Ask a Christian Anything

[Faustine Liem]

The_Creation_Center

Why don't we talk about 1 thing at a time? We can start with are there contradictions in the Bible. I spent my time on websites and studied through there supposed contradictions. Can you show me where there is one, then?

We've already sited several contradictions. Here is just the main one both of us touched on:

"What happened during the 'passion' of the Christ and when Jesus rose?"

tell me who left out like 300 dead people rising from the grave and who didn't. Cause that's a pretty huge thing to happen, and only mention it in ONE book.

Also, if you don't want to talk about things, then don't. Obviously you don't READ these long posts otherwise you could pick out the contradictions we sited. So please actually READ the posts and you'll have sited contradictions. I prefer to beat around the bush, while Acroon is more direct.

[Arcoon Effox]

The_Creation_Center

Why don't we talk about 1 thing at a time? We can start with 'are there contradictions in the Bible'.

I'd rather start with the Deluge, considering I already provided quite a bit of material about it... but all right.

The_Creation_Center

I spent my time on websites and studied through there their supposed contradictions.

Are we talking websites organized by skeptics, or Christian apologetics websites which make the same presupposition as you?

The_Creation_Center

Can you show me where there is one, then?

I already gave you 472. That pic of Imperfect Cell from my last post doubled as a link to them. Alternately, here's that same list in the form of a cool, interactive chart. Some are simply minor nitpicks, but the "inerrant word of God" shouldn't contain any contradictions at all, so even minor details are problematic to that idea.

Now, since their sheer number is probably too intimidating and/or overwhelming to tackle. how about we use the contradiction I gave you an example of from my first post: The incompatible Nativity narratives found in Luke and Matthew. Each author tells a distinctly different tale which clashes with and contradicts its counterpart. As such, one or both of the Nativity stories presented in the Bible must be a fabrication, at least in part.

I've broken them down to a few key points, in order to make it easier to address:

Point #1 - The Genealogy of Jesus
Both Matthew and Luke share Jesus' lineage with us. Matthew's traces his bloodline back to Abraham, providing a total of 42 names, and Luke's goes all the way back to Adam, listing 77. The two are harmonious until the time we get to King David, at which time they diverge significantly. Matthew provides 26 names between Jesus and David, Luke provides 41, and there are only two names in common past that point (which are highlighted in green):



A common explanation for this is that Luke's list is providing Mary's lineage, but there is no explicit indication of this (nor anything to even suggest such a thing), either in Luke itself or in any early Christian tradition. In fact, both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph" the way that Matthew did, but he did not. As such, the conclusion that Luke (or Matthew) is providing Mary's genealogy is a purely apologetic one, based solely and completely on the need for Biblical harmony, but lacking any substantiation.

Point #2 - Residential Issues
Luke tells us that Mary & Joseph live in Nazareth, and that they need to go to Bethlehem on account of a Roman census which is commanded by Quirinius (a historical figure about whom much has been written). For one reason or another (the text isn't completely clear) there is not a proper place for them to stay, and Mary ends up placing her newborn son in a manger as a result. The family then returns to "their own city" (Nazareth) after a quick trip to the temple to restore Mary's "ritual cleanliness" after the prescribed 40-day period, as per the Law.

Matthew indicates that Mary and Joseph already live in Bethlehem; there's no mention of traveling for a census, and verse 2:11 tells us that the Magi come to "the house" where Mary and Jesus lived. (As such, there's no mention of inns or mangers, either). By itself that doesn't seem like much, but there's more to it than that. Before they come to "the house", the Magi first go to Herod's palace, assuming that the "newborn king" would be there because of the portents they saw in the heavens which told them as much. In verse 7, we are told that Herod "found out from [the Magi] the exact time the star had appeared", which is significant because of his later command to kill all male children under the age of two. (Verse 16 reiterates this.) Since the Magi state that they've been following the star "since it rose", that would indicate that Mary, Joseph and Jesus had been residing in Bethlehem for at least two years.

Further support for this can be found in verses 19-23 of the same chapter. After fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod's anger, Joseph is told in a dream that it is safe to return to Israel since Herod is dead. However, upon hearing about Herod's son Archelaus (who was actually an even bigger jerkass than his father), Joseph "withdrew to the district of Galilee, and [they] went and lived in a town called Nazareth", indicating that it was not actually their original destination. Luke explicitly says they returned to Nazareth, but Matthew says that Jesus' family "went and lived" there, indicating that it was a new home for their family rather than the place where they started from.

