Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since scientists say it better than I can, I prefer to stay with them. Let us look a little deeper into the question of dating:
Carbon 14 (also called radiocarbon, or C-14 dating) is not reliable. Here are scientific facts explaining this. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Dating of Time in Evolution: 2
Radiocarbon Dating: 17 reasons why radiodating is seriously flawed
Amino Acid Dating: Several reasons why it remarkably unreliable
Other Dating Methods: Problems with other dating techniques
Page numbers without book references refer to DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on
, only 164 statements are by creationists.
RADIOCARBON DATING
Carbon-14 cycle. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating was devised in 1948. Theoretically, it sounds like a good method; but, in practice, it does not turn out that way. Radiocarbon dating is only "consistent" because the large number of C-14 dates which do not agree—are thrown out.—pp. 26-27.
Thirteen assumptions. As with uranium and other radioactive dating, carbon-14 dating requires flawless uniformity, down through the centuries, in regard to 13 assumptions. If one or more are incorrect, then C-14 dating will be unreliable.—p. 27.
Seventeen radiodating problems. In addition, there are 17 reasons why radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed:
1: Type of carbon. There can never be certainty as to what type of carbon may be present. It might be from carbon-14, but it might be a different carbon.—p. 28.
2: Variations within samples. There can be biological alteration of materials within the soil which can radically affect the dating over a period of time.—p. 28.
3: Loss of C-14. Moisture intrusion of any kind will dramatically affect the dating outcome.—p. 28.
4: Lesson from Jarmo. Eleven C-14 tests, made at Jarmo (in modern Iraq), yielded dates with a 6,000 year spread!—p. 28.
5: Changes in atmospheric carbon. We do not know what were the carbonic and atmospheric conditions in ancient times. Yet we must have that information, in order to start the radiocarbon clock and keep it running right for the first part of its cycle.—pp. 28-29.
6: Sunspot cycles. Sunspot production greatly affects C-14 activity, yet all we know with certainty is that there have been changes in the past. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there have been no such changes!—p. 29.
7: Radiocarbon date survey. A survey of 15,000 carbon-14 dates reveals a wide variation from other radiodating techniques. Yet they all ought to agree.—p. 29.
8: Change in neutrino radiation. A change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere, in earlier times, would also dramatically affect radiocarbon dating. But nothing is known definitively.—p. 29.
9: Recent dates are most accurate. One landmark fact is that C-14 dates, from the present time back to 600 B.C., tend to be more accurate. Before that time, the results are highly speculative.—p. 29.
10: If warmer and more water vapor. It is highly significant that, if the earth were either warmer at an earlier time or had more water in the atmosphere, the C-14 clocks would slow down dramatically; that is, register longer periods of time than they should.—p. 31.
11: Cosmic rays. The amount of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial, since it is cosmic rays which make carbon 14 in the first place.—p. 31.
12: Magnetic field. The greater the strength of earth's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays would enter our atmosphere. And it is the cosmic rays which change C-12 into C-14 (which is then absorbed by body tissues).—p. 31.
13: Moisture conditions. Even small changes in atmospheric or ground moisture, would greatly affect the C-14 clock.—How about a worldwide Flood?—p. 31.
14: Dramatic changes after the Flood. Immense changes occurred worldwide (during and just after the Flood) in the atmosphere, vapor canopy, and temperature. Immense volcanic output for about a century thereafter would have had significant impact on the clocks.—pp. 31-32.
15: Even modern specimens are inaccurate. Not only are ancient specimens inaccurate, but recent ones also are. Freshly killed seals have been dated as having lived 1,300 years ago, etc.—p. 32.
16: Carbon inventory. Drastic changes during, and following, the Flood produced immense variations in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.—p. 32.
17: Four radiocarbon samples. Four examples of ridiculous C-14 date results are cited.—pp. 32-33.
Throwing off the clock. *W.F. Libby, inventor of the C-14 dating technique, found that, prior to 1600 B.C., the radiocarbon dates go wild. But, since he assumed earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his work and ignored the problem.—p. 33.
C-14 data points to the Flood. If the Genesis Flood actually occurred, there should be a lot of specimens which died at about that date. One research scholar found such evidence. A gigantic loss of life occurred at approximately 2500 B.C.—pp. 33-34.
Mass spectrometer. This new and expensive technique shows all ancient dates should be very low.—p. 34.
AMINO ACID DATING
Amino acid decomposition. This dating method, devised in 1955, analyzes ancient amino acid remains and tries to date them. Each type of plant and animal has its own special amino acid ratios. Researchers have reported that this dating method can only yield broad ranges of possible dates.—p. 34.
No ancient fossils. Traces of amino acids are today found on all ancient fossil remains! This means that none of the fossils are very old.—p. 34.
Racemic dating. This is a second amino acid dating method, based on the fact that all animals only have L (left-handed) amino acids. (In Primitive Environment, we will learn that this fact is a powerful evidence that God made them; since, in a laboratory, amino acid synthesis results in a 50 / 50 mixture of left and right.)—pp. 34-35.
Seeking a racemic mixture. At death, some of the L amino acids begin converting over to D (right-handed ones). Eventually, a 50 / 50 pattern emerges, which is called "racemic." Scientists prefer racemic amino acid dating, since it is easier to do.—p. 35.
Ten racemic problems. Ten different factors affect the results of racemic dating, yet no one knows which ones are off or to what degree. So racemic dating is practically worthless.—p. 35.
Most easily contaminated. Water-contaminated materials have their racemic clocks thrown off. Bone from a given period will yield 20,000 years, while comparable seashell meat will be 150,000 years.—p. 35.
Temperature changes. Racemic dating also requires that the temperature not change for thousands of years! Just a one degree increase in temperature at 73.4[SUP]o[/SUP]F [23[SUP]o[/SUP]C] will produce a nearly 16 percent increase in the rate at which racemization occurs.—pp. 35-36.
Cold storage problem. But cold is as much a problem as is heat. As the cold increases, racemization slows down. Example: It is known that, because of the overcast caused by heavy volcanism, the world became much colder for about a century after the Flood. Yet this cold factor would cause creatures buried in the sedimentary strata to appear to be over 100,000 years older than they really were!—p. 36.
Moisture: A double problem. The experts tell us that moisture must be present for racemization to occur. Yet that continual inflow of moisture would bring with it various kinds of contamination. One such contaminant would be the pH of that moisture. For example, a higher pH (as would occur if the penetrating water had some dissolved limestone in it, not an uncommon occurrence), would cause very rapid racemization—and impart an apparently great age to the sample.—p. 36.
Another radiodating problem. As would be expected, racemization results do not agree with radiocarbon test results. Yet they ought to agree.—p. 36.
OTHER DATING METHODS
Astronomical dating. We discussed this in great detail in Origin of Matter. The methods used to date the stars and galaxies are wildly incoherent, because they are based on a theory which is incorrect (the speed theory of the redshift).—pp. 36-37.
Paleomagnetic dating. Paleomagnetic dating is also based on incorrect theories. This is discussed in greater detail in Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.—p. 37.
Varve dating. Certain sedimentary deposits are composed of extremely thin layers. Evolutionists theorize that each band must be exactly one year. But any limnologist will tell you that a brief flooding into a lake will cause a varve, which is a settling out of finer particles. In addition, only a rapid laying down of sediments could produce the plant and animal fossils we find in varves.—p. 37.
