Our Websites

Why don’t creatures today look the same as pre-flood fossils?

Q: I was talking to my brother who believes evolution, and I explained the fossil/flood theory. He asked a very good question, which I wasn’t prepared to answer. He said, ”If this flood theory is correct, shouldn’t there be fossils from all other animals which we know today?”

A: It is not true that the fossils we discover these days would have to be primarily of animals we recognize as alive today, since species can change rather dramatically in only a few thousand years.

This is not evolution, but rather adaptation designed by God. He created the earth to be inhabited, and He gave His creation the ability to adapt to all kinds of climates and environments. So animals have the capacity for rapid changes in only a few thousand years that could have changed many of them into different-looking creatures since Noah’s Flood. For example, the original cat probably looked something like a tiger, but we now have domesticated house cats that look dramatically different.

But regardless of this capacity for rapid variation, the fact is, most fossils DO look just like living creatures and plants we have today! Dr. Carl Werner produced a book entitled Evolution: The Grand Experiment that shows many creatures and plants which look just like their fossils. It compares the fossils of plants and animals with their modern counterparts, showing that they still look identical to the fossils now. The funny thing is: Evolutionists claim these fossils are millions of years old, yet the creatures and plants still look the same today! Wow!

,

Leave38 Responses to testWhy don’t creatures today look the same as pre-flood fossils?

  1. Jay Liverstitch January 19, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    I’m not even sure where to start.

    If your claim is that all cats could have been descended from one early single ancestor, then you have, rather precisely described an example of the very thing this post intends to dispute: evolution.

    Felidae, that is, the family of organisms we call “cats”, as you pointed out, exhibit a rather large degree of variation between species. More-so, in fact, than is exhibited between the extant species of hominids, of which you and I, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans fall.

    In other words, to lump cats together and claim that their diversity is perfectly within the definition of “adaption” or “micro-evolution”, is actually going FURTHER with that definition (much further in fact) than to claim that humans, orangutans, and gorillas are an example of micro-evolution.

    If all “cats” fall within one “kind”, then so too do gorillas and humans fall within a “kind”.

    I’d like to expound on this further, but right now my mind is too overwhelmed with the irony.

    Jay

  2. Joseph Conkle January 19, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    You have a brother that believes in evolution?! How is that possible? That would be an oxymoron.

  3. James McGraw January 19, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Dear Eric,

    Please explain, scientifically, the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of rapid “adaptation” within a “kind” (orders of magnitude more rapid than conventional science proposes) but somehow slams the door shut at the “kind barrier.” preventing one “kind” from “adapting” into another “kind.”

    Thank you.

  4. andrew Ryan January 19, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    Stephen H: It was YOU who brought up charity, not me. We got to the point where we both agreed that polls couldn’t be trusted on the subject, leaving us with just anecdotal evidence of our own relatively small circle of friends.

    Your position now is to ask me how I can trust my friends and family. I’m afraid that I’d trust their word before I trusted that of a complete stranger – in other words you. How do I know they’re not lying about their charitable giving? Well how do I know that YOU’RE not lying about your friends?

    I’m not saying you’re lying. In fact I believe you. But if you’re asking me to distrust my own friends and family, don’t you think that I’d distrust you first, given that I’ve never met you?

    And no, it wasn’t me who you met recently! I’ve met no new people in the past few weeks, and at any rate have been in London, UK all that time. But hey – you met another Andrew Ryan? Were you by any chance playing BioShock?

    Regarding the first self-replicating life. Look, I’m sure there are plenty of good books you can read on this subject if it interests you. You’re not going to learn much having a conversation like this where you have to wait several days to see if your question has even posted, let alone got replied by the other person before the thread is closed.

    Suffice it to say that even if we found billions-years-old video footage of God himself or perhaps an alien, designing and releasing the first self-replicating bacteria, it would make no difference whatsoever to evolutionary theory, which deals exclusively with the subject of what happened AFTER the first organism reproduced.

  5. andrew Ryan January 19, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    Any chance of anyone giving me a source of the Sir Arthur Keith quote? Preferably one that dates to BEFORE the poor man actually died?

  6. Pieter Venter January 19, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    This is out of the Oxford Dictionary:
    ” evolution – definition
    (biology)
    the gradual development of plants, animals, etc. over many years as they adapt to changes in their environment

  7. Lance Grey January 19, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    not all creatures survived the flood and,
    not all fossils have been found & examined.

  8. John Bebbington January 19, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Isn’t it marvellous? First, according to YECists of the last century, evolution didn’t happen at all. Now, faced with the ineluctable evidence, creationists have to admit that it does and does so in spades, hearts, diamonds and collywobbles all at the same time. Whereas we evilutionists are far more cautious, requiring huge millions of years for our experiments, Kent and his unevolved sprog need only a few thousand to get from a few species on the Ark to many millions only 4,400 years later.

