. The bible is no better than the rig vedas or hesiod's theogeny. What prophesies are you dribbling about? You see I know that all of this is not perfectly proven because even theists disagree about god. if it was all so frigging convincing there would be no muslims, hindus,deists or athesists on the planet. I admire your conviction it is just a pity you have so little evidence.
Since when is the Bible not considered a book? Passages from the Bible have turned up in thousands of “contemporary” writings. We have eye-witness testimony of Caesar but we don’t of Jesus? Are you for real? Your complete ignorance of the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! We have only 10 extant copies of Plato’s Tetralogies and only 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but 5366 extant copies of the New Testament and 10,000 of the Old! We have references to Jesus from non Christian sources such as Cornelius Tacitus (Governor or Asia), Suetonius (Roman Historian), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, and Flavius Josephus. Not only that, most of the writings regarding Caesar and Plato occur more than a thousand years after their existence whereas we have original manuscripts regarding Jesus within a lifetime after he died. If you don’t accept the historicity of Christ, you might as well reject all of history as a myth. And you (an atheist and a rude one at that) tutor theology students with your nonsense? A teacher has a responsibility to tell their students the truth. Shame on you!
Regarding archeology, discoveries concerning the bible are simply breathtaking. Many stories that atheist scientists had said were just “tales” have now been proven to be actual historical events. Places and towns are being found which look exactly as the Bible describes them and lie exactly where the Bible locates them. Figures from the Bible are constantly being found on ancient inscriptions and monuments. Examples include Babel, Pithom, Raamses, Saul’s mountain stronghold, the stables of King Solomon, palaces of King Herod, the pavement where Jesus stood before Pilate and astronomical tables of the Babylonians have been deciphered showing the exact dates on which the star of Bethlehem was observed. As one can imagine, this scientific work is difficult considering the part of the world it is in, so there will be many more discoveries to come. Bottom line, the events described in the Bible are historical facts and been recorded with an accuracy that is nothing less than startling. This is turn is solid evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be.
You ask about prophecies, and while the Bible contains thousands of fulfilled prophecies unlike any other document in history, it contains 17 specific prophecies concerning Jesus which have a combined probability AGAINST them occurring of 1 chance in 480 billion x billion x trillion. Yet they were all fulfilled! Among others these include His birth in Bethlehem from the tribe of Judah, His entering Jerusalem on a colt, His betrayal by a friend, His hands and feet being pierced, His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, His crucifixion among thieves, gambling for His Garments, the betrayal money being thrown in the temple and used to buy the potter’s field, the piercing of His side, His unbroken bones etc.
My goodness, buy a book about the historical accuracy of the Bible and learn something! And yet you sit there in denial. Nothing in this world is “perfectly proven”. People accept or reject Jesus not because of the evidence but because they don’t want to live by His rules. Give me 100% absolute proof of why I should be an atheist!
@Maws (Part 2 of 3):
There is so much scientific evidence for Noah’s catastrophic flood that it makes your head spin (we can discuss in more detail in a separate post if desired). It is a shame that instead of actually doing any scholarly work designed to seek the truth, you instead seek only biased atheist propaganda intended to justify your own religious views. You don’t have to believe it, but you should at least be aware of evidence regarding the other side of the story. For example, if the world was smooth, water would cover the entire globe to a depth of 8000 feet! Based on that, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever regarding the amount of water needed for the flood! Claims to the contrary are simply atheist propaganda. On the other hand, the origin of the oceans is a complete mystery to evolutionists. In addition, to quote a livescience article “Scientists scanning the deep interior of earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean”! That is a pretty good source of water from what the Bible calls “the fountains of the deep”, don’t you think?
Many don’t realize that Noah’s flood was not a gentle rain. According to scientific theories, it was accompanied by catastrophic rapid plate tectonics, earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, fountains of water from under the earth, huge upheaval of mountains and the lowering of the ocean basins which afterwards ushered in the ice age. There is even evidence that asteroid impacts may have triggered the events. Bottom line, there is significant scientific evidence for the flood including the fact that the majority of fossils ONLY form when rapidly buried by sediment which would have occurred ONLY during a catastrophic flood. Billions of fossils buried in billions of tons of sediment all over the earth including the tops of mountains forming layered sediments that are bent and twisted together while still pliable are what you would expect to find as a result of Noah’s flood. And that is EXACTLY what we do find! This is strong evidence for the flood (and evidence contrary to evolutionist theories), but it is only the tip of the iceberg.
give me the names of the scientists for your scientific evidence and where we can find these theories. The reason I ask is because no major university or intitution backs the flood theory. How, what and where so I can see your evidence.
