Mark Aspam;1457346 wrote: WOW!!! I'm the 1000th (well, OK, almost the 1000th) poster to this thread! Do I win a prize?
Seriously, though, I'm amazed that the thread is 3 1/2 years old, with 1000 entries, and I just discovered it yesterday! I must be losin' it in my old age!
It seems to me, and I don't mean this as a personal affront to ANY of the contributors, that this thread is possibly the worst waste of web space in the history of this forum.
If "science disproves evolution", then there would be legitimate scientific journals, articles, books, essays, that affirm that. LEGITIMATE science, with legitimate PEER REVIEW, not the blathering of cranks and fanatics! Can anyone name ONE such publication?
There would be legitimate science textbooks, not pseudo-religious claptrap, that explain why the evolution of species, due to natural selection and other processes, has been disproved, SCIENTIFIC textbooks, not ad hoc nonsense with beautiful color photographs and absolutely no basis in fact. Can anyone name ONE such textbook, along with the well-known, respected publisher's name?
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457382 wrote: 1. Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired.
2. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.1. Absolute doubletalk. Every general biology text from an accredited publisher acknowledges the evolution of species as THE cornerstone of modern biology. If you dispute that, name ONE that denies or even questions the evolution of species, from a RELIABLE publisher, with a reputation to uphold, not a purveyor of fundamentalist nonsense.
2. Give a link to or information regarding ONE of those, in an established PROFESSIONAL journal, with PEER REVIEW, and give the author's name and professional history.
2. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.1. Absolute doubletalk. Every general biology text from an accredited publisher acknowledges the evolution of species as THE cornerstone of modern biology. If you dispute that, name ONE that denies or even questions the evolution of species, from a RELIABLE publisher, with a reputation to uphold, not a purveyor of fundamentalist nonsense.
2. Give a link to or information regarding ONE of those, in an established PROFESSIONAL journal, with PEER REVIEW, and give the author's name and professional history.
Science Disproves Evolution
Mark Aspam;1457387 wrote: 1. Absolute doubletalk. Every general biology text from an accredited publisher acknowledges the evolution of species as THE cornerstone of modern biology. If you dispute that, name ONE that denies or even questions the evolution of species, from a RELIABLE publisher, with a reputation to uphold, not a purveyor of fundamentalist nonsense.
2. Give a link to or information regarding ONE of those, in an established PROFESSIONAL journal, with PEER REVIEW, and give the author's name and professional history.
It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution is not true.
The argument that evolution is central to biology has been around for a few years. For example the Scopes Trial decision quoted the following words penned by Dr. E. N. Reinke, professor of biology at Vanderbilt University: “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether (Scopes v. State of Tennessee. Opinion filed January 17, 1927 page 8). The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim.
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere" (2003, p. 1).
National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects. He found that the “Darwinist researchers he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong? that “for the large number of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing was “in my work it would have made no difference. Some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1). Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 1997). I have noted from my own research that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the Medical University of Ohio and Bowling Green State University have been dropped (to both my frustration and over my objections).
Judging by these textbooks, Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes. Based on my review of new textbooks, the evolution content, especially of introductory textbooks, is increasing, likely in response to the intelligent design and creationist movements. Because I have much interest in the subject, I usually cover it in more depth than, in my experience, is usual. Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught largely ignore the sections on evolution, partly because there is a great deal of other material that must be covered and somethinghas to be cut—and many teachers elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most majors. How many health care workers need to understand Darwinian theories? (No concern exists over the development of antibody resistance, something I stress in my microbiology class.) In short, at least judging by the major textbooks used, the often repeated claim about Darwinism being central to natural science is false.
If, as Dobzhansky stated, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (1973 emphasis added), why is it rarely, if ever, mentioned in most natural science books? We usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the A&P text we use is the 10th edition of Hole, a standard text). And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution?
My experience also conforms to the results of the research in this area. Several studies have found that most future science teachers do not complete courses that focus on evolution as part of their training (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; and Rutledge and Warden, 2000). Moore found that “many of todays high school teachers don’t recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses, apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore, 2004. p. 864). I am now surveying college biology students and have found that most schools either skip the chapters on evolution, or cover them in only a class or two. About 30 percent cover both creation and evolution and 20 percent in the students words, “try to jam evolution down our throats and succeed primarily in turning off students to biology (and often science as well).
O’Leary adds that the reason why
"evolution is “highly superfluous in that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject" (2004, p. 100).
My conclusion also agrees with Wells, who also concluded the claim
"that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution' is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do" (Wells, 2000, p. 247).
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#in ... 56a5710a2b
2. Give a link to or information regarding ONE of those, in an established PROFESSIONAL journal, with PEER REVIEW, and give the author's name and professional history.
It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution is not true.
The argument that evolution is central to biology has been around for a few years. For example the Scopes Trial decision quoted the following words penned by Dr. E. N. Reinke, professor of biology at Vanderbilt University: “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether (Scopes v. State of Tennessee. Opinion filed January 17, 1927 page 8). The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim.
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere" (2003, p. 1).
National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects. He found that the “Darwinist researchers he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong? that “for the large number of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing was “in my work it would have made no difference. Some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1). Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 1997). I have noted from my own research that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the Medical University of Ohio and Bowling Green State University have been dropped (to both my frustration and over my objections).
Judging by these textbooks, Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes. Based on my review of new textbooks, the evolution content, especially of introductory textbooks, is increasing, likely in response to the intelligent design and creationist movements. Because I have much interest in the subject, I usually cover it in more depth than, in my experience, is usual. Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught largely ignore the sections on evolution, partly because there is a great deal of other material that must be covered and somethinghas to be cut—and many teachers elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most majors. How many health care workers need to understand Darwinian theories? (No concern exists over the development of antibody resistance, something I stress in my microbiology class.) In short, at least judging by the major textbooks used, the often repeated claim about Darwinism being central to natural science is false.
If, as Dobzhansky stated, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (1973 emphasis added), why is it rarely, if ever, mentioned in most natural science books? We usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the A&P text we use is the 10th edition of Hole, a standard text). And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution?
My experience also conforms to the results of the research in this area. Several studies have found that most future science teachers do not complete courses that focus on evolution as part of their training (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; and Rutledge and Warden, 2000). Moore found that “many of todays high school teachers don’t recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses, apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore, 2004. p. 864). I am now surveying college biology students and have found that most schools either skip the chapters on evolution, or cover them in only a class or two. About 30 percent cover both creation and evolution and 20 percent in the students words, “try to jam evolution down our throats and succeed primarily in turning off students to biology (and often science as well).
O’Leary adds that the reason why
"evolution is “highly superfluous in that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject" (2004, p. 100).
My conclusion also agrees with Wells, who also concluded the claim
"that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution' is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do" (Wells, 2000, p. 247).
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#in ... 56a5710a2b
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Regurgitating the work of others proves nothing.
And Dobzhansky did some very good work.
Even he can have opinions that are not science.
And posting a piece trashing his not-so-scientific opinion is no more scientific than his oft-published unscientific opinion.
Still waiting for your science. And no, I am not letting you off the hook, this time.
You have posted this drivel for 3 and a half years, and have come no closer to science than my 5-year-old great-granddaughter.
And Dobzhansky did some very good work.
Even he can have opinions that are not science.
And posting a piece trashing his not-so-scientific opinion is no more scientific than his oft-published unscientific opinion.
Still waiting for your science. And no, I am not letting you off the hook, this time.
You have posted this drivel for 3 and a half years, and have come no closer to science than my 5-year-old great-granddaughter.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457382 wrote: Most scientists are working in very narrow fields.
It is, therefore, so fortunate (and an honour) to have with us such a broad-minded man as yourself to dot the "i"'s and cross the "t"'s for us.
It is, therefore, so fortunate (and an honour) to have with us such a broad-minded man as yourself to dot the "i"'s and cross the "t"'s for us.
Science Disproves Evolution
You might like to read up on Gregor Mendel - a Priest, I might add, who studied & observed evolutionary patterns among plants (mainly peas).
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have accused Scientists of 'working in narrow fields'. To a degree this is true, due to the vast complexity of evolution. When studying the detail of a tree, once it branches off you can no longer study every single branch, twig, shoot, bud, leaf. You have to follow one path as best you can, drawing on data from other sciences to formulate & prove / disprove hypotheses.
Church based 'Scientists', however, have the most tunneled view of all. Worse still, they direct their tunnels to the void of fantasy, denying the existence of anything that in the vaguest way questions their own opinion. This is NOT science. Science is a matter of taking into consideration all other valid, demonstrable input. Religious 'science' is based along the lines of "I know this for a fact, because some bloke down the pub said so". It can provide no evidence other than the hearsay of other fanatics who place their 'evidence' in the workings of some book of fairy tales.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have accused Scientists of 'working in narrow fields'. To a degree this is true, due to the vast complexity of evolution. When studying the detail of a tree, once it branches off you can no longer study every single branch, twig, shoot, bud, leaf. You have to follow one path as best you can, drawing on data from other sciences to formulate & prove / disprove hypotheses.
Church based 'Scientists', however, have the most tunneled view of all. Worse still, they direct their tunnels to the void of fantasy, denying the existence of anything that in the vaguest way questions their own opinion. This is NOT science. Science is a matter of taking into consideration all other valid, demonstrable input. Religious 'science' is based along the lines of "I know this for a fact, because some bloke down the pub said so". It can provide no evidence other than the hearsay of other fanatics who place their 'evidence' in the workings of some book of fairy tales.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1457510 wrote: You might like to read up on Gregor Mendel - a Priest, I might add, who studied & observed evolutionary patterns among plants (mainly peas).
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have accused Scientists of 'working in narrow fields'. To a degree this is true, due to the vast complexity of evolution. When studying the detail of a tree, once it branches off you can no longer study every single branch, twig, shoot, bud, leaf. You have to follow one path as best you can, drawing on data from other sciences to formulate & prove / disprove hypotheses.
Church based 'Scientists', however, have the most tunneled view of all. Worse still, they direct their tunnels to the void of fantasy, denying the existence of anything that in the vaguest way questions their own opinion.
Please supply the names of some of those scientists.
This is NOT science. Science is a matter of taking into consideration all other valid, demonstrable input. Religious 'science' is based along the lines of "I know this for a fact, because some bloke down the pub said so". It can provide no evidence other than the hearsay of other fanatics who place their 'evidence' in the workings of some book of fairy tales.
Assuming the "book of fairy tales" is the Bible, you may find this interesting:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Prophecies
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have accused Scientists of 'working in narrow fields'. To a degree this is true, due to the vast complexity of evolution. When studying the detail of a tree, once it branches off you can no longer study every single branch, twig, shoot, bud, leaf. You have to follow one path as best you can, drawing on data from other sciences to formulate & prove / disprove hypotheses.
Church based 'Scientists', however, have the most tunneled view of all. Worse still, they direct their tunnels to the void of fantasy, denying the existence of anything that in the vaguest way questions their own opinion.
Please supply the names of some of those scientists.
This is NOT science. Science is a matter of taking into consideration all other valid, demonstrable input. Religious 'science' is based along the lines of "I know this for a fact, because some bloke down the pub said so". It can provide no evidence other than the hearsay of other fanatics who place their 'evidence' in the workings of some book of fairy tales.
Assuming the "book of fairy tales" is the Bible, you may find this interesting:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Prophecies
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
You ask me to name these 'Scientists'. You seem to have been doing a good enough job of that already, citing all the fanatical ministries quoting utter nonsense as being 'scientific fact'.
Science Disproves Evolution
The First Cell 2
There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).
b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination. Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.
“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides. Kenyon, p. A-20.
“If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless. George Wald, “The Origin of Life, p. 45.
Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell. Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.
“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406–407.
“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve. Crick, p. 153.
This fascination explains why the “origin of life topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Actually, life HAS been created artificially:
Can We Create Life? - Science Mysteries in the 21st Century - Popular Mechanics
As for there being such a jump, I agree the probability is astounding, but it is not zero. The probability of winning the Lottery 100 times in a row is highly improbable, but once again, not impossible.
The Universe has existed for Billions of Eons, with chance things happening all the time. With this in mind, it is more improbable that the first spark of life should not occur.
While it is true that nobody has all the answers, we are constantly on a major learning curve - apart from those who have Tunnel Vision. There are none so blind as those who will not see - or if you prefer, "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not" (Jeremiah 5:21).
The natural creation of life makes far more sense than that of a 'God', as it leads to the age old question "How did God come into being?". 'God' being a fully developed spiritual 'life' form, according to the Bible, Human Male in appearance, suddenly appearing from nowhere. At least evolution charts the gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form.
Your arguments against the spontaneous creation of life serve no purpose but to deny the existence of God.
Can We Create Life? - Science Mysteries in the 21st Century - Popular Mechanics
As for there being such a jump, I agree the probability is astounding, but it is not zero. The probability of winning the Lottery 100 times in a row is highly improbable, but once again, not impossible.
The Universe has existed for Billions of Eons, with chance things happening all the time. With this in mind, it is more improbable that the first spark of life should not occur.
While it is true that nobody has all the answers, we are constantly on a major learning curve - apart from those who have Tunnel Vision. There are none so blind as those who will not see - or if you prefer, "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not" (Jeremiah 5:21).
The natural creation of life makes far more sense than that of a 'God', as it leads to the age old question "How did God come into being?". 'God' being a fully developed spiritual 'life' form, according to the Bible, Human Male in appearance, suddenly appearing from nowhere. At least evolution charts the gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form.
Your arguments against the spontaneous creation of life serve no purpose but to deny the existence of God.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1457959 wrote: Actually, life HAS been created artificially:
Can We Create Life? - Science Mysteries in the 21st Century - Popular Mechanics
Notice this statement from your article: "Venter did not create life," says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was involved in the research. "But he showed that an artificial genome can power a bacterium, thereby taking a crucial step toward the demonstration that synthesizing life is possible." Also, notice the experiment was conducted by intelligent design, not naturally.
As for there being such a jump, I agree the probability is astounding, but it is not zero. The probability of winning the Lottery 100 times in a row is highly improbable, but once again, not impossible.
The Universe has existed for Billions of Eons, with chance things happening all the time. With this in mind, it is more improbable that the first spark of life should not occur.
Where is the evidence for that date? Even if there were multiple trillions of years involved life would not appear naturally.
While it is true that nobody has all the answers, we are constantly on a major learning curve - apart from those who have Tunnel Vision. There are none so blind as those who will not see - or if you prefer, "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not" (Jeremiah 5:21).
That quote applies to those who believe in evolution despite the contrary evidence.
The natural creation of life makes far more sense than that of a 'God', as it leads to the age old question "How did God come into being?". 'God' being a fully developed spiritual 'life' form, according to the Bible, Human Male in appearance, suddenly appearing from nowhere.
Since there is no natural creation of life, God is the only alternative. God reveals in His Holy Bible that He had no beginning.
At least evolution charts the gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form.
Where is the evidence for that gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form?
Your arguments against the spontaneous creation of life serve no purpose but to deny the existence of God.
How does my evidence against the spontaneous creation of life deny the existence of God?
Can We Create Life? - Science Mysteries in the 21st Century - Popular Mechanics
Notice this statement from your article: "Venter did not create life," says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was involved in the research. "But he showed that an artificial genome can power a bacterium, thereby taking a crucial step toward the demonstration that synthesizing life is possible." Also, notice the experiment was conducted by intelligent design, not naturally.
As for there being such a jump, I agree the probability is astounding, but it is not zero. The probability of winning the Lottery 100 times in a row is highly improbable, but once again, not impossible.
The Universe has existed for Billions of Eons, with chance things happening all the time. With this in mind, it is more improbable that the first spark of life should not occur.
Where is the evidence for that date? Even if there were multiple trillions of years involved life would not appear naturally.
While it is true that nobody has all the answers, we are constantly on a major learning curve - apart from those who have Tunnel Vision. There are none so blind as those who will not see - or if you prefer, "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not" (Jeremiah 5:21).
That quote applies to those who believe in evolution despite the contrary evidence.
The natural creation of life makes far more sense than that of a 'God', as it leads to the age old question "How did God come into being?". 'God' being a fully developed spiritual 'life' form, according to the Bible, Human Male in appearance, suddenly appearing from nowhere.
Since there is no natural creation of life, God is the only alternative. God reveals in His Holy Bible that He had no beginning.
At least evolution charts the gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form.
Where is the evidence for that gradual progress of life through Millennia of mutations & adaptations from that initial single celled physical life form?
Your arguments against the spontaneous creation of life serve no purpose but to deny the existence of God.
How does my evidence against the spontaneous creation of life deny the existence of God?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
There is an old saying in Philosophy (I don't recall offhand who it was who said it, but it holds true, nonetheless), and that is "The first move towards enlightenment is to admit 'I Do Not Know'".
This means that simply because one doesn't know the actual reason for something, it is totally wrong to assume the reason to be some imaginary being to be responsible. Primitive man thought the stars were holes that God had punched in the sky to let the light shine through. They would not have been able to explain why it went dark at night & light during the day. They knew nothing of the orbit of the earth around the sun, therefore it was the work of God turning the lights on & off - or do you also deny that we orbit the sun - or do you still believe that the sun goes around the earth, and that the stars are really holes in the sky?
Quite simply, if it wasn't for those that looked beyond superstition & asked questions in order to learn the truth, we would still be living in the primitive ignorance of the Cavemen, in much the same way as the Religious fanatics do their best to take everyone back to those times, as the innate drive to learn was described in the Bible as being the first ever sin - the bite from the Tree of Knowledge. The Religious don't want to learn or to know the truth - they are happy to make it up as they go along.
You claim that "None so blind as those who will not see" refers to evolutionists who deny the existence of the evidence for a God. What evidence? And I DON'T mean a load of twaddle from more Religious fanatics who consider their superstitious beliefs as 'factual science'. I refer to hard EVIDENCE. Evolution has evidence to prove its existence in abundance. Religion has nothing in the way of hard evidence, because it's claims are nothing but mere speculation based on ignorance.
There is much to learn. We don't know all the answers, and I doubt we ever will, but just because we don't know what the answers are doesn't mean that we credit everything we don't understand to a God.
So, how come you haven't yet attempted answer the age old question of how God was created out of nothing? After all, if a mere mortal life form, made of the most basic chemicals & elements of the universe, could not have happened by chance, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that a far more complex, all seeing, all knowing presence could have come into being?
Besides, on a more quantum level, there is no such thing as nothing. Energy & mass are interchangeable - basic physics. The Higgs Boson project has shown that energy, in the form of the Higgs Particle can pass unhindered through matter or a vacuum, so even in what may seem to be the most barren part of space, there is always going to be 'something' there. Mind you, I very much doubt that you believe that the Higgs Bosun project is valid anyway, as despite the scientific advances & the massive financing that goes into it, and the results it has revealed, you would deny anything it proves as it goes against your belief in an imaginary God which has absolutely NO evidence, apart from word of mouth of primitive man.
So, I challenge you again. WITHOUT citing quotes from Ministry based, self proclaimed 'scientists', come up with some hard EVIDENCE - not supposition - to support the existence of your God.
This means that simply because one doesn't know the actual reason for something, it is totally wrong to assume the reason to be some imaginary being to be responsible. Primitive man thought the stars were holes that God had punched in the sky to let the light shine through. They would not have been able to explain why it went dark at night & light during the day. They knew nothing of the orbit of the earth around the sun, therefore it was the work of God turning the lights on & off - or do you also deny that we orbit the sun - or do you still believe that the sun goes around the earth, and that the stars are really holes in the sky?
