Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

does speciation take millions of years ?


Rapid speciation video.


Rapid Speciation (Video) - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

by Dr. Gary Parker

First published in
Creation: Facts of Life
Chapter 2: Darwin and biologic change

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher&#8221. Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.


Figure 22. Change? Yes—but which kind of change? What is the more logical inference, or the more reasonable extrapolation, from our observations: unlimited change from one kind to others (evolution), or limited variation within kinds (creation)? Given the new knowledge of genetics and ecology, even Darwin, I believe, would be willing to “think about it.”

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). (Fig. 22.)

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus (Fig. 9), for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.

Perhaps God used a design in living things similar to the one He used in the non-living world. Only about a hundred different elements or atoms are combined in different ways to make a tremendous variety of non-living molecules or compounds. Maybe creationists will one day identify a relatively few genes and gene sets that, in unique combinations, were used to make all the different types of life we see. It would take a tremendous amount of research to validate this “mosaic or modular” concept of a created unit, but the results would be a truly objective taxonomy that would be welcomed by all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists. We might even be able to write a “genetic formula” for each created kind, as we can write a chemical formula (a unique combination of non-unique atoms) for each kind of compound.

But why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? Stephen Gould,25 eloquent evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the “folk classifications” of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, each type has a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries at all times and all places: “A Quahog is a Quahog,” as the title of his editorial reads.

“But,” says Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.

In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton26 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linne’ (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit Biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind.

“Actually,” concludes Gould,27 “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.” (Emphasis added.) I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

But what about Darwin? He tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed. The neo-Darwinists tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and mutation, and mutations failed. The post-neo-Darwinists are turning to “hopeful monsters,” instead of simple mutations, and to “survival of the luckiest,” instead of selection. These new ideas have little basis in observation or scientific principle at all, and it remains to be seen whether the evolutionist’s faith in future discoveries will also fail.

One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence. That’s the conclusion of two insightful lawyers, Norman MacBeth (Darwin Retried28) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial29). Neither man is arguing for the Bible; both are simply writing in their field as experts in the rules of evidence and the rules of logic. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California (Berkeley), challenge college students to weigh the so-called evidence for evolution and to consider alternatively the concept that life (and, hence, each of their lives) is instead the gift of Intelligent, Purposeful Design.

The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, we’ll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to “think about it.”

“Species” and “kind”

 

[Youwerecreated]

Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?


by Bodie Hodge on

February 18, 2010


Layman



author-bodie-hodge
evolution
mutations
nab2




Featured In
Browse this title
Buy this title

In the evolutionary model, mutations are hailed as a dominant mechanism for pond-scum-to-people evolution and provide “proof ” that the Bible’s history about creation is wrong. But are we to trust the ideas of imperfect, fallible men about how we came into existence, or should we believe the account of a perfect God who was an eyewitness to His creation? Let’s look at mutations in more detail and see if they provide the information necessary to support pond-scum-to-people evolution, or if they confirm God’s Word in Genesis.

Mutations are primarily permanent changes in the DNA strand. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information storage unit for all organisms, including humans, cats, and dogs. In humans, the DNA consists of about three billion base pairs. The DNA is made of two strands and forms a double helix. In sexual reproduction, one set of chromosomes (large segments of DNA) comes from the mother and one set from the father. In asexual reproduction, the DNA is copied whole and then passed along when the organism splits.

The double helix is made up of four types of nitrogen bases called nucleotides. These types are guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine. They are represented by the letters G, C, A, and T. Each of these base pairs, or “letters,” is part of a code that stores information for hair color, height, eye shape, etc. The bases pair up as follows: adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine.




A •-

N -•

0 -----



B -•••

O ---

1 •----



C -•-•

P •--•

2 ••---



D -••

Q --•-

3 •••--



E •

R •-•

4 ••••-



F ••-•

S •••

5 •••••



G --•

T -

6 -••••



H ••••

U ••-

7 --•••



I ••

V •••-

8 ---••



J •---

W •--

9 ----•



K -•-

X -••-

Fullstop •-•-•-



L •-••

Y -•--

Comma --••--



M --

Z --••

Query ••--••


Think of it like Morse code. Morse code is a system in which letters are represented by dashes and dots (if audible, then it is a long sound and short sound). When you combine different dots and dashes, you can spell out letters and words. Here is a copy of Morse code:

If someone wanted to call for help using Morse code, for instance, he or she would send the letters SOS (which is the international distress signal). Morse code for SOS is:

S is dot dot dot [• • •] or three short sounds.
O is dash dash dash [– – –] or three long sounds.
S is dot dot dot [• • •] or three short sounds.

Therefore, it would be [• • • – – – • • •], or three short sounds followed by three long sounds, followed by three short sounds.

