The Unanswerable Question For Christians
If Christianity is the one true faith, and God wants everybody to go to Heaven by accepting it, then why did it take our species (which is about 195,000 years old) approximately 190,000 years to discover it (while, in the meantime, worshipping all manner of "false" gods and following scores of "fake" religions)?
posted by The Jolly Nihilist at 11:30:00 PM
35 Comments:
Answer:
We only have been here fo 6 000 yrs.
Our savior came to earth 2 000 yrs ago and before him there were Adam, Abraham (Ibrahim), Mosus, etc.
And the false gods are the fault of the devil.
:)
I didn't mean to piss you off but couldn't resist answering.
Because Jesus told them to worship all the false gods instead and he wanted to watch them burn. Yeah, he's a bastard like that.
Hey man this is Bryan again, the guy from DCC. I was wondering are you hoping for an answer or not for an answer? Because it doesn't matter what science (or scientists in that matter) has told us, we can't fully prove how old the earth is. But you have to remember, we have free will, we can do whatever we want. Our natural sinful desire is to seek pleasure, not everyone is going to seek holiness. It's their choice. Christian or non-Christian, people will either choose hedonism or holiness. But in order to extend my answer, I was wondering what your background with atheism, if you don't mind me asking. Have you always been an atheist or were you a previous Christian that became unbelieving? If you don't want to answer, that's okay with me. I'm just wondering though so I can answer this question better.
-Bryan
Hello Bryan,
You are correct in saying that we cannot "prove" that the planet is billions of years old. Science is not about proving things, generally speaking. Rather, science is about forming theories based upon the weight of the evidence. For example, it's a theory that the Earth spins on its axis while revolving around the Sun. That happens to be a very well supported and widely accepted theory, which makes it quite analogous to the theory of evolution, which also enjoys extremely broad scientific support.
The weight of the evidence, scientifically speaking, leads to these conclusions:
The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years.
Earth was formed around 4.57 billion years ago.
Life on Earth is theorized to have evolved around 4 billion years ago.
Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees between 5 and 6 million years ago.
Again, this is the best science currently has to offer (which still is very meaningful). Is it proof? No, it's theory. But, in science, theory means MUCH more than guess. Science isn't in the business of making proofs; it's in the business of building strong theories that enjoy broad support.
As to myself, I became an atheist in college, after being raised a Catholic. My journey to Strong Atheism came about through science, mostly. I began to read Bible stories with a scientifically critical eye. I realized that Jesus' resurrection was impossible, considering the irreversibility of brain death. I realized that there is no way that Adam could have lived to be more than 900 years old. I realized that talking serpents simply were not possible, given serpent physiology.
I also concluded that the "supernatural" is an assertion unsupported by solid evidence. I'm not even sure that "supernatural" is a coherent word, let alone a reality in this world.
I also came to atheism through brain study. For example, I learned that the brain is the receptacle in which one's memory and personality are stored. Since the brain is the home of memory and personality, and the brain dies and rots upon bodily death, I quickly realized that any "afterlife" (a concept for which there is no evidence) necessarily would be one without a person's memory or personality making the trip. What kind of afterlife would there be if my personality and my memories were rotting in the soil?
Basically, I came to atheism by embracing a scientific worldview: a worldview which has no room for faith, mysticism, the supernatural, superstition or any other extraordinary claims unsupported by extraordinary scientific evidence.
I believe in the dirt and I believe in the oceans. That's about it.
--Jolly
Okay, so how do you deal with incidents that can't be explained by science, i.e. medical miracles? Because in this world, by just looking at things, it seems like something is going on here other than just science, and I'm curious.
Okay, so how do you deal with incidents that can't be explained by science, i.e. medical miracles? Because in this world, by just looking at things, it seems like something is going on here other than just science, and I'm curious.
I dispute your contention that some things can't be explained by science. While, obviously, I accept the reality that science, at this point, hasn't explained everything, I would not agree that there are things it cannot explain. We simply haven’t yet discovered the scientific answers for what you term "medical miracles." I propose that every "medical miracle" you might cite eventually will be found to have a mundane, scientific explanation.
Remember, not that long ago people thought lightning, for example, was a miraculous and inexplicable occurrence. Now we know that lightning in fact has a mundane, scientific explanation, without a hint of the miraculous.
Just because we do not currently have a scientific answer for phenomenon A doesn't mean that science cannot ever explain it. Rather, it simply means the scientific explanation hasn't yet been found. Wait a few decades, and the "medical miracle" will seem as mundane as lightning on a hot Florida night.
Hey man, enjoying your blog.
I did some calculations regarding the universe being 10,000 years old. Technically if the universe was 10,000 years old we should only be able to see stars that are less than 10,000 light years away. We as of now can not accurately measure distances over 1000 light years. However, they've estimated the galaxy to be 100 million light years wide. The milky way couldn't fit into that. Let alone multiple galaxies. Supposedly they'll be launching a telescope which will help them measure distances up to 12000 light years in 2011.
