Search This Blog

Monday, May 20, 2013

Spotlight on Institute for Creation Reseach...Links to evidence that dinosaurs lived and died recently...


I owe a great debt to Dr. Henry Morris.  As a new Christian with many years of schooling and studying and working in the field searching for fossils and artifacts,  I read through the New Testament twice soon after becoming born again at age 26.  I had left a life of drugs, alcohol and general rowdiness behind and was trying to learn more about the Great God I had hoped and suspected was there all along.  He was certainly patient as I tried to find anything else BUT Jesus Christ, the Savior.  Eventually He was able to get my attention and all the pieces fit together for me.

Of course I had a general idea of the Genesis creation narrative and I figured it was an allegorical story rather than an actual historical record.  So I was not uneasy about the idea of long ages and evolution.  With so much to learn about living a Christian life and learning what my purpose in life would be, with all the new friends and new activities and renewed good things happening in my family, it was not even on my mind, this matter of evolution.   After all, I could recognize any of the commonly pictured dinosaurs on sight and had found all sorts of fossils in all sorts of areas of the continent.  With an established geological column and fossils being found in orderly progressions from simple to complex, it was likely God used evolution and that was that.  (It turned out progressing fossils and a standard geological column were completely made up nonsense)!

But I was fortunate enough to get to hear presentations by Henry Morris.   He was funny and gregarious, but his testimony of his own discovery that evolution was fairy tale rather than fact revolved around his area of expertise, hydrology.   Dr. Morris studied what water did and that included flood and tsunami activity.   As he studied the rock layers of the world, he realized he was looking at the evidence of a giant flood!   He began to believe that the Noahic Flood was the cause of the sedimentary rock layers and he began to make it his mission to find out for sure and, if so, share his discoveries with others.  After all, mankind had believed in the Flood for the bulk of human history and had only abandoned it to support Darwin's hypothesis.

I read The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris and at that point my research side was rolling...I thought of all the time I had spent among the rocks, all the huge spans of living shellfish preserved in the closed position and all the trilobites preserved in their upright position.  These were incredibly common fossils in the area of Southern Indiana I had first began exploring.   We were also able to find fish fossils, ferns and even a copralite!  All within the same area and with limestone and shale formations that were right atop each other.

While the original Genesis Flood has some preliminary assumptions that were later cast aside as good scientists began to gather into Creation Science organizations and study the fossils, the rocks, the age of the Earth, the organisms and the make up of the cell and DNA.   The list goes on and on as Intelligent Design scientists have entered the fray, studying only that which can be observed in real time and making logical assertions based on their findings.   Between Creation Science and ID and my own studies I am completely convinced that God absolutely made everything in about 6,000 years AND that every single pillar of Darwinism has been shown to be evidence-free assertions.

If Dr. Morris had not set up a touring ministry to give talks and make books and tapes and other materials to help Christians see the myriad problems of evolution,  I wonder how long it would have taken me to see it for myself?   Perhaps when I firmly grasped the role of Jesus and the importance of the literal Adam and Eve, I would have seen that no thinking Christian can long live with the dichotomy of Salvation by Grace along with evolution through millions of years of death and suffering.
  • Evolution does not fit the evidence of the rocks.
  • Evolution does not fit what we see in organisms today.
  • Evolution cannot be seen to occur and has never been observed.
  • If Evolution with long ages is true, Adam and Eve were mythical and Jesus was a liar.
  • If Jesus was a liar, then He could not be Savior and we are without hope, dead in sins.
  • But Jesus preached that the Flood, Adam and Eve and man/woman marriage were true.   He was in fact the Son of God who formed Adam by hand and breaths life into him.
  • Jesus was there, He is an eyewitness, He should know.
Therefore, if you want to accept evolution, you may as well give up on Christ.  Evolution is the most convoluted and cleverly hatched lie Satan has managed to use to bamboozle folks since he came up to Eve and said, "Yeah, hath God said..?"


Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent


Paleontologists, operating under the assumption that earth’s strata represent millions or billions of years, have not looked for fresh tissues within fossilized remains. But fresh biological material within some fossils has been there all along and is being continually discovered, despite the protests of biochemists that it should not exist.

Molecules such as proteins, pigments, and DNA—as well as intact cells and, in some cases, cells still grouped together in tissues—have been found in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. Whole organisms are sealed in amber deposits, and over a thousand still-living kinds of microbes have been extracted from them.

Fresh tissues and living cells cannot possibly be millions of years old, and they constitute some of the strongest evidence for the young world that the Bible describes.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evolution does not fit the evidence of the rocks.
Evolution does not fit what we see in organisms today.
Evolution cannot be seen to occur and has never been observed.
If Evolution with long ages is true, Adam and Eve were mythical and Jesus was a liar.
If Jesus was a liar, then He could not be Savior and we are without hope, dead in sins.
But Jesus preached that the Flood, Adam and Eve and man/woman marriage were true. He was in fact the Son of God who formed Adam by hand and breaths life into him.
Jesus was there, He is an eyewitness, He should know.


