Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[TrueMacedonian]

TM religion some of it is man made or should i say most of it.If the bible is not true or if god doesn't exist.We haven't got a hope in hell if there is a next life.That means if god is not there to design his universe & build it how can life evolve from nothing.Surely god is the life giver,knowledge giver,understanding giver.In all of our arguments i see that god is left out of the equation.We forget that god can make the earth appear 100 million,100 billion years old.He has done it to test us.Not for us to test him.We do understimate god & his power.There are some things that god wants at this time unrevealled that we have to accept it with faith.

George you have absolutely no proof if there is an afterlife without the bible and this is the sticking point with many christians for believing in a god. To get into a fictional place after we die. Instead of thinking the way you do why don't you live this life now the best you can because there may very well be nothing when it's all said and done.

We forget that god can make the earth appear 100 million,100 billion years old.He has done it to test us.

Then what a trickster and joker this "god" actually is. Surely the men who canonised the bible would agree with you since they pretty much put together this bible you adhere to. George you can keep your faith if you want to. I will stay reasonable.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM,

I've already dealth with the man v animals nonsense in one of the other threads, but seeing as you brought it up with Bart, I'll do it again in my response that I'm preparing for his other stuff. Its amazing you take Barts word so uncritically...hmmm...sounds like a lot of faith to me...too bad its in the wrong person! But, this is just another example in what is becoming a long line of uncritical thinking and superficial research.

I don't need to have faith in Ehrman (although he is exceptional in his field) here's something Jesus himself said that I know many, many people in the world simply do not agree with (especially men).

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than your whole body to be cast into hell.

Matthew 5: 28-30


I wonder how many billions of men there would be with a patch on their right eye and a hook for a hand if people took this as literal truth? Of course christians will say "no you just need to heed jesus' warning not to look at a beautiful woman and think sexual things"

[Vangelovski]

In summary, to believe the evolution hypothesis, one needs to accept unobservable and unreproducable assumptions (and they call this science), astronomical odds against the idea (again they call this science) and actually impossible scenarios (like the information problem and irreducible complexity) as fact.

[makedonin]

Well I certainly believe the bible, at least some parts. For example Solomon sounds as a reasonable man to me, and much what he said I can agree upon:

*18I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves [are] beasts.
*19For an event [is to] the sons of man, and an event [is to] the beasts, even one event [is] to them; as the death of this, so [is] the death of that; and one spirit [is] to all,and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole [is] vanity.
*20The whole are going unto one place, the whole have been from the dust, and the whole are turning back unto the dust.
*21Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of man that is going up on high, and the spirit of the beast that is going down below to the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21

No advantage of man above the beast, in many bibles translated as preeminence. One spirit with the beasts. Hey what happened to we are so fucking special?

I wonder why all those Christians are offended by evolution and the Idea that they might originate from lower primates? Here is their holy bible telling them basically the same.

Very sober world view.

But even a peculiar thing is that Solomons human reflections made in to the holy literal word of God?!

Go figure it....

[makedonin]

What is "in-calculated"?

given as +/- discrepancy.

to accept unobservable and unreproducable assumptions.

I wonder what is more unobservable and unreproducible than the supernatural, but what we see is that religions are taken as life facts.

In my opinion, humans can't know it all, and they don't have to. If we at least have the honesty to accept that fact and state it, we would be more modest in our arrogant ways, and maybe more sensible towards our fellow human beings.

Religion have lead the way in the stupidity, and many followed and invented their own ways to outdo it.

Somethimg like "send a maniac to kill the maniac" moto.

[Vangelovski]

given as +/- discrepancy.

What does that relate to? How does that even address any of the three key assumptions required for radiometric dating?

[George S.]

Dr Kevin R. Henke exposes John Woodmorappe's fraudulent attacks on radiometric dating and reveals other creationist misrepresentations

Dr Kevin R. Henke

Dr. Kevin R. Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota (i.e., South Canada).
He is now with the University of Kentucky, USA.

If you have questions about any of the essays on this page you can email the author at [email protected]



Because the results of 40Ar-39Ar, K-Ar and other radiometric dating methods refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym) is infamous for scouring hundreds of scientific references to find quotations that he believes dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating. However, when his quotations and references are viewed in context, they usually fail to support his claims and often refute them. Woodmorappe and his allies utterly fail to realize that misquoting large QUANTITIES of references does NOT produce QUALITY arguments. Bigger is not necessarily better.

Woodmorappe's 1999 book, The Mythology [sic!] of Modern Dating Methods, is no exception to his ability to thoroughly misrepresent the scientific literature.
--Dr Kevin R. Henke



Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating
A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorappe (1999)
Dr Kevin R. Henke

How Can Woodmorappe Sell Us a Bill of Goods if He
Doesn't Know the Costs?
Dr Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe's Shell Game: Refuted with Literature from his Creationist Allies
Dr Kevin R. Henke

Chopping a Title Hides the Truth
Dr Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe's Belittling Distortions of the Lu-Hf Method
Dr Kevin R. Henke

Important Statements on Radiometric Dating in Woodmorappe's References that He Doesn't Want You to See
Dr Kevin R. Henke

More Classic Misquotations in Woodmorappe (1999)
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe Can't Read Rb-Sr Diagrams
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

How Serious are Errors in Ar40-Ar39 Dates and How Good are
Their Monitoring Standards?
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe's Shotgun Attack on 40Ar-39Ar Dating:
Many Misses and Few Hits
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe's Subjective Creationism and
Not So Subjective Radiometric Dating
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Not So Subjective Ar-Ar Spectra and Not so Objective Biblical Interpretations
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe Has NOTHING Good to Say about Radiometric Dating
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

The Absurd Newspeak of Woodmorappe's 'Creation Science'
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Lead Isotope Dates and the Age of the Earth
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe's Billion-fold Distortion of 187Re Radioactive Decay
or How Young-Earth Creationists Misapply Conditions
in the Cores of Hot Massive Stars to their 'Genesis Earth'
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Woodmorappe Quotes Comrades Skobelin, Sharapov and Bugayov
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

A Young-Earth Creationist Fieldtrip: An Example of Cultic Religious
Indoctrination and NOT Learning
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Blind Leading the Blind: Austin, Snelling and Swenson Misinterpret Dalrymple's K-Ar
Dating of Historical Volcanics
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite:
The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously
Ancient Minerals
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Rats in RATE's "Research"
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

More Rats in RATE: Putting Biblical Dogmatism and the
Expectations of Sponsors Above Legitimate Science
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

"RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

It'll Take a Miracle to Save their "Science"
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

A Review of Young Earth Creationist M.J. Oard's "Flood Geology"
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Ager's Opinion of Young-Earth Creationists
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

No Evidence of Recent Volcanism on the Moon
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Recent Impacts on the Moon?
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

If All Elephants and Other Proboscideans are "One Kind", Why Can't All Primates be "One Kind"?
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

"Answers" in Genesis' Inconsistencies in Endorsing Myths
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

There's Nothing New in the Sun
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Actualism Versus Outdated Young-Earth Creationist Views of Niagara Falls
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