    As to the pertinent point, there may be a relatively few extant species which bear a morphological similarity to their fossilised forbears but I bet that, if we could examine their respective DNA, the differences would be great. But I can’t prove that as a general proposition. However, from Eric’s own suppositions with respect to the rate of evolution since Noah landed on Ararat, I don’t see how he could disagree.

    Eric needs to decide whether, in his opinion, populations evolve slowly, quickly or, perhaps, variably dependant upon the ecological pressures on the organism.

  9. Christopher Flournoy January 20, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Straw man arguments: Everyone believes in evolution as defined as simply change over time. The dispute is over how much change and how much time. Evolutionists say that all dogs (and every living thing for that matter) came from bacteria which came from molecules which came from nothing by random undirected processes. 13.7 billion years is not even close to the amount of time you would need for that to happen. Creationists say that all dog-kind animals came from an original created dog-kind animal pre-programmed with all of the genetic information needed to produce all of the dog varieties. This could easily take place in a few thousand years.

    Every creationists I know believes what the Bible says, that living things reproduce after their kind. People who study this sort of thing (baraminology) place the Biblical “kind” on the level of “Family” in our modern taxonomic system (which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus, a creationist) .

    Horizontal variation and adaptation (commonly called “micro-evolution) requires only natural selection (a non-creative process) acting on alleles and traits in the existing gene code. Often this simply involves a recessive trait or a co-dominant trait (which already exists) offering some survival value in a given environment and becoming more successful than the dominant trait.

    Darwinian evolution (bacteria to man, commonly called macro-evolution) requires increasing complexity and increasing information in the gene code. No known, observable process can add new, useful information to the gene code to produce the kind of change required by macroevolution. Mutations only scramble up existing information on the code. I challenge anyone to cite one example in the scientific literature of a mutation adding new, useful information to the gene code of an organism, not simply rearranging what was already there.

    Think about it.

  10. Stephen Holshouser January 20, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Andrew Ryan

    No, I don’t know what BioShock is. If it’s a video game, I don’t really do those anymore… used to back in the day, though. A long time ago, my wife, who was my girlfriend at the time, bought me a play station… boy, did she regret that!

  11. Stephen Holshouser January 20, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Andrew Ryan (part 2),

    “Regarding the first self-replicating life. Look, I’m sure there are plenty of good books you can read on this subject if it interests you. You’re not going to learn much having a conversation like this where you have to wait several days to see if your question has even posted, let alone got replied by the other person before the thread is closed. Suffice it to say that even if we found billions-years-old video footage of God himself or perhaps an alien, designing and releasing the first self-replicating bacteria, it would make no difference whatsoever to evolutionary theory, which deals exclusively with the subject of what happened AFTER the first organism reproduced.”

    My interest is bringing you to see the impossibility of life without the Lord as our Creator. All organisms necessarily had to be designed specifically with forethought and purpose for the environment that they would live in. It is irrefutable… life had to be instantaneously placed here fully formed with the ability to undergo metabolism and maintain homeostasis and be placed within a habitable environment, or life could not exist, period. You have no choice now but to consider your Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The reason atheists want to disconnect the process of life evolving from the origin of life is because you run into the Creator every single time you honestly and scientifically considering the origin of life. So, of course, if you don’t want to acknowledge God you will avoid the origin of life debate and disparage those who would bring it up.

  12. Stephen Holshouser January 20, 2011 at 11:08 pm #

    Andrew Ryan (part 3),

    “ … designing and releasing the first self-replicating bacteria…”

    If you will, I would like you to answer the following question honestly. Before you do, look at yourself or your wife and take note of how amazingly we are designed. Now, do you really, actually, literally and truly believe that we and all plant and animal life around us have descended from a single cell? This is not a trick question…

  13. Mr T January 21, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    YECs beleive in Micro-evolution – See early on in Kent’s video number one when he defines the different types of evolution. We don’t like the term and prefer to call it adaption or genetic variation.

    YECs say Micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated in a limitless fashion as the Genetic information does not increase, but usually decreases. Hence the term “Fixicity of Genus”, limits to the changes.

    YECs say the limit (from Genesis) is according to kind, which is around the family level in the evolutionary classification system. EG Dogs, Cats are examples of kinds, but with homonids man is a kind hence “mankind”.

    The mechanism for variation & adaption is specifically designed by God into the DNA as alleles. I like to use the analogy of DNA as a software program with constants and variables. The Alleles are the variables that define the potential variability of a kind, and the constants define the kind.

    The similarity of fossils today is partly due to the fact that only the bones usually get fossilised. The Alleles usually contain variability of soft tissue such as hair and skin.

  14. andrew Ryan January 21, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    BioShock is a game whose main character is called Andrew Ryan.

    “Before you do, look at yourself or your wife and take note of how amazingly we are designed.”

    My wife perhaps, but not me!

    Joking aside, how much do you know about human biology? Look up the blind spot of the eye, the appendix, musculator back problems, and on and on. All of which are explained by evolution. Ask a creationist and they’ll say it’s explained by The Fall. Which undercuts their ‘perfectly designed’ argument.