Tree ring dating. Bristlecone pine rings indicate an apparent age somewhat older than that of the giant sequoias. But evidence reveals that more than one bristlecone ring can be laid down in a single year. Sequoias are the oldest living thing, and their age closely correlates with the end of the Flood. See Age of the Earth for more on this.—p. 37.
Buried forest strata dating. Sometimes vertical trees are buried in sedimentary strata. Because they are found at various levels, it is said that this proves long ages. But how did vertical trees remain in place for long ages, while they were gradually covered over? Vertical trees in strata prove the Flood, not long ages of evolution.—pp. 37-38.
Peat dating. Evolutionists theorize that peat moss forms at the rate of one-fifth inch per century. But there is evidence indicating that this assumption is not true.—p. 38.
Reef dating. *Darwin theorized that coral reefs grew as the oceans, over long ages, gradually filled with water. Yet the truth is that the Flood occurred rapidly—and coral is only found fairly close to the surface. Thus, they began forming after the oceans were rather quickly filled.—p. 38.
Thermoluminescence dating. This little-known dating theory has also failed to find scientific support.—pp. 38-39.
Stalactite formation. Stalactites (the long conical formations which hang from cave ceilings) are said to require long ages to develop. But there is abundant evidence that they can form much more quickly.—p. 39.The truth is that God made our world only a few thousand years ago.
DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION - 2
DATING OF TIME
IN EVOLUTION: 2
IN EVOLUTION: 2
Carbon 14 (also called radiocarbon, or C-14 dating) is not reliable. Here are scientific facts explaining this. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Dating of Time in Evolution: 2
Radiocarbon Dating: 17 reasons why radiodating is seriously flawed
Amino Acid Dating: Several reasons why it remarkably unreliable
Other Dating Methods: Problems with other dating techniques
, only 164 statements are by creationists.
RADIOCARBON DATING
Carbon-14 cycle. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating was devised in 1948. Theoretically, it sounds like a good method; but, in practice, it does not turn out that way. Radiocarbon dating is only "consistent" because the large number of C-14 dates which do not agree—are thrown out.—pp. 26-27.
Thirteen assumptions. As with uranium and other radioactive dating, carbon-14 dating requires flawless uniformity, down through the centuries, in regard to 13 assumptions. If one or more are incorrect, then C-14 dating will be unreliable.—p. 27.
Seventeen radiodating problems. In addition, there are 17 reasons why radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed:
1: Type of carbon. There can never be certainty as to what type of carbon may be present. It might be from carbon-14, but it might be a different carbon.—p. 28.
2: Variations within samples. There can be biological alteration of materials within the soil which can radically affect the dating over a period of time.—p. 28.
3: Loss of C-14. Moisture intrusion of any kind will dramatically affect the dating outcome.—p. 28.
4: Lesson from Jarmo. Eleven C-14 tests, made at Jarmo (in modern Iraq), yielded dates with a 6,000 year spread!—p. 28.
5: Changes in atmospheric carbon. We do not know what were the carbonic and atmospheric conditions in ancient times. Yet we must have that information, in order to start the radiocarbon clock and keep it running right for the first part of its cycle.—pp. 28-29.
6: Sunspot cycles. Sunspot production greatly affects C-14 activity, yet all we know with certainty is that there have been changes in the past. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there have been no such changes!—p. 29.
7: Radiocarbon date survey. A survey of 15,000 carbon-14 dates reveals a wide variation from other radiodating techniques. Yet they all ought to agree.—p. 29.
8: Change in neutrino radiation. A change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere, in earlier times, would also dramatically affect radiocarbon dating. But nothing is known definitively.—p. 29.
9: Recent dates are most accurate. One landmark fact is that C-14 dates, from the present time back to 600 B.C., tend to be more accurate. Before that time, the results are highly speculative.—p. 29.
10: If warmer and more water vapor. It is highly significant that, if the earth were either warmer at an earlier time or had more water in the atmosphere, the C-14 clocks would slow down dramatically; that is, register longer periods of time than they should.—p. 31.
11: Cosmic rays. The amount of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial, since it is cosmic rays which make carbon 14 in the first place.—p. 31.
12: Magnetic field. The greater the strength of earth's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays would enter our atmosphere. And it is the cosmic rays which change C-12 into C-14 (which is then absorbed by body tissues).—p. 31.
13: Moisture conditions. Even small changes in atmospheric or ground moisture, would greatly affect the C-14 clock.—How about a worldwide Flood?—p. 31.
14: Dramatic changes after the Flood. Immense changes occurred worldwide (during and just after the Flood) in the atmosphere, vapor canopy, and temperature. Immense volcanic output for about a century thereafter would have had significant impact on the clocks.—pp. 31-32.
15: Even modern specimens are inaccurate. Not only are ancient specimens inaccurate, but recent ones also are. Freshly killed seals have been dated as having lived 1,300 years ago, etc.—p. 32.
16: Carbon inventory. Drastic changes during, and following, the Flood produced immense variations in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.—p. 32.
17: Four radiocarbon samples. Four examples of ridiculous C-14 date results are cited.—pp. 32-33.
Throwing off the clock. *W.F. Libby, inventor of the C-14 dating technique, found that, prior to 1600 B.C., the radiocarbon dates go wild. But, since he assumed earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his work and ignored the problem.—p. 33.
C-14 data points to the Flood. If the Genesis Flood actually occurred, there should be a lot of specimens which died at about that date. One research scholar found such evidence. A gigantic loss of life occurred at approximately 2500 B.C.—pp. 33-34.
Mass spectrometer. This new and expensive technique shows all ancient dates should be very low.—p. 34.
AMINO ACID DATING
Amino acid decomposition. This dating method, devised in 1955, analyzes ancient amino acid remains and tries to date them. Each type of plant and animal has its own special amino acid ratios. Researchers have reported that this dating method can only yield broad ranges of possible dates.—p. 34.
No ancient fossils. Traces of amino acids are today found on all ancient fossil remains! This means that none of the fossils are very old.—p. 34.
Racemic dating. This is a second amino acid dating method, based on the fact that all animals only have L (left-handed) amino acids. (In Primitive Environment, we will learn that this fact is a powerful evidence that God made them; since, in a laboratory, amino acid synthesis results in a 50 / 50 mixture of left and right.)—pp. 34-35.
Seeking a racemic mixture. At death, some of the L amino acids begin converting over to D (right-handed ones). Eventually, a 50 / 50 pattern emerges, which is called "racemic." Scientists prefer racemic amino acid dating, since it is easier to do.—p. 35.
Ten racemic problems. Ten different factors affect the results of racemic dating, yet no one knows which ones are off or to what degree. So racemic dating is practically worthless.—p. 35.
Most easily contaminated. Water-contaminated materials have their racemic clocks thrown off. Bone from a given period will yield 20,000 years, while comparable seashell meat will be 150,000 years.—p. 35.
Temperature changes. Racemic dating also requires that the temperature not change for thousands of years! Just a one degree increase in temperature at 73.4[SUP]o[/SUP]F [23[SUP]o[/SUP]C] will produce a nearly 16 percent increase in the rate at which racemization occurs.—pp. 35-36.
Cold storage problem. But cold is as much a problem as is heat. As the cold increases, racemization slows down. Example: It is known that, because of the overcast caused by heavy volcanism, the world became much colder for about a century after the Flood. Yet this cold factor would cause creatures buried in the sedimentary strata to appear to be over 100,000 years older than they really were!—p. 36.
