emotional

Hi, I just had a nagging question for AiG (about Ken Ham's "were you there?" silliness), so I sent them feedback, and now I've got a response. Enjoy.

My message:



Their response:

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. The different in these claims is the basis investigation. One is scientific claims and the other is legal historical evidence. With scientifically claimed evidence, it should be observable and repeatable. Each view of evolution claims that science is used. However, there was no one there observing it the supposed 'millions of years' ago. So scientifically, it is not valid science unless the proper observations were done or if it could be repeated. This is why the question 'Were you there?' makes such an impact. It shows that evolution is not science but a belief system.

With the resurrection, it is legal historical proof as opposed to scientific. Please take the time to read Josh McDowell's book 'A Ready Defense' for more detailed research. In short, let me give you an example. I could not prove scientifically that my grandpa existed. I would have to repeat the event which can not be done. However, I could take you to a courthouse and verify by legal historical records that he is. Did this require me being there? No. Therefore, with this type proof, there is no need to ask the question 'were you there?'

The difference is the type of evidence. With Jesus and the resurrection, there were witnesses who verified that Jesus rose from the dead (well over 500) and they were living and writing about it and reading about it. The Gospel accounts have over 24,000 copies and fragments. (See the Josh McDowell book for this research as well.) They verified that the earliest copies were easily within 25 years of the resurrection for people to read. This simply means that the people who witnessed the events were alive and reading the Gospels and verified that resurrection, the feedings of the 5000 and 4000 did take place. They agreed and the fulfillments of Judaism took place. These documents (which are eyewitness accounts) and extra Biblical writing such as Josephus verified the resurrection via legal historical proof.

As for evolution, which type of evolutionist are you? Each version has tremendous differences.

As for evidence, we all have the same evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is different. See, each view has preconceived beliefs. For evolution, they believe evolution true, and then look at the evidence and then try to fit it with their world view. With Biblical Christianity, we believe God first, and then look at the evidence from a Biblical perspective. If truth be told, the Biblical view fits the evidences much better. But the point is that evidence means nothing without an interpretation. We are forced to look at evidence from various perspectives to see how people view it. Sadly though, many are very closed minded and refuse to look at anything other than their through the one belief they hold.

So it works both ways, the only way an evolutionist can say 'all the evidence points towards evolution' is by assuming evolution is true, and therefore try to fit the facts to support the preconceived conclusions.

Our foundational belief is based on the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, the author of universe and creator of science. He is an eyewitness to the account of origins and an expert in the knowledge of its processes and design.

From the Bible, we develop our foundation. Please see the following comparisons of foundational beliefs.

Question 1: How did time begin?

Bible - God created it.

Evolution - 'Nothing' created it from nothing.

'Nothing' violates the principle of causality that all science is derived. It says that all things that have a beginning have a cause. 'Nothing' violates this law where God doesn't. The Bible has a better foundation. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...12n2_logic.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1022re2ch3.asp

Question 2: Where did matter come from?

Bible: God created it.

Evolution: Nothing created a singularity from nothing and it expanded.

Once again 'nothing' violates the principle of causality. This is violation of scientific law where God wouldn't be. Please see the above two references. Plus by black hole gravitation, the singularity should never have expanded.



Question 3: What is the view of the universe?

Bible: The universe is not infinite, i.e. bounded.

Evolution: There is no center and there is no edge.

Evolution has no basis for this statement but the primary reason is due to red-shifted starlight in all directions from Earth. The red shifts indicate that the Earth is somewhere near the center of the universe. This is massive support for a center of the universe which is Biblical and fits with the Bible so, evolutionists developed the no center no edge to try to say that the Earth is not in a special place as the Bible indicates. There is no reason for this assumption scientifically. Stephen Hawking says in his book 'A Brief History of Time', 1996, page 45 regarding this assumption (also called the Copernican Principle):

"We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

The Bible has an eyewitness account that is scientifically accurate and the evolutionists make this bold unscientific assumption to avoid agreeing with the Bible. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/509.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/493.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Question 4: What is the age of the universe?

Bible: From Earth standard time approximately 6 thousand years.

Evolution: 8-24 billion years depending on the latest Hubble constant and distant starlight travel.

The Bible uses an eyewitness account of the only one who was present during creation who stated in the Bible that he rate of expansion of the universe has not been constant (Hubble constant has changed).