    “All organisms necessarily had to be designed specifically with forethought and purpose for the environment that they would live in.”

    Google Douglas Adams Puddle.

    Anyone found the source for that Sir Arthur Keith quote yet?

  15. andrew Ryan January 21, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    “Now, do you really, actually, literally and truly believe that we and all plant and animal life around us have descended from a single cell? This is not a trick question…”

    Yes, the evidence we have is that we evolved from far simpler life forms, over billions of years. If you have evidence to the contrary rather than simple argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance, then feel free to present it.

    At any rate Stephen, that each of us was a single cell, just nine or so months before our birth is an undeniably fact. And yet here we are now, comprising trillions of cells – in my case just 36 years later. If we can get from one to the other in a few decades, not to mention getting from wolves to sausage dogs in just a few centuries, then who are you to say what is and is not possible in billions of years? Who are you to say that your God didn’t use evolution as part of his plan?

  16. Jack Napper January 21, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Straw man arguments: Everyone believes in evolution as defined as simply change over time. The dispute is over how much change and how much time.

    FACEPALM

    Evolutionists say that all dogs (and every living thing for that matter) came from bacteria which came from molecules which came from nothing by random undirected processes.

    So your post is basically a giant list of starwman arguments?

    13.7 billion years is not even close to the amount of time you would need for that to happen.

    Nice baseless assertion

    Creationists say that all dog-kind animals came from an original created dog-kind animal pre-programmed with all of the genetic information needed to produce all of the dog varieties. This could easily take place in a few thousand years.

    Wait so their is a “dog-kind”? This contradicts what you write later. Let’s also not forgot that one thing…

    DOG = DOMESTICATED WOLF

    Perhaps you should have looked that one up. Let’s not forget how silly Creationist math is. These are people who think that all the people living today came from 8 people some 4400 years ago and they use shoddy calculations to prove that. Let’s have some fun…

    Alexander the Great’s army must have been about 12 guys. They just pretended to be thousands to scare Darius’ forty soldiers.
    And now it is obvious why there were only 300 at Thermopylae–that was the entire population of Sparta!
    After all, if we know Noah built the biggest wooden ship in history by himself, why couldn’t the six Egyptians available build the Great Pyramid?

    Every creationists I know believes what the Bible says, that living things reproduce after their kind. People who study this sort of thing (baraminology) place the Biblical “kind” on the level of “Family” in our modern taxonomic system (which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus, a creationist) .

    Really? So the biblical characters and God knew what a kind is yet you guys STILL can’t nail it down? So it’s family now?Why do they keep changing everything?

    Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data not supporting desired findings.

    Isn’t that the same claim Creationists make about real scientists!?!?!?!

    Horizontal variation and adaptation (commonly called “micro-evolution) requires only natural selection (a non-creative process) acting on alleles and traits in the existing gene code. Often this simply involves a recessive trait or a co-dominant trait (which already exists) offering some survival value in a given environment and becoming more successful than the dominant trait.

    Arguments from personal incredulity and baseless assertions will get you nowhere.

    Darwinian evolution (bacteria to man, commonly called macro-evolution) …

    I love this definition you’ve given to “Darwinian evolution” Comedic gold.

    …requires increasing complexity and increasing information in the gene code.

    Except where it doesn’t.

    No known, observable process can add new, useful information to the gene code to produce the kind of change required by macroevolution. Mutations only scramble up existing information on the code. I challenge anyone to cite one example in the scientific literature of a mutation adding new, useful information to the gene code of an organism, not simply rearranging what was already there.

    YOUTUBE: How Evolution Adds New Information

    Great videos packed full of CITATIONS

    Mutations only scramble up existing information on the code.

    FACEPALM

  17. Stephen Holshouser January 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    Duane (continued from “Name-Calling” thread),

    “..Giving money to a church is implied as giving money to Jesus to buy our way into heaven and out of Hell…”

    You can buy your way out of hell? That is certainly not what the Bible teaches. I know that some religions have in the past and continue to teach this, but not Jesus, the Apostles, or the Bible. So far, your beef seems to be against anit-biblical teachings, and not with the Bible itself. I’m with you on that. For a laugh we used to turn the TV to any televangelist that was on and see how long it would take him or her to ask for the viewers to send them money.

    “…Taking lines that have actual meaning in context out of context and reading into them some vague significance doesn’t make for prophesies fulfilled, nor does any messianic prophesy since Jesus didn’t become the messiah (Oh, that’s for the second coming)…”

    I’m really not sure what you are talking about. Jesus is the Messiah (or, the Christ) then, now, and later… He fulfilled everything He came to do, which included fulfilling the law for us and taking the penalty for sin that we deserved. What prophecy do you think is out of context? Did you know that when Jesus cried “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” from the cross that this is also a reference to an Old Testament, Messianic Song?… It is Psalm 22; those are pretty specific fulfillments that happened at the time of His crucifixion.

