Slashdot Mirror

Although this is an obvious troll, I'll bite only because the date is wrong. The Bible would actually put the age of the beginning somewhere around 6,000 years.

Good article, also trying to explain why current aging methods (such as carbon dating) are not accurate: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazine s/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp


Main page for other articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/youn g.asp

As a summary then, trust me when I say that the acceptance of the creation model (6000 year old earth, etc) would not spell the end of science and physics as we know it. In fact there are many scientists who believe in creation as I do - a young earth. One recent example I was reading about is Richard Porter a human spine expert. He said that coming from a creationist position has helped him more than those coming from an evolutionary perspective. As he said:

Richard pointed out that evolutionary theory can be unproductive for research:
'For example, the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front - the lordosis - was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it's not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.'
He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:
'I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God's creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.
When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it's that shape, and what's good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it's not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well'.

Couple of reasons I quoted this. First is to show you that the creationist position believes that all animals and humans were created complete and perfect only 6000 years ago. Since then genetic mutations have slowly entered the various creatures and caused each generation, slowly, to be weaker than its ancestors. So the first humans merely 6000 years ago were the strongest, most intelligent, and we are today the least intelligent and weakest (just because we discovered electricity and a few other things it may appear like we know more, but imagine that our ancestors could have achieved the same or more if they had discovered electricity too). So we do not believe that evolution from a single celled life to humans occurred in a short space of 6000 years. We beleive the creation was perfect at the first. There are thousands more words I could say on this, but instead I'll just encourage you to understand the creationist position properly if you are ever interested to know what we believe before you condemn it. Most people I argue with here know just enough of creationism to sound like they know what they are talking about but not enough to actually comprehend our position or successfully attack it.

The second reason why I wanted to mention this was to show you that coming from a creationist position makes science still possible - and even helps it make more sense. Consider that when you believe the universe is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution from a single cell to what we see today took place over that time - you have a view of the world you try to make the evidence fit. For example, you look at humans today as being superior to their ancestors, and inferior to the forms to come. This shapes your biases, where you look for answers, what sort of answers you expect to find. Just like Richard Porter said above, coming towards a problem from different positions results in different conclusions, sometimes harmful ones. Consider that if evolution is false that science will only be able to progress so far under that model.

I am of the view that discussions of origins - evolution, creation, etc are all philosophical. However, these philosophical arguments employ scientific evidence.

Just one thing to keep in mind, you certainly weren't lying I can tell when you said you haven't encountered the creationist position yet. It is clear that you don't know much about it. So my advice is that when you try to understand what we believe you may try to do it in the context of evolution, which is going to lead to confusion. I'll see if I can think of an analogy....I guess cultural differences are the best. When you go to a foreign country you may find it very very hard to fit in. Everything about this culture may be so foreign, and you will try to understand it in relation to your native culture - but this will only lead to confusion. Ok, maybe a bad example :) Either way, please understand our position first!

Go well.

(if you are interested about the spine expert, I read it in this magazine. - Standing upright for creation)

Obviously you didn't take much time with the site since it is impossible that you went over all the material in such a short amount of time. Perhaps you didn't notice the Q&A section which contains the bulk of what you are looking for. This also suggests that you

"think they(insert you) already KNOW the answer and don't want to hear any argument".


I also highly doubt you've taken a lot at the previously mentioned book.


"These are not the words of a group interested in doing real science. These are the words of people who think they already KNOW the answer and don't want to hear any argument."


The problem is that the same is true of those who believe in evolution. They claim to KNOW that God did not create the universe and that the universe was created by observable processes. Sure they are open to various different models of this, but the bottom line is it wasn't God. Creationists in the same manner are open to difference's in their models because it is impossible to determine the exact method of creation since the process is no longer observable (ie. we don't observe universes being created anymore), and there are some healthy disagreements among creation scientests, but the bottom line is it was God who created it. The question is who has the most compelling evidence?


who's really pushing bad science

Obviously you didn't take much time with the site since it is impossible that you went over all the material in such a short amount of time. Perhaps you didn't notice the Q&A section which contains the bulk of what you are looking for. This also suggests that you

"think they(insert you) already KNOW the answer and don't want to hear any argument".


I also highly doubt you've taken a lot at the previously mentioned book.


"These are not the words of a group interested in doing real science. These are the words of people who think they already KNOW the answer and don't want to hear any argument."


The problem is that the same is true of those who believe in evolution. They claim to KNOW that God did not create the universe and that the universe was created by observable processes. Sure they are open to various different models of this, but the bottom line is it wasn't God. Creationists in the same manner are open to difference's in their models because it is impossible to determine the exact method of creation since the process is no longer observable (ie. we don't observe universes being created anymore), and there are some healthy disagreements among creation scientests, but the bottom line is it was God who created it. The question is who has the most compelling evidence?


who's really pushing bad science

:) Surely you can understand that such vast amounts of evidence cannot be sumerized in a few sentances on a message board; However, if you are interested in the evidence. I would suggests the answers in genesis website as well as the book "More than a Carpenter" by Josh Mcdowell. There are many other books on the subject of appologetics as well. C.S Lewis is one auther you might want to look at.

Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago.

These two statements reveal a contradiction. Up until the 20th century explosion of evolutionary thinking, all Bible believers, both Jewish and Christian, believed that the creation account does precisely and clearly say that the Earth and all kinds of life were created in six days and that this occurred about 6000 years ago, which is according to the Bible itself, not to mention corroborating scientific evidence. After personally studying the teachings of Jesus Himself, the Creator Incarnate, in the gospels, His words appear to reinforce a literal interpretation of the creation account.

As a Christian (I assume?), to profess the belief that creation occurred over hundreds of millions of years (and is still occurring!!) is to stake out radical, new theology whose ramifications trample on many core Christian doctrines. No follower of God, from Abraham to Isaiah to Jesus to Constantine to Martin Luther to Billy Graham and the Pope believes in evolution (macro). While the idea of evolution was discussed by ancient Greek philosophers as far back as 600 B.C., it has never been part of any Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant doctrine. It is a concept born from atheism, and has ballooned into a full-fledged religion for the avowed "non-religious". I have posted a few times on the subject of theistic evolution in previous articles:

My comment in Cyclic Universe a Possibility

My comment in Evolution - Beyond the Popular Science
I posted two more times closely below this comment in the same thread.

AiG: Genesis FAQ

Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago.

These two statements reveal a contradiction. Up until the 20th century explosion of evolutionary thinking, all Bible believers, both Jewish and Christian, believed that the creation account does precisely and clearly say that the Earth and all kinds of life were created in six days and that this occurred about 6000 years ago, which is according to the Bible itself, not to mention corroborating scientific evidence. After personally studying the teachings of Jesus Himself, the Creator Incarnate, in the gospels, His words appear to reinforce a literal interpretation of the creation account.

As a Christian (I assume?), to profess the belief that creation occurred over hundreds of millions of years (and is still occurring!!) is to stake out radical, new theology whose ramifications trample on many core Christian doctrines. No follower of God, from Abraham to Isaiah to Jesus to Constantine to Martin Luther to Billy Graham and the Pope believes in evolution (macro). While the idea of evolution was discussed by ancient Greek philosophers as far back as 600 B.C., it has never been part of any Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant doctrine. It is a concept born from atheism, and has ballooned into a full-fledged religion for the avowed "non-religious". I have posted a few times on the subject of theistic evolution in previous articles:

My comment in Cyclic Universe a Possibility

My comment in Evolution - Beyond the Popular Science
I posted two more times closely below this comment in the same thread.

AiG: Genesis FAQ

I understand from your context that you mean genetically? In that case it's news to me. Can you point to some real examples from serious sources (as opposed to bad popularization of science, badly written school-books, etc...)?

We often point to our technological advances as evidence, and yet, an objective view at history shows that we have either changed very little or have in fact degraded in our level of intelligence

There is absolutely no reason (from either an evolutionary or creationist standpoint) to believe our intelligence has either improved or degraded recently (in the last 10000 years). There is little historical evidence that shows that intelligent people have more and healthier offspring than unintelligent people. On the other hand, technology has improved immensely, mostly as a result of more people working to develop it.

In ancient times, it took 9 out of 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone. That left 1 in 10 to be the leaders, shopkeepers, merchants, and inventors. [snip] Contrast that to day where 1 in 10 people are involved in agriculture freeing 90% of the population (and a much larger population than the ancient world) to lead, run business, and develop new technology. Add onto this the fact that we are developing new technology based on a huge library of research and discoveries made by previous generations. Have we really improved all that much?

In a word, yes. Today we have computers, cellphones, cars, airplanes, satelites, refrigerators, frozen food, elictrical lighting and heating, tap-water, radio, tv, cures for most diseases, personal freedom, democracy, washing machine, cheap swedish furniture and lots of other things that have improven our life immensely and wasn't even imaginable in the past.

In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).

Many people believe many things, even wrong things. But you can easily judge the validity of the argument yourself. Next time you have a heart-attack, would you rather go to your local hospital, or some ancient babylonian surgeon (if he was still alive)? Or perhaps you would prefer a medieval treatment with leeches? It is certainly less intrusive than most modern medicine! Of course, we must never forget the effectiveness of a shaman with his mask and dance.

Now, back to the topic at hand, many assumptions are made about "primitive" man based on what? What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed.

We can look at existing "primitive" civilizations like native americans, native australians, eskimos, lapps, etc.

We can also use reason. Agriculture requires more knowledge and specialization than hunter-gatherer-nomade life does.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years (look at the number again and consider how much has happened in the last 1000) for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea.

There are many things I find unlikely that are still true. For example I find it unlikely that an ant can carry 50 times its own weight. In this case I do not know the numbers, or where you got them from, but typically such numbers would be based on something that is more trustworthy than your hunch, such as C14 dating techniques.

Yet, because evolution must be true, history is proposed with the same concept: start with very basic, primitive technology and as humans "evolve" to become more intelligent, their technology improves.

Again, you are completely wrong. There is no serious scientist that would even imagine to propose that humans "evolve" to learn agriculture. Agriculture is an idea that evolves in a human society, it is not an instinct that appears only in certain kinds of people (i.e: white, black, but not native americans...)

