Vi bruger Cookies!     


Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution in Denmark and the rest of the world

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.

Generally, none 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.

Throughout, the 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 criterion).

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 far.

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 disprove it.

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 facts. 

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.

Evolution is 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 real world.

* 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)

From a 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 completely relevant.

* 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 biblical history.

* 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 confirmed.
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 creationists.
‘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.

What 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.

What philosophical assumptions? Creationists often simply refuse to answer difficult questions.
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 someone has.

* 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.

What nonsense. The arrowhead and the SETI is referring to intelligent beings that are part of nature.
Creationists are referring to an intelligent being that is outside nature.

Outside 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 he is.

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 forms.
A few transitional forms showing the evolution of whales from land mammals have been found.
Numerous fossils showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds have been found.
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 field?

Pure speculation: 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? I doubt. 
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.

Reference please! 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.

Neanderthals are 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 traits.

* “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.
I’ve seen 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-called ape-men.

So what? 
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?

Evolutionary process

* 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?
You 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 = evolution. 

* 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 leap.
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.

Under 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 random mutation.
But that’s not what evolution is espousing. In fact, it’s the opposite. Evolution claims that we (and other animals) gain, not lose”¦.

* 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.

Besides that, 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 as fossils.

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 think of.
Besides: Flying Lemurs and Flying Squirrels have structures that are not real wings, but still serve the animal very well.

However, we 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.

‘Reptile’ lungs (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 incredulity’.
See above

* 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?

The first 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.

Some bacteria 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.

Not necessarily. Wiry hair is an example of a trait that is not present in the wolf, the ancestor of the domesticated dog.
Why could 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 population.

* 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).
The second 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.

The new 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 evolve.

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 discussion.

* 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.

Speculation based on the biblical story. Not on the observable facts, you claim is necessary for science. 
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.

Dating Methods

* Evolutionists obtain their dates by INDIRECT dating methods that other scientists show cannot be trusted.

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 already.

* 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 explained.

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 religious believes. 
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 thinking of? 
As stated, cave paintings - many of them. Bernifal Cave, for example, one of the caverns in France that is renowned for Neanderthal artifacts.

* 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.

So what? 
Therefore, it supports the belief that much of what science espouses to be true and hard fact is merely best guess based on incomplete material.

* 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 become extinct.

* 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 time-sequence.

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 world-wide flood.  

* Since the flood, many animals have died out from diseases, lack of food, etc., including the dinosaurs.

* 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 sheep.

* 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 of fossils.

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 being ”¦? 
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, etc.

* 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 extreme examples?
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 be flesh-eating.

* Additionally, after the Fall and the Flood, God could easily change the behavior of animals from plant eating to flesh eating.

Another statement 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 and inert.

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.

Irrelevant: The 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 creationists.

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.

You contradict 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 science.
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 complexity.

* 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 intelligent designer.

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 intelligent designer.

Human Population

* 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 calculations?

* 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.

Another statement 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.

Additional Thoughts:

* 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.
Improper 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 Evolution.
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 happen?”

Anyone is 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 evolutionary thinking.

* 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!


Opdateret 16/10/2016