The evolutionists' use guesses based on distant starlight passing though the universe as constant time and assume the rate universe expansion is a constant rate (Hubble constant). We know the scientific measuring of the Hubble constant has had major problems. Also, we know from Einstein that time is not constant throughout the universe. It changes via gravitational and velocity time dilation. Evolutionists have a horribly unscientific approach.

Dr Russell Humphreys solved the distant starlight problem with foundation in the Bible in the book 'Starlight and Time'. This is causing many in the scientific world to jump ship from the Big Bang, which is having major problems scientifically. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...f_creation.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4133.asp

Question 5: How do you explain the fossil record?

Bible: The Flood of Noah caused geologic layers of sediment rapidly and caused the formation of fossils about 4500 years ago.

Evolution: The fossils were formed by slow gradual processes over millions of years. Each layer represents millions of years.

We know that fossils only form from a rapid burial and this process is easily testable and has been verified. Any slow gradual process ever tested has resulted in the decay of a life form instead of its fossilization. Anyone who has ever been to a flood area can see layers of sediment. The layers are better explained by the rapid flood as opposed to millions of years. The deeper the layer simply means it settled from the flood water first.

According to evolution there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that easily show the change from one kind of life form to another. What we have found is the opposite. Virtually all life forms are very close to the same as the modern kinds. There are only a few 'highly questionable' transitions that most evolutionists themselves do not think are transitions. Every alleged human ancestor has been debunked as either fraud or a non-transition. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...fossil-rec.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...thropology.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...aq/fossils.asp

Question 6: What about dating methods?

Bible: Dating is best done by written account of eyewitnesses as recorded in the Bible.

Evolution: Dating should be done by uniformitarian methods (only some of them).

Uniformitarian methods make the assumption that the rate we measure NOW has always been the same. It also makes the assumption that that weathering effects did not affect the sample. It also makes the assumption that the initial amount of measurements is known.

Problems with this is that we know from experimentation the rate DOES change due to weathering. We also know that NO ONE knows the initial amount. This is horrible science. The few methods used for long ages (radiometric) have been proven to be wrong over and over again. Why, scientifically, would anyone keep using them?

Is it easier to get the age of book in a library by looking when it says it was printed or taking a sample from the book and subjecting it to uniformitarian dating? An eyewitness account of the Bible is still the best, and most scientific method for arriving at age. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ng_failure.asp



Question 7: Do the observations in living things fit according to evolution or the Bible?

Bible: Living things are under a curse and thus should not get better over time. They should be subjected to natural selection that causes a filtering of traits (loss of information) and mutations that cause defective traits in the DNA (loss of information and possibly in an extremely rare instant maybe an increase of information).

Evolution: There should be millions of mutation that cause new previously non-existent traits to build up on the DNA strand and those traits should be naturally selected as dominant. Thus all life forms will be on their way to the next level of evolved life with better new information.

What we find in observations is that life forms can naturally select and filter out traits (dogs that go to colder climates will eventually have only longer hair to keep warm because the ones with shorter hair will die off and the traits for that short hair will be lost of filtered out). Mutations occur and have always been a loss of information in the genome. There has never been a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up with new previously non-existent information by mutations or other means, ever. Without this, evolution cannot happen.

In the video 'Frog to a Prince' shows the world's leading atheistic evolutionist (Richard Dawkins) unable to provide even ONE example of an increase in information. In a follow-up article in the Australian Skeptics' magazine, he failed to produce any either - there are none. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...24n2_train.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home..._v10n2p181.asp

Question 8 What about dinosaurs?

Bible: Dinosaurs are in the Bible

Evolution: Dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago.

How can dinosaurs be in the Bible if they died out 65 million years ago and weren't rediscovered until the 1800's? Simple, men saw them and wrote about them. This means that they lived at the same time as the Bible says. There are hundreds of other evidences that show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...inosaurs19.asp

The answer should be obvious, creationism is found on a firm foundation by the creator of science where evolution is based out a false science, a pseudoscience. Evolution is founded on the changing ideas of fallible men and the ideas keep having tremendous errors. They just don't fit. It is not that many of these scientists are doing bad work, but they are starting with bad foundations that lead to the wrong answer.



See in science, you are required to make a hypothesis on the basis of belief. So, honest science doesn't start with facts. Most fields of science were started by Christians. It is because they believed that God created the world with a particular set of laws and this implies the principle of causality. This principle is the foundation of all science.