@Maws (Part 1a of 3):
Because there are so many extant copies of the Bible, we can be confident it is the most accurately transcribed document in ancient history because it can be checked against so many independent copies. So yes, that makes it “realler [sic]”, by a significant degree. I would normally not be critical of someone’s lack of knowledge but someone who teaches this should know better. Yet, you are completely missing the point. Nowhere did I say that documents regarding Caesar or Plato are “fake”. On the other hand, you are the one claiming that the Bible is “fake”, despite it having significantly greater evidence than Plato and many other ancient historical figures that it is exactly as written by the original authors (no editing or blurring). Throughout your reply you keep insisting on hard and fast evidence for every detail of the Bible but don’t require this for other historical events you apparently accept. Since you are applying such different standards when evaluating the Bible, you are being hypocritical in trusting many of those documents over the Words of the Bible. The fact is, in sum total, we know more about the life of Jesus from historical evidence than we know about any other person in the ancient world, period!
@Maws (Part 1b of 3)
Regarding Miracles, they are most certainly mentioned in secular sources, particularly Josephus, so you are simply being dishonest. Nevertheless, because the accuracy of the Bible has been so meticulously confirmed, we can be confident it is the words of the original authors who witnessed these events or discussed the events with those that did. For goodness sake, Paul was an eye-witness himself and wrote a significant portion of the NT. Luke was also one of the greatest historians of all time. Nearly all historical scholars agree that the NT is composed of reliable eye-witness accounts (which are what it claims to be). You act as if sources from 56AD or “20 years after the death of Jesus” are a bad thing I should be ashamed of using! On the contrary, confirmations of Plato and other ancient historical figures don’t show up until more than 1000 years later! Documents written as closely as the Bible was to the original events are extraordinary and much more greatly CONFIRM those events! In fact this period is so small in terms of historical documents that it is considered to be negligible by historians. Tacitus was a also a great historian who had the opportunity to check many of the original writings from eyewitnesses of those events.
There is a significant scientific evidence for the separation of languages from a single one at some time in the past (ie Babel). At the same time, evolutionists are clueless as to how languages developed. Your students do not understand critical analysis if you are only teaching them one side of the story. Again, shame on you; Atheist or not, as a teacher you have a responsibility to teach all sides, not just data which supports your personal ideology. In any unbiased classroom, reference material on both sides of an issue should be provided letting students make up their own minds.
@Maws (Part 3a of 3)
The “skeptic” in you says Jesus fulfilled prophecies because he knew of them and the rest was “added in by the writers 50+ years after his death”? Even by your standards, I at least have some hard evidence for my position. Where is the evidence for your unfounded claims? NONE AT ALL! You insist I provide 100% validation, but you just dream up fantasies based on the “skeptic” in you!!! Yes, that’s “critical analysis” at its best! In fact the evidence reveals just the opposite. As Grant Jeffrey states in the signature of God – “It is virtually impossible that anyone could have created and introduced significant changes into the authenticated [NT] manuscripts during the few years that elapsed between their original recording by the apostles and the time they were widely distributed among the early churches …any significant changes would have been instantly detected and corrected…many Christians who had personally known and listened to the words of the apostles were still alive at the time these [NT] manuscripts were being read in churches every Sunday.” This included John the Apostle! As I said earlier there are thousands of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible that did occur thousands of years later that have been through the “acid test”. I’ve just mentioned a few concerning Jesus, but there are many more.
@Maws – You say “no major university or institution backs the flood theory”. That is not true. Define “major”. Every creationist organization and university teaches flood theory. It is also quite humorous you make this comment. It is similar to the argument that creation science isn’t “science” because articles about it don’t appear in a particular peer review journal when it is known that they will not accept articles on ID or creation theory in the first place. Nevertheless, Darwin’s work never appeared in a peer reviewed journal either because he knew the scientist of the day wouldn’t accept his views. Likewise, all major universities would teach flood theory if they would simply allow professors on their staff that support the theory. Instead, as bigoted evolutionists will do, they fire anyone who even disagrees with Darwinian Dogma. Did you have any particular number of names in mind?