On a side note: speaking from a strictly geographical point of view, if Joseph was living in Nazareth when the Massacre of the Innocents was (allegedly) ordered, he'd have to travel south past Jerusalem to get to Egypt, which would in effect take Jesus closer to the very danger they were trying to avoid. Leaving from Bethlehem, by virtue of being south of Jerusalem, would incur no such added peril, and this is where Matthew tells us they departed from, because that was where they lived at the time.

Point #3 - The Guest List
As mentioned before, Matthew tells us that eastern Magi are the first to visit baby Jesus. Luke makes no mention of these Magi (nor any of the infanticidal fallout which happens as a result of their visit), but instead tells us that local shepherds were the first to visit him (after being sung to by a "multitude of angels" which, much like Matthew's star, nobody else saw).

Point #4 - The "Christmas Star"
According to Matthew, a wondrous star leads the Magi to Bethlehem. No one else in the astronomical world seems to see this amazing star and report it, but what's important in this conversation is that Luke doesn't see it either. He also makes no mention of the Magi who come along with it, nor the Massacre of the Innocents, nor the trip to Egypt.

There are numerous theories about the nature of the star itself, including (but not limited to) the "star" actually being a comet (usually Halley's), that it was a conjunction of several stars (though one would think that the Magi would know the difference, since they were astrologers), but none of these really pan out with other details in the story for various reasons.

Halley's Comet did pass by us in the year 12 BC. Ancient writers often described comets as "hanging over" specific cities, just as the Star of Bethlehem was said to have "stood over" the "place" where Jesus was. However, astrologers of the time viewed such things as portents of catastrophe, so the Magi probably would have viewed such a thing as an ill omen rather than a sign of hope. Furthermore, 12 BC puts Jesus' birth significantly sooner than most Christian models (which say he was born between 6-5 BC).

Likewise, there were several significant astronomical conjunctions around that time as well. Between 3–2 BC there was actually a series of seven of them, including a strikingly close conjunction between Jupiter and Venus near Regulus on June 17, 2 BC. Another Jupiter/Venus conjunction occurred earlier in August, 3 BC. However, all of these events occurred after the death of Herod in 4 BC, so the Magi wouldn't have been able to talk to him if they'd been following these events. Even if Herod were alive at that time, these conjunctions would have been seen in the west, meaning that they couldn't have led the Magi southward to Bethlehem from Herod's palace in Jerusalem.

Point #5 - The Massacre of the Innocents
Matthew tells us that Herod, in his jealousy of the "newborn king", sanctions a military operation to kill every male child under the age of 2 in Judea. I'd imagine that such an event would be a big deal, as tyrants who order mass murders typically get talked about for doing such things. However, no historians ever made any note of this seemingly significant event, nor is there any archaeological evidence to suggest it ever happened... which I suppose could be used as evidence in support of Luke's version of the story, since the Massacre is not mentioned in it. Further suspicion is cast by Luke 2:41, which comments that Jesus' family annually went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover, and flies in the face of Matthew's reason for their relocation to Galilee.

The Massacre also presents a problem concerning John the Baptist. According to Luke, John was only 6 months older than Jesus, and would have been caught up in Herod's purge on account of his family living in "Hebron, in the hill country of Judea". This makes the historicity of the event even more dubious, since even in Matthew (the only one of the gospels which speaks of the Massacre) we see John as an adult.

Point #6 - The Census
The Census of Quirinius is one of two historical markers that Luke uses to date the birth of Jesus, with the second being the reign of Herod the Great. However, records tell us that Quirinius became the governor (or, rather, Imperial Legate) for the province of Syria-Cilicia in the year 6 BC, whereas Herod died two years prior to this happening, in 4 BC. Furthermore, the scenario presented by Luke is unrealistic in other ways as well. Almost all scholars agree that people would not be required to travel in order to register for tax purposes, but rather the taxation officials who would have gone out to them, as they would have had to link property to its owners. Furthermore, since Luke tells us Joseph was a resident of Galilee rather than Judea, he would not have been affected by such a census by virtue of living in another province.

Bearing these things in mind, there is pretty much no way that these two distinct stories are actually the same story, and that they are "just focusing on different details", as apologists love to say. In all likelihood, the authors of Matthew and Luke were as ignorant of the other's work as they were of the events they were writing about, resulting in two men writing two different stories, each trying their hardest to link their version to as many messianic prophecies as they could, and ironically causing problems for the other.

Now, if you'd like you can address each of these points one-by-one with separate posts, break the post into sections with [SP0ILER] boxes, or however you want to do it. The ball's in your court.

[Arcoon Effox]

rlilly14

P-P-P-Poe's Law!

If so, then he's truly dedicated to his craft.

