Yes, pretty interesting stuff. I’m no expert on this particular painting, but from what I have studied of medieval art, it was probably a way to indicate the characters that were loyal to Jesus’ message and the ones that were not. The ones that were not were more interested in worldly affairs–a very common dichotomy/ motif in the Christian narrative. So more symbolic/ metaphorical, rather than realistic.

That’s just an excuse. Given certain basic and fundamental axioms or assumptions, there are things that are clearly true and clearly not true.

“But let me say this : Do you dare to risk your soul, just because you did not want to believe?”

You’re assuming that such a thing as a soul exists. Prove it. Moreover, unsurprisingly, you seem to think that I “don’t want to believe,” or that I am “afraid of God’s judgment,” etc.

What creationists and fundamentalists such as yourself fail to realize is that I am not “afraid of God.” I know that is what is said in the Bible–that people “choose” not to believe in God because they don’t want to be judged, because they are too “proud,” etc–but that does not mean it is true. (BTW, you still have failed to demonstrate why anyone should believe in the Bible.)

What you need to understand is that I truly, deeply, am not convinced of the truth of the existence of God. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting God, or wanting or not wanting anything. It is a matter of logic and truth. In this blog post, and many others, I have demonstrated that God fails the logic test many times over.

Also, how can I be “afraid” of something that has not been proven to exist?

“Are you 100% sure that there is no God?”

No. That’s why I wrote in the VERY ARTICLE THAT YOU ARE COMMENTING ON:

“Now, after all this, I am still willing to say that there might be a divine.”

If you would actually read my article before writing a comment on it, maybe you would see that.

The point is not to disprove the existence of God. The point is that God cannot be proven through logic, and that the idea of God, as defined, violates logic on a number of levels.

“A christian has nothing to lose by being christian.”

Good old Pascal’s Wager. Of course they have something to lose! What if Islam is the true religion? What if Hinduism is the true religion? What if Zoroastrianism is the true religion? Then the Christian most definitely “loses” by being Christian.

“The christian doctrines tells you to live a life full of love, truth and righteousness.”

All defined according to Christian terms. So you need to accept Christianity in order to accept these things. This is called circular reasoning. Human-based, real world morality leads to much better outcomes of love, peace, happiness, wisdom and truth than anything any Christian or any religion could come up with.

“And by believing, he/she has ensured that his soul might be saved, if there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.”

Correction: you are betting that the Christian God exists. Which is just one conception of God out of thousands that have ever been developed. One chance in thousands. Still like those odds?

You are also still assuming that the “soul” exists. Why?

“Save yourself.”

I recommend two things: (1) do some research on Pascal’s Wager, because I think you will be intrigued, (2) come down off your high horse and realize that you might be wrong.

Listen to the arguments of people with different perspectives. Really listen. Think about it. Read my articles (in this series and others). Don’t try to understand these ideas in light of the Bible. Try to read and understand them on their own merit. Think about the logic yourself. Just try it.

There’s nothing to be afraid of. If God really exists, surely he can withstand a good intellectual challenge, right?

Lets say it like this:
A christian has nothing to lose by being christian. The christian doctrines tells you to live a life full of love, truth and righteousness. And by believing, he/she has ensured that his soul might be saved, if there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.
An atheist puts his/her own life at risk. In the process of denying God, he/she might lose his soul, with 50/50 chance.
I dont know about you, but I think I’d rather be on the safe side, not just to save my own soul, but so that I might have the chance to save other people to Jesus.

Dont wait up, turn to Jesus, ask for His forgiveness. For you might die tomorrow, in a week, a month, a year. You never know when it is your time. Save yourself.

Funny you should say that. Because although this is your post, I doubt these are “your” words. Suspicious of this extremely lengthy comment, especially on the heels of another extremely lengthy comment, I began to wonder if you were (like another creationist I once interacted with on the blogosphere) taking liberties with the copy-and-paste operation.

So I did a google search of an excerpt of your comment, and happened upon this webpage:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm

Isn’t that interesting! The reader will notice that Josef’s comment is ALMOST ENTIRELY LIFTED from this webpage!

