My discussion with Mike Roth
Mike Roth has compiled a list of arguments in favour of creationism and critizising evolution.
Black: The original document
Red: My comments
Blue: Mike's respond
(Where my comments has no respons, this might be because Mike hasn't finished he's respond)
I promised Mike not to comment on his respons. Otherwise I would have to admit him to make a counter-respons, and it would have no end!
A few of his comments though, are as questions. They are answered here. Mike has refrained from responding.
If you want to read the original document. Click here.
of the claims is supported by evidence, or even examples. There are very few references.
Overall, that means that the whole thing can be turned down as useless.
Never the less, I will take the time to comment.
text relies on a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.
A theory is the result of a process starting with observation of facts,
continuing by suggestions of hypothesis that can explain these facts, combining
hypothesis in various related fields, ending up with a unifying description
that enables predictions - a theory.
In general, theories cannot be proven, even if they are correct, only disproven
if they are wrong.
Ideally, a scientific theory should be stated in such a way that you can make
predictions that, if shown to be met, disproves the theory (Karl Popper’s Falsification
The first thing I have to request is, please don’t
make this a personal attack. This was merely a bullet-point list of statements
from the authors of books I read and happen to agree with for the most part. I
wrote it up in preparation for a trip to the Galapagos Islands a few months
ago. I did have a chance to share it with one of our guides who was steeped in
evolution, of course, but was very interested. I have not heard from him thus
As far as references, they should be in the
following books (you’ll have to read them): The Biotic Message (a brilliant
apologetic/logic book), Stones & Bones, Evolution - The Fossils Still Say
No, Refuting Evolution, The Great Dinosaur Mystery SOLVED!
Evolution is a Theory, NOT a Scientific Fact
And a scientific
theory is the finest label you can place on something. A theory only deserves
its name if it explains numerous facts, and have survived repeated attempts to
I have to disagree. First, a theory
is merely a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: such as - the theory of
evolution. It is speculation, presupposition, and unprovable. To the contrary,
we have a written and documented history of creation, complete with
eyewitnesses and historians who can corroborate much of these written
Second, finest label? Here’s a
small example of fine labels/theories that were eventually completely proven
false: Spontaneous Generation, an Expanding Earth, Einstein’s Static Universe,
The Martian Canals and of course, a Flat Earth! Soon to be: evolution!
* Evolution is a theory universally
accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence, but
because the only alternative, special creation, is ignored and rejected.
accepted because based on it you can make predictions that can be shown to be
met by observation. That is what science is all about!
What observation? Can you give examples? Evolution cannot be observed.
* Generations of students
continue to be indoctrinated in outdated evolutionary theories, not even
understanding that such teachings are continually modified and discarded in the
* Evolution is a
philosophy, NOT a science as claimed. It is unproven and unprovable. It has no
written record or eyewitnesses.
Written record or
eyewitnesses are completely irrelevant, when it comes to scientific theories.
It all comes down to predictions and observations.
The closets you can hope to
get to ‘prove’ a theory, is that based on it you can make predictions that can be met by observations.
You can easily come up with
an endless number of theoretically possible observations that would disprove
evolution. (Mike’s underlining)
scientific point of view, that kind of thinking makes no sense. You’re
comparing theories and predictions to observable fact and history which would
either strengthen or disprove a theory. In that case, I would argue that it is
* In contrast, the biblical
view of history is from the written record of eyewitnesses to all events of
history. Secular authors from Christ’s time, such as Josephus corroborate
* Evolution isn’t even a
good scientific theory - it violates numerous scientific laws.
* To qualify as real
scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties,
which can be repeatedly observed in the present, not just chance. This is
impossible with evolution.
To the extent
that evolution makes predictions that can be tested in real time, it has been
E.g. the ‘nested hierarchy’ that is a groups within groups pattern of
biological species, is an unavoidable result of evolution. Not an unavoidable
result, merely a diversification of creatures that share common traits that
already were in their genetic makeup.
Sharing similar traits does not in any way shape
or form prove evolutionary theory. Remember, as modern evolution claims; we
evolved from apes that evolved from lower life forms, that evolved from cells,
that evolved from chemicals, that came from”¦.where again? If we evolved from
apes, why do we still have apes that have absolutely no physical appearance to
man. Where are the transitional in-betweens now living (Big Foot excluded)?
Specialization is different from evolution. The
gene information was already present, not created or evolved from information
that was not present.
* Increasing numbers of
biological scientists and evolutionists have rejected evolution and have become
‘Increasing’ - in your dreams. And even if it was true
it would be irrelevant - as you claim yourself at the end of the document “Truth
is not decided by majority vote”.