Quite simply, if it wasn't for those that looked beyond superstition & asked questions in order to learn the truth, we would still be living in the primitive ignorance of the Cavemen, in much the same way as the Religious fanatics do their best to take everyone back to those times, as the innate drive to learn was described in the Bible as being the first ever sin - the bite from the Tree of Knowledge. The Religious don't want to learn or to know the truth - they are happy to make it up as they go along.
You claim that "None so blind as those who will not see" refers to evolutionists who deny the existence of the evidence for a God. What evidence? And I DON'T mean a load of twaddle from more Religious fanatics who consider their superstitious beliefs as 'factual science'. I refer to hard EVIDENCE. Evolution has evidence to prove its existence in abundance. Religion has nothing in the way of hard evidence, because it's claims are nothing but mere speculation based on ignorance.
There is much to learn. We don't know all the answers, and I doubt we ever will, but just because we don't know what the answers are doesn't mean that we credit everything we don't understand to a God.
So, how come you haven't yet attempted answer the age old question of how God was created out of nothing? After all, if a mere mortal life form, made of the most basic chemicals & elements of the universe, could not have happened by chance, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that a far more complex, all seeing, all knowing presence could have come into being?
Besides, on a more quantum level, there is no such thing as nothing. Energy & mass are interchangeable - basic physics. The Higgs Boson project has shown that energy, in the form of the Higgs Particle can pass unhindered through matter or a vacuum, so even in what may seem to be the most barren part of space, there is always going to be 'something' there. Mind you, I very much doubt that you believe that the Higgs Bosun project is valid anyway, as despite the scientific advances & the massive financing that goes into it, and the results it has revealed, you would deny anything it proves as it goes against your belief in an imaginary God which has absolutely NO evidence, apart from word of mouth of primitive man.
So, I challenge you again. WITHOUT citing quotes from Ministry based, self proclaimed 'scientists', come up with some hard EVIDENCE - not supposition - to support the existence of your God.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1458015 wrote:
You claim that "None so blind as those who will not see" refers to evolutionists who deny the existence of the evidence for a God. What evidence? And I DON'T mean a load of twaddle from more Religious fanatics who consider their superstitious beliefs as 'factual science'. I refer to hard EVIDENCE. Evolution has evidence to prove its existence in abundance. Religion has nothing in the way of hard evidence, because it's claims are nothing but mere speculation based on ignorance.
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
1. Something exists.
That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists would have to exist in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.
Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. (Feb. 1754).
To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.
This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...
3. Something must have always existed.
Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.
Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"
Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?
If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.
Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.
Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) always existed might be:
A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe
The fourth premise in my argument is this:
4. The universe has not always existed.
In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator. Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.
Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.
And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is¦
A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES
Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]
But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.
Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:
This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:
“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."
A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...
[continue]
You claim that "None so blind as those who will not see" refers to evolutionists who deny the existence of the evidence for a God. What evidence? And I DON'T mean a load of twaddle from more Religious fanatics who consider their superstitious beliefs as 'factual science'. I refer to hard EVIDENCE. Evolution has evidence to prove its existence in abundance. Religion has nothing in the way of hard evidence, because it's claims are nothing but mere speculation based on ignorance.
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
1. Something exists.
That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists would have to exist in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.
Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. (Feb. 1754).
To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.
This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...
3. Something must have always existed.
Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.
Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"
Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?
If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.
Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.
Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) always existed might be:
A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe
The fourth premise in my argument is this:
4. The universe has not always existed.
In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator. Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.
Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.
And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is¦
A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES
Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]
But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.
Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:
This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:
“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."
A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
[continued]
B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.
Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.
If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.
Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning? Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.
Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?
Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like¦
1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.
Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.
5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.
To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.
So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...
--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.
It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.
That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.
If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.
CONCLUSION
For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.
Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]
AlwaysBeReady.com
[continued]
B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.
Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.
If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.
Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning? Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.
Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?
Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like¦
1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.
Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.
5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.
To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.
So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...
--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.
It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.
That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.
If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.
CONCLUSION
For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.
Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]
AlwaysBeReady.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1458015 wrote:
So, how come you haven't yet attempted answer the age old question of how God was created out of nothing? After all, if a mere mortal life form, made of the most basic chemicals & elements of the universe, could not have happened by chance, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that a far more complex, all seeing, all knowing presence could have come into being?
GOD WHO CREATED HIM?
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, we should use the following reasoning:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. Therefore, time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isa. 57:15). Therefore, He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever; otherwise, it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? However, it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Therefore, would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
In addition, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as (Gen. 1:1) and (Rom. 1:20) teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
OBJECTIONS
There are only two ways to refute an argument:
Show that it is logically invalid
Show that at least one of the premises is false.
IS THE ARGUMENT VALID?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore, Moby Dick has a backbone. Therefore, the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
ARE THE PREMISES TRUE?
1. Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. However, as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust increasingly usable energy.
This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. Therefore, the multi-cycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past (2).
In addition, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’.
According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass (3).
Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky (4) Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe (5,6). It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’.
Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.
Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’ (7).
As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’
Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end (8).
2. Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
¦space-time could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition...Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation...Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing (9).
However, this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario “should not be taken too seriously.
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—
not “nothing.
In addition, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.
If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat, which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.
[continue]
So, how come you haven't yet attempted answer the age old question of how God was created out of nothing? After all, if a mere mortal life form, made of the most basic chemicals & elements of the universe, could not have happened by chance, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that a far more complex, all seeing, all knowing presence could have come into being?
GOD WHO CREATED HIM?
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, we should use the following reasoning:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. Therefore, time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isa. 57:15). Therefore, He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever; otherwise, it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? However, it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Therefore, would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
In addition, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as (Gen. 1:1) and (Rom. 1:20) teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
OBJECTIONS
There are only two ways to refute an argument:
Show that it is logically invalid
Show that at least one of the premises is false.
IS THE ARGUMENT VALID?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore, Moby Dick has a backbone. Therefore, the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
ARE THE PREMISES TRUE?
1. Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. However, as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust increasingly usable energy.
This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. Therefore, the multi-cycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past (2).
In addition, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’.
According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass (3).
Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky (4) Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe (5,6). It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’.
Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.
Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’ (7).
As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’
Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end (8).
2. Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
¦space-time could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition...Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation...Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing (9).
However, this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario “should not be taken too seriously.
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—
not “nothing.
In addition, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.
If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat, which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
GOD WHO CREATED HIM?
[continued]
IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?
A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened “before the universe began. However, he claims that causes must precede their effects. Therefore, if nothing happened “before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies (10), pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:
The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So, this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A FINAL THOUGHT
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort
FURTHER READING
More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural “big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin. However, the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.
Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
Craig, W.L. online article "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe" The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.
2. Novikov, I.D. and Zel’dovich, Ya. B., "Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities", Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11:401-2 (1973).
3. Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., "Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 243:1-7 (1981).
4. Watson, A., "Clusters point to Never Ending Universe," Science, 278 (5342):1402 (1997).
5. Perlmutter, S. et al., "Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe," Nature, 391(6662):51 (1998). Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23-24.
6. Glanz, J., "New light on the fate of the universe," Science, 278 (5339):799-800.
7. Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe," Nature, 302:505-507 (1983).
8. Tinsley, B., "From Big Bang to Eternity?", Natural History Magazine (October 1975), pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984), p. 61.
9. Davies, P., God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), p. 215.
10. Craig, W.L., "God, Creation and Mr. Davies," Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163-175 (1986).
Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.
Copyright © 1998, 2003, Answers in Genesis, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 2003, Eden Communications
Recommended Reading
How can we know there's a God? If God made everything, who made God? 44 Questions for the Not-Yet-a-Believer
Where did life come from? Is evolution really the best scientific answer?
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe? Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species / origin of mankind
Is Jesus Christ the answer?
Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net
[continued]
IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?
A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened “before the universe began. However, he claims that causes must precede their effects. Therefore, if nothing happened “before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies (10), pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:
The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So, this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A FINAL THOUGHT
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort
FURTHER READING
More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural “big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin. However, the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.
Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
Craig, W.L. online article "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe" The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.
2. Novikov, I.D. and Zel’dovich, Ya. B., "Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities", Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11:401-2 (1973).
3. Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., "Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 243:1-7 (1981).
4. Watson, A., "Clusters point to Never Ending Universe," Science, 278 (5342):1402 (1997).
5. Perlmutter, S. et al., "Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe," Nature, 391(6662):51 (1998). Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23-24.
6. Glanz, J., "New light on the fate of the universe," Science, 278 (5339):799-800.
7. Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe," Nature, 302:505-507 (1983).
8. Tinsley, B., "From Big Bang to Eternity?", Natural History Magazine (October 1975), pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984), p. 61.
9. Davies, P., God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), p. 215.
10. Craig, W.L., "God, Creation and Mr. Davies," Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163-175 (1986).
Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.
Copyright © 1998, 2003, Answers in Genesis, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 2003, Eden Communications
Recommended Reading
How can we know there's a God? If God made everything, who made God? 44 Questions for the Not-Yet-a-Believer
Where did life come from? Is evolution really the best scientific answer?
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe? Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species / origin of mankind
Is Jesus Christ the answer?
Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Up until #5 everything you said made sense, and I would agree with it all the way.
The first law of the Conservation of Energy is "Nothing can be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another", not "Nothing comes from nothing", but the meaning is basically the same, so I'll accept that as is. The point is that, as I said in my last post, energy & matter are interchangeable. As with the flashlight example, the chemicals of the batteries, as Potential energy transform to create Electrical energy, then into Light & Heat energy. There is no final form of energy, as they can all be transformed from one into another. However, as you say, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and, as you say, the allocated 'share' of this energy is constantly diminishing within an expanding universe. No arguments there.
None of this, however goes to support the existence of a God.
In a more elemental form of life coming from no life. Do you consider the egg as life? Do you consider the sperm as life? Although they ore both biological cells, neither can really be considered as 'life' per se, until they meet, when the bio-chemical reaction takes place - just as Hydrogen & Oxygen remain as separate base elements, not only until they meet, but until they are triggered by the catalyst of another form of energy in the form of a spark to initiate the chemical reaction to result in water - the primary ingredient of all life as we know it.
There is a rock formation that has been observed on the surface of Mars that combined with the shadows looks identical to the Sphinx. I do not claim that this is any kind of sculpture placed there by aliens, but that certain patterns CAN be created purely by chance, in much the same way as we may see images formed in the clouds. It's the same as millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters would eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. The chances of it happening may appear infinitessably small, but the chance is still there, and the longer they keep typing, the greater the chance that they will eventually reach the stage of completing the works of Shakespeare entirely as a matter of random chance.
The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth". This, in itself, is a contradiction, for it presupposes that God existed before the beginning. Therefore the beginning wasn't the beginning. What it should say is "In the beginning a chain reaction was randomly initiated by a number of base elements coming into contact with a catalyst.
Also, if you take a sealed glass container filled with sterile water & leave it in the sunlight, before long you will find green algae beginning to appear. This is why the first thing that astronomers look for in their search for extraterrestrial life is water, because wherever there is water, there is life.
Then there is the question as to how you would define 'life'. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG, where Data asks for the definition, where he is told that it is not an easy one to answer, but that on the whole life is seen to come into being, eat, excrete, respire, reproduce & to die, to which he observed that fire follows these same rules. It comes into being by ignition, it feeds on fuel, it breathes oxygen, it excretes CO2, leaving waste carbon, it reproduces, by providing ignition to children flames, and once the fuel is used up, dies.
Heat is a form of energy. Matter is energy. Life, from the most basic single cell to the most complex multi-cell is matter & energy.
While nearly all of your arguments hold true, according to physics, far from proving intelligent design, they go to disprove it, supporting the probability of chance.
And you still haven't answered the question of how God was supposed to have been created.
The first law of the Conservation of Energy is "Nothing can be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another", not "Nothing comes from nothing", but the meaning is basically the same, so I'll accept that as is. The point is that, as I said in my last post, energy & matter are interchangeable. As with the flashlight example, the chemicals of the batteries, as Potential energy transform to create Electrical energy, then into Light & Heat energy. There is no final form of energy, as they can all be transformed from one into another. However, as you say, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and, as you say, the allocated 'share' of this energy is constantly diminishing within an expanding universe. No arguments there.
None of this, however goes to support the existence of a God.
In a more elemental form of life coming from no life. Do you consider the egg as life? Do you consider the sperm as life? Although they ore both biological cells, neither can really be considered as 'life' per se, until they meet, when the bio-chemical reaction takes place - just as Hydrogen & Oxygen remain as separate base elements, not only until they meet, but until they are triggered by the catalyst of another form of energy in the form of a spark to initiate the chemical reaction to result in water - the primary ingredient of all life as we know it.
There is a rock formation that has been observed on the surface of Mars that combined with the shadows looks identical to the Sphinx. I do not claim that this is any kind of sculpture placed there by aliens, but that certain patterns CAN be created purely by chance, in much the same way as we may see images formed in the clouds. It's the same as millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters would eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. The chances of it happening may appear infinitessably small, but the chance is still there, and the longer they keep typing, the greater the chance that they will eventually reach the stage of completing the works of Shakespeare entirely as a matter of random chance.
The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth". This, in itself, is a contradiction, for it presupposes that God existed before the beginning. Therefore the beginning wasn't the beginning. What it should say is "In the beginning a chain reaction was randomly initiated by a number of base elements coming into contact with a catalyst.
Also, if you take a sealed glass container filled with sterile water & leave it in the sunlight, before long you will find green algae beginning to appear. This is why the first thing that astronomers look for in their search for extraterrestrial life is water, because wherever there is water, there is life.
Then there is the question as to how you would define 'life'. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG, where Data asks for the definition, where he is told that it is not an easy one to answer, but that on the whole life is seen to come into being, eat, excrete, respire, reproduce & to die, to which he observed that fire follows these same rules. It comes into being by ignition, it feeds on fuel, it breathes oxygen, it excretes CO2, leaving waste carbon, it reproduces, by providing ignition to children flames, and once the fuel is used up, dies.
Heat is a form of energy. Matter is energy. Life, from the most basic single cell to the most complex multi-cell is matter & energy.
While nearly all of your arguments hold true, according to physics, far from proving intelligent design, they go to disprove it, supporting the probability of chance.
And you still haven't answered the question of how God was supposed to have been created.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1458026 wrote: Up until #5 everything you said made sense, and I would agree with it all the way.
The first law of the Conservation of Energy is "Nothing can be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another", not "Nothing comes from nothing", but the meaning is basically the same, so I'll accept that as is. The point is that, as I said in my last post, energy & matter are interchangeable. As with the flashlight example, the chemicals of the batteries, as Potential energy transform to create Electrical energy, then into Light & Heat energy. There is no final form of energy, as they can all be transformed from one into another. However, as you say, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and, as you say, the allocated 'share' of this energy is constantly diminishing within an expanding universe. No arguments there.
None of this, however goes to support the existence of a God.
But keep in mind that before the universe existed there was no matter or energy. There was absolutely nothing and from that nothingness the universe appeared. Since there is no natural cause for the universe coming from nothing then the cause must be supernatural.
In a more elemental form of life coming from no life. Do you consider the egg as life? Do you consider the sperm as life? Although they ore both biological cells, neither can really be considered as 'life' per se, until they meet, when the bio-chemical reaction takes place - just as Hydrogen & Oxygen remain as separate base elements, not only until they meet, but until they are triggered by the catalyst of another form of energy in the form of a spark to initiate the chemical reaction to result in water - the primary ingredient of all life as we know it.
The egg and sperm are both alive and they will live a certain amount of time and then die. If they unite they will form another form of life.
There is a rock formation that has been observed on the surface of Mars that combined with the shadows looks identical to the Sphinx. I do not claim that this is any kind of sculpture placed there by aliens, but that certain patterns CAN be created purely by chance, in much the same way as we may see images formed in the clouds. It's the same as millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters would eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. The chances of it happening may appear infinitessably small, but the chance is still there, and the longer they keep typing, the greater the chance that they will eventually reach the stage of completing the works of Shakespeare entirely as a matter of random chance.
That "millions of monkeys" thing is popular among some but there is no evidence they would ever eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. More likely the result would be millions of pages of gibberish no matter how long they typed.
The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth". This, in itself, is a contradiction, for it presupposes that God existed before the beginning. Therefore the beginning wasn't the beginning. What it should say is "In the beginning a chain reaction was randomly initiated by a number of base elements coming into contact with a catalyst.
Why do you believe it is a contradiction? It is a straightforward statement. Since God is above all matter it makes perfect sense that He could create everything. Your alternative assumes there would be a number of base elements when the fact is the universe, including all base elements, did not exist before the beginning.
Also, if you take a sealed glass container filled with sterile water & leave it in the sunlight, before long you will find green algae beginning to appear. This is why the first thing that astronomers look for in their search for extraterrestrial life is water, because wherever there is water, there is life.
Only on earth. Water has been found on other planets but not life.
Then there is the question as to how you would define 'life'. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG, where Data asks for the definition, where he is told that it is not an easy one to answer, but that on the whole life is seen to come into being, eat, excrete, respire, reproduce & to die, to which he observed that fire follows these same rules. It comes into being by ignition, it feeds on fuel, it breathes oxygen, it excretes CO2, leaving waste carbon, it reproduces, by providing ignition to children flames, and once the fuel is used up, dies.
But fire does not have direction, which life does have. Life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Heat is a form of energy. Matter is energy. Life, from the most basic single cell to the most complex multi-cell is matter & energy.
While nearly all of your arguments hold true, according to physics, far from proving intelligent design, they go to disprove it, supporting the probability of chance.
In what way do they support chance over intelligent design?
And you still haven't answered the question of how God was supposed to have been created.
He wasn't created. He reveals He has always existed without a beginning.
The first law of the Conservation of Energy is "Nothing can be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another", not "Nothing comes from nothing", but the meaning is basically the same, so I'll accept that as is. The point is that, as I said in my last post, energy & matter are interchangeable. As with the flashlight example, the chemicals of the batteries, as Potential energy transform to create Electrical energy, then into Light & Heat energy. There is no final form of energy, as they can all be transformed from one into another. However, as you say, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and, as you say, the allocated 'share' of this energy is constantly diminishing within an expanding universe. No arguments there.
None of this, however goes to support the existence of a God.
But keep in mind that before the universe existed there was no matter or energy. There was absolutely nothing and from that nothingness the universe appeared. Since there is no natural cause for the universe coming from nothing then the cause must be supernatural.
In a more elemental form of life coming from no life. Do you consider the egg as life? Do you consider the sperm as life? Although they ore both biological cells, neither can really be considered as 'life' per se, until they meet, when the bio-chemical reaction takes place - just as Hydrogen & Oxygen remain as separate base elements, not only until they meet, but until they are triggered by the catalyst of another form of energy in the form of a spark to initiate the chemical reaction to result in water - the primary ingredient of all life as we know it.
The egg and sperm are both alive and they will live a certain amount of time and then die. If they unite they will form another form of life.
There is a rock formation that has been observed on the surface of Mars that combined with the shadows looks identical to the Sphinx. I do not claim that this is any kind of sculpture placed there by aliens, but that certain patterns CAN be created purely by chance, in much the same way as we may see images formed in the clouds. It's the same as millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters would eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. The chances of it happening may appear infinitessably small, but the chance is still there, and the longer they keep typing, the greater the chance that they will eventually reach the stage of completing the works of Shakespeare entirely as a matter of random chance.