The first three claims are false, as has been demonstrated many times, not least in the comment section of this blog. I'd like to focus on the subsequent argument, however.

It is false to claim that there is a choice between mainstream science and evolution on the one hand and Christianity on the other. I think this does a disservice to believing Christians who can nevertheless see that the idea of a young Earth is disproven in many ways.

There are creationists who believe in an old Earth. Their views can be found at www DOT oldearth DOT org and www DOT reasons DOT org, for example.

Searlas said...

Oh, goodie! A Rossite! Or are you just a theistic evolutionist? Just when things were bad enough, a supporter of that compromiser comes along, tells Radar that he's all wrong, and points us to a 'Christian' site that says 'science' is more important to Christians than the Bible.

Rossite says, 'The first three claims are false, as has been demonstrated many times, not least in the comment section of this blog.' Disagreements or alternative explanations are not refutations. Neither are your statements pretending to be facts.

'It is false to claim that there is a choice between mainstream science and evolution on the one hand and Christianity on the other.'

What is false is what passes as thinking from the Rossite or whatever compromiser he is. Linking 'mainstream science' with evolution is a lie because evolution is not real science. Creationists don't have a problem with real science, just people who want to appeal to science as the ultimate authority and make them subordinate the Bible to it.

Anonymous said...

"Linking 'mainstream science' with evolution is a lie because evolution is not real science."

The theory of evolution - unlike the strawman caricature of it that Radar presents on his blog - is scientifically tested and has yet to be disproven. If you can actually disprove the theory of evolution with a falsifiable, testable assertion that would show one thing if the theory of evolution were true and another thing if creationism were true, and that actually is in favor of creationism, by all means present it - and collect fame and fortune on the way out.

Unfortunately, it's clear that all young-earhters have are derision (for example: "evolution is a lie because evolution is not real science") and tired logical fallacies.

radar said...

There is no evolution to disprove. Look, with origins science you must first begin with assumptions because you cannot take a time machine backwards to the beginning.

Darwinists assume all things come from natural causes. But the LOT and LOB preclude this.

Creationists assume God created (and we have history on our side) and this does not violate LOT or LOB, in fact it explains them.

In that no one has observed evolution in an upwards direction occuring but rather devolution in extinctions and harmful mutations, it is the Darwinists who have something to prove and not us.

Evolution does NOT fit the evidence of the rocks. Anonymous is ignoring all the evidence I have presented. If Darwinists would admit to all the problems with the rock records they would be honest but their pet hypothesis would be dead in the water. So they hide, ignore or lie.

We do not see organisms converting into new kinds today. We see speciation, which was rightly observed by Blyth as a function of the design of the created organism, selecting from pre-existing genetic materials.

Evolution has never been observed, again, unless you count devolution. I agree devolution has been happening and will continue.

Rather than simply say that evolution is a lie, I back it up with hundreds of blog posts detailing reasons why. The rock records, the fossils, the makeup and functions of the organisms and the cell and DNA, the life cycle of the Monarch, the micro-machines in organisms and the algorithms in organisms modern science studies to try to copy, the impossibility of a singularity *poof*-ing into existence naturally and then supposedly needing a miraculous controlled explosions with no controller and no power to asccomplish it? The 96% missing from the Big Bang equations. The 99.6% of the rocks exposed that do NOT fit the so-called standard geological column.

Then there are the lies and hoaxes and coverups. Huxley, Lyell, Haeckel, Gingerich and only God knows how many Darwinists have hidden and destroyed and altered fossils or made false reports to hold up a failed hypothesis.

I am sorry for the deceived people who believe in old earth creation. They are compromising for no good reason. They have not fully thought out the philosophical problems nor have they thoroughly investigated the evidence.

Space missions have shown us that the Solar System is young. Hard work by Creation scientists in the last 20 years has uncovered irrefutable (by any honest person) evidence that gives a outer limit of 25-100 thousand years that the Earth's rocks and organisms could possibly exist. We also have found C-14 in specimens at every rock layer.

But the rock layers are so out of order or missing that they cannot be considered ages, just layers from the flood event.

radar said...

The magnetic field gives an outside age to the Earth. The activity of the Sun gives an outside age to life on Earth. Atmosphere is not yet in C12/C-14 equilibrium. Some easily measured dating methods give us around 6,000 years.

All the old-age methods are based on unjustified assumptions that cannot be confirmed. You do not know your starting point on such methods. But we have measured the magnetic field of the Earth since around 1500 and that measurement by itself precludes an old Earth and evolution. Darwinists conveniently ignore this.

