Monday, February 27, 2006

Questions That Creationists Cannot Answer

Who was Cain’s wife? This question was asked to William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial by Charles Darrow. Also, creationists do not know who was Seth’s wife. Creationist Kent Hovind claims that Cain’s and Seth’s wives were their sisters and that God allowed this kind of sexual relationship until Moses.

Did Adam live to 930 years old? How come humans cannot live that long?

What did Adam and Eve look like, what was their colour of their skin, did they have a vertical forehead, large brain and limb bones similar to us?

How old are the fossils that are found by scientists? Is the dating system accurate and if not, do creationists have a better system?

How could a large wooden boat float, would it not be prone to leaks without a steel frame?

How could Adam and Noah be giants and smarter than humans now? There is no evidence given by creationists to suggest that were giants and these humans must have been meat eaters to have big brains and be smarter, creationists believe they were vegetarians.

19 comments:

Chip Crush said...

Who was Cain’s wife? Seth’s wife?

Their sisters, Adam and Eve's other children, as the Bible explains. Creationist Kent Hovind claims that Cain’s and Seth’s wives were their sisters and that God allowed this kind of sexual relationship until Moses, which is true, according to the Bible. It's not merely Hovind's claim. It's the claim of the Word of God.

Did Adam live to 930 years old? Yes. The Bible says so.

How come humans cannot live that long?
The post-flood world is quite different than the pre-flood world. God has since limited the age of man to 120 years, according to Scripture. I'd be glad to explain this further on my blog, http://biblicalglasses.blogspot.com, perhaps tomorrow.

What did Adam and Eve look like, what was their colour of their skin, did they have a vertical forehead, large brain and limb bones similar to us?

We aren't given much about their appearance in Scripture. Most likely, based on "observable" biology and genetics, we can speculate that they had brown skin and brown hair, favorable for offspring with black or blond hair and black or white skin.

How old are the fossils that are found by scientists? Is the dating system accurate and if not, do creationists have a better system?

These 2 questions go together. Check out information on the RATE Project by ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.

How could a large wooden boat float, would it not be prone to leaks without a steel frame?

Do wooden boats not float? Tar and pitch provide excellent sealants. I happen to know an "ark expert" that I could put you in contact with. He works for AIG, Answers in Genesis.

How could Adam and Noah be giants and smarter than humans now?

Genesis 1:30 tells us that every green plant was given for food to Adam and Eve, and the animals for that matter. Once sin entered the world, via the poor choice of Adam and Eve, corruption and chaos ensued. Unauthorized meat-eating probably took place among the animals, and perhaps even among mankind. It was not until God's permission in Genesis 9:3, that mankind was allowed to eat meat in addition to plants.

Much more could, and probably should be said....Maybe tomorrow.

Corey said...

So if God allowed incest, did God allow homosexuality too?

The Bible states that Adam lived 930 years but that does not make it true. In Letivicus 11, it states that rabbits chew cud and grasshopper have four legs.

If genetics can give only black or white skin and black and blond hair, then how do people have Asian
and Arabic skin and red and brown hair?

The RATE Project, according to Talk Origins.com, ICR is wrong about their data.

According to Discovery Channel's Noah's Ark: The True Story, the ark would not float without a steel frame according to
independent boat building experts. Talk Origins also says that a large wooden boat would not float because wood is not strong enough.
I would like to see them build a boat according the specifications of the Bible.

Eating meat increases brain size along with other evolution facts can be found from the Discovery
Channel's "A Species' Odyssey."

THE TRUTH HURTS.

Chip Crush said...

"So if God allowed incest, did God allow homosexuality too?"

No. But I can assure you that it happened. Sin happened, and that's why Jesus Christ came into the world.

"The Bible states that Adam lived 930 years but that does not make it true. In Letivicus 11, it states that rabbits chew cud and grasshopper have four legs."

The Hebrew words translated as rabbit and grasshopper are difficult to translate into English. The reality is that we don't know exactly what animal or insect the Hebrew word means. The English translators use the word that best fits with the Hebrew context. You'll notice in many footnotes that rabbit could also be rock badger or unidentified animal, and grasshopper could also be locust or unidentified insect.

"If genetics can give only black or white skin and black and blond hair, then how do people have Asian
and Arabic skin and red and brown hair?"

I didn't say that ONLY black or blond hair or skin could be obtained from parents with brown hair or skin. It's a range of tones based on the amount of melanin, which is a genetically inherited trait. Furthermore, when 2 humans reproduce, has anyone ever observed a non-human offspring? Of course not! It's impossible. Sure, you get a different mix of genes that either of the parents, due to basic biological principles (a basic punnett square can show this), but you still get a human.

"The RATE Project, according to Talk Origins.com, ICR is wrong about their data. According to Discovery Channel's Noah's Ark: The True Story, the ark would not float without a steel frame according to independent boat building experts. Talk Origins also says that a large wooden boat would not float because wood is not strong enough."

And here, the truth does hurt. What we have is a dilemma. It appears that both me and Corey are basing our understanding on FAITH!
He believes Talk Origins.com and the Discovery Channel. I believe the unchanging and infallible Word of God. Perhaps before engaging in a debate on creation/evolution, we should have a more philosophical discussion on TRUTH and whether there is objective absolute truth or not and how it is determined and whether the Bible has any validity, based on manuscript evidence, archaeologicial finds, fulfilled prophecy, and the changed lives of millions of individuals around the world. Let's see what the evidence really says.

"I would like to see them build a boat according the specifications of the Bible."

