Evidence for Creation

[Administrator: The following discussion is a good example of how some prefer to ignore the truth or suppress it when it is presented to them. The evolutionists are never able to answer John Wells’ questions and so they attack him from different sides. Rude and angry comments by the evolutionists were deleted, but there were quite a few.]


JOHN WELLS
Milan said, "Let's see some evidence for god and his acts. Then we shall see how they can be disproved. Until then, we don’t have to bother about the issue."

OK, how about:
1. Where did all the energy and matter in the universe come from?
2. Where did the first living cell/organism come from?
3. Where did intelligent code in each cell's DNA (30 encyclopedia volumes worth) come from?

You know Carl Sagan used to say that if the monitors "listening" for an intelligent sound (code) in outer space came up with one intelligent signal, it would "prove" that intelligent life was "out there." Why is it that 30 volumes of intelligent "code" within the living cell don't demand that an intelligent being is responsible for it as well?

4. Does anyone really believe that dirt, chemicals, and elements evolved into a human brain with more possible neural pathways than there are atoms in the visible universe, capable of 20 million billion calculations per second, and 10 billion neurons and 60 trillion synapses communicating through an elaborate system of electrical and chemical signals?

Start proving that anything other than an omnipotent God could achieve these four things!


ZERATUL
Let me throw one in from our side.
Where did the omnipotent God come from?


RONGOGIABE
Your argument then is: There is stuff I can't explain therefore there MUST be an omnipotent God. That doesn't take much, if any, faith.

What is the total energy of the universe anyway? People always say this without knowing the answer (if the answer is knowable.) If the total energy is zero, well hey no problemo. And that may well be the case.

I will dspense with the rest of the questions by noting they rely on the old fcu argument (first caused uncaused) and by noting that because man defines dna as a code does not mean that dna behaves as man says a code should.

Besides if you base your "faith" on the ignorance of mankind what are you gonna believe if someone figures this stuff out? Will naturalistic explanations destroy your faith? I hope not.


MAGFLARE
Start proving that anything other than an omnipotent God could achieve these four things!

Not until you prove that the Egyptian pyramids weren't constructed by space aliens.

I'm sorry, John, but creationism isn't true by default. You evaded the request for evidence by posing a series of questions-- difficult questions, of course, but questions for which scientists are seeking answers. "Unless you can prove otherwise, God did it" isn't an answer. It's a cop-out and a barrier to further research.

If you'd like to provide evidence for your god's handiwork, you can start by pointing out why DNA is, as you say, "intelligent code," as opposed to an originally simple but functional set of instructions that has been refined and added to over the course of billions of generations. I suspect your answer will boil down to something along these lines: "It's really complicated, and you don't know where it came from, so God did it."


RUFUS ATTICUS
John,
1. What evidence do you have that those four things DID come from a diving being?
2. What evidence do you have that that being was the God of the old testament and not--say--Hesiod's gods?


JOHN WELLS
First of all, it was Milan who said, "Let's see some evidence for god and his acts. Then we shall see how they can be disproved.”

I have merely taken him up and responded with four evidences that have no natural explanation. Then Zeratul jumps the gun with, “Where did the omnipotent God come from?” Slow down. We haven’t gotten that far yet. If there’s no natural explanation, it’s a logical assumption that they were caused unnaturally! That’s all I have deduced so far.

Rongogiabe, DNA represents INFORMATION--ordered, codified, structured, data. Think of it like info on your computer's hard drive. That info can take many forms...on your screen as photo blips, on the disk as magnetic blips, or you can write it down on paper as ink blips, etc. The human genome consists of 3.1 billion base pairs, the rungs that make up the ladder-like double helix of DNA. The code appears to be a repetitive readout of A's, C's, T's and G's, the nucleotides that pair up. Scientists do not know what that code says.

The point: the information is independent of the medium. It is absurd to say that the medium spawned the information. Rather, the info is coded onto the medium, just like the 'blueprints' of DNA are coded onto the physical structure of DNA. The independence of the info from the medium implies an outside and intelligent creator of the ordered info, whether we consider DNA, or the sentences you see on your screen right now.

Let’s see now. The counter arguments include: “Hesiod's gods,” “Egyptian pyramids/space aliens,” and lack of faith. The last one’s a bid odd. We Christians are usually criticized for our “faith.” I’ll be quite frank. It takes, IMHO, far more faith to believe something or some process caused the universe rather than a God who’s always existed. As to “What evidence do you have that that being was the God of the old testament?”