Moisture: A double problem. The experts tell us that moisture must be present for racemization to occur. Yet that continual inflow of moisture would bring with it various kinds of contamination. One such contaminant would be the pH of that moisture. For example, a higher pH (as would occur if the penetrating water had some dissolved limestone in it, not an uncommon occurrence), would cause very rapid racemization—and impart an apparently great age to the sample.—p. 36.
Another radiodating problem. As would be expected, racemization results do not agree with radiocarbon test results. Yet they ought to agree.—p. 36.
OTHER DATING METHODS
Astronomical dating. We discussed this in great detail in Origin of Matter. The methods used to date the stars and galaxies are wildly incoherent, because they are based on a theory which is incorrect (the speed theory of the redshift).—pp. 36-37.
Paleomagnetic dating. Paleomagnetic dating is also based on incorrect theories. This is discussed in greater detail in Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.—p. 37.
Varve dating. Certain sedimentary deposits are composed of extremely thin layers. Evolutionists theorize that each band must be exactly one year. But any limnologist will tell you that a brief flooding into a lake will cause a varve, which is a settling out of finer particles. In addition, only a rapid laying down of sediments could produce the plant and animal fossils we find in varves.—p. 37.
Tree ring dating. Bristlecone pine rings indicate an apparent age somewhat older than that of the giant sequoias. But evidence reveals that more than one bristlecone ring can be laid down in a single year. Sequoias are the oldest living thing, and their age closely correlates with the end of the Flood. See Age of the Earth for more on this.—p. 37.
Buried forest strata dating. Sometimes vertical trees are buried in sedimentary strata. Because they are found at various levels, it is said that this proves long ages. But how did vertical trees remain in place for long ages, while they were gradually covered over? Vertical trees in strata prove the Flood, not long ages of evolution.—pp. 37-38.
Peat dating. Evolutionists theorize that peat moss forms at the rate of one-fifth inch per century. But there is evidence indicating that this assumption is not true.—p. 38.
Reef dating. *Darwin theorized that coral reefs grew as the oceans, over long ages, gradually filled with water. Yet the truth is that the Flood occurred rapidly—and coral is only found fairly close to the surface. Thus, they began forming after the oceans were rather quickly filled.—p. 38.
Thermoluminescence dating. This little-known dating theory has also failed to find scientific support.—pp. 38-39.
Stalactite formation. Stalactites (the long conical formations which hang from cave ceilings) are said to require long ages to develop. But there is abundant evidence that they can form much more quickly.—p. 39.The truth is that God made our world only a few thousand years ago.
DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION - 2
G
We have already found the fossil record to lack evidence. We can deal with genetic "evidence" later if you wish. Let us focus on similarities:
"All animals have legs, therefore all animals descended from a common ancestor."—That is the evolutionary theory of similarities. Yet, as we carefully examine the evidence, we find this idea is not scientifically sound. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Similarities
Similar and Different Structures: Not only alike but different
Convergence: Similarities are supposed to prove evolution
Divergence: Differences are supposed to prove it also
Mimicry: Brainless creatures smart enough to change their physical structure Pentadactyl Limb: The classic "five bone" proof
Gene Barrier: But do not forget the hereditary barrier
Related Articles
SCIENTISTS SPEAK about Similarities: Scientists explain that similarities in different animals do not imply common ancestry
CHROMOSOME Comparisons: Chromosomes and DNA ought to directly tell us which species are related to which
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, SIMILARITIES, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
Evolutionists carry on an ongoing desperate search for evidences supporting evolution. But their problem is that they really cannot find any! The theory of "similarities" is one of their attempts to find evidence where there is no evidence.Similarities is one of three strange "evidences" of evolution: The other two are vestiges, and recapitulation. The first is empty, the second is ridiculous, and the third a hoax. Let us first turn our attention to similarities.
SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT STRUCTURES
Similar structures. Evolutionists try to find likenesses between various types of creatures. Those similarities are then used as "evidence" that one creature evolved from another or that both evolved from a common ancestor.For example, both you and the spider have legs, therefore either you descended from the spider or from some other creature which the spider also evolved from or there is the possibility the spider descended from you.Yes, there are similarities. But, because of the DNA code, evolution cannot happen. That code is a barrier stopping one species from changing into another. So similarities can only point to the fact that each species was made by a single Master Designer who had immense intelligence, power, and ability. Similarities also reveal that the Designer used the best method for making many different creatures. For example, regarding those legs: It works far better for living creatures on land to walk and run rather than to crawl or roll over and over. So most land creatures have legs of one type or another.Yet the mechanics of making legs is quite complicated; no creature could make his own, but that is where the evolutionists say they originated.It is simplistic to suggest that legs prove evolution, when we all know that the extremely complicated DNA coding for each true species is quite different. Evolution teaches the nonsensical idea that, because a creature needed legs, therefore it grew them! Yet such a concept violates a number of solid biological facts.—pp. 11, 13.
Different structures. Animals not only have similar structures, they have different ones also. Considering these differences, the idea of common ancestry fades out. Yes, a man, a bunny rabbit, and a spider have legs,—but the legs surely are different from one another! And everything else about them is different also.—p. 13.
Similar factors which could not be related. The octopus has an eye quite similar to man's. Yet we are not even slightly related!The bubonic plague only attacks Norway rats and humans, but that does not mean we are descended from rats.In proportion to the body, the weight of a dwarf monkey is greater than that of a human—but that does not mean the dwarf monkey is descended from us.Studying Cytochrome C (an amino acid sequence), it was found that turtles are more like people than like rattlesnakes. Are we then closely related to turtles? Of course not. Similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.Then there is convergence and divergence. Evolutionists claim that both prove evolution—yet they are the opposite of one another!—pp. 13-14.
CONVERGENCE
"Convergence," as a supposed "evidence" of evolution, is said to occur when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the eye of the human and the eye of the octopus.But convergence actually disproves evolutionary theory, for it reveals that a Master Planner made both us and the octopus. We both are very similar in one little respect (our complex eyes), but very different every other way.—p. 14.
DIVERGENCE
Then there is "divergence." Divergence is said to occur when there are very different (diverse) features—in plants or animals which ought to be "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution," yet it obviously disproves evolution!There are creatures which look alike in many ways, yet have certain organs which are remarkably different. For example, consider the shrimps. Some have compound eyes which are structured totally different from one another! There is a shrimp with "lens cylinders"; each of the cylinders bends the light smoothly to focus on a single point. Another shrimp has a "mirror system" within its eyes!How did the shrimp figure that out?—pp. 14-15.It is an intriguing fact that evolutionists will attempt to use facts on all sides of an issue to prove their theory. Convergence and divergence is an example.
MIMICRY
Mimicry is the name given to the theory that one almost-mindless creature had been carefully watching others for a time—and then decided to change its body to look like theirs! Of course, this is utterly ridiculous, yet you have heard and read it repeatedly in scientific literature.For example, the Monarch butterfly tastes terrible because its body cells contain poisonous milkweed juice (absorbed while it ate those leaves as a caterpillar). So the evolutionists tell us that the Viceroy butterfly got to thinking one day: "If I change my colors to closely match those of the Monarch, enemies will leave me alone also." That sounds like a fairy tale; that IS a fairy tale! Yet it is the evolutionary concept of "mimicry."There is no doubt that intelligent planning is responsible for these fantastic copycat arrangements. Someone thought it through, but it was not the butterfly!For example, there are insects which look exactly like leaves and moths which have all the sprinkled markings of certain tree bark. Then there are the bottom-dwelling fish which change colors to exactly match the grain and color of the sand they are resting on!Butterflies, insects, and fish did not devise such miracles. God did it.—p. 15.