Not sure if this was his actual source for this text, but if you do a google search for any extended excerpt of this text, you will see essentially the SAME essay is reproduced perfectly on dozens of webpages and blogs, by different “authors” and commenters. It really is uncanny.

Curious, I did the same thing with Josef’s previous lengthy comment. Aha! The same thing! Yet again, almost the entire essay is reproduced on many pages on the internet.

So how far does this deception go among internet creationists? Doesn’t really matter, does it? The fact is that many creationists on the web are really bereft of original ideas, and willing to knowingly violate proper argumentative etiquette to make some “point.” Not very “Christian” behavior, if you ask me.

They depend on their authorities to spoon feed them arguments and clever rhetoric, which they think is sufficient to “zing” those of us who accept evolution, as Josef seems to think here.

Pretty pathetic.

In a way, I am glad that Josef has graced me with these comments, as now perhaps my blog will benefit in the search engines!

Anyway, needless to say, Josef, you have not addressed my points or arguments, but rather have completely ignored what I said, and tried to monopolize this page in a very disrespectful and deceitful manner.

To not even bother to address my arguments indicates two things, (1) you are not prepared to discuss these ideas, and (2) you have no argument.

I already indicated that you need to research and learn more about evolution, as you seem to think it deals with much more than it actually does. This is typical of creationists. And they wonder why they keep losing in the courts (here in the US).

But I frankly doubt how honestly you want to evaluate these ideas, or if you are solely interested in dogma in the face of contrary scientific evidence.

This is not to say that many of the points raised are illegitimate. Creationists do raise many important questions about evolution. But, in spite of themselves, they end up strengthening the theory of evolution, because their real intentions (of irrationally defending their ancient beliefs in the face of modern rational evidence) became clear long ago. With every major objection that creationists have raised solved or otherwise dispelled by scientific advances over the years, creationists have reliably moved the goal post time and time again.

In any case, I have little obligation to address these issues, as I have already addressed some of them above, and far more significant scientific minds than me have effectively confronted most of these challenges. Creationist case closed.

And oh yeah, what happened to the subject of this blog post?? Another common tactic of creationists and fundamentalists is to just respond to every single argument made by the non-religious by complaining about evolution, regardless of what the actual subject is. Not very honest, to say the least. Could it be they really have no effective argument?

“My point is merely that perhaps what they are presenting IS true evidence which we are merely dismissing…”

Technically, of course, you may be right. It is possible that somehow, we’ve all been wrong all this time. No question. Anything is possible. Not likely, though. (And the same could be said for God, angels, etc)

On #1, you admit yourself that the kinds of experiences in question cannot be replicated–that is precisely the point. If it can’t be replicated in some way, it is useless.

On #2, that’s why we have science and the scientific method–it works with or without popular support. Here in the US, for example, in a number of states I can guarantee you that if we put evolution to a popular vote, it would lose spectacularly. And yet the theory of evolution is gaining stronger in academic and scientific circles daily.

“…we convict criminals on video evidence yet when examining the “Ghost Hunter’s” video evidence 99.9% of us immediately go “it cannot be” or “there must be some other explanation”…”

Largely because of what I said earlier: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There’s nothing extraordinary (or unexpected) about a guy in a hood sticking up a bank.

“You stated “I (Justin) need evidence”, I’m saying “There is evidence, it just depends what you decide to make of it…””

And what you make of it should be determined by a rational process such as the scientific method. For example, I could present you with evidence that the law of conservation of matter is false by performing a magic trick. The magic trick counts as “evidence” by a certain definition of that word, but it is clearly invalid evidence once we apply a rational or logical methodology to interpreting and testing the evidence.

“Does God exist as part / extension of someone / something (some higher power) else’s reality? In truth, I don’t know and neither do you…”

Ok, so far so good.

“I have no reason or evidence to believe that to be true, so I believe what the Bible says and that is that God is the “be-all-and-end-all” of existence as I know it…”

Whoa! Where did that come from?! What is the basis for believing what the Bible says? There are tons of other holy books that make similar claims. Why do you give such preference to the Bible, of all things?