Calliber, the creationists respond to your argument by saying that the speed of light was not always constant and that it must have moved faster during "Babble times", hence the universe looks older than it is. Their capacity for self delusion is truly remarkable.
Another argument to throw at them is that the nearest planetary bodies to us which have little or no atmosphere and no recent sign of volcanic activity, such as the Moon, Mercury and Mars, are littered with impact craters, whereas only a few can be found on Earth. The obvious answer to that is that because the Earth has an atmosphere, has had frequent volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the landscape from plate tectonics, the growth of forests etcetera covered up nearly all of Earth's impact craters. Again, a creationist will probably argue either (a) God protected the Earth from the meteor impacts, or (b) they were wiped out by Noah's flood.
To me, it doesn't seem much of a point to constantly argue about dates and time periods and happenings that occured millions of years ago because it has been proven that this world and the way things come about are so inconsistent. It always happens differently. Fossils can be fossilized in a matter of days...scientists have seen it happen with their own eyes...unlike everything else that we have discovered, yet we just guess on those. We didn't see it for ourselves. How can we theorize on the "Big Bang Theory" and it just occurring out of nowhere. Well it had to have come from somewhere...where did it come from? How could scientists ever figure that out? The only things we can figure out are things on our earth. Yet, to see what you think about this...I was wondering how we still are not able to explain the reaction qualities with water, while it is the most important physical resource on this earth. Your thoughts are much appreciated (respectfully that is). And if I'm in away being disrespectful or offensive, I do apologize, I just want to have a conversation about what other people believe. Thats all. Thank you.
-Bryan
Bryan, concepts such as the Big Bang or evolution seem incredible simply because you are not well educated in science. You do not understand the tests and observations that scientists who specialize in these fields undertake to arrive at the conclusions they make. Now, as for myself, I am not nearly as well read in matters of science as I would like to be either.
Look at it this way Bryan. Like myself, you probably do not understand 100% how electricity works, but when you flip the light switch on in your room, you expect that the lights will come on, barring a bulb burning out. What matters is that there are people who understand how electricity works and they devise systems whereby electric power is created and transmitted so that we can have lightbulbs to illuminate a room, or electricity to power a television set or a computer?
Why is it so hard to accept then that scientists have consensus that there was a big bang out of which our universe was born or that humanity shares a common ancestor with other primates and that our species has evolved over the course of many hundreds of thousands of years?
to answer your last question, the reason i can't believe that this world and the universe was made out of just a big energetic bang, is because i don't believe that it could make all of this. I believe a creator HAD to have made this. Someone had to have a hand in this. Science isn't smart enough. There is no need for me to go into great depths about the anatomy of the body or how things work in the world and how they are so complex. I just have faith. Just like when you turn on the light switch. I have faith that it will produce light. Faith is an important thing to us all. Even if you don't believe in God, you have to faith in other things. It comes natural to us. Science can't produce faith. There will be times where you won't be able to rely on science.
It took god a long time to tie his shoelaces.
Sorry, I stand corrected, he couldn't find his socks in the sock drawer because Mrs god was out shopping that day.
RE roya: (I couldn't resist either.)
Hi Bryan,
in line with Richard Dawkins' ideas, the reason that God can't be a serious explanation is because to invoke him is to inject a massive overdose of the very thing we're trying to explain in the first place: complexity. All we're doing in that case it assuming complexity from the very outset (monstrous complexity, for a being capable of heairng prayers and simultaneously deciding whether or not to intervene in human affairs is the very antithesis of simple). EVEN IF our universe was created by an intelligence, that intelligence itself must ultimately have come from simpler beginnings, must itself have been subject to some process by which its complexity was built up. Science shows us that complexity comes from simplicity as the result of a long process. The complexity of living things is the result of such a process, the one called evolution by natural selection. Since the biological systems we see today are statistically overwhelmingly unlikely to have come about by chance alone, there needs to have been a NON-random process of cumulative, step-by-step refinement.(this is where people get tripped up: they think that evolution is all about chance, but in fact natural selection is the complete opposite of random chance, as Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists have for so long being making clear. The evidence, mind you, for evolution is really no longer open to serous dispute. You can disagree with it, but no longer on scientific grounds. The only arguments against it left today are religious.
Finally, it doesn't follow that just because science doesn't know everything, that all other systems that purport to be avenues for finding the truth have an equal claim to validity.
Bryan, I don't have faith in electricity because I know that electricity exists. I know that there are people who understand how electricity works and how to harness it so that the light comes on when I do flip the switch.
It's the same thing with the rising and setting of the sun every day. I don't have faith that the sun will rise because I know that the only way the sun will cease to rise is if either (a) the sun burns out, in which case we will all freeze to death within a matter of days or weeks at the most, (b) the Earth has stopped spinning on its axis, in which case one side of the Earth will be in perpetual day and the other side in perpetual night, or (3) the Earth continues to spin but in a crazy and out of control manner.