PENTADACTYL LIMB
This is the similarity most frequently pointed to by evolutionists as the outstanding example of similarities. They have given to it the awesome name, "pentadactyl limb." Surely, with a name like that, it must be scientific. ("Penta" means five, and "dactyl" means finger.)This is said to be the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (They calculate it as one bone each; in the arm, wrist, and hand, and two in the lower arm.) In reality, there are many, many bones in the wrist and hand, but we are supposed to ignore that in making this comparison.Why would all vertebrate arms and legs have those five principle divisions? The answer is obvious: It is a design factor, enabling arms and legs to have the widest possible useful movement.What then does this prove? It proves that a single Master Designer, God, made arms and legs. It surely does not prove that the creatures made themselves, copied one another, or that, because mice have the "five bones" in their arms and hands, we descended from them.—pp. 17, 19.
THE GENE BARRIER
In spite of efforts to use surface similarities in features to prove that one species came from another, the truth is that the DNA code in our genes forbids the possibility that any true species could come from any other one!Many more examples could be cited to show that apparent similarities point, not to evolution, but to a single Master Draftsman / Mechanic who made us.—p. 21.
SIMILARITIES
SIMILARITIES
"All animals have legs, therefore all animals descended from a common ancestor."—That is the evolutionary theory of similarities. Yet, as we carefully examine the evidence, we find this idea is not scientifically sound. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Similarities
Similar and Different Structures: Not only alike but different
Convergence: Similarities are supposed to prove evolution
Divergence: Differences are supposed to prove it also
Mimicry: Brainless creatures smart enough to change their physical structure Pentadactyl Limb: The classic "five bone" proof
Gene Barrier: But do not forget the hereditary barrier
SCIENTISTS SPEAK about Similarities: Scientists explain that similarities in different animals do not imply common ancestry
CHROMOSOME Comparisons: Chromosomes and DNA ought to directly tell us which species are related to which
Evolutionists carry on an ongoing desperate search for evidences supporting evolution. But their problem is that they really cannot find any! The theory of "similarities" is one of their attempts to find evidence where there is no evidence.Similarities is one of three strange "evidences" of evolution: The other two are vestiges, and recapitulation. The first is empty, the second is ridiculous, and the third a hoax. Let us first turn our attention to similarities.
SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT STRUCTURES
Similar structures. Evolutionists try to find likenesses between various types of creatures. Those similarities are then used as "evidence" that one creature evolved from another or that both evolved from a common ancestor.For example, both you and the spider have legs, therefore either you descended from the spider or from some other creature which the spider also evolved from or there is the possibility the spider descended from you.Yes, there are similarities. But, because of the DNA code, evolution cannot happen. That code is a barrier stopping one species from changing into another. So similarities can only point to the fact that each species was made by a single Master Designer who had immense intelligence, power, and ability. Similarities also reveal that the Designer used the best method for making many different creatures. For example, regarding those legs: It works far better for living creatures on land to walk and run rather than to crawl or roll over and over. So most land creatures have legs of one type or another.Yet the mechanics of making legs is quite complicated; no creature could make his own, but that is where the evolutionists say they originated.It is simplistic to suggest that legs prove evolution, when we all know that the extremely complicated DNA coding for each true species is quite different. Evolution teaches the nonsensical idea that, because a creature needed legs, therefore it grew them! Yet such a concept violates a number of solid biological facts.—pp. 11, 13.
Different structures. Animals not only have similar structures, they have different ones also. Considering these differences, the idea of common ancestry fades out. Yes, a man, a bunny rabbit, and a spider have legs,—but the legs surely are different from one another! And everything else about them is different also.—p. 13.
Similar factors which could not be related. The octopus has an eye quite similar to man's. Yet we are not even slightly related!The bubonic plague only attacks Norway rats and humans, but that does not mean we are descended from rats.In proportion to the body, the weight of a dwarf monkey is greater than that of a human—but that does not mean the dwarf monkey is descended from us.Studying Cytochrome C (an amino acid sequence), it was found that turtles are more like people than like rattlesnakes. Are we then closely related to turtles? Of course not. Similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.Then there is convergence and divergence. Evolutionists claim that both prove evolution—yet they are the opposite of one another!—pp. 13-14.
CONVERGENCE
"Convergence," as a supposed "evidence" of evolution, is said to occur when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the eye of the human and the eye of the octopus.But convergence actually disproves evolutionary theory, for it reveals that a Master Planner made both us and the octopus. We both are very similar in one little respect (our complex eyes), but very different every other way.—p. 14.
DIVERGENCE
Then there is "divergence." Divergence is said to occur when there are very different (diverse) features—in plants or animals which ought to be "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution," yet it obviously disproves evolution!There are creatures which look alike in many ways, yet have certain organs which are remarkably different. For example, consider the shrimps. Some have compound eyes which are structured totally different from one another! There is a shrimp with "lens cylinders"; each of the cylinders bends the light smoothly to focus on a single point. Another shrimp has a "mirror system" within its eyes!How did the shrimp figure that out?—pp. 14-15.It is an intriguing fact that evolutionists will attempt to use facts on all sides of an issue to prove their theory. Convergence and divergence is an example.
MIMICRY
Mimicry is the name given to the theory that one almost-mindless creature had been carefully watching others for a time—and then decided to change its body to look like theirs! Of course, this is utterly ridiculous, yet you have heard and read it repeatedly in scientific literature.For example, the Monarch butterfly tastes terrible because its body cells contain poisonous milkweed juice (absorbed while it ate those leaves as a caterpillar). So the evolutionists tell us that the Viceroy butterfly got to thinking one day: "If I change my colors to closely match those of the Monarch, enemies will leave me alone also." That sounds like a fairy tale; that IS a fairy tale! Yet it is the evolutionary concept of "mimicry."There is no doubt that intelligent planning is responsible for these fantastic copycat arrangements. Someone thought it through, but it was not the butterfly!For example, there are insects which look exactly like leaves and moths which have all the sprinkled markings of certain tree bark. Then there are the bottom-dwelling fish which change colors to exactly match the grain and color of the sand they are resting on!Butterflies, insects, and fish did not devise such miracles. God did it.—p. 15.
PENTADACTYL LIMB
This is the similarity most frequently pointed to by evolutionists as the outstanding example of similarities. They have given to it the awesome name, "pentadactyl limb." Surely, with a name like that, it must be scientific. ("Penta" means five, and "dactyl" means finger.)This is said to be the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (They calculate it as one bone each; in the arm, wrist, and hand, and two in the lower arm.) In reality, there are many, many bones in the wrist and hand, but we are supposed to ignore that in making this comparison.Why would all vertebrate arms and legs have those five principle divisions? The answer is obvious: It is a design factor, enabling arms and legs to have the widest possible useful movement.What then does this prove? It proves that a single Master Designer, God, made arms and legs. It surely does not prove that the creatures made themselves, copied one another, or that, because mice have the "five bones" in their arms and hands, we descended from them.—pp. 17, 19.