A mutation would be like changing a dot to a dash in Morse code. If we tried to spell SOS in Morse code, but changed the first dot to a dash, it would accidentally read:

[– • • – – – • • •]

Dash dot dot is the sequence for D, not S; so it would now read:

D [– • •]
O [– – –]
S [• • •]

So, because of the mistake (mutation), we now read DOS, instead of SOS. If you sent this, no one would think you needed help. This mutation was significant because it did two things to your message:
1. The original word was lost.
2. The intent/meaning was lost.

The DNA strand is similar to, but much more complicated than, Morse code. It uses four letters (G, A, T, C) instead of dashes and dots to make words and phrases. And like Morse code, mutations can affect the DNA strand and cause problems for the organism. These DNA mistakes are called genetic mutations.
Theoretically, genetic mutations (that are not static) can cause one of two things:
1. Loss of information1
2. Gain of new information

Virtually all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function. Some mutations can cause an organism to lose genetic information and yet gain some type of function. This is rare but has happened. These types of mutations have a beneficial outcome. For example, if a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn’t get blown out to sea and killed. Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. Thus, it was a beneficial outcome.


Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didn’t do anything, this strand wouldn’t be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function.

Types of Genetic Mutations

The DNA strand contains instructions on how to make proteins. Every three “letters” code for a specific amino acid, such as TGC, ATC, GAT, TAG, and CTC. Many amino acids together compose a protein. For simplicity’s sake, to illustrate concepts with the DNA strand, we will use examples in English. Here is a segment illustrating DNA in three-letter words:

The car was red. The red car had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

Point Mutations

Point mutations are mutations where one letter changes on the DNA sequence. A point mutation in our example could cause “car” in the second sentence to be read “cat”:

The car was red. The red cat had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as changed the meaning of the sentence. We did gain one word (cat), but we lost one word (car) and lost the meaning of one phrase. So the overall result was a loss of information.

But many times, point mutations won’t produce another word. Take for instance another point mutation, which changes “car” not to “cat” but to “caa”:

The car was red. The red caa had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as the meaning. We did not gain any new words, and we lost one word and lost the meaning of one phrase. So again, the overall result of this point mutation was a loss of information, but even more so this time.

Point mutations can be very devastating. There is a children’s disease called Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS), or simply progeria. It was recently linked to a single point mutation. It is a mutation that causes children’s skin to age, their head to go bald at a very early age (prekindergarten), their bones to develop problems usually associated with the elderly, and their body size to remain very short (about one-half to two-thirds of normal height). Their body parts, including organs, age rapidly, which usually causes death at the average age of 13 years.2

Not all point mutations are as devastating, yet they still result in a loss of information. According to biophysicist Lee Spetner, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”3

Inversion Mutations

An inversion mutation is a segment of DNA in a particular strand that reverses itself. An inversion mutation would be like taking the second sentence of our example and spelling it backwards:

The car was red. Yek eno dah rac der eht.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With inversion mutations, we can lose quite a bit of information. We lost several words from, and the meaning of, the second sentence. These mutations can cause serious problems to the organism. The bleeding disorder hemophilia A is caused by an inversion in the Factor VIII (F8) gene.

Insertion Mutations

An insertion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is inserted into the DNA strand. For this example, let’s copy a word from the second sentence and insert it into the third sentence:

The car was red. The red car had one key.
Had the key has one eye and one tip.

This insertion really didn’t help anything. In fact, the insertion is detrimental to the third sentence in that it makes the third sentence meaningless. So this copied word in the third sentence destroyed the combined meanings of the eight words in the third sentence. Insertions generally result in a protein that loses function.4

Deletion Mutations

A deletion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is deleted from the strand. This will be an obvious loss. In this instance, the second sentence will be deleted.

The car was red. The key has one eye and one tip.

The entire second sentence has been lost. Thus, we have lost its meaning as well as the words that were in the sentence. Some disorders from deletion mutations are facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) and spinal muscular atrophy.5

Frame Shift Mutations

There are two basic types of frame shift mutations: frame shift due to an insertion and frame shift due to a deletion. These mutations can be caused by an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which causes an offset in the reading of the “letters” of the DNA.

If a mutation occurs where one or more letters are inserted, then the entire sentence can be off. If a t were inserted at the beginning of the second sentence, it would read like this:

The car was red. Tth ere dca rha don eke yth
eke yha son eey ean don eti p.

Four new words were produced (two of them twice): ere, don, eke and son. These 4 words were not part of the original phrase. However, we lost 14 words. Not only did we lose these words, but we also lost the meaning behind the words. We lost 14 words while gaining only 4 new ones.

Therefore, even though the DNA strand became longer and produced 4 words via a single insertion, it lost 14 other words. The overall effect was a loss of information.

A frame shift mutation can also occur by the deletion of one or more “letters.” If the first t in the second sentence is deleted, the letters shift to the left, and we get:

The car was red. Her edc arh ado nek eyt hek
eyh aso nee yea ndo net ip.

Five new words were produced: her, ado, nee, yea, and net. However, once again, we lost 14 words. So again, the overall effect was a loss of information, and the DNA strand became smaller due to this mutation.

Frame shift mutations are usually detrimental to the organism by causing the resulting protein to be nonfunctional.