Let’s not get insulting ok? You’re talking to a
human being now. According to a poll taken in 2004 (don’t have anything more
current as yet), the majority of Americans do not accept the theory of
evolution. 51% say God created humans in their present form, another 3 in 10
say that God guided the process. Only 15% say humans evolved without God
leading the way (CBS news October 22, 2005).
From an outside perspective, it is no
surprise that evolution has such mass-appeal in the scientific community,
not because it’s true, but because it has established a ritualistic
brainwashing of young aspiring scientists from day-one.
There are thousands of modern scientists who
have rejected evolution. Many of them are now Christians. Here is a partial
list of them.
* Many scientists accept
the theory of evolution because they are unbelievers; and desire to accept a
materialistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of all things rather
than divine creation.
You don’t know peoples motives. (Mike’s underlining)
Not absolutely, it’s just a “theory” I have to
agree with”¦and I did say many, not all. I believe if polled, the above
statement would be shown mostly or completely correct. Remember, these are
bullet-points that I happened to agree with and summarized for this list. They
are not my statements. YOU might want to stop using the word YOU in our
discussion. It’s an ad hominin attack of sorts and not a logical way to debate.
* Creationists have engaged
evolutionists in debates throughout the USA and many other countries in
hundreds, if not thousands, of debates. Evolutionists have admitted that the
creationists have won nearly all of them.
evolutionists are you talking
about? You must have at least
dozens of examples to substantiate such a bold claim. (Mike’s underlining)
Mike gave this link as documentation
* Creationists often appeal
to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal
to philosophical assumptions from outside of science.
philosophical assumptions? Creationists often simply refuse to answer difficult
Here is a few I have asked on every given occasion:
Why is there a nested hierarchy of life?
Why is there a mitochondrial genome, and why does different groups of organisms
have different genetic codes in their mitochondrial genomes.
Why are faunas of increasing age (according to conventional science)
increasingly strange? In the Ediacaran fauna where only one or two
phylae can be recognized, and most animals apparently belong to extinct phylae?
Will you be the first to answer this - I doubt?
Well since I’m a chiropractor and not a biologic
scientist, you’re right, I won’t be the first to answer, but I’m fairly certain
* Evolutionists are often
not consistent with their own rules against an intelligent designer. For
example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they know it was designed, even
though they haven’t seen the designer. And, the whole basis of the SETI program
is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an
intelligent source. Yet their bias causes them to reject an intelligent source
for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.
The arrowhead and the SETI is referring to intelligent beings that are part of
Creationists are referring to an intelligent being that is outside nature.
nature? God created nature. He IS nature!
* Stephen Jay Gould and
others have shown that Darwin’s purpose was to destroy the idea of a divine
designer. Richard Dawkins applauds evolution because he claims that before
Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, as he says
So what! Such ad
hominem arguments says nothing about evolution as a scientific theory.
No need to get nasty my man.
* The origin of life, what
actually did happen, can only be decided, scientifically, by an examination of
the historical fossil record.
The very ‘Origin
of Life’ actually cannot be scientifically examined by studying fossils, as it
was a mostly chemical event (or rather a series of chemical events) that cannot
be expected to leave a fossil record.
Perhaps not the very origin of life, but certainly
the resultant expression of that origin in “evolutionary” advancements via
physical changes over the years.
* If evolution is true, the
hundreds of thousands of fossils collected over the years would include at
least a few intermediate, transitional, evolutionary forms (i.e. apes to man,
fish to birds, etc.). Yet, not one has ever been found. It is physically
impossible to have millions of years of evolution, producing a vastly diverse
collection of complex invertebrates, without leaving a trace of these!
The fact that you
do not accept transitional forms doesn’t make them go away.
The evolution from reptiles to mammals is covered by numerous transitional
A few transitional forms showing the evolution of whales from land mammals have
Numerous fossils showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds have been
Uh, no, they haven’t and they have been proven
otherwise regardless of the spin put on these finds. As mentioned, there should
be thousands of transitional fossils uncovered. There has not been even one.
* Practically every scrap
of bone that is discovered is given a new species designation. What joy is
there in plodding in someone else’s footsteps, and what fame is there in
paleoanthropology unless one finds a fossil pointing the “true way” to man’s
ancestry, especially if the claim is made that it is the very oldest in this
To show this you would have to make a comprehensive study of a large proportion
of all the reports of fossils in the scientific literature. Have you done that?
Again, not my words, but I do agree as man loves to call attention to
himself - fame, fortune, having your name go down in the annals of history. Do
you think man is so selfless that this does not occur?
* Evolutionists Glenister
and Witzke state: “it is our contention that the fossil record is much more in
accord with the predictions based on [biblical] creation than with those based
on the theory of evolution, and actually strongly contradicts evolution theory.