However, all the footprints we now discover, all the flesh and blood and even DNA found in fossils now, all the careful study of DNA and the ability to investigate Neanderthals and Dinosovans and find them to be human and especially the air-tight evidence that proves life's building blocks cannot exist in nature without the cell? Confirmation of LOB!

DNA is a more sophisticated code than man has devised and you want students to believe it evolved?

The Monarch Butterfly could not possibly have evolved, nor could the Bombardier Beetle and so many other creatures with exceptionally irreducibly complex features. Oops, sorry, as it happens ALL creatures have irreducibly complex features and systems.

Then that annoying Michael Behe followed up his Darwin's Black Box with a book laying out the limits of mutations. No more than two mutations that are positive could be passed forward at once. That is the upper limit. Since all new creature features require thousands of changes to be built, Darwinism is dead there, too.

What we actually see is brilliantly engineered organic machines, being buffeted by the problem of mutations despite error-checking mechanisms to correct mutations on the DNA string. We see advanced organisms have the most trouble with this. Bacteria are so simple (only by comparison) that mutations can kill off millions but not make a dent in the overall population. But if mankind had as many generations as bacteria then mutations would have wiped us out long ago.

Darwinism is Pantheism with a new party dress. It has no scientific foundation. There is nothing to disprove as we do not observe it and can see that it is impossible. Paley had it right all along. Not only will a watch need a maker, it needs someone to wind it and set it.

Supernatural intelligence had to input intelligence into the natural world...after He created time and physical laws and matter. Darwinists cannot even explain how anything could have come into existence, let alone explain how it is so full of information and design. Let them even begin to deal with life, oh man, they have no clue!

radar said...

Darwinism is a religion, not a science. Modern science was formed and built by Christians and Theists. If Darwinism was true, there should be no order to the random Universe and besides that, your mind would simply think what it was evolved to think so you really would have no control over your thoughts and actions after all. If Darwinism were true, why would you care what I think anyway, since you and I would both simply be doing what our evolved minds force us to do.

Which leaves you either trapped in a thought prison or greatly misled.

Christianity embraces free will. We are to use our minds and we were meant to rule the planet. We blew it, but we are trying our best as individuals to do what we can. I cannot help you if you refuse to use reason and logic and investigate your own propagandized belief system. But don't call what you believe "Science" because it is no more science than it was when it was called Pantheism.

I do believe that if Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were alive today, they would be working for a Creation Science organization, the Discovery Institute, or writing books explaining why Darwinism was a disease of the mind and an insult to philosophy. Diogenes would turn his back on you. Archimedes would call your false religion a humbug. I do not even want to start with guys like Bacon and Newton because they would be appalled to learn people like Hawking are even called scientists! Von Braun would point out that without Christians and Theists science would not have advanced to the point we could go to the Moon.

Anonymous said...

Radar is churning out comments - he must be getting desperate.

radar said...

It is called answering a comment. To thoroughly take your statements and make mince meat of them, I took the time to shred them. Enjoy!

DogMaBlog said...

I also was impacted by Henry Morris. As a new Christian in 1976 I attended a talk by his son John about Noah's Ark and picked up some books at the book table. One was the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris. I have gotten info from CRI ever since!

Anonymous said...

"It is called answering a comment."

Recently, when a commenter responded to points you made one by one, you said you had "no respect for this new tactic of barfing out comments in huge quantities" and that "desperation drives darwinists to barf out comments" - most of which you were unable to respond to coherently.

So it looks like you're taking back your earlier talking point that a large number of comments are a sign of desperation. It would be wise, since that wasn't the smartest talking point in the first place.

radar said...

Not so, Anonymous! I was answering one comment that was focused on three points, not a dozen or so. Since the commenter did not barf out a dozen questions, I went ahead and gave a comprehensive reply to his assertions. So the difference between me taking the time to thoroughly refute a three-part comment and the now-departed (apparently) Jon Woolf barfing out a dozen unrelated questions is quite clear to the logical mind.

The question then becomes, do you have a logical mind?

With some comments I have based entire posts (two comments by Chaos Engineer inspired blogposts) and again this was being thorough and respecting a question enough to give it a good answer.

One typical Darwinist comment type is evidence free assertions. If they are likely to mislead someone, I will answer them.

There are three main types of Darwinist questioning comments:

Intelligent questions that deserve answering.

Foolish questions which need to be refuted.

Foolish questions which are too ridiculous or deliberately manifold that should not be given the dignity of an answer.

Most comments fall into one of the three categories. On rare occasions I get outright lies and must discern whether to answer or ignore them, but they would probably fall under the heading of foolish.

When I get long list of questions it is generally a combination of things already answered and just plain dumb questions anyway.