This is just the basics of mutations at a genetic level.6

What Does Evolution Teach about Mutations?



Pond-scum-to-people evolution teaches that, over time, by natural causes, nonliving chemicals gave rise to a living cell. Then, this singlecelled life form gave rise to more advanced life forms. In essence, over millions of years, increases in information caused by mutations plus natural selection developed all the life forms we see on earth today.

For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism’s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc.

If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (e.g., it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.

There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite—organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

What Does the Bible Teach?




From a biblical perspective, we know that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA because God declared all that He had made “very good” (Genesis 1:31). This goes for the original animal and plant kinds as well. They originally had perfect DNA strands with no mistakes or mutations.

However, when man sinned against God (Genesis 3), God cursed the ground and the animals, and He sentenced man to die (Genesis 2:17; 3:19). At this time, God seemed to withdraw some of His sustaining power to no longer completely uphold everything in a perfect state.

Since then, we would expect mutations to occur and DNA flaws to accumulate. The incredible amount of information that was originally in the DNA has been filtered out, and in many cases lost, due to mutations and natural selection.

At the time of Noah’s flood, there was a genetic bottleneck where information was lost among many land animals and humans. The only genetic information that survived came from the representatives of the kinds of landdwelling, air-breathing animals and humans that were on the ark.




Over time, as people increased on the earth, God knew that mutations were rising within the human population and declared that people should no longer intermarry with close relatives (Leviticus 18). Why did He do this? Intermarriage with close relatives results in the possibility of similar genetic mutations appearing in a child due to inheriting a common mutation from both the father and mother. If both parents inherited the same mutated gene from a common ancestor (e.g., a grandparent), this would increase the possibility of both parents passing this mutated gene along to their child.

Marrying someone who is not a close relative reduces the chances that both would have the same mutated gene. If the segment of DNA from the mother had a mutation, it would be masked by the father’s unmutated gene. If the segment of DNA from the father had a mutation, it would be masked by the mother’s unmutated gene. If the genes from both parents were mutated, then the mutation would show in the child.7 Our all-knowing God obviously knew this would happen and gave the command in Leviticus not to marry close relations.

Conclusion

The biblical perspective on change within living things doesn’t require that new information be added to the genome as pond-scum-to-people evolution does. In fact, we expect to see the opposite (loss of genetic information) due to the curse in Genesis 3. Biblically, we would expect mutations to produce defects in the genome and would not expect mutations to be adding much, if any, new information.

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.

Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin. But those who have placed their faith in Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and earth where there will be no more pain, death, or disease.


Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the

 

[Youwerecreated]

Countering Bible Contradictions
Originally By: Andrew Tong, Michael J. Bumbulis, MaryAnna White, Russ Smith, and others (1994-1995)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Skip intro and go to the Index of Contradictions

A word about the contributors. There were three of us:

Me -- Michael J. Bumbulis
MaryAnna White
Russ Smith
I will list each claim of contradiction as found in the original list, and then offer the reply. The replies are referenced to the contributor. MaryAnna's replies are followed by "--MAW", and Russ Smith's replies are followed by "--RS". If no initials follow a reply, they are mine (Michael's). In addition, Phil Porvaznik will be --PP, and Apolonio Latar will be --AL.
What follows is a reply to a list of 143 purported Bible contradictions, along with a suggestion for more contradictions not found in this list. You will find below the index to the contradictions but first I want to discuss some possible objections as to how the contradictions are being resolved.

I feel the considerations in this document are important not only because they attempt to refute claims that the Bible is contradictory (a cause I have not been convinced is of utmost importance), but also because they are intrinsically an interpretation of the teachings of the Bible. In fact, many central components of Christianity are discussed with thought and insight. Although there are trivial contradictions (67 and 68 for example) many of the contradictions explore, say, Biblical teachings about the nature or attributes of God, practical guidelines for Christian living, among other things.

In short, the attempts at resolutions of these contradictions cloak an effort to "mine" truth from the Bible, an effort to interpret Biblical verses correctly. My hope is that this article will not only help you to make conclusions about the Bible's inerrancy, but also encourage you to discover what you consider to be valid and invalid Biblical interpretations.

However, before we launch into the actual reply, there are several points worth mentioning.

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?

In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone holds.

At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a document is without error? At this point, the Christian need only learn from the methodology of modern atheism. Many atheists do not argue that God does not exist, because they realize that one cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of something. Instead, they take a more agnostic position, and argue there is no proof for God's existence, thus they don't possess God-belief. In the same way, the believer in inerrancy cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of contradictions in the Bible.

After all, the Bible contains 31,173 verses (even more when the OT deuterocanonicals are included). If we were to compare only couplets, where any one verse is juxtaposed against any other, one could write 971,750,000 couplets. Thus, by considering only couplets, there are almost one billion potential Bible contradictions! Surely, it is not reasonable to demand that a believer in inerrancy plod through one billion potential contradictions to prove negatives in every case. Instead, the believer in inerrancy can argue there is no proof for the existence of contradictions in the Bible, thus they don't believe in Biblical errancy (thus they believe in inerrancy -- being without error).