I would ask you Bryan, what is the basis for believing that the Bible represents the inerrant truth of the creator of the universe?
Wow, this has to be the most absurd and immature discussion out there. Science is just another word, and just another reference as any other word or "occupation" out there. Scientists believe that "science" has to do with everythiing in life. The same goes for a musician. A musician believes that "music" has everything to do with life. And the list just goes on. But everything in life all goes back to one being. And that's God. And who cares how old this Earth is. The poor place is deteriorating, so within an amount of time, it won't be here. Then we won't have to put up with all this nonsense about argueing how old this piece of crap place we call home is. I just happen to believe in God, and I also happen to believe in Christ. No I don't partake in what man calls "Religion", because thats the most absurd crap I've ever heard of. Since when does God become something that we use to provoke at. He's the one that created your sorry pieces of carcass', so get used to it. Evolution was created by man, the Big Bang was created by man, Religion and Politics was created by man, but you idiots and every other living thing out there was created by God himself. So get used to it, and I pray that some of you will open up to the fact that your just wasting your time defending nonsense that was created of this world. Faith is your key to a better life. Keep it cool, and let's just cut the bull crap. And for other controveries, killing innocent babies is murder, and it should be considered a crime. Churches to pay tax, well, that's just up to you. Our Soldiers are doing fine where they are. Someone has to defend the innoncence civilians over there. There will never be peace, so, just get used to it. I do believe that we should have less overseas, but we should not pull all of them out. And I don't need any discussion about the military, because I am apart of it. We know that there's a chance for departure, and it's our choice. So back off, and mind your own on that topic. And for those living on Welfare, you better truly be someone who needs it. Most of you are just to lazy scums that want people like myself's money, just so you can take it and waste it on illegal use. Many people in this world that need welfare don't get it. And someone needs to stand for that. But, the Demo's are just to ignorant to notice. They push for welfare, and are just to blind to notice it's value. But anyways, I've had my share of input. May any of those who read this take it in, and just think about your life, and your life after death. I do know that those who respond are probably just going to laugh at this, and diss it, but hey, does it look like I care. You idiots are the reason I love my life. Just sitting here reading your absurd comments. It's the saddest thing I've ever read in my life. So, God bless, and hit me back sometime. Email me at DemonHunter1904@aol.com
Tanner
Tanner, I think it is time for you to get your meds refilled.
be nice tommy answers like that only make people go away and thing your crazy.
I have a question for you Jolly.
Why did it take man 193,141 years to figure out where we came from? Darwin wrote his book in 1858 and the theory of evolution has taken off from there.
Man wrote the Bible starting in 1400 BC, so 3400 years ago. People had recorded genealogies from the time of Adam. If humans have been around for what you say 195,000 years, wouldn't humans have known right then were they come from? Would they have passed the knowledge on to their children were they came from? Would they have written it down in genealogies as well? When did human languages come into play? When did they begin to write? Somewhere at some point that line had to be crossed from ancestor to human, a line that became human and was no longer able to reproduce with it's parents species, thus a completely new species right? So if they went from ancestor to human they would have the capacity to think and realize where they came from correct? History has only been recorded by humans for probably the last 6 -10 thousand years, so if we were here much before that where are the recorded historical evidences? Why didn’t man write down things prior to 10 thousand years ago? 10 thousand years of history would go in line with the Bible and the creation of earth.
Maybe overall this is a dumb question, but man wrote down what eventually became the Bible and how we got here starting 3400 years ago and that information came from people prior to them (Adam and so forth down to Moses). No where has man written down through genealogies or anything else that man came from a common ancestor through evolution. History has been recorded for thousands of years but no where do you have the history of human evolution until Darwin put it into theory and people started looking into it after 1858. I know the thought was around before Darwin but nothing was substantiated until Darwin.
If humans have been around for what you say 195,000 years, wouldn't humans have known right then were they come from? Would they have passed the knowledge on to their children were they came from? Would they have written it down in genealogies as well?
I think you have a distorted view of evolution. First off, most of the time speciation happens when a large population becomes geographically isolated into two or more sub-populations. Natural selection acts on individuals, but individuals do not evolve. Evolution must be considered in terms of populations. That's key.
Gradually, over time, those two sub-populations will evolve in different directions, based upon the environmental conditions under which each lives. Over a great deal of time, the two sub-populations will become reproductively isolated—different species.
Bearing this in mind, the "beginning" of a species is pretty amorphous and invisible at the moment when it's happening. It's much clearer given the perspective of history, where subtle differences can be explored.
Somewhere at some point that line had to be crossed from ancestor to human, a line that became human and was no longer able to reproduce with it's parents species, thus a completely new species right? So if they went from ancestor to human they would have the capacity to think and realize where they came from correct?