That "millions of monkeys" thing is popular among some but there is no evidence they would ever eventually result in the entire works of Shakespeare. More likely the result would be millions of pages of gibberish no matter how long they typed.
The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth". This, in itself, is a contradiction, for it presupposes that God existed before the beginning. Therefore the beginning wasn't the beginning. What it should say is "In the beginning a chain reaction was randomly initiated by a number of base elements coming into contact with a catalyst.
Why do you believe it is a contradiction? It is a straightforward statement. Since God is above all matter it makes perfect sense that He could create everything. Your alternative assumes there would be a number of base elements when the fact is the universe, including all base elements, did not exist before the beginning.
Also, if you take a sealed glass container filled with sterile water & leave it in the sunlight, before long you will find green algae beginning to appear. This is why the first thing that astronomers look for in their search for extraterrestrial life is water, because wherever there is water, there is life.
Only on earth. Water has been found on other planets but not life.
Then there is the question as to how you would define 'life'. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG, where Data asks for the definition, where he is told that it is not an easy one to answer, but that on the whole life is seen to come into being, eat, excrete, respire, reproduce & to die, to which he observed that fire follows these same rules. It comes into being by ignition, it feeds on fuel, it breathes oxygen, it excretes CO2, leaving waste carbon, it reproduces, by providing ignition to children flames, and once the fuel is used up, dies.
But fire does not have direction, which life does have. Life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Heat is a form of energy. Matter is energy. Life, from the most basic single cell to the most complex multi-cell is matter & energy.
While nearly all of your arguments hold true, according to physics, far from proving intelligent design, they go to disprove it, supporting the probability of chance.
In what way do they support chance over intelligent design?
And you still haven't answered the question of how God was supposed to have been created.
He wasn't created. He reveals He has always existed without a beginning.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1458033 wrote: But keep in mind that before the universe existed there was no matter or energy. There was absolutely nothing and from that nothingness the universe appeared. Since there is no natural cause for the universe coming from nothing then the cause must be supernatural.
My point exactly. You are confusing Natural & Supernatural with Known & Unknown. Just because the answer is, as yet, unknown, this doesn't mean that is is supernatural. To believe it is is simply unfounded superstition based on nothing but imagination.
You say that fire doesn't have direction, whereas life does. Fire will follow the source of fuel until it is burned out & is extinguished. Animals with follow the source of food until it runs out & they starve & die. It may not have a 'conscious' direction, but then neither does an amoeba - or do you claim that an amoeba is not a life form?
You claim that life has only been found on earth. Wrong. Basic DNA traces have been found on comets, which are primarily ice. Furthermore it is generally believed that this is how the primordial slime was first introduced to earth.
He wasn't created. He reveals He has always existed without a beginning.
'God' hasn't revealed anything. Those who told the first stories to explain what they didn't understand & those who later embellished those stories, without the first idea of what they were talking about were the ones who 'revealed' this nonsense.
You say yourself that before the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing, yet you also claim that God came from nothing, before the beginning.
Once again, if God made man in HIS own image, how come God had any gender at all?
The whole Bible is full of blatant discrepancies from beginning to end, with no more basis than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Fantasy all the way.
Then, not only are there the perpetual embellishments, there are the translations & the re-translations, the copying by hand, and more copying by hand, followed all the different interpretations depending on which particular sect you happen to follow.
Hard facts mean nothing to dreamers such as yourself. If it doesn't fall in line with what you want it to believe, then you simply deny their existence. Heads in the sand.
My point exactly. You are confusing Natural & Supernatural with Known & Unknown. Just because the answer is, as yet, unknown, this doesn't mean that is is supernatural. To believe it is is simply unfounded superstition based on nothing but imagination.
You say that fire doesn't have direction, whereas life does. Fire will follow the source of fuel until it is burned out & is extinguished. Animals with follow the source of food until it runs out & they starve & die. It may not have a 'conscious' direction, but then neither does an amoeba - or do you claim that an amoeba is not a life form?
You claim that life has only been found on earth. Wrong. Basic DNA traces have been found on comets, which are primarily ice. Furthermore it is generally believed that this is how the primordial slime was first introduced to earth.
He wasn't created. He reveals He has always existed without a beginning.
'God' hasn't revealed anything. Those who told the first stories to explain what they didn't understand & those who later embellished those stories, without the first idea of what they were talking about were the ones who 'revealed' this nonsense.
You say yourself that before the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing, yet you also claim that God came from nothing, before the beginning.
Once again, if God made man in HIS own image, how come God had any gender at all?
The whole Bible is full of blatant discrepancies from beginning to end, with no more basis than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Fantasy all the way.
Then, not only are there the perpetual embellishments, there are the translations & the re-translations, the copying by hand, and more copying by hand, followed all the different interpretations depending on which particular sect you happen to follow.
Hard facts mean nothing to dreamers such as yourself. If it doesn't fall in line with what you want it to believe, then you simply deny their existence. Heads in the sand.
Science Disproves Evolution
The very title of this thread is a sad commentary on the blindness of supposedly "educated" societies to true science. Real scientists agree that Evolution is a fact. It can be seen. It can be tracked genetically. It is scientifically proven. This pathetic thread is very similar Global Warming and Climate Change Deniers ideas. "I believe it, and so do a few fringe believers, therefore it must be true."
I have to smile a bit as I think of the sad "believers" who must have have held on to the view that the Earth was the center of the Universe, even after Galileo invented the telescope.
I'm sure that they quoted just as many "serious and important" sources as Pahu. Unfortunately, sadly, ...they were wrong. I wonder how they felt as their beliefs and foundations crumbled under the onslaught of increasing knowledge. Did they stick, irrationally, to their tenets? Did they open their minds to new ideas? I suspect they went to their graves propounding their failed and disproven ideas...rather than admit their views of the Universe were untrue...
I have to smile a bit as I think of the sad "believers" who must have have held on to the view that the Earth was the center of the Universe, even after Galileo invented the telescope.
I'm sure that they quoted just as many "serious and important" sources as Pahu. Unfortunately, sadly, ...they were wrong. I wonder how they felt as their beliefs and foundations crumbled under the onslaught of increasing knowledge. Did they stick, irrationally, to their tenets? Did they open their minds to new ideas? I suspect they went to their graves propounding their failed and disproven ideas...rather than admit their views of the Universe were untrue...
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1458049 wrote: My point exactly. You are confusing Natural & Supernatural with Known & Unknown. Just because the answer is, as yet, unknown, this doesn't mean that is is supernatural. To believe it is is simply unfounded superstition based on nothing but imagination.
Just because it is unknown does not mean an alternative will someday be known. This is based on faith, not facts. The fact remains that the universe cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
You claim that life has only been found on earth. Wrong. Basic DNA traces have been found on comets, which are primarily ice. Furthermore it is generally believed that this is how the primordial slime was first introduced to earth.
The evidence indicates comets came from the earth. During the Flood there was a tremendous worldwide explosion that hurled a great deal of water and matter into outer space. Some of that water and matter became comets, thus the origin of DNA traces on comets. You can learn more about this here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets
'God' hasn't revealed anything. Those who told the first stories to explain what they didn't understand & those who later embellished those stories, without the first idea of what they were talking about were the ones who 'revealed' this nonsense.
If that is true, how do you explain the hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies found in the Bible:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
You say yourself that before the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing, yet you also claim that God came from nothing, before the beginning.
I did not say God came from nothing. I said God revealed He has always existed.
Once again, if God made man in HIS own image, how come God had any gender at all?
God is spirit, not matter. Creating man is His own image includes mind, spirit and free will. In the Bible He uses the male gender for our benefit and understanding. After all, He has to use language we can relate to.
The whole Bible is full of blatant discrepancies from beginning to end, with no more basis than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Fantasy all the way.
What are those blatant discrepancies and fantasies?
[continue]
Just because it is unknown does not mean an alternative will someday be known. This is based on faith, not facts. The fact remains that the universe cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
You claim that life has only been found on earth. Wrong. Basic DNA traces have been found on comets, which are primarily ice. Furthermore it is generally believed that this is how the primordial slime was first introduced to earth.
The evidence indicates comets came from the earth. During the Flood there was a tremendous worldwide explosion that hurled a great deal of water and matter into outer space. Some of that water and matter became comets, thus the origin of DNA traces on comets. You can learn more about this here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets
'God' hasn't revealed anything. Those who told the first stories to explain what they didn't understand & those who later embellished those stories, without the first idea of what they were talking about were the ones who 'revealed' this nonsense.
If that is true, how do you explain the hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies found in the Bible:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
You say yourself that before the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing, yet you also claim that God came from nothing, before the beginning.
I did not say God came from nothing. I said God revealed He has always existed.
Once again, if God made man in HIS own image, how come God had any gender at all?
God is spirit, not matter. Creating man is His own image includes mind, spirit and free will. In the Bible He uses the male gender for our benefit and understanding. After all, He has to use language we can relate to.
The whole Bible is full of blatant discrepancies from beginning to end, with no more basis than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Fantasy all the way.
What are those blatant discrepancies and fantasies?
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
FourPart;1458049 wrote: Then, not only are there the perpetual embellishments, there are the translations & the re-translations, the copying by hand, and more copying by hand, followed all the different interpretations depending on which particular sect you happen to follow.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they showed perfect alignment with Scripture.
Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability
by Ron Rhodes
Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.
These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).
Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal
In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."
This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.
But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.
Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.
Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.
Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.
For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.
Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.
By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.
Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.
This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.
By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.
Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.
We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.
If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.
The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books
By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."
Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."
[continue]
FourPart;1458049 wrote: Then, not only are there the perpetual embellishments, there are the translations & the re-translations, the copying by hand, and more copying by hand, followed all the different interpretations depending on which particular sect you happen to follow.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they showed perfect alignment with Scripture.
Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability
by Ron Rhodes
Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.
These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).
Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal
In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."
This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.
But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.
Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.
Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.
Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.
For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.
Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.
By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.
Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.
This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.
By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.
Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.
We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.
If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.
The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books
By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."
Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continue]
Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).
There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.
Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.
In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).
The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.
The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.
Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.
The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."
From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.
Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.
These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.
The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.
God's Preservation of the Bible
The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.
The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.
By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.
Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.
Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.
The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
Hard facts mean nothing to dreamers such as yourself. If it doesn't fall in line with what you want it to believe, then you simply deny their existence. Heads in the sand.
That assertion better applies to you!
Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).
There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.
Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.
In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).
The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.
The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.
Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.
The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."
From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.
Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.
These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.
The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.
God's Preservation of the Bible
The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.
The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.
By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.
Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.
Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.
The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
Hard facts mean nothing to dreamers such as yourself. If it doesn't fall in line with what you want it to believe, then you simply deny their existence. Heads in the sand.
That assertion better applies to you!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Here's a blatant discrepancy: Where did Cain and Able's wives come from?
Science Disproves Evolution
Here are some more:
1) How many generations were there between Abraham and David?
Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen whereas Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying?
In Acts 20:35 Paul told the people “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception, fabrication, or perjury?
3) Is scripture inspired by God?
According to 2 Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is given by inspiration of God. But again, Paul has his own agenda, which is made clear when he states, “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment, (1 Corinthians 7:6); and “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, (1 Corinthians 7:12); as well as, “That which I speak, I speak I not after the Lord. (2 Corinthians) Aren’t Christians being dishonest when they claim the whole of the Bible is “God inspired as Paul took great pains to say it was not?
4) Did Jesus command Paul to Baptize others or not?
In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul clearly states that Jesus sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Consequently, this contradicts Jesus command to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them¦ (Matthew 28:19)
5) Was the baby Jesus ever taken to Egypt?
Matthew 2:15, 19, and 21-23 tells that the infant Christ was taken into Egypt to escape the massacre of the innocents. Luke 2:22 and 39 the infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt. Moreover, the massacre of the innocents is deemed redaction by New Testament historians. This means the event as told by Matthew and Luke is simply an interpolation, a literary technique by which they link the themes of one Messiah to give validity to the next by rewriting the Moses myth and the flight from a bloodthirsty pharaoh and fitting it into the new work of fiction. Notably, there is no historical account of Herod the Great killing any children during any period.
6) Where did Jesus preach the first Beatitudes?
In Matthew 5:1-2 Jesus preached his first sermon on the mount, but in Luke 6:17 and 20 he preached his sermon in the plain. A mountain is distinctly not a plain.
7) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to?
In Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 and 7:28 Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes (round about 5,000 people according to scripture), but Luke 11:1-4 he delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
8) What, exactly, did Jesus instruct them to take?
Matthew 10:10 Jesus instructed them not to take a staff and not to wear sandals. However, in Mark 6:8-9 Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey. So which is it? Or is it more likely that the author Matthew has made an error in copying Mark? Or perhaps both are inaccurate?
9) When did the fig tree hear of its doom?
In Matthew 21:17-19 when Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple, or was it before the purging as in Mark 11:14-15, and verse 20? It cannot be both, unless Jesus cursed the same fig tree twice, which would make him verifiably senile.
10) When did the fig tree keel?
The fig tree withered immediately in Matthew 21:9, and the disciples registered surprise then and there. Yet in Mark 11:12-14 and 20 the disciples noticed it had withered the morning after and expressed astonishment.
11) When did the leper become not a leper?
In Matthew 8:13 and 8:14 Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. On the other hand, in Mark 1:29-30 and 1:40-42 Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
12) Was the girl dead or just dying?
In Matthew 9:18 Jairus asks for Jesus’ help, saying his daughter was already dead, but in Luke 8:41-42 he approaches Jesus to request his help because his daughter was dying. So which is it, was she dying or dead?
13) How many blind men besought Jesus?
Matthew 20:30 has two blind men, although Luke 18:35-38 states only one.
14) Who made the request to sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom?
Matthew 20:20-21 has the children of Zebedee’s mother request that James and John should sit beside Jesus, although Mark 10:35-37 states the children made the request themselves.
15) Was John the Baptist Elias?
Matthew 11:14 says that “this is Elias which was to come. But Matthew 11:14 the people inquire, “Art though Elias? And he said I am not. (John 1:21)
16) When did John the Baptist find out that Jesus was the Messiah?
While he was imprisoned, as in Matthew 11:2-3, or before he was imprisoned as made clear by John 1:29-34, 36 as John already knew that Jesus was the Messiah prior to his imprisonment?
17) When was John the Baptist imprisoned? Or was he?
John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (Mark 1:14). John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (John 1:43 and 3:22-24).
18) Did the Centurion approach Jesus?
According to Matthew 8:5-7 the Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. But in Luke 7:3 and 7:6-7 the Centurion did not approach Jesus, instead he sent friends and elders of the Jews.
19) Who was the father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 has the father of Joseph as Jacob, whereas Luke 3:23 informs the father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to reconcile this discrepancy by telling us that one is the heritage of Mary and the other of Joseph, but this is historically implausible. According to Hebrew and Greek cultures of the time, both patriarchal societies, ever only concerned themselves with paternal lineage. Moreover, both passages claim it is Joseph’s bloodline, not Mary’s.
20) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus?
Matthew 15:22 claims it was a Canaan, Phoenician woman (current day Palestine), but Mark 7:26 states it was a Syrophenician, Greek woman (current day Greece).
21) What animals (and how many) did the disciples bring to Jesus?
In Matthew 21:2-7 Jesus was brought an ass and a colt (2 animals) whereas Mark 11:2-7 contradicts that claim by stating Jesus was only brought 1 animal, a colt.
22) When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 claims it was the third hour, whereas John 19:14-15 claims it was the sixth hour during the preparation of the Passover.
23) Did the temple shroud tear before or after the death of Jesus?
Luke 23:44-46 states the curtain of the temple was torn in tow prior to Jesus last breath, whereas Matthew 27:50-51 states it occurred during his last breath, the same time as Jesus’ death.
24) Who reviled Christ and who rebuked him?
Of the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 claim that both reviled Christ, but Luke 23:39-40 claims only one reviled Christ while the other rebuked him for it.
25) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen?
Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your lights so shine before men that they may see your good works. 1 Peter 2:12 similarly states, “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that¦ they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. This contradicts Matthew 6:1-4 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them¦ that thine alms may be in secret, and Matthew 23:3-5 which states, “Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works¦ all their works they do for to be seen of men.
26) Can anyone pray in public?
Matthew 6:5-6 says Jesus condemned public prayer. But Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:8, encouraged public prayer.
27) Where did the devil take Jesus first?
Matthew 4:5-8 states that the Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. Luke 4:5-9 tells s different story, where the Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the Kingdoms, then to the temple.
1) How many generations were there between Abraham and David?
Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen whereas Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying?
In Acts 20:35 Paul told the people “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception, fabrication, or perjury?
3) Is scripture inspired by God?
According to 2 Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is given by inspiration of God. But again, Paul has his own agenda, which is made clear when he states, “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment, (1 Corinthians 7:6); and “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, (1 Corinthians 7:12); as well as, “That which I speak, I speak I not after the Lord. (2 Corinthians) Aren’t Christians being dishonest when they claim the whole of the Bible is “God inspired as Paul took great pains to say it was not?
4) Did Jesus command Paul to Baptize others or not?
In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul clearly states that Jesus sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Consequently, this contradicts Jesus command to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them¦ (Matthew 28:19)
5) Was the baby Jesus ever taken to Egypt?
Matthew 2:15, 19, and 21-23 tells that the infant Christ was taken into Egypt to escape the massacre of the innocents. Luke 2:22 and 39 the infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt. Moreover, the massacre of the innocents is deemed redaction by New Testament historians. This means the event as told by Matthew and Luke is simply an interpolation, a literary technique by which they link the themes of one Messiah to give validity to the next by rewriting the Moses myth and the flight from a bloodthirsty pharaoh and fitting it into the new work of fiction. Notably, there is no historical account of Herod the Great killing any children during any period.
6) Where did Jesus preach the first Beatitudes?
In Matthew 5:1-2 Jesus preached his first sermon on the mount, but in Luke 6:17 and 20 he preached his sermon in the plain. A mountain is distinctly not a plain.
7) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to?
In Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 and 7:28 Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes (round about 5,000 people according to scripture), but Luke 11:1-4 he delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
8) What, exactly, did Jesus instruct them to take?
Matthew 10:10 Jesus instructed them not to take a staff and not to wear sandals. However, in Mark 6:8-9 Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey. So which is it? Or is it more likely that the author Matthew has made an error in copying Mark? Or perhaps both are inaccurate?
9) When did the fig tree hear of its doom?
In Matthew 21:17-19 when Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple, or was it before the purging as in Mark 11:14-15, and verse 20? It cannot be both, unless Jesus cursed the same fig tree twice, which would make him verifiably senile.
10) When did the fig tree keel?
The fig tree withered immediately in Matthew 21:9, and the disciples registered surprise then and there. Yet in Mark 11:12-14 and 20 the disciples noticed it had withered the morning after and expressed astonishment.
11) When did the leper become not a leper?
In Matthew 8:13 and 8:14 Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. On the other hand, in Mark 1:29-30 and 1:40-42 Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
12) Was the girl dead or just dying?
In Matthew 9:18 Jairus asks for Jesus’ help, saying his daughter was already dead, but in Luke 8:41-42 he approaches Jesus to request his help because his daughter was dying. So which is it, was she dying or dead?
13) How many blind men besought Jesus?
Matthew 20:30 has two blind men, although Luke 18:35-38 states only one.
14) Who made the request to sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom?