When I make assertions, I back them up with evidence or refer to blogs already written with evidence.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black... and in such verbose fashion, too.

radar said...

Anonymous said...
Ah, the pot calling the kettle black... and in such verbose fashion, too.


Are you, like, 12!? You cannot see the difference between answering questions or comments with evidence rather than unsupported assertions? This comments thread reads like an adult (me) discussing subjects with an ignorant child (you) who has no demonstrated knowledge of what he asserts. If I knew you were actually 12, I would gently point you to a few resources to help you avoid being completely propagandized by the Giant Stupid Darwinist Propaganda Machine. But I suspect you are an adult who is unarmed with evidence and therefore you may well be a pot or a kettle but nobody put anything worth boiling in you.

Anonymous said...

Derision is STILL not an argument.

radar said...

Nothing is even less of an argument and nothing is all you have provided.

highboy said...

@Anonymous: Its true derision is still not an argument. The problem is, you haven't yet posted an argument yourself. I just read a barrage of radar's comments that made arguments throughout, and you have yet to answer them. You also didn't address any of the scientific claims radar made in this post, other than to say "the first three claims are false". That isn't an argument. That is a "na-uh" response. You have to demonstrate how those first three claims are false.

So let's start here: how is evolution "scientifically tested and yet to be disproven"? How is evolution "tested" and what makes the findings of that testing so air tight?

Anonymous said...

Highboy, you'll notice that the argument (see first comment in this thread) I was actually making was a specific one about the false dichotomy (a logical fallacy) that Radar was presenting (belief in Jesus vs. current mainstream science).

Regarding the three claims that I dismissed, you might notice that Radar presented nothing in this post to back up his (unsupportable) claims that (1) evolution does not fit the evidence of the rocks, (2) that evolution does not fit what we see in organisms today, and (3) that evolution cannot be seen to occur and has never been observed. Nothing to back that up at all.

Did you notice that?

Obviously (as Radar would retort), he was relying on his past blog posts to (in his opinion) back up those claims.

And in return, simply because I was focusing on a different argument, I likewise relied on the refutations of those claims that have likewise been made in the comments sections of all those blog posts: "The first three claims are false, as has been demonstrated many times, not least in the comment section of this blog. I'd like to focus on the subsequent argument, however."

There's precious little point in me trying to explain the theory of evolution to you in a comment section that will no doubt be swept off the bottom of the page when Radar pastes more and more copied articles.

And there's even less point in that if your mind is too closed to look at opposing arguments. If you're interested in evidence for the theory of evolution, there's obviously nothing stopping you from looking it up. A good start would be here: www DOT talkorigins DOT org/faqs/comdesc/

If you look at creationists' arguments, you'll notice that they have never succeeded in actually disproving the theory of evolution with a falsifiable, testable assertion that would show one thing if the theory of evolution were true and another thing if creationism were true, and that actually is in favor of creationism. That is why their arguments boil down to logical fallacies, misrepresentations and (intentional or not) strawman arguments.

radar said...

The brain, it hurts!!!

I put more evidence in my comments threads than any Darwinist commenters do, for one thing.

The evidence I put in my posts since 2004 is a collection of valid scientific arguments for creation and against any chance at all for evolution.

We cannot disprove evolution because there is nothing to disprove. It is never observed, it is in stark opposition to established scientific laws and it certainly fails the "eye test."

Darwinism is the religion. It is the sorrowful joke of the last two centuries that an evidence-free religion propped up by nothing but propaganda and censorship is labeled "science" and then we are challenged to disprove it? It is like a boxing match against a puff of smoke, there is nothing to hit!

You cannot give me one instance of true upward evolution being observed. Nope, not one. So it is actually a problem in that "mainstream science" is simply a hoax and ordinary folks are therefore confused. You see, the majority of people still believe that God created the Universe. They have that inner urge to believe it and they see the world around them and have trouble really buying the whole "everything came from *poof* concept." I can understand why.

radar said...

Oh, and "explain" the "theory" of evolution? It is not a theory as it is not testable OR it has failed every test, pick one. It is a failed hypothesis. It is the shame of the scientific community. Every single so-called scientist who promotes evolution should be ashamed of himself.

radar said...

The intentional liars at talkorigins are probably among the worst possible sites on the internet. Your IQ will be diminished by reading their output. Better you snort spray deodorant, at least you will probably be normal tomorrow. the ridiculous content of talkorigins is so bad I have made a point to warn the readers away from it. So you, anonymous, are an anti-learning person for sure.

Anonymous said...

Radar, much as you like to rely on it, derision amazingly is STILL not an argument. I admire you for keeping the hope alive, though. Maybe someday derision will amount to an argument that will make your opponents genuflect to you. In the meantime, thank you for ceding the argument.