You are still thinking in terms of individuals—rather than populations—evolving. A mother does not "pop out" a new species. Populations, taken as a whole, develop into a new species. The individual is just a link in the fence.
History has only been recorded by humans for probably the last 6 -10 thousand years, so if we were here much before that where are the recorded historical evidences? Why didn’t man write down things prior to 10 thousand years ago?
1. It could be because man was more occupied with things like surviving, eating and reproducing.
2. You have to invent a common language and invent common symbols for that language in order to write down histories, genealogies, etc. In really ancient times, things probably were too dispersed for any one language to grab a foothold.
3. It's got to be pretty hard for any piece of writing to survive 190,000 years of time on this harsh planet.
10 thousand years of history would go in line with the Bible and the creation of earth.
The Bible, if taken literally, argues the Earth is about 6000 years old (Creation in 4004 BC), which, as I'm sure you know, is laughably impossible.
Sam Harris says it well, "Some 46 percent of Americans take a literalist view of creation (40 percent believe that God has guided creation over the course of millions of years). This means that 120 million of us place the big bang 2,500 years AFTER the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer."
A 6000-year-old Earth is fiction. It's that simple.
No where has man written down through genealogies or anything else that man came from a common ancestor through evolution. History has been recorded for thousands of years but no where do you have the history of human evolution until Darwin put it into theory and people started looking into it after 1858.
I think everything will become much clearer to you when you think of evolution as it should be thought of—as a phenomenon affecting populations, NOT individuals. Individuals do not evolve.
Let me give you an example…
Modern chimps and modern humans have a common ancestor called Species A. Species A is geographically isolated into Population A and Population B, which are acted upon by different environmental conditions. Over the course of many generations, Population A becomes Species C, and Population B becomes Species D.
How would Species D know its own evolutionary history? It's just a population, only now it's reproductively isolated in addition to being geographically isolated. That’s speciation.
Am I wrong by saying that much of what you said is a lot speculation and not complete hard facts? How does science perfectly allow an entire population to change exactly like all others? Simply environmental changes? Individuals make up a population so individuals would have to change inside the population. Look at humans for example, it's obvious that all humans are different, we all have different hereditary traits correct? Why doesn’t the fossil record support common dissent or natural selection? I think that if macroevolution was 100% fact scientists would have complete and irrefutable evidence that everyone would accept it. When it comes down to we either have God or evolution on how man got here. For evolution to occur it would have started by mere chance by no cause, it would have just started right? How do you explain all the things on earth that are precisely balanced to sustain life on Earth? Science just happened make all these things perfect to be the only planet in the entire galaxy that has life? Have you ever heard of the book Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel? I find it pretty interesting because it talks about the astrology and cosmology parts of Earth that I never really thought of.
Jolly
I've heard anywhere from 6 to 10 thousand years old, but the Bible doesn't specifically say. If you do the numbers from the genealogies you get 4112 years from Adam to 0 AD or BC, which would make the earth 6118 years old. Genealogies don't always have every person listed, sons and/or ancestors to prove links between people. Genealogies don't always just include father to son to son and so forth, so it could be said that it's difficult to tell from the Bible how old the earth is. I would say the genealogies in Genesis are probably very accurate, I've read that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were ancestors and sons, not necessarily all son's. I could be wrong though, my knowledge of the Bible isn't extensive
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
Look at evidence for the young world towards the end of the article.
Jolly,
also you didn't answer my initial question in the previous statement,
Why did it take man 193,141 years (based from 195,000 years that you stated) to figure out where we came from? Darwin wrote his book in 1858 and the theory of evolution has taken off from there.
Am I wrong by saying that much of what you said is a lot speculation and not complete hard facts? How does science perfectly allow an entire population to change exactly like all others? Simply environmental changes?
In all honesty, I think you should read a book or two about evolution before getting too deep into a debate about it. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions that perhaps have been formed by reading creationist websites. If you read some of Dawkins' or Gould's evolution books, you'd have a much better understanding of what it really is.
Every member of a population does not simultaneously mutate into something different. No evolutionist says that. What happens is, over time, certain mutations and variations improve an individual's reproductive fitness. Therefore, more members of the population end up reflecting those positive variations. Over time, accumulated mutations (preserved and propagated because they increase reproductive fitness) lead to speciation.
If these terms are unfamiliar, I suggest you familiarize yourself with evolution from a true evolutionist source.
Individuals make up a population so individuals would have to change inside the population.
Natural selection acts on individuals, but individuals do not evolve.
Why doesn’t the fossil record support common dissent or natural selection? I think that if macroevolution was 100% fact scientists would have complete and irrefutable evidence that everyone would accept it.
The fossil record DOES support common descent and natural selection. Many people don't accept ToE because they either are ignorant of the evidence or they refuse to accept the evidence because of their loyalty to religion. The fossil record is terrific evidence in support of evolution. Have you ever heard of Archaeopteryx? I would bet not.