  18. John Bebbington January 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    Andrew Ryan: “Any chance of anyone giving me a source of the Sir Arthur Keith quote? Preferably one that dates to BEFORE the poor man actually died?”

    Andrew, I think that you are now chastising an extinct Hyracotherium. But I also think you have proved your point. Andrew 1 Team Eric 0. Congrats.

  19. andrew Ryan January 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Christopher Flourney: “I challenge anyone to cite one example in the scientific literature of a mutation adding new, useful information to the gene code of an organism, not simply rearranging what was already there.”

    By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

    increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

  20. John Bebbington January 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    Christopher Flournoy wrote:”Straw man arguments: ……13.7 billion years is not even close to the amount of time you would need for that to happen.”

    Definitely a straw man as no-one but the extinct Fred Hoyle would claim the Earth is that old.

    “Every creationists I know believes what the Bible says, that living things reproduce after their kind. ”

    Whereas I believe that living things reproduce after their parents. Which is why I don’t look Chinese.

    “People who study this sort of thing (baraminology)”

    Name them – there aren’t that many and such is the pseudoscience that they cannot even agree on the basics.

    “place the Biblical “kind” on the level of “Family” in our modern taxonomic system (which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus, a creationist) .”

    Of course he was a creationist – he died 30 years before Charles Darwin was born. He probably didn’t believe in heavier-than-air-flight either. Or plate tectonics. Or bariminology. It’s difficult to believe in something you’ve never heard of. What do you believe in which you have never heard of?

    “Horizontal variation and adaptation (commonly called “micro-evolution) requires only natural selection (a non-creative process) acting on alleles and traits in the existing gene code.”

    I suggest you research the anti-freeze system of the ice-fish; it proves you wrong.

    “Darwinian evolution (bacteria to man, commonly called macro-evolution) requires increasing complexity and increasing information in the gene code. No known, observable process can add new, useful information to the gene code to produce the kind of change required by macroevolution.”

    How about the well-known process of polyploidy followed by mutation and selection without which a billion rice-eaters would go hungry?

    “Mutations only scramble up existing information on the code. I challenge anyone to cite one example in the scientific literature of a mutation adding new, useful information to the gene code of an organism, not simply rearranging what was already there.”

    Did I mention the anti-freeze system of the ice-fish?

    “Think about it.”

    I did. But you don’t seem to have bothered.

  21. Mark James January 24, 2011 at 2:59 am #

    Hi Andrew,

    You wrote: “At any rate Stephen, that each of us was a single cell, just nine or so months before our birth is an undeniably fact. And yet here we are now, comprising trillions of cells – in my case just 36 years later. If we can get from one to the other in a few decades…, then who are you to say what is and is not possible in billions of years?”

    Let me get this right, you’re saying that a single cell containing all the information required to produce human life doing what it is pre-programmed to do and producing human life is evidence that a single cell pre-programmed to produce another single cell can eventually, given enough time, produce human life? And not only that, this evidence is sufficient that the burden of proof is shifted to the disbelievers to prove it wrong? Wow!

    You also wrote “Who are you to say that your God didn’t use evolution as part of his plan?”

    Because Stephen’s (and my) God tells us he didn’t, in the Bible.

  22. Mark James January 24, 2011 at 3:13 am #

    Andrew (again),

    You wrote: “By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

    increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.”

    I certainly hope that you are not one of the people on this blog complaining about cut and paste posts, as this one has been copied word for word from (and by) numerous websites. The interesting thing is that I was only able to find one of the papers referred to (the first) and it certainly didn’t seem to provide the evidence claimed of it. I’d like to see the others if anyone can help.

  23. Mark James January 24, 2011 at 3:49 am #

    Hi John,

    You wrote: “How about the well-known process of polyploidy followed by mutation and selection”

    If polyploidy was ever an important factor in evolution then we would expect organisms with more chromosomes to have had a greater opportunity for mutation and therefore should be more evolved. Unfortunately this is not the case.

    Antifreeze in ice fish appears to be the result of an increased expression of genes coding for proteins that respond to environmental stress. If that is the case, nothing new has been created. Interesting research, though.

  24. Duane January 24, 2011 at 4:18 am #

    @Stephen Holshouser January 21st at 12:23 pm

    Duane (continued from “Name-Calling” thread),

    “..Giving money to a church is implied as giving money to Jesus to buy our way into heaven and out of Hell…”

    You can buy your way out of hell? That is certainly not what the Bible teaches. I know that some religions have in the past and continue to teach this, but not Jesus, the Apostles, or the Bible. So far, your beef seems to be against anit-biblical teachings, and not with the Bible itself. I’m with you on that. For a laugh we used to turn the TV to any televangelist that was on and see how long it would take him or her to ask for the viewers to send them money.