The prophecies in the Bible – there are hundreds of them, all having come true except those who’s time has not come. Here is a list of prophecies concerning Jesus alone:

As the Son of God. Ps 2:7.
Fulfilled. Luke 1:32,35.
As the seed of the woman. Gen 3:15.
Fulfilled. Gal 4:4.
As the seed of Abraham. Gen 17:7; 22:18.
Fulfilled. Gal 3:16.
As the seed of Isaac. Gen 21:12.
Fulfilled. Heb 11:17–19.
As the seed of David. Ps 132:11; Jer 23:5.
Fulfilled. Acts 13:23; Rom 1:3.
His coming at a set time. Gen 49:10; Dan 9:24,25.
Fulfilled. Luke 2:1.
His being born of a virgin. Is 7:14.
Fulfilled. Matt 1:22,23; Luke 2:7.
His being called Immanuel. Is 7:14.
Fulfilled. Matt 1:22,23.
His being born in Bethlehem of Judea. Mic 5:2.
Fulfilled. Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4–6.
Great persons coming to adore him. Ps 72:10.
Fulfilled. Matt 2:1–11.
The slaying of the children of Bethlehem. Jer 31:15.
Fulfilled. Matt 2:16–18.
His being called out of Egypt. Hos 11:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 2:15.
His being preceded by John the Baptist. Is 40:3; Mal 3:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 3:1,3; Luke 1:17.
His being anointed with the Spirit. Ps 45:7; Is 11:2; 61:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 10:38.
His being a Prophet like to Moses. Deut 18:15–18.
Fulfilled. Acts 3:20–22.
His being a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Ps 110:4.
Fulfilled. Heb 5:5,6.
His entering on his public ministry. Is 61:1,2.
Fulfilled. Luke 4:16–21,43.
His ministry commencing in Galilee. Is 9:1,2.
Fulfilled. Matt 4:12–16,23.
His entering publicly into Jerusalem. Zech 9:9.
Fulfilled. Matt 21:1–5.
His coming into the temple. Hag 2:7,9; Mal 3:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 21:12; Luke 2:27–32; John 2:13–16.
His poverty. Is 53:2.
Fulfilled. Mark 6:3; Luke 9:58.
His meekness and want of ostentatious. Is 42:2.
Fulfilled. Matt 12:15,16,19.
His tenderness and compassion. Is 40:11; 42:3.
Fulfilled. Matt 12:15,20; Heb 4:15.
His being without guile. Is 53:9.
Fulfilled. 1 Pet 2:22.
His zeal. Ps 69:9.
Fulfilled. John 2:17.
His preaching by parables. Ps 78:2.
Fulfilled. Matt 13:34,35.
His working miracles. Is 35:5,6.
Fulfilled. Matt 11:4–6; John 11:47.
His bearing reproach. Ps 22:6; 69:7,9,20.
Fulfilled. Rom 15:3.
His being rejected by his brethren. Ps 69:8; Is 63:3.
Fulfilled. John 1:11; 7:3.
His being a stone of stumbling to the Jews. Is 8:14.
Fulfilled. Rom 9:32; 1 Pet 2:8.
His being hated by the Jews. Ps 69:4; Is 49:7.
Fulfilled. John 15:24,25.
His being rejected by the Jewish rulers. Ps 118:22.
Fulfilled. Matt 21:42; John 7:48.
That the Jews and Gentiles should combine against Him. Ps 2:1,2.
Fulfilled. Luke 23:12; Acts 4:27.
His being betrayed by a friend. Ps 41:9; 55:12–14.
Fulfilled. John 13:18,21.
His disciples forsaking him. Zech 13:7.
Fulfilled. Matt 26:31,56.
His being sold for thirty pieces silver. Zech 11:12.
Fulfilled. Matt 26:15.
His price being given for the potter’s field. Zech 11:13.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:7.
The intensity of his sufferings. Ps 22:14,15.
Fulfilled. Luke 22:42,44.
His sufferings being for others. Is 53:4–6,12; Dan 9:26.
Fulfilled. Matt 20:28.
His patience and silence under suffering. Is 53:7.
Fulfilled. Matt 26:63; 27:12–14.
His being smitten on the cheek. Mic 5:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:30.
His visage being marred. Is 52:14; 53:3.
Fulfilled. John 19:5.
His being spit on and scourged. Is 50:6.
Fulfilled. Mark 14:65; John 19:1.
His hands and feet being nailed to the cross. Ps 22:16.
Fulfilled. John 19:18; 20:25.
His being forsaken by God. Ps 22:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:46.
His being mocked. Ps 22:7,8.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:39–44.
Gall and vinegar being given him to drink. Ps 69:21.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:34.
His garments being parted, and lots cast for his vesture. Ps 22:18.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:35.
His being numbered with the transgressors. Is 53:12.
Fulfilled. Mark 15:28.
His intercession for His murderers. Is 53:12.
Fulfilled. Luke 23:34.
His death. Is 53:12.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:50.
That a bone of him should not be broken. Ex 12:46; Ps 34:20.
Fulfilled. John 19:33,36.
His being pierced. Zech 12:10.
Fulfilled. John 19:34,37.
His being buried with the rich. Is 53:9.
Fulfilled. Matt 27:57–60.
His flesh not seeing corruption. Ps 16:10.
Fulfilled. Acts 2:31.
His resurrection. Ps 16:10; Is 26:19.
Fulfilled. Luke 24:6,31,34.
His ascension. Ps 68:18.
Fulfilled. Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9.
His sitting on the right hand of God. Ps 110:1.
Fulfilled. Heb 1:3.
His exercising the priestly office in heaven. Zech 6:13.
Fulfilled. Rom 8:34.
His being the chief corner-stone of the Church. Is 28:16.
Fulfilled. 1 Pet 2:6,7.
His being King in Zion. Ps 2:6.
Fulfilled. Luke 1:32; John 18:33–37.
The conversion of the Gentiles to him. Is 11:10; 42:1.
Fulfilled. Matt 1:17,21; John 10:16; Acts 10:45,47.
His righteous government. Ps 45:6,7.
Fulfilled. John 5:30; Rev 19:11.
His universal dominion. Ps 72:8; Dan 7:14.
Fulfilled. Phil 2:9,11.
The perpetuity of his kingdom. Is 9:7; Dan 7:14.
Fulfilled. Luke 1:32,33.