Highboy, you'll notice that Radar has just expended three comments in which he has not addressed a single one of the many testable predictions that I linked to (instead attempting to dismiss them with an ad hominem attack) and simply stooped to derision and a number of falsehoods and fallacies.

highboy said...

Anonymous: I didn't see any testable predictions that you linked to. Not saying they aren't there, but I don't see them.

As for your previous response to me, sorry, simply dismissing my requests with a "look it up yourself" isn't an argument, its not intelligent dialogue, and isn't productive in any form of intellectual back and forth. For the record, radar has posted source after source after source that directly refutes the theory of evolution, and mainstream cosmology. And in turn, dissenters on this blog have also posted many sources refuting radar's finds.

That's what makes these internet science debates so laughable. It turns into a pissing contest rather than a search for truth. Its a question of "who has more credible sources".

But dissenting evolutionists on this site aren't getting the fact that simply "credibility" doesn't prove an argument either. Peers aren't going to review the work of someone whose research makes their entire life's work out to be a sham in any objective fashion, I'm sorry.

As for the testing of evolution, it has not been tested. Its impossible. According to evolutionists, it takes millions and millions of years. You can't observe it. All you can do is look at the fossil record and guess which animals evolved certain traits from other animals and which were discarded.

Evolution simply is change over time, and yes, that has been observed in the form of microevolution. But to say macroevolution has been tested and observed is just patently false.

And for the record, I could care less either way, evolution doesn't effect my Christianity in anyway shape or form. But if a theory is going to be considered such established fact that it has damn near legal protection from courts as untouchable and is even required to be taught by federal government, it would make sense to be a lot more concrete than what it is.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't see any testable predictions that you linked to. Not saying they aren't there, but I don't see them."

Before getting into the rest of this, could you please clarify whether you didn't see the link or whether, once you got to the link, couldn't identify any testable predictions? Because I didn't dismiss you with "look it up yourself" - I encouraged you to explore for yourself, sure, and that's what you should do - but I also sent you a link to an answer to your question.

Incidentally, Radar's response (a la "they're a bunch of liars") is a classic example of an ad hominem attack. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

Anonymous said...

"But if a theory is going to be considered such established fact that it has damn near legal protection from courts as untouchable and is even required to be taught by federal government, it would make sense to be a lot more concrete than what it is."

1. Consider what the theory of evolution actually is.

2. Note that despite the bluster of Radar and other YECs, not one of them has ever actually disproved the theory of evolution with a falsifiable, testable assertion that would show one thing if the theory of evolution were true and another thing if creationism were true, and that actually is in favor of creationism.

If it is impossible to present such a falsifiable, testable assertion, perhaps you should consider that the theory of evolution is actually more concrete than creationist websites may have led you to believe.

Anonymous said...

"You see, the majority of people still believe that God created the Universe. They have that inner urge to believe it and they see the world around them and have trouble really buying the whole "everything came from *poof* concept." I can understand why."

Of course they believe that, and of course you understand why.

Even I understand why.

Because it's a powerful emotional argument. People want to believe it. That doesn't make it true or verifiable or objectively true.

Of course, once we understand that we will die some day, we want to believe in an afterlife.

And we want to believe in a narrative that promises that. That is why these stories get passed on, and why they are so tempting, and why they are so difficult to let go.

radar said...

No, my statements about talkorigins are based on fact. I made it clear long ago that one creationist named Kent Hovind AKA Dr. Dino was using false material and I told everyone to avoid him. I also told everyone that talkorigins uses false materials intentionally and that all should avoid them. One YEC and one Darwinist site identified as fraudulent. As a former professional journalist with a top secret clearance and access to high-ranking government officials, I have the chops to do investigative reporting. I stand by my statements, not as personal attacks but rather true representations of sites that are intentionally full of lies. Period.

As to evolution, the fact that it is never observed and never has been observed falsifies it already.

If evolution were true, it would be observed and it has not been observed.

If evolution were true, then the story of how organisms came to be from natural substances and forces could be told without resorting to incredible and fantastic fairy tales that defy science. The basic building blocks of life not only do not form on their own easily if at all, they cannot exist outside of a cell or a lab.

If evolution were true, then organisms would not have sophisticated coding mechanisms to both run them and reproduce them, because information is not formed naturally.

If evolution were true, there would be no irreducibly complex systems and mechanisms in organisms, because such things require myriad parts and forces to be in place all at once.

If evolution were true, we would be finding all sorts of beneficial mutations occurring in nature. But what we find is that mutations are injurious or deadly to organisms and therefore organisms have mutation-correcting systems to avoid them.