How Many Mammoth Remains Exist? Radically Conflicting
"Answers" from "Answers" In Genesis
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Berthault's "Stratigraphy": Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know
and Strawperson Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Guy Berthault's response to Kevin Henke's essay above

Some Questions for Dr. Berthault
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

If Dr. Berthault is Not a Creationist, Why Do His Supporters Say Otherwise?
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Young-Earth Creationist Distortions of the Paleoenvironments of the
Clarkia Fossil Beds, Idaho, USA
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Subjectivity and No Definitive Answers in the Bible
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Ken Ham's Misconceptions about Opals
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Young Earth Creationists' Hypocrisy on Discrimination
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Snelling's Doublethink Seeps into the Young-Earth Creationist Literature
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

The Origin of Iodine-129: By Physics or Fantasies?
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars
and in the Sun's Interior
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" (off site)
Dr. Kevin R. Henke
Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data


More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS":
Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology (off site)
Dr. Kevin R. Henke
Kevin Henke discusses some of the problems in Sarfati's response
and provides additional reasons why "Flood geology" is bogus


Another Study Undermines Woodmorappe's Crapshoot
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Controversies Related to the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Provide
No Comfort to Young-Earth Creationists
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Creationist Mumbo Jumbo at Dinosaur National Monument
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

Burdick's Pollen: Just Something to Sneeze At
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_on_woody.htm

[Vangelovski]

misquoting large QUANTITIES of references does NOT produce QUALITY arguments. Bigger is not necessarily better.

Agreed! So does Henke attempt to address the assumptions used in radiometric dating?

[George S.]

//""Dr. Kevin R. Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota (i.e., South Canada).
He is now with the University of Kentucky, USA. ""

//It says on his essay that If you have questions about any of the essays on this page you can email the author at [email protected]/

Itried his email but no luck.I agree that a lot of the theories are assumtions.I was looking for stronger quotes & they don't seem to be there.All we get is weak assumptions etc.

I happen to notice tom one thing based on radioactive decay.All the radiaion should've decayed by now if the earth is as old as they claim.Why is there still radioctivity & decay this is a positive proof for creationists that god created the arth as stated in his word.Based on radiation emanation matter has definitve proof of a begining & an end.That's another proof for the creationists.

[Vangelovski]

The following is a refutation of Bart Ehrman’s work and specifically the pages posted on here by TM (Post #546).

In the pages provided by TM, Ehrman makes a number of claims. These will be addressed in turn.

Claim #1: Herod’s order to slaughter all children under two is not recorded anywhere else other than in Matthew.

Firstly, Ehrman would have to make the argument that Matthew’s account is not historically reliable, which no one has ever managed to do. Secondly, there are many examples of historical events which have only been recorded by one source, and yet they are accepted as historically reliable, for example, much of what we know about Alexander the Great.

Even so, the shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons fearing they would overthrow him. History shows Herod was a paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his character. However, we must realise that Bethlehem was a small village. If the village only had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age of two around 20 – not exactly a big number in the scheme of things and certainly not the largest massacre in history.

But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual evidence that this event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable (and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that it is not), we can accept his version of the events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:

"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son.'" (Macrobius)

Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem.

Claim #2: There is no record of Caesar Augustus ever undertaking a census

This is where the critical thinker should be alerted to the fact that Ehrman is either incompetent or a complete liar. Caesar Augustus in fact authorized three censuses during his reign. How do we know this? The three census’ are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them 9th on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died (http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html).

So why did Bart claim there is no evidence of the census? Is he incompetent, a liar or both?

Claim #3: Matthew and Luke supposedly give different accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Here Bart has provided a superficial analysis of the two nativity accounts – directed largely at the uncritical mind. Let us look at the passages in question:

Luke 2:21-24, 39
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.".... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

Matthew 2:14-15, 19-23
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.".... But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead." Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Here is a basic rundown of what happened, which becomes clear after a careful reading of the text (as opposed to Bart’s superficial reading, loaded with childhood Santa stories and assumptions).

Jesus was born in a manger (Luke 2:6-7), for there was nowhere else for them to stay. At that time, shepherds were told of the miraculous birth, and made haste to go see the Child (Luke 2:8-17). On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised (Lk 2:21), and after forty days, he was brought to the Temple (Lk 2:22; Lev 12:1-4). After the sacrifices were completed, they returned to Nazareth (Lk 2:39).

After Jesus had been born (notice, Matthew doesn't specify how long after), the wise men came to Jerusalem following a star which they had seen in the East (Mt 2:1-2). Herod was curious about the time of the star's appearing (Mt 2:7). The wise men were sent to Bethlehem, which was the birthplace of the Child. It is assumed by many that they found Jesus there, but the text does not indicate such. We again read of the star, that it directed them to where He was. One should not think they needed the star to guide them on the five mile walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Taking into account what Luke reveals about the brief time Joseph and Mary spent in Bethlehem, the star most probably guided the wise men to Nazareth, where Jesus was found in a house (Mt 2:11). Recall, while in Bethlehem, they were not at a house, but rather at an inn, and even in the barn of the inn.

Having worshipped Jesus, the wise men departed, but were instructed not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12). Likewise, Joseph was instructed to flee to Egypt with Mary and the Child, for Herod would seek His life (Mt 2:13). Herod, realizing he had been deceived by the wise men, decreed that all male children, age 2 and under in Bethlehem and its districts should be put to death (Mt 2:16). Herod used the timing of the star spoken of by the wise men to determine the age of the Child. It was possible that He was up to two years of age at the time of this decree. Furthermore, Herod understood that the Child was perhaps not in Bethlehem any longer, extending the scope of the decree to include regions around Bethlehem also.

Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). It appears that Joseph had originally thought they might settle in Judea, but knowing that Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning, and receiving a warning in a dream, he turned aside and returned to Nazareth, in Galilee. Thus, Jesus would be known as a Nazarene, for Nazareth would be His home town (Mt 2:23).

Forty days after His birth, Luke says Jesus was taken home to Nazareth. Perhaps as much as two years after His birth, Joseph was commanded to flee with the Child to Egypt. When the common errors that have been assumed by many are maintained (ie. that the shepherds and wise men were all at the manger scene on the night Jesus was born; that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem; etc.), then there appears to be contradiction. However, the two accounts provide different information about different parts of Jesus' infancy. When understood correctly, the accounts agree and compliment one another.

There is no contradiction.

Claim #4: Different Roman governors in the two accounts

Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was undertaking military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Governor of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favour with the emperor and was incompetently unable to complete the census – a process which always enraged the Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

Also, it is worth noting that we have an inscription that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe. There are two main interpretations of this: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."

The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius' – see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Quirinius.

Further, the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.]

Is Bart capable of doing at least some background research? Even a google search would suffice!