    I’d like to believe that Churchgoers can intellectualize their tithes as paying for the pastor’s salary, the Church’s mortgage, etc. but I’ve never heard anyone ever say that. They almost always go right to the canard that the Church is out there in poor countries doing charity work (when most of that “charity” consists of preaching the same nonsense they listen to every Sunday and rarely or inconsequentially with feeding or caring for those poor). It’s the only physical representation they can think of to justify their belief that they are actually paying Jesus and therefore helping people instead of just paying 10% of their income to a social club with a bit of theater each week. Televangelists just make it that much more obvious. No one is paying that guy on the TV so he can buy another sharkskin suit, they are paying Jesus. It’s exploitation at its most basic level. No one actually explicitly says you are paying Jesus, nor does anyone explicitly say you will go to Hell if you don’t pay, nor does anyone explicitly say you will go to Heaven. However, most people are imperfect and Christianity exploits that and uses it to make people feel guilty. How many times have you guys mentioned our everlasting souls just for not believing in creationism? It’s all part of it. People know they can’t match the lofty goals set for them so they hope throwing money at it will work. The Catholics built a lot of cathedrals with money obtained this way. Ultimately, it is about control and exploitation. How many times have you heard “Atheists are too enamored with SIN to let go.” What is SIN? It’s a completely made up rule attributed to an authority to be used to oppress others. Sin is not crime, like killing or stealing. Sin is lust, or coveting, or masturbating, or thinking “bad” thoughts, or any of the other countless normal things humans do. Since we do these things in private, preachers can exploit this and make you feel guilty “at the price of your soul” and then you are into them for 10%. It’s no different than the mafia! I know you guys have had this ingrained in you since you were children and have it reaffirmed everyday. It might feel better to think there is some ineffible force out there controlling things and taking care of you, but reality says otherwise. Facing reality means NOT having all the answers and not being comforted. Yes, it is sad, but that is part of growing up.

    “…Taking lines that have actual meaning in context out of context and reading into them some vague significance doesn’t make for prophesies fulfilled, nor does any messianic prophesy since Jesus didn’t become the messiah (Oh, that’s for the second coming)…”

    I’m really not sure what you are talking about. Jesus is the Messiah (or, the Christ) then, now, and later… He fulfilled everything He came to do, which included fulfilling the law for us and taking the penalty for sin that we deserved. What prophecy do you think is out of context? Did you know that when Jesus cried “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” from the cross that this is also a reference to an Old Testament, Messianic Song?… It is Psalm 22; those are pretty specific fulfillments that happened at the time of His crucifixion.

    Let me get this straight. Jesus, who was familiar with scripture, cried a line from this scripture when he was crucified and that counts as a fullfilment of prophecy? So, if I do the same next time I smash my thumb with a hammer (I wouldn’t presume to expect to be crucified, but I do smash my thumb occasionally), am I fullfilling prophecy? This is an extremely low bar you’ve set here for determining a messiah. Near as I can tell, these self-fullifilling prophesies that anyone familiar with the old texts (as Jesus and the biblical authors were) could do are the only ones Jesus somewhat fullfilled. “Hey, bring me a donkey, so I can ride into town on it, as in the prophecy.” Am I supposed to be inmpressed by that? But near as I can tell, Jesus did not become King of Israel, did not build the Third Temple, did not gather all the Jews back to Israel, did not usher in an era of world peace, etc. Verses “referring” to Jesus in the OT are generally mistranslations and/or taken out of context, or don’t refer to a messiah at all. Others refer to a warrier king, which Jesus most certainly did not become. The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word “gouged.” Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and feet.” There’s nothing in Biblical prophecy that states the messiah was to be divine, and as a matter of fact, the entire concept of Jesus is a violation of the 1st Commandment.

    If the answer to any question is in the “Second Coming”, then Jesus wasn’t the messiah by definition. If He comes back and does any of these things, we can talk. But until then, it appears the whole messiah thing is taken on layaway and spin. Color me unimpressed, and this is taking the stories at face value. I don’t even have to assert they are fiction because the stories themselves don’t fullfil prophecy as they are presented. What we have is just latterday assertions and spin. Ever watch Wizard of Oz while listening to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon? If one really reaches, one can find all kinds of coincidences and such that make it seem like it was done on purpose. That’s what humans do, we are pattern seekers.

    I’ve heard it mentioned in here that the apostles would not have died for something false: the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilema. There’s a fourth choice. They could have just been wrong. It’s not hard to find people to believe in you and die for you if you are charismatic enough. Manson, Applewhite, Koresh, Jones. The list goes on and on. September 11, 2001 was an example of people dying for a false belief. I’m not equating Jesus with such evil, but good people tend to not have people die or kill for them.

  25. andrew Ryan January 24, 2011 at 7:10 am #

    John Bebbington: “Andrew, I think that you are now chastising an extinct Hyracotherium. But I also think you have proved your point. Andrew 1 Team Eric 0. Congrats.”

    Thanks John. I’m tempted to keep posting the question in every blog Eric or Kent puts up there until one of them addresses it directly. Either they should tell us where the quote actually comes from, or they should admit that they have no idea and that for all intents and purposes it should be treated as being fabricated.