THE GENE BARRIER
In spite of efforts to use surface similarities in features to prove that one species came from another, the truth is that the DNA code in our genes forbids the possibility that any true species could come from any other one!Many more examples could be cited to show that apparent similarities point, not to evolution, but to a single Master Draftsman / Mechanic who made us.—p. 21.
SIMILARITIES
The sheer amount of ignorance in your mindless copy pastes is clear, I don't have time to cut through all the butter, but heres an example.
Your incorrect objectified definition:
Mimicry: Brainless creatures smart enough to change their physical structure Pentadactyl \
The actual valid definition:
similarity of appearance in nature: the resemblance of a plant or animal to another species or to a feature of its natural surroundings, developed as protection from predators
Its almost hard to concisely show the sheer amount of misunderstanding of that definition. But I'll do my best.
first off
"Brainless creatures" - every living organism has some degree of intelligence, even micro-organisms have a decent control center. Birds utilize mimicry, and many birds are quite intelligent species. But my point is that real scientists do not classify any organism as "stupid", "brainless", or "dull". They simply are what their intelligence level allows them to be. But we aren't even on the main point yet.
"smart enough to change their physical structure" This shows the complete lack of understanding of authors of the website, and you if you see this as valid. Static Mimicry has very little to do with intelligence, while fluid, learned mimicry doesn't require an amazingly intelligent organism to occur. Static mimicry (note I apply the term static as a simplification I doubt scientists do) would be the viceroy butterfly exhibiting similar wing markings as the monarch butterfly. The monarch butterfly is slightly poisonous due to its consumption of milkweed, so if certain predators attempted to eat the monarch it would taste at the very least foul and at worst may sicken or even kill the predator. As a result predators instinctively or learnedly won't willfully eat monarchs, an easy way to recognize monarchs from other butterflies is the orange color and wing-patterns. Now here's where the Viceroy Butterfly comes in. Perhaps at one point in time the viceroy was all orange with no black markings like that of the monarch, and had to fend for itself when it came to predators, as they weren't naturally poisonous and predators not seeing any black markings as that on the monarch would eat them. Then one day perhaps a neutral mutation occurred in one viceroy making two black splotches on the wings of it, now if you understand survival of the fittest, said theoretical mutation may confuse predators long enough to allow it to escape or they may be fooled entirely thinking it was a poisonous monarch. Obviously the viceroy that confuses or fools the predators the most will have the best chance of surviving and reproducing and thus passing on this mutation. And along the genetic line the viceroy's may have even more mutations that enable the species to look even more like the monarch thus exhibiting static mimicry. This has nothing to do with a species willing itself or being smart enough to change its colors to look like a monarch. Now fluid or learned mimicry may be instinctual like that of a snake shaking its tail to mimic a rattlesnake to scare off predators. Or it could be learned it that species lifetime if it is intelligent enough to observe and utilize it to its advantage.
Now if you criticize me for not addressing all of your claims, keep in mind I don't have time to write an essay on each one.
If you actually read what I wrote and found it interesting I encourage you to research biological science. Its interesting.
I concede no such thing.
We agreed to no such thing. Why are you making things up? The fossil record is neither complete or uniform. Perhaps this will help you to understand the truth:
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 1
Time to Tell the Truth: It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax
Background of the Theory: Some facts you should know
Is Enough Evidence Available?: Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species
Dating the Strata and Fossils: The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on only 164 statements are by creationists.
TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH
It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax.It is astounding that the evolutionists dare to trumpet the statement that the fossils in the rock strata prove that evolution has occurred over millions of years in the past—when the truth is that researchers have not found one evidence that any evolutionary changes in plants and animals has ever occurred!In addition, another startling fact is that neither the rocks nor the sedimentary strata support the theory that long ages of time have existed on our planet!The public must be told the true facts. Here is a brief overview of those facts. Far more will be found in our book, Fossils and Strata.
The evolutionists' problem is to explain away the fact that what we learn from the strata points to the Genesis Flood, and the fossils themselves clearly disprove species evolution.The evolutionists' solution has been to invent a timing sequence that is pure theory and has no relation to reality. Consider these facts:
BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY
Some facts you should know.Fossils and strata. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the distant past. Yet there is an astounding amount of evidence to disprove their claims.Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals. These fossil remains may include shells, teeth, bones, entire skeletons, footprints, bird tracks, tail marks, or rain drops. They are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of compacted sediments (sand, gravel, clay, etc.) laid down by flood waters, which have hardened into layers of stone piled up like a layered cake. Sedimentary rock is fossil bearing or fossiliferous rock.—pp. 13, 15.
Extremely important. Fossils are extremely important because they ought to provide evolutionists with all the evidence needed to show that one species has evolved into another.Fossil evidence reveals whether evolution has occurred in the past. Genetic and mutational facts reveal whether it can occur now. (Genetics was discussed in DNA and Cells, and mutations in Mutations.)Evidence from genetics and mutations shows that no evolution is occurring today.Evidence from fossils is all the evolutionists have left! And, in this present article, we will find that no animals have changed into others at any time in the past.—pp. 15, 17.
Uniformitarianism. This, a basic theory of evolution, teaches that everything has occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, evolutionists maintain there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e., no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within it. But the evidence shown in this article clearly disproves that theory.—pp. 17-18.
The Cambrian explosion. This is a key factor. At the very bottom of the strata (which is presumed to be the oldest) is the Cambrian level. Many types of fossils are suddenly found there. Many of them (including the trilobite, which is quite common on that level) are very complex. The trilobite has a very complex lens system in its eye.Evolutionary theory requires that there only be one or two species in the bottom fossil level, yet what we find agrees instead with the Genesis Flood.—p. 18.
The Genesis Flood. The solution to the mystery of the rock strata, and the fossils in them, is to be found in the first book in the Bible: Genesis, chapters 6 to 9. A sudden, worldwide Flood occurred which laid down the mud and sediment and buried the plants and animals in it.First, in the lowest strata, the slow moving creatures were buried; then, in higher layers, faster moving creatures. This explains why larger, stronger creatures are in the upper levels. It also explains why remains of humans are rarely found in the strata: They were able to run to the tops of the mountains and were drowned above the laid-down sediments.—pp. 18-19.
IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?
Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species.This is a crucial question: Is enough fossil and strata evidence available to enable us to definitively arrive at answers?Yes there is! According to *Kier, there are over 100 million fossils housed in museums and other collections! Geologists have been digging them out of the ground since the early 19th century.If the evidence supporting evolutionary claims existed, it ought to have been discovered by now!By the present time, the transitional forms (the halfway species between one species and the other it evolved into) ought to have been found. But such evidence does not exist.Gish says that evolutionists maintain that it takes 100 million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from.For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. (Don't laugh; that is what they believe.) But that would mean we ought to have thousands of halfway species between the two—but such creatures are not to be found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.—pp. 19-20.
DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS
The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory.How are the rocks and fossils dated? Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will quickly learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient—is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multimillions of years!Okay, but now let us go deeper into the matter: Exactly how are the strata and fossils dated?Let me tell you in just one sentence: Evolutionary scientists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found!That may seem astounding, but it is true.—p. 20.
Real history. Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. Everything before that is guesswork. We know that to be true because the various ancient dating methods (C14, radiodating, etc.) have severe inherent dating flaws. (See Dating of Time in Evolution and The Truth about Archaeological Dating.)—p. 20.
Not dated by appearance. The strata are not dated by appearance, for various types of rocks, of all levels and "ages," may be found in strata. They are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content.—p. 20.