Otherwise, such a citation is useless.
In the book list I mentioned.
Cave-men and Skeletons
* So called “cave-men”
(Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon”¦,) most likely were descendants of Noah’s family,
scattered throughout parts of Africa, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, as they
dispersed from the site of their ancestral home. They are believed to be
descendants of post-flood man because all the remains have been discovered in
the so-called Pleistocene deposits, which are believed to be post-flood. They
are now known to have been living at the same time as “modern” man.
genetically distinct from Modern Humans.
Proof? Didn’t think so. Actually they are
identical in genetic makeup. They had to be. They merely had different physical
* “Ape men” are a
side-branch of man, not ape-men leading to man. Their differing bone structures
can be compared to the Aborigines or the Mayans, who have noticeably different
bone and soft tissue structures.
‘Ape men’ are not scientific terms, so it is
anyone’s guess, what you are talking about.
“Ape Men” is
nomenclature assigned to the supposed era in history where man is mid-way
between ape and man as shown in the much overused depiction of ape “evolving”
into man. It’s a general term that refers to differences in bone structure that
might look more like ape skull than man. However, many of those were discovered
to be diseases, malformations or simply men with different structural
attributes such as those I mentioned above. Not transitional evolutionary forms
of ape to man. * DNA is quickly broken
down by water and oxygen, so under favorable conditions, DNA might last tens of
thousands of years at best. This raises serious questions about the
100,000-year “age” that some scientists have assigned to skeletons.
Under very dry
and/or cold conditions DNA can last much longer.
arguments on both sides. I tend to agree with the shorter longevity. Most of
the older DNA longevity is purely speculation.
* Numerous forgeries have
been revealed that supposedly were the remains, skeletons and skulls of
So, it means that scientists are so determined to
undermine Creationist thinking in support of their own theories and beliefs,
they will lie to further their cause. You don’t think that’s relevant?
* There’s a common practice
to call all change in organisms “evolution. This is not correct. While
organisms do change, the difference lies in the type of change.
If a population
of water flies gain the ability to withstand infection by a virus that formerly
killed most of them, and this happens over and over, generation after
generation, why isn’t that evolution?
might have to clarify YOUR definition of evolution. That isn’t it. It means the
resistant gene was already in their genetic makeup and was recessive. Creatures
adapt and specialize based on the environment and situation. It by no means =
* The fish-to-philosopher
type of evolution requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a
self-reproducing organism. It is similar to throwing a box full of Legos onto
the floor and having them organize into a city by themselves!
Origin of Life
theories is not about a modern type of cell coming into existence in one giant
You do not need a self-reproducing organism as a starting point, just a self-reproducing
molecule. Ever heard of the RNA-world?
RNA world is not even a theory, it’s merely a
hypothesis - pure conjecture and speculation and cannot possibly be taken
seriously from a real scientific standpoint.
* Many evolutionists point
to allegedly imperfect structures as “proof” of evolution. This is actually an
argument against perfect design rather than for evolution.
you would expect a structure, which is no longer used, to become ‘imperfect’
(in the sense: ‘no longer performing the function it once had’) by means of
But that’s not what evolution is espousing. In
fact, it’s the opposite. Evolution claims that we (and other animals) gain, not
* Organisms lose
information over time, they do not gain it from nothing. The proof likes in
sexual reproduction where each organism inherits only half the information
carried by each parent.
What nonsense. In
extreme situations, it could actually be the exact opposite. If both parent are
homozygous in all loci, but with different alleles, the offspring would be
heterozygous in all loci, and therefor inherit more information than are
present in either of the parents.
there are growing evidence for ‘de novo gene formation’. A process where a
formerly non-coding DNA-sequence becomes coding (PLoS Genet 8(9) e 1002942 and
numerous others). I can provide you with a list of references if you like. But
it is only relevant if you have access to the scientific literature through a
university library or otherwise. Also random amino acid sequences has been
shown to contain information (Nature 410: 715-718).
Descended from Apes?
* Since DNA contains the
coding for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most
similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both
mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA.
A very weak
argument at best. The mitochondrial genome (and lots of so-called house-holding
genes) have no influence on ‘shape’ (I guess you mean anatomy and physiology),
and still Chimps and Humans are more homologous in most such genes than either are
with any other animal.
But this does
not prove that man evolved from apes.
Old Earth (millions of years) vs. Newer Earth (thousands of years)
* There are many examples
where modern dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known
historical age. Example: a rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens
volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was “dated” by
the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 + - 0.05 million years old!