This guy's been around for a few years. He occasionally popping up in M&R to make the exact same thread over again, but spends most of his time skulking about the 'Welcome to Gaia' section, preaching at newbies with copy-pasted invitations to PM him. (Seriously, this guys post history is borderline-creepy.)

Like all Young Earth Creationists, he's known for asserting that Evolution Theory is an unscientific religious worldview (while belligerently misrepresenting what the theory says, and showing a lack of knowledge about the subject), conflates the Theories of Evolution, Abiogenesis and the Big Bang, claims that there's "a difference between Observational Science and Historical Science", promotes the Creationist pseudoscience of Baraminology, regularly shifts his Burden/s of Proof, presupposes that the Bible is inerrant, and makes excuses for everything in it which is erroneous.

For some reason, he also refers to National Geographic as "Natural Pornographic".

[rlilly14]

Arcoon Effox

rlilly14

P-P-P-Poe's Law!

If so, then he's truly dedicated to his craft.

This guy's been around for a few years. He occasionally popping up in M&R to make the exact same thread over again, but spends most of his time skulking about the 'Welcome to Gaia' section, preaching at newbies with copy-pasted invitations to PM him. (Seriously, this guys post history is borderline-creepy.)

Like all Young Earth Creationists, he's known for asserting that Evolution Theory is an unscientific religious worldview (while belligerently misrepresenting what the theory says, and showing a lack of knowledge about the subject), conflates the Theories of Evolution, Abiogenesis and the Big Bang, claims that there's "a difference between Observational Science and Historical Science", promotes the Creationist pseudoscience of Baraminology, regularly shifts his Burden/s of Proof, presupposes that the Bible is inerrant, and makes excuses for everything in it which is erroneous.

For some reason, he also refers to National Geographic as "Natural Pornographic".

That's hilarious! XD

[Mea quidem sententia]

I'm not sure why human beings still take an archaic, obsolete set of books and letters to be divinely inspired. I see the desperation of Creationists because they need the six days of creation to be literal, else there is no Adam, Eve, or serpent, which means no need for a man named Jesus. Genesis is not even a history about us, but a history about the Jews. It's a book filled with wordplay, such as adamah, which means "ground" or "earth", which the adam, "man" came from, whose skin would be adom, or "ruddy". See also edom.

The serpent, whose name is nachash, just means "serpent", but has the root origin, nachash (different niqqud this time, which is not noticeable in the transliteration), means "to hiss", or "to divine", or "to enchant". Indeed, Eve, whose name means "life", was enchanted. Furthermore, serpents were common motifs in the ancient Near East with Apep, who fought Ra, and the serpent in the story of Gilgamesh, who ate the plant of rejuvenation. The Jews have that one, too. It's called "the tree of life".

The Jews made sure to avoid using the word "Sun" in their language, which would have been shemesh, similarly to the god of justice and light, Shamash. The primeval water was present as well, which is a common motif as well. The Egyptians had primeval water in their myths, and of course, in Genesis, land comes out of the waters, which resembles Nu, the primeval water, and Atum, the mound of land. Moses, after all, was raised in Egypt, so the similarities would be there.

Anyway, there's no reason to accept these fables as truth or fact because of the abundant information we have today about the world. The only thing that keeps this myth going is the creative minds of those who try to work an ancient anthology around modern science. And by creative, I really just mean people who are desperate to continue believing in all of this.

[Arcoon Effox]

Mea quidem sententia

The only thing that keeps this myth going is the creative minds of those who try to work an ancient anthology around modern science. And by creative, I really just mean people who are desperate to continue believing in all of this.

They have to be desperate, considering all the things they have to ignore in order to believe in Young Earth Creationism.

Physics

Astronomy

• Astrophysics - specifically things such as the speed of light, which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing, or light had to have been 'created' en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or C-Decay can't account for the massive change needed. The latter is a case of special pleading and can lead to the phenomenon known as "Last Thursdayism".
  
• Electromagnetism - Since the speed of light can be derived from the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of the whole branch of electromagnetism to be thrown out of the window.
  
• Cosmology - The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) - a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation which was predicted to exist by the Big Bang Theory, and was discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

General physics

• Mechanics - Newtonian mechanics are ignored in a creation event, as Christians claim that nothing "caused" God; nor that there was an equal but opposite reaction to the universe's creation.
  
• Nuclear physics - the decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes are known, and are used in radiometric dating; YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change to suit their presuppositions.
  
• Transport phenomena
  • Fluid mechanics - momentum transfer is pretty much utterly incompatible with the idea of a global flood.
    
  • Heat transfer - incompatible with all the variations of ideas which require massive amounts of water under earth's crusts (ie Hydroplate "Theory"), or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything else that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate.
    
