Bible Defense

[Typhoon1244]

These questions cannot be answered by hard-core Darwinists:

• 1. How did single-celled life originate?
  
  2. How to explain irreducible complexity in bio-chemistry.
  
  3. How the tree of life looks more like a criss-crossing web than a simple tree -even getting one species mapped out results in many different patterns with no single theoretical grouping being agreed upon as with the horse.
  
  4. Why species are introduced fully formed in the fossil record remaining unchanged for millions of years.
  
  5. Why species can be linked with no fossil record for millions of years between members of an animal that is said to have evolved.
  
  6. How random mutation usually results in the loss of genetic material, then leads to the proliferation of higher life forms.
  
  7. How several different phyla of species literally explode in the fossil record coming about in the same place at the same geological point in time.
  
  8. How the eye has a parallel development in vertebrate and invertebrate rather than a linear progression from simple to complex as was first suggested.

So there are serious problems with the theory of evolution.

Jesus, Super 80, how long has it been since you've been in school? All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology! If you'd put down the Bible occasionally and try to educate yourself, you'd have your answers! If you had even a basic understanding of the law of evolution by natural selection, you would need to ask questions like these.

 

[Herman Bloom]

"Jesus, Super 80, how long has it been since you've been in school? All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology! If you'd put down the Bible occasionally and try to educate yourself, you'd have your answers! If you had even a basic understanding of the law of evolution by natural selection, you would need to ask questions like these."

My sentiments exactly. These people are absurd.

 

[blueridge71]

You may not be able to test faith, but you can base faith on something that is concrete and testable.

Again, I refer you guys to the book, The Case for Christ , by Lee Strobel.

There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient work. Vastly more. We are talking about thousands versus a dozen or fewer for most other works.

These documents are all essentially the same, with no material differences. Thus, what we read today is what the authors intended for us to read.

Although, the gospels were written 20-30 years after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, they contain what is widely believed to be church creeds dating back to 1-2 years from that event. These creeds support the notion that Christ proclaimed himself divine and rose from the dead.

At the time the creeds came into being, and even years later when the gospels were written, there were still many witnesses alive. They would have disputed the version presented by the disciples, but there is no record that they did. This is spite of numerous extra-biblical references to Jesus.

Thus the church did not grow on a corrupted version of events. And it started in Jerusalem, an area where many people had personal knowledge of the events that transpired.

The Case for Christ also mentions an extra-biblical reference that supports the biblical statements about the darkness at mid-day when Jesus died. The Roman source states that authorities tried to pass it off as an eclipse.

Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that Jesus made many claims of deity and proved them, not only by rising from the dead, but by working miracles while alive. The statement that Jesus was a good teacher is not an option. If He was a good teacher and moral man, He would not have claimed to be something that He wasn't. He was either a madman, a liar (both of which are not supported by His actions), or He was and is the Messiah.

With respect to biology, have you guys ever heard of entropy? A system goes from more order to more disorder. This flies in the face of evolution. It's like expecting an explosion to result in the creation of a Swiss watch. The changes observe in nature usually reflect this in that they go from more to less complex. An example would be cave fish losing their eyesight as opposed to gaining sonar.

Second, Super80 is correct in that there are no transition fossils. Instead, even evolutionists admit that the fossils representing current animal's ancestors appeared over a relatively short period of time. This is known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that not just any carcass makes a fossil. They have to become buried, perhaps in mud or volcanic ash, for a period of time under intense pressure. What could cause this? Oh, I dunno, maybe a worldwide flood that buried millions of animals in a torrent of mud?

One last point, for years, it was thought that it took millions of years to create a fossil. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s, I remember reading that a fossilized baseball cap was found buried in the ash as they did the cleanup. I don't remember hearing that anyone thought this cap was from the Paleozoic or Cretaceous though.

 

[Super 80]

No. Faith is not evidence. Faith is faith. Untestable, unmeasureable, unknowable. Useless in a discussion like this.