I could go on for paragraph after paragraph. Evolution was a 19th Century idea based on the primitive concept of Pantheism and it assumed that organisms were simple. Meanwhile the Law of Biogenesis had been proved beyond doubt. Even Darwin did not assert that life formed itself, merely that simple forms become more complex. But they don't and he was wrong.

radar said...

On the other hand, if creation was true, then organisms would be expected to have evidence of design and that all organisms would have some similarities in their basic designs, as they came from the same designer. That is the prediction and it has been proved true. I give you, for example, DNA.

If creation was true, then we would find it impossible to create life from non-living materials no matter how sophisticated we think we are. This prediction has proved true, there is no Frankenstein making life in a lab somewhere. Many have tried and failed to create life from non-living materials. So that prediction has been proved over and over again.

radar said...

As to the rock records, if evolution was true then:

The layers would be in order pretty much everywhere around the world.

We would not find that all layers exhibit catastrophic origin.

There would be no polystrates or megabreccias.

There would be no living flesh and blood remains on anything thought to be 100,000 years old or older.

There would not be C-14 in any layers older than 50-100,000 years old.

Oil and gas would not be pressurized under rock layers.

We would not expect any interbedding.

We would not expect to find fossils in any quantity at all, since organisms begin to be converted to carrion and then dust in very short order.

We would certainly not expect to find the "wrong" layers in the "wrong" order as we do.

We would not expect to find remarkably sophisticated organisms and systems in the lowest layers...but we do.

We would not expect to find birds, mammals, dinosaurs, trees, amphibians and etc. in the same layers but we do (although Darwinists have tried to hide these things). One paleontologist source indicated 434 mammal fossils had been found in dinosaur layers but you never see that in museums. Nor do you hear about the mammals found with dinosaurs in their stomachs!

The sedimentary rock layers are precisely what we would expect to find after a world-wide flood and an ice-age dynamic few hundred years worth of mudslides, ice and dust storms and dike breaks.

highboy said...

"Before getting into the rest of this, could you please clarify whether you didn't see the link or whether, once you got to the link, couldn't identify any testable predictions"

I simply didn't catch the link the first time.

"1. Consider what the theory of evolution actually is."

I have, and there is nothing about it that would deem it so concrete that it would need government protection from being challenged in schools in any way.

"2. Note that despite the bluster of Radar and other YECs, not one of them has ever actually disproved the theory of evolution with a falsifiable, testable assertion that would show one thing if the theory of evolution were true and another thing if creationism were true, and that actually is in favor of creationism."

So now the creationist has to prove a negative? If I say "there is no evidence that humans have an ape like ancestor" how am I suppose to prove that? The onus is on the person who originally made the claim to produce such evidence. The claim that is being made about evolution is that there isn't enough evidence to support it.

"Because it's a powerful emotional argument. People want to believe it. That doesn't make it true or verifiable or objectively true."

Patently false. Disregarding the fact that the sweeping generalization you just made about why people believe is fallacious logic in and of itself without anything rational to substantiate it, coming to the belief in a creator is the most logical conclusion.

What you deem "wishful thinking" is common sense, almost literally. The idea of life forming from nonlife is simply a nonsensical absurdity and pretty much all of basic science refutes this. The odds of the human enzyme forming on its own with no controller is calculated to be greater than the number of atoms calculated to be in the universe.

People are capable of looking at the natural reality they live in, evolution or no, and see that a creator makes perfect sense. They are also capable of studying the Bible, and using every method used to examine all other forms of ancient literature, can come to the logical conclusion that the Bible is reliable. Its a simple equation.

Of course the counter to this is to point out the internet laundry list of supposed "error" or "contradictions" in the Bible, a debate I've never cowered from on this site, mainly because I've yet to come across a criticism of the Bible that wasn't solved by simple objective research.

Anonymous said...

Of course the counter to this is to point out the internet laundry list of supposed "error" or "contradictions" in the Bible, a debate I've never cowered from on this site, mainly because I've yet to come across a criticism of the Bible that wasn't solved by simple objective research.

Except for the time that was tried on this blog and you couldn't solve the first item on the list?

It's really quite simple. There are mistakes in the Bible.

highboy said...

"Except for the time that was tried on this blog and you couldn't solve the first item on the list?

It's really quite simple. There are mistakes in the Bible."

Which is why neither you nor anyone else can point out one. Nice try though.

highboy said...

And I guess you're just going to gloss over the fact you made a sweeping generalization that you have no way of supporting about why people believe in God along with the fact that you repeatedly asked in this very thread for evidence of a negative.

Anonymous said...

"Which is why neither you nor anyone else can point out one. Nice try though."

On the contrary. There was a long list, over 400 if memory serves. You were asked to negate the first one and couldn't.

Nice try though.

radar said...