Run some of your scientific odds on all of these coming true, and not a single prophecy about Jesus missing the mark, let alone the hundreds of others in the Bible about other things. Fulfilled prophecies on the magnitude that they occur in the Bible with zero that miss the mark makes the Bible an extremely unusual book. It just occurs to me that a book that has an astounding record of predicting future events maybe ought to be believed in what it says about non-prophetical things – like historical things!


KMGRABA
If there’s no natural explanation, it’s a logical assumption that they were caused unnaturally! That’s all I have deduced so far.

This is incorrect. If there is no current explanation for something, it doesn't make any sense to posit that God is the explanation with no evidence. When you have evidence, you will have a case.


The point: the information is independent of the medium. It is absurd to say that the medium spawned the information. Rather, the info is coded onto the medium, just like the 'blueprints' of DNA are coded onto the physical structure of DNA. The independence of the info from the medium implies an outside and intelligent creator of the ordered info, whether we consider DNA, or the sentences you see on your screen right now.

General information can easily be found about any object. If I found a pile of sand, I could find lots of information: the slope of the pile, how symmetric it is, and so on. Yet this does not mean that someone ordered the sand around in a pattern. Furthermore, that information can be represented by several mediums is completely irrelevent to the idea that a creator actively made life forms.


Let’s see now. The counter arguments include: “Hesiod's gods,” “Egyptian pyramids/space aliens,” and lack of faith. The last one’s a bid odd. We Christians are usually criticized for our “faith.” I’ll be quite frank. It takes, IMHO, far more faith to believe something or some process caused the universe rather than a God who’s always existed.

This does not address the objections at all.
As for requiring faith to believe something or some process caused the universe, it requires no faith to do. Just as I believe that something or some process keeps the Earth revolving around Sol rather than the will of God.

As to “What evidence do you have that that being was the God of the old testament?”

The prophecies in the Bible – there are hundreds of them, all having come true except those who’s time has not come. Here is a list of prophecies concerning Jesus alone:…

Actually, this looks to be (at best) foreshadowing. While considered part of several good stories, it's not exactly a good test of divinity.


DANEEL
How many of the things you said came true did you see come true and how many where confirmed by people you could trust were telling the truth? Humans wrote the bible for a reason. Their reasons and the reasons you think they wrote it might not be the same reasons. Basing your life on a 2000 year old book written by men claiming they were inspired by god is not what I would call logical.

Humans have been conjuring up Gods and myths ever since they started trying to figure out the universe and why they were here. The human mind is an animal mind and did not evolve to solve these kinds of questions. We use logic but the logic must have premises. Since there are no premises dealing with how and why we are here they made up Gods and myths. How many Gods are there? Hundreds if not thousands! The God of the Bible is just one and has no more evidence to support it than any of the other Gods. So why do people believe? Because they want to is as good an explanation as any.


TGAMBLE
1. Where did all the energy and matter in the universe come from?

Big Bang

2. Where did the first living cell/organism come from?

Evolved from preexisting elements.

3. Where did intelligent code in each cell's DNA (30 encyclopedia volumes worth) come from?.

Considering most of the DNA is junk DNA I doubt there's that much. But it to, evolved.


You know Carl Sagen used to say that if the monitors "listening" for an intelligent sound (code) in outer space came up with one intelligent signal, it would "prove" that intelligent life was "out there." Why is it that 30 volumes of intelligent "code" within the living cell don't demand that an intelligent being is responsible for it as well?

Because a) there's no intdependent evidence of an intellegent being and b) there's a better explanation.


4. Does anyone really believe that dirt, chemicals, and elements evolved into a human brain with more possible neural pathways than there are atoms in the visible universe, capable of 20 million billion calculations per second, and 10 billion neurons and 60 trillion synapses communicating through an elaborate system of electrical and chemical signals?

Dirt?! What does dirt have to do with it?!


Start proving that anything other than an omnipotent God could achieve these four things!