No there is physical evidence supporting the testimony of many which itself is another type of evidence for faith in Jesus as Lord.

Because unlike that first generation, we did not see the events and cannot walk in the places in existence then, we have no direct witness and so must believe without seeing firsthand what happened. However, the bibliology of the Bible sets it as the foremost intact work of antiquity so we have the testimony of eyewitnesses set in what has been shown from the historical clues concerning rulers, titles and places as being strictly a first-century account.

This whole discussion comes dow to this: people like Super 80 are terrified of death.

This is really disingenuous. From such an impersonal medium as a message board, where you get perhaps as little as 7% of the message and intent conveyed by an author, to then ascribe a motive that strikes to the core of an individuals psyche pales as a reach beyond even a trained psychologist in close consultation.

If death is nothing but nature suggesting you slow down, if there is nothing after the grave, then what is there to be afraid of?

If God exists, and I have provided a metaphysical argument supporting something eternal creating what exists now which you have not refuted, and Jesus is Lord, then the Christian has nothing to fear in death. Paul said for him to live is Christ and death gain. So Christians secure in their faith are not afraid of death. Indeed many have gone willing to death rather than give up their faith. The Bible says their sacrifice will be acknowledged with the completion of the fifth Seal.

They've found this book that tells them not to worry because they won't "die" when they die. Any institution that challenges this book (biology, logic, etc.) is dangerous to them because it forces their fear of death back out of its cage.

No I have several problems with the theory of evolution which cannot be addressed by dedicated Darwinists. I have serious problems with other religions that have a man-centered earth-based system of works to gain admission to nirvana. Because I am a thinking individual that weighs and questions what is written, I have come full circle to a steadfast belief in the Word contained in the Bible that establishes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

What I resent is those who will force their beliefs on children, the under-educated, and the weak minded.

No one is imposing anything on your precious children. I myself was raised just like them by someone just at odds with Christianity as yourself, maybe even more so; to be an atheist. Like you, I believed that science held all the answers and God was not needed to come to where we are now.

However, because of my education and my scientific leaning I started to explore what Christianity was and could not refute it with a careful examination. Further, I learned all the lies that were used as fact then and still are today in presenting evolution as a fact. I don't like being lied to, and there are several icons of evolution that you are putting your faith into that are patently false.

That's why I'm always surprised when I find a pilot who is a fundamentalist Christian...or a fundamentalist in any religion, for that matter. We make fun of the Egyptair pilot who sacrificed himself and his passengers in the name of Allah, but were his beliefs really any weirder than the tales of "witchcraft" that appear in the modern Bible?

The Bible is not witchcraft and you are being insulting by comparing it to that. Furthermore, it is an insult to compare killing hundreds of people to the commands of the Bible both in the Old and the New Testament to have mercy on people, to love them and to help them. Comparing the EgyptAir F/O with a Christian, any Christian, especially one that takes the Bible seriously as the inspired Word of God is to denigrate a person without prior cause. That is prejudicial of you Typhoon.

 

[Super 80]

All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology!

No they have not. I have seen too many recent debates between Darwinists and Intelligent Design advocates to know that these questions are still being asked. Don't delude yourself. If they are so easy to answer, I'm sure you can find the resources to provide them. Until, then it is just another charge of yours without any evidence whatsoever being presented on your side of the aisle.

 

[Typhoon1244]

There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient work. These documents are all essentially the same, with no material differences.

This is false. Read the Gospel of Thomas, for one.

With respect to biology, have you guys ever heard of entropy? A system goes from more order to more disorder. This flies in the face of evolution. It's like expecting an explosion to result in the creation of a Swiss watch.

Entropy is not taking place on a planetary scale on this planet. Entropy can only occur if there is no external source of energy. Tomorrow morning, watch the eastern horizon, and you might notice a huge external source of energy.

...Super80 is correct in that there are no ]transition fossils.