Not dated by location. The strata are not dated by where they are found or by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds.—p. 20.
Not dated by vertical location. The rocks are not dated by their sequence in the strata, for "younger" strata may be below "older" strata.—pp. 20-21.
Not dated by radioactivity. To anyone familiar with the fact that radiodating dates are wildly inconsistent, it should come as no surprise that strata dates are not obtained by radiodating. (See Dating of Time in Evolution for more on that.)—p. 21.
Are the rocks dated by fossils? That is about all that is left,—yet the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 percent of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.How then are the rocks dated?—pp. 21-23.
Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem incredible that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils, but it is true. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.That may seem like going out on the limb quite a bit, but it does seem sort of scientific. Okay, everything is dated by a certain few fossils.But, wait a minute! How did the evolutionists decide what dates to apply to those index fossils?They are dated by a theory!—p. 21.
Fossils dated by a theory. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be!The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date—according to what men imagine it ought to be!(It is revealing that, every few years, another "index fossil" is found to be alive today! Then it must be removed from the "index fossil" list, since index fossils are supposed to have died out at a certain ancient date. Many of the index fossils are trilobites, tiny ancient sea creatures, generally less than an inch in length.)—pp. 21, 23.
Circular reasoning. Although it is called "fossil evidence," circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true.Every thinking person knows that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. Yet we find that it is based on circular reasoning: They use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, and then use their theory of fossils to date the strata!Although it is called "survival of the fittest," circular reasoning is also the basis of the means, or mechanism, by which evolution is supposed to occur.The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!—pp. 23, 25.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos02.htmbut
We agreed to no such thing. Why are you making things up? The fossil record is neither complete or uniform. Perhaps this will help you to understand the truth:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 1
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 1
Time to Tell the Truth: It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax
Background of the Theory: Some facts you should know
Is Enough Evidence Available?: Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species
Dating the Strata and Fossils: The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory
TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH
It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax.It is astounding that the evolutionists dare to trumpet the statement that the fossils in the rock strata prove that evolution has occurred over millions of years in the past—when the truth is that researchers have not found one evidence that any evolutionary changes in plants and animals has ever occurred!In addition, another startling fact is that neither the rocks nor the sedimentary strata support the theory that long ages of time have existed on our planet!The public must be told the true facts. Here is a brief overview of those facts. Far more will be found in our book, Fossils and Strata.
The evolutionists' problem is to explain away the fact that what we learn from the strata points to the Genesis Flood, and the fossils themselves clearly disprove species evolution.The evolutionists' solution has been to invent a timing sequence that is pure theory and has no relation to reality. Consider these facts:
BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY
Some facts you should know.Fossils and strata. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the distant past. Yet there is an astounding amount of evidence to disprove their claims.Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals. These fossil remains may include shells, teeth, bones, entire skeletons, footprints, bird tracks, tail marks, or rain drops. They are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of compacted sediments (sand, gravel, clay, etc.) laid down by flood waters, which have hardened into layers of stone piled up like a layered cake. Sedimentary rock is fossil bearing or fossiliferous rock.—pp. 13, 15.
Extremely important. Fossils are extremely important because they ought to provide evolutionists with all the evidence needed to show that one species has evolved into another.Fossil evidence reveals whether evolution has occurred in the past. Genetic and mutational facts reveal whether it can occur now. (Genetics was discussed in DNA and Cells, and mutations in Mutations.)Evidence from genetics and mutations shows that no evolution is occurring today.Evidence from fossils is all the evolutionists have left! And, in this present article, we will find that no animals have changed into others at any time in the past.—pp. 15, 17.
Uniformitarianism. This, a basic theory of evolution, teaches that everything has occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, evolutionists maintain there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e., no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within it. But the evidence shown in this article clearly disproves that theory.—pp. 17-18.
The Cambrian explosion. This is a key factor. At the very bottom of the strata (which is presumed to be the oldest) is the Cambrian level. Many types of fossils are suddenly found there. Many of them (including the trilobite, which is quite common on that level) are very complex. The trilobite has a very complex lens system in its eye.Evolutionary theory requires that there only be one or two species in the bottom fossil level, yet what we find agrees instead with the Genesis Flood.—p. 18.
The Genesis Flood. The solution to the mystery of the rock strata, and the fossils in them, is to be found in the first book in the Bible: Genesis, chapters 6 to 9. A sudden, worldwide Flood occurred which laid down the mud and sediment and buried the plants and animals in it.First, in the lowest strata, the slow moving creatures were buried; then, in higher layers, faster moving creatures. This explains why larger, stronger creatures are in the upper levels. It also explains why remains of humans are rarely found in the strata: They were able to run to the tops of the mountains and were drowned above the laid-down sediments.—pp. 18-19.
IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?
Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species.This is a crucial question: Is enough fossil and strata evidence available to enable us to definitively arrive at answers?Yes there is! According to *Kier, there are over 100 million fossils housed in museums and other collections! Geologists have been digging them out of the ground since the early 19th century.If the evidence supporting evolutionary claims existed, it ought to have been discovered by now!By the present time, the transitional forms (the halfway species between one species and the other it evolved into) ought to have been found. But such evidence does not exist.Gish says that evolutionists maintain that it takes 100 million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from.For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. (Don't laugh; that is what they believe.) But that would mean we ought to have thousands of halfway species between the two—but such creatures are not to be found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.—pp. 19-20.
DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS
The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory.How are the rocks and fossils dated? Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will quickly learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient—is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multimillions of years!Okay, but now let us go deeper into the matter: Exactly how are the strata and fossils dated?Let me tell you in just one sentence: Evolutionary scientists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found!That may seem astounding, but it is true.—p. 20.
Real history. Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. Everything before that is guesswork. We know that to be true because the various ancient dating methods (C14, radiodating, etc.) have severe inherent dating flaws. (See Dating of Time in Evolution and The Truth about Archaeological Dating.)—p. 20.
Not dated by appearance. The strata are not dated by appearance, for various types of rocks, of all levels and "ages," may be found in strata. They are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content.—p. 20.
Not dated by location. The strata are not dated by where they are found or by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds.—p. 20.
Not dated by vertical location. The rocks are not dated by their sequence in the strata, for "younger" strata may be below "older" strata.—pp. 20-21.
Not dated by radioactivity. To anyone familiar with the fact that radiodating dates are wildly inconsistent, it should come as no surprise that strata dates are not obtained by radiodating. (See Dating of Time in Evolution for more on that.)—p. 21.
Are the rocks dated by fossils? That is about all that is left,—yet the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 percent of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.How then are the rocks dated?—pp. 21-23.
Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem incredible that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils, but it is true. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.That may seem like going out on the limb quite a bit, but it does seem sort of scientific. Okay, everything is dated by a certain few fossils.But, wait a minute! How did the evolutionists decide what dates to apply to those index fossils?They are dated by a theory!—p. 21.
Fossils dated by a theory. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be!The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date—according to what men imagine it ought to be!(It is revealing that, every few years, another "index fossil" is found to be alive today! Then it must be removed from the "index fossil" list, since index fossils are supposed to have died out at a certain ancient date. Many of the index fossils are trilobites, tiny ancient sea creatures, generally less than an inch in length.)—pp. 21, 23.