I have contacted
the lab in question. There answer is here:
I’ve read over the response to
your letter to this particular group and, while I’m personally not a scientist,
this particular response does not specifically address the claim above while it
does give a general explanation of dating methods that relies on certain
“assumptions”, not facts. Also there’s an inaccurate and very biased remark at
the conclusion that I personally find offensive and in error: “In my opinion, it is not generally worth the
effort to engage Biblical literalists on these subjects, as they are often
immune to reason and evidence. They are typically not scientists in
their approach to knowledge, but rather apologists and propagandists for a
predetermined “truth”. Some use the language of science to sound
respectable, but much of what they say, when examined closely, is deceptive and
a distortion of the actual state of modern science.” On the contary, some of the most brilliant scientists
in history were biblical Creationists. There was a website that I don’t know
still exists called: Scientists for Creationism that contained some brilliant
scientific evidence for Creationism.
* Red blood cells and
hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these
could not last more than a few thousand years.
How do you know?
See the references in the books I mentioned.
Transitional Evolutionary Forms - Where’s the Proof?
* Even Charles Darwin was
concerned that no transitional fossils had ever been found, which contradicted
his theory. Many evolution books claim transitional forms, but provide
absolutely no evidence! Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his evolution
theory was true, there should be very large numbers of “in-between types” found
This is a
repetition of an earlier point.
* Intermediate theory
presents a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the
transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good
wings. They would not have been naturally selected for survival!
This is called
‘The argument from personal incredulity’. You cannot imagine how something
could happen, therefor it didn’t happen. One of the weakest arguments you can
Besides: Flying Lemurs and Flying Squirrels have structures that are not real
wings, but still serve the animal very well.
are not speaking of current functional structures that obviously serve a
specific purpose. We are speaking of an evolutionary intermediate form that,
while in the midst of the transition, would have been so non-functional, the
species would not have been able to survive.
* In addition, the
hypothetical intermediate stages of “bellows” - style lungs of reptiles
evolving gradually into avian lungs, would mean that the poor animal would have
been unable to breathe at some point in the “evolutionary” process.
(I guess you mean modern Snakes, Lizards, Turtles, Crocodiles and The Tuatara) are
the result of a long period of evolution. Birds did not evolve from any modern
‘Reptiles’ but from dinosaurs. You do not know the lung system of dinosaurs.
Alligators (the closets living relatives to birds) have been shown to have
lungs with unidirectional airflow, just like birds (Science 327: 338-340).
I use citation marks because there is no taxonomic group called ‘Reptiles’.
Besides that, it is yet another example of ‘The argument from personal
* We should remember that
the media often sensationalize “proofs” of evolution, but the later dis-proofs,
even by other evolutionists, hardly rate a mention.
Again, a few
examples would be nice.
One need only watch the news for examples or look up archived broadcasts
that showcase the above.
Do We See Evolution Happening?
question should be: ‘What should we expect to see happening?’
* In brief, no, though
living things do change. Every living thing contains a program. For a human
being it specifies whether that person will have brown or blue eyes, straight
or curly hair, etc.
* Evolution teaches that a
comparatively simple creature, like the one-celled amoeba, has become a much
more complicated one, like a horse. The simplest known one-celled creatures are
complex, but they clearly do not contain as much information as a horse or a
man. So to go from cell to man would require many steps, each involving an
impossible INCREASE IN INFORMATION.
Just a little curio: Some Amoebae contain tens to
hundreds of times more DNA than humans.
The ‘Increase of information’ problem is real though, and commented on above
(de novo gene formation).
Logically thinking, can you really imagine a few chemicals, gaining
information from nothing that would cause them to evolve into more complex
creatures? It has not been done.
* The fact is that the many
small changes we do see in creatures do not involve increasing information -
they actually involve the taking away of information.
have evolved the ability to break down the artificial chemicals used for nylon
production! That is actually gain of new information.
Again, if that is indeed true, that information
was already present in the genetic makeup and merely “rose to the top” out of
need - a recessive gene.
Natural Selection Is Not The Same As Evolution
* When we look at inherited
changes occurring in living things, we see information either staying the same
(and recombining in different ways resulting in great species variation), or
being corrupted or lost (mutation, extinction), but we never see anything that
qualifies as real, informationally “uphill” evolutionary change.
See above ‘de
novo gene formation’.
Please see:Debunking Evolution
* Consider a roomful of
dogs; they are all the descendants of one pair. Some will be shorter, some
taller. But this normal process of variation does NOT involve any new
information - the information was already there in that original pair of dogs.
Wiry hair is an example of a trait that is not present in the wolf, the
ancestor of the domesticated dog.
this not be a recessive gene that was expressed earlier, served its purpose and
was varied out?