Claim #5: Two different genealogies

Luke provides us with a line from Adam to David, a section of the genealogy which is not found in Matthew. But from David forward to Jesus there are disagreements almost all the way along. Needless to say, these disagreements were once made much of by those who held a low opinion of the integrity of Scripture. But in due time these very disagreements led to a search for some means of reconciliation, and this search proved fruitful because it brought to light a further truth which might otherwise have escaped notice entirely. Now that the truth is recognized, there seem to be many incidental confirmations of it from other parts of Scripture; but these confirmations were not recognized as such until the truth they confirmed had itself been rediscovered.

This discovery is that Luke's genealogy traces the line of Mary, not of Joseph. Thus, at the very beginning of Luke's record - a record which sets the names in the reverse order from that given in Matthew - we meet with the first "contradiction": namely, that Joseph was the son of Heli, whereas Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob. Although some of the early church fathers perceived that this was Mary's pedigree, they did not apparently make the discovery that in the Talmud, Jewish tradition held that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Beth-Heli). Early Christian writers held that Mary was the daughter of Joiakim and Anna. But the name Joiakim is interchangeable with Eliakim, as II Chronicles 36:4 shows, and Eli or Heli is an abridgment of Eliakim. It is thus quite possible that the early Christian tradition is in perfect harmony with that of the Jewish people themselves whose knowledge would be based on temple records. This is undoubtedly the basis of the early assurance that Jesus was, in the flesh, of the seed of David. In the annunciation (Luke 1:32), the promised Savior is called at once "Son of God" and "Son of David": Son of God by virtue of His conception by the Holy Spirit, and Son of David by virtue of His birth through Mary.

This should therefore be compared with Romans 1:3,4, in which we are told that He who was God's Son was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with Power.. . " Later on, in His confrontation with the Jewish authorities, Jesus answered a question which had probably arisen from the fact that, while they recognized the validity of His lineal claim to being David's son through Mary, they would not recognize His further claim to being the Son of God. He pointed to them from Psalm 110:1 that while the Messiah was indeed to be David's son, David nevertheless called Him "Lord." They had no answer to this. The Lord's argument could only have real force if the people to whom it was addressed recognized His claim as the son of Mary who was a daughter of David.
Why, then, is Mary's name not included in Luke's genealogy? Undoubtedly, to establish a legal pedigree it is necessary to set down the name of the head of the household - in this case, of course, Joseph. At the same time, according to the Jewish way of thinking -and indeed, according to the common practice of many other societies - the man who married could claim his wife's father as his own. We ourselves recognize this right, only we make the distinction of saying "father-in-law"--rather than "father." There are a number of examples in Scripture where this principle is followed.

In I Chronicles 2:31 we have an illustration of this practice of naming another as the father. In this instance it will be observed that son succeeded "son" until we come to Ahlai, whom we know had a daughter but not a son. Meanwhile Ahlai had an Egyptian servant named Jarha and, as was not altogether unusual at that time, he gave his daughter to him as a wife. But from then on the children are still credited to him as his descendants - that is, members of his own line through his daughter - and therefore listed as his sons and grandsons. Thus the children of his daughter are listed as his children rather than the children of his daughter's husband, and they in their turn would look back to him as their ultimate father. Of necessity, Jarha would therefore be accounted as Sheshan's son.

The manner in which Joseph's name is introduced in Luke's genealogy is also exceptional. Whereas each man in the line is said to have been, simply, "of" his father, Jesus is said to have been the son "nominally" of Joseph - such is the Greek which the Authorized Version renders "as was supposed." The verbal root of this qualifying term is nomidzo, which has the sense of legal standing or standing established by custom: it is cognate with the root which gave rise to the English form "nominal." Thus it was clearly recognized that Jesus was the son of Joseph legally, but not necessarily by natural generation. This claim is accepted without question in John 6:42, "whose mother and father we know."

Although Mary in her own right could claim descent from David through Heli her father, the temple record could not enter her name in the line but must enter the name of her husband, the adopting father of her child. So when Luke copied out this record, he quite properly omitted Mary's name and substituted that of Joseph.

We have, therefore, a genealogy from David to Mary preserved, presumably, in the family of Heli and perhaps actually in their possession - for as we have already noted previously; long after the temple was destroyed with all its records, there still existed families who claimed descent from David and claimed it, significantly, in the female line. On this account the names in Luke's Gospel from David forward do not coincide (except at one point) with the names in Matthew's Gospel. David had three sons of note - namely, Solomon, Absolon, and Nathan - and it is in the line of Nathan that Mary's claim is established.

In Luke 3:28 we have "Melchi"; in Luke 3:27 his son is given as "Neri"; and his son, in turn, is given as Salathiel followed by Zorobabel and then Rhesa. At this point we have some apparent connections with the genealogy in Matthew's Gospel, for in Matthew 1:12 we have Jechonias whose son was Salathiel followed by Zorobabel. When we turn to the Old Testament to find out what this uniting of the two families signifies, we find ourselves with insufficient information to provide an unequivocal answer - but just enough to allow a reconstruction which, in the light of what we have already observed of the way in which relationships are acknowledged, has a fair degree of probability about it. The Jechonias of Matthew 1:12 was, as we have seen, the king who terminated the Judean royal line when these unfortunate people went into captivity. Although he is stated to have been still a child, he survived long enough in captivity to reach a marriageable age; he evidently was later accorded kingly status - a not unusual circumstance in those days - for the girl he married is called (in Jeremiah 29:2) "his queen." Scripture has taken care to provide us with very concrete information to this effect (II Kings 25:27-30) as though God foresaw that one day this information would be important.

Now, to bring the two genealogies at this point into harmony, it is only necessary to assume that Neri of Luke 3:27 also went into captivity and there raised both sons and daughters, and that one of these daughters became the wife and queen of Jechonias. This is a most reasonable assumption really, because, if Neri was known to be of the royal line through Nathan (and Nehemiah 7:5 shows that at least some genealogies had been saved in spite of the conquest of Judah), then who would be more proper as the wife of the still-acknowledged king than a daughter of the royal line? Of this marriage, Jechonias had a son (among others) whose name was Salathiel (I Chron. 3:17) and besides Salathiel he had also a second son named Pedaiah. In I Chronicles 3:19 Pedaiah had a son named Zerubbabel (the "Zorobabel" of the New Testament). Thus Salathiel was, in fact, properly called the son of Jechonias but also the son of Neri through the latter's daughter. The two lines from David through Solomon and through Nathan meet in Salathiel by this device. Salathiel's brother, Pedaiah, though not mentioned in either of the New Testament genealogies, appears to have exercised the right of the Levirate upon the early death of his brother Salathiel, and to have taken his wife, by whom he raised up to Salathiel's line a son named Zorobabel.

In Zorobabel we again meet with an example of a man's children being traced through their mother's father. Zorobabel had both sons and daughters, but the male seed for some unknown reason came to an end, thus fulfilling the prophecy made in Jeremiah 22:30 that no man of Jechonias' seed "should sit on the throne of David." We are, however, given his daughter's name in I Chronicles 3:19 as "Shelomith." We have only to make one further assumption, namely, that this girl married the Rhesa of Luke 3:17 and had of this union two sons - Abiud of Matthew 1:13 and Joanna of Luke 3:17 - and the rest makes perfectly good sense and the two genealogies are reconciled, the one with the other.