For evolution to occur it would have started by mere chance by no cause, it would have just started right?
Abiogenesis is distinct from evolution. They are different, though related, fields of study. They should not be conflated. A firm theory of evolution is not dependent upon a firm theory of abiogenesis.
How do you explain all the things on earth that are precisely balanced to sustain life on Earth? Science just happened make all these things perfect to be the only planet in the entire galaxy that has life?
Anthropic principle. Earth has the conditions which are necessary for a species like us to arise. Therefore, we arose. It is wrong to say that Earth has these conditions for the purpose of evolving humans. It is correct to say that, since humans came about, Earth must have had the conditions necessary for our evolution. We are not necessary; we came about simply because conditions favored us coming about.
I've heard anywhere from 6 to 10 thousand years old, but the Bible doesn't specifically say. If you do the numbers from the genealogies you get 4112 years from Adam to 0 AD or BC, which would make the earth 6118 years old.
Most fundamentalists consider Ussher's biblical dating definitive. He put creation at 4004 BC. And, it's rubbish.
I would say the genealogies in Genesis are probably very accurate, I've read that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were ancestors and sons, not necessarily all son's. I could be wrong though, my knowledge of the Bible isn't extensive
The genealogies tracing David to Jesus (Matthew and Luke) are contradictory and completely unresolvable. They can't even agree on Joseph's father. Apologists can make all the excuses they want, but they're always unsubstantiated assertions wholly lacking in hard textual evidence.
By the way, Answers in Genesis has zero scientific credibility. It's a fundamentalist pseudoscience website aimed at non-scientist readers.
Why did it take man 193,141 years (based from 195,000 years that you stated) to figure out where we came from? Darwin wrote his book in 1858 and the theory of evolution has taken off from there.
Why did we figure out cars when we did?
Planes?
The steam engine?
Guns?
Trains?
Sunglasses?
Knowledge is progressive, building upon past discoveries. Of course, formal education helps spur those discoveries along.
Knowledge by revelation, however, is entirely different. Human knowledge is gained through an accumulation of human effort. Knowledge by revelation, in contrast, is bestowed by God at its whim. No human effort is required, and therefore no delay is explicable.
Jolly,
First of all yes I have heard of Archaeopteryx, it was found in a German quarry 2 years after Darwin finished his book. Is it a bird or reptile or both? I ask because I’ve read differing views about what it is. Jonathan Wells PhD, PhD, Embryonic Biologist, said that it’s a bird not a bird and reptile and birds and reptiles are very different; their breeding system, bone structure, lungs, distribution of weight and muscles. He says bird not both. The part I find most intriguing is that birds have hallow bones to allow them to fly and reptiles have solid bones, to me that’s a big difference. Wells also goes on to talk about the cladistics and how they tried to link the Archaeopteryx to common ancestor through homology and physical similarities from birds and reptiles through a common ancestor. So they assume birds came from reptiles through common descent so they look for reptiles that are more bird like in their skeletal structure and they say they found them but they are dated millions of years after the Archaeopteryx. So basically Wells says Archaeopteryx is bird and not an ancestor to bird and he goes on to say that paleontologists pretty much agree with this. Larry Martin a paleontologist from University of Kansas also agrees with Wells, but he adds that it’s an extinct group of birds. Wells also mentions that the fossils can be forged and fakes made to look real so the fossil records today can’t be completely trusted, he said there is big money in fossils and forgery. He made this case with the Archaeoraptor, published in the 1999 National Geographic Magazine, a link to bird and dinosaur and could fly. It had the tail of a dinosaur and forelimbs of a bird. Wells said a Chinese paleontologist proved that is was a fake and that the tail had been glued on to a privative bird. Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist from UNC Chapel Hill, agrees with this statement and said that the Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are scores of fake fossils out there that have cast a dark shadow over the whole field, he also adds that the fakes are made for no other reason other than money (from Discover Magazine “Plucking Apart the Dino-birds”, Feb 2003)
Besides this is only one case and one fossil you mention, but I’m sure you are going to provide me with that proof otherwise and proof to counter what I said. All this I said came out of Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, who came from a Christian up-bringing turned atheist because of science and evolution, who’s wife was atheist who turned Christian and Lee saw how much she changed for the good so he began to look into the theory of evolution and started to find the flaws, which in turn made him come back to Christ and become a Christian again. He has written Case for Christ and Case for Faith, I have not read either yet but I do plan to. To answer you question or statement about reading a lot of creation books, well this is the first one I picked up and read. A lot of what I read about evolution comes from doing searches online and just pure questions that pop into my head about the subject, sorry if they seem absurd. I also read a lot from answersingenesis.org, who are creation scientists with deep biblical knowledge as well as scientific knowledge.