* In fact, starting with
the short breed only, no amount of breeding and selection will produce a tall
variety, because some of the “tall” information has been lost in that
* When information is
transmitted (reproduced), it either stays the same or reduces. Meaningless “noise”
gets added (ex. copying one audio tape or CD to another repeatedly). At best,
the information stays the same. However, usually it will degrade over time. It
can be shown mathematically that this is just one more consequence of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I doubt - but
let’s see the proof! (or at least a reference to it).
law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system
always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system
is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible
process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility
of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and
past. This in short means that information does not
increase from nothing, but eventually degrades.
* Natural selection can
favor some information above others, and can cause some of the information to
be lost, but it cannot create any new information. Therefore, organisms must
have been created miraculously/supernaturally.
information comes from mutation, not natural selection. Though combination of
existing information sometimes can be considered ‘new’ in a way.
Translocations in DNA can change the expression of genes, leading to traits
that were not present in the parent. E. coli have evolved the ability to break
down citric acid under circumstances where it normally wouldn’t be able to do
so (The Lenski experiment).
The point was already made above
* Insecticide resistance
shows how the information for resistance was already there in some of the
insect population before man began to spray insecticide. Resistance did not
Resistance is the
result of mutation. The spread of resistance in a population is a case of
evolution. Creationists usually do not like that use of the word, but it is
standard in the scientific literature.
And it’s a misuse of the Word. Evolution in the classic Neo-Darwinism
arena means something entirely different - the main thrust of this particular
* Also, the once-perfect
environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to this new
environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information.
This is natural selection, not evolution.
on the biblical story. Not on the observable facts, you claim is necessary for
Biblical “stories” were/are historical and
observable. The books of the Bible were written primarily by eyewitnesses of
the events and there are other non-Christian historians who confirmed many of
the facts stated within: Polycarpus, Josephus come to mind.
* Evolutionists obtain
their dates by INDIRECT dating methods that other scientists show cannot be
Again just a few
examples would be nice.
Indirect Dating: dating remains by their association with other remains
that can be dated.
Ex: dating a human skull by using an animal bone that was
found next to it. Not very scientific.
* Carbon-dating does not
determine millions of years. It is actually a method that can date only those
things which still contain organic carbon (unlike most fossil bones, for example).
I am sure that a
lot of creationists are happy with that information. Scientists of course new
* Radiometric methods -
dates in the ‘nearest ballpark’ are assumed to be correct and are published,
but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor fully
Sorry to repeat
myself: Just a few examples would be nice.
* Dinosaurs were real (the
fossils prove it) and first existed around 6,000 years ago; land animals were
created on the sixth day.
* Dinosaurs could not have
died out before this time because death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering only
occurred after and is a result of Adam's sin.
I thought this
was supposed to be arguments against evolution. Not statements of your personal
I reference you back to my opening paragraphs.
This document was the original list printed months before we decided to pursue
a discussion. Your statement is not in correct time-sequence.
* Evolutionists are
dogmatic that dinosaurs never lived beside humans. But, in fact, there’s plenty
of historical evidence they did. Cave paintings done by Indians in America
clearly depict dinosaurs.
If you think
about the Ica stones, they are known to be a fraud. If not, what are you
As stated, cave paintings - many of them. Bernifal
Cave, for example, one of the caverns in France that is renowned for
* When scientists dig up a
few bones of a dinosaurs, the flesh is not still intact. Even if they found all
the bones (and they often have only a few fragments), scientists still would
have less than 40 percent of the animal to tell them what it originally looked
like. Most dinosaur depictions are simply assumptions.
Therefore, it supports the belief that much of
what science espouses to be true and hard fact is merely best guess based on
* Evidence indicates
dinosaur bones are not very old. In fact, scientists at the University of
Montana found T-rex bones that were not totally fossilized.
Reference. Although the
article claims it’s 70 million-year-old soft tissue”¦
* The word
"dinosaur" was first coined in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen, from two
Greek words, deinos and sauros, which means "terrible lizard."
Therefore we would not see the word "dinosaur" in the Bible! However,
the Bible does speak of dragons.
* Job 41 describes a great
animal that lived in the sea, Leviathan, that even breathed fire.
* The Hebrew word
translated "whales" is actually the word for "dragon."
* One of the oldest books
of British history - The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, records encounters people had
with dragons, and many of the descriptions fit well-known dinosaurs.
* In the 1500s, a European
scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals, which to us are
dinosaurs, as still alive. However, many of these animals, like today, have
* The evolutionist
teachings on dinosaurs cannot be defended, However, if one accepts God's Word,
beginning with Genesis, as true and authoritative, then one CAN explain
dinosaurs and make sense of the evidence we observe in the world around us.