Circular reasoning. Although it is called "fossil evidence," circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true.Every thinking person knows that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. Yet we find that it is based on circular reasoning: They use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, and then use their theory of fossils to date the strata!Although it is called "survival of the fittest," circular reasoning is also the basis of the means, or mechanism, by which evolution is supposed to occur.The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!—pp. 23, 25.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos02.htmbut
G
Do I have to spell it out for you?
you: "Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record"
Me: "Quite frankly talk to any biologist or paleontologist and ask them if there are gaps. They will say [yes]"
I'm not sure we can logically trust a website that confuses even the basic concepts of science such as mimicry. And by we, I mean me. You clearly aren't putting much thought or effort into this discussion. You aren't out to learn new things, you're objectively using "science" to try and justify a religious claim.
you: "Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record"
Me: "Quite frankly talk to any biologist or paleontologist and ask them if there are gaps. They will say [yes]"
I'm not sure we can logically trust a website that confuses even the basic concepts of science such as mimicry. And by we, I mean me. You clearly aren't putting much thought or effort into this discussion. You aren't out to learn new things, you're objectively using "science" to try and justify a religious claim.
How does that justify your assertion that "I see, well at least you concede transitional forms" to which I replied that "I concede no such thing"?
Perhaps you are confused, not the source. I am not using science to justify religion; science confirms the facts in the Bible:
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Perhaps you are confused, not the source. I am not using science to justify religion; science confirms the facts in the Bible:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
G
Must I spoon feed it?
What I said
"You are incorrect when you say the fossil record lacks evidence, it lacks completeness and uniformity as both you and I agreed"
What you replied to me
"We agreed to no such thing. Why are you making things up? The fossil record is neither complete or uniform. Perhaps this will help you to understand the truth"
Nothing to do with transitional forms. Use the noggin.
Oh look another copy paste, who could have seen that coming.
1. What the bible mentions real places and gives accurate descriptions of real places? No other religion does that it must be true! Oh wait, greek mythology includes athens and mount olympias, those are real places therefore that religion must be true to!
Your first point is null and has nothing to do with the validity of the bible.
2. The bible is scientifically accurate? What a joke.
Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night.
The passage treats the stars, sun, and moon, are light switches that disappear once night/day is over. We know now thanks to modern science that the sun, stars, and NOT the moon are constantly emitting light, and the sun is not a lightswitch, but rather a celestial object that disapears from our perspective due to our rotation. It also mentions the stars at night, as if they magically turn on like the moon when it gets dark, when all the time the stars are simply unseeable due to the light of the sun.
Another!
when describing the earth in space
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
The earth does not "hang" rather it is moving at tremendous speeds with many graviational forces acting by it and on it.
Another!
- Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
Incorrect
Another!
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The earth is an imperfect sphere.
3. The prophises we've already talked about, many are stretched, and many are simply easy guesses. In the case of the return of Israel, is that so much a prophesy or much like me ordering something from a waiter? In that analogy I would be God, the waiter would be the jews who tried for hundreds of years to establish Israel once more and eventually succeeded.
Here's a list of failed prophesys Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
You are good at twisting things to suit your imagination. As to your list of "failed prophecies," they are also twisted to appear to have failed. I will address just one of them:
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty."
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery."
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again.
Fulfilled Prophecy of the City Tyre - Bible Truth Vs. Church Doctrine
Fulfilled Prophecy: City Of Tyre
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty."
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery."
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again.
Fulfilled Prophecy of the City Tyre - Bible Truth Vs. Church Doctrine
Here is more on this subject:
Response ArticleThis article (Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Claim CH110:
The Bible contains many prophecies which have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.Source:
CreationWiki response:
First, the Bible has a number of remarkable prophecies. [1]
Second, it needs be noted that there has been much recent fulfillment of Biblical prophecies particularly about Israel.
Reference: 100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled.
It is also possible for someone to rationalize away real fulfillment of even the clearest of prophecies.
a. Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
Without any evidence that this is the case, such a claim is nothing but a rationalization.
b. Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
However, Biblical prophecy lacks this vagueness.
c. Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it hasn't, just say that, according to prophecy, it will.
This is true only if no details are given about the collapse of the city. It is one thing to foretell that a city will fall, it is another thing to foretell how and when. The Bible often accurately predicts one or both.
d. Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they haven't. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
This naturally provides an excuse for dismissing any rebuttal to any claim that may be made of unfulfilled prophecy.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Without giving examples this is a baseless claim. Besides it can be shown to be false. Talk.Origins states above that there are no Biblical prophecies that cannot fit easily into at least one of their four categories. That means all that is needed prove them wrong is to show that at least one does not fit.
An extremely obvious example where this is false is Daniel 9:25-27, which prophesied centuries earlier the exact year that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born. The Scofield Reference Bible has made note of this for nearly a century.[2] The prophecy declared 7 weeks of years, 483 years (the Jewish year was 360 days, so 476.3836 years) from the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall was when the Messiah would come. And the date of the wall's rebuilding was given according to the Persian calendar in Nehemiah 2 as "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the King" which archaeology has verified to be 444/445 B.C.[3] Therefore, the Messiah was to come 31 A.D. What makes the prophecy especially difficult for critics to deny is that thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have copies of the Book of Daniel older than the prophecy's fulfillment, dating to 100-200 B.C., so we know the prophecy existed before it was fulfilled in the coming of Christ.
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27 (KJV)
It also turns out that there is a clear Biblical prophecy, being currently fulfilled and that Talk.Origins itself is helping to fulfill! Not that they intend to, but that does not change the fact that they are helping to fulfill it.
II Peter 3:3-6 not only predicts that one day men will scoff at the Bible, but it also predicts their basic reasoning.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]II Peter 3
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The key phrase is "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is a perfectly good first-century Greek description of uniformitarianism. So II Peter 3:3-6 is predicting uniformitarianism. Furthermore, verse 5 says that because of this concept men will be willingly ignorant of both creation and the Flood. The Greek word "λανΘανει" which is translated as ignorant in verse 5 literally means: "to escape the knowledge or observation of a person." This makes it clear that this is a reference to uniformitarianism. Because of uniformitarianism both creation and the Flood escape the knowledge and observation of many people including those at Talk.Origins.
So does II Peter 3:3-6 fall into any of Talk.Origins' four categories.
So here is a Biblical prophecy that does not fit any of Talk.Origins four categories. Therefore their claim that there are no Biblical prophecies that cannot fit into at least one of their four categories is proven false.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]2. In Biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things didn't change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; [,Jonah 3] gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people didn't heed the warning.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In such cases in the Bible there is a clear warning given. In the case of Jonah, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them, so this was clearly a conditional prophecy. There are also examples of Biblical prophecies which came true because they were unheeded. The death of Ahab is a good example. In 1 Kings 22:14-17 the prophet Micaiah predicts Ahab's death if he went into a particular battle. Ahab went into the battle and was killed as described in 1 Kings 34-37.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]3. The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not.For example:
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Josh. 3:10 does not say that all of the people of these tribes would be driven out. These tribes were defeated and nearly all of the people were killed, or driven out of the land, but because of Israel's incomplete obedience God did not remove all of the people of these tribes for a time. For the most part God did drive out these tribes during Joshua's lifetime and even more after his death. Furthermore, God did eventually remove even those that were left after the conquest.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In no place in Isaiah 17:1-3 does it say that Damascus would be deserted forever. It says that it would be destroyed, but says nothing about it eventually being rebuilt. The Damascus of that time was destroyed and uninhabited for a time but like many ancient cities it was rebuilt.
Reference: Is this a false prophecy?