That's not entirely true, but the fossil record does have gaps because...

...not just any carcass makes a fossil.

See? You solved the problem yourself.

What could cause this? Oh, I dunno, maybe a worldwide flood that buried millions of animals in a torrent of mud?

Uteer hogwash. If that were the case, why did it leave no geologic evidence?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. God can do anything he wants, so any logical discussion is meaningless. I forgot He gaves us brains and then punishes us for using them. How silly of me.

Religions are a lot like "zero tolerance" policies: they require absolutely no thought to function.

 

[Super 80]

One last point, for years, it was thought that it took millions of years to create a fossil. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s, I remember reading that a fossilized baseball cap was found buried in the ash as they did the cleanup. I don't remember hearing that anyone thought this cap was from the Paleozoic or Cretaceous though.

Yes this is a case for rapid fossilization and stratification of organic material and rock strata. Carbon-14 dating of such strata and fossils show they are recent occurences. God's laws of physics which you cite are consistent with the evidence.

 

[Typhoon1244]

No they have not. I have seen too many recent debates between Darwinists and Intelligent Design advocates to know that these questions are still being asked. Don't delude yourself. If they are so easy to answer, I'm sure you can find the resources to provide them. Until, then it is just another charge of yours without any evidence whatsoever being presented on your side of the aisle.

You're starting to sound like Denver130.

(In fact...are you "Denver130?")

Super 80, there's not enough bandwidth here for me to post entire biology and athropology textbooks. When I have more time, I will post answers to those questions, though.

(I'm still waiting for some evidence form "your side of the aisle," by the way. You've ignored mine. I'd be happy to consider yours.)

 

[Typhoon1244]

God's laws of physics which you cite are consistent with the evidence.

Wait a minute: according to you, God has no laws of physics because he can do whatever he wants.

What's going on here? Is this thread finally melting your glue?

 

[Super 80]

This is false. Read the Gospel of Thomas, for one.

Round and round we go eh, Typhoon? The Gospel of Thomas is not canon in the Bible for good reason. To suggest that it refutes the Bible is to ignore the weakness of its origin, the dearth of manuscripts of it, and the rejection it received when it was first introduced to the Church.

That's not entirely true, but the fossil record does have gaps because...See? You solved the problem yourself.

The lack of evidence is evidence that evidence exists?

Now who is putting forth utter hogwash? That is so unscientific a claim as to unpresentable in any argument. However it does not fail the spin test Typhoon would present to defend his faith in Darwin.

But then that's just me thinking again.

 

[Super 80]

(I'm still waiting for some evidence form "your side of the aisle," by the way. You've ignored mine. I'd be happy to consider yours.)

Gee Typhoon, resorting to name calling...really. Besides, I already answered this in part. Perhaps you're not reading the responses you illicit.

Homology in vertebrate limbs can be regarded as Darwin did as having descended from a common ancestor, or as other pre-Darwin biologists did like Owen that regarded such vestiges as having a common plan.

There are two problems with problems with Homology as a central to Darwin's theory:

1. If Homology is defined as similiarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as evidence for common descent.

2.. Biologists have known for decades that monologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown

--Johnathan Wells, Icons of Evolution

I await your answers in like fashion.

 

[Super 80]

Wait a minute: according to you, God has no laws of physics because he can do whatever he wants.

You misrepresent me once again, Typhoon.

God's character as unchanging and immutable can be seen reflected in His creation. The universe is finely balanced in over twenty different measures. God's laws are set so solidly that we have an awesome degree of regularity so we can know what the effect will be to a cause. I can figure the arc and target of a projectile because the forces acting on it are constant. Once the variables are known, the result if a fate accomplished with Euclidian certainity. In fact, if one thing is clear from the study of the cosmos, is how much order there is in the universe. God's laws are in effect throughout the entire universe, not just in pockets here and there. Mathematics has its own laws and are not variable either.