Like I said, I am biased in my own views, but I wanted to bring up these issues to show the problems with our current theories.

You may be biased, but more importantly, you are wrong. The only thing you have shown, is that you have a complete, total, misunderstanding, not just when it comes to the theory of evolution, but when it comes to history, natural history, and common sense.

I am very curious about where you got hold of this kind of misinformation. I find it hard to believe that you have been deliberatly misinformed all your life. You might not have been taught much of this, if you come from a stupid backwards creationist shithole, but if you are interested enough in it to actually pose questions, you should at least try to learn something before you critisize.

And before you insist to spread more of your misunderstandings, you should as a good creationist have a look at this page (which is written by and for creationists).

I think you really mean to say that it's natural selection at work, not evolution. However, even that would be wrong.

Natural selection is a separate proposition from evolution. Because of natural selection, genetic information is not available to later generations of organisms. It is removed, not added.

Idiotic hypotheses die all the time. It's "natural selection" at work.

Everyone, please read this article at AIG: 15 Ways To Refute Materialistic Bigotry. It is a very thorough, point-by-point response to contrivances/explanations that evolutionists prop up to try and discount Creationism.

General literal creation answers.

Specific answer to your question.

General literal creation answers.

Specific answer to your question.

Animals on the Ark
General Flood FAQ

Animals on the Ark
General Flood FAQ

Here is the Creationist answer to his linked article. Feel free to read it with an open mind. Creationists answer Scientific American's article

Here are some good scientific reasons Noah's ark in genesis is true. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it has some good arguments. Do a control-f on "kind" and you'll see what I'm trying to get at specifically.

See for reference:

Answers in Genesis

First, you need to learn about carbon dating. Carbon dating is incredibly inacurate, plus anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

After that read these articles.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

First, you need to learn about carbon dating. Carbon dating is incredibly inacurate, plus anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

After that read these articles.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

First, you need to learn about carbon dating. Carbon dating is incredibly inacurate, plus anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

After that read these articles.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

First, you need to learn about carbon dating. Carbon dating is incredibly inacurate, plus anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

After that read these articles.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

I believe this is the article I was looking for that gives a few reasons why faithwise this is an issue. Answers In Genesis
If that isn't the right link feel free to look around the sight, plenty of other interesting articles to read.

Jesus has everything to do with it. You're not understanding the parallel between Adam and Jesus. We are spiritually dead because of Adam, but we can be spiritually alive because of Jesus. Since Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection were literal, then Adam's sin must also be literal.

I take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that every passage is literal. The Bible (or Biblios, meaning "small books") is composed of many different kinds of literature; some are musical lyrics, some poetry, some historical account, some epistles, some prophecy or apocalyptic, and parts of some are parables. You have to read each book or passage according to what kind of writing it is.

Now, Genesis is clearly not poetry. It's not a book of songs. Obviously not a letter. Not prophetic as a whole. It is written as a historical account of many origins - the beginning of the universe, our solar system, Earth, life, organisms, marriage, family, sin, salvation (Tree of Life), the Church, the nations (Babel). Historical accounts are written in as literal a manner as possible. Furthermore, when reading Genesis (or any other book), it's disingenuous to haphazardly switch between reading literally and figuratively depending upon the verse's "believability". That's no way to go about interpreting any writing.

When you say that you don't believe in a literal creation story, you are insinuating that Jews and Christians have ALL been wrong, including Moses, Abraham, Jesus, the twelve disciples - basically all the writers of both Old and New Testaments and every believer that ever lived up until the Darwinian heresy. If evolution is true, that would mean that Darwin was a prophet since he has spoken this divine revelation of Truth that has (according to you) been obscured by God's Word for all these millenia.

Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all.
There was no need for Jesus to teach doctrines that were already universally accepted. The Pharisees were hypocrites, but they believed in a six-day creation. In fact, the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing wrong because He healed on woman on the seventh day, the day of rest.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." (Luke 13:14)

Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
Yes, He did. Let's first admit that masturbation causes us to think lustfully about women - to desire them only as a means to satisfying our flesh. The Lord Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 25:7-8)

Genesis explains the purpose of sex, and it is not for gratifying the self. Of course, there is pleasure in giving it to your spouse to whom you "cleave" (Genesis 2:24 KJV).

So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or --
Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
This nicely parallels the discussion about the Sabbath above. Please read this passage, paying special attention to verse 8. Also, notice footnote 2, referring to Hosea 6:6. The purpose of the Law in the OT is to demonstrate that man cannot earn his salvation by keeping the law. The emphasis was on relating the weight and seriousness of the Law, but also on the neccessity of God's grace for one's salvation as in Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

I'm troubled that you don't want to believe that something in the Bible is literal unless thousands of people saw what was being written about. By that standard, we can believe little of the Bible. The only events recorded in the NT that were witnessed by thousands were the crucifixion, the resurrected body of Christ, and the beginning of the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost. Those events provide text for part of the Gospels and Acts. That leaves a whooole lot of the Bible in the questionable/unbelievable category. However, without the rest of the Bible, the crucifixion and resurrection are absolutely meaningless! You can't have two windows on the second story of a house suspended in mid-air without the rest of the house to support it.

Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith. There should not be qualifications in order to believe what the Bible says. The Lord Jesus told the doubting Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Since you believe in Jesus, you should believe also in what Jesus believed. As a follower and student of Master, Teacher, Creator of the Universe, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, it should be the yearning of your heart to believe all things and do all things as He did.

P.S. If you didn't follow the links in the last post, I hope you will go back and do so. I recommend that you sign up for this weekly newsletter about Creationism. I find it very interesting. There's no risk of spam, and it's just one e-mail per week.

Van der Waals' forces in gecko feet have been known about for a fair while now, at least two years because I remember explaining it to my (now 12yo) daughter when we [images roughly 500kB apeice] saw some geckos at Wyloo Station during a trip in June 2000, and this article was published in December 2000, referring to papers and articles from June 2000.

The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
It looks like the Bible is right, and evolution is wrong.

One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant.
Genesis and evolution conflict on many fundamental issues. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day). Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological.

If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity.
It is a fundamental issue! Invalidating creation invalidates the Bible. Every Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification, for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16) This was written by Paul, a former Pharisee and multilingual (Hebrew, Greek, Latin?) Torah scholar who studied under the famous rabbi Gamaliel and being God's chosen "Apostle to the Gentiles" "carried along by the Holy Sprit" to write what he wrote. Now tell me, Kymermosst, what are your credentials that you feel justified in undermining the author of half the New Testament?

The main discrepancy between the Bible and evolution is the issue of death. Evolution asserts that millions of years of death, disease, bloodshed, and suffering existed before man evolved. But the Bible teaches that it was man's action in the Garden of Eden that brought about the world's fallen state. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God had to hide the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24). The entire earth was cursed, but not until Adam and Eve were created and disobeyed God. If death and destruction existed before people existed, then there is no purpose for Jesus Christ. We know that Christ was a literal man, performed literal miracles, and literally died on a wooden execution stake with a crossbeam for the sins of billions of literal people. For this reason, it is reasonable and logical to believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals in an actual garden and talked openly and plainly with their Creator. By logical extention, the account of the creation should be read plainly and literally. To insert myriad beliefs of evolution and millions of years into the Creation story is just mind-boggling distortion and wild speculation. Since the Bible clearly states that creation occured over six days, why is this so hard to accept?

Don't feel so threatened.
I'm threatened because I will not compromise the truth. Biblical creation and evolution are incompatible. The study of creation leads to godliness; the study of evolution leads to atheism. Notice that there are no prominent Christians in evolutionary fields. The leaders are always atheist/agnostic. Creation glorifies God; evolution tries to disown God. I am not just guessing that this is true; I know it's true. Read what evolutionists say. Theistic evolution is a slippery slope away from God.

Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
Jews believe that it took six days to create the world. That is, traditional Jews do. Since there is dissension among Hebrew speakers (only after Darwin's prominence), this really brings out the true reason for the division of belief. If language were the issue, then all Jews would believe one way or the other. The issue, then, is actually an unwillingness to believe what the Torah/Bible plainly says. It is the compromising of beliefs because of the influences of the secular/pagan culture.

But this really is about interpretation, ien't it?
No. It's about Christians wanting to get along with everybody else. It's an issue of pride and not wanting to look foolish in the eyes of academia and the scientific community. As Christians, we know that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)

Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
I encountered such a person when I read your post.

Look, Jesus of Nazareth was a rabbi. He knew the Torah inside and out, and he believed in the literal creation account. You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word = Jesus)

You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations.

The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
It looks like the Bible is right, and evolution is wrong.

One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant.
Genesis and evolution conflict on many fundamental issues. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day). Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological.

If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity.
It is a fundamental issue! Invalidating creation invalidates the Bible. Every Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification, for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16) This was written by Paul, a former Pharisee and multilingual (Hebrew, Greek, Latin?) Torah scholar who studied under the famous rabbi Gamaliel and being God's chosen "Apostle to the Gentiles" "carried along by the Holy Sprit" to write what he wrote. Now tell me, Kymermosst, what are your credentials that you feel justified in undermining the author of half the New Testament?

The main discrepancy between the Bible and evolution is the issue of death. Evolution asserts that millions of years of death, disease, bloodshed, and suffering existed before man evolved. But the Bible teaches that it was man's action in the Garden of Eden that brought about the world's fallen state. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God had to hide the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24). The entire earth was cursed, but not until Adam and Eve were created and disobeyed God. If death and destruction existed before people existed, then there is no purpose for Jesus Christ. We know that Christ was a literal man, performed literal miracles, and literally died on a wooden execution stake with a crossbeam for the sins of billions of literal people. For this reason, it is reasonable and logical to believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals in an actual garden and talked openly and plainly with their Creator. By logical extention, the account of the creation should be read plainly and literally. To insert myriad beliefs of evolution and millions of years into the Creation story is just mind-boggling distortion and wild speculation. Since the Bible clearly states that creation occured over six days, why is this so hard to accept?