Perhaps you will get that chance! As I mentioned, my ark expert friend working with Answers in Genesis is producing a replica of the ark at 30% scale. He happens to be at the AIG - Australia office, but the project is for phase 2 of the Creation Museum, which is located in Hebron, KY. I'll fly you into the Cincinnati airport at my cost, if you'd be willing to spend the day with me at the AIG headquarters and museum.

Corey said...

Chip Crush, you seem to believe evolution says humans were born a from a non-human. That is incorrect. Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Australopithecines are our human ancestors. If these are not our ancestors, what are they? We did not evolve from gorillas or chimpanzees.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool. We are now bigger and smarter than our ancestors.

What animals chew cud? Cattle, not rabbits, rock badgers or any similar animal. Insects have six legs, not four. Further reading from Talk Origins suggest Eric Hildeman's Creationism: The Bible Says No!.

I have information from credible sources, Talk Origins, Discovery Channel, Britannica, etc. Chip Crush has faith from the Bible and AiG and ICR. Remember if man and his works can be fallible and the Bible was written by man, then the Bible can be fallible.

According to AiG's web site, the museum will not be fully open until 2007. But I want to see a republica built at 100% scale. How long has it taken for them to built a 30% scale boat? Certainly longer than the seven days that it Noah took. If they are doing this, they should be reporting it to the mainstream media.

Corey said...

According to
Paradigm Angst
:
Tar would not have had the integraty to withstand 40+ thousand MT of displacement. The water would have come right through as though the tar wasn't even there.

Chip Crush said...

I wonder where you think Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Australopithecines came from? Did God make them? Or did they evolve from non-human beings? No "class" or "order" of creature evolved from a different "class" or "order." The Biblical "kind" prohibits that. It is likely that the Biblical "kind" is similar to what we might call "Genus" or even "Family." But evolution requires much more than Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The bottom-line in darwinian or atheistic evolutionary theory is that non-life had to bring about life, that something comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.

Check out the following link regarding animals chewing their cud, confirmed by non-creationist scientists:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

Here's a fun page that uses OBSERVABLE scientific evidence to show tha evolution is a fairy tale.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

Noah had between 70-120 years to build the ark, not seven days... Seven days refers to the loading of the completed ark.

Once again, there is plenty of counter-evidence to Corey's claims. Here is an excellent resource on the feasibility of the ark: http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-3-078

And, if as likely, you don't want to buy the book, here's a summary article of many points which you try to refute: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp

And for time's sake, here's one final ark article regarding the pitch / tar concerns that Corey mentions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v7/i1/noah.asp

I'd love to continue this discussion. And we could provide evidence upon so-called evidence and article upon article. I'd like you to admit that, since neither you or I were there to experience "the beginning" or the flood, and that there is no method of observational science that can be used to repeat either of these events, that our understanding of said events is based on faith.

And while my faith is based on the Word of God, written by God Himself through the Holy Spirit's inspiration of men He chose between 1900 and 3500 years ago, your faith is based on biased media from the last 40 years. Thus we ought first to look at the validity of the Biblical text to see if I have any ground on which to stand. It is quite simple, as I'm sure you'd agree, to show that modern media changes its mind and its stories quite frequently. The Word of God, though living and active, never changes and will never pass away.

By the way, I'm curious to know your thoughts on your faith. If evolution is true, then your thoughts (and mine too) are merely and solely based on based on random chemical reactions in the brain. There is no meaning to our thoughts and thus, we cannot be sure that they are right or wrong. In fact, right and wrong have no meaning if evolution is true, but are only created by the evolved culture to suit that culture's perceived needs. These needs are merely perceived, because there are no real needs since everything is based on random chance anyway.
And it is here that we see how ironically right on your blog title is: The truth hurts. Evolution brings meaninglessness. Nothing matters. Really. Sometimes we say, "It doesn't matter." But we really don't mean that. If evolution is true, then the only truth is that nothing matters. Your culturally leftist and liberal thoughts on homosexuality, abortion, whatever, don't matter. You can't be correct about anything, because there is no truth. What do you think? Does it matter? Why?

Corey said...

Darwinian and atheistcism says humans came from nothing? The Bible says God created Adam from dust (Genesis 2:7). By the way, where did God come from, nothing?

Rabbits do not bring up anything or "chew the cud"; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate. - Talk Origins

If evolution is a fairy tale, the what is the story of Noah's Ark and the Creation? They are both based on Babylonian stories (Gilgamesh).

Your resource on the feasibility of the ark is ten years old and is not from an independent source. The book lacks an index and has an estimated 1400 references.

Also, the phrases "could be" and "might be" appear often. Snails are not among the animals on the Ark, yet snails are used for food (pg 101). Earthworms are not on the Ark, but are used as the agent for decomposing and handling solid waste (pg 34-5).
More can be found at Talk Origins.

Last night, by some divine inspiration, or maybe by chance, the TLC tv programs on The Mysteries Of Noah's Ark and Noah's Ark: The True Story. I would suggesting watching these as they are informative.

You want evidence for the fossil record and evolution, go look up it in an encyclopedia. Look for creationism in an encyclopedia, says it is an alternative to evolution. No evidence, no facts, no proof.

All observation requires interpretation. Evidence consists of certain trilobite species found in certain geological formations,
many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere, bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time and flies share some traits that other insects do not. The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence, they deny that it is evidence for evolution.

Calling the media is biased is name calling is why AiG and creationists are not considered credible.

The fact remains without the Bible, you would not will able to think for youself and your life would be meaningless. My beliefs and knowledge are based on my own logic and conclusions and they can change.