And just what evidence would you accept and not dismiss without consideration?

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

ZERATUL
Zeratul jumps the gun with, “Where did the omnipotent God come from?” Slow down. We haven’t gotten that far yet. If there’s no natural explanation, it’s a logical assumption that they were caused unnaturally! That’s all I have deduced so far.

Z: John, if that's the way science operated, we would still attribute lightning and disease to an omnipotent being. A more likely assumption is that if there is no natural explanation, it just hasn't been found yet.


JOHN WELLS
Kmgraba said, “This is incorrect. If there is no current explanation for something, it doesn't make any sense to posit that God is the explanation with no evidence. When you have evidence, you will have a case.”

That is why I said slow down and back up. Rather than four or five critics going in eight different directions, I have adequately answered Milan’s challenge with four “evidences” that do not lend themselves to a ”natural” explanation. Since evolution is based on natural selection, I have presented four “walls” with a counter challenge: Prove that something natural caused these!


Kmgraba said, “Actually, this looks to be (at best) foreshadowing. While considered part of several good stories, it's not exactly a good test of divinity.”

Sorry but I disagree. Hundreds of prophecies without error, when run in a probability matrix is simply unexplainable in natural terms.


Kmgraba said, "How many of the things you said came true did you see come true and how many where confirmed by people you could trust were telling the truth?"

A) Sir William Ramsey. For many years Ramsey was professor of humanity at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He was, in his time, the world's most eminent authority on the geography and history of ancient Asia Minor (Turkey today). In his zeal to study every available early document concerning that period and area, he undertook an intensive research of the New Testament book of Acts and also the Gospel of Luke. This study, however, was approached with much skepticism. At that time he penned the following description of the book of Acts: "a highly imaginative and carefully colored account of primitive Christianity."
But after many years of intensive study, this scholar, who began an unbeliever, became a staunch defender of the Word of God. The absolute historical accuracy of Luke's writings, even in the most minute details, captured first his brain and then his heart. Ramsey authored many books, but one of his better known is entitled: The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Ramsey's overall opinion of the Bible is perhaps best seen in the following quote: "I take the view that Luke's history is unsurpassed in regard to its trustworthiness you may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."

B) William F. Albright. One of the greatest and most respected oriental scholars who ever lived was William F. Albright. He writes the following concerning the Bible and his historical findings:
"The reader may rest assured: nothing has been found to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." (Robert Young, Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, p. 51)

C) Robert Dick Wilson. Probably the most qualified Old Testament linguist of all time was Robert Dick Wilson. He was born in 1856 and took his undergraduate work at Princeton University, graduating in 1876. He then completed both the M.A. and the Ph.D. After this, he spent two years at the University of Berlin in further postgraduate studies. Wilson taught Old Testament courses at Western Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh and returned to Princeton where he received international fame as a Hebrew scholar without peer. He was perfectly at home in over forty ancient Semitic languages. Dr. Wilson writes the following about himself:
"If a man is called an expert, the first thing to be done is to establish the fact that he is such. One expert may be worth more than a million other witnesses that are not experts. Before a man has the right to speak about the history and the language of the Old Testament, the Christian Church has the right to demand that a man should establish his ability to do so. For forty-five years continuously, since I left college, I have devoted myself to the one great study of the Old Testament, in all its languages, in all its archaeology, in all its translations, and as far as possible in everything bearing upon its text and history. I tell you this so that you may see why I can and do speak as an expert. I may add that the result of my forty-five years of study of the Bible has led me all the time to a firmer faith that in the Old Testament we have a true historical account of the history of the Israelite people; and I have a right to commend this to some of those bright men and women who think that they can laugh at the old-time Christian and believer in the Word of God. I have claimed to be an expert. Have I the right to do so? Well, when I was in the Seminary I used to read my New Testament in nine different languages. I learned my Hebrew by heart, so that I could recite it without the intermission of a syllableas soon as I graduated from the Seminary, I became a teacher of Hebrew for a year and then I went to Germany. When I got to Heidelburg, I made a decision. I decided-and did it with prayer-to consecrate my life to the study of the Old Testament. I was twenty-five then; and I judged from the life of my ancestors that I should live to be seventy; so that I should have forty-five years to work. I divided the period into three parts. The first fifteen years I would devote to the study of the languages necessary. For the second fifteen I was going to devote myself to the study of the text of the Old Testament; and I reserved the last fifteen years for the work of writing the results of my previous studies and investigations, so as to give them to the world. And the Lord has enabled me to carry out that plan almost to a year." (David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? pp. 40, 41)


Joe,
Your answers (if they may be called that) are too simplistic and do not get us anywhere. You said, for instance, “Big bang” caused matter and energy. Are you saying that “Once upon a time there was nothing, and then out of nowhere a “big bang” occurred and produced an immense universe from nothing?” That has the makings of an awesome fairy tale!