As to Wells I asked this question earlier but you probably didn’t see it because Lui stepped in and the question got buried. Basically I asked you if you knew anything about him. This guy has two PhD’s and once was an evolutionist and a atheist who turned
when he saw the evidence of Haenkles experiment on embryos and how it wasn’t close to being right in his eyes and Wells than started to look deeper and found more faults. So how can you automatically dismiss someone like Well’s who is obviously extremely bright and educated? Simply because he believes in Creation now? And lets not forget Wells isn’t the only one who has crossed that border from evolutionist to Creationist, people who have studied their fields and have seen discrepancies.
One last question, how do scientists date things? What methods do they use?
Jolly,
I guess I have one more question.
Why is it pure rubbish that the earth is only 6,000+ years old? Because science says otherwise?
The age I get out of Genesis and the genealogies is 4114 BC was creation, 1948 years from Adam to Abraham, born in 2166 BC, than another 2006 years added on from 1 AD to now makes 6120 years.
And I tackled the Luke and Matthew genealogy thing in your inerrancy delusion post, i don't know if you saw that, it would be the last comment in that post.
Regarding Archaeopteryx, I suggest you read the following web pages for accurate information about this very, very significant fossil. Indeed, it IS a transitional fossil helping to demonstrate common descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
Those web pages represent the mainstream scientific view, held by the vast majority of professional scientists. Contrary to your assertion, the vast majority of professional scientists recognize Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil that serves as evidence of common descent.
Regarding Archaeoraptor, yes, some fossils turn out to be fakes. However, the vast majority of them are legitimate, and thus one cannot presume falsehood without supporting evidence leading to that conclusion. The health of ToE is not, in any way, dependent upon the veracity of Archaeoraptor.
It's also noteworthy that, most of the time, fossil forgeries are uncovered by professional, evolution-accepting scientists--not creationists.
Michael Shermer wrote the following: "The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hesperopithecus are in time exposed. In fact, it was not creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposes of these errors, and then duplicitously advanced them as their own."
Very telling...
All this I said came out of Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, who came from a Christian up-bringing turned atheist because of science and evolution, who’s wife was atheist who turned Christian and Lee saw how much she changed for the good so he began to look into the theory of evolution and started to find the flaws, which in turn made him come back to Christ and become a Christian again. He has written Case for Christ and Case for Faith, I have not read either yet but I do plan to.
To be completely frank, the opinion of Lee Strobel isn't particularly important. The same goes for Jonathan Wells [By the way, his second PhD is in Religious Studies and therefore totally irrelevant to science.] No matter how articulate they might be, or how cleverly they compose their pseudoscience, they still represent a TINY minority viewpoint.
Have you ever heard of Project Steve? It is a very exclusive list, and a person must fulfill three requirements to end up on it.
1. Accept evolution and common descent.
2. Be a scientist.
3. Be named Steve, or a derivative thereof.
Here's the link: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
This shows you how deep the support for evolution runs. Just imagine all the Johns, Bobs, Joes and Richards who accept evolution.
By the way, here's a Strobel debunking site: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
I also read a lot from answersingenesis.org, who are creation scientists with deep biblical knowledge as well as scientific knowledge.
Answers in Genesis actually is a pseudoscience website. They might know a lot about the Bible, but they know precious little about science.
Check this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html It debunks tremendous amounts of Answers in Genesis pseudoscience. If you read a lot of AiG, that explains why you have so many misconceptions about the true ToE.
As to Wells I asked this question earlier but you probably didn’t see it because Lui stepped in and the question got buried. Basically I asked you if you knew anything about him. This guy has two PhD’s and once was an evolutionist and a atheist who turned when he saw the evidence of Haenkles experiment on embryos and how it wasn’t close to being right in his eyes and Wells than started to look deeper and found more faults. So how can you automatically dismiss someone like Well’s who is obviously extremely bright and educated? Simply because he believes in Creation now? And lets not forget Wells isn’t the only one who has crossed that border from evolutionist to Creationist, people who have studied their fields and have seen discrepancies.
Before proceeding, I just wanted to re-iterate that his second PhD is totally irrelevant with regard to science.
And again, I also will re-iterate that, however smart Wells might be [and a good education doesn’t necessarily indicate intelligence—just look at Pat Robertson], he represents a tiny minority viewpoint in the academic/scholarly/scientific community.
It's precisely analogous to Holocaust deniers. They might seem very knowledgeable, educated, articulate and—indeed—convincing. But, they're wrong; the Holocaust did occur. The deniers are a tiny, albeit loud, fringe minority. However, it might take a historian to knock over their house of cards. Analogously, it might take a scientist to knock over the creationist house of cards.
Wells criticism:
http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/4412_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp
One last question, how do scientists date things? What methods do they use?
Resources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
Why is it pure rubbish that the earth is only 6,000+ years old? Because science says otherwise?
1. Things have been dated MUCH older than that.
2. Creation could not have occurred AFTER the Babylonian and Sumerian civilizations had begun. They are older than 6000 years—substantially so.