    Once they have done that, I can finally move on to the other quotes Kent offered in the same blog.

    If we can’t trust them on such a small point, how can we know they haven’t made up everything else they post?

    Creationists reading this blog – do you feel yourselves well-served by authors who are offering you made-quotes to prove their points? Wouldn’t you prefer that you based your opinions on facts instead?

    Please, answer the question without without saying “Well if we’re talking facts, here are some false things that YOU believe.” I’m asking very specifically what your view is on a Creationist offering a made-up quote to prove his point. Does this help your cause or harm it?

  26. John Bebbington January 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote: “What prophecy do you think is out of context? Did you know that when Jesus cried “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” from the cross that this is also a reference to an Old Testament, Messianic Song?… It is Psalm 22; those are pretty specific fulfillments that happened at the time of His crucifixion.”

    Which, of course, is why Matthew and Mark wrote their stories utilising Old Testament verses. Prophesy is easy if you make sure you write your later stories around the earlier texts.

    “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”.

    That depends upon which Gospel you believe as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John disagree on Jesus’ final words.

    I can hardly wait for the apologetics.

  27. rodger klotz January 24, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    “Darwinian evolution (bacteria to man, commonly called macro-evolution) requires increasing complexity and increasing information in the gene code. No known, observable process can add new, useful information to the gene code to produce the kind of change required by macroevolution.”

    taken from Lenny Flank

    “See, according to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious” and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”, there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

    But wait ———-

    today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

    That raises a few questions —–

    1.if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16)?
    2.if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here?

    But wait — there’s more:

    Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ——- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know

    1.what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but
    2.what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it)?

    But wait — we’re not done YET . . . . . .

    Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”.

    But wait, we’re STILL not finished . . . . . .

    In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells — sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

    If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits — such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

    Explain, please . . . . “

  28. andrew Ryan January 25, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    Mark James: “The interesting thing is that I was only able to find one of the papers referred to (the first)”

    Try harder then Mark. Lenski’s experiments are well-documented. They clearly refute your claim about information not increasing. Why not tell us what what evidence you WOULD accept? I guarantee it either a) already exists or b) wouldn’t be evidence for you what you claim it be if it did exist.

    “And not only that, this evidence is sufficient that the burden of proof is shifted to the disbelievers to prove it wrong?”

    All Stephen offered was an argument from incredulity. I don’t see how that shifts any burden of proof to me in the first place. If you want serious evidence, get yourself a proper science book rather than expect someone to summarise billions of years of evolution in a couple of lines on a chat thread.

  29. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    John Bebbington,

    “Which, of course, is why Matthew and Mark wrote their stories utilising Old Testament verses. Prophesy is easy if you make sure you write your later stories around the earlier texts.”

    You have no evidence at all of this. But may I point out that the reason you have to suggest this is because if the writers were telling the truth(and they were), that it would be such an obvious and amazing fulfillment of prophecy, it would give you no choice but to seriously consider that the Lord Jesus really is who He says He is.
    As I have pointed out before, many of the NT writers lived, suffered, and died affirming what they witnessed to be true. Not only this but, “this thing was not done in a corner”… it was well known throughout the land of that day and time who Jesus was and what He did. Their writings were within the lifetime of the other eyewitnesses, which corroborates even further their accounts. If they were lying about what Jesus said and did(and they weren’t), they had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    “That depends upon which Gospel you believe as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John disagree on Jesus’ final words. I can hardly wait for the apologetics.”

    Apologetics? Not really, you’re just mistaken or purposefully trying to deceive. Were you hoping that no one would actually read the texts?

    John, I know first-hand what it is like to be an unbeliever and love to have it so… may the Lord grant you a new heart to see your need of Jesus Christ.

  30. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    Mark James,

    Regarding andrew Ryan’s post to me; precisely what I was thinking. thank you

    andrew Ryan,

    Do you see what Mark is saying? There’s an infinite difference between our conception and one single cell becoming everything…

  31. John Bebbington January 25, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote: “But may I point out that the reason you have to suggest this is because if the writers were telling the truth(and they were), that it would be such an obvious and amazing fulfillment of prophecy, it would give you no choice but to seriously consider that the Lord Jesus really is who He says He is.”

    Outside of the late insertion of the Comma Johanneum who did Jesus say he was? Chapter & verse, please.

    
”As I have pointed out before, many of the NT writers lived, suffered, and died affirming what they witnessed to be true.”

    There is no evidence for that whatsoever. No-one, including you, has the foggiest idea who the Gospel writers were . Paul witnessed nothing. By his own admission his belief came by revelation only and any knowledge he had of any real-life Jesus and his crucifixion is absent in his writings. There is no historical evidence that any of the disciples died for their belief in the reality of a risen Godman, Jesus.

    “… it was well known throughout the land of that day and time who Jesus was and what He did.”

    I know of no historical evidence to this effect. Enlighten me.