To repeat myself:
I thought this was supposed to be arguments against evolution. Not statements
of your personal religious believes.
To repeat myself, I reference you back to my
opening paragraphs. This document was the original list printed months before
we decided to pursue a discussion. You statement is not in correct
Noah’s Ark and the Flood
* Representatives of all
the KINDS of land animals, including two of every kind of dinosaur went on
board Noah's ark.
* Since none of the
creatures of the sea were taken on Noah's ark, there would be a strong
possibility that some plesiosaurs or ichthyosaurs survived the flood. The
violent and turbulent waters of the flood would surely have killed and buried
many of the sea creatures (over 90% of fossils found are of marine animals).
Once again: Statements
of your personal religious believes.
They are simply logical conclusions of a worldwide cataclysmic event.
* To form the billions of
fossils we see worldwide (in layers sometimes miles thick), the organisms, by
and large, must have been buried quickly, not over millions of years.
Of course. But
that in no way indicates a global flood. Local events (e.g. landslides) could
do the job.
Not on such a massive cataclysmic scale. And there
must have been an impetus for landslides of such magnitude to occur, such as a
* Since the flood, many
animals have died out from diseases, lack of food, etc., including the
* Noah's ark was huge. At
least 75,000 individual animals (more than enough for all the
"kinds") could have fit on just one of the three floors of the ark.
* The average size of a
dinosaur (based on the skeletons all over the earth) is about the size of a
* It is realistic to assume
that God would have sent young adults on the ark, not fully grown creatures as
is often portrayed.
* Land animals (including
dinosaurs) that didn't go on the ark obviously drowned. Many of their bodies
were preserved in the layers formed by the massive flooding, thus the billions
I am starting to
get tired of repeating myself: This was not supposed to be statements of your
personal religious believes.
As am I. We must keep in mind that purpose of
this original document/discussion and continue without letting personal
frustration take away from it.
* Many marine species
became extinct at the time of Noah's flood. Many plants and air-breathing, land-dwelling
animals have become extinct since the flood. Today, between 10-100 species go
extinct each year!
And the point
Extinction is an ongoing process, it is not
something that was unique to dinosaurs as many evolutions focus on”¦
* Because sedimentation
(layers and thickness of soil and rock) usually occurs slowly today, it is
assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. Unless fish were buried
quickly, and the sediments (e.g., mud and sand) hardened fairly rapidly, fossil
features would not be preserved.
Again - no proof
of a global vs. local event.
That’s not the point, the point is that evolution
claims (and I’ve seen representation video) that “pre-historic” creatures were
slowly buried over time, not suddenly in a catastrophic flood. To admit that
would be to admit the Bible was correct about Noah’s flood.
* Ironically, NASA
scientists believe there have been “catastrophic floods” on Mars that carved
out canyons although no liquid water is present today. Yet, they deny that a global
flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet
to a depth of 1.7 miles if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71%
of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it,
they probably would have no problem with a global flood here.
* Researchers at Argonne
National Laboratory (USA) have taken ordinary wood fragments, mixed them with
some acid-activated clay and water, heated the mixture for 28 days at only 150
degrees Celsius with no added pressure in an air-free sealed quartz tube, and
obtained high-grade black coal. It doesn’t need millions of years!
And where would
that kind of temperature come from in places where plants have grown? What about oil?
Have you not ever seen the heat that is naturally generated from a
compost pile?The temperature can range from 120 to 160 degree F (ca. 50-70 Celsius). I’ve personally seen
compost piles smoking from the natural buildup of heat.
* Massive amounts of moving
water can rapidly perform an enormous amount of geological work. When Mount St.
Helens erupted, there were landslides, mud flows, and other sedimentary
phenomena. Over 180 meters of layered sedimentary rock has built up since the
initial explosion. A canyon 30 meters deep and somewhat wider was carved in one
day by one mud flow.
Do you know the
Horseshoe bend structure in Grand Canyon (36:23:30 N; 111:51:10 W)? Nothing
like that could be formed by large amounts of fast running water.
How can you know for certain? What else would have formed it? I’m not
familiar with that particular structure, but we’re talking about the canyon as
a whole. Subsequent formations could have been formed other ways: wind, storms,
* Whether Australian
Aborigines, Arctic Eskimos, or American Indians, virtually every tribe and
nation on earth has a similar flood story. Not one of these ancient records
puts the date of creation earlier than 7000 B.C. It is surely more than coincidental
that ancient civilizations, which were by no means ignorant of timekeeping by
astronomical methods, should all begin their historical record at this
arbitrary date. Only modern man in the last 150 years or so has attempted to
stretch the age of the earth to millions of years.