For papal encyclicals on the official Catholic teaching of Biblical inerrancy and approach to interpretation see


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leo XIII (Nov 18, 1893) Providentissimus Deus (The Most Provident God)

Benedict XV (Sept 15, 1920) Spiritus Paraclitus (The Paraclete Spirit)

Pius XII (Sept 30, 1943) Divino Afflante Spiritu (Under the Inspiration of the Divine Spirit) --PP


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, the critic's list comes in. It proposes to demonstrate that the Bible is full of contradictions, and the list of 143 purported contradictions was one such demonstration. And at this point, our response comes in.

I have noticed several things about the list we are about to respond to and the nature of the purported contradictions.

The List

Such lists are quite common and have been around for decades. I have also encountered them on various BBSs throughout the years. My first impression is to scan such lists, noticing claims which are obviously bogus, and others which are quite challenging. Because the lists are so long I tend to rationalize that any list which would include obviously bogus "contradictions" is suspect and that the more challenging ones could probably be resolved with some effort.

The list has a psychological power in that it intimidates simply because of it's length and multitude of claims. Your average reader simply does not have the time to respond to 143 claims of contradictions! Thus, such lists often go largely unanswered, leaving the critic to believe that no one can answer it. I think a critic would do better in making a much shorter list (10 or 20) which contains what he considers to be the best examples of Bible contradictions.

The Contradictions

I have noticed that the supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that they employ.

A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to "create contradictions" when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would appear to be a real contradiction/error. You have to know the whole story, or at least have a plausible explanation.

Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and precise descriptions, it would be prudent to see if differing accounts complement, rather than contradict one another.

The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre: a literal and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain literal and descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in details), it also contains many other styles of composition: the Proverbs list "rules of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor, parables contain deeper messages, etc. Since the Bible is actually many books of different genres by several different authors, the critic's assumption leads her astray if it is used to create contradictions.

Another point is related to the one above, namely, the alleged contradictions are often a function of a particular interpretation. This is clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the "contradiction" exists only if the correct interpretation is applied by the author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not clear if this is the case).

For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. Sometimes the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word in two sets of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two meanings. For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an internal sense of tranquility.

The critic sometimes reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often a function of all of the points listed above, but it could be due to plain ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of Hebrew idiom are not always captured in English translations.

The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical inerrancy also believes that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to result in significant changes).

Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4]

"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5]

The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this? I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in terms of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful.

In debating various non-Christians, I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the Spirit to guide me.

I encourage the reader to keep these points in mind as we go through the purported contradictions. I have also taken the luxury of periodically referring to and drawing from the following book:

Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Baker Book House, reprinted 1977, originally 1874).

This book was in turn replying to the 144 "biblical contradictions" found in the following book (and many of these same ones are answered below) :

Burr, William Henry. Self-Contradictions of the Bible (Forgotten Books 2007, or Prometheus Books 1997, originally 1860).

So these contradictions have been around a while. Keep in mind that we are not biblical scholars, and our replies are not intended as the "final word" in these matters. Instead, they are offered as possible, even plausible, ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. If they succeed at doing merely this, the contradictions have not been established and the critic has not adequately shouldered his/her burden. Enjoy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Index of Biblical Contradictions