Z said: "John, if that's the way science operated, we would still attribute lightning and disease to an omnipotent being. A more likely assumption is that if there is no natural explanation, it just hasn't been found yet."

So, back to Milan’s challenge: "Let's see some evidence for god and his acts. Then we shall see how they can be disproved. Until then, we don’t have to bother about the issue." I have given four “evidences” that cannot be explained “naturally,” so you guys fly off in every direction to divert the fact that you don’t have answers. And one very tenable possible answer is that God did it. It’s as good an answer as anyone else has come up with. Now, “see how they can be disproved” according to Milan, is the task of the evolutionist.


ZERATUL
John: That is why I said slow down and back up. Rather than four or five critics going in eight different directions, I have adequately answered Milan’s challenge with four “evidences” that do not lend themselves to a ”natural” explanation. Since evolution is based on natural selection, I have presented four “walls” with a counter challenge: Prove that something natural caused these!

Z: But you do understand that a thousand years ago you could have said the same thing about lightning or disease (or plenty of other things)? People may have accepted these things as evidence of God back then, but as natural explanations have been uncovered, this is no longer the case. That is my point. We may not have answers to the questions you posed for another thousand years, or we may never have answers. That does not mean that there are no natural answers and so by default, God is the answer.

Incidentally, quantum physics can give a good hypothesis on the first question, but you wouldn't like it or accept it.


JOHN WELLS
I'm sticking with Milan's challenge to provide proof! The problem is: the premise of natural selection hits a wall with abiogenesis. Genesis does not!


DANEEL
Are you serious! At least abiogenesis and evolution can be theorized or explained by using natural laws of chemistry and physics. Genesis simply uses supernatural laws which are unknown. In order to create complex multicellular organisms from scratch takes magic and invisible entities which can be imagined only by certain people.

Also, proof is for math and things where you have absolute premises. Science uses evidence which indicates a high probability that a specific idea is correct. It does not prove it. It is up to the person to examine the evidence WITH AN OPEN MIND and then come to a conclusion. This is why most scientists support evolution. The evidence is overwhelming.


ZERATUL
Actually, natural selection implies that there is something for selection to act upon. Abiogenesis, while an extremely interesting problem, is actually not relevant when talking about evolution. I am sure that you have heard this before, but it is not some copout or excuse. It is simply the truth.

But let's say for a moment that it is relevant. Would you accept an explanation from me that life has always existed, and therefore there is no problem? I doubt it, but that is essentially what you have asked us to do. When I start asking questions about the designer, that is always the fallback position: He always existed.


NAT
John,
I can answer the first one, but I doubt you will accept it.
One of the leading hypotheses for cosmogenesis comes from a quirk of Heisenberg Uncertainty that allows for energy to spring into and out of existence for amounts of time inversely proportional to the amount of energy created. We observe this happening by observing particles overcoming barriers they lack the energy to overcome - this is fairly well understood aspect of quantum mechanics.

Now interestingly enough the Universe is now thought to contain precisely zero net energy - the positive energy of matter and light is perfectly compensated by the negative energy of gravity wells. So, if the amount of time energy can be "borrowed" from nothingness by Heisenberg Uncertainty is inversely proportional to the amount of energy "borrowed," then how long can exactly zero net energy be "borrowed?" If you said an infinite amount of time, then you win the prize.

Also, there are other incredibly interesting and useful new avenues of scientific inquiry that tackle this problem. Guth's Baby Universes, inherently unstable primodial Higg's Fields, and String Theory all take a stab at this little problem. Now I'm sure you think it requires more faith to believe in this radical idea than a supernatural being snapping his fingers, but really all it takes is more education.


THE BARBARIAN
The problem is: the premise of natural selection hits a wall with abiogenesis. Genesis does not!

That's like saying "organic chemistry hits a wall with metallurgy". It betrays a deep ignorance of the way science works. We don't expect organic chemistry to explain metallurgy, because it makes no claims about metals, and we don't expect evolution to explain the origin of life because it makes no claims about that. In the case of evolution, you don't have to assume God used nature; you could assume God went "poof!" and the first living cells appeared. That would be O.K. with evolution, also.

But it wouldn't fit Genesis, then. Genesis says that it happened by abiogenesis.
Which is good enough for me, even if it's not very scientific.


MILAN
"Proof" is for maths and for alcoholic beverages. I asked for evidence. I haven't seen any so far (Not that I expected to see any).

Conjuring a magical supernatural creator is a transparently feeble and self-defeating argument -if it can be considered an argument at all.

As Dawkins said:
"Organized complexity is the thing we are having difficulty explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to inovoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity. [...] But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as the machine itself. [...] The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity".

This is in fact one of the main strenghts of Darwin's theory, and the main weakness of any of the "alternatives".


HRG/ALTER EGO
Just so.
The attempts of IDists and creation scientists to explain - in the scientific sense - observed complexity by postulating the action of an even more complex being, always remind me of the old joke:
"How can you quickly make a small fortune?"
"By starting with a large one!"