By this means - always bearing in mind the manner of stating relationships which was allowable - we can see how, according to Matthew, Jechonias had a son Salathiel and Salathiel had a son (via his brother Pedaiah) Zorobabel, and Zorobabel a son (actually a grandchild through his daughter Shelomith) named Abiud, and thence down to Joseph: and at the same time, according to Luke, how Neri could have a son Salathiel (actually his grandson), who had a son Zorobabel (again, in fact a grandson), who had a son Rhesa (actually his son-in-law, as Joseph was Heli's son-in-law), and Rhesa a son, Joanna by his wife Shelomith who was a daughter of Zorobabel, and thence down to Heli.


This sounds terribly complicated, but the included full genealogical table gives both lines, will show that all the requirements of all that we know, both from the Old and the New Testament, seem to be satisfied.

The fundamental departure found in Luke's Gospel, is that in this genealogy we are not presented at the top of the page with the oldest antecedent followed by father, sons, grandsons, and so on, but rather with the latest in the line, who is then by a simple device traced backwards - whereas all other genealogies trace forward. Why was this order adopted?

There is a second departure, namely, that whereas Matthew and John both commence their history by establishing the pedigree, Luke covers briefly but effectively a period of some thirty years in the life of the Lord before saying who He is in terms of His antecedents.


It is not until this time - when Jesus, being now about thirty years of age, has been identified by John as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" and singularly considered by God in heaven as His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased - that Luke sets forth His lineage, showing in effect that though the circumstances of Jesus' birth were such as to set Him apart from all other men, yet He was nevertheless truly representative of man in Adam.

The genealogy of Matthew reads forward from Abraham to Jesus, identifying Him as the Child of Promise. Promises are always of the future, and Matthew wished above all to establish from the very first that Jesus was the Christ, the fulfillment of this promise. He wanted to show the grounds upon which Jesus established His title as the Messiah, and his Gospel thereafter presents His credentials as the Son of David.

Luke, on the other hand, wished to show the potential of man, the model which God had in mind from which all other men derive whatever of manhood they happen to have. Hence he begins with Jesus and appropriately gives Him alone, above all others, the title "Son of Man," and then he traces Him back to Adam, in whose place He stood.

Thus Matthew begins with Abraham and leads us forward to the Lord, whom he identifies by His title, "the Christ" (Matt. 1:17); whereas Luke begins with the Lord, whom he identifies by His name, "Jesus" (Luke 3:23), and leads us back to Adam and so to God.

Granted, this one was a little more complicated, but for a New Testament “scholar”, Bart should be able to work it out.

Claim #6: Contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

Bart claims there is a contradiction in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

This was just another lame attempt by a HACK!

Conclusions

Bart made some other lame attempts to sow doubt in the uncritical mind, but then talked himself out of it admitting that they weren't really contradictions, hence I did not address any of that nonsense...but I do wonder why he bothered writing it - maybe to fill some space in his book?

He also mentions something about the sun, the moon and the stars...if anyone really cares about what Bart has to say after reading this, then maybe I'll point them to where I've already addressed those matters in a previous thread.

[Vangelovski]

Limits to Evolvability

By Ray Bohlin


The Misuse of Artificial Selection


Most people assume that evolution allows almost unlimited biological change. Even so, a few simple observations show that there are indeed limits to biological change. Certainly the ubiquitous presence of convergence suggests that biological change is not limitless since evolution appears to arrive at certain solutions again and again. There appear to be only so many ways that organisms can propel themselves through water, over land or through the air. The wings of insects, birds and bats, though not ancestrally related, all show certain design similarities. At the very least, various physical parameters constrain biological change and adaptation. Certainly there are physical constraints. But what about biological constraints?
In arguing for extensive evolutionary change, Darwin relied heavily on the analogy between artificial selection and natural selection. Darwin, a skilled breeder of pigeons, recognized that just about any identifiable trait could be accentuated or diminished through careful breeding (i.e., artificial selection). Darwin then reasoned that a similar form of selection also occurred in nature (i.e., natural selection) and could accomplish the same thing. It would just need more time.


But artificial selection has proven just the opposite. For essentially every trait, although it usually harbors some variability, there has always been a limit. Whether the organisms or selected traits are roses, dogs, pigeons, horses, cattle, protein content in corn, or the sugar content in beets, selection certainly has an effect. But all selected qualities eventually fizzle out. Chickens don't produce cylindrical eggs. We can't produce a plum the size of a pea or a grapefruit. There are limits to how far we can go. Some people grow as tall as seven feet, and some grow no taller than three; but none are over twelve feet or under two. There are limits to change.
But perhaps the most telling argument against the usefulness of artificial selection as a model for natural selection is the actual process of selection. Darwin called it artificial selection. A better term would have been intentional selection. The phrase artificial selection makes it sound simple and undirected. Yet every breeder, whether of plants or animals, is always looking for something in particular. The selection process is always designed to a particular end.


If you want a dog that hunts better, you breed your best hunters hoping to accentuate the trait. If you desire roses of a particular color, you choose roses of similar color hoping to arrive at the desired shade. In other words, you plan and manipulate the process. Natural selection can do no such thing. Natural selection, by contrast, operates with no plan and is at the mercy of whatever variations come along. Trying to compare a directed to an undirected process offers no insight into evolution at all.

The Real Power of Natural Selection


It is instructive that we had to wait until the 1950s, almost 100 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, for a documented case of natural selection, the famous Peppered Moth (Biston betularia). The story begins with the observation that before the industrial revolution, moth collections of Great Britain contained the peppered variety, a light colored, but speckled moth. With the rise of industrial pollution, a dark form or melanic variety became more prevalent. As environmental controls were enacted, pollution levels decreased and the peppered variety made a strong come back.


It seemed that as pollution increased, the lichens on trees died off and the bark became blackened. The previously camouflaged peppered variety was now conspicuous and the previously conspicuous melanic form was now camouflaged. Birds could more readily see the conspicuous variety and the two forms changed frequency depending on their surrounding conditions. This was natural selection at work.


There were always problems with this standard story. What did it really show? First, the melanic form was always in the population, just at very low frequencies. So we start with two varieties of the peppered moth and we still have two forms. The frequencies change but nothing new has been added to the population. Second, we really don't know the genetics of industrial melanism in these moths. We don't have a detailed explanation of how the two forms are generated. And third, in some populations, the frequencies of the two moths changed whether there was a corresponding change in the tree bark or not. The only consistent factor was pollution (see Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution, pp. 137-157). The best known example of evolution in action thus reduces to a mere footnote.


Even Darwin's finches from the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador tell us little of large scale evolution. The thirteen species of finches on the Galapagos Islands show subtle variation in the size and shape of their beaks based on the primary food source of the particular species of finch. While the finches do show change over time in response to environmental factors-hence natural selection-the change is reversible! The size and shape of their beaks will vary slightly depending if the year is wet or dry (varying the size of seeds produced) and revert back when the conditions reverse. There is no directional change. It is even possible that the thirteen species are more like six or seven species since hybrids form so readily, especially among the ground finches, and survive quite well. Once again, where is the real evolution?