Matthew 20:20-21 has the children of Zebedee’s mother request that James and John should sit beside Jesus, although Mark 10:35-37 states the children made the request themselves.
15) Was John the Baptist Elias?
Matthew 11:14 says that “this is Elias which was to come. But Matthew 11:14 the people inquire, “Art though Elias? And he said I am not. (John 1:21)
16) When did John the Baptist find out that Jesus was the Messiah?
While he was imprisoned, as in Matthew 11:2-3, or before he was imprisoned as made clear by John 1:29-34, 36 as John already knew that Jesus was the Messiah prior to his imprisonment?
17) When was John the Baptist imprisoned? Or was he?
John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (Mark 1:14). John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (John 1:43 and 3:22-24).
18) Did the Centurion approach Jesus?
According to Matthew 8:5-7 the Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. But in Luke 7:3 and 7:6-7 the Centurion did not approach Jesus, instead he sent friends and elders of the Jews.
19) Who was the father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 has the father of Joseph as Jacob, whereas Luke 3:23 informs the father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to reconcile this discrepancy by telling us that one is the heritage of Mary and the other of Joseph, but this is historically implausible. According to Hebrew and Greek cultures of the time, both patriarchal societies, ever only concerned themselves with paternal lineage. Moreover, both passages claim it is Joseph’s bloodline, not Mary’s.
20) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus?
Matthew 15:22 claims it was a Canaan, Phoenician woman (current day Palestine), but Mark 7:26 states it was a Syrophenician, Greek woman (current day Greece).
21) What animals (and how many) did the disciples bring to Jesus?
In Matthew 21:2-7 Jesus was brought an ass and a colt (2 animals) whereas Mark 11:2-7 contradicts that claim by stating Jesus was only brought 1 animal, a colt.
22) When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 claims it was the third hour, whereas John 19:14-15 claims it was the sixth hour during the preparation of the Passover.
23) Did the temple shroud tear before or after the death of Jesus?
Luke 23:44-46 states the curtain of the temple was torn in tow prior to Jesus last breath, whereas Matthew 27:50-51 states it occurred during his last breath, the same time as Jesus’ death.
24) Who reviled Christ and who rebuked him?
Of the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 claim that both reviled Christ, but Luke 23:39-40 claims only one reviled Christ while the other rebuked him for it.
25) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen?
Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your lights so shine before men that they may see your good works. 1 Peter 2:12 similarly states, “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that¦ they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. This contradicts Matthew 6:1-4 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them¦ that thine alms may be in secret, and Matthew 23:3-5 which states, “Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works¦ all their works they do for to be seen of men.
26) Can anyone pray in public?
Matthew 6:5-6 says Jesus condemned public prayer. But Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:8, encouraged public prayer.
27) Where did the devil take Jesus first?
Matthew 4:5-8 states that the Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. Luke 4:5-9 tells s different story, where the Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the Kingdoms, then to the temple.
Science Disproves Evolution
28) Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54). John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54). John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Science Disproves Evolution
29) Who is correct, Jesus or Jesus?
The fact of the matter is, Jesus contradicted his own teachings on more than one occasion, okay, on a few dozen occasions; in obvious cases such as John 8:14 where he states “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true¦ which contradicts by what he said previously in John 5:31 stating, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. So which is it? As such they negate each other and make Jesus words imbecilic at best. Here is a continuation of Jesus specific contradictions:
i. Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status. "I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him. Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.
ii. Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 23:17-19 and Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Clearly Jesus should be in danger of hell too?
iii. Does Jesus support peace, or war? Matthew 5:39 "Resist not evil, but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Also note Matthew 6:38-42 & 26:52 where Jesus teaches non-resistance, Non-violence. Now read (Luke 22:36-37) Where Jesus commands people to take arms for a coming conflict. (John 2:15) Jesus uses a whip to physically drive people out of the temple.
iv. Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of lsrael,". This would of course mean that he is here only to save the Jews. The scriptures repeatedly back up this notion that Christ is savior to the Jews and not the gentiles (see Romans 16:17, Revelations 14:3-4 & John 10). The contradiction lies in what Jesus later tells his followers: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19).
v. Can we hate our kindred? Luke 14:26 Jesus says "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15 "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." Also see Ephesians 6:22, 5:25, & Matthew 15:4
vi. Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").
vii. Deuteronomy 24:1 & 21:10-14 all say that divorce is allowed for the simple reason if a "man no longer delighteth in his wife". Yet Jesus comes along and breaks his father’s law by saying in Matthew 5:32 that adultery is the only way one can be divorced.
viii. In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.
ix. Matthew 6:13 Jesus recites a revised prayer and states, "Don’t bring us into temptation." God is the cause of everything, even Satan. God has been leading people into temptation since the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, the trees of life and knowledge would have never been there.
x. Matthew 12:1-8 Jesus thinks it’s okay to break his father’s laws, by breaking the Sabbath day. He states that he is basically exempt for such fiascoes and that he is Master of the Sabbath.
xi. John 3:17 Jesus contradicts himself when he says, "God didn’t send his son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." Jesus seems to forget his own stories.
xii. James 4:3 If your prayers are not answered, it’s your own damned fault. This is in direct contradiction to where Jesus says "seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be known to you."
xiii. "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true" John 8:14, "If I bear witness of myself it is not true." John 5:31
xiv. "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20), versus "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (Matthew 26:11 , Mark 14:7, John 12:8) and "Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am thither ye cannot come" (John 7:34). Is this the kind of friend one can rely on?
The fact of the matter is, Jesus contradicted his own teachings on more than one occasion, okay, on a few dozen occasions; in obvious cases such as John 8:14 where he states “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true¦ which contradicts by what he said previously in John 5:31 stating, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. So which is it? As such they negate each other and make Jesus words imbecilic at best. Here is a continuation of Jesus specific contradictions:
i. Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status. "I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him. Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.
ii. Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 23:17-19 and Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Clearly Jesus should be in danger of hell too?
iii. Does Jesus support peace, or war? Matthew 5:39 "Resist not evil, but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Also note Matthew 6:38-42 & 26:52 where Jesus teaches non-resistance, Non-violence. Now read (Luke 22:36-37) Where Jesus commands people to take arms for a coming conflict. (John 2:15) Jesus uses a whip to physically drive people out of the temple.
iv. Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of lsrael,". This would of course mean that he is here only to save the Jews. The scriptures repeatedly back up this notion that Christ is savior to the Jews and not the gentiles (see Romans 16:17, Revelations 14:3-4 & John 10). The contradiction lies in what Jesus later tells his followers: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19).
v. Can we hate our kindred? Luke 14:26 Jesus says "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15 "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." Also see Ephesians 6:22, 5:25, & Matthew 15:4
vi. Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").
vii. Deuteronomy 24:1 & 21:10-14 all say that divorce is allowed for the simple reason if a "man no longer delighteth in his wife". Yet Jesus comes along and breaks his father’s law by saying in Matthew 5:32 that adultery is the only way one can be divorced.
viii. In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.
ix. Matthew 6:13 Jesus recites a revised prayer and states, "Don’t bring us into temptation." God is the cause of everything, even Satan. God has been leading people into temptation since the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, the trees of life and knowledge would have never been there.
x. Matthew 12:1-8 Jesus thinks it’s okay to break his father’s laws, by breaking the Sabbath day. He states that he is basically exempt for such fiascoes and that he is Master of the Sabbath.
xi. John 3:17 Jesus contradicts himself when he says, "God didn’t send his son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." Jesus seems to forget his own stories.
xii. James 4:3 If your prayers are not answered, it’s your own damned fault. This is in direct contradiction to where Jesus says "seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be known to you."
xiii. "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true" John 8:14, "If I bear witness of myself it is not true." John 5:31
xiv. "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20), versus "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (Matthew 26:11 , Mark 14:7, John 12:8) and "Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am thither ye cannot come" (John 7:34). Is this the kind of friend one can rely on?
Science Disproves Evolution
xv. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 6:18), versus "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matthew 19:9). In the book of Matthew, Jesus said a man could put away his wife if one factor-- fornication--is involved. In Mark and Luke he allowed no exceptions.
xvi. Jesus is quoted: "Judge not, and ye shall be not judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1), versus "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus stated men are not to judge but, then, allowed it under certain conditions. As in the case of divorce, he can’t seem to formulate a consistent policy.
xvii. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, (also note the time before crucification where Jesus prays for the "cup to passeth over me") versus "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour" (John 12:27 RSV). Jesus can’t seem to decide whether or not he wants to die. One moment he is willing; the next he isn’t.
xviii. In Luke 23:30 ("Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, fall on us, and to the hills, cover us") Jesus quoted Hosea 10:8 ("...and they shall say to the mountains, cover us; and to the hills, fall on us"). And, like Paul, he often quoted inaccurately. In this instance, he confused mountains with hills.
xix. "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they know him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:11-13). John the Baptist was beheaded, but Jesus was not. And what did John the Baptist restore? Nothing!
xx. We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-18 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life.
xxi. In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." But Matthew 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, & Mark 1:45 show that Jesus consistently feared death. Jesus went out of his way to hide, run, and attempt escape from the Roman and Jewish authorities.
xxii. Matthew 5:28 says to sin in "your heart" is considered a sin in itself. The messiah is supposed to be God incarnate, not able to sin, yet in Matthew 4:5 & Luke 4:5-9, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, which is sinning in his heart. Jesus also took upon all the sins of the world during his crucifixion, so how can it be said that "Jesus was the perfect man without sin"? This would lead one to believe he was not the Messiah.
xxiii. Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matthew 12:34 ("0 generation of vipers"), and Matthew 23:27 (". . . hypocrites . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres. . .") are excellent examples of hypocrisy.
xxiv. Did the people of Jesus’ generation see any signs? (Matthew 12:38-40) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation except the Resurrection itself. (Mark 8:12-13) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation. (Mark 16:20) They went out preaching, and the Lord confirmed the word through accompanying signs. (John 20:30) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 2:22) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 5:12 & 8:13) many signs and wonders were done through the apostles.
xxv. Jesus commands the disciples to go into Galilee immediately after the resurrection. Matthew 28:10 Jesus commands the disciples to "tarry in Jerusalem" immediately after the resurrection.
xxvi. Matthew 28:18 & John 3:35 both tell that Jesus said he could do anything. Yet Mark 6:5 says Jesus was not all powerful.
xxvii. Jesus says in Luke 2:13-14 that he came to bring peace on earth. Matthew 10:34 Jesus back peddles and says he did not come to bring peace on earth.
xxviii. Did Christ receive testimony from man? "Ye sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man." John 5:33-34 "And ye shall also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." John 15:27
xxix. Christ laid down his life for his friends. John 15:13 & 10:11 Christ laid down his life for his enemies. Romans 5:10
xxx. Deuteronomy 23:2 says that bastards can not attend church unto the tenth generation. If Jesus was spawned by Mary and Jehovah as the Bible claims then he is technically a bastard and should not be the leader of the church.
xvi. Jesus is quoted: "Judge not, and ye shall be not judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1), versus "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus stated men are not to judge but, then, allowed it under certain conditions. As in the case of divorce, he can’t seem to formulate a consistent policy.
xvii. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, (also note the time before crucification where Jesus prays for the "cup to passeth over me") versus "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour" (John 12:27 RSV). Jesus can’t seem to decide whether or not he wants to die. One moment he is willing; the next he isn’t.
xviii. In Luke 23:30 ("Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, fall on us, and to the hills, cover us") Jesus quoted Hosea 10:8 ("...and they shall say to the mountains, cover us; and to the hills, fall on us"). And, like Paul, he often quoted inaccurately. In this instance, he confused mountains with hills.
xix. "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they know him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:11-13). John the Baptist was beheaded, but Jesus was not. And what did John the Baptist restore? Nothing!
xx. We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-18 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life.
xxi. In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." But Matthew 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, & Mark 1:45 show that Jesus consistently feared death. Jesus went out of his way to hide, run, and attempt escape from the Roman and Jewish authorities.
xxii. Matthew 5:28 says to sin in "your heart" is considered a sin in itself. The messiah is supposed to be God incarnate, not able to sin, yet in Matthew 4:5 & Luke 4:5-9, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, which is sinning in his heart. Jesus also took upon all the sins of the world during his crucifixion, so how can it be said that "Jesus was the perfect man without sin"? This would lead one to believe he was not the Messiah.
xxiii. Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matthew 12:34 ("0 generation of vipers"), and Matthew 23:27 (". . . hypocrites . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres. . .") are excellent examples of hypocrisy.
xxiv. Did the people of Jesus’ generation see any signs? (Matthew 12:38-40) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation except the Resurrection itself. (Mark 8:12-13) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation. (Mark 16:20) They went out preaching, and the Lord confirmed the word through accompanying signs. (John 20:30) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 2:22) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 5:12 & 8:13) many signs and wonders were done through the apostles.
xxv. Jesus commands the disciples to go into Galilee immediately after the resurrection. Matthew 28:10 Jesus commands the disciples to "tarry in Jerusalem" immediately after the resurrection.
xxvi. Matthew 28:18 & John 3:35 both tell that Jesus said he could do anything. Yet Mark 6:5 says Jesus was not all powerful.
xxvii. Jesus says in Luke 2:13-14 that he came to bring peace on earth. Matthew 10:34 Jesus back peddles and says he did not come to bring peace on earth.
xxviii. Did Christ receive testimony from man? "Ye sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man." John 5:33-34 "And ye shall also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." John 15:27
xxix. Christ laid down his life for his friends. John 15:13 & 10:11 Christ laid down his life for his enemies. Romans 5:10
xxx. Deuteronomy 23:2 says that bastards can not attend church unto the tenth generation. If Jesus was spawned by Mary and Jehovah as the Bible claims then he is technically a bastard and should not be the leader of the church.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1457528 wrote: Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
You ignored this and as you posted the so called scientific proof within the Bible, yet again, I will ask you to respond to my comment. It was just one plucked from many I could have chosen
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
You ignored this and as you posted the so called scientific proof within the Bible, yet again, I will ask you to respond to my comment. It was just one plucked from many I could have chosen
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458192 wrote: Here's a blatant discrepancy: Where did Cain and Able's wives come from?
Does the Bible say anything about Abel having a wife? It does say Cain killed Abel. One answer to your question is Cain must have married his sister.
I believe that in Genesis 1:26-28 God created the human race, which could have consisted of millions of people:
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.
Does the Bible say anything about Abel having a wife? It does say Cain killed Abel. One answer to your question is Cain must have married his sister.
I believe that in Genesis 1:26-28 God created the human race, which could have consisted of millions of people:
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458193 wrote: Here are some more:
I don't have the time or inclination to go through all 27 of your questions but I will deal with a few:
1) How many generations were there between Abraham and David?
Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen whereas Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
If the record of generations given in Matthew 1 were to be a mere mathematical problem, then the questioner would be correct, 14x3=42, but there are only 41 listed. However, we are not looking at a mathematical problem, but at a record of history. There are at least a couple of viable explanations.
1) ABRAHAM TO DAVID; DAVID TO THE CAPTIVITY
The wording of verse 17 has caused some to suggest that David's name is included in both the 1st and 2nd grouping of generations. Notice, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations..." The writer does not express his intent as revealing 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but 3 segments the Jewish history, each comprised of 14 generations. It is plausible that David's name being mentioned twice (v 17) indicates his inclusion in both the first and second groupings. If so, then:
— the 1st begins with Abraham and ends with David, 14 generations;
— the 2nd begins with David and ends with Josiah, 14 generations;
— the 3rd begins with Jeconiah and ends with Jesus, 14 generations.
2) WHERE'S JEHOIAKIM?
In the listing of Jesus' forefathers, there is a name missing. Excluded from the list is Jehoiakim (a.k.a. Eliakim), who was Josiah's son and Jeconiah's father (1 Chronicles 3:15-16). The reason for his exclusion may be that he was a puppet king, given his rule by the Pharaoh of Egypt. The first phase of the captivity of Judah by Babylon began at the end of Jehoiakim's reign, prior to his son Jeconiah coming into power. Thus, the 3 groupings of 14 generations would include:
— 1 — Abraham to David;
— 2 — Solomon to Jehoiakim (he is not mentioned, but was among the first to be carried off into Babylon);
— 3 — Jeconiah to Jesus.
There may be other possible explanations for the existence of only 41 names in the genealogy of Matthew 1, even though verse 17 speaks of 3 groupings of 14. Regardless, these two suffice to demonstrate that there is not a contradiction.
3) Is scripture inspired by God?
According to 2 Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is given by inspiration of God. But again, Paul has his own agenda, which is made clear when he states, “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment, (1 Corinthians 7:6); and “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, (1 Corinthians 7:12); as well as, “That which I speak, I speak I not after the Lord. (2 Corinthians) Aren’t Christians being dishonest when they claim the whole of the Bible is “God inspired as Paul took great pains to say it was not?
This is a case of overinterpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says. Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke following his conversion.
Also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that the Spirit is not speaking through him.
(5) Was the baby Jesus ever taken to Egypt?
Matthew 2:15, 19, and 21-23 tells that the infant Christ was taken into Egypt to escape the massacre of the innocents. Luke 2:22 and 39 the infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt. Moreover, the massacre of the innocents is deemed redaction by New Testament historians. This means the event as told by Matthew and Luke is simply an interpolation, a literary technique by which they link the themes of one Messiah to give validity to the next by rewriting the Moses myth and the flight from a bloodthirsty pharaoh and fitting it into the new work of fiction. Notably, there is no historical account of Herod the Great killing any children during any period.
Let us look at the passages in question:
Luke 2:21-24, 39
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.".... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Matthew 2:14-15, 19-23
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.".... But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead." Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Let me first deal with an incorrect statement made by the questioner. Jesus was not taken to the Temple eight days after His birth. He was circumcised eight days after His birth (Lk 2:21). He was not taken to the Temple until the days of purification were complete for Mary (see Lev 12:1-4), which was forty days after His birth. When Joseph and Mary "...had performed all things according to the law of the Lord", they returned to Nazareth. In addition to this incorrect statement, it appears the questioner has made a false assumption, commonly made on Matthew 2, which I believe has in part contributed to the thought that there is a contradiction. Consider the following explanation of the events from the birth of Christ until His return to Nazareth from Egypt. It should clear up the supposed contradiction, and other misconceptions about these events.
Jesus was born in a manger (Luke 2:6-7), for there was nowhere else for them to stay. That same night, shepherds were told of the miraculous birth, and made haste to go see the Child (Luke 2:8-17). On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised (Lk 2:21), and after forty days, he was brought to the Temple (Lk 2:22; Lev 12:1-4). After the sacrifices were completed, they returned to Nazareth (Lk 2:39).
After Jesus had been born (notice, Matthew doesn't specify how long after), the wise men came to Jerusalem following a star which they had seen in the East (Mt 2:1-2). Herod was curious about the time of the star's appearing (Mt 2:7). The wise men were sent to Bethlehem, which was the birthplace of the Child. It is assumed by many that they found Jesus there, but the text does not indicate such. We again read of the star, that it directed them to where He was. One should not think they needed the star to guide them on the five mile walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Taking into account what Luke reveals about the brief time Joseph and Mary spent in Bethlehem, I suspect that the star guided the wise men to Nazareth, where Jesus was found in a house (Mt 2:11). Recall, while in Bethlehem, they were not at a house, but rather at an inn, and even in the barn of the inn.