What is considered wrong and right can change. God allowed incest but, for some reason, decided to repeal it. God allowed polygamy until Jesus. Yet, there are many religions such as Islam and the orthodox Latter-Day Saints who practice polygamy. The governments have no problem and it seems God has no problem. Recently, Canada allowed same-sex marriages. Many opponents prayed to God to stop it from happening. God did not listen.

The truth is that for everytime you argue with me, I will find a way to refute it. That is why it hurts.

Chip Crush said...

As I said, we could go back and forth like this until we die. AIG says this, but Talk Origins says that. ICR says that, but The Dsicovery channel says this. The Bible says this, but my own intellect says that. We need to get deeper. Let's go beyond these arguments and find a place we can agree and start there.

Since you have never seen life come from non-life or experienced a creature (notice the word "creature" yields the definition of "something created") of a given genus or species producing offspring of a different genus or species, would you agree that your thoughts on macro-evolution are based on faith?

If you can agree with that, then we have a starting place to work from. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. I'll check back occasionally and certainly invite you to read my blog, which will contain the text from my book, Biblical Glasses, and much more regarding pre-suppositional worldview analysis, evidence for the validity and authority of the Bible, and the facts on the creation / evolution debate. Looking forward to our chat.

Corey said...

Macroevolution is not based on faith. It is based on evidence and obsevation we see from micro-evolution. More information can be found on Talk Origins or you can look it up in encyclopedia.

Apparently, you agree with me that Bible is wrong with rabbits chewing and insects that have four legs or you would discuss the matter further. You agree that they were creation and flood stories before the Biblical accounts. You seem to acknowldege that there are problems with Noah's ark and its pitch.

There are more problems with the ark. Let's take AiG's attempt building the ark as example. It is being built 30% to scale. Where you get the 70-120 years Noah took to build the ark and why such a range, I do not know, but let us use it.

Noah's ark was 450 ft. long so AiG's would be 135 ft. If it took Noah 70-120 years to build, then it will take AiG 21-36 years to build. But, there were eight people building the ark. So, if there are 40 people working on AiG's, the length would take 5 1/4 to 9 years. That number would be cut if only Noah and his sons built the ark and/or more worked on AiG's.

It took Noah seven days to get everything on the ark. So, at 30% scale, it should take AiG just over 2 days. But, with 40 people loading the ark, it would take about half a day.

Plus, AiG's ark must be able to float on open water with the weight onboard. Also, your reference that God would make man's days 120 years is false since Noah's relatives would live beyond 120 years. According to Guinness, two people have lived over 120 in the last 50 years. Shigechiyo Izumi lived 120 years and 237 years and Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days.

I will be writing a blog entry on the Noah's ark videos that I have mentioned above.

Corey said...

I made amistake in my calculations. However, it is not for AiG. The 40 to 8 difference is 20% not 25%. So, it would take AiG 4.2 to 7.2 years to build the ark and less than a day to load the ark at 30% scale and with 40 people working on it.

Chip Crush said...

Corey said...
"Macro-evolution is not based on faith. It is based on evidence and obsevation we see from micro-evolution."

It is based on... In other words, "Because we observe that black dogs can re-produce and have yellow dogs as offspring, we therefore conclude that sometime in the distant past, non-dogs reproduced and had dogs as offspring. Furthermore, we might as well say that non-life became life, since we've seen that variations within a kind are reality." Nice.

Corey said...
"Apparently, you agree with me that Bible is wrong with rabbits chewing and insects that have four legs or you would discuss the matter further."

I didn't have time on Friday for a lengthy discussion; that doesn't mean I agree with your statement. In fact, that's another example of your being quick to judge without knowing ALL the facts. You'll never know ALL the facts, especially from observational science, and that's why there's faith involved in any belief regarding origins. Anyway, here's a reasonable explanation for the cud chewing:

"Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants- (a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an 'even-toed animal that regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing.' This means that a cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-swallow it so that it can digest it as well.

Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."

Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm

"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. The Pentateuch, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing' as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare, fits here fine.

Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher education.

And the same thing is true for the insect concern that you have. The english translation is difficult here. Literally, the greek text is along this line: "Every teeming, winged creature, creeping on four, are abomination to you."

The understanding here should be all creatures with wings and creeping along the ground, not a restriction to animals which have exactly four feet, but an inclusion of "creeping things" that have more than that number. The prohibition is regarded generally as extending to many insects, birds, and worms. While, the New Living Translation is not my favorite across the board, it does translate accurately here in a meaning-for-meaning sense: "You are to consider detestable all swarming insects that walk along the ground."

Moving on, science has not proven evolution to be true. The origin of life is not testable and repeatable like the refraction of light or a chemical reaction. In studying the basic question that evolution attempts to answer, "where did life come from", we see that there is no sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating a living cell. As geologists uncover the true atmosphere of a primitive earth, molecular biologists find that generating amino acids - which produce the proteins needed in all cells for life - becomes incredibly difficult. Further, many scientists see signs that oxygen would have been present in the early atmosphere which would destroy any biological chain reaction creating life. In fact, there is no agreed upon model in the scientific community on how cells did come to be. Scientists who hold to one theory easily point to obvious flaws in a competing model and visa-versa.

Darwinism is not an empirical science, but a historical theory based on the interpretation of evidence by biased individuals. Darwin himself interpreted the evidence with presuppositions in place. He saw the differences between his own high-social class white brethren and the negroes of Africa. Because he noticed that his "kind" were "smarter" and "better-off," he thought the reason for this was found in his theory of evolution. So the motive for Darwin's theory was not observational science, but rather observational racism.