“We can theorise, hypothesise, use parodoxical logic etc etc to try to prove one way or the other, but I believe that’s where our tiny brains fail…”

And yet you accept what tiny human brains have said about the Bible?

“I think it’s fair to accept that there are some things that are simply beyond our comprehension…”

I agree with that. But you have to remember something very important: thousands of years ago, nobody could understand the sun, the moon, the stars, the weather, how babies formed, where the mountains came from, why plants are green, etc. As far as people back then were concerned, all of these things were “simply beyond our comprehension.”

I agree that some things are beyond our comprehension categorically, but those things, in reality, are very few in number, at the end of the day. If you are really interested in understanding and expanding human knowledge, you should throw your support behind science and the scientific method, empirical evidence and rational skepticism, as they expand not just what humans know, but what humans are capable of knowing.

1. MOON DUST

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.

2. MAGNETIC FIELD

The earth’s magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth’s magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth’s core are responsible for the earth’s magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

3. FOSSIL RECORD

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one “connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let’s take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching’s book, The Neck of the Giraffe – Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching’s book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile’s.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx’s feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today’s flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird’s.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, “It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived.”

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

“…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?”

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.

4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION

Darwin said that embryological evidence was “second to none in importance.” The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.

The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed “gill slits” (left over from fish), “yolk sac” (left over from the reptile stage), and “tail” (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

The yolk sac does not store food because the mother’s body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the “yolk sac” is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.

The “tail” is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.

Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.

5. PROBABILITY

This fact I have already showed you, but I will bring it up again.

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

“applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years.” (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) “To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!”

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.

6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.

7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the “Bible Science Newsletter,” August 1989, p. 16.

1. Just because we don’t yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

2. This view is plain false. In the 1800′s, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these “vestigial” organs, but we still have them.

7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not “old ones” dying out.

9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.

8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah’s flood.

Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner’s hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA

Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.

Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.

10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.

But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.

Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences

Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%

Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences

Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%

Dr. Denton states, “There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish.” The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

11. DATING METHODS

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.

In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

12. DINOSAURS

Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

“But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that’s impossible!” Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or “Brontosaurus.”) Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

13. SUN’S DIAMETER

The sun’s diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago. It would have reached as far as to the earths surface, ergo the earth would have been destroyed.

14. NILE RIVER’S OVERFLOW

Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile’s flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

15. EARTH’S ROTATION

The spin rate of the earth is slowing 0.00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

16. WRITTEN RECORD

The 22nd edition of Robert Young’s concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

17. THE BIBLE

Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as big a sceptic as the next when it comes to ghost sightings etc. and my explanation is going to sound like the rant of some partially sane person (pc)…

My point is merely that perhaps what they are presenting IS true evidence which we are merely dismissing…

We dismiss it for two primary reasons:

1. The results, unlike what we experience elsewhere in the scientific community, cannot be reliably replicated. (Ghosts seem notoriously difficult to pin-down…)

2. It doesn’t fit with popular thinking. As has been proven over time, people tend to follow a “sheep” mentality…

Either way, in their reality Ghosts exist and in mine they don’t / can’t (for very different reasons to what you may think).

I mean, we convict criminals on video evidence yet when examining the “Ghost Hunter’s” video evidence 99.9% of us immediately go “it cannot be” or “there must be some other explanation”…

So in short:

You stated “I (Justin) need evidence”, I’m saying “There is evidence, it just depends what you decide to make of it…”

In terms of “reality” I have to assume the following:

1. That what we are experiencing is indeed real
2. That for both our reality and God to exist, our reality would have to either exist seperately from God’s or as an extension / “sub-set”.

Does God exist as part / extension of someone / something (some higher power) else’s reality? In truth, I don’t know and neither do you…

I have no reason or evidence to believe that to be true, so I believe what the Bible says and that is that God is the “be-all-and-end-all” of existence as I know it…

We can theorise, hypothesise, use parodoxical logic etc etc to try to prove one way or the other, but I believe that’s where our tiny brains fail…

No matter how you look at it, be it creationist, evolutionist, whatever we always end up in the same place. “What came first?”, “What created what?”, “What caused the big bang?”, “What was the catalyst in all this?”, “If energy can’t by created or destroyed where did it originate?”…

I think it’s fair to accept that there are some things that are simply beyond our comprehension…

“Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.”