Having worshipped Jesus, the wise men departed, but were instructed not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12). Likewise, Joseph was instructed to flee to Egypt with Mary and the Child, for Herod would seek His life (Mt 2:13). Herod, realizing he had been deceived by the wise men, decreed that all male children, age 2 and under in Bethlehem and its districts should be put to death (Mt 2:16). Herod used the timing of the star spoken of by the wise men to determine the age of the Child. It was possible that He was up to two years of age at the time of this evil decree. Furthermore, Herod understood that the Child was perhaps not in Bethlehem any longer, extending the scope of the decree to include regions around Bethlehem also.
Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). It appears that Joseph had originally thought they might settle in Judea, but knowing that Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning, and receiving a warning in a dream, he turned aside and returned to Nazareth, in Galilee. Thus, Jesus would be known as a Nazarene, for Nazareth would be His home town (Mt 2:23).
Forty days after His birth, Luke says Jesus was taken home to Nazareth. Perhaps as much as two years after His birth, Joseph was commanded to flee with the Child to Egypt. When the common errors that have been assumed by many are maintained (ie. that the shepherds and wise men were all at the manger scene on the night Jesus was born; that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem; etc.), then there appears to be contradiction. However, the two accounts provide different information about different parts of Jesus' infancy. When understood correctly, the accounts agree and compliment one another.
There is no contradiction.
I don't have the time or inclination to go through all 27 of your questions but I will deal with a few:
1) How many generations were there between Abraham and David?
Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen whereas Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
If the record of generations given in Matthew 1 were to be a mere mathematical problem, then the questioner would be correct, 14x3=42, but there are only 41 listed. However, we are not looking at a mathematical problem, but at a record of history. There are at least a couple of viable explanations.
1) ABRAHAM TO DAVID; DAVID TO THE CAPTIVITY
The wording of verse 17 has caused some to suggest that David's name is included in both the 1st and 2nd grouping of generations. Notice, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations..." The writer does not express his intent as revealing 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but 3 segments the Jewish history, each comprised of 14 generations. It is plausible that David's name being mentioned twice (v 17) indicates his inclusion in both the first and second groupings. If so, then:
— the 1st begins with Abraham and ends with David, 14 generations;
— the 2nd begins with David and ends with Josiah, 14 generations;
— the 3rd begins with Jeconiah and ends with Jesus, 14 generations.
2) WHERE'S JEHOIAKIM?
In the listing of Jesus' forefathers, there is a name missing. Excluded from the list is Jehoiakim (a.k.a. Eliakim), who was Josiah's son and Jeconiah's father (1 Chronicles 3:15-16). The reason for his exclusion may be that he was a puppet king, given his rule by the Pharaoh of Egypt. The first phase of the captivity of Judah by Babylon began at the end of Jehoiakim's reign, prior to his son Jeconiah coming into power. Thus, the 3 groupings of 14 generations would include:
— 1 — Abraham to David;
— 2 — Solomon to Jehoiakim (he is not mentioned, but was among the first to be carried off into Babylon);
— 3 — Jeconiah to Jesus.
There may be other possible explanations for the existence of only 41 names in the genealogy of Matthew 1, even though verse 17 speaks of 3 groupings of 14. Regardless, these two suffice to demonstrate that there is not a contradiction.
3) Is scripture inspired by God?
According to 2 Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is given by inspiration of God. But again, Paul has his own agenda, which is made clear when he states, “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment, (1 Corinthians 7:6); and “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, (1 Corinthians 7:12); as well as, “That which I speak, I speak I not after the Lord. (2 Corinthians) Aren’t Christians being dishonest when they claim the whole of the Bible is “God inspired as Paul took great pains to say it was not?
This is a case of overinterpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says. Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke following his conversion.
Also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that the Spirit is not speaking through him.
(5) Was the baby Jesus ever taken to Egypt?
Matthew 2:15, 19, and 21-23 tells that the infant Christ was taken into Egypt to escape the massacre of the innocents. Luke 2:22 and 39 the infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt. Moreover, the massacre of the innocents is deemed redaction by New Testament historians. This means the event as told by Matthew and Luke is simply an interpolation, a literary technique by which they link the themes of one Messiah to give validity to the next by rewriting the Moses myth and the flight from a bloodthirsty pharaoh and fitting it into the new work of fiction. Notably, there is no historical account of Herod the Great killing any children during any period.
Let us look at the passages in question:
Luke 2:21-24, 39
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.".... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Matthew 2:14-15, 19-23
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.".... But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead." Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Let me first deal with an incorrect statement made by the questioner. Jesus was not taken to the Temple eight days after His birth. He was circumcised eight days after His birth (Lk 2:21). He was not taken to the Temple until the days of purification were complete for Mary (see Lev 12:1-4), which was forty days after His birth. When Joseph and Mary "...had performed all things according to the law of the Lord", they returned to Nazareth. In addition to this incorrect statement, it appears the questioner has made a false assumption, commonly made on Matthew 2, which I believe has in part contributed to the thought that there is a contradiction. Consider the following explanation of the events from the birth of Christ until His return to Nazareth from Egypt. It should clear up the supposed contradiction, and other misconceptions about these events.
Jesus was born in a manger (Luke 2:6-7), for there was nowhere else for them to stay. That same night, shepherds were told of the miraculous birth, and made haste to go see the Child (Luke 2:8-17). On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised (Lk 2:21), and after forty days, he was brought to the Temple (Lk 2:22; Lev 12:1-4). After the sacrifices were completed, they returned to Nazareth (Lk 2:39).
After Jesus had been born (notice, Matthew doesn't specify how long after), the wise men came to Jerusalem following a star which they had seen in the East (Mt 2:1-2). Herod was curious about the time of the star's appearing (Mt 2:7). The wise men were sent to Bethlehem, which was the birthplace of the Child. It is assumed by many that they found Jesus there, but the text does not indicate such. We again read of the star, that it directed them to where He was. One should not think they needed the star to guide them on the five mile walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Taking into account what Luke reveals about the brief time Joseph and Mary spent in Bethlehem, I suspect that the star guided the wise men to Nazareth, where Jesus was found in a house (Mt 2:11). Recall, while in Bethlehem, they were not at a house, but rather at an inn, and even in the barn of the inn.
Having worshipped Jesus, the wise men departed, but were instructed not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12). Likewise, Joseph was instructed to flee to Egypt with Mary and the Child, for Herod would seek His life (Mt 2:13). Herod, realizing he had been deceived by the wise men, decreed that all male children, age 2 and under in Bethlehem and its districts should be put to death (Mt 2:16). Herod used the timing of the star spoken of by the wise men to determine the age of the Child. It was possible that He was up to two years of age at the time of this evil decree. Furthermore, Herod understood that the Child was perhaps not in Bethlehem any longer, extending the scope of the decree to include regions around Bethlehem also.
Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). It appears that Joseph had originally thought they might settle in Judea, but knowing that Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning, and receiving a warning in a dream, he turned aside and returned to Nazareth, in Galilee. Thus, Jesus would be known as a Nazarene, for Nazareth would be His home town (Mt 2:23).
Forty days after His birth, Luke says Jesus was taken home to Nazareth. Perhaps as much as two years after His birth, Joseph was commanded to flee with the Child to Egypt. When the common errors that have been assumed by many are maintained (ie. that the shepherds and wise men were all at the manger scene on the night Jesus was born; that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem; etc.), then there appears to be contradiction. However, the two accounts provide different information about different parts of Jesus' infancy. When understood correctly, the accounts agree and compliment one another.
There is no contradiction.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458194 wrote: 28) Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54). John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
None of the synoptic gospel writers say that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. John explicitly tells us that He was taken to Annas first, and thereafter (v 24) delivered to Caiaphas.
I might tell someone that I am going to the grocery store. Is it contradictory if before I go there, I make a stop at the bank first? In like manner, those who laid hold of Jesus led Him to Caiaphas, but before arriving before him, they first brought Him to Annas.
There is no contradiction.
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54). John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
None of the synoptic gospel writers say that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. John explicitly tells us that He was taken to Annas first, and thereafter (v 24) delivered to Caiaphas.
I might tell someone that I am going to the grocery store. Is it contradictory if before I go there, I make a stop at the bank first? In like manner, those who laid hold of Jesus led Him to Caiaphas, but before arriving before him, they first brought Him to Annas.
There is no contradiction.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458195 wrote: 29)
ii. Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 23:17-19 and Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Clearly Jesus should be in danger of hell too?
There are a few distinctions which ought to be made as we begin to consider this supposed contradiction. Note:
the prohibition (Matthew 5:22) is limited to brethren (v 22-24). Some verses listed above address unbelievers (Psalm 14:1; 53:1; Romans 1:21-22).
a different Greek word is translated "fool" in Matthew 5:22 than in the other texts, with the exception of Matthew 23:17, 19. But more important than the word used, Jesus through Matthew 5 is focusing upon the attitude of one's heart.
none of the texts listed as evidence that it is "OK" to call some one a fool compels us to do so. Though the Bible may identify this one or that one as a fool, no Bible text tells us to call anyone a fool.
As indicated above, Psalm 14:1; 53:1 and Romans 1:21-22 all speak of those who care not to know God as fools (Heb. nabal; Gr. asunetos). Why are they called fools? "...The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..." (Psalm 111:10; cf. Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). To reject the Lord is to reject wisdom and knowledge. By definition, that is foolishness. But again, this is spoken of the unbeliever, not the believer. Gr. moros
dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd: -- fool(-ish, X -ishness).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
...a fair equivalent of "raca". "Raca" expresses contempt for a man's head = you stupid! More expresses contempt for his heart and character = you scounrel"
Robertson's NT Word Pictures
In the English, the word fool is used to translate more than one Greek word. Though the words convey similar thoughts, do not make the mistake of equating them with one another. In Luke 11:40, Jesus refers to the Pharisees as aphron (gr.), for they focused on outward washings, but not inward cleansing. The word means "...ignorant... rash... unbelieving... unwise..." (Strong's). This is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:36 of those who cast doubt upon the resurrection. In Luke 24:25, two disciples whom Jesus walked with upon the Emmaus road were called anetos (gr.) by the Lord, for their minds were closed to the reality of His resurrection. This is the same word used by Paul in Galatians 3:1, for the Galatians had turned from following the truth of the gospel.
But what about Matthew 23:17, 19? There, Jesus used the word moros in reference to the scribes and Pharisees. First, realize, that by their actions, they demonstrated that they were not servants of God. Through constant denial of His word, they made themselves enemies of the Lord and the way of truth. As such, they might be listed in the first group we considered, who are unbelievers, not caring to know the God of heaven, and as such, make themselves fools.
But, even if one does count the Pharisees and scribes as Jesus' brethren, His use of the word here is not contradictory to the use forbidden in Matthew 5:22. The setting in that text is of one who "...is angry with his brother without a cause...", who then resorts to name calling. Jesus' use of moros in Matthew 23:17, 19 is not name calling, but is identifying them for what they were, morally corrupt fools.
Consider that there are proper and improper uses of words like "retarded" and "dumb" in the English language. One may use these words to speak contemptibly about another, which usage is wrong and should not be engaged in. On the other hand, the words respectively refer to an individual who is slow in some capacity, or who is unable to speak. This latter usage is not from an improper heart, but a correct employ of the words. Similarly, Jesus condemned the spiteful name calling which some might engage in with the word moros, but in another place, used the word himself, for it literally described those whom he was speaking about.
There is no contradiction.
vi. Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").
It seems that the questioner does not acknowledge that there are different kinds of peace. There is peace between nations, peace between persons, and peace between man and God. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly throughout the world, there would be peace between nations. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly in all relationships, there would be peace between persons. When the principles of Christ are applied correctly in the life of a Christian, there is peace between man and God.
The three texts listed above which speak of the Lord coming to bring peace all deal with peace between man and God. The first pronounces peace upon "men of goodwill". The second, Jesus promises His peace to the disciples, which is not like the peace of the world. The third, Peter brought the gospel of peace to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts to Christianity.
Though the gospel brings peace between man and God, it may result in trouble in other relationships. Tensions can result when one turns from the way of the world, but his family or friends do not. In the context of Luke 22:36, Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of the high priests' servant, and Jesus healed it (v 49-51). In a parallel, Matthew 26:52, Jesus taught, "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Did Jesus mean for His disciples to resort to violence by speaking about a sword in Luke 22:36? No, it appears to be the exact opposite, for when one of the disciples used the sword, Jesus countered his actions and rebuked him.
There is no contradiction.
vii. Deuteronomy 24:1 & 21:10-14 all say that divorce is allowed for the simple reason if a "man no longer delighteth in his wife". Yet Jesus comes along and breaks his father’s law by saying in Matthew 5:32 that adultery is the only way one can be divorced.
If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction.
Next, let us address the text in 1 Corinthians 7. It reads, "...if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace." It is the questioner's assumption that this text is permitting a divorce. The unbeliever did not divorce the believer, neither did the believer divorce the unbeliever - they are separated, because the unbeliever left. It is not a text which speaks about divorce.
Jesus is not teaching something different in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each writer penned the words of the Lord in his own way, each emphasizing something different from His teaching. When we take them all together, we know the whole of the Lord's teaching on divorce.
From Luke's gospel, we learn the basic law of God regarding marriage and divorce. For a man to divorce his spouse and marry another, or for a man to marry a divorced woman, results in adultery. Mark's gospel reveals a bit more about the Lord's law on marriage and divorce. He repeats the first part of Luke's statement, but not the latter. Instead, he adds, "and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (v 12). This is not a one way law (ie. for men only), but is equal for both man and woman. Finally, in Matthew's gospel, we have presented the one exception to God's law on divorce. Sexual immorality is the only cause for which one may divorce a spouse and justly remarry before the Lord.
None of the texts presented contradiction.
viii. In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.
Gospel means good news.
xiii. "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true" John 8:14, "If I bear witness of myself it is not true." John 5:31
Let us consider what the texts in question say:
John 5:31
If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
John 8:14, 18
Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going... I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.'
Jesus did not say in John 5:31 that he would not bear witness to himself, nor did he say that his own witness would be false. Rather, his own witness would not be sufficient evidence to necessitate belief. Thus, He identifies in the context other witnesses (the Father, John, His works). These are adequate evidence of His claim as the Son of God. The text in John 8 is much similar, in that Jesus does not rely solely upon his own witness. The Father bears witness to the Son.
There is no contradiction.
ii. Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 23:17-19 and Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Clearly Jesus should be in danger of hell too?
There are a few distinctions which ought to be made as we begin to consider this supposed contradiction. Note:
the prohibition (Matthew 5:22) is limited to brethren (v 22-24). Some verses listed above address unbelievers (Psalm 14:1; 53:1; Romans 1:21-22).
a different Greek word is translated "fool" in Matthew 5:22 than in the other texts, with the exception of Matthew 23:17, 19. But more important than the word used, Jesus through Matthew 5 is focusing upon the attitude of one's heart.
none of the texts listed as evidence that it is "OK" to call some one a fool compels us to do so. Though the Bible may identify this one or that one as a fool, no Bible text tells us to call anyone a fool.
As indicated above, Psalm 14:1; 53:1 and Romans 1:21-22 all speak of those who care not to know God as fools (Heb. nabal; Gr. asunetos). Why are they called fools? "...The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..." (Psalm 111:10; cf. Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). To reject the Lord is to reject wisdom and knowledge. By definition, that is foolishness. But again, this is spoken of the unbeliever, not the believer. Gr. moros
dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd: -- fool(-ish, X -ishness).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
...a fair equivalent of "raca". "Raca" expresses contempt for a man's head = you stupid! More expresses contempt for his heart and character = you scounrel"
Robertson's NT Word Pictures
In the English, the word fool is used to translate more than one Greek word. Though the words convey similar thoughts, do not make the mistake of equating them with one another. In Luke 11:40, Jesus refers to the Pharisees as aphron (gr.), for they focused on outward washings, but not inward cleansing. The word means "...ignorant... rash... unbelieving... unwise..." (Strong's). This is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:36 of those who cast doubt upon the resurrection. In Luke 24:25, two disciples whom Jesus walked with upon the Emmaus road were called anetos (gr.) by the Lord, for their minds were closed to the reality of His resurrection. This is the same word used by Paul in Galatians 3:1, for the Galatians had turned from following the truth of the gospel.
But what about Matthew 23:17, 19? There, Jesus used the word moros in reference to the scribes and Pharisees. First, realize, that by their actions, they demonstrated that they were not servants of God. Through constant denial of His word, they made themselves enemies of the Lord and the way of truth. As such, they might be listed in the first group we considered, who are unbelievers, not caring to know the God of heaven, and as such, make themselves fools.
But, even if one does count the Pharisees and scribes as Jesus' brethren, His use of the word here is not contradictory to the use forbidden in Matthew 5:22. The setting in that text is of one who "...is angry with his brother without a cause...", who then resorts to name calling. Jesus' use of moros in Matthew 23:17, 19 is not name calling, but is identifying them for what they were, morally corrupt fools.
Consider that there are proper and improper uses of words like "retarded" and "dumb" in the English language. One may use these words to speak contemptibly about another, which usage is wrong and should not be engaged in. On the other hand, the words respectively refer to an individual who is slow in some capacity, or who is unable to speak. This latter usage is not from an improper heart, but a correct employ of the words. Similarly, Jesus condemned the spiteful name calling which some might engage in with the word moros, but in another place, used the word himself, for it literally described those whom he was speaking about.
There is no contradiction.
vi. Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").
It seems that the questioner does not acknowledge that there are different kinds of peace. There is peace between nations, peace between persons, and peace between man and God. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly throughout the world, there would be peace between nations. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly in all relationships, there would be peace between persons. When the principles of Christ are applied correctly in the life of a Christian, there is peace between man and God.
The three texts listed above which speak of the Lord coming to bring peace all deal with peace between man and God. The first pronounces peace upon "men of goodwill". The second, Jesus promises His peace to the disciples, which is not like the peace of the world. The third, Peter brought the gospel of peace to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts to Christianity.
Though the gospel brings peace between man and God, it may result in trouble in other relationships. Tensions can result when one turns from the way of the world, but his family or friends do not. In the context of Luke 22:36, Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of the high priests' servant, and Jesus healed it (v 49-51). In a parallel, Matthew 26:52, Jesus taught, "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Did Jesus mean for His disciples to resort to violence by speaking about a sword in Luke 22:36? No, it appears to be the exact opposite, for when one of the disciples used the sword, Jesus countered his actions and rebuked him.
There is no contradiction.
vii. Deuteronomy 24:1 & 21:10-14 all say that divorce is allowed for the simple reason if a "man no longer delighteth in his wife". Yet Jesus comes along and breaks his father’s law by saying in Matthew 5:32 that adultery is the only way one can be divorced.
If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction.
Next, let us address the text in 1 Corinthians 7. It reads, "...if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace." It is the questioner's assumption that this text is permitting a divorce. The unbeliever did not divorce the believer, neither did the believer divorce the unbeliever - they are separated, because the unbeliever left. It is not a text which speaks about divorce.
Jesus is not teaching something different in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each writer penned the words of the Lord in his own way, each emphasizing something different from His teaching. When we take them all together, we know the whole of the Lord's teaching on divorce.
From Luke's gospel, we learn the basic law of God regarding marriage and divorce. For a man to divorce his spouse and marry another, or for a man to marry a divorced woman, results in adultery. Mark's gospel reveals a bit more about the Lord's law on marriage and divorce. He repeats the first part of Luke's statement, but not the latter. Instead, he adds, "and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (v 12). This is not a one way law (ie. for men only), but is equal for both man and woman. Finally, in Matthew's gospel, we have presented the one exception to God's law on divorce. Sexual immorality is the only cause for which one may divorce a spouse and justly remarry before the Lord.