And, hey, for your benefit, I'll move slowly. Let's forget about AIG and ICR for now. What about the statements and seessments and questions of non-creationist scientists? Read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Here is a link to a PDF file with scores of evolutionist quotes that question evolution: http://www.evidenceofgod.com/append.PDF#search='evolutionist%20quotes'

And finally, in this regard, here is the logic of evolutionists in defending their ideology:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Theory of Evolution. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
-- Austin Institute of Genetics Guidelines for Editorial Reviewers

In other words, they've already decided what the "truth" is. This paragraph says that they will ignore any evidence against evolution, no matter how compelling, on purely ideological grounds.

The Bible speaks directly to this in Romans 1 and 2 Peter 3.

Corey said...
"You agree that they were creation and flood stories before the Biblical accounts."

YES! We have common ground! And this is great news. Apparently, Corey believes that the Gilgamesh Epic is reliable and authentic, predating Moses. Wonderful, as this too is based on faith. Neither Corey nor myself knew Gilgamesh or Utnapishtim, who built the boat in the Epic account. Neither Corey nor myself were present at the event. Neither Corey nor myself were around when the tablets were written (650 BC) or found (1853). Yet he and I both believe noth the tablets and the account are authentic. Here are some details:

In 1853, the archaeologist Austen Henry Layard and his team were excavating the palace library of the ancient Assyrian capital Nineveh. Among their finds were a series of 12 tablets of a great epic. The tablets dated from about 650 BC, but the poem was much older. The hero, Gilgamesh, according to the Sumerian King List, was a king of the first dynasty of Uruk who reigned for 126 years. However, in the legend, Gilgamesh is 2/3 divine and 1/3 mortal. He has enormous intelligence and strength, but oppresses his people. The people call upon the gods, and the sky-god Anu, the chief god of the city, makes a wild man called Enkidu with enough strength to match Gilgamesh. Eventually the two fight, but neither can win. Their enmity becomes mutual respect then devoted friendship. The two new friends set off on adventures together, but eventually the gods kill Enkidu. Gilgamesh grievously mourns his friend, and realises that he too must eventually die. However, he learns of one who became immortal—Utnapishtim, the survivor of a global Flood. Gilgamesh travels across the sea to find Utnapishtim, who tells of his remarkable life. In reality, it was Utnapishtim’s flood, told in the 11th tablet. The council of the gods decided to flood the whole earth to destroy mankind. But Ea, the god who made man, warned Utnapishtim, from Shuruppak, a city on the banks of the Euphrates, and told him to build an enormous boat. Utnapishtim sealed his ark with pitch, took all the kinds of vertebrate animals, and his family members, plus some other humans. Shamash the sun god showered down loaves of bread and rained down wheat. Then the flood came. Then the ark lodged on Mt Nisir (or Nimush), almost 500 km (300 miles) from Mt Ararat. Utnapishtim sent out a dove then a swallow, but neither could find land, so returned. Then he sent out a raven, which didn’t return. So he released the animals and sacrificed a sheep. Then Enlil saw the ark and was enraged that some humans had survived. But Ea sternly rebuked Enlil for overkill in bringing the flood. Whereupon Enlil granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, and sent them to live far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers. Here is where Gilgamesh found him, and heard the remarkable story. First Utnapishtim tested Gilgamesh’s worthiness for immortality by challenging him to stay awake for 7 nights. But Gilgamesh was too exhausted and quickly fell asleep. Utnapishtim asked his wife to bake a loaf of bread and place it by Gilgamesh every day he slept. When Gilgamesh awoke, he thought he had just been asleep for a moment. But Utnapishtim showed Gilgamesh the loaves at different stages of aging, showing that he had been asleep for days. Gilgamesh once more lamented about his inevitable death, and Utnapishtim took pity on him. So he revealed where he could find a plant of immortality. This was a thorny plant in the domain of Apsu, the god of the subterranean sweet water. Gilgamesh opened a conduit to the Apsu, tied heavy stones to his ankle, sunk deep down, and grabbed the plant. Although the plant pricked him, he cut off the stones, and rose. Unfortunately, on the return journey, Gilgamesh stopped at a cool spring to bathe, and a snake carried off the plant. Gilgamesh wept bitterly, because he could not return to the underground waters.

Without continuing, those of you familiar with the Biblical account can see the similarities. There are vast differences as well. And the logic of Noah (ie, sending a dove, which doesn't eat carrion, last instead of a raven, which does eat carrion) goes a long way to show that the Biblical account is the actual account of history, and the Gilgamesh account developed afterward, from an ungodly descendant of Noah.

I'll post today at my sight, http://biblicalglasses.blogspot.com, images displaying the reality of the Biblical account, and the multitude of pagan flood accounts compared to the Biblical account. And there should be an account of the flood in every culture, because all cultures have ancestors that actually experienced it. All people groups came from survivors (Noah's family), who kept memories of this cataclysm.

Because I've got to run, I
d like to make a final comment to show that you are basing your claims on faith, rather than on observational science.

Corey said...
"Your reference that God would make man's days 120 years is false since Noah's relatives would live beyond 120 years. According to Guinness, two people have lived over 120 in the last 50 years. Shigechiyo Izumi lived 120 years and 237 years and Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days."

Psalm 90:10 says, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." When the psalmist wrote this verse, he declared that man’s average lifespan was 70-80 years. Today, 3000 years later, we find that our average life span is essentially the same! It is sobering to realize that despite all the money spent recently on biomedical research, we have not increased our lifespan. While our average lifespan in America is 70–80 years, the maximum human lifespan, which very few reach, is 120 years. It has been estimated that if medical science could eliminate the three major causes of death—heart disease, cancer, and stroke—we still would not exceed this maximum lifespan (though the average lifespan would increase). By the time we approach 120 years, our body reaches certain internal limits that operate independently of known disease processes.