Are you on crack? No top 100 university or research institition teaches this because it is unsubstantiated drivel. Darwins work was one of the most intensely reviewed books of any day and it turned out to be robust. Darwin has nothing to do with the teaching of flood theory- that would be geology. There is no conspiracy there is just no evidence. So, I will try again. Name your major scientists who support your flood theory and their works.
To help you understand why people really have no truck with this idea you have to understand how much water this would take. If you use the average radius of earth the amount of water needed to flood the world to the top of everest is over 3 500 000 000 Cubic KM. Given that there is only around 1 500 000 000 CuKM on the planet today and that this 3.5 billion, billion liters of water had to fall in 40 days it is ludicrous at best. This amount of water would make a ball half the size of the moon. The next issue is when you think this took place. It must be in the last few thousand years given the boat building techniques and tools required. The problem with that is the fact that this would make it happening after egypt became a flourishing civilisation. I have seen the date floated as around 2340 BCE. Given the numbers of active civilisations that fail to notice 9KM of of water landing on their heads or the earth leaping playing silly buggers one can justifiably be dismissive. They also fail to mention dinosaurs so the idea they all drowned in the flood is equally deluded. There is also a problem of populations from this sort of standing start.
Honestly, how can you go through this process of looking at the evidence provided and the wild claims made in genesis and fit this into your head as an un deniable truth. Scientists are not creating bizarre claims to support their claims about the age of the earth- they have a set of evidence that they use to create and support theories. The facts drive the ideas rather than your argument that has a fixed idea and just creates facts so it can be true even though you have to ignore relity.
@Maws (part 1 of 2) - I sincerely apologize if anything I’ve said has offended you. I truly don’t understand why these things would seem so incredible to you that you would resort to the derogatory tactics you’ve chosen. Since time immemorial, the commonly accepted belief was that God created the earth in 6 ordinary days approximately 6000 years ago. It is only over the last couple of centuries from around the time of Darwin that long ages and uniformitarian principles have become popular. However, you should realize that nearly all major branches of science were founded by Creation scientists, most of whom believed in a literal 6 day creation and a young earth. These included - Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Herschel, Linnaeus, Morse, Faraday, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Fleming and Carver along with many many others. These scientists found no conflict between God and True Science. Many scientists today continue to accept the fact of God’s existence and have devoted their lives to research on scientific creation theories and intelligent design.
One of these scientists, Henry M. Morris along with John C. Whitcomb are often credited with reviving the modern creation science movement in the 1960’s with their landmark book “The Genesis Flood”. It is still a definitive work on flood theory. However, there were many scientists prior to them that were active in creation science. Andrew A Snelling has written a two volume set on Geological evidence for the flood entitled “Earth’s Catastrophic Past” (1566 pages) recently published in 2009. I can also point you to one of his papers in ARJ (a peer reviewed scientific journal) entitled “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation Flood Framework of History” here http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/geology-israel-pre-flood
Another paper from ARJ by John D. Matthews discusses how “Chalk and ‘Upper Cretaceous’ Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/chalk-and-upper-cretaceous-deposits
The book “Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe” by Dr. Steven Austin published in 1994 explains how the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood.
This article on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (during the flood) originally published in the proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, is a very good reference and lists a significant number of creation scientists and their works. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics. It should be noted that plate tectonics, which is a commonly accepted theory today, was first proposed by a creation scientist (as was natural selection and many other theories you apparently think, for some odd reason, rule out God’s existence).
There are thousands of articles and a thousand creation scientists I could list, but this should be enough to get you started if you are really interested.
@Maws (Part 2 of 2) - Regarding the amount of water needed for the flood, where do you get this stuff from? All you’ve done is regurgitate logical fallacies and straw man caricatures which have nothing to do with reality. If you want to learn about creation theory, you shouldn’t go to atheist propaganda sites which have no idea what they are talking about. You should go to creationist sites to see what they have to say about themselves. That is a basic principle of scholarly investigation. Why in the world would you think that the flood waters would have needed to cover the top of Mount Everest? If Everest was always as high as it is today, explain to me how fossils of sea creatures are found at its summit Mmmm? How? How do evolutionists explain this? Is it possible that they think Mount Everest was once covered by water? Mmmm? All you seem able to do is criticize someone else’s science when you don’t even understand your own!
