[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[AHIMSA]

Something to think about...

Kangaroos, dinosaurs, and Eden
by Ken Ham

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 2/eden.asp

I don't think this is something we can "think about" as the author's conclusions involve NO THINKING. He says that kangaroos must have been in the Middle East at some point because the Bible says every species on earth was in the Ark. Wow. There is zero evidence of this. I can't believe im even taking time to respond to this article....these kind of views degrade the intellgience of Christians everywhere.

 

[Loren Michael]

Something to think about...

Kangaroos, dinosaurs, and Eden
by Ken Ham

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 2/eden.asp

I don't think this is something we can "think about" as the author's conclusions involve NO THINKING. He says that kangaroos must have been in the Middle East at some point because the Bible says every species on earth was in the Ark. Wow. There is zero evidence of this. I can't believe im even taking time to respond to this article....these kind of views degrade the intellgience of Christians everywhere.

oh wow. that just reminded me of these shirts. i want one so bad.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

In the forum To Those Who Take the Bible Literally you were confronted with the issue of the flood, and the lack of scientific evidence for it. You said just because there isn't evidence for something does not mean that it didn't happen. I quote:

The fallacy of scientists is that if they can't see it then they say it doesn't exist. Nothing can be more closed minded than that.

Yet you just said:

[quote:0a45f]You're still claiming that we descended from wild beasts, period. You can call them anything you want but they are still fictitious because they haven't been found yet. They only exist in the imagination...

I don't see how you can reconcile both of your positions. I think you need to choose one. Secondly, you are ignoring that though the "beasts" themselves have not actually been found,we have very probable grounds to believe they existed. There have been many 'sub-human' species, such as neanderthalls, that went extinct ages ago.[/quote:0a45f]

The difference is that there is no evidence anywhere that we descended from apes. If apes were breeding creatures today that turn into human beings or if animals and humans could interbreed then your theory would have more credibility. But there are no eye-wtinesses nor have there ever been witnesses to animals giving birth to creatures that turn into humans anywhere, nor evidence that this is even possible.

But when scientists can't find proof in today's world for something that people who lived thousands of years ago claim happened, then there were eye-witnesses. And that is what I meant by my comment. After Noah left the Ark, he and his children were left to testify to what they saw. And I'll belive eye-wtinesses any day to people who lived thousands of years later. Why do scientists look for evidence for the lost City of Atlantis? Why do they need it? What they're again saying is that it didn't exist if they can't find it. Sorry, but simply because there's no proof in today's world of an historical event, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Quid]

The difference is that there is no evidence anywhere that we descended from apes.

O rly?
And before you go on your rant about it not bein 100% certain, no, it's not. But you said there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence. Which is quite wrong.

If apes were breeding creatures today that turn into human beings or if animals and humans could interbreed then your theory would have more credibility. But there are no eye-wtinesses nor have there ever been witnesses to animals giving birth to creatures that turn into humans anywhere, nor evidence that this is even possible.

We've been over this before Heidi. Try to remember this time. Evolution of a completely new species takes thousands of years. And you say you want two seperate species that interbreed, but you've stated yourself that anything that interbreeds is the same species. So which is it?

But when scientists can't find proof in today's world for something that people who lived thousands of years ago claim happened, then there were eye-witnesses. And that is what I meant by my comment. After Noah left the Ark, he and his children were left to testify to what they saw. And I'll belive eye-wtinesses any day to people who lived thousands of years later.

Mohmmad witnessed Allah. Do you believe him?

Why do scientists look for evidence for the lost City of Atlantis?

Generally speaking, they're usually curious. It's what being a scientist is about. Though there are plenty who claim that the scientists searching for it are wasting their time.

Why do they need it? What they're again saying is that it didn't exist if they can't find it.

They don't need it particularly. But people want to know for the same reason we excavate pyramids and other ruins. To learn more about the past and way people lived.

Sorry, but simply because there's no proof in today's world of an historical event, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

By all reasoning, if there isn't any evidence for an event, then no, it doesn't exist. That's how science works. If it didn't work that way it'd be called faith.

 

[Loren Michael]

Why do scientists look for evidence for the lost City of Atlantis? Why do they need it? What they're again saying is that it didn't exist if they can't find it. Sorry, but simply because there's no proof in today's world of an historical event, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

this is a tangent, but scientists don't actually look for atlantis. atlantis was used in one of many dialogues by plato. it's a hypothetical society that self-destructs because of its own hubris. most any legitimate scientist will be incredibly skeptical about any claims to finding atlantis as a result.

 

[bibleberean]

A very intelligent article on Kangaroos in Australia. Answers to skeptics.