There are several scientific theories of aging that may explain the termination of life at some fixed limit. One theory is that the cells of our body can only divide a certain number of times (about 20), after which death results from our inability to replace our cells. Another theory relates to our ability to repair DNA that is damaged through spontaneous mutations. All living things have a complex DNA repair mechanism that identifies mutations as they occur, cuts out the damaged part and replaces it with a correct patch. It is believed that the lifespan of all living things is limited by the efficiency of their DNA repair.

Genesis tells us that man was originally created to live forever, and that death came into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Adam’s death was not instantaneous (he lived to be 930 years old); rather, death is a dying process which, since Adam, begins at birth. Before the Flood of Noah’s day, most of the patriarchs lived to be over 900 years old; but after the Flood, there was a steady decline in lifespan until about 2000 BC, where we find that Jacob’s son, Joseph, lived to be 110. So God's decree that man's lifespan should be 120 years took some time to be realized, as the climate changes as a result of the flood took their toll on the survivors.

Corey is relying on the Guinness Book of World Records, which is relying on some human testimony as to the age of 2 individuals. He did not know these people. He was not present at their birth or death. He has faith that Guiness is right. And that is my point. He believes in something that he has not observed or experienced.

Corey said...

So, by your logic, evolution and Darwinism should be taught in religious class instead of science Since you have not experienced or observed creationism than it should not be taught in science classes.

Your point about Darwinism being racism is flawed. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Racism was prevalent before Darwinism was created. Most Englishmen of that time were racist to Africans. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism.

Bible literalists believe that Ham's ancestors, the Africans, were punished for when Ham covered a drunk Noah. Henry Morris had in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

As far as Noah's ark is concerned, I believe that there may have been an actual event that the flood stories are based on, but not the Biblical account. To see more visit my post on Noah's Ark: Fact Or Fiction.

Chip Crush said...

Corey said...
"So, by your logic, evolution and Darwinism should be taught in religious class instead of science Since you have not experienced or observed creationism than it should not be taught in science classes."

Both should be taught! That's what education means. "To provide information." An additional definition of education shows the bias with which it takes place today: "To persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way."

The first definition is basically this: Have teachers explain the different schools of thought (Young-Earth Creation / Progressive Creation / Theistic Evolution / Darwinian Evolution / Intelligent Design), and then discuss the evidence or lack there of for each from an unbiased standpoint.

When I teach on Calvinism / Arminianism, I simply explain what people in the past have believed (mainly Calvinism and that Arminianism was essentially heretical), and then I go to Scripture to show what passages and verses and contexts each position typically uses to bold uphold itself and refute the opposition. Though I know which is true to Biblical interpretation, I leave it to the class to find the truth. That's how they learn. The same is true for science. Show them what people have believed in the past, including all the falacies which have since been disproven by observational science. Then explain to them how to test and determine what is true using chemisty, physics, biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. Then let them interpret the evidence using the methods whereby you taught them how to do it. Don't just give them so-called "facts" to memorize. Teach them to bring it out themselves.

Darwin was racist. I'm not saying that others, even Christians, have not been racist. I'm not saying that it's right. In fact, as you'd imagine, I completely agree that, as genetic studies show, humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Why is this "remarkable" to you? It's exactly what the Bible teaches. It's "remarkable" to you because Darwinian evolution would not expect that.

I agree with Morris' comment on the descendants of Noah. There is punishment for sin. There's no surprise that the Hamites suffered for many generations as a result of the sin of their ancestor. That's why we all need Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Even though at this point you are strongly against the Biblical account, that you believe an actual flood occured is still based on faith. It's based on faith that the interpretors of the evidence you prefer to uphold your presuppositions are correct in their interpretation.

Just as I said above regarding education, we are products of our education. I was raised in schools where darwinian evolution was taught as fact and creationism was never mentioned. I attended a public university where the geology professor demanded that religious bias must be set aside. I had no problem with that, since I was not yet a Christian. But when confronted with an alternative view, just having questions asked of me was enough to cause me to ask questions of my educational background. Were my teachers biased? Was their interpretation of the evidence biased? Were they making efforts to teach me only what they thought, rather than help me learn much more by studying all the angles? Of course they were! That's what they had been taught to do. So when we back up and look at it without presuppositions, we can, God willing, see the truth.

Corey said...

There is a difference between science, theology and philosophy. Science is a branch of knowledge involving systemic observation, experiment and induction such as bilology, chemistry, and geology. Theology is the sutdy of religion, Christianity, Judism and Islam. Philosophy is the study of reason and knowledge, Calvinism, Confucianism and Humanism.

Do you use non-Christian information in your teachings? If not, then you are conditioning your students to think in the same way you do.

When you say "evolution is just at theory," you mean "evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." But AiG says the word ‘theory’ is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

What claim do you have that Darwin was a racist? The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions. See Darwin on race and slavery.

In the end, I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine, when we have been conditioned to think the way we do. Only when one finds out that their presuppositions and interpretations are wrong, they will change their views.

Chip Crush said...

Corey said...
"In the end, I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine, when we have been conditioned to think the way we do. Only when one finds out that their presuppositions and interpretations are wrong, they will change their views."

It is interesting that you come from a Bible background and have turned away from it, and I have come from a non-Bible background and turned to it. We both determined that our presuppositions were wrong in a science class. Both of us were influenced by teachers.

I'll leave you with this summary of evolution:

Molecules-to-man evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes.

A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

Also, natural selection by definition is the survival of the fittest, meaning those who leave the most surviving offspring. Therefore it requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So it is powerless to explain the origin of the vast quantities of information of the first self-reproducing cell.

