Posted on 02/14/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
(Snip)
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
(Snip)
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.
(Snip)
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.
(Excerpt) Read more at biblelife.org ...
Genesis says that the flood covered the mountains. How could that be if the mountains didn't rise up until after the flood?
As for the fossils near the top of Mt. Everest, this site explains it well in layman's terms.
Mister Opinion, meet Mister Fact.
The Sun was not there for the first few “yoms”.
It’s best to fight them on evolution.
There are answers to these things, but their case is VERY weak for evolution. It’s best to stick to that. They’ll try & make it an age of the earth argument.
But for example:
(1) “Explain how light from galaxies billions of light years away reached the earth in 6,000 years.”
(3) “Explain the red shift in an expanding universe”
this is all very disingenuous. (3) is a loaded question. the redshift is claimed to SHOW an expanding universe, and also the huge distance. What they don’t say is that there are quasars in nearby galaxies that have redshifts that should place them at the edge of the universe. so clearly they don’t really have a clue what causes redshift. It is probably largely caused by the gravtitational redshift of dark matter.
(4) “Explain how radiometric data shows the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion years old.”
the assumptions in radiometric dating are ridiculous. modern volcano ejections are routinely dated at millions of years since eruption.
(5) “If all sedimentary deposits were all laid down in the flood, why do primitive species appear at the bottom of sedimentary layers while more advanced species appear at the top? If these layers were laid down at once during the flood, we would expect to find mammoth bones in the same layers as ammonites. We don’t.”
again, loaded. why are birds on top? because they evolved last? NO!!! because they are one of the last things to DIE!! They can, um, fly. Small, slow, stupid animals are at the bottom, eg molluscs.
(7) “Explain the multiple reversals of the earth’s magnetic pole as preserved in lava layers”
Nonsense. They know NOTHING about those things. Everything they have is from statistical models. There were never any reversals. It would take a long time to explain that whole thing. The reducing magnetic field is actually very good evidence for a young earth. it started high and is reducing.
(8) “Explain ice cores in Greenland showing 150,000 annual layers and ice cores in Antarctica showing more than 400,000 layers”
very very easy. each layer represents ONE SNOWFALL. In Canada people get snow on the top of their car that shows dozens of layers in one day. A layer is not a year. Snow ain’t trees.
With the other 4 it’s not clear what his problem is.
Too bad Einstein and his science has not been studied and built upon the way so many studying evolution have built upon Darwin. No, wait, I take that back considering how much evolutionary science is fraudulent and over-reaching. I would hate to see Einstein’s work mis-treated so.
You could have many of your questions answered if you would open your mind and read the many and varied creation scientists (with impressive credentials I might add). Einstein paved the way for explaining how the universe appears to be much older than it is. Gravitational Time Dilation simply shows greater and greater time stretching discrepancies when spanned over greater and greater distances.
I do believe there is a reason for the separate Biblical genealogies in the new testament too, showing how both Mary and Joseph had royal lineage. Other discrepancies may be explained as we get closer to His return but I’ll also point out that Revelation 22:18-19 warns against tampering with God’s Word. My thinking is simply that God would not need to provide this warning if mankind would never have tampered with any of His Holy Word.
Lastly, your science is not as airtight as you seem to think. Maybe you should re-examine all the times throughout history when science scoffed at the Bible and then later had to re-cant their high and mighty scientific conclusions. Assumptions are such an easy thing to overlook when most of the scientific community agrees with one another.
Whenever science disagrees with the plain and simple words of the Bible, I’ll take the Bible in every instance. My prayer is that many more ‘professing christians’ would take comfort and find wisdom and knowledge in doing the same.
And how do you interpret Proverbs 104:5? The plain and simple meaning of the words would be that Earth doesn’t move, and yet the data for Earth moving is overwhelming.
Could it be that the MEANING of Proverbs 104:5 is intact, even if the Earth does move. I certainly believe so, and think an understanding of the passage is thus IMPROVED by science showing the error of interpreting Prov 104:5 to mean that the Earth doesn’t move.
Prov 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.
As a Christian I believe that the truth of science could never contradict the truth of scripture, although it can certainly make mince meat out of incorrect scriptural interpretation.
Name a high and mighty conclusion of science that has been overtaken by Biblical text.
Sorry, Psalms 104:5.
Which version of Creation do you believe in? The one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?
Well since earth wasn’t created in 6 days the bible is wrong. Therefore Christianity is false.
Or else it was written to make Creationists look like complete morons.
General consensus before molecular biology scoffed at the notion that man was comprised of dust.
I don’t see any contradiction with Genesis 1 & 2. The 2nd chapter simply summarizes and restates the work of creation from Genesis 1.
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. (Genesis 7:19)
הרים הגבהים -- haharyim hagaboayim -- the high mountains
root word גבה, meaning:
1) high, exalted
a) high, tall
b) high (in position)
c) proud, haughty
2) loftiness
root word הר meaning:
1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount
I'm going to the actual meaning of words in the Bible. Where have I twisted them?
I took a year of Hebrew and have studied it on my own since. I'm not fluent or even conversant, but I can find my way around. Have you taken Hebrew?
Where in the Bible does it say that the very big mountains arose during the flood? What is the logic behind flood --> mountains? Why are the Appalachian mountains eroded while the Himalayan mountains are fresh, uneroded (80 million years old) and continue to rise? What are your sources for your claim?
What's the bulk of important material that I'm ignoring? The little things are important -- you said that the Hebrew meant "hills" and I've shown you that it means "high mountains."
If you're going to argue this, why don't you know your Bible better?
You mean as smart as Dr. Walt Brown? Oooh, I'm scared.
I didn't even go through half of his paper and proved to you that he didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about. What an embarassment and what a bad witness for Christ.
People like Brown make it difficult for people in my position to witness to others. They read Young-Creationist nonsense, recognize it as pathetic pseudo-science or lies, and assume that the rest of Christianity is made up, too.
So they say that yom means nighttime? Those must be some teachers that you have.
But in Genesis 1, man is created last - in Genesis 2, man is created before the animals.
I don't think that I said 5,000 years. I believe that the flood occurred at least 10,000 years ago, probably more like 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Chuck, you're the one in a tight spot --- you just don't recognize it.
We have a FR poster who has stated time and time again that although the math would be highly complicated it is possible to fully describe the motion of the planets w/o the Earth moving. I don’t have any desire to debate this point because it is fruitless. If the Earth does move then this is possibly a poorly transcribed verse or conversely it is a willful sinful misinterpretation.
If you truly and sincerely spend your time diligently reading and praying for comprehension of the Bible then all the necessary pieces are there for you to find salvation (see Romans 10:10 or also John 3:17).
Also all of the pieces are there for you to see the dual interpretation of the ‘Word’ as both logos (John 1:1) and rhema (Romans 10:17) - to basically provide a framework for the logical, natural, physical as well as for the unexplainable, supernatural, spiritual.
Fulfilled prophecy alone should be enough to humble you before the Great ‘I AM’ if you have any desire at all to know the Creator. I do believe that God has kept intact more than 99.9% of the original Word and everything that is necessary for our understanding.
Since most human intelligence is merely average or adequate I see no reason why he would require us to relentlessly wrestle His Word into something to fit an ever-changing worldly view of science. No reasoning is ascribed to only the best of the best, perfect, super-intellects (pharisees/sauducees) needing to translate for any lowly or below average man.
Simply studying it to ‘show yourselves approved for every good work’ provides ever deeper revelations to the breadth and depth w/o ever compromising the simple and plainly stated truths. Also we are commanded to not think ourselves as better than any of our fellow men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.