Contradictions 1 to 55
Contradictions 56 to 99
Contradictions 100 to 143

1. God is satisfied/unsatisfied with his works
2. God dwells/dwells not in chosen temples
3. God dwells in light/darkness
4. God is seen/unseen and heard/unheard
5. God is tired/never tired and rests/never rests
6. God is/is not omnipresent and omniscent
7. God does/does not know the hearts of men
8. God is/is not all powerful
9. God is changeable/unchangeable
10. God is just/unjust or partial/impartial
11. God is/is not the author of evil
12. God gives freely/witholds his blessings
13. God can/cannot be found by those who seek Him
14. God is warlike/peaceful
15. God is cruel/kind
16. God's anger endures for a long/short time
17. God approves/disapproves of burnt offerings
18. God accepts/forbids human sacrifices
19. God tempts man/doesn't tempt man
20. God send lying spirits/doesn't lie
21. God will/will not destroy man
22. God's attributes are revealed/cannot be discovered
23. God is one/many
24. Robbery commanded/prohibited
25. Lying approved/forbidden
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned/forbidden
27. Killing commanded/forbidden
28. Blood-shedder must/must not die
29. Making of images forbidden/commanded
30. Slavery and oppression forbidden/sanctioned
31. Improvidence enjoyed/condemned
32. Anger approved/disapproved
33. Good works to be seen/not to be seen by men
34. Judging of others forbidden/approved
35. Christ taught non-resistence/taught and practiced physical resistance
36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed/Christ avoided Jews for fear of being killed himself
37. Public prayer sanctioned/disapproved
38. Importunity in prayer commended/condemned
39. Wearing of long hair by men sanctioned/condemned
40. Circumcision instituted/condemned
41. Sabbath instituted/repudiated
42. Sabbath instituted because God rested/because God brought Israelites out of Egypt
43. No work to be done on Sabbath/Christ broke this rule
44. Baptism Commanded/not commanded
45. Every animal allowed for food/certain animals prohibited for food
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned/forbidden
47. Marriage approved/disapproved
48. Freedom of divorce permitted/restricted
49. Adultery forbidden/allowed
50. Marriage/cohabitation with sister denounced, but Abraham married his sister and God blessed the marriage
51. A man may/may not marry his brother's widow
52. Hatred to kindred enjoined/condemned
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended/discountenanced
54. Our rulers are God's ministers and should be obeyed/are evil and should be disobeyed
55. Women's rights affirmed/denied 56. Obedience to masters/obedience only to God
57. There is/is not an unpardonable sin
58. Man was created before/after other animals
59. Seed time and harvest never ceased/ceased for seven years
60. God/Pharoah hardened Pharoah's heart
61. All Cattle and horses died/all cattle and horses did not die
62. Moses feared/did not fear Pharoah
63. Plague killed 23000/24000
64. John the Baptist was/was not Elias
65. Father of Mary's husband was Jacob/Heli
66. Father of Salah was Arphaxad/Cainan
67. Thirteen/Fourteen generations from Abraham to David
68. Thirteen/Fourteen generations from Babylonian captivity to Christ
69. Infant Christ was/was not taken to Egypt
70. Christ was/was not tempted in the wilderness
71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount/on the plain
72. John was/was not in prison when Jesus went to Galilee
73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandles/neither staves nor sandles
74. A woman of Canaan/Greek woman sought Jesus
75. Two/one blind men/man besought Jesus
76. Christ was crucified on the third/sixth hour
77. Two thieves/only one thief railed at Christ
78. Satan entered Judas at the supper/after the supper
79. Judas committed suicide by hanging/died another way
80. Potter's field purchased by Judas/by the Chief Priest
81. Only one woman/two women went to the sepulchre
82. Three women/more than three women went to the sepulchre
83. It was early sunrise/sometime after sunrise when they went to the sepulchre
84. Two angels standing/only one angel sitting seen by women
85. Two angels/one angel seen at the sepulchre
86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the tomb/only two days and two nights
87. Holy Spirit bestowed at/before Pentecost
88. Disciples commanded immediately after resurrection to go into Galilee/tarry at Jerusalem
89. Jesus first appeared to disciples in a room in Jerusalem/on a mountain in Galilee.
90. Christ ascended from Mount Olive/Bethany
91. Paul's attendants heard/did not hear the miraculous voice
92. Abraham departed to go to Canaan/did not know where he was going
93. Abraham had one/two sons.
94. Keturah was Abraham's wife/concubine
95. Abraham begat a son at the age of 100 years by God's providence/he then had six more sons without God's help
96. Jacob/Abraham brought the sepulchre from Hamor
97. God gave Abraham and his sons the promised land/they never received it
98. Goliath/his brother was slain by Elhanan
99. Ahaziah began his reign in the eleventh/twelfth year of Joram
100. Michal had five children/one child
101. David was tempted by the LORD/by satan to number Israel
102. Number of fighting men in Israel was 800,000/1,100,000, number of fighting men in Judah was 500,000/470,000
103. David sinned in numbering Israel/David never sinned except in the matter of Uriah
104. One of David's penalties for sinning was seven years of famine/there were only three years of famine
105. David took 700/7000 horsemen
106. David bought a threshing floor for 50 sheckles of silver/600 shekles of gold
107. David's throne was to endure forever/David's throne was cast down
108. Christ is equal/is not equal with God
109. Jesus was/was not all-powerful
110. The law was/was not superceded by Christian dispensation
111. Christ's mission was/was not peace
112. Christ did not/did receive testimony from men
113. Christ's witness of himself is true/untrue
114. Christ laid down his life for his friends/enemies
115. It was/was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
116. Children are/are not punished for the sins of their parents
117. Man is/is not justified by faith alone
118. It is impossible/possible to fall from grace
119. No man is without sin/Christians are sinless
120. There will/will not be a resurrection of the dead
121. Reward/punishment bestowed in this/next world
122. Annihilation/endless misery the portion of all mankind
123. Earth is/is never to be destroyed
124. No evil shall/Evil will happen to the Godly
125. Worldly good and prosperity/worldly misery and destitution to be the lot of the godly
126. Worldly prosperity a reward/a curse
127. Christian Yoke is/is not easy
128. Fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness/vengeance and fury
129. Longevity enjoyed by/denied to wicked
130. Poverty/Riches/Neither a blessing
131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment/vexation, grief, sorrow
132. Good name is a blessing/curse
133. Laughter commended/condemned
134. Rod of correction is cure for foolishness/there is no cure for foolishness
135. Fool should/should not be answered according to his folly
136. Temptation desired/undesired
137. Prophecy is sure/unsure
138. Man's life 120/70 years
139. Fear of man on every beast/fear of man not on the lion
140. Miracles are/are not proof of divine inspiration
141. Moses meek/cruel
142. Elijah ascended to heaven/none but Christ ascended to Heaven
143. All scripture is inspired/Some scripture is not inspired

END.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
see each so called contradiction explained.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
by Rich Deem

Introduction


Bible and Science?