Don't feel so threatened.
I'm threatened because I will not compromise the truth. Biblical creation and evolution are incompatible. The study of creation leads to godliness; the study of evolution leads to atheism. Notice that there are no prominent Christians in evolutionary fields. The leaders are always atheist/agnostic. Creation glorifies God; evolution tries to disown God. I am not just guessing that this is true; I know it's true. Read what evolutionists say. Theistic evolution is a slippery slope away from God.

Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
Jews believe that it took six days to create the world. That is, traditional Jews do. Since there is dissension among Hebrew speakers (only after Darwin's prominence), this really brings out the true reason for the division of belief. If language were the issue, then all Jews would believe one way or the other. The issue, then, is actually an unwillingness to believe what the Torah/Bible plainly says. It is the compromising of beliefs because of the influences of the secular/pagan culture.

But this really is about interpretation, ien't it?
No. It's about Christians wanting to get along with everybody else. It's an issue of pride and not wanting to look foolish in the eyes of academia and the scientific community. As Christians, we know that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)

Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
I encountered such a person when I read your post.

Look, Jesus of Nazareth was a rabbi. He knew the Torah inside and out, and he believed in the literal creation account. You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word = Jesus)

You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations.

The whole basis for Christianity is in the first few chapters of Genesis. To sum up, God created man perfectly in his image. He created the world and afterward saw that it "was very good". Man fell into sin and thus deserves condemnation and eternal separation from God. BUT, God promised a savior from that separation, Jesus. So a Christian believes that Jesus saved him/her from condemnation and separation from God.

Now, if you believe macro-evolution, then you must believe that there was death and suffering BEFORE sin entered the world. You must also believe that God created a world full of death, disease, and suffering and said that it was "very good". It goes deeper. Man had to evolve over a period of millions of years of death and suffering. So, what then did sin bring into the world?

I would challenge you to look into this matter more. Despite what evolutionists tell you, there is a plethora of information about current creation research on the web. Try Answers In Genesis for starters.

a good page listing arguments that creation scientists should NOT use anymore. Just like any scientific discipline, ideas must be tested and re-evaluated, then rejected as false if the data does not coincide with the theory. Still the biggest argument for creation/against evolution is that never have scientists witnessed an INCREASE in genetic information between generations of organisms. In fact, genetic information always tends to decrease, which fits better with the creation model of organisms being created perfectly and gradually degenerating & speciating over time. In all my discussions and research, I haven't found a good evolutionist response to that claim.

Check out : this page [answersingenesis.org].

Watch out for professors who teach otherwise. Many will proactively seek to destroy your faith. The Apostle Peter warns us: "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8) But sometimes the attacks are subtle. You'll be tempted to put a question mark where God put a period (or an exclamation point!). Know what you believe! Prepare yourself for defense. If you don't know what doctrines you're standing up for, you'll fall for anything - for whatever is dispensed to you by some cunning and clever professors who have no personal relationship with the Author of Truth. Know and believe that the Bible is true, and you will never go wrong. (Caution: Test answer keys in academia may be wrong. ;-) Learn the lies (Darwin, Freud, Marx, etc.) for exams; know the truth for life.)

Postpone sexual activity until marriage; sexual intimacy is a gift that is reserved for your future wife (or preserved untouched in celibacy). The Apostle Paul gives some great advice, which is very applicable to the college life: "Run from anything that stimulates youthful lust. Follow anything that makes you want to do right. Pursue faith and love and peace, and enjoy the companionship of those who call on the Lord with pure hearts." (2 Timothy 2:22 NLT)

Try to pick a fellow Christian for a roommate. Choose friends who will support you and encourage you to do what is right; people who won't pressure you to do things that are immoral, foolish, and dangerous (e.g. so-called "safe sex"). Get involved in on-campus Christian ministries, fellowships, and Bible studies. The education you get will be far more valuable than anything taught in your classes. We have no greater need than to know Christ better. To live without Christ is not life, but a breathing death.

Now, here is a simple, yet, profound piece of practical advice. Write it down, or print it out. Tape it on your bathroom mirror. Stick it on your monitor. Frame it and put it on the wall. Memorize it.

Sow an act, reap a habit,
Sow a habit, reap a character,
Sow a character, reap a destiny.
- Reade

And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal to SciAm's article?

Geez. Why not post it as a logged in account holder, so that it will be archived without needing to be marked up?

Here, I'll do so here so it doesn't silently disappear from the discussion thread.

Please, nobody needs to mark this up or down. I'm not even using my +1 to post it. But it belongs in the archived version of this discussion.

And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal to SciAm's article?

Note: posted anonymously so no "karma whore" charge can be leveled on asking for mod-up.

Austin answers the footprints and dunes here.

There is a much more detailed treatement of the Coconino footprints here.

Read about Tapeats in a bit more detail here

You will no doubt notice that all of these giant oysters, found many km up in the Andes, died closed.

And so on. Reams of answers, only a Google away. How so, since the mast majority of researchers in this world hew to the materialist/naturalist worldview constantly hammered into them by school, television, even comics? How are so few - and such ill-equipped - opponents able to uncover so much that speaks of a short and violent history for our planet, if its history is truly long and meandering?