Please take the time to research this further and I'm sure you will find that you have been inundated with evolution so much, that you have actually accepted it as true without noticing the foundation is faulty. (sic) I pray this helps, God bless.

RRoman

Rather Ironic how the have it backwards, no?:banghead:
I can't belive that these people are saying that evolution tries to explain the beginnings of the universe:banghead:
sheesh, I thought that at least these people have just a little bit of understanding about evolution:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

beastmaster

They're correct that science works both inductively and deductively. Everything else is pure horseshit. Most importantly, "observation and repetition" are not prerequisites of valid science.

Duvenoy

Can't stay to talk. Got to get my gill net set. The red herring are running!

doov

Tenek

Ok, where did God come from?

I'm not one to speculate about occurences outside this universe. And "Goddidit" is pretty lousy science.


Oh, another magic wand. Ok.

Something tells me that without a universe to have a law of gravitation, there would be no problem having an expanding singularity.


Science doesn't give a rat's ass about the Bible. There is no conspiracy. Christ.

Hawking's right. You'd have to be incredibly arrogant to believe that your planet is somehow special. Not to mention that Earth-at-centre would put the Earth at rest relative to the ether. Anybody done the Michelson-Morley experiment in orbit?

I wonder what this scientifically accurate eyewitness account is. God, maybe? Who is magically simple enough that Stone Age men can understand him? Riiiight.

Ok, either accept Relativity or don't. Pick one. Please.

So is God then a being that exists in the universe and travels at 99.bunchofnines% c?

So if fossils only form from a rapid burial, under whatever precise conditions, wouldn't it make sense for the vast majority of organisms to have never left *any*?

How about angular unconformities? Quite the massive upheaval going on. Almost as if we're trying to create the apperance of age.


Give me a fucking break. Dating the age of the earth by a book is ludicrous. Why don't we just ask somebody what the value of the gravitational constant of the universe is while we're at it, that's scientific enough.

I'd be happy to find out what the definition of 'information' is here. Seems suspiciously like shifting goalposts.

As for new information, my nylon-consuming bacteria need feeding. Hold on.


Men wrote that rabbits chew the cud as well. Real reliable, these guys.

No no no no no.

Creationism is founded on faith. Nothing more, no matter how much creationists wish otherwise. Creationism is the theory that won't die because nothing can convince the believers that their faith is wrong. (This includes any existing gods who don't actively exert mind control.)

That's how you learn. Starting with what you believe is absolute truth is the surest way to make mistakes.

Arikay

Wow, you mentioned you were an evolutionist and they still spouted all that crap about what "evolution is".

Either these people are some good cons, or they are just plain Ignorant.

Azathoth

Zuh?None of these things are part of the science of evolution.

I find it very hard to believe that someone could be this stupid,especially after these things have likely been pointed out to them numerous times.I'm going to say that this is a case of,at least,a little dishonesty.

It also looks like they're trying to make evolution out to be some sort of competing religion.I guess it makes them feel more comfortable thinking that,even if it's nonsense.

I suppose they'll have to say that every scientific discipline that disagrees with them is some kind of opposing religion.Physics,Geology,you name it,all opposing religions or belief systems,which,for them,is the same difference.

And the part about life evolving to the 'next level' with better,new information.Next level?Better,new information?Again,they can't be this dumb.That statement must be designed to play to people with little knowlege of evolution.I call shenanigans on that one.

Albion

Bloody stupid AiG reply.Typical. "What type of evolutionist?" How many types are there? Whether a person is a theistic evolutionist or a flat-out atheist or somewhere in between, those are their religious labels and nothing to do with evolution.

I love this stuff about the big bang violating the law of causation. I don't think cosmologists are all that certain that the big bang implies something from nothing, and if it's true that the total energy of the universe is zero, it's a moot point anyway. But one thing that creationists have never done is to answer the question Oolon threw at one of their number on the BBC board - how does fiat creation ex nihilo not violate the first law of thermodynamics? That one usually results in a smart change of subject. These people really do seem scared of following a line of thought very far.

Valentine Pontifex

They fail to mention this thing called general relativity....


Of course what evolution has to do with all of this...

Quick question: this thread appears to reproduce a large portion of an AiG article. This could bring up obvious copyright issues.

It might not be a good idea to submit things to AiG's feedback since they will only use feedbacks which they think they can well exploit.

RufusAtticus

Not with AiG because they have an open copyright policy, IIRC.