The earth is nearly 70% covered by water. At the time of the flood, the landscape was “relatively” flat. I’ve already explained that if the earth was smooth, the existing water we see today would cover the entire earth to a depth of nearly 2 miles! That’s more than enough water to have covered the earth at the time of the flood. During and after the flood, the up thrust due to colliding mantle plates created many of the mountain ranges we see today including Everest which accounts for the fact that we find fossils of dead marine creatures on its slopes (See link in previous post). Huge amounts of plant material was buried and placed under tremendous pressure which accounts for the coal we find today. Huge underground caverns filled with water soaked porous rocks are found today, which is one of the sources of water during the flood. The source of rainwater came from the heating and evaporation of the oceans due to volcanic activity between the earth’s tectonic plates. Reasonable explanations backed by considerable scientific, geological, biological and historical evidence point to a catastrophic flood event in our past. Even secular scientists tell us of great floods and extinction events in our past, but simply do not connect that evidence with the obvious Noachian flood event because of their evolutionary bias.
Even many secular scientists agree that the historical dates given for many ancient civilizations are in error. This is particularly true of Egypt. As it turns out, many archeologists are finding that the historical and archaeological records of Egypt and the Old Testament line up exactly and provide even more evidence for the Bible as historical truth. So the dates of the flood are again confirmed as accurate. In addition we find many drawings of dinosaurs on cave walls and artifacts indicating they lived at the same time as man. This is rather obvious anyway as we frequently find red blood cells and soft tissue in dinosaur bones indicating that they died recently, not millions of years ago. As far as populations go, it is evolution that has the problem. Population calculations indicate that the population of the earth is exactly as it would be predicted if man was created 6000 years ago. However, if we’ve been around for millions of years, there would be so many people we’d be piled up on top of each other to the moon. It is evolutionists that are making the wild claims, not creationists! And you are dead wrong about facts driving evolutionary ideas. The theory of evolution was a religious belief held by the ancient Greeks thousands of years before Darwin. Evolution is first assumed and then “facts” are cherry picked in an attempt to support it. Contradictory evidence is simply ignored. Bizarre claims made by evolutionists regarding the age of earth is based on many unprovable assumptions. Evolution is a religious belief, pure and simple.
I will try to keep this brief (a trick you may want to master). Since time immemorial people have not believed the earth was made in 6 days. Some believed Chaos turned to Gaia and Uranus and Nyx etc. Others believed a vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. Others thought Papatuanuku and Ranginui lay entwined until Tane Mahuta could separate them and yahde yahde... There are as many creation myths as there are societies. As to scientists that believed in god i suspect that if they were born today in europe they would be atheists or agnostics at best. They were products of their societies but this does not make god real.
The ARJ comes nowhere near being a peer reviewed scientific journal. Tell me when the flood took place. It cannot have taken place recently because no one has noticed it. Hydroplate theory is worse than laughable it is utterly bollocks science because of the massive number of facts you must ignore to make it work. As to why there are fossils on mount everest the clue would be india. It is moving north (as any GPS system will show you) and this has raised the sea floor so it is now a mountai. Same deal in the Alps and southern alps, the andes and the Urals. Or are you denying plate techtonics. As to the matter of the water that is taken from the height of the himalayas and sea level from the center of the earth. Using the formular V=4/3 piR^3 one takes the size of the inner sphere away from the outer sphere and that is the volume of water needed. You cannot claim a flat earth because that would predate humanity and thus make the noah story bollocks. Unless you have proof that india only recently crashed into asia? The hydro plate theory a la Brown has massive flaws and cannot be substantiated at all. It needs supernatural intervention as does Baumgardners theory. Curse those facts and science for getting in the way of a good yarn.
Soft tissue in Dinosaurs? You have got to actually learn to read the papers written rather than watching the truth guys. There were no blood cells found. None. Read it for yourself in "Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present"
Population figures cannot match any prediction because there has been 5 billion people added in the 20th century due to massive increases in biotch, mechanisation, medicine and agronomy. No one could predict a 600% increase in 100 years.Give me the source of your data and i will examine it. As with most of your post facts have not got in the way of your claims.
@Maws (Part 1 of 2)
Being brief does not allow one to address all of the issues raised. It ends up being nothing more than one person claiming they are “right” while the other person claims “no, I’m right”. Rarely are historical and un-provable issues such as our origins black and white. If it was, there would be no controversy. We all have the same facts and evidence; it is simply interpreted differently depending on your worldview and presuppositions. I tried seeing things from your point of view, but I simply couldn’t get my head that far up my ass (that’s supposed to be funny). Another reason it is hard to be brief is that it is easy and disingenuous for you to make sweeping and false accusations which don’t take up a lot of space, leaving me to provide real evidence for which you are either ignorant of or ignore all together.