Skeptics claim that the Bible makes a number of errors in its description of the physical universe. Many of these issues are handled on another page. However, what most skeptics don't know is that the Bible, written mostly by a bunch of sheep herders, makes a number of scientific claims that are remarkably correct - even though many were not even confirmed to be correct until within the last 100 years.


Rich Deem

The Bible is often described as a book that includes many ideas that are scientifically inaccurate. The truth is that what many Christians (and non-Christians) have misinterpreted the Bible in such a way as to make it seem to be at odds with the reality of our world. For example, the Roman Catholic Church promoted geocentrism (the idea that the earth is the center of the universe) for many years. This concept is not found in the Bible, but stems from the idea that since humans are the center of God's attention, that the place where they live must be the center of God's universe. This is neither a logical nor biblical inference. In fact, the Bible states that the heavens "fix their rule over the earth,"1 demonstrating that the heavens control the earth and not the other way around. The early proponents (Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) of heliocentrism (the earth revolving around the Sun) were all Christians (see related page - People of Faith - Famous Scientists). In fact, Isaac Newton, in his famous scientific work, Principia, stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Purpose of the Bible

Of course, the Bible was not written as a work of science nor was its purpose to describe the workings of the physical world. It was written to explain spiritual principles - the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God. However, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate. The purpose of this page is to illustrate some of the remarkable examples of scientific principles described in the Bible hundreds to thousands of years before they were proved to be true by science.

The Bible and Science



Scientific Principle

Biblical Reference




Cosmology/Astronomy



Time had a beginning

2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:2-7



The universe had a beginning

Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3



The universe was created from the invisible

Hebrews 11:34



The dimensions of the universe were created

Romans 8:38-39



The universe is expanding

Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16



Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)

Genesis 2:3-4 7



The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy)

Psalm 102:25-27



Describes the correct order of creation

Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)



Number of stars exceeds a billion

Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:2-29



Every star is different

1 Corinthians 15:4-11



Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups

Job 38:3-11



Light is in motion

Job 38: 12-19-20



The earth is controlled by the heavens

Job 38:3-31



Earth is a sphere

Isaiah 40:2 -21 Job 26:10-14



At any time, there is day and night on the Earth

Luke 17:34-15-35



Earth is suspended in space

Job 26:7-16



Earth Sciences



Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described

Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:5-17



Water cycle described

Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-28 -18



Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea

2 Samuel 22:16-19



Vents exist on the bottom of the sea

Job 38:16-20



Ocean currents in the sea

Psalm 8:8-21



Air has weight

Job 28:25-22



Winds blow in circular paths

Ecclesiastes 1:6-23



Biology



The chemical nature of human life

Genesis 2:7, 3:19-24



Life of creatures are in the blood

Leviticus 17:11-25



The nature of infectious diseases

Leviticus 13:26-46




Importance of sanitation to health

Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7:9-27

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The whole story of neo darwinism and the refutation. this is a must see allie it will help beat back the hoards.

The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism

 

[JScott]

"Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research.

A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking.
..............
Arguments that should never be used
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
There are no beneficial mutations.
Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
No new species have been produced.

............
Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)
Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)
Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)"

All of the above from, of all places:

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

This couldnt be a conspiracy....could it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Still waiting for the proof that the evolutionist faithful claim exists, but refuse to provide...

 

[Youwerecreated]

The scientific method: "Here are the facts, what conclusions can we reasonably draw from them?"

The Creationist method: "Here is the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"


These six of the 25 address the most of comments and arguments from above.
The rest can be found at the link.