MILAN
Does anyone really believe that dirt, chemicals, and elements evolved into a human brain with more possible neural pathways than there are atoms in the visible universe [...]?

Just a detail, but I thought I'd clarify this just for the sake of accuracy.
The number of synapses in the cortex has been estimated to be around 60 - 240X10^12 (ie 60-240 trillion).

The number of atoms in our galaxy is estimated to be in the order of 10^68.

The number of atoms in the whole universe has been estimated to be in the order of 10^80.

It is indeed rather obvious that, as a synapse (or a neural pathway) is constituted of cells, and cells contain thousands of atoms, it is logically impossible that the number of synapses (or neural pathways) in a brain could be higher than the number of atoms in the same brain -let alone higher than the number of atoms in the visible -or invisible-universe.


KMGRABA
Originally posted by John Wells:
Rather than four or five critics going in eightdifferent directions, I have adequately answered Milan’s challenge with four “evidences” that do not lend themselves to a ”natural” explanation. Since evolution is based on natural selection, I have presented four “walls” with a counter challenge: Prove that something natural caused these!

You have it exactly backwards. Before we take you seriously, YOU must provide evidence to back up your ideas. If a phenomenon has no adequete explanation, it's a poor excuse to posit fairies, leprechauns, or deities without evidence.


Hundreds of prophecies without error, when run in a probability matrix is simply unexplainable in natural terms.

If you think that's amazing, you should check out this prophesy: "The last letter in this sentence is an 'e.'" Holy cow! Amazing! A prophesy come true! This is simply unexplainable in natural terms.


RUFUSATTICUS
If there’s no natural explanation, it’s a logical assumption that they were caused unnaturally!

Need I remind you that at one point in history such an argument was applied to disease, weather, reproduction, earthquakes, wind, planets, etc. And what do we know about the causes of those things now? I think you're able to see the error in your logic. But I'll follow your line of reasoning: there is no evidence that those things were created supernaturally, so they must have been created naturally. It's a logical conclusion after all.


The code appears to be a repetitive readout of A's, C's, T's and G's, the nucleotides that pair up. Scientists do not know what that code says.

The genetic code was cracked about 30-40 years ago. We know the sequences that start a gene and terminate it. We know what the sequences mean in a gene. We know sequences that mark introns, and those that tell transcriptase where to bind. Et cetera. If you ever feel like reading an actual scientific text, try Lewin's "Genes VII."


The prophecies in the Bible – there are hundreds of them, all having come true except those who’s time has not come. Here is a list of prophecies concerning Jesus alone:

I notice you didn't provide any prophecies concerning creation. I still don't see any evidence that your God is the divine creator. Most other religions make similar claims and have similar evidence
What evidence do you have that your God is the divine creator? Not only do you need to show that your God exists, but that He also created. Extra-biblical evidence would make your case better than quoting scripture.


JOHN WELLS
Just because you cannot see, understand, or appreciate the incredible prophesy record of the Bible does not diminish it's awesomeness. I suppose if Darwin had predicted 300+ discoveries that had occurred since his death without error on a single one, evolutionists would be touting that though.

RufusAtticus said, "I still don't see any evidence that your God is the divine creator."

Psalm 19:1 (NIV)
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Ezekiel 12:2 (NIV)
“Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.

Take your naturalistic filter off your eyes and look around! God is everywhere and in everything!!

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

DAVEW
Well, Darwin did make several predictions (such as that the "missing link" between apes and humans would be found in Africa) that have come true. But more to the point, I suspect that if someone wrote a book about Darwin that claimed he made 300+ prophecies, and also wrote about events desribed by those prophecies, you and other creationists would probably not accept the author's word for it -- and rightly so. The only confirmation of Biblical prophecies is the Bible.


Take your naturalistic filter off your eyes and look around! God is everywhere and in everything!!

That may well be the case, but God's presence isn't detectable in scientific terms (at least so far, nobody's invented a "God-o-meter"). A "naturalistic filter" may be a bad thing for looking around, but it's absolutely indispensable for doing science.


JOHN WELLS
davew said, "The only confirmation of Biblical prophecies is the Bible."

I'm going to assume you made this statement due to lack of knowledge. If you did the historical work yourself, or read the historians and archaeologogical reviews, you would be embarrassed!


KMGRABA
If Darwin had predicted 300+ discoveries that had occured in Origin of the Species but could not be found in the real world, I'd be rather skeptical of those too.

RufusAtticus asked for evidence, not quotations. Using quotations is like trying to prove that Zeus is king of the Gods using quotations from the Illiad.


Take your naturalistic filter off your eyes and look around! God is everywhere and in everything!!

"Naturalistic filter?" Why is it that you claim we will see no evidence for your assertions until we believe your assertions? Would you believe me if I said, "I can fly! There's abundant evidence, but you have to believe I can fly. Then you'll see that I can fly!"