There are many other documented examples of natural selection operating in the wild. But they all show that whereas limited change is possible, there are also limits to change. No one, as far as I know, questions the reality of natural selection. The real issue is that examples such as the Peppered Moth and Darwin's Finches tell us nothing about evolution.

Mutations Do Not Produce Real Change

While most evolutionists will acknowledge that there are limits to change, they insist that natural selection is not sufficient without a continual source of variation. In the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, mutations of all sorts fill that role. These mutations fall into two main categories, mutations to structural genes and mutations to developmental genes. I will define structural genes as those which code for a protein that performs a maintenance, metabolic, support or specialized function in the cell. Developmental genes influence specific tasks in embryological development and therefore can change the morphology or actual appearance of an organism
Most evolutionary studies have focused on mutations in structural genes. But in order for large scale changes to happen, mutations in developmental genes must be explored.

We'll come back to these developmental mutations a little later. Most examples that we have of mutations generating supposed evolutionary change involve structural genes. The most common example of these kinds of mutations producing significant evolutionary change involves microbial antibiotic resistance. Since the introduction of penicillin during World War II, the use of antibiotics has mushroomed. Much to everyone's surprise, bacteria have the uncanny ability to become resistant to these antibiotics. This has been trumpeted far and wide as real evidence that nature's struggle for existence results in genetic change, evolution.


But microbial antibiotic resistance comes in many forms that aren't so dramatic. Sometimes the genetic mutation simply allows the antibiotic to be pumped out of the cell faster than normal or taken into the cell more slowly. Other times the antibiotic is deactivated inside the cell by a closely related enzyme already present. In other cases, the molecule inside the cell that is the target of the antibiotic is ever so slightly modified so the antibiotic no longer affects it. All of these mechanisms occur naturally and the mutations simply intensify an ability the cell already has. No new genetic information is added (see Lester and Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, pp. 103, 170).


The great French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé, when addressing mutations in bacteria, remarked, "What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect" (Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 87).


So far I have been describing what is commonly called microevolution. Evolutionists have basically assumed that the well-documented processes of microevolution eventually produce macroevolutionary changes given enough time. But this assumption is itself problematic.

Natural Selection Does not Produce New Body Plans?

A fundamental question that now needs to be addressed is how sponges, starfish, cockroaches, butterflies, eels, frogs, woodpeckers and humans all arose from single-cell beginnings without design, purpose or plan. All such organisms have very different body plans. How can all these different body plans arise from mutation and natural selection? This is a far bigger and more difficult problem than antibiotic resistance, which only requires small biochemical changes. The question, then, is how morphological change comes about.


The problem of macroevolution therefore requires developmental mutations. We somehow have to change how the organism is built. Structural genes tend to have little effect on the development of a body plan. But the genes that control development, and thus ultimately influence the body plan, tend to find expression quite early in development. But this raises its own problems because the developing embryo is quite sensitive to early developmental mutations. As Wallace Arthur notes (The Origin of Animal Body Plans, p. 14), "Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so."


If developmental mutations that can offer actual benefit are so rare, then macroevolution would be expected to be a slow, difficult and bumpy process. Darwin indicated as much in the concluding chapter of his Origin of Species: "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can only act in short and slow steps."


Accordingly, not only is the type of mutation a problem but so is the rate of mutation. Susumo Ohno points out that "it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences …. [The] emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can't possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions" ("The Notion of the Cambrian Pananimalia Genome," PNAS 93(1996): 8475-78).
Along the way, functional organisms must assume intermediate forms. But even the functionality of these intermediate organisms transforming from one body plan to another has long puzzled even the most dedicated evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard paleontologist asked, "But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed? . . . The dung-mimicking insect is well protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?" (Ever Since Darwin, p. 104)


With his usual flair, Gould asks a penetrating question. There do indeed appear to be built in limits to evolutionary change.


BIOSKETCH: Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). He is the co-author of the book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, served as general editor of Creation, Evolution and Modern Science, co-author of Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research and Cloning (from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity), and has published several journal and magazine articles. Dr. Bohlin is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

[makedonin]

These thread is requiring second job just to answer in extend the whole ramble here. So I will spare my self the time and take only on the one that will require very little time.

Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction.

Oh really?

So you claim that the interpretation of the text is wrong because of the tense used in the translation you quote that allows you to manipulate the chronology of the described events.

Well, instead to run to lookinguntojesus.net you should have read the literal translation of the Hebrew text first.

Lets look into the Young's litteral translation that is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

15And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it.
16And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat;
17and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.
20And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper -- as his counterpart.
21And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead. 22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;
23and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken;
24therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.
25And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.

Genesis 2:15-25

Here are few things to be noted:

1. The account is written in simple present tense as if it is written during the actual event.
2. The account is chronological. Each step is introduced with the conjunction AND.
3. The newer Bible translations are mostly done by Christians who know the problems thus are translated in such way that obvious contradictions are avoided as much as possible.
4. The creation of the "beasts" is introduced with as "And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field" where the word "formeth" as you most probably know is the archaic third-person singular simple present indicative, which blows your hypothesis away.
5. It is safe to conclude that the animals in Genesis 2:19 are created after the humans because the narrative in the original is told in simple present tense and their creation is upended chronologically after the creation of the humans.
6. When read in context, the creation in Genesis 2 shows us that it has built in chronological frame that unmistakably places the creation of the animals after that of Adam, and after them the creation of the woman.:
   1. The frame begins with a negative conclusion which triggers the purpose i.e. reason for creating the animals: "And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' "Genesis 2:18; The negative conclusion is that the man was all alone, and he needed counterpart helper. This triggers the creation of the animals:
      
   2. After creating the animals and Adam giving them names, and than the discouraging conclusion is made: " and to man hath not been found an helper -- as his counterpart." Genesis 2:20; which means that the man is still alone and has no counter part. (by the way, ever wondering why is God looking counterpart for man among the beasts?)
      
   3. That ultimately leads to the creation of the woman, Eve after tradition, with putting Adam at sleep and plucking out a rib from him and forming Eve out of it (Genesis 2:21-22), which is also at odds with the Genesis 1, where both humans are said to be created at the same time.
      
   4. The time frame is ultimately closed with the positive conclusion: "`This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken;" Genesis 2:23 Finally the initial problem was solved, man was no longer alone and he had a helper counterpart.
   
   

So, is there a contradiction with Genesis 1:24-27?

Of course there is because of the built in chronological frame that places unmistakably the creation of animals after man and before woman, and because the narrative in the original is told in simple present tense:

24And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so.
25And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.
26And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'
27And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

Genesis 1:24-27

where "maketh" is (archaic) Third-person singular form of make, "prepareth" is third-person singular simple present indicative form of prepare and "saith" (1)(used with he, she, or it) Archaic a form of the present tense (indicative mood) of say.

This was just another lame attempt by a HACK!

Yes it was, guess who is the hack?