None of the texts presented contradiction.
viii. In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.
Gospel means good news.
xiii. "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true" John 8:14, "If I bear witness of myself it is not true." John 5:31
Let us consider what the texts in question say:
John 5:31
If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
John 8:14, 18
Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going... I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.'
Jesus did not say in John 5:31 that he would not bear witness to himself, nor did he say that his own witness would be false. Rather, his own witness would not be sufficient evidence to necessitate belief. Thus, He identifies in the context other witnesses (the Father, John, His works). These are adequate evidence of His claim as the Son of God. The text in John 8 is much similar, in that Jesus does not rely solely upon his own witness. The Father bears witness to the Son.
There is no contradiction.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458196 wrote: xv. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 6:18), versus "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matthew 19:9). In the book of Matthew, Jesus said a man could put away his wife if one factor-- fornication--is involved. In Mark and Luke he allowed no exceptions.
The last text listed above is from a different covenant than the other texts. If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction.
Next, let us address the text in 1 Corinthians 7. It reads, "...if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace." It is the questioner's assumption that this text is permitting a divorce. The unbeliever did not divorce the believer, neither did the believer divorce the unbeliever - they are separated, because the unbeliever left. It is not a text which speaks about divorce.
Jesus is not teaching something different in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each writer penned the words of the Lord in his own way, each emphasizing something different from His teaching. When we take them all together, we know the whole of the Lord's teaching on divorce.
From Luke's gospel, we learn the basic law of God regarding marriage and divorce. For a man to divorce his spouse and marry another, or for a man to marry a divorced woman, results in adultery. Mark's gospel reveals a bit more about the Lord's law on marriage and divorce. He repeats the first part of Luke's statement, but not the latter. Instead, he adds, "and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (v 12). This is not a one way law (ie. for men only), but is equal for both man and woman. Finally, in Matthew's gospel, we have presented the one exception to God's law on divorce. Sexual immorality is the only cause for which one may divorce a spouse and justly remarry before the Lord.
None of the texts presented contradiction.
xvi. Jesus is quoted: "Judge not, and ye shall be not judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1), versus "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus stated men are not to judge but, then, allowed it under certain conditions. As in the case of divorce, he can’t seem to formulate a consistent policy.
I am unsure exactly what the questioner considers to be contradictory between these two passages, so perhaps the best approach would be simply to discuss the content of each verse.
Paul wrote, "But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one." (2:15). Perhaps a better rendering of the verse is found in Young's Literal Translation, "and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned." The word translated as "judges"/"judged" in most translations is the same word as is used in the previous verse, rendered "discerned". Paul contrasts the spiritual man (v 15) with the natural man (v 14). The natural man cannot know the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned. The Spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God. In the words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", it would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have live and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.
Again, Paul penned, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God." (4:5). In the context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He cautions the Corinthians against making harsh judgments, which is especially needed in regard to motive and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge (4:4), upon whom we wait, who will exercise the final judgment (2 Corinthians 5:11).
There is no contradiction.
xxvii. Jesus says in Luke 2:13-14 that he came to bring peace on earth. Matthew 10:34 Jesus back peddles and says he did not come to bring peace on earth.
It seems that the questioner does not acknowledge that there are different kinds of peace. There is peace between nations, peace between persons, and peace between man and God. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly throughout the world, there would be peace between nations. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly in all relationships, there would be peace between persons. When the principles of Christ are applied correctly in the life of a Christian, there is peace between man and God.
The three texts listed above which speak of the Lord coming to bring peace all deal with peace between man and God. The first pronounces peace upon "men of goodwill". The second, Jesus promises His peace to the disciples, which is not like the peace of the world. The third, Peter brought the gospel of peace to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts to Christianity.
Though the gospel brings peace between man and God, it may result in trouble in other relationships. Tensions can result when one turns from the way of the world, but his family or friends do not. In the context of Luke 22:36, Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of the high priests' servant, and Jesus healed it (v 49-51). In a parallel, Matthew 26:52, Jesus taught, "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Did Jesus mean for His disciples to resort to violence by speaking about a sword in Luke 22:36? No, it appears to be the exact opposite, for when one of the disciples used the sword, Jesus countered his actions and rebuked him.
There is no contradiction.
The last text listed above is from a different covenant than the other texts. If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction.
Next, let us address the text in 1 Corinthians 7. It reads, "...if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace." It is the questioner's assumption that this text is permitting a divorce. The unbeliever did not divorce the believer, neither did the believer divorce the unbeliever - they are separated, because the unbeliever left. It is not a text which speaks about divorce.
Jesus is not teaching something different in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Each writer penned the words of the Lord in his own way, each emphasizing something different from His teaching. When we take them all together, we know the whole of the Lord's teaching on divorce.
From Luke's gospel, we learn the basic law of God regarding marriage and divorce. For a man to divorce his spouse and marry another, or for a man to marry a divorced woman, results in adultery. Mark's gospel reveals a bit more about the Lord's law on marriage and divorce. He repeats the first part of Luke's statement, but not the latter. Instead, he adds, "and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (v 12). This is not a one way law (ie. for men only), but is equal for both man and woman. Finally, in Matthew's gospel, we have presented the one exception to God's law on divorce. Sexual immorality is the only cause for which one may divorce a spouse and justly remarry before the Lord.
None of the texts presented contradiction.
xvi. Jesus is quoted: "Judge not, and ye shall be not judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1), versus "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus stated men are not to judge but, then, allowed it under certain conditions. As in the case of divorce, he can’t seem to formulate a consistent policy.
I am unsure exactly what the questioner considers to be contradictory between these two passages, so perhaps the best approach would be simply to discuss the content of each verse.
Paul wrote, "But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one." (2:15). Perhaps a better rendering of the verse is found in Young's Literal Translation, "and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned." The word translated as "judges"/"judged" in most translations is the same word as is used in the previous verse, rendered "discerned". Paul contrasts the spiritual man (v 15) with the natural man (v 14). The natural man cannot know the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned. The Spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God. In the words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", it would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have live and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.
Again, Paul penned, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God." (4:5). In the context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He cautions the Corinthians against making harsh judgments, which is especially needed in regard to motive and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge (4:4), upon whom we wait, who will exercise the final judgment (2 Corinthians 5:11).
There is no contradiction.
xxvii. Jesus says in Luke 2:13-14 that he came to bring peace on earth. Matthew 10:34 Jesus back peddles and says he did not come to bring peace on earth.
It seems that the questioner does not acknowledge that there are different kinds of peace. There is peace between nations, peace between persons, and peace between man and God. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly throughout the world, there would be peace between nations. If the principles of Christ were applied correctly in all relationships, there would be peace between persons. When the principles of Christ are applied correctly in the life of a Christian, there is peace between man and God.
The three texts listed above which speak of the Lord coming to bring peace all deal with peace between man and God. The first pronounces peace upon "men of goodwill". The second, Jesus promises His peace to the disciples, which is not like the peace of the world. The third, Peter brought the gospel of peace to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts to Christianity.
Though the gospel brings peace between man and God, it may result in trouble in other relationships. Tensions can result when one turns from the way of the world, but his family or friends do not. In the context of Luke 22:36, Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of the high priests' servant, and Jesus healed it (v 49-51). In a parallel, Matthew 26:52, Jesus taught, "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Did Jesus mean for His disciples to resort to violence by speaking about a sword in Luke 22:36? No, it appears to be the exact opposite, for when one of the disciples used the sword, Jesus countered his actions and rebuked him.
There is no contradiction.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Snowfire
Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
Snowfire;1458199 wrote: You ignored this and as you posted the so called scientific proof within the Bible, yet again, I will ask you to respond to my comment. It was just one plucked from many I could have chosen
Just goes to show that God knew the truth before 1932.
Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
Snowfire;1458199 wrote: You ignored this and as you posted the so called scientific proof within the Bible, yet again, I will ask you to respond to my comment. It was just one plucked from many I could have chosen
Just goes to show that God knew the truth before 1932.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1458214 wrote: Originally Posted by Snowfire
Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
Just goes to show that God knew the truth before 1932.
It doesnt show anything of the sort. It's a modern day interpretation of an ancient text, spun to make it relevant to a scientific fact.
People do the same to Nostradamus' quatrains, with the same embarrassing results.
Your Source...
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof.....is scientific proof of.......Light is a particle and has mass (a photon).
As if that wasn't laughable enough. It's ironic that the idea behind your so called proof would never have been evident until 1932, when SCIENTISTS would have shown this
Those links are embarrasing
Just goes to show that God knew the truth before 1932.
It doesnt show anything of the sort. It's a modern day interpretation of an ancient text, spun to make it relevant to a scientific fact.
People do the same to Nostradamus' quatrains, with the same embarrassing results.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Kudos to Saint for his post
I note that Pahu replies on a couple of occasions:
"If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction."
Which is like saying A than B, therefore A = B. It makes no sense at all & is a contradiction in itself.
In the Temptation of Christ, there Christ & Satan, supposedly out there all alone in the desert, yet someone was able to take down the dictation of everything that was said.
There is also the question of why Joseph & Mary were in Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospels state that this was to be taxed by a Roman census. This, however is shown not to be true (Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Furthermore, the census was held about 10 year after Herod's death.
Pahu has raised the matter of misinterpretations being caused by errors in translation, yet he also denys any errors in translation from the original scrolls. He has also admitted to the Gospels being penned by different people, with their own interpretation of events & their own 'emphasis' (bias) on them. Then states that we know the truth by cherry picking from each of these. In other words, putting a spin on what you want it to mean in a blatant attempt to cover up discrepancies, which are not supposed to exist - Or in other words, A said X, B said Y, therefore they both said Z.
Once again Pahu has claimed that nothing comes of nothing, yet claims that God came of nothing & created everything out of nothing. All this, of course, is preassuming that there was nothing in the first place.
As Snowfire has pointed out, even light has mass, in the form of Photons. Just because this wasn't discovered until 1932 doesn't mean that it didn't exist before 1932, and if everyone were to follow the teachings of the Bible as the be all & end all of absolute fact, this is a fact that would never have been known, in much the same way as the Church persecuted early scientists for 'sorcery', simply because they looked for answers that reached beyond the primitive fictions of the Bible. If it hadn't been for the persistence of these enquiring minds you wouldn't be ranting here, on the Internet, but still wandering about in the desert, content in the belief that everything is as God created it, and that the seek anything more to be a sin, as it would be to eat from the tree of knowledge. It is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it can't exist. Or, in other words, Ignorance Is Bliss.
I note that Pahu replies on a couple of occasions:
"If the Law of Moses says one thing, and the Gospel of Christ says another, there is no contradiction."
Which is like saying A than B, therefore A = B. It makes no sense at all & is a contradiction in itself.
In the Temptation of Christ, there Christ & Satan, supposedly out there all alone in the desert, yet someone was able to take down the dictation of everything that was said.
There is also the question of why Joseph & Mary were in Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospels state that this was to be taxed by a Roman census. This, however is shown not to be true (Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Furthermore, the census was held about 10 year after Herod's death.
Pahu has raised the matter of misinterpretations being caused by errors in translation, yet he also denys any errors in translation from the original scrolls. He has also admitted to the Gospels being penned by different people, with their own interpretation of events & their own 'emphasis' (bias) on them. Then states that we know the truth by cherry picking from each of these. In other words, putting a spin on what you want it to mean in a blatant attempt to cover up discrepancies, which are not supposed to exist - Or in other words, A said X, B said Y, therefore they both said Z.
Once again Pahu has claimed that nothing comes of nothing, yet claims that God came of nothing & created everything out of nothing. All this, of course, is preassuming that there was nothing in the first place.
As Snowfire has pointed out, even light has mass, in the form of Photons. Just because this wasn't discovered until 1932 doesn't mean that it didn't exist before 1932, and if everyone were to follow the teachings of the Bible as the be all & end all of absolute fact, this is a fact that would never have been known, in much the same way as the Church persecuted early scientists for 'sorcery', simply because they looked for answers that reached beyond the primitive fictions of the Bible. If it hadn't been for the persistence of these enquiring minds you wouldn't be ranting here, on the Internet, but still wandering about in the desert, content in the belief that everything is as God created it, and that the seek anything more to be a sin, as it would be to eat from the tree of knowledge. It is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it can't exist. Or, in other words, Ignorance Is Bliss.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1458189 wrote: The evidence indicates comets came from the earth. During the Flood there was a tremendous worldwide explosion that hurled a great deal of water and matter into outer space. Some of that water and matter became comets, thus the origin of DNA traces on comets. That has to be the silliest piece of bullsh*t that I have ever seen anywhere on these forums.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1346204 wrote: Science Disproves Evolution
Penn and Teller Disprove Sainthood and G_D.
Penn and Teller Disprove Sainthood and G_D.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1458227 wrote:
In the Temptation of Christ, there Christ & Satan, supposedly out there all alone in the desert, yet someone was able to take down the dictation of everything that was said.
That information was provided by the Holy Spirit.
There is also the question of why Joseph & Mary were in Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospels state that this was to be taxed by a Roman census. This, however is shown not to be true (Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Furthermore, the census was held about 10 year after Herod's death.
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made
Or "this was the first enrolment, or taxing" in the Jewish nation; for there was another afterwards, when Judas the Galilean arose, and drew many after him, ( Acts 5:38 ) .
When Cyrenius was governor of Syria;
or "of Cyrenius" "governor of Syria"; that is, it was the first that he was, concerned in; who not now, but afterwards was governor of Syria; and because he had been so before Luke wrote this history, and this being a title of honour, and what might distinguish him from others of that name, it is given him; for as Tertullian says F3, Sentius Saturninus was now governor of Syria, when Cyrenius was sent into Judea, to make this register, or taxing; and which is manifestly distinguished from that, which was made during his being governor of Syria, when Archelaus was banished from Judea, ten or eleven years after Herod's death; which Josephus F4 gives an account of, and Luke refers to, in ( Acts 5:37 ) . Moreover, the words will bear to be rendered thus, "and this tax, or enrolment, was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria"; (prwth) , being used for (protera) , as in ( John 1:15 John 1:30 ) . This Cyrenius is the same whom the Romans call Quirinius, and Quirinus; a governor of Syria had great power in Judea, to which it was annexed, when Cyrenius was governor there. It is reported of R. Gamaliel, that he went to take a licence, (ayrwob Nwmghm) , "from a governor of Syria" F5; i.e. to intercalate the year: and Syria was in many things like to the land of Judea, particularly as to tithes, and the keeping of the seventh year F6.
Pahu has raised the matter of misinterpretations being caused by errors in translation, yet he also denys any errors in translation from the original scrolls. He has also admitted to the Gospels being penned by different people, with their own interpretation of events & their own 'emphasis' (bias) on them. Then states that we know the truth by cherry picking from each of these. In other words, putting a spin on what you want it to mean in a blatant attempt to cover up discrepancies, which are not supposed to exist - Or in other words, A said X, B said Y, therefore they both said Z.
Once again Pahu has claimed that nothing comes of nothing, yet claims that God came of nothing & created everything out of nothing. All this, of course, is preassuming that there was nothing in the first place.
I never said God came from nothing. God revealed that He has always existed.
Before the universe existed there was nothing. Something never comes from nothing by any natural cause. The universe came from nothing. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
As Snowfire has pointed out, even light has mass, in the form of Photons. Just because this wasn't discovered until 1932 doesn't mean that it didn't exist before 1932, and if everyone were to follow the teachings of the Bible as the be all & end all of absolute fact, this is a fact that would never have been known, in much the same way as the Church persecuted early scientists for 'sorcery', simply because they looked for answers that reached beyond the primitive fictions of the Bible. If it hadn't been for the persistence of these enquiring minds you wouldn't be ranting here, on the Internet, but still wandering about in the desert, content in the belief that everything is as God created it, and that the seek anything more to be a sin, as it would be to eat from the tree of knowledge. It is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it can't exist. Or, in other words, Ignorance Is Bliss.
Evolution: The Anti-science
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science! 1, 2, 3
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
The Preconditions of Science
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.4
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent.7 Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.
Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Can an Evolutionist Do Science?
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.9
[continue]
In the Temptation of Christ, there Christ & Satan, supposedly out there all alone in the desert, yet someone was able to take down the dictation of everything that was said.
That information was provided by the Holy Spirit.
There is also the question of why Joseph & Mary were in Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospels state that this was to be taxed by a Roman census. This, however is shown not to be true (Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Furthermore, the census was held about 10 year after Herod's death.
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made
Or "this was the first enrolment, or taxing" in the Jewish nation; for there was another afterwards, when Judas the Galilean arose, and drew many after him, ( Acts 5:38 ) .
When Cyrenius was governor of Syria;
or "of Cyrenius" "governor of Syria"; that is, it was the first that he was, concerned in; who not now, but afterwards was governor of Syria; and because he had been so before Luke wrote this history, and this being a title of honour, and what might distinguish him from others of that name, it is given him; for as Tertullian says F3, Sentius Saturninus was now governor of Syria, when Cyrenius was sent into Judea, to make this register, or taxing; and which is manifestly distinguished from that, which was made during his being governor of Syria, when Archelaus was banished from Judea, ten or eleven years after Herod's death; which Josephus F4 gives an account of, and Luke refers to, in ( Acts 5:37 ) . Moreover, the words will bear to be rendered thus, "and this tax, or enrolment, was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria"; (prwth) , being used for (protera) , as in ( John 1:15 John 1:30 ) . This Cyrenius is the same whom the Romans call Quirinius, and Quirinus; a governor of Syria had great power in Judea, to which it was annexed, when Cyrenius was governor there. It is reported of R. Gamaliel, that he went to take a licence, (ayrwob Nwmghm) , "from a governor of Syria" F5; i.e. to intercalate the year: and Syria was in many things like to the land of Judea, particularly as to tithes, and the keeping of the seventh year F6.
Pahu has raised the matter of misinterpretations being caused by errors in translation, yet he also denys any errors in translation from the original scrolls. He has also admitted to the Gospels being penned by different people, with their own interpretation of events & their own 'emphasis' (bias) on them. Then states that we know the truth by cherry picking from each of these. In other words, putting a spin on what you want it to mean in a blatant attempt to cover up discrepancies, which are not supposed to exist - Or in other words, A said X, B said Y, therefore they both said Z.
Once again Pahu has claimed that nothing comes of nothing, yet claims that God came of nothing & created everything out of nothing. All this, of course, is preassuming that there was nothing in the first place.
I never said God came from nothing. God revealed that He has always existed.
Before the universe existed there was nothing. Something never comes from nothing by any natural cause. The universe came from nothing. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
As Snowfire has pointed out, even light has mass, in the form of Photons. Just because this wasn't discovered until 1932 doesn't mean that it didn't exist before 1932, and if everyone were to follow the teachings of the Bible as the be all & end all of absolute fact, this is a fact that would never have been known, in much the same way as the Church persecuted early scientists for 'sorcery', simply because they looked for answers that reached beyond the primitive fictions of the Bible. If it hadn't been for the persistence of these enquiring minds you wouldn't be ranting here, on the Internet, but still wandering about in the desert, content in the belief that everything is as God created it, and that the seek anything more to be a sin, as it would be to eat from the tree of knowledge. It is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it can't exist. Or, in other words, Ignorance Is Bliss.