This study of creation, called science, reveals several attributes of God: His universality, His consistency, and His truth. You can plug a variable in an equation and know the result just as we can know the consequence of obeying God both positive or negative.

But miracles are not a contradiction to laws of science set by God, but His signature on His Word. Miracles stamp God's hand in the formulation of the Law, the Prophets and His Son, Jesus.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The lack of evidence is evidence that evidence exists?

No, that is not what I said.

The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does not prove that the Bible is valid. The fact that we haven't found an intact form of a certain life form doesn't mean it didn't exist. Look at "Black Holes." We "knew" they existed long before we actually saw one.

In any case, if the fossil record was the only thing the law of evolution by natural selection rested on, it wouldn't be a fact of nature.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, it has as much validity as any other part of the Bible. (It's actually very enlightening.) It didn't make the cut because it was harmful to organized "big-religion."

P.S. I went back and looked...I didn't see any "name calling." Unless "people like Super 80" is a name. (On the other hand, that's what got Ross Perot in trouble, wasn't it?)

 

[Astra Guy]

I see you guys are having as much fun as Enigma and I are having on another thread! Isn't it great to have some time off to BS?

 

[Super 80]

The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does not prove that the Bible is valid. The fact that we haven't found an intact form of a certain life form doesn't mean it didn't exist. In any case, if the fossil record was the only thing the law of evolution by natural selection rested on, it wouldn't be a fact of nature.

Yo Typhoon! We're still waiting to get just one fact on evolution. Now you're saying because we don't have a fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also means that you can't support evolution with a supposition that something might exist.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, it has as much validity as any other part of the Bible.

I have given you the bibliological reasons why the book of Thomas is universally rejected by the Church over centuries of history. Your reason of "big-religion" has no reasonable rationale whatsoever. Furthermore, there are fundamental differences in the book of Thomas that is openly at odds with the Bible. That along with its debulous beginnings is why it has been rejected. You just disregard the obvious and try to make a case of conspiracy despite a recounting of Church history that is not in dispute.

So it is intellectually dishonest to say something rejected on sound judgment by the Church destroys the Church. However it is on par with the effort to tar Christian faith by throwing mud at it continually to see if it sticks. So far, I have yet to see where you have yet to respond in any reasonable manner, except to change the subject and renew your attack even though you have not made a dent yet in the Bible.

 

[Super 80]

Typhoon,

Your attacks against the Bible and Christians is duly noted. Rather than keep on with this t!t-for tat "is to," "is not;" why not start a thread on Evolution and produce your evidence there?

If you want to ask a question on the Bible, phrase it. Read the Bible and ask what it is that you don't understand. You have my answer and other's answers on creation. There is a totally valid basis for interpretation that reconciles the Bible's Genesis account to the best that science has to offer (and that is not evolution) on how the universe came into being. It is not imposed upon anyone.

Equally caring Christians differ but the scientist ought to know that the Hebrew in the Bible can be considered to be the closest our modern understanding could be said in an ancient language which is totally devoid of scientific terms which has just two verb tenses and was written without vowels.

If you reject that, fine. Again nothing is imposed upon you and your children. But this is getting nowhere when you refuse to put forth answers or refuse every argument presented in opposition without showing why it is wrong other than to disparage the believer.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

This thread is dreadful. I know I know, I didn't have to click on it. It's much like driving past an auto accident. You have to look at the carnage.

Anyway, my contribution to this mess;

"Christian science" is an utter oxymoron. "Christian science" is science with an agenda. Adjusting research to fit some predetermined result is NOT science.

Sorry creationites... the most convincing evidence of evolution comes from research in microbiology and DNA, not Darwin. The legitimate science community is overwhelmingly behind evolution. Creationism has as much scientific evidence as a Mother Goose tale.

For you Christians that are having doubts about your beliefs, reference me. I was once a Christian until I woke from MY stupor. There is still hope.