... some other lame attempts to sow doubt in the uncritical mind ...

I begin to doubt that you have anything near to critical mind.

Nah if that is something new....

[George S.]

I remember years ago when iwas going to sunday schhol we were taught how lucifer was an angel of light & he with some angels rebelled against god but he was banished to this earth he is god of this world.I wonder where that is & at what point did it happen.Did it happen before man was created or where in genesis it describes the earth as being in chaos without order or form.Does this mean that satan the devil destroyed the earth???He was mean't to beautify it etc.When he became the devil he set about on a path of destruction.I wonder if in the bible in genesis where it says"tohu & bohu hebrew for the earth was in chaos & without form had anything to do with it.???Could that indicate that span before creation????

[makedonin]

What does that relate to?

It accounts for any inaccuracy that is know that may be involved. Thus, even if the dating methods are out by a factor of 10 or 100, the earth is still thousands of times older than Creationists claim.

Creationism and Accelerated Decay

By Matthew Rognstad


Others had tried. to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in 'standard' radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God's Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong (Wieland 2003).
The conclusions of the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) Project as summarized above signify an important shift in argumentation by many of the major institutions of young-Earth creationism such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. It marks a move away from reliance on 'appearance of age' and the arguments of creationists like John Woodmoreappe (Plaisted 2002), who asserted that radioisotope dates are the result of filtering essentially random numbers through the institutional biases of science. These young-Earth creationists now argue that radioisotope decay has actually occurred, can be measured accurately, and that it would require billions of years at present rates to account for the current condition of the Earth. The scientific community has been making those very arguments for decades. The RATE team, however, because of their unshakable Biblical faith in a 6,000 year old Earth, rejects uniformitarianism (Humphreys 2005:93) and argues that the rate of decay was greatly accelerated during the first two days of Creation Week and during the year-long Flood of Noah (DeYoung 2005:150-151). This paper examines the evidence RATE cites for believing that decay has been accelerated, the proposed mechanisms for that acceleration, and several difficulties with the theory.
The RATE group identified four separate pieces of evidence for the acceleration of radioisotope decay: (1) helium accumulation in zircon crystals, (2) the existence of polonium halos, (3) isotope discordance, and (4) the presence of 14C in diamonds (Vardiman et al. 2005:766). Zircon crystals contain high quantities of uranium, which produces helium during its decay process. This helium, being a noble gas, should normally be able to escape the crystal more quickly than it would be produced by uranium decay at the present rate; this is borne out by diffusion measurements conducted by RATE. Yet helium has somehow accumulated in these zircon crystals. According to RATE, accelerated decay would explain this anomaly (Vardiman et al. 2005:740). Given that diffusion rates are known to be highly variable, it is curious that RATE would believe this clock more reliable than radioisotope decay.
Turning to the issue of radiohalos, alpha particles released during nuclear decay have been known to cause visible discoloration in rocks. RATE argues that the halos produced by various isotopes are differentiable from each other based on size and coloration. Polonium is an unstable isotope that forms from radon decay as part of the larger uranium decay series. RATE argues that they have identified polonium halos in close proximity to uranium halos. They argue that, given the short half life of polonium, these halos could only form under a condition of rapid decay and rapid cooling of magma (Vardiman et al. 2005:743-744). The accepted scientific model actually does a good job of explaining these halos. Given that almost all of uranium-238's 4.5 billion year half life results from the first step in its decay series where 238U decays to 234Th, plenty of uranium would still exist long after slow-cooling magma had solidified. After several more steps, the thorium would eventually decay to radon, which is a noble gas. Noble gases are considered slippery because they do not latch onto other isotopes; that could allow the radon to travel the small distances and create the gaps between the halos that the RATE team noted.
The third argument for acceleration offered by RATE is that of isotope discordance. They start by asserting that radioisotope dates for all isotopes in a rock should always match perfectly. RATE provides a number of examples where the dates provided by various methods fall outside the margin of error for other isotopic methods. From their samples, RATE tries to extrapolate a general discordance across all radiometric dates and offers accelerated decay as an explanation for the discrepancy. This leads them to discount all three assumptions that underlie radioisotope decay: knowable initial condition, closed system, and constant decay rate (Vardiman et al. 2005:749).
The final bit of evidence for acceleration cited by RATE is the presence of trace amounts of 14C in diamonds and other 'old' objects. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is constantly created in the atmosphere. All living things contain the same amount of 14C because they constantly ingest it. Upon death, the 14C levels begin to decrease, halving every 5,730 years. The RATE group found trace amounts of 14C in ancient coal deposits and diamonds believed to be hundreds of millions of years old based on their position in the geologic record; virtually all the 14C should have already decayed. They argue that 14C has been impervious to the acceleration of decay processes that affected other isotopes. Therefore the 50,000 year maximum date possible using carbon-14 represents an effective maximum age of the Earth because no truly ancient deposits would contain residual 14C (Vardiman et al. 2005:756). This argument makes little sense. Carbon-14, like the potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium isotope dating methods RATE indicts, is an example of beta decay. All beta decay rates should be similarly affected by any change in atomic or sub-atomic forces, so 14C would have been greatly accelerated along with 40K and 87Rb. If decay had truly been accelerated, and if 500 million years worth of decay occurred in one real year, then one would never find radiocarbon dates older than the Flood. There certainly would not be any residual carbon-14 in ancient diamonds. Therefore RATE's discovery of ancient 14C argues strongly against their proposal of accelerated decay, not for it.
The RATE team offers two mechanisms for accelerated decay. The first possibility is specific to alpha decay processes (e.g. uranium). The protons and neutrons of an atom are normally held together in the nucleus by the nuclear strong force (DeYoung 2005:144). During alpha decay, two neutrons and two protons escape the nucleus as an alpha particle. To do so, the alpha particle must have enough energy to overcome the threshold of the strong force, called the Coulomb barrier (DeYoung 2005:145). There is a finite probability that alpha particles will have the necessary energy. The RATE researchers posit that God accelerated alpha decay by weakening the strong force, thereby allowing lower energy alpha particles to escape the nucleus (Chaffin 2005:527; DeYoung 2005:146).
What about beta decay? To explain an acceleration of beta decay RATE looked to string theory, which argues that matter is made up of miniscule knots in space-time that are trillions of times smaller than subatomic particles like electrons. These knots may exist in up to ten dimensions. String theory connects the state of these invisible dimensions to the Fermi constant, upon which beta decay depends (DeYoung 2005:149). Carbon-14, postassium-40, and rubidium-87 all decay via the beta process. According to DeYoung, string theory:
could explore small, temporary adjustments of unseen dimensions, perhaps by the direct hand of the Creator. This might alter the Fermi constant and in turn, adjust nuclear decay rates significantly. There are several "ifs" in this exploration of accelerated decay and it is presented here only as an example of ongoing research (149).
Chaffin (2005:547) expands on this basic idea in the larger, more technical RATE book.
°There are, however, a number of serious difficulties with RATE's hypothesis of accelerated decay. The RATE creationists acknowledge two of the most fundamental side effects of any such acceleration: heat and radiation. Aggregated over the 4.5 billion year history of Earth, radioactive decay has produced tremendous amounts of both. The acceleration of 4 billion years of decay into the first two days of the creation week and squeezing 500 million years into the year of the Flood (DeYoung 2005:150-151) is rather problematic. The Flood acceleration alone would have released enough energy to heat the Earth to a temperature of more than 22,000° C (Snelling 2005:183), which is roughly four times the temperature of the surface of the sun (DeYoung 2005:152). That amount of energy would have caused rocks, and presumably the entire crust of the Earth, to vaporize (DeYoung 2005:152; Snelling 2005:183). Aside from the fact that the planet would no longer exist, the geologic evidence RATE cites in support of acceleration would certainly have been obliterated. Temperatures above 150-400° C would have erased the fission tracks and radiohalos, and destroyed the zircon crystals cited by RATE (DeYoung 2005:152; Snelling 2005:182). In fact, the temperature increase in the zircons would have been an order of magnitude higher than average because of their abnormally high concentration of uranium (Snelling 2005:183). Helium diffusion improves rapidly at higher temperatures, so that would seem to contradict RATE's claims about diffusion.