Evolution: The Anti-science
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science! 1, 2, 3
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
The Preconditions of Science
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.4
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent.7 Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.
Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Can an Evolutionist Do Science?
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.9
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
How Would an Evolutionist Respond?
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.
An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion;11 in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity.12 But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?
Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it. This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day
Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
Evolution Is Irrational
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
Conclusions
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
Footnotes
Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. This was also the title of his 1973 essay first published in the American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, p. 125–129. Back
The National Academy of Sciences issued a book called Science, Evolution, and Creationism which stated that evolution is a “critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences . . . and that evolutionary concepts “are fundamental to a high-quality science education. (See The Creation/Evolution Battle Resumes.) Back
The National Academy of Sciences also published a document called “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) with a similar theme. In the preface (p. viii) the authors indicate that biological evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things. They chose to publish the document in part “because of the importance of evolution as a central concept in understanding our planet. Back
Uniformity should not be confused with “uniformitarianism. Uniformity simply insists that the laws of nature are consistent and do not arbitrarily change with time or space, though specific conditions and processes may change. Uniformitarianism is the (unbiblical) belief that present processes are the same as past processes; it asserts a consistency of conditions and rates over time and is summed up in the phrase, “The present is the key to the past. Back
The “ordinances of heaven and earth are specifically mentioned in Jeremiah 33:25. Back
1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19 Back
Psalm 139:7–8 Back
Granted, God can use unusual and extraordinary means on occasion to accomplish an extraordinary purpose—what we might call a “miracle. But these are (by definition) exceptional; natural law could be defined as the ordinary way that God upholds the universe and accomplishes His will. Back
Why would someone who professes to believe in evolution also accept creation-based concepts? Although they may deny it, evolutionists are also made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). In their heart-of-hearts, they know the biblical God (Romans 1:19–20), but they have deceived themselves (James 1:22–24). They have forgotten that the principles of science come from the Christian worldview. Back
In granting this assumption, I’m actually being very generous to the evolutionist. I could have been very thorough and asked, “How do we really know that even in the past nature has been uniform? One might argue that we remember that the past was uniform. But since the memory portions of our brain require that the laws of chemistry and physics are constant over time, you would have to assume that the past is uniform in order to argue that we correctly remember that the past is uniform! Any non-Christian response would be necessarily circular. Back
The atheist Dr. Gordon Stein used essentially this response in the famous 1985 debate with Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen on the existence of God. Back
Again, I’m being generous here. Even this response is begging the question, since the evolutionist would have to assume uniformity in the past in order to argue that his memories of the past are accurate. Back
A “day-age creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. Back
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ti-science
How Would an Evolutionist Respond?
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.
An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion;11 in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity.12 But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?
Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it. This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day
Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
Evolution Is Irrational
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
Conclusions
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
Footnotes
Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. This was also the title of his 1973 essay first published in the American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, p. 125–129. Back
The National Academy of Sciences issued a book called Science, Evolution, and Creationism which stated that evolution is a “critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences . . . and that evolutionary concepts “are fundamental to a high-quality science education. (See The Creation/Evolution Battle Resumes.) Back
The National Academy of Sciences also published a document called “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) with a similar theme. In the preface (p. viii) the authors indicate that biological evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things. They chose to publish the document in part “because of the importance of evolution as a central concept in understanding our planet. Back
Uniformity should not be confused with “uniformitarianism. Uniformity simply insists that the laws of nature are consistent and do not arbitrarily change with time or space, though specific conditions and processes may change. Uniformitarianism is the (unbiblical) belief that present processes are the same as past processes; it asserts a consistency of conditions and rates over time and is summed up in the phrase, “The present is the key to the past. Back
The “ordinances of heaven and earth are specifically mentioned in Jeremiah 33:25. Back
1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19 Back
Psalm 139:7–8 Back
Granted, God can use unusual and extraordinary means on occasion to accomplish an extraordinary purpose—what we might call a “miracle. But these are (by definition) exceptional; natural law could be defined as the ordinary way that God upholds the universe and accomplishes His will. Back
Why would someone who professes to believe in evolution also accept creation-based concepts? Although they may deny it, evolutionists are also made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). In their heart-of-hearts, they know the biblical God (Romans 1:19–20), but they have deceived themselves (James 1:22–24). They have forgotten that the principles of science come from the Christian worldview. Back
In granting this assumption, I’m actually being very generous to the evolutionist. I could have been very thorough and asked, “How do we really know that even in the past nature has been uniform? One might argue that we remember that the past was uniform. But since the memory portions of our brain require that the laws of chemistry and physics are constant over time, you would have to assume that the past is uniform in order to argue that we correctly remember that the past is uniform! Any non-Christian response would be necessarily circular. Back
The atheist Dr. Gordon Stein used essentially this response in the famous 1985 debate with Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen on the existence of God. Back
Again, I’m being generous here. Even this response is begging the question, since the evolutionist would have to assume uniformity in the past in order to argue that his memories of the past are accurate. Back
A “day-age creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. Back
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ti-science
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
I've been avoiding taking part in this useless exercise up till now; but since you've gone through the trouble of summarizing your creation/antievolution worldview, I want to note a couple of objections that I have from glossing over more than a hundred pages of this exercise:
Time and time again....no doubt in large part because your primary source seems to be Ken Ham's answersingenesis, the "proof" of creation is at best what would more correctly be described as an untested hypothesis. And what's worse, is that neither Ken Ham, nor his followers have any interest in testing their creation notions. Remember, that the scientific process depends on testing theories, and until they can provide convincing explanations of factual evidence, they cannot be categorized as scientific theories!
Case in point would be discoveries in the human (and other animal) genome of redundant, non-coding genes. One exceptional example would be ERV's - Endogenous Retroviruses - which fit well into an evolutionary theory of development, as rare viral infections of a fertilized oocyte or egg cell, did not abort or kill the embryo, but reverse transcribed their viral RNA code into the newly combining DNA molecule of the new person (or animal). Over the long expanse of time, the quantity of ERV insertions in the human DNA code is staggering - at least 7% of the complete human genome is made up of these retroviral insertions. Most of them were inserted before our species became fully human as we have developed today. And because of that, there are at least 12 ERV insertions that we share with our close primate cousins - chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Explaining how these viral ERV insertions could match up between our species' except by common origins is so mathematically improbable, that creationists like Ham, will just ignore the whole topic entirely!
The end result of creationism/antievolution brainwashing, is to instill a fear and rejection of science among Christians.....and Muslims....and Hindus, because increasing acceptance of fundamentalist literalism in those religions has created the same anti-science way of thinking that exists among fundamentalist Christians. Rather than keeping one foot in the real world, like the theistic evolutionists strive for, the creationist rejectors of science education, promote a hostility towards science and wariness of every new discovery, for fear it might upset their narrow worldview. Children from fundamentalist families can go either one of two directions: passive, unquestioning acceptance of what their religious leaders and community leaders promote/ or rejection of their implausible answers because of a curiosity to discover the real evidence, and deal with it, rather than ignore it or dismiss it without looking.
The most damaging aspect of fundamentalism today is found right in polling data which consistently show that creationists are the most likely to reject all of the evidence that the human-caused carbonization of the atmosphere is raising global average temperatures over the last 150 years. The creationists have already been instilled with a hostility towards leading scientists, so a few articles...especially those sent out by their chosen leaders, is all that is necessary to convince them that increasing CO2&methane levels, ocean acidification, species dieoffs, retreating land and sea ice/rising sea levels etc. is all a hoax. And this is the most dangerous delusion of all, considering the times we are living in today!
Time and time again....no doubt in large part because your primary source seems to be Ken Ham's answersingenesis, the "proof" of creation is at best what would more correctly be described as an untested hypothesis. And what's worse, is that neither Ken Ham, nor his followers have any interest in testing their creation notions. Remember, that the scientific process depends on testing theories, and until they can provide convincing explanations of factual evidence, they cannot be categorized as scientific theories!
Case in point would be discoveries in the human (and other animal) genome of redundant, non-coding genes. One exceptional example would be ERV's - Endogenous Retroviruses - which fit well into an evolutionary theory of development, as rare viral infections of a fertilized oocyte or egg cell, did not abort or kill the embryo, but reverse transcribed their viral RNA code into the newly combining DNA molecule of the new person (or animal). Over the long expanse of time, the quantity of ERV insertions in the human DNA code is staggering - at least 7% of the complete human genome is made up of these retroviral insertions. Most of them were inserted before our species became fully human as we have developed today. And because of that, there are at least 12 ERV insertions that we share with our close primate cousins - chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Explaining how these viral ERV insertions could match up between our species' except by common origins is so mathematically improbable, that creationists like Ham, will just ignore the whole topic entirely!
The end result of creationism/antievolution brainwashing, is to instill a fear and rejection of science among Christians.....and Muslims....and Hindus, because increasing acceptance of fundamentalist literalism in those religions has created the same anti-science way of thinking that exists among fundamentalist Christians. Rather than keeping one foot in the real world, like the theistic evolutionists strive for, the creationist rejectors of science education, promote a hostility towards science and wariness of every new discovery, for fear it might upset their narrow worldview. Children from fundamentalist families can go either one of two directions: passive, unquestioning acceptance of what their religious leaders and community leaders promote/ or rejection of their implausible answers because of a curiosity to discover the real evidence, and deal with it, rather than ignore it or dismiss it without looking.
The most damaging aspect of fundamentalism today is found right in polling data which consistently show that creationists are the most likely to reject all of the evidence that the human-caused carbonization of the atmosphere is raising global average temperatures over the last 150 years. The creationists have already been instilled with a hostility towards leading scientists, so a few articles...especially those sent out by their chosen leaders, is all that is necessary to convince them that increasing CO2&methane levels, ocean acidification, species dieoffs, retreating land and sea ice/rising sea levels etc. is all a hoax. And this is the most dangerous delusion of all, considering the times we are living in today!
Science Disproves Evolution
recovering conservative;1458274 wrote: Remember, that the scientific process depends on testing theories, and until they can provide convincing explanations of factual evidence, they cannot be categorized as scientific theories!
Yeah...what he said!
Children from fundamentalist families can go either one of two directions: passive, unquestioning acceptance of what their religious leaders and community leaders promote/ or rejection of their implausible answers because of a curiosity to discover the real evidence, and deal with it, rather than ignore it or dismiss it without looking.
That is the truth. I should know, I've seen it first hand for the last decade or so. Children of fundamentalists reject any kind of reference to Evolution in the classroom, and then begin to reject things like physical laws of electricity, the cycle of water, heck even the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun!
Never has a country in history so benefitted from science, yet persistently tried to disbelieve those very scientific principles. Case in point, Pahu. He sits at his computer, uses digital electronic technology, electricity, plastics and materials technology, miraculous chemical and plasma technology, and sends out his message that all the scientists in the world are wrong to the interconnected world. Sheesh!
The most damaging aspect of fundamentalism today is found right in polling data which consistently show that creationists are the most likely to reject all of the evidence that the human-caused carbonization of the atmosphere is raising global average temperatures over the last 150 years. The creationists have already been instilled with a hostility towards leading scientists, so a few articles...especially those sent out by their chosen leaders, is all that is necessary to convince them that increasing CO2&methane levels, ocean acidification, species dieoffs, retreating land and sea ice/rising sea levels etc. is all a hoax. And this is the most dangerous delusion of all, considering the times we are living in today!
It's like arguing over who turned up the thermostat...while the house is burning down.
Yeah...what he said!
Children from fundamentalist families can go either one of two directions: passive, unquestioning acceptance of what their religious leaders and community leaders promote/ or rejection of their implausible answers because of a curiosity to discover the real evidence, and deal with it, rather than ignore it or dismiss it without looking.
That is the truth. I should know, I've seen it first hand for the last decade or so. Children of fundamentalists reject any kind of reference to Evolution in the classroom, and then begin to reject things like physical laws of electricity, the cycle of water, heck even the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun!
Never has a country in history so benefitted from science, yet persistently tried to disbelieve those very scientific principles. Case in point, Pahu. He sits at his computer, uses digital electronic technology, electricity, plastics and materials technology, miraculous chemical and plasma technology, and sends out his message that all the scientists in the world are wrong to the interconnected world. Sheesh!
The most damaging aspect of fundamentalism today is found right in polling data which consistently show that creationists are the most likely to reject all of the evidence that the human-caused carbonization of the atmosphere is raising global average temperatures over the last 150 years. The creationists have already been instilled with a hostility towards leading scientists, so a few articles...especially those sent out by their chosen leaders, is all that is necessary to convince them that increasing CO2&methane levels, ocean acidification, species dieoffs, retreating land and sea ice/rising sea levels etc. is all a hoax. And this is the most dangerous delusion of all, considering the times we are living in today!
It's like arguing over who turned up the thermostat...while the house is burning down.
Science Disproves Evolution
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, almost miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).
a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.
b. Behe, pp. 77–97.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1458349 wrote: Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system
That doesn't follow at all. It could be an intricate system built up over many millions of years. Early single celled life probably needed a primitive repair system for damage to the outer cell wall. That system became more complex as multi-celled life evolved.
That doesn't follow at all. It could be an intricate system built up over many millions of years. Early single celled life probably needed a primitive repair system for damage to the outer cell wall. That system became more complex as multi-celled life evolved.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458276 wrote: Yeah...what he said!
Thanks!
That is the truth. I should know, I've seen it first hand for the last decade or so. Children of fundamentalists reject any kind of reference to Evolution in the classroom, and then begin to reject things like physical laws of electricity, the cycle of water, heck even the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun!
Some recent stats on spiritual beliefs and religious affiliation (both topics that are difficult to accurately measure) find a stronger trend towards non-affiliation and less interest in religion in the United States....even in the so called Bible Belt. It's hard to measure how many like myself, who grew up in fundamentalism, ended up just walking away from religion entirely, rather than go shopping around for a saner, less demanding brand of religion. And, until the rise of the internet, we never knew how many of us atheists or agnostics were out there....although that may have been for the best anyway, because I found myself turned off by "new atheism" in recent years for much the same reasons that I could no longer stomach fundamentalist religion!
Anyway, that trend away from religion, makes sense when we consider that increasing fundamentalism creates a recoil effect, in those of us who just aren't buying it - and end up turned off by organized religion. Secular-minded people...whatever their metaphysical beliefs, who live in the fundamentalist-dominated states, often feel they are shouted down in terms of not feeling represented by either the political or social forces in cities and states where they live. All it takes is a small segment of loudmouth fundamentalists who have been given easy access to media...especially right wing and specifically religious right wing media, and just having 20 to 30% of the total population looks like a majority to people outside the state!
When it comes to denying the obvious, my personal favourite is still Andrew Schlaffely's debunking of General Relativity: Counterexamples to Relativity in the encyclopedia that makes the reader stupider with each article read - Conservapedia.
I shudder to think that real life conservatives would be going there for information!
Never has a country in history so benefitted from science, yet persistently tried to disbelieve those very scientific principles. Case in point, Pahu. He sits at his computer, uses digital electronic technology, electricity, plastics and materials technology, miraculous chemical and plasma technology, and sends out his message that all the scientists in the world are wrong to the interconnected world. Sheesh!
And that gets to a point where I believe Christian churches and theologians could have provided a valuable task in modern era, but do not....and in fact, just co-opted whatever science and engineering has created. To get to the point, I have come across a small number of engineers and philosophers who are critics of the unqualified acceptance and promotion of new technologies. For example: back when a mind-numbing array of plastics and synthetics were created at Bell Labs and other major centers, nobody asked the question: what if some of these new products have negative environmental effects? They were created to be virtually indestructible, and after more than a half century of increasing application, they are filling the oceans and contributing to the sharp declines in marine life all over the world. But, saying all that, among the exuberant adopters of new technology have been these same fundamentalists! So, one issue where they could have provided a counterweight to the presumptions of human capability since the Enlightenment....they failed!
It's like arguing over who turned up the thermostat...while the house is burning down.
Yep! A few years back, the great entomologist and polymath - E.O. Wilson, went on a quest to enlist support in the effort to stop or slow down the human contribution to climate change, by going directly to fundamentalist religious leaders and speaking before some of their large church audiences on global warming. But, for the most part, his message fell on deaf ears! Not only because most fundamentalists would immediately peg him as a hostile outsider not to be listened to/ but also because the largest segment of fundamentalist churches are pre-millennial, and believe that this world is due to be destroyed in the coming Armageddon prophecied in Revelation. I can attest from personal thinking years ago, that believing that the world will end...or Jesus will return and fix everything...whatever, leads to a fatalistic lack of concern for issues like nuclear arms (the big existential threat of my youth) and the environment...why worry about it if everything's going to be 'transformed' in the near future. And that may be the most dangerous side effect of fundamentalist religion that there is.
Thanks!
That is the truth. I should know, I've seen it first hand for the last decade or so. Children of fundamentalists reject any kind of reference to Evolution in the classroom, and then begin to reject things like physical laws of electricity, the cycle of water, heck even the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun!
Some recent stats on spiritual beliefs and religious affiliation (both topics that are difficult to accurately measure) find a stronger trend towards non-affiliation and less interest in religion in the United States....even in the so called Bible Belt. It's hard to measure how many like myself, who grew up in fundamentalism, ended up just walking away from religion entirely, rather than go shopping around for a saner, less demanding brand of religion. And, until the rise of the internet, we never knew how many of us atheists or agnostics were out there....although that may have been for the best anyway, because I found myself turned off by "new atheism" in recent years for much the same reasons that I could no longer stomach fundamentalist religion!
Anyway, that trend away from religion, makes sense when we consider that increasing fundamentalism creates a recoil effect, in those of us who just aren't buying it - and end up turned off by organized religion. Secular-minded people...whatever their metaphysical beliefs, who live in the fundamentalist-dominated states, often feel they are shouted down in terms of not feeling represented by either the political or social forces in cities and states where they live. All it takes is a small segment of loudmouth fundamentalists who have been given easy access to media...especially right wing and specifically religious right wing media, and just having 20 to 30% of the total population looks like a majority to people outside the state!
When it comes to denying the obvious, my personal favourite is still Andrew Schlaffely's debunking of General Relativity: Counterexamples to Relativity in the encyclopedia that makes the reader stupider with each article read - Conservapedia.
I shudder to think that real life conservatives would be going there for information!
Never has a country in history so benefitted from science, yet persistently tried to disbelieve those very scientific principles. Case in point, Pahu. He sits at his computer, uses digital electronic technology, electricity, plastics and materials technology, miraculous chemical and plasma technology, and sends out his message that all the scientists in the world are wrong to the interconnected world. Sheesh!
And that gets to a point where I believe Christian churches and theologians could have provided a valuable task in modern era, but do not....and in fact, just co-opted whatever science and engineering has created. To get to the point, I have come across a small number of engineers and philosophers who are critics of the unqualified acceptance and promotion of new technologies. For example: back when a mind-numbing array of plastics and synthetics were created at Bell Labs and other major centers, nobody asked the question: what if some of these new products have negative environmental effects? They were created to be virtually indestructible, and after more than a half century of increasing application, they are filling the oceans and contributing to the sharp declines in marine life all over the world. But, saying all that, among the exuberant adopters of new technology have been these same fundamentalists! So, one issue where they could have provided a counterweight to the presumptions of human capability since the Enlightenment....they failed!
It's like arguing over who turned up the thermostat...while the house is burning down.