25 CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENTS and 25 EVOLUTIONISTS' answers.


PHILOSOPHICALLY BASED ARGUMENTS AND RESPONSES

25 CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENTS
25 EVOLUTIONISTS'ANSWERS


20. Classification of organisms above the species level is arbitrary and man-made. Taxonomy proves nothing.
The science of classification is indeed, man-made, like all the sciences. But its grouping of organisms is anything but arbitrary, even though there is an element of subjectivity to it. The very goal of cladistics, in fact, is to make taxonomy non-subjective. Nested hierarchies of classification is one of the strongest sources of evidence for evolution. There is nothing arbitrary, for example, about a separate classification of humans and chimpanzees. No one gets them confused. An interesting cross-cultural test of this claim is the fact that western-trained biologists and native peoples from New Guinea identify the same types of birds as separate species. Such groupings really do exist in nature.
21. If evolution is gradual, there should be no gaps between species, and classification (taxonomy) is impossible.
Evolution is not always gradual. It is often quite sporadic. And evolutionists never said there should not be gaps. Gaps do not prove creation any more than blank spots in human history prove that all civilizations were spontaneously created.
22. "Living fossils" like the coelacanth and horseshoe crab prove that all life was created at once.
Then what about all the extinct species? Are these God's mistakes? Living fossils (organisms that have not changed for millions of years) simply means that they evolved an adequate structure for a relatively static and unchanging environment, good enough to maintain a niche.
23. The incipient structure problem completely refutes natural selection: a new structure that evolves slowly over time would not provide an advantage to the organism in its beginning or intermediate stages, only when it is completely developed, which can only happen by special creation. E.g., what good is 5% of a wing, or 55%? You need all or nothing.
A poorly developed wing may have been a well-developed something else, like a thermoregulator for ectothermic reptiles (who depend on external sources of heat). And, it is not true that incipient stages are completely useless. It is better to have partial sight versus complete blindness, or the ability to glide, even if you cannot sustain controlled flight.
24. Homologous structures (the wing of the bat, flipper of a whale, the arm of man) are proof of intelligent design.
By invoking miracles and special providence, of course, the creationist can pick and choose anything in nature as proof of God's work, and then ignore the rest. Homologous structures, on the other hand, make no sense from a special creation paradigm. Why should a whale have the same bones in its flipper as a human has in its arm and a bat has in its wing? The answer is: none whatsoever. Surely an intelligent designer could have done better than that. These structures are indicative of descent with modification, not divine creation.
25. "The Bible is the written Word of God...all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true. The great Flood described in Genesis was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. We are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind."

Such a statement of belief is clearly religious and not scientific. This shows not only a lack of knowledge of science but the Bible as well. If fundamentalists would bother to read the Bible (over 90% never have) they would find two conflicting creation stories in Genesis. The first story runs from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 where God created the earth, then the animals, then man/woman together, in "our image"

Hey it goes both ways,you try to make an argument against creationist that evolutionist are guilty of as well. Notice I didn't say scientist,because real scientist do not leave the method of science when they are observing real evidence. That is a fact a real scientist knows when an explanation is based on reality and faith. Just because you're a person of faith does not mean you can't be scientific. But creationist cam and admit some of his or her views are based on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research.

A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking.
..............
Arguments that should never be used
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
There are no beneficial mutations.
Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
No new species have been produced.

............
Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)
Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)
Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)"

All of the above from, of all places:

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

You think they're flawed arguments because they really hurt your theory. Did you see the complete argument I posted against your theory ? How come you can't seem to address my questions and the type of method you try to show I am wrong is kinda funny.

 

[Woyzeck]

The same argument applies here. God the creator used the same substances to create the universe ,but one question I have for you why do we have a unique planet filled with life and no signsvof anything out there like planet earth ? Actually two questions , how did this planet end up with so many living organisms and no other planets have it if we came from exploding stars and the big bang ?

We're still on this note? This has nothing actually to do with evolution!

The short answer is, we haven't found any yet. It is a remarkable thing to claim there is no other life out there on other planets, when we've barely charted most of the universe yet! Do you have any idea how large the universe is? Our galaxy alone is far bigger than many of us can possibly fathom. The Voyager probes are barely out of our solar system yet! There's estimates of millions upon millions of planets out there. And they say the possibility for life on one is one in a million, or one in a billion. Astronomical numbers right? Well, as it turns out, the universe is big enough to make it more common than you'd think, and us being the only ones is extremely unlikely.

Hell, out planet isn't that unique. I believe they discovered an Earth-like planet quite recently outside our own solar system. It's rare, but not unique. If you're wondering why life doesn't exist on other planets in the solar system, go and look at them. Seriously. Look at their atmospheres, many of them aren't stable or safe enough for life to develop. I believe the one that has something similar to Earth's is Titan's. And it's remarkable it has one in the first place, seeing as it's a moon.

The Big Bang is the prevailing theory of how the universe started, and our atoms come from exploding stars. Either one doesn't have much to do with abiogenesis, which is what you're talking about or explain the lack of life we've found so far on other planets. A good analogy would be, those two provide explanation for the creation of the setting, abiogenesis, the characters.

However, the topic at hand isn't how life started, but the merits of the theory of evolution.

This view is based in speculation not observed facts. How come the majority of this planet is covered in water but yet its rare out in space and on other planets ?

What does this detour have to do with evolution?

 

[Woyzeck]

Still waiting for the proof that the evolutionist faithful claim exists, but refuse to provide...

I'd say look in a mirror for proof of speciation, but you'd find you never got past neanderthal.

Or elementary school.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow, brilliant.

Obviously you are quite learned. I should just accept what you say, since you make such a brilliant argument.

At any rate, liar. You say there's proof, but there is none.

 

[Woyzeck]

Wow, brilliant.

Obviously you are quite learned. I should just accept what you say, since you make such a brilliant argument.

At any rate, liar. You say there's proof, but there is none.

Your arguments have so far considered of ignoring the information I've linked you, comparing the Smithsonian to Ripley's and plugging your fingers in your ears and acting like no one's said anything.