For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful—thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects. At best they may be neutral—having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now attacking’, which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not attacking’. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.

This is not surprising—an analogy: new computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams.

However, evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

Are there ‘good’ mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such ‘good’ mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher—they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

For example, a particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is lost or scrambled in some way.

The damaged gene (a gene is like a long ‘sentence’ carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA) is then going to be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to their offspring, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by ‘survival of the fittest’ before it can leave offspring. Such so-called ‘natural selection’ can help to eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.

However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new ‘wingless’ variety survive, which have therefore been ‘naturally selected’.

‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favourable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.

To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned.

Similarly, many animals in caves are blind, with shrivelled eyes. A mutation causing shrivelling of the eye and loss of sight would not harm the individual in a cave with no light to see by anyway. And it would even be beneficial, since there is less chance of injuring a delicate eyeball. But in the light, such blind mutants would be eliminated by natural selection.

Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population, as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity.

Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene’s loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less ‘fit’ because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.

Another common cause of antibiotic resistance is mutational defects which hinder the bacterium’s ability to transport substances through its cell membrane. Such a defect means that the antibiotic is less readily absorbed, so it is less likely to kill the bacterium. But in the wild, it would be unable to compete with bacteria with properly working cell membrane pumps which take up nutrients into the cell.

Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria ‘after their kind’, not a different type of creature.

Viruses are sometimes said to ‘evolve’, but what really happens is that mutations cause the changes to their protein coats. There is no increase in complexity, but sometimes the changes mean that antibodies do not recognise them. So the viruses are ‘fitter’, but there is still no increase in information.

A similar case is a recent discovery that some antibiotic-resistant bacteria have abnormally high mutation rates. This is caused by a mutation in the genes for the sophisticated genetic proof-reading mechanisms present in all life. This means there is more chance of errors not being corrected. Sometimes one of these defects happens to result in antibiotic resistance, as explained above.

Peppered moths and breeding
One common fallacy promoted by evolutionists is that variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and the Galàpagos finches, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution, since not new information has arisen. Given a pre-existing gene pool, different combinations of the genes arise through sexual reproduction and some of those may be better able to survive. So natural selection can account for the formation of different varieties, but cannot account for the origin of moths or finches. With the peppered moths, even were we to grant the truth of the story, all it would show is that natural selection changed the ratios of black and peppered forms. They were already present in the population, so nothing new was produced. And more recently, the whole story has been shown to be based on faked photos of moths glued on to tree trunks—the moths almost never rest there in real life.

It’s also important to note that rapid speciation, involving no gain of genetic information, is in fact a prediction of the creation model. It explains how many varieties could arise from comparatively few ‘kinds’ on board the Ark.

The different breeds of cattle and dogs are quite consistent with creation of separate types—e.g. a canine kind and a bovine kind, with large amounts of information. Man chose the animals with the characteristics he wanted, and bred from them. Thus the information for certain desired characteristics was concentrated in smaller selected populations. But the resulting breeds have all lost the information for the characteristics not wanted by man. Therefore, these breeds have less information than the wild type, so again the change is not of the right sort for molecules-to-man evolution. And they are still cattle and dogs, not different types of creature.

Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’—to add new information.

The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t effectively change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt information.

The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

The examples commonly cited as ‘evolution happening today’ usually involving adaptation by natural selection, are without exception instances in which the net result is a loss of information in the population—either by mutation or by way of reduced genetic variety.

All of our real-world experience, especially in the ‘information age’, would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking by ‘true believers’, not science.

Corey said...

Since you did not provide references from your last post, a poor example of someone who is a teacher and an author, I will provide you evidence and references to show evolution is real.

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Evidence of evolution

Mutations
and random mutation.

Photos showing peppered moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. The photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.

How did one kind of dog transform into hundreds of kinds of dogs in only about four thousand years? You are assuming without providing any evidence. If kinds are distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. According to Morris, fungi were not part of the original creation. They were not among the categories listed in Genesis 1, and as decayers they would not have their form until after the Fall. Thus, Morris's own theology requires new kinds to originate after the creation.

Only in time, when you take the time to look at the evidence will you see how the real world works.

Chip Crush said...

Once again, time prohibited me from leaving you with sources. My book contains citations from Science, as well as other evolutionist-biased journals, magazines, and websites. But the last comment with which I replied came from AIG. Specifically, the site was: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp.

I don't for a minute deny the reality of natural selection. That's observed on a daily basis. It doesn't help the theory of evolution, though, as "favourable" traits are not really favourable for evolution, only for specialization, as the peppered moth example demonstrates. The study shows how spotted moths were naturally selected to thrive in a region where trees had moss to camouflage them from predators. The black moths in that region were selected out, because they were not camouflaged from predators. In other words, the black moths died and the spotted moths survived on account of their environment. However, in a different region of the country, the black moths thrived, because the trees had no moss. The black moths blended in with their environment, and predators had a difficult time finding them. In that same region, the spotted moths were selected out, because they were easily recognizable to their predators. This simple example in no way helps prove evolution. It supports creation, as the variations in the moths better suit them to fill the whole earth according to God’s will. Moths of different colors and styles can thrive throughout the world, not just where the trees have or lack moss.

Next...Your "evidence for evolution" is based on fossils, similarities between kinds, mutations, and the false extrapolation from "micro-evolution" to "macro-evolution."