When responding, please try to go point-by-point like I do. It makes responding easier when you refer back to a specific statement that was made.
Jolly,
Archaeopteryx debate
First off the 2nd and 3rd sites didn’t come up the other three do. I really don’t know what this did for your favor, it’s classified as a “bird” with different sorts of features. To my knowledge not all birds look the same and I don’t need to go to school to see that. I find my self going back to Feduccia (evolutionist biologist UNC Chapel Hill) his exact words.
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=Archaeopteryx
Your evolutionist scientists can’t even agree weather it was a bird or part bird part dinosaur and they can’t agree weather it was “tree down” or “ground up” bird, which to me starts bring in too much speculation. They have the fossil, it’s a bird, it had feathers, and it has a different feature, that’s all they know the rest is speculation because they were not there to see it, so they can’t say for sure what it did or didn’t do.
Where do dinosaurs fit into the evolutionary chain? Were they before or are they part of evolution? Because I thought they went completely extinct or at least that is what I was taught in school and what I read in a news article on the internet today based on there “new” findings on the crater in the ocean off Mexico
[Regarding Archaeoraptor, yes, some fossils turn out to be fakes. However, the vast majority of them are legitimate, and thus one cannot presume falsehood without supporting evidence leading to that conclusion. The health of ToE is not, in any way, dependent upon the veracity of Archaeoraptor.]
How do you know some don’t turn and look the other way? How do you know they are all honest? Some are, yes, but I bet not all. One, two, twenty, one hundred fakes no matter how many there are it still casts a dark shadow and gives reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Any time you start to bring money into things people get a little funny and are willing to do anything to get their hands on it.
[It's also noteworthy that, most of the time, fossil forgeries are uncovered by professional, evolution-accepting scientists--not creationists]
Most of the time, not all the time that is all you need to say, gives reasonable doubt to the authenticity of the fossils and to the integrity of the scientists.
[Michael Shermer wrote the following: "The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hesperopithecus are in time exposed. In fact, it was not creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposes of these errors, and then duplicitously advanced them as their own."]
Self correcting makes it a circular argument, they can say well we proved it another way or if it’s wrong or I was wrong I can fix it or someone else has already fixed it, or just give me more time I will find more evidence. Its circular arguing or a way of saying they can’t be wrong because science will correct it self. That doesn’t sound like hard facts or beliefs to me.
[To be completely frank, the opinion of Lee Strobel isn't particularly important. The same goes for Jonathan Wells [By the way, his second PhD is in Religious Studies and therefore totally irrelevant to science.] No matter how articulate they might be, or how cleverly they compose their pseudoscience, they still represent a TINY minority viewpoint.]
Why? Who says, you?
His story sounds pretty similar to yours, doubted religion growing up, couldn’t get the questions answered that he had by his parents or church, he found science to be interesting he studied in college and became a evolutionist based on what he was taught in school and believed whole heartedly that they were completely right. After finding science he turned atheist. Quiet frankly your answer is simply your opinion an opinion which is shared by anyone who see people stepping on and questioning the authenticity of evolution. He once believed based on what he was taught, his wife turned Christian, he didn’t right away, after several years he began to look into evolutionary theory and question it based on his wife’s change of life. He found that evolution has plenty of holes and doubts despite what the scientists want to believe, so YES his side does matter, it matters very much. His side shouldn’t not count just because he is on my side now, he once was on yours. His opinion is based on facts that he studied and explored, much of what came from very qualified scientists and not all just creation scientists.
[Have you ever heard of Project Steve? It is a very exclusive list, and a person must fulfill three requirements to end up on it. This shows you how deep the support for evolution runs. Just imagine all the Johns, Bobs, Joes and Richards who accept evolution]
No, I have not heard of Project Steve. I don’t doubt the support it has, but I as mentioned earlier before to you my side has more of a deep following (6 billion today if you include Judaism and Muslim) has been the greatest following probably ever that we know of, has definitely been the most controversial following ever, my side has been around much longer than yours and over the course of history my amount of followers way, way, way out weighs your numbers. But you already said that my numbers don’t matter because we are not right. Again that’s just your opinion and you can’t factually debate my numbers of followers and how deep my belief and side goes. Christianity survived and has grown to be the worlds largest and largest ever following because of its TRUTH. If it was mere fairy tale it would have be extinguished long ago and would not have grown. It grew because people were there to witness it and because of God. It grew because it’s true. I’m sorry science can’t prove my side, or maybe I’m not sorry because science isn’t suppose to prove God and Jesus, you have the Bible and the Holy Spirit if you so desire.
[Answers in Genesis actually is a pseudoscience website. They might know a lot about the Bible, but they know precious little about science.]