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Actually, this claim is based on an error in Egyptian chronology. When the error is corrected for there is evidence of both events. So these prophecies were fulfilled. It needs to be noted that the Hebrew does not necessarily mean that Egypt would be totally uninhabited. It does however indicate that exile and devastation would last 40 years.
Reference: Displaced Dynasties
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
A detailed comparison of such prophecies to those in the Bible would be required for a proper analysis, but these cases do not rise to the standard in the Bible in terms of clarity, specifics, and number.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]5. Divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God [Deut. 13:1-3], as may other miracles [Ex. 7:22,Matt. 4:8].[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
While this is true, all it shows is that by itself fulfillment of Biblical prophecies is not proof that it is from God; it is but one data point out of many that shows the Bibles has a Divine source.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith [John 20:29].[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That is not what John 20:29 is saying. Jesus is simply saying that there is a greater blessing for those who believe without proof. There is nothing wrong with supporting faith with evidence.
Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible
(Talk.Origins)
(Talk.Origins)
Response ArticleThis article (Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Claim CH110:
The Bible contains many prophecies which have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.Source:
- Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 216-223.
CreationWiki response:
First, the Bible has a number of remarkable prophecies. [1]
Second, it needs be noted that there has been much recent fulfillment of Biblical prophecies particularly about Israel.
- The reestablishing of the Nation of Israel in 1948. Name one other nation removed from their land for nearly 2000 years who retain their national identity, and were restored to that same land.
- The retaking of Jerusalem in 1967.
- Many others fulfilled in detail. These were not vague prophecies, or inevitable events, nor has there been any rewriting of these prophecies since 1967.
Reference: 100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled.
a. Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
b. Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
c. Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it hasn't, just say that, according to prophecy, it will.
d. Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they haven't. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Without giving examples this is a baseless claim. Besides it can be shown to be false. Talk.Origins states above that there are no Biblical prophecies that cannot fit easily into at least one of their four categories. That means all that is needed prove them wrong is to show that at least one does not fit.
An extremely obvious example where this is false is Daniel 9:25-27, which prophesied centuries earlier the exact year that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born. The Scofield Reference Bible has made note of this for nearly a century.[2] The prophecy declared 7 weeks of years, 483 years (the Jewish year was 360 days, so 476.3836 years) from the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall was when the Messiah would come. And the date of the wall's rebuilding was given according to the Persian calendar in Nehemiah 2 as "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the King" which archaeology has verified to be 444/445 B.C.[3] Therefore, the Messiah was to come 31 A.D. What makes the prophecy especially difficult for critics to deny is that thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have copies of the Book of Daniel older than the prophecy's fulfillment, dating to 100-200 B.C., so we know the prophecy existed before it was fulfilled in the coming of Christ.
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27 (KJV)
II Peter 3:3-6 not only predicts that one day men will scoff at the Bible, but it also predicts their basic reasoning.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]II Peter 3
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
- (KJV)
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The key phrase is "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is a perfectly good first-century Greek description of uniformitarianism. So II Peter 3:3-6 is predicting uniformitarianism. Furthermore, verse 5 says that because of this concept men will be willingly ignorant of both creation and the Flood. The Greek word "λανΘανει" which is translated as ignorant in verse 5 literally means: "to escape the knowledge or observation of a person." This makes it clear that this is a reference to uniformitarianism. Because of uniformitarianism both creation and the Flood escape the knowledge and observation of many people including those at Talk.Origins.
So does II Peter 3:3-6 fall into any of Talk.Origins' four categories.
- Retrodiction. This prophecy was written by the apostle Peter in the first century A.D. and the cited English translation is from the King James Version, which was translated in 1611, more than 100 years before the invention of uniformitarianism.
- Vagueness. There is nothing vague about this prophecy, as it gives a clear statement of the uniformitarian philosophy, and states that because of it, both creation and the Flood escape the knowledge and observation of people.
- Inevitability. There is nothing inevitable about this prophecy. Predicting that men would one day scoff at the Bible and would not believe in creation and the Flood, by itself might be considered inevitable, but predicting uniformitarianism as the reason can not be considered inevitable.
- Denial. The ones in denial about this prophecy are those that do not want to believe that they are actually fulfilling Biblical prophecy. There is no doubt about its fulfillment, since it did not happen in the distant past, but is currently being fulfilled.
So here is a Biblical prophecy that does not fit any of Talk.Origins four categories. Therefore their claim that there are no Biblical prophecies that cannot fit into at least one of their four categories is proven false.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]2. In Biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things didn't change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; [,Jonah 3] gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people didn't heed the warning.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In such cases in the Bible there is a clear warning given. In the case of Jonah, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them, so this was clearly a conditional prophecy. There are also examples of Biblical prophecies which came true because they were unheeded. The death of Ahab is a good example. In 1 Kings 22:14-17 the prophet Micaiah predicts Ahab's death if he went into a particular battle. Ahab went into the battle and was killed as described in 1 Kings 34-37.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]3. The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not.For example:
- Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others [Josh. 3:9-10]. But those tribes were not driven out [Josh. 15:63,17:12-13].
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Josh. 3:10 does not say that all of the people of these tribes would be driven out. These tribes were defeated and nearly all of the people were killed, or driven out of the land, but because of Israel's incomplete obedience God did not remove all of the people of these tribes for a time. For the most part God did drive out these tribes during Joshua's lifetime and even more after his death. Furthermore, God did eventually remove even those that were left after the conquest.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
- Isaiah 17:1-3 says Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In no place in Isaiah 17:1-3 does it say that Damascus would be deserted forever. It says that it would be destroyed, but says nothing about it eventually being rebuilt. The Damascus of that time was destroyed and uninhabited for a time but like many ancient cities it was rebuilt.
Reference: Is this a false prophecy?
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
- Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years 29:10-14, and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it 29:19-20. Neither happened.
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Actually, this claim is based on an error in Egyptian chronology. When the error is corrected for there is evidence of both events. So these prophecies were fulfilled. It needs to be noted that the Hebrew does not necessarily mean that Egypt would be totally uninhabited. It does however indicate that exile and devastation would last 40 years.
Reference: Displaced Dynasties
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
A detailed comparison of such prophecies to those in the Bible would be required for a proper analysis, but these cases do not rise to the standard in the Bible in terms of clarity, specifics, and number.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]5. Divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God [Deut. 13:1-3], as may other miracles [Ex. 7:22,Matt. 4:8].[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
While this is true, all it shows is that by itself fulfillment of Biblical prophecies is not proof that it is from God; it is but one data point out of many that shows the Bibles has a Divine source.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith [John 20:29].[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That is not what John 20:29 is saying. Jesus is simply saying that there is a greater blessing for those who believe without proof. There is nothing wrong with supporting faith with evidence.
Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Last edited:
M
I find it funny how this topic is supposed to be about science and evolution, and when the atheist is losing on that front, they have to randomly interject assertions about off topic things like Bible prophecy. It seems their intellectual dishonesty won't let them stay on topic as their desire to spew cheap shots and lies about the Bible takes over.
G
Have you read anything that I have said? Did he respond when I noted that many of his scientific definitions, such as a mimicry, are wrong? Did he respond when I pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the scientific claims he made and reality? Hes not thinking! When he is challenged on a point he throws it out the window and sticks another one from the same source on here. There is no free thought here. Whether or not you have faith in a thing greater than yourself should not put blinders on what you can learn or see as true.