    “Their writings were within the lifetime of the other eyewitnesses,”

    Such as who? Names please.

    “The dates of the which corroborates even further their accounts. If they were lying about what Jesus said and did(and they weren’t), they had everything to lose and nothing to gain.”

    What did they have to lose? No one paid any attention to early christians. Indeed, there was no movement identifiable as “christianity” for many years. Even 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus Pliny the Younger hadn’t got a clue who christians were or what they believed. In fact, most problems occurred between groups of “christians” rather than between “christians” and the local populations.

    “Apologetics? Not really, you’re just mistaken or purposefully trying to deceive. Were you hoping that no one would actually read the texts?”

    I hoped they would – most don’t. Indeed, I would expect your fellow christians to already know the texts. Is it not the case that the three histories of John, Luke and (Matthew + Mark) all disagree? Did I speak the truth?

  32. John Bebbington January 25, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Mark James wrote: “If polyploidy was ever an important factor in evolution then we would expect organisms with more chromosomes to have had a greater opportunity for mutation and therefore should be more evolved. Unfortunately this is not the case.”

    All modern organisms are equally evolved.

    “Antifreeze in ice fish appears to be the result of an increased expression of genes coding for proteins that respond to environmental stress. If that is the case, nothing new has been created. Interesting research, though.”

    Firstly, if the temperature of the southern oceans rose would the gene expression reverse such that the fish could survive in warmer waters? No – because a reversal in one part of the genome (if that were even possible) will not reverse the broken genes in another part. We are not talking here of finch beaks growing bigger or smaller depending upon the size of available seeds. The genetic and morphological changes are far more complex than your throw away cut and paste would suggest.

    Secondly, there are some 16 known species of icefish and some of the species have developed different mechanisms to other species to deal with the colder environment. If there was some genetic pathway designed to deal with environmental stress then, given a common designer, it is likely that all species would follow that pathway. But they don’t. Through evolution they have developed there own solutions to the problem.

  33. Mark James January 25, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    Hi Rodger,

    With regard your post “Taken from Lenny Flank”

    Flank seems to confuse ‘lots of different copies’ with ‘lots of information.’ His example of hemoglobin is a very good example. There may be many different variations of some of the alleles but the end result still codes for hemoglobin – nothing new has been produced. This is consistent with what we know about mutations – they may rearrange the DNA but if they were ever to produce anything truly novel (using the example above, coding for something other than hemoglobin) the result would almost certainly be a diseased, or dead, organism.

    Now, as Flank rightly points out, over 99% of mutations rearrange DNA with no beneficial outcome. In light of what I’ve pointed out above, the rapid change he is trumpeting as a problem for Creationists is actually the outcome Creationists would expect.

    By the way, hemoglobin is a good example of how variation within a kind can work. Hemoglobin has parts that are relatively fixed and invariant. These parts affect the molecules function, i.e. binding and release of oxygen. Change to the alleles coding for these parts would result in disease at the very least, and in most cases death. But hemoglobin also has parts where changes can occur without impeding function. Changes to alleles coding for these parts are less likely to cause death and hence more likely to be passed on to future generations.

  34. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    Duane,

    I’m sorry you feel this way about Christianity. I share your distain for the fleecing of people in the name of Jesus. However, a Bible-practicing, New Testament Church is a blessing to any community, spiritually and physically. I wish you could spend time with some genuine Christians that care not for wealth, who love the Lord and the people around them, who don’t cheat, lie, or steal even when no one is looking. Sure, there is no shortage of hypocrites, but the real deal is there to be found… not perfect, of course, but striving to be Christ-like. I hope you find them or they find you!

    Sin is ANY rebellion against God, from lust to murder. Everyone is guilty. If you’ve broken one commandment, you’ve broken them all. You should feel guilty because you are. The sins you listed are only “normal” to you because we’re all born in them, not because they are okay. Just because everyone does something doesn’t make it okay. Which of the sins that you listed do you approve of or recommend to others? Which ones are you proud of? Your (and my) sins are filthy and corrupt before God and even mankind. Nothing can erase them except the blood of Jesus Christ being applied to your account. No amount of money can help you. You will have free forgiveness only by the grace of God, or you will not have it at all. Can you imagine taking responsibility for your sin before a Holy and Just God? … it need not happen. Don’t sugar-coat your sin, Duane. Don’t justify yourself or silence your conscience… see your sin for what it is.

  35. Mark James January 25, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    Hi Andrew,

    You wrote: “Try harder then Mark.”

    I’ve tried pretty hard, Andrew, but, much as your list of references is repeated verbatum on numerous websites, none of the websites seem to have links to the actual papers referenced. And if I google the references all I get is links to the websites repeating the list! I asked for help, telling me to try harder is not very helpful.

    You also wrote: “Lenski’s experiments are well-documented. They clearly refute your claim about information not increasing.”