How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ration.asp

My intelligence is not insulted. :D

 

[Quid]

Wow, I didn't realize sloths were migratory animals.

Your intelligence probably isn't but mine certainly is.

 

[bibleberean]

The sloth, a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require much more time than Scripture allows to make the journey from Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar evolutionary process. However, to account for today's animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.6 Indeed, iguanas have recently been documented traveling hundreds of kilometres in this manner between islands in the Caribbean.7

The Bible suggests a pattern of post-Flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-Flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the Flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.8

We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear.9 Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for Noah's Flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.10 Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ration.asp

Not knowing the answer to everything is not insult to my intelligence. :-D

 

[Loren Michael]

Hopsiah the Kanga-Jew knows history because his family lived it!

Hopsiah lives in the Middle East, where his ancestors and those of all the other animals and humans alive today exited Noah's Ark 4,000 years ago.

But unlike the other Kangaroos who hopped to Australia, Hopsiah's family stayed behind to witness history!



sorry, i couldn't resist.

 

[Quid]

The sloth, a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require much more time than Scripture allows to make the journey from Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar evolutionary process. However, to account for today's animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.6 Indeed, iguanas have recently been documented traveling hundreds of kilometres in this manner between islands in the Caribbean.7

The Bible suggests a pattern of post-Flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-Flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the Flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.8

We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear.9 Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for Noah's Flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.10 Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ration.asp

Not knowing the answer to everything is not insult to my intelligence. :-D

Sloth =/= iguana.

How do you propes a species that can't walk moved up a beach and into the jungle?

Not to mention that it took Columbus five weeks to reach the Americas. What you're proposing is that an animal that can't swim crossed the ocean with at least one other of its kind on a vegetation raft, which without a sail certainly moved slower than any ship, and had enough food to be able to drag themselves across sand and to a forest.

Then we move on to dinosaurs. Creationists claim climate changes killed them off. So why not all lizards then? It seems odd that every dinosaur, regardless of size or species, seems to have died but iguanas and komodo dragons are doing just fine.

 

[AHIMSA]

Its ridiculous to say two species of every single animal we see today started in the middle east after the flood, and then migrated to where we see them today simply because an ancient document implies so. It is absolutely opposed to logic and all scientific evidence.

If this theory was even possible it would require, at a minimum, the existence of pangea, when all the continents were one, for so many species to travel. Obviously, the continents could not have drifted that far in the last several thousand years.

Please don't claim these theories are intelligent. Nobody is claiming to "know everything", but we can discern bewteen scientific evidence and a bantering religious agena veiled so thinly under the name of "science" that eve those who postulated them can't possibly be decieved.

 

[reznwerks]

read

A very intelligent article on Kangaroos in Australia. Answers to skeptics.

How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ration.asp

My intelligence is not insulted. :D

If you read the article it really doesn't answer any questions but as usual uses the solution of the "God of the gaps". All questions are answered the same way " we don't know how" but God could have and may have but God just did it. Now you have to ask yourself the question, are the answers believable and are they believable because there is a reason to believe them?

 

[Wertbag]

But when scientists can't find proof in today's world for something that people who lived thousands of years ago claim happened, then there were eye-witnesses.

When people thousands of years ago make claims that we should be able to see but can't, that points to the claims being wrong. People back then did not understand the world, natural events like earthquakes and volcanoes were atrributed to gods, while these events were witnessed first hand it does not make the ridiculous claims true.

And that is what I meant by my comment. After Noah left the Ark, he and his children were left to testify to what they saw. And I'll belive eye-wtinesses any day to people who lived thousands of years later.

Who do you think wrote Genesis? It certainly wasn't Adam or Eve...

 

[Solo]

But when scientists can't find proof in today's world for something that people who lived thousands of years ago claim happened, then there were eye-witnesses.

When people thousands of years ago make claims that we should be able to see but can't, that points to the claims being wrong. People back then did not understand the world, natural events like earthquakes and volcanoes were atrributed to gods, while these events were witnessed first hand it does not make the ridiculous claims true.

[quote:a724a]And that is what I meant by my comment. After Noah left the Ark, he and his children were left to testify to what they saw. And I'll belive eye-wtinesses any day to people who lived thousands of years later.

Who do you think wrote Genesis? It certainly wasn't Adam or Eve...[/quote:a724a]
Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus spoke highly of Moses and his writings. Noah's father was alive when Adam was alive; Adam died when Lamech (Noah's father) was alive. Perhaps God gave Moses the words of Genesis to pass on to all generations through Noah's linage, or through personal witness between God and Moses.