Can something come from nothing all by itself? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the male or the female? We could ask all sorts of questions like these. Remember, science is knowledge that comes from observing and testing. Science has never observed life forming "naturally" from non-life. Evolutionists say all the matter in the universe was densely packed into a tiny dot smaller than the size of an atom; they are strangely silent when asked about the origin of all this matter...

"The central question is whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." - Quote from Evolutionist Roger Lewin admitting that variation occurs, but that variation does not cause evolution. Quote from "Science" vol. 210, Nov 21, 1980 pg. 883 (source RQB).

This is just one of THOUSANDS of quotes from evolutionists and atheists that occasionally slip-up and admit the truth.

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution." - Tom Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s, February 1985, p. 61.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?" —Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it." —H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138

Dr Lee Spetner, a scientist and teacher at Johns Hopkins University speaks of the lack of new information produced by mutations. In his book: "Not by Chance" he writes: "...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information." He goes on to say that upon closer more in depth investigation: "all point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." This is exactly opposite of what evolutionists claim. They claim that mutations caused single celled organisms to evolve into people.

Some Evolutionists like Pierre-Paul Grasse are starting to see this flaw in their theory. Grasse is on record as saying: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Mutations may cause a sheep to have a 5th leg. But this is not evolution. The sheep already had legs. This is just a mistake that occurred caused by a mutation. Mutations will not allow a sheep to grow wings and evolve into a bird. A sheep does not have, and cannot produce the necessary genetic information to produce a wing. Mutations only corrupt the information already present. Leaving the organism with less genetic information, and a lower chance of survival.

The fossil record is probably the biggest extra-Biblical advocate of creation and opposition to evolution. Where should I even begin?

The Nature of the Fossil Record.
95% of the fossils (by number) consist of shallow marine organisms (e.g. corals, shellfish). Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils (including the coal) and all the other invertebrate fossils (e.g. insects). 5% of the 5% (or 0.25% of the entire fossil record) are the vertebrate fossils (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). Only 1% of this 0.25% (or 0.0025% of the entire fossil record) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! (e.g. there are only about 2,100 dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums.) Kurt Wise, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” ICR lecture.

Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., "Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin," Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

But Charles Darwin, recognizing the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish, wrote: "No organism wholly soft can be preserved." The Origin of Species, p. 330. And more recently, Stephen Jay Gould on the same topic: "...preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion. ... But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places." Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989), pp 61–62.

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." David S. Woodruff, "Evolution: The Paleobiological View," Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” [emphasis in original] Hitching, p. 19.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.

“At any rate, almost everything in Hawking’s book is based on his fertile imagination and logical speculation, with almost no visible evidence or proof. This appears to differentiate his work from fiction, which is almost always based on obvious, demonstrable fact. In another way, however, physics is a lot like fiction or income tax calculating, in that when there is a conflict between the world and an intellectual construct, the author adjusts the world to fit an imagined plot.” Roger L. Welsch, “Astrophys Ed”, Natural History, February 1994, pp. 24, 25

“Take black matter, for example. As fate would have it, the most recent and popular theories in physics just don’t work. It’s not as if there are some loose threads around the edges; the theories don’t work at all. If they did, the universe would instantaneously fall in on itself or fly apart. Now those of us who are not astrophysicists would probably do something like discard the theories. Not astrophysicists. They readjust the uncooperative universe to fit their theories, postulating a gigantic quantity of invisible gravity-producing stuff they call black matter, even though it’s not black and maybe not even matter. And there you are. Just like that, the modern, popular theories are back in business. I can imagine that readers new to physics and its way of doing things might be skeptical, but those of us who are higher up in the world of science feel nothing but anticipation in all this theorizing. It could, after all, be a step toward a newer and even sillier putty.” Roger L. Welsch, “Astrophys Ed”, Natural History, February 1994, p. 25

“The secrets of evolution are time and death. Time for the slow accumulations of favorable mutations, and death to make room for new species.” Carl Sagan, “Cosmos”, program entitled “One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue.”

“Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
“In seeking to understand why the Haeckelian view persisted so long, we have also to consider the alternatives. We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view.”

Keith Stewart Thomson, “Marginalia Ontogeny and phylogeny recapitulated”, American Scientist Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 274

“From historic Newberry, Michigan, comes more evidence in support of the Big Bang theory of creation. On July 12, an abandoned ranger headquarters at Tahquamenon Falls State Park blew sky-high, sending debris a hundred feet into the atmosphere and alarming campers fourteen miles away. The explosion now has been traced to bat manure that for decades had been generating methane gas until in mid-July it became highly volatile and—kaboom!
Scientists believe that a similar cataclysm eight million years ago gave us the beginnings of the universe, though even scientists cannot account for those early bats, and for those of a religious disposition a world created by bat dung is too depressing to contemplate.” “The American Spectator”, Sept. 1993, pp. 8,9

“In May, biology professor George Hunt of the University of California-Irvine led a field trip to the Channel Islands near Oxnard, Calif., where he had originally spotted what he called ‘lesbian sea gulls’ in the 1970’s. Hunt had reported then that 14 percent of the 1,200 gull pairs he studied were lesbian. He admitted that he cannot tell males and females apart, but inferred because of the larger number of eggs in some nests that the hatching pair of gulls on those nests were both female.” Chuck Shepherd, News of the Weird, The Salt Lake Tribune, October 24, 1993

“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), p. 205

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” Isaac Asimov, “Free Inquiry”, Spring 1982, vol. 2 no. 2, p. 9

“Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.” J. Shreeve, “Argument over a woman”, 1990, Discover, Vol. 11 (8), p. 58