Yep! A few years back, the great entomologist and polymath - E.O. Wilson, went on a quest to enlist support in the effort to stop or slow down the human contribution to climate change, by going directly to fundamentalist religious leaders and speaking before some of their large church audiences on global warming. But, for the most part, his message fell on deaf ears! Not only because most fundamentalists would immediately peg him as a hostile outsider not to be listened to/ but also because the largest segment of fundamentalist churches are pre-millennial, and believe that this world is due to be destroyed in the coming Armageddon prophecied in Revelation. I can attest from personal thinking years ago, that believing that the world will end...or Jesus will return and fix everything...whatever, leads to a fatalistic lack of concern for issues like nuclear arms (the big existential threat of my youth) and the environment...why worry about it if everything's going to be 'transformed' in the near future. And that may be the most dangerous side effect of fundamentalist religion that there is.
Science Disproves Evolution
recovering conservative;1458353 wrote: ended up just walking away from religion entirely, rather than go shopping around for a saner, less demanding brand of religion.
Yeah, myself as well. I'm trying to forge my knowledge of science with the sense that there is a Creator to the Universe. So in a sense, I am vaguely on Pahu's side. It's just that my God is much bigger and follows the rules of the Universe that He set up.
polymath
Congratulations on being the only person I've even known, other than myself, to use that noun. (It's my front license plate on my truck. Yes, I am conceited, thank you.)
why worry about it if everything's going to be 'transformed' in the near future. And that may be the most dangerous side effect of fundamentalist religion that there is.
Yeah, It's like not worrying about the fact that you have no life jacket and you're aboard the Titanic.
Yeah, myself as well. I'm trying to forge my knowledge of science with the sense that there is a Creator to the Universe. So in a sense, I am vaguely on Pahu's side. It's just that my God is much bigger and follows the rules of the Universe that He set up.
polymath
Congratulations on being the only person I've even known, other than myself, to use that noun. (It's my front license plate on my truck. Yes, I am conceited, thank you.)
why worry about it if everything's going to be 'transformed' in the near future. And that may be the most dangerous side effect of fundamentalist religion that there is.
Yeah, It's like not worrying about the fact that you have no life jacket and you're aboard the Titanic.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1458354 wrote: Yeah, myself as well. I'm trying to forge my knowledge of science with the sense that there is a Creator to the Universe. So in a sense, I am vaguely on Pahu's side. It's just that my God is much bigger and follows the rules of the Universe that He set up.
From my point of view, I don't see evidence for life and our universe being designed, in common understanding...a transcendent version of ourselves, planning out how to make worlds, and tinkering with the dials...intruding in the natural world every once in awhile...like a kid reaching in to an ant farm.
But, I don't necessarily subscribe to the standard definition of materialism: an inert, lifeless universe popping into existence because of the perfect set of physical laws and properties allowing a universe to expand and in a few, rare examples like our world - having the right set of physical properties to eventually allow the development of some complex organic lifeforms. Based on the only known test sample of a living world, the history of life on Earth makes the case for microbial life being a relatively easy development in a world with organic chemistry, since microtubule fossils of ancient bacteria go back at least 3.7 billion years....likely all the way back to the earliest period in time that Earth had a solid crust that was not being constantly bombarded and busted up by impacts. What is hard to do it seems, is to put together the right conditions for complex life...since our world had to wait another 2 billion years before complex, soft-shelled multicellular creatures started leaving evidence behind of their existence.
None of these processes leading up to us, shows conclusive evidence of design or designers, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that all life is sentient and much or possibly even most of what can explain the history of life is a cooperative process/ rather than the strict model of competing self-replicating genes presented to us in Neodarwinism. I can think of a few reasons why the classical model of explaining evolution of life has to be expanded beyond "The Selfish Gene" explanation:
Individual microbes solve complex problems, such as locating food, evading predators, and communicating for complex group activity. Microbes carry out these functions using at least six capacities that we have traditionally attributed only to brains: Mind with No Brain – Are Microbes Sentient?
and in the plant world:
Plants are able to sense and optimally respond to so many environmental variables—light, water, gravity, temperature, soil structure, nutrients, toxins, microbes, herbivores, chemical signals from other plants—that there may exist some brainlike information-processing system to integrate the data and coördinate a plant’s behavioral response. The authors pointed out that electrical and chemical signalling systems have been identified in plants which are homologous to those found in the nervous systems of animals. They also noted that neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate have been found in plants, though their role remains unclear.
This is from a New Yorker article by Michael Pollan: The Intelligent Plant, which describes the work of six botanical researchers seeking ways to explain the electrical and chemical signalling going on within plants (similar to neuronal activity in animals) and cooperative strategies - dying trees transmitting valuable nutrients through their root systems to healthy trees as one example. That article notes that the field of botany is still constrained by a tendency towards self-censorship, as any mention of terms like sentience in plants brings back comparisons with new age pseudoscience popular in the 70's like "The Secret Life of Plants," which tried to anthropomorphize trees and houseplants.
Putting it all together, the living world shows as much evidence for cooperation as competition, as noted by the main developer of Gaia Theory - James Lovelock in a number of his books, that many if not most of our planet's cycles of atmospheric gases and wastes into reuseable materials, can't be adequately explained by organisms acting in their own interests. Lovelock used the simple example of urination by animals/rather than recycling the phosphorus and other nutrients peeed away. Much of the wastes in evolving animals could have been reused by the same organism, but that would have been to the detriment of plant life and the overall welfare of the biosphere itself. Lovelock says that he first started theorizing something along the lines of Gaia when he was examining paleo records on oxygen levels in the atmosphere, and was astonished to find that...aside from the extinction periods, oxygen levels have remained virtually constant for hundreds of millions of years. In more recent times, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been noted to have been tracking downward to 300ppm over the last million years...until we decided to conduct our little experiment...we'll see how this one turns out in a few decades....but, the point Lovelock was making was that much of the reduction of CO2 can be explained through increased rock weathering (one of the major carbon sequestration processes) by the Sun's gradual increasing intensity. But, in the interests of the biosphere (the totality of life) it appears that maintaining CO2 levels below 300 was to the benefit of most of life....ice ages aside, it appears to the Gaia theorists that some emergent intelligent deciding was trying to set the dials to keep CO2 as low as possible...until we came along!
Lovelock's collaborator on Gaia Theory - Lyn Margulis, had been trying to advance a cooperative model of evolutionary development she called "symbiosis" ever since the 60's. A review of one of her main works "Acquiring Genomes". A theory of the origins of species. is reviewed here by Dutch biologist/science writer - Gert Korthof. Korthof tries to provide a balanced review, noting that he feels she tries to explain too much of evolution by cooperative, symbiotic developments, although he notes that the mainstream of biology had to move the goalposts by accepting the evolution of eukaryote cells as a symbiotic development as evidence mounted that the separate genomes of cell mitochondria could only be plausibly explained as a symbiotic merging of two cells together into one for mutual advantage. That development would have been a big step in evolution of life, not explained well through a process of slow, gradual competition, and is likely one of more so called "irreducible complexities, that creationists claim as evidence that evolution doesn't work/or in the I.D. version - God steps in every once in awhile to make some major adjustments to the evolutionary process. Korthof's other reviews of books about anything and everything connected with evolution are worth a look at: Was Darwin Wrong? is well worth a look. He doesn't appear to be as active as he was a few years ago, so he may have missed some recent developments. Up till the mid-2000's, just about every book on evolutionary theory, alternative theories and creationist books were reviewed here.
So, my takeaway from all of this is thinking that a God or creative intelligence is immanent or part of life and maybe even everything in the universe, rather than a transcendent being who exists outside of the universe. An emergent God has to work within the limits of how the universe unfolds, and if natural processes leads to a creature that is intelligent/but selfish and recklessly shortsighted....well, back to the drawingboard I suppose!
Congratulations on being the only person I've even known, other than myself, to use that noun. (It's my front license plate on my truck. Yes, I am conceited, thank you.)
That's hilarious! But, I would guess that not enough other drives out there would know what a polymath is, or bother to look it up so that they could be offended.
From what I've read, every scientific field today is too specialized for any of today's scientists to qualify as a polymath. So, the scientists like E.O. Wilson or James Lovelock, are the last of a dying breed, since a true polymath is impossible because of the changes over the last half century.
Yeah, It's like not worrying about the fact that you have no life jacket and you're aboard the Titanic.
And, we can think up lots of historical examples of true believers dying in vain waiting for God to save them....as prophecied...or maybe they just read the prophecies wrong...like James Inhoff's declaration that global warming can't happen because God said he wouldn't destroy the world after The Flood!
From my point of view, I don't see evidence for life and our universe being designed, in common understanding...a transcendent version of ourselves, planning out how to make worlds, and tinkering with the dials...intruding in the natural world every once in awhile...like a kid reaching in to an ant farm.
But, I don't necessarily subscribe to the standard definition of materialism: an inert, lifeless universe popping into existence because of the perfect set of physical laws and properties allowing a universe to expand and in a few, rare examples like our world - having the right set of physical properties to eventually allow the development of some complex organic lifeforms. Based on the only known test sample of a living world, the history of life on Earth makes the case for microbial life being a relatively easy development in a world with organic chemistry, since microtubule fossils of ancient bacteria go back at least 3.7 billion years....likely all the way back to the earliest period in time that Earth had a solid crust that was not being constantly bombarded and busted up by impacts. What is hard to do it seems, is to put together the right conditions for complex life...since our world had to wait another 2 billion years before complex, soft-shelled multicellular creatures started leaving evidence behind of their existence.
None of these processes leading up to us, shows conclusive evidence of design or designers, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that all life is sentient and much or possibly even most of what can explain the history of life is a cooperative process/ rather than the strict model of competing self-replicating genes presented to us in Neodarwinism. I can think of a few reasons why the classical model of explaining evolution of life has to be expanded beyond "The Selfish Gene" explanation:
Individual microbes solve complex problems, such as locating food, evading predators, and communicating for complex group activity. Microbes carry out these functions using at least six capacities that we have traditionally attributed only to brains: Mind with No Brain – Are Microbes Sentient?
and in the plant world:
Plants are able to sense and optimally respond to so many environmental variables—light, water, gravity, temperature, soil structure, nutrients, toxins, microbes, herbivores, chemical signals from other plants—that there may exist some brainlike information-processing system to integrate the data and coördinate a plant’s behavioral response. The authors pointed out that electrical and chemical signalling systems have been identified in plants which are homologous to those found in the nervous systems of animals. They also noted that neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate have been found in plants, though their role remains unclear.
This is from a New Yorker article by Michael Pollan: The Intelligent Plant, which describes the work of six botanical researchers seeking ways to explain the electrical and chemical signalling going on within plants (similar to neuronal activity in animals) and cooperative strategies - dying trees transmitting valuable nutrients through their root systems to healthy trees as one example. That article notes that the field of botany is still constrained by a tendency towards self-censorship, as any mention of terms like sentience in plants brings back comparisons with new age pseudoscience popular in the 70's like "The Secret Life of Plants," which tried to anthropomorphize trees and houseplants.
Putting it all together, the living world shows as much evidence for cooperation as competition, as noted by the main developer of Gaia Theory - James Lovelock in a number of his books, that many if not most of our planet's cycles of atmospheric gases and wastes into reuseable materials, can't be adequately explained by organisms acting in their own interests. Lovelock used the simple example of urination by animals/rather than recycling the phosphorus and other nutrients peeed away. Much of the wastes in evolving animals could have been reused by the same organism, but that would have been to the detriment of plant life and the overall welfare of the biosphere itself. Lovelock says that he first started theorizing something along the lines of Gaia when he was examining paleo records on oxygen levels in the atmosphere, and was astonished to find that...aside from the extinction periods, oxygen levels have remained virtually constant for hundreds of millions of years. In more recent times, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been noted to have been tracking downward to 300ppm over the last million years...until we decided to conduct our little experiment...we'll see how this one turns out in a few decades....but, the point Lovelock was making was that much of the reduction of CO2 can be explained through increased rock weathering (one of the major carbon sequestration processes) by the Sun's gradual increasing intensity. But, in the interests of the biosphere (the totality of life) it appears that maintaining CO2 levels below 300 was to the benefit of most of life....ice ages aside, it appears to the Gaia theorists that some emergent intelligent deciding was trying to set the dials to keep CO2 as low as possible...until we came along!
Lovelock's collaborator on Gaia Theory - Lyn Margulis, had been trying to advance a cooperative model of evolutionary development she called "symbiosis" ever since the 60's. A review of one of her main works "Acquiring Genomes". A theory of the origins of species. is reviewed here by Dutch biologist/science writer - Gert Korthof. Korthof tries to provide a balanced review, noting that he feels she tries to explain too much of evolution by cooperative, symbiotic developments, although he notes that the mainstream of biology had to move the goalposts by accepting the evolution of eukaryote cells as a symbiotic development as evidence mounted that the separate genomes of cell mitochondria could only be plausibly explained as a symbiotic merging of two cells together into one for mutual advantage. That development would have been a big step in evolution of life, not explained well through a process of slow, gradual competition, and is likely one of more so called "irreducible complexities, that creationists claim as evidence that evolution doesn't work/or in the I.D. version - God steps in every once in awhile to make some major adjustments to the evolutionary process. Korthof's other reviews of books about anything and everything connected with evolution are worth a look at: Was Darwin Wrong? is well worth a look. He doesn't appear to be as active as he was a few years ago, so he may have missed some recent developments. Up till the mid-2000's, just about every book on evolutionary theory, alternative theories and creationist books were reviewed here.
So, my takeaway from all of this is thinking that a God or creative intelligence is immanent or part of life and maybe even everything in the universe, rather than a transcendent being who exists outside of the universe. An emergent God has to work within the limits of how the universe unfolds, and if natural processes leads to a creature that is intelligent/but selfish and recklessly shortsighted....well, back to the drawingboard I suppose!
Congratulations on being the only person I've even known, other than myself, to use that noun. (It's my front license plate on my truck. Yes, I am conceited, thank you.)
That's hilarious! But, I would guess that not enough other drives out there would know what a polymath is, or bother to look it up so that they could be offended.
From what I've read, every scientific field today is too specialized for any of today's scientists to qualify as a polymath. So, the scientists like E.O. Wilson or James Lovelock, are the last of a dying breed, since a true polymath is impossible because of the changes over the last half century.
Yeah, It's like not worrying about the fact that you have no life jacket and you're aboard the Titanic.
And, we can think up lots of historical examples of true believers dying in vain waiting for God to save them....as prophecied...or maybe they just read the prophecies wrong...like James Inhoff's declaration that global warming can't happen because God said he wouldn't destroy the world after The Flood!
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1458244 wrote: That information was provided by the Holy Spirit.
Of course. This has to be hard evidence of everything. "The volcano is erupting, therefore God must be angry. Let us sacrifice a virgin to appease him". A while later the volcano stops erupting, therefore God must have been happy with the virgin sacrifice. It's the only 'logical' solution.
I never said God came from nothing. God revealed that He has always existed.
Before the universe existed there was nothing. Something never comes from nothing by any natural cause. The universe came from nothing. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
The same old defence, which continues to contradict itself, regardless of how often you repeat it.
You claim that the Universe came from nothing, yet God has always been there. Therefore God had to have come from nothing.
Furthermore, 'God' has never revealed anything. Humans who, due to plain ignorance & not knowing any better, believed in a God say that he 'revealed' himself as an explanation for whatever they couldn't understand & therefore claimed it to be caused by something 'supernatural'. You see, nothing has really changed in the logic of the superstitious in millions of years. After all, lightning, until relatively recently, was totally unexplained & was frequently referred to as the spears of God, in His wrath. Science has now proven this to be false & can totally explain the phenomenon - or do you still hold to the belief that bolts of lightning are still the spears of God's wrath?
The only difference between Natural & Supernatural is in understanding. This is the point at which Science & Religion diverge. Science continues to investigate & learn what the explanations really are. Those who hold to their Religious dogma refuse to admit to the evidence of their own eyes for fear of having to admit that their generations of fantasy have been totally without foundation.
So far, practically every one of your claims have been given an entirely logical explanation, based upon Scientific Evidence. However, when you are challenged to explain anything to validate any of your theories it's always the same story, that if something can't be shown to be Natural, therefore it has to be Supernatural & the work of some imaginary 'God' figure.
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
You couldn't be more wrong. Scientific observation, especially when referring to evolution, is based on the whole concept of random chance. Try looking into the Chaos Principle.
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
You are confusing Physics with Biology. Mass & Motion are constants which can be measured & predicted with a high degree of certainty. The simple rule of evolution, however, if that if something does not adapt to a changing environment it will die. Those that mutate, by random chance won't survive at all UNLESS that mutation in beneficial to their survival, in which case they live to breed & pass on those mutated genes to the future generations. Not only has this been recorded through fossilised evidence, but has actually been observed & recorded in real time.
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is blindingly obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. Your initial premise is wrong. Science has nothing to do with Biblical principles whatsoever. Biblical Principles are based on superstitions, created by nothing more than word of mouth & 1000s of years of Chinese Whispers without any hard evidence whatsoever. Science is based on demonstrable fact.
Of course. This has to be hard evidence of everything. "The volcano is erupting, therefore God must be angry. Let us sacrifice a virgin to appease him". A while later the volcano stops erupting, therefore God must have been happy with the virgin sacrifice. It's the only 'logical' solution.
I never said God came from nothing. God revealed that He has always existed.
Before the universe existed there was nothing. Something never comes from nothing by any natural cause. The universe came from nothing. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
The same old defence, which continues to contradict itself, regardless of how often you repeat it.
You claim that the Universe came from nothing, yet God has always been there. Therefore God had to have come from nothing.
Furthermore, 'God' has never revealed anything. Humans who, due to plain ignorance & not knowing any better, believed in a God say that he 'revealed' himself as an explanation for whatever they couldn't understand & therefore claimed it to be caused by something 'supernatural'. You see, nothing has really changed in the logic of the superstitious in millions of years. After all, lightning, until relatively recently, was totally unexplained & was frequently referred to as the spears of God, in His wrath. Science has now proven this to be false & can totally explain the phenomenon - or do you still hold to the belief that bolts of lightning are still the spears of God's wrath?
The only difference between Natural & Supernatural is in understanding. This is the point at which Science & Religion diverge. Science continues to investigate & learn what the explanations really are. Those who hold to their Religious dogma refuse to admit to the evidence of their own eyes for fear of having to admit that their generations of fantasy have been totally without foundation.
So far, practically every one of your claims have been given an entirely logical explanation, based upon Scientific Evidence. However, when you are challenged to explain anything to validate any of your theories it's always the same story, that if something can't be shown to be Natural, therefore it has to be Supernatural & the work of some imaginary 'God' figure.
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
You couldn't be more wrong. Scientific observation, especially when referring to evolution, is based on the whole concept of random chance. Try looking into the Chaos Principle.
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
You are confusing Physics with Biology. Mass & Motion are constants which can be measured & predicted with a high degree of certainty. The simple rule of evolution, however, if that if something does not adapt to a changing environment it will die. Those that mutate, by random chance won't survive at all UNLESS that mutation in beneficial to their survival, in which case they live to breed & pass on those mutated genes to the future generations. Not only has this been recorded through fossilised evidence, but has actually been observed & recorded in real time.
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is blindingly obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. Your initial premise is wrong. Science has nothing to do with Biblical principles whatsoever. Biblical Principles are based on superstitions, created by nothing more than word of mouth & 1000s of years of Chinese Whispers without any hard evidence whatsoever. Science is based on demonstrable fact.