BTW; This thread has the appropriate title of "Bible Defense". It's nice to know that at least some folks feel that the bible is on the defensive.

 

[Typhoon1244]

We're still waiting to get just one fact on evolution.

[Sigh!] (How many times do I have to type this?)

Okay, here're a couple:

(1) If creation had occured as described in the Bible, fossils of all species would be found in all geologic epochs. They're not. There is a progression from simple unicellular creatures to multicellular animals (worms, jellyfish, etc.), through fish to simple then complex mammals.

(2) Vestigal organs: probably the most obvious examples are the leftover "leg bones" found in most species of whale. They exist because whales evolved from a cow-likw animal that lived on land and migrated into the sea. They gradually (we're talking millions of years) lost the need for hind legs, but the "attachment points" are still found adjacent to the whales' pelvis.

(3) "Micro-evolution," as creationsists call it, is observed regularly in popluations of plants, insects, reptiles, etc. Moths change colors, frogs gain new markings, etc. These occurances are driven by the same processes that define "macro-evolution." They're the echo of a much more massive process, the basis of modern biology.

These are just three tips of a very large iceberg. There's more, but really, how much more do you need?

 

[skyking1976]

Typhoon,

Your attacks against the Bible and Christians is duly noted.

He never attacked anyone. YOU on the other hand.... All he has done is asked for some proof and an explanation. Why don't you go and find me a derogatory remark that Typhoon posted and I will recant. I've said my share of derogatory remarks toward the religious right and I stand by them. However, I have not ever questioned the virtues contained within having faith in God. Faith does not make you a bad person. Outward ignorance of facts makes you, well, ignorant. As an American I respect your right to believe in God and, in turn, you must respect my right to question the existance of God.

SK

 

[Super 80]

Again, we keep talking past each other. This argument is just going around and around and it's not going anywhere. I think your stance on evolution has become more of an item for faith for you than belief in God has been for me.

Again, a point by point rebuttal. I will answer these points in some cases for the second time, without any response to the challenges I set forth for the Darwinists.

(1) If creation had occured as described in the Bible, fossils of all species would be found in all geologic epochs. They're not. There is a progression from simple unicellular creatures to multicellular animals (worms, jellyfish, etc.), through fish to simple then complex mammals.

While life did start out in elemental terms, there are other reasons for this. One you cannot support large land animals until there is a soil basis for plants. To do this would require a long preparation until you have such a foundation. Once that is in place, then you have the conditions that allow a rapid proliferation.

Furthermore, the fossil record does not record a simple progression from multicellular animals to fish. There is a literal explosion of wholly several different phyla of animals in the fossil record which exactly matches the command for life in the sea to "teem." This goes against the origin of the species in a very fundamental level. One phyla of creatures does not rise over time to more complex forms, but a plethora of species develop in rapid fashion simultaneously.

(2) Vestigal organs: probably the most obvious examples are the leftover "leg bones" found in most species of whale. They exist because whales evolved from a cow-likw animal that lived on land and migrated into the sea. They gradually (we're talking millions of years) lost the need for hind legs, but the "attachment points" are still found adjacent to the whales' pelvis.

I already addressed this with homologic structures. Similarity of structure does not necessarily show common descent any mnore than it can be used for to show a common plan. Further, the gene basis for homology or vesitgal organs is not supported at the microbiological level in favor of evolution.

(3) "Micro-evolution," as creationsists call it, is observed regularly in popluations of plants, insects, reptiles, etc. Moths change colors, frogs gain new markings, etc. These occurances are driven by the same processes that define "macro-evolution." They're the echo of a much more massive process, the basis of modern biology.

Again the example of Darwin's finches do not show evolution. Nor do the peppered moths show evolution. They do show natural selection, but to say natural selection is the vehicle to evolve one species into another is not supported at all by those examples of natural selection. These animals have shown oscillations in their populations in markings and size, but this has not translated to a direction for change of a species.