Even in this longer response, I can only address your most outrageous claims. A journal is either peer reviewed or it isn’t. ARJ is just as peer reviewed as is any other peer reviewed journal. And remember, Darwin’s work was not peer reviewed either and yet you believe in his theory. My response was referring to the theory of catastrophic plate tectonics, not hydroplate theory. Nevertheless, no theory of unobservable, unrepeatable and unmeasureable events from the past (like evolution), perfectly addresses every issue. Both CPT and hydroplate theory satisfactorily explain many more facts than evolutionary uniformitarian theories. For example, you think flood theory has a problem with where the water came from? Evolutionists don’t really have a clue and they are the ones ignoring a massive number of facts and having to resort to wild stories like water coming from comets impacting the earth. So let’s see your substantiation for that! Curse those facts and science for getting in the way of a good yarn!
Your response regarding the amount of water demonstrates a complete ignorance of creation theories, yet you denigrate them anyway despite the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You claim the fossils on top of Mount Everest are there because it was once on the sea floor, however that is exactly the claim of creationists, so what is your beef? I CAN claim a “flat” earth because CPT theory provides convincing scientific evidence that the plates collided catastrophically during and post flood to create mountains in a matter of years AFTER the earth was first covered with water from the rising sea floor. Or are you denying plate tectonics?
@Maws (Part 2 of 2)
Regarding soft tissue in Dinosaurs, you are making a complete fool of yourself. It is not only the blood cells that are in issue, but ANY soft tissue thought to belong to the T-Rex. It doesn’t appear you’ve even read the article that you accused me of not reading. To quote “Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate RED BLOOD CELLS; and…”. Later in the paper she lists what “intravascular microstructures” consist of – “Red blood cells can persist morphologically for thousands of years…and some components of avian red blood cells, possibly shared by dinosaurs, may increase longevity of these structures”
This article http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.abstract from the proceedings of the NAS states “Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex…Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.”
And this article from National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html states “The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue…Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains. ‘The sequences are clearly from T. rex,’ said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
But it doesn’t end there. This is not the only time fresh tissue has been found in supposedly millions of years old samples. DNA was taken from fossil magnolia leaves supposedly 20 million years old. Spores of bacteria found in an allegedly 40 million year old bee in amber actually grew when placed in a medium. Bone marrow has been discovered in fossil frogs and salamanders supposedly 10 million years old. Even FRESH UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in 1987 in Newfoundland which has been identified as the lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur. Bones and tissue in ALL of these examples CANNOT last for tens of millions of years. To believe this, you have to have a faith far greater than any Christian has regarding God. This can only mean these creatures lived recently only thousands of years ago which again supports the accurate eye-witness accounts from the Bible.
While this has still not been brief, refuting your erroneous claims requires evidence, not wild and baseless accusations such as those that you have made.
Part 1
Oh the bollocks you talk. Where to begin? I know, I will deal with the feeble joke of a journal you hold up as a peer reviewed scientific journal. Polonium haloes? Baramins? Really? My personal favourites were the idea that light travels instantly from the source but is then reflected at 1/2c thus giving us the value of c and allowing stars to exist in a 6000 year old universe Nice thought experiment but really really shit science Why would light behave like this? Why would it massively decelerate like this? It also makes you wonder why so many stars are exploding so soon after creation and why did god create colliding galaxies? Then there is the the admission that einstein and maxwells laws etc don't match genesis that we can chuck them out and just blow some stuff out of our arse. But that is nothing compared to the drivel on microbes and how they all turned nasty after the fall. (would that count as evolution BTW?) The reason that they also have to deal with what day did god create microbes just made me piss myself laughing. How to spot the bible writers had no knowledge of the most common lifeform on the planet. Oh, this was hard core science. Were Neanderthals human- yes says AJR because the bible says so-" Let me point out that we creationists can tell, merely from reading our Bible, that some fossils are human and some are not; we do not need statistical analysis to confirm this." Pity statistics and DNA testing say that they are not modern humans. Who peer reviewed this stuff? Even other creationists are sceptical about these claims.
As to Darwin not being reviewed I am intrigued to know why you missed reviews from Richard Owen, Fleeming Jenkins and works such as Ueber die Darwin'sche Schöpfungstheorie; ein Vortrag, von A. Kölliker. Leipzig, 1864.