MILAN
The overwhelming majority of the biblical prophecies have been proved false. The following list includes just a few unfulfilled prophecies.
A more complete list can be found, for instance, at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

Genesis
1. God promises Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

2. "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

3. God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3-4

4. The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10

Exodus
5. God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 33:2

Deuteronomy
6. Joshua (8:28) says that Ai would never again be occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

7. The Nile shall dry up. (Is.19:5, Ezek.30:12, and Zech.10:11) This has never occurred.

8. According to Is.19:18, there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now.

9. Isaiah 17:1 says that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. But Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities and was never completely destroyed.

10. Is.19:18-21 predicts that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt.

11. God tells Zedekiah that he will die in peace and be buried with his fathers (Jer.34:4). But later (2 Kg.25:7 and Jer.52:10-11) he dies a violent death in a foreign land.

12. In 2 Kg.22:20 God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. But Josiah's death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg.23:29-30, 2 Chr.35:23-24)

13. Jeremiah 22:30 prophesies that Coniah will have no children and no descendant of his will ever sit upon the throne of David. But his sons are listed in 1 Chr.3:17, and Matthew (1:12) lists Jeconiah as an ancestor of Jesus, who according to Luke 1:32 must sit on the throne of David.

14. "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." (2 Sam.7:13-16, Jer.33:17, Ps.89:3-4, 34-37) But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today.

15. All those who move to Egypt will die by the sword, famine, or pestilence (Jer.42:15-18). None "shall escape from the evil" that comes directly from God. But many folks, including Jews, have moved to Egypt and most seem to have escaped from God's promised evil.

16. Jeremiah (49:33) predicts that humans will never again live in Hazor, but will be replaced by dragons. But people still live there and dragons have never been seen.

17. In Jer.50:39 and Is.13:19-20 God prophesies that Babylon will never again be inhabited. But it has been inhabited constantly since the prophecy was supposedly made, and is inhabited still today.

Ezekiel
18. Ezekiel Prophesies (in the 6th century BCE) that Ammonites will not be remembered any more. They continued to exist until the 2nd century CE. (And they are still remembered in the Bible.) 21:28-32

19. Ezekiel prophesies that Tyrus will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and will never be built again. But it wasn't destroyed, as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3). 26:14,21

20. Ezekiel repeats the false prophecy of the destruction and perpetual desolation of Tyrus. (See Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3). 27:36

21. Once more Ezekiel repeats the false prophecy of the complete destruction of Tyrus and its perpetual desolation. 28:19

22. Ezekiel conveys God's promise that Israel will reside in their homeland safely, never again to be tormented by neighboring nations. Israelites continued to be scattered from the area and tormented by other powers, including the Romans and Turks. In the 20th century, they were given a large portion of their homeland back, only to have the residents (Palestinians) revolt. Israel has had nothing near a peaceful existence. 28:24-26

23. Ezekiel makes another false prophecy: that Egypt would be uninhabited by humans or animals for forty years after being destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. But there was never a time when Egypt was uninhabited. Humans and animals have lived there continuously since Ezekiel's prophecy. 29:10-13

24. Egypt "shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations." But Egypt remained an important and often powerful nation. During the Tulunid dynasty (868-905 CE), for example, Egypt was the center of a small empire and conquered Syria. 29:14-15

25. The Nile shall dry up. This has never occurred. 30:12

26. Once again, Ezekiel prophesies God will protect the Israelites from invasion and plunder as a shepherd protects his flock. Again, we know this has not happened. 34:28-29

Jonah
27. Jonah prophesies that in forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown. But it didn't happen because God repented (Jonah 3:10).3:4

Zephaniah
28. Zephaniah prophesies that "the great day of the Lord is near." But we're still waiting, 2600 years later. 1:14-18

Haggai
29. In "a little while" God "will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land." 2:6

Zechariah
30. The gospels (especially Mt.21:4-5 and Jn.12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zech.9:9. But the next few verses (9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy. 9:9

31. The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in NIV, NASB, and RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 10:11

Matthew
32. The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely because: ? "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
? The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

33. The gospels (especially Mt.21:4-5 and Jn.12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zech.9:9. But the next few verses (9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

34. Matthew (2:17-18) quotes Jer.31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre.

35. Jesus tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Mt.16:28, 23:36, 24:34

36. Jesus prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. Mt.26:64, Mk.14:62.

37. Jesus prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners' lifetimes. Mk.9:1, 13:30

38. Jesus said that his true followers will routinely perform the following things: 1) cast out devils, 2)speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them. Mk.16:17-18

39. Matthew quotes from Zechariah (11:12-13), but mistakenly attributes the quote to Jeremiah.

40. Jesus predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God. Lk.9:27

41. Jesus says that all that he describes (his return, signs in the sun, moon, and stars, etc.) will occur within the lifetime of his listeners. Lk.21:32

42. In John 7:38, Jesus quotes "the scripture" as saying that those who believe in him will have living waters flowing out of their bellies. There is no such scripture. (The closest are Ezek.47:1 and Zech.14:8, but they aren't very close.)