Personally, I was a little disappointed that you got moderated into the dirt even though your material is all pretty much standard and imaginitive. You did at least put some effort into putting those obsolete ideas across.

Nevertheless, it's bedtime for me. Do your own searching. Sayonarah!

Studing creation can not exactly be classified as science since it was a one-time event. We can look for evidence to confirm what was seen in Genesis and I think that is fairly easy to do. Mostly it comes down to a presuppositional problem. An excellent site focused on the science of Genesis is http://www.answersingenesis.org

Ok, I look at a few more of the articles, but bear in mind, that I'm extremely distrustfully of AIG, due to it's use of highly misleading (completely dishonest, IMHO) information.

But first, a small opps on my part. K/Ar dating should only be used on samples >2 Mya, not 30 as I stated in a earlier post. My mistake, this is due to the very long half life of K (in the billions of years). Ar/Ar dating is much better for geological dating of much more recent objects.

Radioactive ?Dating? in Conflict

Ignoring critisms of Snelling's ethics (he also publishs in the science lit. quoting dates in the millions and billions of years without mentioning that he disbelieves them), this paper is very sparse on experimental details. In particular, the inclusions of xenoliths (which are well known to give a false reading if the sample isn't correctly prepared). There may be many other problems with his analysis but it is impossible to tell, as he really hasn't given any experimental details away. Also (admittly a not a major part of this paper) there is a real problem with his explaination of the false dates (" fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ?ages? much greater than the true ages"), when carbon is celibrated it tends too underestimate the ages, therefore, if anything the dates are too low, not too high.

I couldn't connect to your second link.

The next page which I looked at Superbugs: Not super after all, is just plain stupid. The whole paper is just a giant strawman arguement. Evolution doesn't have to lead to a gain of information (loss of eyesight in cave fish is a good example), so the authors foundation is built on a falsehood. He then presents no evidence to support his claim (instead he pretty much states some dumbed down first year cell bio information). This isn't a arguement, it's a joke.

I couldn't get the next three links to work (this is quite strange as I managed to get the third one to go yesterday, but didn't get time to read it), however, on the basis of the four that I've read, I really aren't impressed. What your presenting is propaganda not science.

If your interested, here is a article by a Christian geologist on radiodating.

As a postscript, I found this site which mentioned Snelling's paper. Apparently, there is considerable doubts over whether or not it is wood at all in the rock. Alex Cherkinsky, of the Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group, stated "I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample". If this is true, then Snelling is a downright lier. (Source)

Ok, I look at a few more of the articles, but bear in mind, that I'm extremely distrustfully of AIG, due to it's use of highly misleading (completely dishonest, IMHO) information.

But first, a small opps on my part. K/Ar dating should only be used on samples >2 Mya, not 30 as I stated in a earlier post. My mistake, this is due to the very long half life of K (in the billions of years). Ar/Ar dating is much better for geological dating of much more recent objects.

Radioactive ?Dating? in Conflict

Ignoring critisms of Snelling's ethics (he also publishs in the science lit. quoting dates in the millions and billions of years without mentioning that he disbelieves them), this paper is very sparse on experimental details. In particular, the inclusions of xenoliths (which are well known to give a false reading if the sample isn't correctly prepared). There may be many other problems with his analysis but it is impossible to tell, as he really hasn't given any experimental details away. Also (admittly a not a major part of this paper) there is a real problem with his explaination of the false dates (" fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ?ages? much greater than the true ages"), when carbon is celibrated it tends too underestimate the ages, therefore, if anything the dates are too low, not too high.

I couldn't connect to your second link.

The next page which I looked at Superbugs: Not super after all, is just plain stupid. The whole paper is just a giant strawman arguement. Evolution doesn't have to lead to a gain of information (loss of eyesight in cave fish is a good example), so the authors foundation is built on a falsehood. He then presents no evidence to support his claim (instead he pretty much states some dumbed down first year cell bio information). This isn't a arguement, it's a joke.

I couldn't get the next three links to work (this is quite strange as I managed to get the third one to go yesterday, but didn't get time to read it), however, on the basis of the four that I've read, I really aren't impressed. What your presenting is propaganda not science.

If your interested, here is a article by a Christian geologist on radiodating.

As a postscript, I found this site which mentioned Snelling's paper. Apparently, there is considerable doubts over whether or not it is wood at all in the rock. Alex Cherkinsky, of the Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group, stated "I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample". If this is true, then Snelling is a downright lier. (Source)

Evolutionists (and, by extension, Darwin) have much to answer for.

For starters, I'd like to see what they have to say about this.

The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.

It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent competition significant enough to make it change. Evolutionary theory doesn't state that species will change at some rate over time but that they change in response to selective pressure. There are other examples of "living fossils" amongst certain species of sharks. The explanation is that they haven't had to change in order to survive so they haven't. At least beyond the standard genetic drift. There are small differences. The presumed extinction was ~70 million years ago, btw.
We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress?