Examination du Livre de M. Darwin sur l'Origine des Espèces. Par P. Flourens. Paris, 1864. Profs Cope, von Hugo de Vries and kellog also weighed in as did Thomas Huxley. I can find more if you like?
Part 2. Hydroplate theory. Yum. Maximum bullshit for minimum thought. Once again you have failed to say when this happy sack of crap took place so we can look for evidence of this flat earth. An earth that defies logic. Why would you build a planet with a layer of water under rock? A layer of water that would necesitate a massive number of supporting columns to stop the inner core and outer level from spinning at different rates due to the moons drag creating all sorts of stress issues and tidal problems. This planet could never have been hit by the by rocks that bombarded the moon and early earth for obvious reasons. it would also need a huge amount of flex to stop tidal stresses from causing catastrophic failure. Now, the split that formed presents problems for the planet as the water would have a shit load of heat (350 deg C at 10km) that would convert instantly into super sonic steam as it hit the surface. There wouldn't be a flood with residue because the water would be a rapidly expanding cloud of super hot gas. I can explain the maths if you like. The idea of plates moving at 45 miles an hour would be interesting but if there was only one seam they wouldn't move because there is nowhere for them to go. As another question; where was the earth's magma before this? It can't have existed because it regularly finds ways to rise to the surface and this would surely place upward pressure on your outer shell. How come it never breached before god spooled up the flood?
I won't go into why geologists give a face palm over the idea of sediments on the planet being flood related but the chalk cliffs of dover are a good clue. The layers of the planet do not match what the flood theory predicts. and the fossil record certainly doesn't. At this point I expect you will trot out the grand canyon so I will stop you right there and say Google Earth. Look at the track and the extended delta.
The only way that this theory would make sense is if god designed all planets like this. If not then he knew that he would have to flood the earth which makes his surprise at the fall bogus.
part3 My word how long this is getting. The big thing that all the creatards have missed in the paper on the soft tissue is the word demineralised. The tissue etc was soft after it had been demineralised in some nasty solution that undid the fossilistatio. It was not fresh and it was not blood. As to the unfossilised bones you have found another urban myth. The bones were mineralised.
"So far, all recovered bones are highly mineralized and discolored by iron oxide, but they still have differences. Some are relatively light and porous while others are heavy and dense. The differences relate to the amounts of minerals, notably silica, which have replaced what was once living cell matter while additionally filling in bone pores. In some specimens, bone cells and pores have been mostly replaced or filled in by minerals. In others, just cell walls and little else have been mineralized leaving many open pores" Even one of the AinG writers John H. Whitmore acknowledges this in AinG's magazine. Whoops those facts just keep kicking you in the balls.
@Maws (Part 1 of 2)
While I am impressed that you even bothered to look at the journal, your response is simply laughable. It is one of the longest streams of logical fallacies - arguments from incredulity - that I’ve seen in quite some time with lots of condescending and demeaning comments thrown in to boot without a shred of actual evidential rebuttal. I could just as well level the same degree of incredulity at the absolutely ludicrous evolutionary myths which hardly an evolutionist can agree together on, so the bulk of your reply is really not deserving of a response.
However, your comment about believing “because the bible says so” is completely hypocritical (like so many of your comments). For example, Dr Schweitzer who did the research on the T-Rex soft tissue had a hard time getting her work published because it was contrary to evolutionary presuppositions. She said “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said; he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None’”. Apparently, merely because of his religious belief in evolution, he would not change his mind regardless of what evidence is presented. Seems like you’re in the same boat.
And you just don’t seem to get it regarding Darwin and peer review. It is an absolute FACT that Darwin did NOT publish his original work in a peer reviewed journal! Period! That is the point I’m making. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans how much it was discussed after the fact. Publications by creation scientist are constantly peer reviewed afterwards as well (you have apparently just done your own review above). The point is that truth is NOT dictated by whether something is peer reviewed or not. It is either true or it isn’t. The point of peer review is to catch errors by one’s peers, and while I am a very strong supporter of peer review, studies show that only about 1/3 of errors are caught in any peer review process anyway.