Maybe you should look deeper in that site it’s made up of both scientists with PhD’s and Pastors with great knowledge of the Bible. They wouldn’t put information on it if it wasn’t reliable and backed by knowledable scientists, yes they are creation scientists. And they do wonder outside the box and get info from evolution scientists.
Wells
His first PhD is in embryonic Biology or to that sorts and he got it before he became a theist, much for the same reasons as Strobel, because he saw the faults and lies. You didn’t question Haenkels experiment, is that because you don’t see Wells as reliable? He has studied he has knowledge and expertise in fields that you do not. We know the holocaust happened because we have EYE WHITNESSES to it, unlike evolution. So again Wells side is reliable because he has good knowledge and a good education in the scientific field so he knows facts from farce
I’ll look and get back to the dating issue I’m running out of time.
Dating 6000 years
Only by evolutionists with dating methods that have discrepancies (I will get to that tomorrow)
Maybe just maybe the Bible didn’t have the same days in a month that we did, it only talks about 7 days in genesis and years of age of people. One could assume the years were different shorter or longer I don’t for sure. It’s possible they didn’t go on the lunar year which would make the ages of earth and creation different, but as I said I go with 6000 plus years. Babylonia was talked about in the Bible so creation happened before yes.
PGC, I highly doubt that Strobel was an actual atheist. I suspect that he portrays himself to his target audience as being a former atheist so all the Bible thumpin Christians who eat up his writings like corn flakes for breakfast will say "There, ya see, he used to be an atheist, but he check the facts and realized Christianity is true after all. What more proof do you need?"
Besides, I just got through telling you in another thread PGC that the Church suppressed pagan religions and variants of Christianity deemed heretical (like the Arians). Christianity was then spread to places like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Philippines with missionaries who came in the wake of European conquerors armed with muskets and cannon.
Diseases transmitted by the Europeans decimated the native American population, thereby sharply reducing the numbers of pagan nonbelievers and making it easier to convert the 10% of the population that managed to survive. That is how your precious Christianity became so widespread. This isn't my opinion dude. It's historical fact.
You wonder why humans didn't write down things about their origins tens of thousands of years ago if the Earth is older than the Bible says? Well gee, maybe it had to do with the fact that humans were spread out into small bands of hunter-gatherers. The adoption of agriculture was likely delayed because there was this thing called the Ice Age. In case you didn't know it, crops don't grow very well when it is freezing cold.
There are so many indicators that show that the Earth, and the universe are old. From ice core samples, that celestial bodies are more than 6,000 light years away, the strata in the Earth, and so on and so on. People within their respective fields of endeavor make mistakes of course, but what you are saying is that the fields of study themselves are in error. I don't think so buddy.
I've said it before and I will say it again:
The Bible is not the word of God. The God of the Bible does not exist. Jesus was not born from a virgin, he did not rise from the dead, and he was not the son of the creator of the universe. You are not in need of salvation in order to avoid an eternity of suffering in the afterlife. Get your head out of the mental prison of the Bible.
Again I must say because you need to be told continuously, the title of the Post said JOLLY, not TOMMY.
I'll wait for him
neither argument can prove anything. it takes faith to be a thiest or an athiest. either way, one has to have faith (or hope) that they aren't wrong. but if the athiest is wrong, he will regret it. if the thiest is wrong, then he might have lived his life for a non-existent entity, but nobody will ever prove him wrong b/c they will cease to exist. i just can't understand how some people can hear only two or three points for either argument and base their lifestyle on that... they have more balls than me. i, persoanally, would love to hear intelligent arguments from either side b/c i haven't totally made up my mind after reading volumes. i would definately prefer the christian worldview, but i'm about as objective and open-minded as they come, so i will continue to pray that God helps me understand while i study the sciences and listen to everybody's opinion. one day, hopefully, i will have my answer.
e-mail: cambro21@yahoo.com
thank you all
Besides the fact the earth is only 6,000 years old. We have had accounts of God since the very begining of time.
Besides the fact the earth is only 6,000 years old. We have had accounts of God since the very begining of time.
Yet Christianity was invented only about 2000 years ago.
If there is no god, it is futile to oppose this non-existent god. "But", you say, "I am opposing the believers in the non-existent god." I propose that this is also futile. Either believing in god provides an advantage or disadvantage from an evolutionary point of view. Case I: If it provides disadvantage then natural selection will eliminate believers over time. So, there is no need to oppose believers. Let nature do its work and spend time in productive enterprises. Case II: If it provides an advantage then natural selection will eliminate non-believers over time. So, the belief in god is an advantage even if he does not exist! Rather than argue in this case, I should choose to believe and become advantaged. By Case I and Case II, opposing believers yields no long term benefit.
Hey there,
Just like to say that I've really enjoyed reading you stuff, and I appreciated your foetal ownership argument...I've put it to good use on Foru.ms.
Sad to see you won't be blogging for a while, but I look forward to more stuff of the standard that you've demonstrated in the past.
Good Luck!
Post a Comment
<< Home