We lack the isolation we once did in order to speciate and our brains have allowed us to relieve ourselves of many if not most of the selective pressures faced by our ancient ancestors. Now let there be a world war that sends us back to the stone age and have 9/10'ths of the world's population die and you might see some movement. But maybe not even then. It could be the mere existence of our higher reasoning allows us to alleviate the majority of the selective pressures on our species. I predict we'll be evolving ourselves with genetic engineering long before we significantly change due to 'mere' genetic drift.

How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Why does the expression of a recessive have to wait for a mutation? If the recessive exists in population it just has to wait for two organisms with the same recessive to breed.

I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? I have read many examples of this.

Care to share a few? Something other than this one?

As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing.

Those were just a few of many and not all creationists have given up the changing speed of light argument. Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in some form or fashion.

I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.

That the cosmic dust accumulation on the moon should have built up into a layer 20 feet deep (or whatever) if the moon were really 5 billion years old. Long and short, the calculation was based on erroneous suppositions.

Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.

I beg to differ. Creationists are called to the carpet on a daily basis for some of the things they try to get away with. Peppermoths should have only ever been used as an example of natural selection. If there ever was a textbook that said it was proof of macroevolution, it was wrong. All 3 textbooks I've seen and all I've ever heard of use it as an example of natural selection. Unless you can come up with scores more examples, you don't have a leg to stand on by saying creationists are nowhere near as bad.

If you'd like some reading material, check some of these out. A couple of visits to the ICR museum and some of the inaccuracies and falsehoods contained therein. Take a look at the Creation Research Society's creed that members must adhere to. A list of "distortions" of truth by ICR founder Duane Gish.

I am going along, aren't I? :)
Btw, Kent Hovind still sports the light speed decay theory. You might want to check out Answers in Genesis and TrueOrigins and see if you can spot more errors on your own ... I'd help but it's really getting late and it's not as fun as it was when I started ... :)

I've been a conservative Christian in the South (churches on every street corner) all my life, and I don't know any Christians who think like that. To be sure, there are crackpots in every niche of humanity, though.

This web site is embarrassing whether it's a hoax or not, because it fits with one of the stereotypes that non-believers have of Christians. The media loves to report quotes, dutifully taken out of context, that have been spouted by some knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip, camera-happy televangelist.

What if the media consistently (or even once) projected Dr. "Death" Kevorkian as a typical doctor in the medical community, or v1urU$ h4X0r$ as typical IT professionals? You'd never see that, because they are not widely respected among their peers. (This is why "peer review" is so important in the scientific community; it helps to weed out crackpots.)

But for believers in "Jeebus" -- they're fair game for mockery and wild distortions (actually, the Simpsons is pretty fair in this respect). Unfortunately, you'll never see prominent articles in the mainstream/secular news media quoting truly great pastors and evangelists who are widely respected in the Christian community, such as Ravi Zacharias, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, and Ken Ham.

I have seen no empirical evidence whatsoever, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal, which supports any detail of the 'creation of the world' as described in the bible.

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *"Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

Ah, yes! The evil, black-helicoptered Scientific Orthodoxy! An army of jack-booted, blue-helmeted thugs, commanded by Persian-catted evil overlords in their concrete fortresses on the far side of the moon. They are coming for us. They are coming for us all.

The question is, why would an intelligent designer create nonfunctional genes?

Your answer was "to create a false impression that evolution had taken place". Take a look at this article. I would be interested to here an evolutionist microbiologist's view on it.

You don't have to have blind faith. I don't. Here are a bunch of respected scientists who also do not prescribe to blind faith. Answers in Genesis Check it out.

From here:

Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the "inferior" races like the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, as well as the "unfit" (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures... When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

Lorenz's works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the "parasitic growth" of inferior races. The government's programs to insure the "German Volk" maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that "the holocaust ... pretended to have a scientific genetic basis", the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust - only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

From here:

Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the "inferior" races like the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, as well as the "unfit" (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures... When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

Lorenz's works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the "parasitic growth" of inferior races. The government's programs to insure the "German Volk" maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that "the holocaust ... pretended to have a scientific genetic basis", the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust - only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

From The History of Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes by Ernst Haeckel, 1876.

Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and Eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes. ...
At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.

The personal appearance, characteristics, and traits of the Congo pygmies...[show that they are] small, apelike, elfish creatures, furtive and mischievous, they closely parallel the brownies and goblins of our fairy tales. They live in the dense tangled forests in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness, which appears to make them more intelligent then other Negroes.

We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.

Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the "inferior" races like the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, as well as the "unfit" (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures... When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

Lorenz's works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the "parasitic growth" of inferior races. The government's programs to insure the "German Volk" maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that "the holocaust ... pretended to have a scientific genetic basis", the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust - only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word "race" should be abandoned because it's meaningless.

In the field of genetics, researchers have concluded that the genetic differences between the so-called races account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.

Then ADONAI, God, formed a person [Hebrew: adam] from the dust of the ground [Hebrew: adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath (or spirit) of life, so that he became a living being. [Note: The same essential chemical elements are found in humans that are in the soil.]

And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood, one man] all nations of men to settle on the face of the earth...

From The History of Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes by Ernst Haeckel, 1876.

Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and Eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes. ...
At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.