@Maws (Part 2 of 2)
So, now on to “Hydroplate theory”. First of all, I said nothing about Hydroplate theory. You were the one that brought it up and if you want to know why God would have built a planet with a layer of water under rock, then why don’t you ask Him? There are plenty of underground sources of water today, so I don’t know why you would have any fundamental problem with the concept anyway. Most of the rest of your response is an amusing bit of imaginative story telling (rather re-telling from evolutionary propaganda sites) that really doesn’t deserve a response. I will say this - magma would have started beneath the earth in the beginning. Were you there thousands of years ago to know exactly when it happened to “breach” the surface? So tell me, when exactly did life form from non-life? Can you give me a date? Life is supposed to be constantly evolving, why did it happen to choose a particular time to be born? Why didn’t it happen before that or after that? Why would Hydroplate theory make sense if God designed all planets like this? Wouldn’t a designer try some different things out? Do all automobiles look the same? When will you end all this hypocrisy and substitute even a tiny bit of sincere search for the truth so we can have a rational discussion?
Lastly, you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the research by Dr Schweitzer on the T-Rex bones. None of us know everything, but you could at least read your own article that you cited and make up your own mind instead of blindly following secondary evolutionist propaganda about it. The solution she placed the bones in is meant to dissolve the mineralization while leaving behind any soft tissue. The mineralized parts did not “change” into soft tissue, it was already there! It WAS “fresh” and it WAS blood as PROVEN by the studies I cited which had absolutely nothing to do with its color. But whoops, those damn facts keep kicking you in the balls. It is about time you swallow your pride and admit you are wrong.
@Maws – Oh, by the way, the yearlong flood occurred approximately 1,656 years after creation which itself was about 6010 years ago, so that would put the date of the flood somewhere between 2300 and 2400 BC.
And here is a link which provides a detailed mathematical proof of catastrophic plate tectonics which for some reason you don’t appear to want to refute and instead pick on Hydroplate theory which I didn’t even mention. The article’s conclusion states – “This mechanism of runaway subduction then appears to satisfy most of the critical requirements imposed by the observational data to successfully account for the Biblical Flood. It leads to a generally correct pattern of large scale tectonic change; it produces flooding of the continents; it causes broad uplifts and downwarpings of craton interiors with intense downwarpings at portions of craton margins to yield the types of sediment distributions observed. It also transports huge volumes of marine sediments to craton edges as ocean floor, in conveyor belt fashion, plunges into the mantle and most of the sediment is scraped off and left behind. It plausibly leads to intense global rain as hot magma erupted in zones of plate divergence, in direct contact with ocean water, creates bubbles of high pressure steam that emerge from the ocean, rise rapidly through the atmosphere, radiate their heat to space, and precipitate their water as rain.”
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_largescaletectonics/
Mary Schweitzer: Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells....I can't make any claims for those structures that appear to be like their modern counterparts until the chemistry reveals whether they are molecular remnants of the original structures, even if altered greatly, or if they are some kind of microbial pseudomorph or even some kind of as yet unknown biogeological process unrelated to structures or molecules produced by the dinosaur itself. If, for example, I were able to isolate those round red structures in the vessel and analyze them separately, and if I were to see any signals that are consistent with heme or hemoglobin, I would be much more likely to believe they are related to the dinosaur cells and proteins. For right now, I am assuming they are not.
I also know that the soft tissue wasn't turned into anything I was ppointing out that it had been mineralised before it demineralised. This would mean that it was not FRESH soft tissue now wouldn't it? Otherwise there would be no need to demineralise the material.
Want to take another run at that one sport? Schweitzer is published and accepted. The peer review system worked as the evidence was rested.
As to your bollocks about when the flood took place the cities of the middle east make a mockery of your claim. Actually all of geology and archeology laughs at you. At this date the indus river civilisation was making pottery and this was not disturbed by a flood. The writings of egypt fail to mention it as their 6th dynasty continued uninterrupted. Mesopotamia is not wiped out and so on and so forth.
I will look at the links and get back to you as far as your mathematical model stuff.
LOL! “The fossil record can mimic many things”? Yeah, how about mimicking evolution? But of course, you hypocritically won’t consider that possibility. For goodness sake, go back and actually check out my links or even read what I have written! Chemical analysis WAS DONE and hemoglobin WAS FOUND (regardless of what the “red structures” are)! I guess with you it’s simply believe what you want to believe and damn the facts again! Ever since Schweitzer published her work, evolutionists have been desperately dashing around in shock trying to cover this up and find alternative explanations because they know full well what the implications of this discovery are. It would not surprise me in the least if they dream something up to explain this away as they have done with any evidence contrary to evolutionary myth. This has nothing to do with peer review; it has everything to do with the imagination of evolutionists! Haven’t papers by creation scientists been peer reviewed and supposedly found full of errors by evolutionists? While I wouldn’t agree with their conclusions, even you would have to agree that the peer review system worked there too if you feel it worked in Schweitzer’s case. So please stop harping about peer review when there is obviously no difference.