Could you substantiate the claims? Both about flood
stories and about dating. I don’t think most creation stories have any dating.
There might be references in thebooks I recommended.
Garden of Eden
* Evolutionists claim that
since many animals have sharp teeth, they could not have been vegetarian as
many say they were in the Garden of Eden. However, there are many animals today
that have sharp teeth, but are basically vegetarian, including the panda, male
camels, bears etc.
Could you be so
kind as to tell us the usefulness of the teeth of T. rex, Smilodon and other
Not all animals may have been instantaneously created at the time of
Adam and Eve. Similar to two dogs diversifying into various species, perhaps
the same occurred with plant eating giant lizards that diversified into
flesh-eating animals after the fall. The above example is to demonstrate that
there are plant eating animals that have sharp teeth who many might assume to
* Additionally, after the
Fall and the Flood, God could easily change the behavior of animals from plant
eating to flesh eating.
of personal religious believes.
Yes, yes it is. Similar to the belief one has in evolution
Evolution; statistically, logically and physically impossible
* It is a physical and
logical impossibility for matter to create itself from nothing as in the “Big
Bang” theory; the universe cannot be eternal because this violates several
scientific laws such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which
teach that the universe had to have a beginning, is slowly running down (or
running out of energy), and that, left to its own, will one day become lifeless
The very notion
of a Big Bang includes a situation so different from what we can experience,
that such a statement is with no merit.
On the contrary, the belief in a Big Bang itself would lend itself to
coming under the scrutiny of Universal Laws. The statement you make is
irrelevant to the fact of these laws.
* The “Big Bang” theory
also has too many irremediable problems, including how the “cosmic egg” ever
originated, as well as how a chance explosion of matter could ever produce such
incredibly fine-tuned accuracy to result in extremely ordered galaxies, solar
systems, planets, moons and life.
I do not need to
repeat the comment above.
* The claim that life in
its simplest forms could originate on earth by chance is also a mathematical
impossibility. This idea violates the law of biogenesis, that life originates
only from life, as well as other scientific laws, and is proven false by the
science of probability:
o The chance that life
could evolve from non-life is statistically zero no matter how old the
universe. Many evolutionists have conceded that if the odds of evolution
occurring are just 1 in 10250 (the figure 1 with 250 zeros), then in the words
of Henry Quastler in The Emergence of Biological Organization (Yale University
Press 1964, p. 7), “It is virtually impossible that life has originated by a
random association of molecules.”
o Borel’s single law of
chance tells us that when the chance exceeds 1 chance in 1050, absolutely no
chance remains for an event to occur.
law of biogenesis only refers only to cellular life. Origin of Life theories
assume a long series of events before the first modern cell.
Origin iof Life still assumes life from non-life which is statistically impossible
* If the “Big Bang” model
were accurate, there should not be galaxies out there at all and they certainly
shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.
See books listed
* Astronomers and
physicists, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were all young-earth
Your point being
”¦? Remember that before Darwin it was impossible to be “an intellectually
fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins). It is an ad hominem argument, and as such invalid.
Invalid in your opinion simply because it does not fit into your
presuppositions. It’s completely relevant to show that many of the foremost
scientists in the history of history were believers in a God-created universe.
That has only changed since the enlightenment and reinforced by a theory of
evolution. Darwin was simply the catalstye for many atheists to grab hold of and
use as weapons in their own atheistic arsenal.
* There is an obvious
difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays,
and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBK or even a repetitive sequence
like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be
distinguished from specified complexity such as Shakespeare’s writings.
* Another example is the
SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). It’s a wasteful and
pointless program since there’s no way of determining whether a certain type of
signal from outer space is proof of an intelligent sender. It again, would have
to be a signal with a high level of specified complexity. Neither a random nor
a repetitive sequence would be proof.
yourself. You just said what a signal should show to proof intelligence: ‘a
high level of specified complexity’ A representation of primes or Fibonacci
numbers would do the trick.
And those can be found”¦where?
Except that, ‘specified complexity’ is a creationist term that have no use in
Because it is a creationist term, it has no use in “secular science”
perhaps. But in Creationist science, it has a profound use. Science is science.
* Crystals have been used
by evolutionists as evidence of structure that can arise naturally. But again,
this is simply a repetitive arrangement of ordered atoms, not specified
* If it’s unreasonable to
believe that an encyclopedia could have originated by itself, then it’s just as
unreasonable to believe that life could have originated by itself without an
Again, you assume
something like a modern cell to be the first self-replicating entity.