In the meantime, there are adults talking here. Go work at your multiplication tables or whatever basic concept of reality your struggling to ignore today.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research.

A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking.
..............
Arguments that should never be used
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
There are no beneficial mutations.
Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
No new species have been produced.

............
Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)
Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)
Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)"

All of the above from, of all places:

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

You think they're flawed arguments because they really hurt your theory. Did you see the complete argument I posted against your theory ? How come you can't seem to address my questions and the type of method you try to show I am wrong is kinda funny.

I'm sorry if I missed YOUR copied and pasted arguments from a well-known publicist of Creationism who has been kicked out of three colleges and now tours the world giving speeches. I must have missed it in the pages and pages of copied text. I also have a life, and had to drop off my relatives for their church service. Now, don't jump if I don't answer for a few hours. I have to pick them up at church and probably take them out to a nice Sunday dinner.

What were the specific QUESTIONS you were asking? By the way, I thought it was interesting that the web site "Answers in Genesis" was cautioning fellow Christian believers in Creationism to AVOID making arguments that claim there are no new species and no beneficial mutations, (no macro evolution) didn't you?

Did you misunderstand my argument on that issue ? I didn't say they were impossible,I said they're so rare it can't be an engine for macro evolution. They do agree with you that when a group becomes isolated from the family and their dna is no longer compatible to reproduce back in the family they say that is a new species. I don't like that view at all. it just leads to confusion,and evolution likes to extrapolate from such evidence which is micro evolution or the preferred term,micro adaptations as evidence for macro evolution which you guys have done. that is why you're taught there are no differences between the two.if you look at my posts for the last few days you will see the questions ignored or no response to. only the foolish can't see or admit the problems with neo darwinism.

 

[AllieBaba]

Provide information that actually backs up what you say, and we'll talk.

For now, take your neg and like it. You're officially an idiot. I hate it when people pretend to be *scientific* but ignore the science and obfuscate (or just lie) when asked to provide the evidence they claim exists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We're still on this note? This has nothing actually to do with evolution!

The short answer is, we haven't found any yet. It is a remarkable thing to claim there is no other life out there on other planets, when we've barely charted most of the universe yet! Do you have any idea how large the universe is? Our galaxy alone is far bigger than many of us can possibly fathom. The Voyager probes are barely out of our solar system yet! There's estimates of millions upon millions of planets out there. And they say the possibility for life on one is one in a million, or one in a billion. Astronomical numbers right? Well, as it turns out, the universe is big enough to make it more common than you'd think, and us being the only ones is extremely unlikely.

Hell, out planet isn't that unique. I believe they discovered an Earth-like planet quite recently outside our own solar system. It's rare, but not unique. If you're wondering why life doesn't exist on other planets in the solar system, go and look at them. Seriously. Look at their atmospheres, many of them aren't stable or safe enough for life to develop. I believe the one that has something similar to Earth's is Titan's. And it's remarkable it has one in the first place, seeing as it's a moon.

The Big Bang is the prevailing theory of how the universe started, and our atoms come from exploding stars. Either one doesn't have much to do with abiogenesis, which is what you're talking about or explain the lack of life we've found so far on other planets. A good analogy would be, those two provide explanation for the creation of the setting, abiogenesis, the characters.

However, the topic at hand isn't how life started, but the merits of the theory of evolution.

This view is based in speculation not observed facts. How come the majority of this planet is covered in water but yet its rare out in space and on other planets ?

What does this detour have to do with evolution?

If we are the product of s natural process ,and that process began with the big bang, don't you think that matter would have been scattered throughout the universe ? Why did this planet get the water and all the necessities for life. That view is based on faith not logic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still waiting for the proof that the evolutionist faithful claim exists, but refuse to provide...

Me to.

 

[Woyzeck]

Provide information that actually backs up what you say, and we'll talk.

For now, take your neg and like it. You're officially an idiot. I hate it when people pretend to be *scientific* but ignore the science and obfuscate (or just lie) when asked to provide the evidence they claim exists.

I've provided science. You haven't. I've provided information and links to information about experiments done, you didn't even look at them apparently, or directly critique them or address them. Just called them lies. I'm not going to provide any more evidence until you actually look at the information I've presented. I refuse to play this game with a petulant child who's going to automatically call everything I bring up a lie.

In fact, you neg repping me for no apparent reason says more about your actual position and argument more than anything.

Now shush, the adults are talking.

 

[Woyzeck]

This view is based in speculation not observed facts. How come the majority of this planet is covered in water but yet its rare out in space and on other planets ?

What does this detour have to do with evolution?

If we are the product of s natural process ,and that process began with the big bang, don't you think that matter would have been scattered throughout the universe ? Why did this planet get the water and all the necessities for life. That view is based on faith not logic.

Water is how you're defining matter? Or are you unclear what matter precisely is? Matter has scattered throughout the universe, because matter what we call everything with physical substance in the universe. You can see an example of it when you look out your window at night and look at the sky. It's called the stars.

Are we done with this distraction? Because this thread topic is still about evolution.