You again demonstrate your complete hypocrisy as you have done in nearly every post you have made. You ASSUME that it is not dinosaur soft tissue despite the current evidence, but turn around and insist evolution can produce structures by materialistic chance alone that appear designed even though our observations without exception demonstrate that all designed structures we know can be traced to an intelligent designer. OR that the universe doesn’t require a cause, even though everything in existence we know of requires a cause. OR that evolution created all the species we see today even though that has NEVER been observed. OR…OR…OR…Once again it’s damn the evidence and believe what you want to believe even if it means imagining farfetched exceptions despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
Regarding the date of the flood, you appear to have a short memory. I’ve already pointed out that many archeologists have revised their dates which now coincide with the Bible’s chronology. It is well known, for example, that the written records regarding the timeframes of the dynasties of Egypt have been greatly exaggerated by their ancient authors, which was a common practice back then. Much of ancient chronology is based on these timeframes, so they are clearly unreliable. Sound scientific research shows that all of these ancient cultures arose after the flood just as the Bible describes. You are using a logical fallacy to falsely claim that geology and archaeology are laughing at me. The scientific disciplines of geology and archeology, which clearly support the Biblical accounts, do not laugh. Rather, it is biased evolutionists and atheists like you who choose to laugh despite the evidence. Unfortunately for them (and you), God will always have the last laugh.
Sigh. I like the fact that you thought I said that the fossil record mimics many things and then had a swing. I did not say that Schwietzer did. That was from her being interviewed by Nova. Its a bastard when the person doing the experiment says that. That entire first section is her. No biologist is running around in confusion about this because you idiots have completely missed what she found. She doesn't think it was blood, she thinks it could be the remnants of blood. same with the tissue. I have no problems with it being t rex tissue. I will be interested to see what it reveals. The point is that it wasn't fresh and needed to be treated to restore it. This means that it not proof that a dinosaur was kicking around a few years ago. Read the original.
Archeologists have all adjusted the evidence to hide the flood in a conspiracy with geologists eh? Do you even know how fucking mad you sound when you write this. There is no proof for your flood but bless you for trying to keep your book of fairy tales alive.
@Maws (part 1 of 2)
You are in complete and utter denial. There are on-line videos of Schweitzer as well as her documented work and written quotations which all have her stating unequivocally that this is soft tissue and blood byproducts, which were tested on living lab animals which reacted to it as they would with any ordinary blood. Whether actual blood cells have been found are irrelevant (but certainly a possibility). The FACT is that this is soft tissue that is still in the process of decay in bone that has not completely mineralized. All of the evolutionists that have been involved in this discovery have noticed the rotting stench that comes from the bones indicative of decaying flesh that is unlike any fully mineralized bones. A process was used to separate the soft tissue from the bone. It was not “restored”. This is PROOF that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago unless you want to believe in the fantasy that soft tissue can last that long which is one of the prevailing theories that most evolutionists who accept the facts of this discovery are attempting to promote. Here is another example of believing what you want to believe and damn the facts. In most circles this would be called delusional.
@Maws(part 2 of 2)
Your comment about Archeologists again reveals your utter ignorance of science. No one has “adjusted the evidence”. The same facts and evidence are available to anyone unless evolutionists try to hide it from prying eyes (which they often do) in order to perpetuate their many frauds. The difference lies in how evidence is INTERPRETED. There is no conspiracy. Evidence is often re-interpreted in light of new facts. This is usually highly praised by evolutionists since science is supposed to be “self-correcting”. You also demonstrate your ignorance of science and utter hypocrisy by constantly demanding “proof”. As pointed out many times now, science is utterly incapable of providing proof of ancient one-time historical events. If you think you have “proof” of ancient evolutionary events from our past, I’d like to see it. In the meantime, science can only rely on abductive reasoning and the preponderance of the evidence to identify the “best explanation” from competing hypotheses. There is no scientific proof of the flood, but the evidence points to this being the best explanation by far. You sound just as “mad” to me based on your denial of hard facts and irrational belief in evolutionary fantasy.
Post a Comment