Notice that anonymous avoids the subject of the post? Actually, both Tim and I have shown that the so-called errors in the Bible are not errors after all. I would completely ignore a long list. But suppose you tried your best three out?

highboy said...

"On the contrary. There was a long list, over 400 if memory serves. You were asked to negate the first one and couldn't.

Nice try though."

False, and your intellectual dishonesty exempts you from being taken seriously from this point forward. Your more than welcome to try your hand though at attempting to point out any of these errors or contradictions.

Anonymous said...

False how?

radar said...

I will jump in here. As a for instance, some commenter thought that the Bible was wrong about the circumference of a circle, having read the account of the building of the temple. It was quite easy to show the commenter his error, but he was not able to get the idea, so I actually posted on that one subject.

A few times a so-called Bible error is mentioned by someone who is not very familiar with it. I suspect there are a few websites with questions to ask creationists that include some questions about the Bible. Frankly, if there was a serious error in the Bible it would have been a big deal with academic elitists probably putting up banners in their classrooms.

I do not know of any problems with the source documents we have for the Bible, although it is true that translating languages can sometimes be tricky. There are a few lines of scripture that we are not entirely sure were originally there and those few and short instances are noted in footnotes on any decent Bible translation. Nothing that changes any teaching...

highboy said...

@radar: you'll also remember I posted sources in regards to that very issue, one from a mathmetician and one from an actual scholar in Hebrew literature, both saying that not only can 3.14 be rounded off but also that it was a fact of ancient Hebrew literature not to use exact measurements. It was met with "na-uh"

Stormbringer said...

It's almost funny the way some hotshot who hates the Bible is browsing through it, sees something that appears to be a contradiction, and believes he is the one who makes the discovery to bring down all of Christianity and disprove God's existence. Sorry, but it's been tried for a very long time.

The other thing is when people post on "I-hate-God-even-though-I-pretend-he-does-not-exist-and-here-are-my-lame-excuses-for-my-atheism dot com", and other people think it's brilliant scholarship.

In both cases, if people used Algore's Amazing Internet™ and did some research, they'd find that there are many places answering their alleged contradictions. Even if they did find one, it would not disprove God's existence.

radar said...

Yes, Highboy has a blog and Bob has a blog both listed on my links list...in fact Bob has two links. So all you have to do is click on their profile to find their internet output. FYI.

Highboy and I did extensive research and completely covered the entire issue of the value of PI and the Bible. Both of us have also dealt with the slavery issue (The Jewish people basically had slaves that were the equivalent of paid employees and even some other cultures in the area had similar systems).

I have been a Bible student since 1983, went to seminary and learned rudimentary Koine Greek and have been a pastor as well. My wife and I both are Bible students, so we have an overall knowledge of the Bible. We would be considered specialists in the field. Therefore I have been trusted with preaching in church, in youth groups, in large crowds in auditoriums and as a teacher specifically for a creation science class open to adults and teens. We have also read books by early church leaders and historians extensively. I only say this because the standard "I got this from an Atheist site" Bible questions are primarily from ignorance so it is not a tactic that will be successful here.

But I do welcome intelligent questions and comments. Recently I made two blog posts simply to answer questions posed by Chaos Engineer, a long-time occasional commenter. I am just saying that, if you are a Darwinist, you are better off addressing the theme of the post rather than ask rabbit trail questions or Bible questions that are culled from some Atheist website.

Anonymous said...

The question was "False how?". This was in reference to Highboy claiming that the statement "There was a long list, over 400 if memory serves. You were asked to negate the first one and couldn't." was false.

Highboy continues to dodge the question. How is that statement false?

highboy said...

I'm not dodging the question, and I'll be happy to answer it, as soon as you cite exactly what "error" I supposedly didn't negate.

Then, maybe you can get around to explaining what tests you've run to conclude your sweeping generalizations as to how/why people come to believe in God. After that, you can get around to explaining your earlier request for the creationist to prove a negative.

highboy said...

I'm not dodging the question, and I'll be happy to answer it, as soon as you cite exactly what "error" I supposedly didn't negate. There wasn't a single issue posed to me on the subject I wasn't able to answer.

Then, maybe you can get around to explaining what tests you've run to conclude your sweeping generalizations as to how/why people come to believe in God. After that, you can get around to explaining your earlier request for the creationist to prove a negative.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not dodging the question, and I'll be happy to answer it, as soon as you cite exactly what "error" I supposedly didn't negate."

You, highboy, took part in the conversation yourself. Why don't you just go back to the blog post where this was discussed? Now you want to stall until someone else jogs your memory? Use the search function on the blog.

"False, and your intellectual dishonesty exempts you from being taken seriously from this point forward."

You want to dismiss someone else for intellectual dishonesty - for making a statement that is factually true? Nice going.