I’m assuming nothing of the kind. I’m simply stating the impossibility
of intelligent ordered structure arising from random molecules without an
* For those who doubt that
the human race could have risen to today’s numbers from just 8 people on an
ark”¦ It’s actually a fact that today, human populations are increasing
consistently at more than 1% per year. Allowing for disease, famine, wars, and
so forth, and using a much more conservative figure of 0.5%, at this rate, it
would take only around 4,000 to 5,000 years, staring with eight people from
Noah’s Ark, to reach today’s population.
Correct, but try
to calculate what growth rate is needed to go from 8 to a reasonable number to
build the tower of Babel.
How many would be needed. Have you done the
* Since mutation-caused
defects, occurring after a fault-free beginning, take time to accumulate over
generations, Adam’s offspring need not have feared deformities in the children
of close marriages for many centuries.
of personal religious believes.
Actually, it’s a factual statement for several
reasons: 1. It comes from the Bible - the most preserved, and plentiful book in
history with over 40,000 extant copies dating back to the 1st
century A.D. 2. It’s well know that deviations, mutations and toxicity have
exponential effects on populations (see the molecular clock concept). While
evolutionists use this to support evolution, creationists see this as a result
of sin, pollution, consistent and continuing DNA sequencing over time.
* One Race: many are
surprised to learn that there is only ONE main coloring pigment in humanity.
Who is ‘many’ -
No scientists I guess.
Watch Ken Ham’s One Blood video that does an excellent job of explaining the
genetic reasoning behind this which aligns perfectly with Adam and Eve being
the first humans God created. The science demonstrated is undeniable.
* Truth is not decided by
majority vote! Truth is truth, not what people want it to be.
A correct, but
slightly strange remark, considering you just stated that: “Copernicus,
Galileo, Kepler and Newton were all young-earth creationists.” That is an ‘ad
hominem’ argument if anything is.
application of the ad hominem fallacy. This happens to be a fact - whatever the
majority believes does not necessarily mean it is true. The majority of
Americans might believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and killed the
president when declassified information proves otherwise. People were led to
believe it was him alone, just as they have been duped into believing a child’s
fairy tale: evolution.
* The more people reject
God and believe evolution, the more they could logically say, "There is no
God. Why should I obey authority? No one owns me - I own myself and can do what
I want.” That is why belief in evolution is very appealing to most people -
they will have no god ruling over them.
* If a person wanted to
destroy any building, the best way would be to destroy the foundation.
Likewise, if someone wanted to attempt to destroy Christianity, then they would
need to destroy the foundations which are established in the Book of Genesis.
This is the goal of evolutionary thinking.
* Ernst Haeckel was
Darwin’s advocate in Germany. His evolutionary ideas were instrumental in the
later rise of Nazism.
None of the above
statements has any relevance to the scientific status of the Theory of
Yeah, I know. They’re merely
thoughts and examples. You know, since “anyone is entitled to believe whatever he or she wants!”
* Soren Lovtrup, Professor
of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden: “I believe that one day the
Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.
When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this ever
entitled to believe whatever he or she want!
Absolutely! One can believe that if they walk off
a building, they will fly but”¦ Remember,
these are supportive quotes and merely to demonstrate the thinking of even
those who teach biology, embryology, etc., do not necessarily embrace
* Evolutionist Richard
Dickerson: “Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding
and defining rule: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the
behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and
material causes, without invoking the supernatural [God].”
And this is the only
way science can progress. If you allow ‘a divine foot in the door’ (Richard C.
Lewontin) then any question can be answered ‘God wanted it so!’
However, all such questions and answers must and
should be answered in light of what Scripture commands or uses as an example
(with proper exegesis). Someone may say that they heard God in their cornflakes
tell them to rob a bank, when Scripture clearly forbids theft.
Why doesn’t cows have
front teeth in its upper jaw, when horses have? ‘God wanted it so!’.
Alternatively, if cows actually had front teeth in its upper jaw, and horses
hadn’t, the exact opposite question could have been asked: Why doesn’t horses have
front teeth in its upper jaw, when cows have? And the response could be the
same: ‘God wanted it so!’
A scientist, when asked the same question, would have to look at the fossil
record to see if there is a hint to where and under what conditions the front
teeth of even toed ungulates were lost. Or argue by referring to knowledge
about the difference between the feeding habits of cows and horses.
The same thinking can be applied to other areas
such as: doctors have been telling people for years that we don’t need an
appendix, we don’t need tonsils”¦ While we can live without these tissues, they
do serve a distinct purpose: the appendix for grinding and digesting substances
that were not digested higher up in the intestinal tract, the tonsils as a
first line of defense from foreign invaders. The body does suffer to various
degrees when they are missing. There is a specific reason for everything in
nature, whether we know what that reason is or not. Only the arrogant would
assume to know more than our Creator!