 

[AHIMSA]

Actually, its rather obvious that several sources contributed to the book of Genesis, the Yawhist, the Elohist, the Priestly source and I believe one more source. While these stories existed before the exile, they were not placed together into a full book until after the exile, and many of the writings were obviously composed and formulated during the exilic period.

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, that is simply a Jewish tradition carried on by Christianity. If we actually disect the text, we can see that it was not the product of a single author.

 

[Solo]

Actually, its rather obvious that several sources contributed to the book of Genesis, the Yawhist, the Elohist, the Priestly source and I believe one more source. While these stories existed before the exile, they were not placed together into a full book until after the exile, and many of the writings were obviously composed and formulated during the exilic period.

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, that is simply a Jewish tradition carried on by Christianity. If we actually disect the text, we can see that it was not the product of a single author.

The J,E,PD textual criticism is a liberal invention to water down the truth of the Bible. Only unbelievers and liberal theologians hold to this theory, while believers and orthodox theologians know that Moses wrote the entire five books of the pentateuch.

Jesus also gives Moses the credit for writing the Pentateuch.

 

[reznwerks]

Moses

Actually, its rather obvious that several sources contributed to the book of Genesis, the Yawhist, the Elohist, the Priestly source and I believe one more source. While these stories existed before the exile, they were not placed together into a full book until after the exile, and many of the writings were obviously composed and formulated during the exilic period.

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, that is simply a Jewish tradition carried on by Christianity. If we actually disect the text, we can see that it was not the product of a single author.

The J,E,PD textual criticism is a liberal invention to water down the truth of the Bible. Only unbelievers and liberal theologians hold to this theory, while believers and orthodox theologians know that Moses wrote the entire five books of the pentateuch.

Jesus also gives Moses the credit for writing the Pentateuch.

If you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch you have to believe Moses also recorded his own death and buriel in Deuteronomy and you have to believe Moses had good reason to have included
Two creation stories in Genesis.
Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah . I don't see how anyone can see the logic of claiming only one person wrote the Pentateuch after pointing out these very basic inconsitancies.

 

[Solo]

Re: Moses

Actually, its rather obvious that several sources contributed to the book of Genesis, the Yawhist, the Elohist, the Priestly source and I believe one more source. While these stories existed before the exile, they were not placed together into a full book until after the exile, and many of the writings were obviously composed and formulated during the exilic period.

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, that is simply a Jewish tradition carried on by Christianity. If we actually disect the text, we can see that it was not the product of a single author.

The J,E,PD textual criticism is a liberal invention to water down the truth of the Bible. Only unbelievers and liberal theologians hold to this theory, while believers and orthodox theologians know that Moses wrote the entire five books of the pentateuch.

Jesus also gives Moses the credit for writing the Pentateuch.

If you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch you have to believe Moses also recorded his own death and buriel in Deuteronomy and you have to believe Moses had good reason to have included
Two creation stories in Genesis.
Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah . I don't see how anyone can see the logic of claiming only one person wrote the Pentateuch after pointing out these very basic inconsitancies.

You have a problem believing truth because of a lack of understanding. Each of the "inconsistancies" that you refer to are only inconsistancies to those who are unbelievers and cannot understand the truths revealed in the Word of God. Don't loose hope though, there is still time as long as you have one breath left. You really ought to concentrate on the Word of God, and throw away your habit of gaining the knowledge from skeptics. Skeptics are deceived by their god. Good luck in finding the truth, pardner. I'll keep praying for you.

 

[Barbarian]

You have a problem believing truth because of a lack of understanding. Each of the "inconsistancies" that you refer to are only inconsistancies to those who are unbelievers and cannot understand the truths revealed in the Word of God.

Only the "right" people can understand how the contradictions aren't really contradictions. Nevertheless, believing that Moses recorded his own death, is a bit of a stretch.

Don't loose hope though, there is still time as long as you have one breath left. You really ought to concentrate on the Word of God, and throw away your habit of gaining the knowledge from skeptics.

God does not require that one shut down one's mind. He only wants you to accept Him and live your life in Him.

That will get you saved. Everything else is vanity.

Skeptics are deceived by their god.

Some others do it all by themselves.

I'll keep praying for you.

Good idea. Can't hurt. Might ask Him for a little understanding, too.

 

[Wertbag]

And I'll belive eye-wtinesses any day to people who lived thousands of years later.

Basically my point still stands. Genesis is not an eye witness account, it was something not written down for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The statement made is that Heidi would only accept first hand accounts, and yet is more than happy to ignore the fact that the stories she is quoting are not in fact written by the people involved.
Moses wasn't at the beginning of the world and he wasn't involved in Noah's story, the eye witness claim doesn't work.