No one who understands evolution thinks it has anything to do with the universe. The fact that you seem to believe this, indicates you unfortunately are not very well versed in the theory of evolution. It also means I have little reason to respond to many of your questions. Once you learn more about it, then you can call me.

Most of your questions about evolution have simple answers. Some of them are not answered yet by evolution, but progress is being made all the time. If you were to study the theory of evolution, you would know that significant progress has been made just in the last 10 years, for example.

Here’s a question that has a clear answer:

“How did thought evolve?

Thinking developed as the brain became more complex. The brains of mammals became more complex over hundreds of thousands of years as more complex brains could survive better in the wild–by recognizing patterns, better predicting predators and prey, developing more reliable methods of mating, learning things about the environment, and being better able to avoid poisonous or dangerous food, for example. Humans evolved thought because it gave us an advantage over simpler, non-thinking creatures. We would be able to recognize patterns better, predict animals’ behavior better, develop strategies for mating and hunting and preparing food better than other animals, etc.

Here’s a question that doesn’t have a clear answer yet:

“With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?”

There are no cells that are capable of sexual reproduction. I think you are referring to multicellular organisms. There is not a clear answer yet, but I think one possibility would be that the very first organisms in question were capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction.

And here’s a question that makes no sense at all:

“What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?”

Umm, not much. No one believes that. I’m not sure where you heard that from. But wherever you are getting your scientific information, it is not a very reliable source.

I would love to keep answering all of your questions, but I have many things to do, including work. I recommend that you learn more about the theory of evolution from reputable scientific sources because the answers you are looking for are out there.

And again, some questions are not yet answered by the theory of evolution. But the same could be said of EVERY SINGLE other scientific theory. So if you are going to reject evolution on that basis, then you must reject almost all of science as well.

And yet the very first passages of the Bible say that the sun, moon and earth were created in the span of 6 days. In reality, it took billions of years. Not very scientific. The Bible fails the test of science. Even though it might get lucky a few times, just like many other ancient religious books.

“And He cannot enter into a mans heart without allowance.”

So then God is not all-powerful? If He is not all-powerful, why call him God?

“Did you ever consider that this “larger reality” could be God?”

Could be. Then again, it might not be. Nobody knows. Anybody who says they do know, is wrong. The difference between agnostics and religious people: neither one knows, but agnostics admit they don’t know, while the religious don’t admit it.

“Besides, how can you denie God, but still say that there is a Larger reality?”

I don’t deny God. And I don’t say there is a larger reality. But there might be. Until we have reason to believe one thing or the other, we have no reason to believe either one.

“And if there is no such thing as God, and you say that the term sin does not exist, then why does man still do this?”

The term “sin” is just your way of describing human behavior. It’s the same behavior, no matter what you call it. You’re just using a different word to describe it in religious terms. The behavior is still there, whether religion is true or not. Pretty simple.

“Evolution cant, no matter what people say, account to mans sinful bbehaviour! Where did it come from? Why is it there? If it does not provide better survivability, then why does it stay there?”

Yes it can account for it! It depends what you are referring to. For example, if you are talking about murder, first of all, almost no one murders, because humans have evolved a certain ethical sense against killing the innocent. Secondly, as I already said, it is very easy to see how hostility to outsiders can have an evolutionary advantage: if people are willing to kill outsiders and protect their family and tribe, their family/ tribe is more likely to survive, overcome threats from outsiders, and reproduce, than otherwise. Pretty simple.

“Evolution and the “orign of life” joins hand in hand, becuse it explains how the first cells came to be and evolve over time.”

Evolution deals with how life developed once it was formed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the initial formation of life. It’s like how to manufacture a car, versus how the car is repaired and changed once it has been manufactured. Two completely different things.

“Of course there is a difference with the container and what is contained!”

Ah, interesting! So then what makes you think that the container follows the same laws as the contained?