43. John 19:33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 and Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

44. Jesus implies that he will return to earth during the lifetime of John. Jn.21:22

45. Paul thought that the end was near and that Jesus would return soon after he wrote these words. Phil.4:5

46. Paul thought he would live to see the rapture. 1 Th.4:17

47. The author of Hebrews believed that he was living in the "last days" (Heb.1:2) and that Jesus would come "in a little while," and would "not tarry." Heb.10:37

48. James quotes "the Scripture" as saying, "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy." But there is no such scripture in the Old Testament. Jas.4:5



JOHN WELLS
The list, wherever you got it from, strongly suggests someone taking a scientific-like approach to understanding the Bible. Not understanding Hebrew culture and how words, meanings, and history translate into the message can trip the non-biblical scholar up pretty bad. I have taken several, but not all because I have a life, and given you clarifications.
1. God promises Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14 Israel has never possessed this land in its entirety, but she will when Christ returns to reign as Messiah.

3. God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3-4 Genesis 46:3-4 (NIV) 3 “I am God, the God of your father,” he said. “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation there. 4 I will go down to Egypt with you, and I will surely bring you back again. And Joseph’s own hand will close your eyes.”

This can be viewed two ways: Joseph did return Jacob to his land: Genesis 50:12-14 (NIV)
12 So Jacob’s sons did as he had commanded them: 13 They carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre, which Abraham had bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along with the field. 14 After burying his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, together with his brothers and all the others who had gone with him to bury his father.

But the object of God’s statement was a “great nation,” and God did bring the “great nation” that He made of Jacob’s descendents back out of Egypt.

Deuteronomy
6. Joshua (8:28) says that Ai would never again be occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Modern Et-Tell (Arab. tall, heap, mound) about 3 km SE of Bethel (Tell Beit??n) is usually identified with Ai on topographical grounds and on the correspondence in the meanings of the ancient and modem names. Excavations in 1933–5 by Mme J. Marquet-Krause and in 1964–72 by J. A. Callaway revealed a city which prospered in the 3rd millennium BC. There was a strong city-wall and a temple containing stone bowls and ivories imported from Egypt.
It was destroyed c. 2400 BC, perhaps by Amorite invaders. No traces of later occupation were found except for a small settlement which made use of the earlier ruins about 1200–1050 BC.


7. The Nile shall dry up. (Is.19:5, Ezek.30:12, and Zech.10:11) This has never occurred.

See 10.


8. According to Is.19:18, there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language

See 10.


9. Isaiah 17:1 says that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. But Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities and was never completely destroyed.

Under Ahaz it was taken by Tiglathpileser, 2 Kings 16:7, 8, 9, the kingdom of Damascus brought to an end, and the city itself destroyed, the inhabitants being carried captive into Assyria. Modern Damascus inhabits a different sight.


10. Is.19:18-21 predicts that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt.

This statement shows the utter biblical ignorance of the person who wrote it (I’m assuming you cut and pasted it from another source). “in that day” refers to the Messiah’s reign on earth and so this passage states Egypt will worship Yahweh and speak Hebrew during the yet to be fulfilled prophesy of the Messianic Kingdom.

I have seen these "refutation lists" many times. They all give testimony to the lack of discernment of those who view the Bible through skeptical eyes and minds. Many skeptics who have devoted themselves to serious Bible study, taking off the bias, have been converted in the process!


MILAN
It is not really my intention to discuss the inaccuracies, contradictions, or unfulfilled prophecies of the bible. The bible is a heterogeneous collection of texts comprising a variety of genres, written by many authors of -and for- different cultures, and developed over a millenium, and therefore is to be expected to contain inaccuracies and contradictions in abundance. Furthermore, I consider this discussion off topic.

I more or less expected, though, that many of the examples I presented would be explained away with some intellectual gymnastics of the type: when Christ returns, the prophecy will be fulfilled. However,if that is really what the prophecy suggests, then it counts as unfulfilled, of course.

I will mention only one point that I find interesting -and I quoted it above. You mention that the fact that Ai was destroyed in 2400 BCE fulfills Josuah's prophecy. But Josuah, like the other Deuteronomists, lived and wrote around the 7th century BCE. How does the destruction of a city 17 centuries before constitute a prophecy?


JOHN WELLS
Do you mean the same “intellectual gymnastics” that evolutionists use to debunk lists of fallacies in their theories?
Never stated that all biblical prophecies claim to have been fulfilled. Surely you know that as there are many associated with the Second Coming of Christ, the Tribulation, etc. That does not detract from the hundreds that have been fulfilled without error or rational explanation.

The Book of Joshua dates 1400 – 1370 BC (without the E). “A small settlement which made use of the earlier ruins about 1200–1050 BC” fits well within the context of the scriptures and prophecy.