“Imaginations run riot in conjuring up an image of our most ancient ancestor—the creature that gave rise to both apes and humans. This ancestor is not apparent in ape or human anatomy nor in the fossil record. …anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this.” J. Lowenstein and A. Zihlman, “The invisible ape”, New Scientist, Vol. 120 (1641), pp. 56, 57, 1988

“Stanley Miller’s glass-jar experiment 40 years ago suggested that the components of life were easily manufactured from gases in the atmosphere. The conditions he re-created in his laboratory faithfully reflected the prevailing wisdom of the time...It was, says Chyba, ‘a beautiful picture.’ Unfortunately, he adds, it is probably wrong.” J. Madeleine Nash, “How Life Began”, Time, October 11, 1993, p. 73

“ ‘When paleontologists see Archaeopteryx, they see an earth-bound dinosaur that somehow mysteriously sprouted feathers for swatting insects or some other purpose, and they say flight originated from the ground up.’ Feduccia says. ‘However, when most ornithologists see Archaeopteryx, they see a flying bird because everything about feathers says flight to them. The conclusion we have drawn is that flight originated from trees down, which makes a lot more sense.’ ” Alan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “News Notes”. Geotimes. April 1993: p. 6

“Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution”, Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65

“Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, Three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics…In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.” Ed Struzik, Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, “Ancient bacteria revived”, Sunday Herald, 16 Sept. 1990

“Darwin calculated that at the rate of one baby elephant per breeding couple every 10 years, starting with a single pair, there would be 15 million elephants in only 500 years.” Niles Eldredge, “Speculations: Is Evolution Progress?”, Science Digest, Sept. 1983, p. 40

“But the reports of Eve’s death may have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, no one argues with the idea that all modern humans inherited their mitochondrial DNA from one common female ancestor. But what is in dispute is the hypothesis first put forth in 1987 by molecular anthropologist Allan Wilson of University of California, Berkeley who claimed to know Eve’s age and whereabouts-that she lived about 200,000 years ago in Africa.” Ann Gibbons, “Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet”, Science, Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873

“Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the deaths, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea: but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land-dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists [except a global world-wide flood].” Alan Charig, “A New Look At The Dinosaurs”, p. 150

“Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows,” according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called “Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows”), “that organisms get more complex as they evolve...The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it’s true.” Dan McShea, “Onward and Upward?” by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22

At one level, of course, it must be: we really are more complex than that first cell, and we’re not alone...Did natural selection drive organisms onward and steadily upward, toward ever greater complexity, because being more complex improved their chances of survival? Researchers have always assumed the answer was yes. But lately McShea and a few other researchers have been trying to test that unshakable assumption with real data.” Dan McShea, “Onward and Upward?” by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764

“The fact that the soft tissues were preserved for tens of millions of years turns on its head what paleontologists used to think about fossils - that any soft tissue should not last beyond 100,000 years.” (“T-Rex Fossils Yield Soft Tissue,” Discovery News, March 24, 2005.)

"In 1967 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-meter-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bone. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbilled dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs....The Liscomb Bone Bed has probably thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones — some of them have the ligaments still attached. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure the importance of this. To believe that it is 65 million years or more since these dinosaurs lived on earth — that takes a lot of faith. It doesn’t take near as much faith to believe that they might have been frozen for a couple of thousand years at most." (Helder, Margaret, 1992 "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, p. 16)

"In a recent article, scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found. The story starts with a beautifully preserved T. rex skeleton unearthed in the United States in 1990. When the bones were brought to the Montana State University's lab, it was noticed that 'some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.' To find unfossilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the fossils (see below). Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking through a microscope at a thin section of this T. rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels. 'The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, "You've got red blood cells. You've got red blood cells!".' Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist 'Dinosaur' Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, 'So far, we haven't been able to.'" M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, 'The Real Jurassic Park', Earth , June 1997 pp. 55-57

Want more evidence on the dinosaur bone thing: http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-dinosaur_bones.html

The above quotes are not meant to "prove" the Biblical account of creation; they are meant merely to display that darwinian evolution is not a fact. There's no observable, repeatable, testable way to prove macro-evolution. And the quotes show that the interpretation of the evidence should favor creation when the truth is acknowledged.

Moving on, Corey asked, "How did one kind of dog transform into hundreds of kinds of dogs in only about four thousand years?"

In other words, "With one common ancestor, why the vast differences in size, shape and skills between shepherds and Shih Tzus, bull mastiffs and border collies?"

That's all the work of humans, taking advantage of genetics. People started creating designer dogs about 500 years ago, according to Peter Savolainen, the geneticist at the Royal Institute of Technology. He adds, "Upper classes started breeding better hunting and herding dogs and cuter lap dogs." The American Kennel Club now recognizes 150 breeds...

Okay. Finally, we have the same fossils to observe. We have the same facts. Our interpretation of these facts is completely opposite. Don't you find it even a little bit strange or meaningful that the Bible says that this would happen in Romans 1 and 2 Peter 3?

Corey said...

Your quotes do not impress me. They are dated and seem to lack facts. They do not prove macroevolution is false. I have written a post on Creationist Claims.

There are more than 150 different breeds and they have been domesticated since 10,000 BC. The Afghan hound and the greyhound originated in Egypt between 4000 and 3000 BC and the Shih Tzu have been around since ancient times. You still did not explain how all dogs come about in such a short time. Alos, you did not answer my question about where creationism should be taught.


Scoff means to taunt or to mock, not contradiction. What is so amazing about what the Bible says in Romans and 2 Peter? Those books talk about the end of the world.

News Flash about
Evidence for Universe Expansion Found
.

Anesha said...

Hi Nice Blog . I don't really know a lot about Human Anatomy study or art, but that's just my 2 cents. Really great job though, Krudman! Keep up the good work!