Even Christian apologetics acknowledged that issue to be a likely transcription error, but emotional hotheads such as the awesome threesome on this blog have to assume they're right first, before switching on their brains and looking at the facts at hand.

highboy said...

Wrong Anonymous, you're confused again. The burden of proof is one you. YOU made the claim I wasn't able to answer a question, YOU back that claim up. Its not my job to prove YOUR accusation for you. Get it yet?

"You want to dismiss someone else for intellectual dishonesty - for making a statement that is factually true? Nice going."

Let me know when you post something that is factually true. Then I'll respond to it. But since you didn't...

But let's face it, this pathetic little train you've attempted to take this thread down is nothing more than a smokescreen. If you could point out a legitimate contradiction in the Bible or error in the Bible you would have done so long before now.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, it's no one else's fault if your own memory fails you about a conversation you yourself took part in, no matter how much you yammer on about it.

highboy said...

Anonymous: its no one else's fault if you can't back up and prove your own accusations. You're just a dishonest troll, probably a teenager, giggling about your pathetic attempts at irritating people on the internet. Problem is, you're not irritating me, you're amusing me. Mainly because you keep making accusations and claims and ignoring the reality that the onus is on YOU to back that up. Its not my job to prove your arguments for you.

Either produce your evidence, back up your claim, or get off the stage. You're only humiliating yourself at this point.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, would you start to question your faith if it turned out that the Bible contained errors?

Incidentally, where is the evidence that you've been able to refute all claims of contradictions in the Bible, a claim you make quite frequently?

highboy said...

"Highboy, would you start to question your faith if it turned out that the Bible contained errors?"

Of course I would. But since it doesn't...

"Incidentally, where is the evidence that you've been able to refute all claims of contradictions in the Bible, a claim you make quite frequently?"

So are you conceding that you can't back up your false accusation that I didn't answer one of the "contradictions" supposedly presented?

Anonymous said...

"Highboy, would you start to question your faith if it turned out that the Bible contained errors?"

"Of course I would. But since it doesn't..."

Okay, that would explain why there seems to be so much at stake for you here - which in turn of course puts your objectivity in doubt. You HAVE to claim that there are no errors in the Bible or you have to question your worldview.

If you had more leeway, you might be able to see (as other Christians do) that the Bible contains some understandable copying errors, as well as some contradictions that one could interpret as reflecting a religion and morality that evolves along the way.

"So are you conceding that you can't back up your false accusation that I didn't answer one of the "contradictions" supposedly presented?"

Why would I concede such a thing? You were there. If you can't remember, use google.

highboy said...

"If you had more leeway, you might be able to see (as other Christians do) that the Bible contains some understandable copying errors, as well as some contradictions that one could interpret as reflecting a religion and morality that evolves along the way."

If that were the case, I'd agree. But its not. Verifiable evidence proves otherwise. You're simply wrong, there are no errors or contradictions. If there were, you would be able to produce some, rather than just repeating the claim over and over again. That's a common theme with you it seems.

"Why would I concede such a thing? You were there. If you can't remember, use google."

Its not a question of me not being able to remember. Its me requesting you to back up your claim. So far, all you've done is just keep repeating the accusation. If you could prove it, you would. But you can't, so you don't. Pretty straight forward.

Anonymous said...

"Its not a question of me not being able to remember."

Apparently it's a question of you not being able to remember AND not wanting to use Google.

highboy said...

"Apparently it's a question of you not being able to remember AND not wanting to use Google."

Its a question of you either being an incompetent tool who lets his keyboard write checks his brain can't cash or its a question of you being a liar. Back up your claim slick. The onus is on you.

Anonymous said...

Apparently it's a question of you not being able to remember AND not wanting to use Google.

Go to google.com, type in "site:radaractive.blogspot.com", followed by what you're looking for, and you'll find it in a few minutes. It'll take you less time than typing in a response to this comment.

Enjoy.

highboy said...

Sure anonymous, I'll get right on proving your accusation for you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for conceding that that would prove the accusation.

highboy said...

"Thank you for conceding that that would prove the accusation."

Thanks for conceding its false. You're obviously a child blogging from his mother's basement giggling at your attempts to just troll websites and annoy.

But for the record, the simple google you are too lazy, dishonest, and too incompetent to do only reveals that not only did I answer the supposed "contradiction", but so did radar, and as a matter of fact, the actual skeptics website that brought up the "contradiction" even answered the issue itself, something I pointed out. You lose. Now go away and let the grown ups talk.

Or, instead of trolling, you could get around to actually producing a supposed mistake or contradiction in the Bible. But you can't, so you wont'.

@radar: this unfortunately is the type of site that will attract mostly people like anonymous and Jon Wolfe, who are either simply playing on the computer or worse, like in Jon's case, are just chronic liars. But its entertaining.