    As I said before, the paper that I did find by Lenski (which I’m fairly certain is the one on your list) does not provide evidence for an increase in information. All it demonstrates is that multiple generations raised in the same environment will tend to be more fit for survival in that environment. Which simply means that natural selection has occurred.

  36. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Duane (part 2),

    “I’ve heard it mentioned in here that the apostles would not have died for something false: the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilema. There’s a fourth choice. They could have just been wrong.”

    They could have been wrong? What, specifically, do you propose these eyewitnesses could have been wrong about? (There is a reason no one has made this hypothesis yet.)

    “It’s not hard to find people to believe in you and die for you if you are charismatic enough. Manson, Applewhite, Koresh, Jones. The list goes on and on. September 11, 2001 was an example of people dying for a false belief…”

    Allow me to cut and paste from a previous post;
    Again, you misunderstand the point; these disciples were eyewitnesses of Jesus after His resurrection… they touched Him, talked with Him, ate with Him, for many days after He was crucified and buried. They would not have died KNOWING they were lying. Sure, many thousands have died for lies that they believed… that is altogether different than willingly dying and/or being tortured for a lie that you know is a lie… no one does that. Do you understand the significance of the deaths of the disciples now?

    The terrorists died because they believed what someone told them… Jesus’ disciples died for what they personally witnessed. Now please never make that uninformed comparison again.

  37. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    Duane (part 4),

    You said,
    “Let me get this straight. Jesus, who was familiar with scripture, cried a line from this scripture when he was crucified and that counts as a fullfilment of prophecy? So, if I do the same next time I smash my thumb with a hammer (I wouldn’t presume to expect to be crucified, but I do smash my thumb occasionally), am I fullfilling prophecy? This is an extremely low bar you’ve set here for determining a messiah.”

    No, I mean that which happened at His crucifixion fulfilled these things from Psalm 22:
    1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
    7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
    8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
    11 ¶ Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
    12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
    13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
    14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
    15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
    16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
    17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
    18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
    31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

    Have you ever read the account of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion and then compared it to this passage? There are many others as well.

  38. Stephen Holshouser January 25, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Duane (part 3… a little out of order, sorry),

    “Near as I can tell, these self-fullifilling prophesies that anyone familiar with the old texts (as Jesus and the biblical authors were) could do are the only ones Jesus somewhat fullfilled. “Hey, bring me a donkey, so I can ride into town on it, as in the prophecy.” Am I supposed to be inmpressed by that?”

    Sure; how did He know where it would be tied up, or that no one ever sat on it, or exactly what the owner would say or that he would let him go? But this is just one of a great many. When else do you think that prophecy was or will be fulfilled?

    “But near as I can tell, Jesus did not become King of Israel…”

    He was born King and is now… not of this world, though, or of National Israel.

    “…did not build the Third Temple…”

    What verse specifically contains this prophecy? As far as I know, the Temple being rebuilt has already been fulfilled, spiritually and physically. (Nehemiah and Ezra for the physical fulfillment, and Acts 15:11-17 for the spiritual fulfillment)

    “…did not gather all the Jews back to Israel…”

    I don’t know of any biblical prophecy written after the Babylonian captivity that says this will happen again in the future. Can you name one? As far as I know, this has already been fulfilled.( Jeremiah 29:10-14, Ezekiel 11:14-17, 12:21-28, Daniel 9:1-2, 7.)

    “…did not usher in an era of world peace, etc.”

    Physical peace, no; but spiritual peace between God and reconciled men, yes. Jesus said Himself that He came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword… because much persecution would come to His followers. The physical peace will come, though.

    “…Others refer to a warrier king, which Jesus most certainly did not become…”

    Just wait… (Rev 19)

    “The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word “gouged.” Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and feet.””

    Yes, there are a couple ways that can be interpreted, and the reading we have in the OT is perfectly compatible. (verse 16) Besides, this isn’t the only OT reference to Him being pierced.

    “There’s nothing in Biblical prophecy that states the messiah was to be divine…”

    Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    “…and as a matter of fact, the entire concept of Jesus is a violation of the 1st Commandment.”

    Jesus is not another god, He is God.

    “If the answer to any question is in the “Second Coming”, then Jesus wasn’t the messiah by definition….”

    By whose definition? Jesus didn’t have to fulfill every single thing written about Him at His first coming to be the Messiah… there’s no rule that says that. That’s never what He intended to do… His plan is unfolding exactly like He designed it. Luke 24:25-26 Then (Jesus) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

    “If He comes back and does any of these things, we can talk…”

    No, it will be too late to talk when He comes back.

    1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
    For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
    2 Thessalonians 1:7-10
    And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
    Jude 14-15
    Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
    Also see; Matthew chapter 25, Luke 17:29-30

    “…But until then, it appears the whole messiah thing is taken on layaway and spin. Color me unimpressed, and this is taking the stories at face value…”

    I know I can’t change your mind… and neither can you… but the Lord can… and I’m asking Him for that. Let me leave you with one final prophecy for the Second Coming.

    Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:7-8