Dinosaurs and adam and eve...
Out of context: Reply #42
- Started
- Last post
- 133 Responses
- discipler0
Tick, you might have a point if that were even remotely the case. No matter how good your methodology is, you will draw the wrong conclusions if your foundation is wrong.
Why not compare the foundational beliefs between the Bible and Evolution:
How did time begin?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: ‘Nothing’ created from nothing.‘Nothing’ violates the principle of causality that all science is derived. It says that all things that have a beginning have a cause. ‘Nothing’ violates this law where God doesn’t. The Bible has a better foundation.
Where did matter come from?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: Nothing created a singularity from nothing and it expanded.Once again ‘nothing’ violates the principle of causality. This is violation of scientific law whereas God wouldn’t be.
What is the age of the universe?
Bible: From earth standard time approximately 6 thousand years.
Evolution: 8-24 billion years depending on the latest Hubble constant and distant starlight travel.The Bible uses an eyewitness account of the only One who was present during Creation who stated in the Bible [E.g., Isa. 40:22, Ps. 104:2, etc.] that the rate of expansion of the universe has not been constant (Hubble constant has changed).
The evolutionists use guesses based on distant starlight passing though the universe as constant time and assume the universe expands at a constant rate (Hubble constant). We know the scientific measuring of the Hubble constant has had major problems. Also, we know from Einstein that time is not constant throughout the universe. It changes via gravitational and velocity time dilation. Evolutionists have a horribly unscientific approach.
How do you explain the fossil record?
Bible: The Flood of Noah caused geologic layers of sediment rapidly and caused the formation of many fossils about 4500 years ago.
Evolution: The fossils were formed by slow gradual processes over millions of years. Layers often represent millions of years.
We know that fossils only form from a rapid burial and this process is easily testable and has been verified. Any slow, gradual process ever tested has resulted in the decay of a life form instead of its fossilization. Anyone who has ever been to a flood area can see layers of sediment. The layers are better explained by the rapid flood as opposed to millions of years. The deeper layers simply settled from the flood water earlier.
According to evolution there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that easily show the change from one kind of life form to another. What we have found is the opposite. Many fossilized life forms are very close to the same as the modern kinds. There are only a few ‘highly questionable’ transitions that evolutionists themselves disagree about their transitional status. Every alleged human ancestor has been debunked as either fraud or a non-transition.
What about dating methods?
Bible: Dating is best done by written account of eyewitnesses as recorded in the Bible.
Evolution: Dating should be done by uniformitarian methods (only some of them).Uniformitarian methods make the assumption that the rate we measure now has always been the same. It also makes the assumption that that weathering effects did not affect the sample. It also makes the assumption that the initial conditions are known.
Problems with this is that we know from experimentation the rate does change due to weathering. We also know that no one knows the initial amount. We also know that many uniformitarian dating methods yield a young earth (Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Russell Humphreys). The few methods used for long ages (radiometric) have been proven to be wrong over and over again. Why, scientifically, would anyone keep using them?
Is it easier to get the age of book in a library by looking when it says it was printed or taking a sample from the book and subjecting it to uniformitarian dating? An eyewitness account of the Bible is still the best, and most scientific method for arriving at an age.
Do the observations in living things fit according to evolution or the Bible?
Bible: Living things are under a curse and thus should not get better over time. They should be subjected to natural selection that causes a filtering of traits (loss of information) and mutations that cause defective traits in the DNA (loss of information and possibly in an extremely rare instant maybe an increase of information).
Evolution: There should be millions of mutations that cause new previously non-existent traits to build up on the DNA strand and those traits should be naturally selected as dominant. Thus all life forms will be on their way to the next level of evolved life with better, new information.
We observe that life forms can naturally select and filter out traits (dogs that go to colder climates will eventually have only longer hair to keep warm because the ones with shorter hair will die off and the genes—alleles—for that short hair will be lost or filtered out). Mutations occur and have always been a loss of information in the genome. There has never been a single instance where a DNA strand has ever been built up with new, previously non-existent information by mutations or other means, ever. Without this, evolution cannot happen.
The video Frog to a Prince shows the world’s leading atheistic evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, unable to provide even one example of an increase in information. In a follow-up article in an Australian magazine, he failed to produce any either—there are none.
What about dinosaurs?
Bible: Dinosaurs are in the Bible.
Evolution: Dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago.How can dinosaurs be in the Bible if they died out 65 million years ago and weren’t rediscovered until the 1800’s? Simple, men saw them and wrote about them. This means that they lived at the same time as the Bible says. There are hundreds of evidences that show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world. Simply put, the biological world does not observe what Darwin taught.