The personal appearance, characteristics, and traits of the Congo pygmies...[show that they are] small, apelike, elfish creatures, furtive and mischievous, they closely parallel the brownies and goblins of our fairy tales. They live in the dense tangled forests in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness, which appears to make them more intelligent then other Negroes.

We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.

Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the "inferior" races like the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, as well as the "unfit" (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures... When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

Lorenz's works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the "parasitic growth" of inferior races. The government's programs to insure the "German Volk" maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that "the holocaust ... pretended to have a scientific genetic basis", the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust - only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word "race" should be abandoned because it's meaningless.

In the field of genetics, researchers have concluded that the genetic differences between the so-called races account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.

Then ADONAI, God, formed a person [Hebrew: adam] from the dust of the ground [Hebrew: adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath (or spirit) of life, so that he became a living being. [Note: The same essential chemical elements are found in humans that are in the soil.]

And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood, one man] all nations of men to settle on the face of the earth...

From The History of Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes by Ernst Haeckel, 1876.

Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and Eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes. ...
At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.

The personal appearance, characteristics, and traits of the Congo pygmies...[show that they are] small, apelike, elfish creatures, furtive and mischievous, they closely parallel the brownies and goblins of our fairy tales. They live in the dense tangled forests in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness, which appears to make them more intelligent then other Negroes.

We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.

Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the "inferior" races like the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, as well as the "unfit" (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures... When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

Lorenz's works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the "parasitic growth" of inferior races. The government's programs to insure the "German Volk" maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that "the holocaust ... pretended to have a scientific genetic basis", the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust - only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word "race" should be abandoned because it's meaningless.

In the field of genetics, researchers have concluded that the genetic differences between the so-called races account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.

Then ADONAI, God, formed a person [Hebrew: adam] from the dust of the ground [Hebrew: adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath (or spirit) of life, so that he became a living being. [Note: The same essential chemical elements are found in humans that are in the soil.]

And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood, one man] all nations of men to settle on the face of the earth...

Keep reading. Verse 5 mentions the that the Sea (a huge bowl) had a rim shaped "like a lily blossom", implying (as seen in one diagram) that the top edge of the bowl, where the diameter would most naturally be measured (by a rod-like device), would be larger than the diameter towards the main part of the bowl, around which the circumference was most likely measured (by a cord or string). Those assumptions are then consistent with a much more accurate value of pi.

The width of the brim, mentioned in verse 5 as being a "handsbreadth in thickness", may also be relevant. If the circumference was measured around the inner rim, and the diameter was measured from outer rim to outer rim, one gets a value of value for pi within a couple percentage points due to the thickness of the 'bowl', something a Jewish rabbi named Nehemiah pointed out around 150 AD.

Not that the bible is a mathematics text. Personally, I suspect they rounded some of those cubit figures off a bit. In science we call that "significant figures", right?

--LP

Nowadays, if the face of so much consistent evidence, you'd have to have some really spectacular counter-evidence to be taken seriously. There are still scientists out there trying to debunk the idea, of course, but mostly they just keep turning up more evidence in favor of the impact.

Unfortunately, the evidence is consistent with a lot of things, including a strong episode of vulcanism, most of what Immanuel Velikovsky's had to say, and the idea of rapid worldwide flooding which so neatly explains many other things (-: a theory so popular on bone-dry Mars, but anathema here on our own soggy globe :-).

What seems to be happening is the same thing, over and over, as when geologist Harlan Bretz fought tooth and nail for four decades before geology accepted his theory for the Spokane badlands. A theory becomes dogma (generally without much real proof) and then all new evidence is seen as conforming to the dogma until finally the explanations become so stretched as to become indefensible, then everyone hurries to been seen as having allowed for the new idea in their old prognostications.

There are a couple of big showstoppers for the meteor-strike-kills-dinosaur idea, including the observation that a lot of dinosaurs did not perish at the end of the Cretaceous, and a lot of creatures which should logically have perished as readily, didn't. Perhaps the most damning is the occasional multiple or conspicuously absent Ir layer, features which are often masked, overlooked or rationalised away during reporting. [pro multi strike] [ con vulcanism] [con flood, many references esp in the linked PDF] [con egg-stinction, but he's wrong, eg non-stealthy birds survived]

Has anyone found strata anywhere that is well-dated and continuous across the 65-million-year age that doesn't show a thin anomalous layer and a radical change of fossils?

I recommend using names, rather than specific ages, or you'll see still more debate about the length of the periods involved, rather than a focus on more ``core'' ideas like seqences of events. And yes, many such have been found; there are less than 200 sites worldwide that do show Ir anomalies, and many of those either show multiple anomalies, or anomalies at depths other than the top of the Cretaceous. Do your own searching. (-:

Once again, we see the blatant media bias when it comes to scientific findings. In this article festers the unspoken assumption that the earth is millions of years old, with no proof.

Let's see now, if the Flood is true, what would we expect to see? Millions of dead things buried under layers of earth. What do we see? Millions of dead things buried under layers of earth.

We need to wake up. The liberals are a clever bunch when it comes to mass indoctrination, but they can't get around the fact that their position is groundless.

Find out more