D. Russell Humphreys of the RATE team makes a novel suggestion regarding heat accumulation. Simply put, at the same moment God accelerated radioisotope decay, he also expanded the size of the universe twenty-fold (DeYoung 2005:153). This is an application of volumetric cooling, which is how refrigerators work by compressing and expanding gas. Humphreys argues the Bible contains scriptural evidence for two periods of cosmic expansion that coincide with RATE's proffered two periods of accelerated decay (Humphreys 2005:73). For example, Psalms 104:2 says, "Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" (CreationWiki 2005). The problem is that volumetric cooling only works for gases, not solids. In other words, there is no way a 22,000° C Earth could have been cooled through surface conduction before it exploded (Vardiman et al. 2005:763). It seems clear that even the divine intervention to expand the universe in four dimensions proposed by Humphreys would be inadequate to solve the heat problem (Vardiman et al. 2005:763).
Humphreys actually argues that the real problem with his cosmological cooling hypothesis is that it would cool the Earth too much (Humphreys 2005:73). The uranium-rich zircon crystals would require tremendous cooling, but if the entire planet was cooled as much as required to preserve the zircon crystals, the Flood waters would have frozen, and everything aboard the ark would have died (Vardiman et al. 2005:764). Nevertheless, because he believes both that accelerated decay occurred and that he is descended from Noah's family who used the ark to survive the Flood, Humphreys is confident that a good explanation for cooling exists (Humphreys 2005:74). The presence of radiohalos similarly convinces Snelling that God intervened not only to massively accelerate radioactive decay, but also to miraculously dissipate enormous quantities of heat (Snelling 2005:184). One might wonder if that is really the most reasonable explanation.
The other major problem RATE acknowledges is that the massive amounts of radiation released by large-scale acceleration of radioisotope decay would have killed everything on the planet, including the people and animals on the ark. The lethal effect of radiation appears to be the primary reason RATE concluded that most accelerated decay occurred during the first two days of creation, before life existed (DeYoung 2005:150), and for rejecting an episode of acceleration during the Fall and Judgment (Vardiman et al. 2005:737). But the acceleration during Noah's Flood is more vexing:
There is the obvious issue of protecting the precious animal and human life on board the ark. The water barrier between the ark and the earth's rock layers could have played a major role along with divine intervention (DeYoung 2005:151).
On face, the argument that water could shield the ark from such radiation seems dubious, but actually it is rather reasonable given that open water or pool-type nuclear reactors use water for exactly that purpose (Wikipedia 2005). The real problem is that the human body itself contains enough 40K and 14C that acceleration on the scale proposed by RATE would be fatal. Since the RATE team believes that the people on the ark must have survived for any humans to exist today, they concluded that people at the time of the Flood must have contained fewer unstable isotopes (DeYoung 2005:153-154; Vardiman et al. 2005:764-765).
Another problem with RATE's hypothesis is the substantial scientific evidence that the rate of isotope decay has been constant. First, alpha and beta decay rates have proven to be impressively resistant to change when subjected to incredible temperature and pressure extremes, chemical alteration, and magnetic and electrical fields (Dalrymple 2004:59). Because alpha and beta decay are so different and depend on different forces, it seems likely that any change would have resulted in disparities between the two decay types orders of magnitude greater than those noted by RATE (Stassen 2005), yet radioisotope dating involving both decay types routinely gives consistent results (Isaak 2003). There are also several independent checks for any change in decay rates. Supernovae make excellent tests:
Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes. These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away, and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Isaak 2003; internal citations removed)
It is worth noting that supernova evidence would not be affected by a change in the speed of light (Carlip 2001), so this evidence would apply even in the case of rapid cosmic expansion. According to Stassen (2005), numerous other noticeable phenomena would be manifest if decay rates had changed; the radius of planets, the orbit of Earth and the moon, and absorption lines of quasars would all be noticeably different than they are right now. A compelling final chance for verification comes from the Oklo natural reactor, which was the site of a fission reaction 1.8 billion years ago (Carlip 2005). Research on that site has shown the fine structure constant and neutron capture to be unchanged for nearly two billion years (Isaak 2003). RATE argues that two or more variables may have been altered simultaneously to cancel out the evidence of acceleration at Oklo (Chaffin 2005:539). Methodological errors could exist in any of these phenomena, but taken together the evidence of constant decay rates is compelling (Stassen 2005).
The final question is whether RATE's arguments are scientific and logical. The most important thing to notice is that although RATE tries to scientifically explain what would need to change in order to accelerate radioisotope decay, their propositions still absolutely depend on divine intervention at every step along the way. They identified physical properties that, if altered, could affect decay rates, but that does not do anything to prove creation. Surely any being that can create the universe and everything in it in six days would not depend on the existence of some physical property in order to act; the whole point is that God is omnipotent. Talking about string theory, general relativity, and the nuclear strong force dresses creationism up in its scientific best, but it is still creationism and utterly depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible and omnipotent supernaturalism. As stated in the conclusion of RATE's detailed findings:
The basic problem is that we do not have enough information about how God managed these processes. And, even if we had more information, how would we describe them in current scientific terms? All of these events were supernatural, if not in kind, at least in terms of energetics and speed (Vardiman et al 2005:761).
Then why attempt to describe these admittedly unscientific ideas in a scientific manner at all? There is also a fundamental epistemological problem: they argue that they came into the project with no preconceived ideas about what the data would show (Vardiman et al. 2005:765), but they did have unshakable faith in a biblical interpretation that mandates a 6,000 year-old Earth (DeYoung 2005:174; Morris 2005:xxvi-xxvii; Vardiman 2005:2-3; Vardiman et al. 2005:738-739). They may not have known how specific experiments would turn out, but they did know how they would interpret the results. Their conceptual framework was basically a one-way ratchet. If they found evidence to support their ideas, then God used a natural process to accelerate decay rates. If not, he must have used an invisible method (Vardiman et al. 2005:763). It was never a question whether God created everything 6,000 year ago; it was only about how to make the best case for young-Earth creation. It is worth remembering that the RATE group was formed with the expressed purpose of discrediting radioisotope dating (Vardiman 2005:2). Additionally, how does this new acceleration argument make God any less deceptive than the standard 'appearance of age' argument does? Why would God create a young Earth and then go through the great trouble of accelerating decay to make it appear old (DeYoung 2005:152)? Would it not be a lot simpler to just make it look old in the first place?
The RATE team certainly brings a new level of professional qualifications and technical detail to creationist arguments. The helium accumulation in zircon crystals and residual carbon-14 they documented are definitely interesting findings. It is, however, far from clear that they actually support the idea of accelerated decay, especially when the heat generated would have erased all the evidence they found. RATE unfortunately relies on supernatural intervention to initiate the acceleration of radioisotope decay and then further depends on miracles to overcome the daunting heat and radiation created by that acceleration. That places the RATE arguments well outside the realm of science (Vardiman et al. 2005:736). While the RATE members identified the physical constants that would need to be modified in order to shrink geologic time, it is unclear what additional credibility that adds to their argument since it is still fundamentally about divine intervention. Though accelerated decay is billed as an improvement on 'appearance of age,' the two are substantially similar in their implications.
Sources:

1. Carlip, Steve. 2001. The constancy of constants. The Talk.Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.html Last updated: October, 2001. Accessed: November 29, 2005.
2. Carlip, Steve. 2005. Have physical constants changed with time? Usenet Physics FAQ. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...constants.html Last updated: August, 2005. Accessed: November 29, 2005.
3. Chaffin, Eugene F. 2005. Accelerated decay: Theoretical considerations. Chapter 7 ( pp. 525-586) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
4. CreationWiki. 2005. Accelerated Decay. CreationWiki. http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index...elerated_decay Last updated: December 2, 2005. Accessed: December 2, 2005.
5. Dalrymple, G. Brent. 2004. Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 247 p.
6. DeYoung, Don. 2005. Thousands. Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Master Books, Forest Green Arkansas, 190 p.
7. Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and Andrew A. Snelling. 2004. Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay. Creation Research Service Quarterly, 41(1). http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...1_1/Helium.htm Last updated: June 1, 2004. Accessed: November 29, 2005.
8. Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay. Chapter 2 (pp. 25-100) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
9. Isaak, Mark. 2003. Claim CF210. The Talk.Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html Last updated: June 4, 2003. Accessed: November 29, 2005.
10. Morris, John D. 2005. Prologue. Prologue (pp. xxv-xxx) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
11. Plaisted, David. March 10, 2002. The radiometric dating game. The True.Origin Archive: Exposing the Myth of Evolution. http://www.trueorigin.org//dating.asp Accessed: December 4, 2005.
12. Snelling, Andrew A. 2005. Radiohalos in granites: Evidence for accelerated nuclear decay. Chapter 3 (pp. 101-208) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
13. Stassen, Chris. 2005. The age of the Earth. The Talk.Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#constant Last updated: September 10, 2005. Accessed: November 29, 2005.
14. Vardiman, Larry. 2005. Introduction. Chapter 1 (pp. 1-24) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
15. Vardiman, Larry, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Steven W. Boyd, Eugene F. Chaffin, Donald B. DeYoung, D. Russell Humphreys, and Andrew A. Snelling. 2005. Summary of evidence for a young earth from the RATE project. Chapter 10 (pp. 735-772) in L. Vardiman, A., A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.) Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 818 p.
16. Wieland, Carl. August 21, 2003. RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs! Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp Accessed: December 4, 2005.
17. Wikipedia. 2005. Pool Type Reactor. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_type_reactor Last updated: November 10, 2005. Accessed: December 2, 2005.

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content...ted_decay.html

[makedonin]

Some Biblical Creationists still claim that fossil hominid skulls are either human skulls or ape skulls, but not any kind of transition in between. Let's take a close look at their supposition, and see if it holds up.

Let's think about this...

This is what a chimpanzee skull looks like: and here is what a gorilla skull looks like:

The average brain size of a chimpanzee is 390 cc. A modern human brain size is about 1400 cc. The gorilla skull is just too different from a human skull, so we'll leave him out of our investigation. But there is obviously no way you could confuse a human skull with a chimpanzee, is there? For instance, if you found a chimp skull in the dirt, is there any way you could mistake it for a human skull? Or vice versa?

I doubt that you could confuse the next two examples either. The Homo Erectus (Upright Man) skull, even with its heavy brow-ridge and lack of forehead, is still very human-looking. But does the Homo Erectus skull look identical to the modern Homo Sapiens skull? The brain capacity of the Homo Erectus is only about 1000 cc, smaller than that of modern man, yet twice as large as the chimpanzee. Hmm.


The next two are also very different. The Homo Habilis (Handy Man) skull has a relatively large brain compared to the chimp (around 700 cc), very different cheeks, larger nasal cavity and small canine teeth. The Homo Habilis skull does not resemble any modern ape. But its brain is only HALF the size of a modern human. So, if evolution didn't happen, who were these individuals?

The next one starts to resemble the chimp. They both have elongated faces and brow ridges. But the Africanus skull has a brain capacity larger than the chimp. Notice that the Africanus does not have sharp canine teeth, as the chimp does, and look at the difference in the cheekbones and nasal cavity. But is the Africanus a human skull? No. It is not designated as a "Homo" Africanus. It is one of our pre-human ancestors, and through them, our relationship to our cousins, the chimpanzees, grows clear.

Much the same can be said of the next two. If you found these two together, you could not classify them as the same species. The Afarensis has a brain of about 415 cc, slightly larger than the chimp. They are obviously both primates, and closely related. But the biggest difference, the difference that absolutley excludes Afarensis, or Lucy (as she is most commonly known) from being a version of chimpanzee, is that she walked upright on two legs (fully bipedal) with a modern-looking knee. The chimp has no such ability, and can only sustain partial bipedal locomotion for a few seconds at a time, due to a knee that cannot straighten out. Chimpanzees are not bipedal- they are quadrupeds. Lucy's kind walked the earth 3 to 4 million years ago.


There is another important thing to consider. None of these skulls:
are found where these skulls are found:
And so on. I wont bother putting up all the skulls again just to illustrate the point that these hominids skulls are found exactly in the order in which they are presented on this page. You don't see modern human skulls in any strata much older than about 100,000 years. You do find these other hominid fossils, and in the order that is shown here, which is exactly what you would expect if one evolved from another. That is one of the predictions of Evolutionary theory. You don't find the fossils randomized, or mixed up, as you would expect to find them if they all lived at the same time. You figure it out!

Here is another look at some of these hominid skulls. Can you call any of them monkeys? The small skull is not a child- it has fully adult teeth. Are they all modern people? Note the size of the brain cavity, brow ridge, and overall shape. The answer is obvious to anyone who does not have a priori bias against the idea.

You figure it out...

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/you_figure_it_out.htm


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1/IIntro.shtml