  • Mass transfer - also would have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation

Chemistry

Physical Chemistry

• Reaction kinetics - the rate which amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method, and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6000 years.
  
• Thermodynamics - all of the Laws of Thermodynamics are violated in a Creation event. 'Nuff said.

Materials Science

• Tribology - The study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists.

Biology

General Biology
• Botany- particularly Dendrochronology, which is considered not just accurate give or take a few years, but accurate to the year, as each layer of a tree represents one year. By overlapping patterns, dendrochronology clearly goes back tens of thousands of years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed. (Some try to counter that trees can grow two rings in a year, which is true for some species on occasion, but other long-living species, like the bristlecone pine, are known to actually skip rings every once in a while. Even if we only had species that could occasionally grow extra rings, YEC would require a consistent rate of two to three rings per year since creation.)
  
• Morphology, Zoology & Ecology - denial of evolution theory means denial of these extensively-studied scientific fields, because nothing in biological fields such as these is not evolutionary.
Medicine
• Biochemistry, Immunology & Pharmacology- disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief. See MRSA drug resistance and the results of Richard Lenski's e.coli experiment.
  
• Neurology- a study done in 1966 on short-term memory (STM) to determine whether humans, in retrieving information from STM, employed an exhaustive or self-terminating process. If we were intelligently designed, it would be logical for us to have an efficient self-terminating process; however, Sternberg found that humans in fact employ an exhaustive search process, even though it is vastly inefficient by comparison.
Molecular biology
• Genetics - the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection, and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA; one that mutates and another that is immune from mutation - otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations.

Mathematics

Trigonometry - disproves C-Decay.
Computer Science

• Cellular Automata applications - self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored.
  
• Evolutionary Computation - The theory of evolution is not reserved only to biological lifeforms. Just like how computers can simulate physics, chemistry, climate and other natural phenomena, they also can simulate evolutionary processes. By abstracting the principles of evolution, it's possible to "breed" efficient problem solving algorithms. There's an entire branch on artificial intelligence dedicated to study the optimization and learning applications of evolution. (Here's an example of the creation of a Tetris-playing code.)
  
• Computational Complexity
  
• Probability & Statistics- ignoring this isn't strictly necessary, but doing away with probability theory reduces your ability to spot all sorts of nonsense arguments from incredulity. For example: the odds of being dealt a Royal Flush in the suit of Spades from a fair deck of cards is exactly the same as any other possible hand, but arguing that because your opponent was dealt [2 ♣] [7♦] [3 ♣] [10 ♥] [K♦] is proof that the dealer cheated because the odds of that hand are ~1 in 312,500,000 is just silly.

Planetary Science

Geology

• Geomorphology - uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate.
  
• Plate tectonics - tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, and that some pieces of land were one connected at some point - observed and confirmed in the fossil record.
  
• Petrology - we have examples of rocks and crystal structures which take considerably longer than 6000 years to form.
  
• Stratigraphy - ...or "rock layering through sedimentation". Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event wouldn't explain layering at all; contrary-wise such an event would produce a single, somewhat thick layer.
  
• Vulcanology
Fossil Fuels - the estimated biomass required to form all the coal and oil underground suggest at least millions of years to accumulate.
Meteorology
Palaeontology - self explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth.

Measurement

Metrology - Modern measurement defines distance based on speed of light and time based on radioactive decay; If radiometric dating and the Starlight Problem are invalid, one might as well throw out these definitions.

In addition to these scientific fields, there are several Humanities-related fields which must be rejected as well. Archaeology, Anthropology, History & Linguistics all basically require (and can provide evidence for) more than 6000 years of human history. For example, the process of brewing beer is 3000 years older than Young Earth Creationists think that the entire universe is. ("In vino, veritas", indeed...)

[Arcoon Effox]

The_Creation_Center

I'm curious to see how someone like you, who believes that everything in the Bible is literal, will answer these questions:

arrow Is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" a Biblical concept?
arrow Is the Trinity a Biblical concept?
arrow Is Original Sin a Biblical concept?
arrow Does the Bible say that people are saved by their Faith, their Works, or by a combination of the two?
arrow Were the animals or Adam created first?
arrow Was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden actually the Devil?
arrow Is the Devil's name "Lucifer"?
arrow Was the Devil originally an angel? If so, why was he kicked out of Heaven?
arrow Were the Gospel authors eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about?
arrow In detail, what exactly did happened to Paul and his companions on the road to Damascus?
arrow Do Christians still need to heed the Old Law?

[scrivenly]

Why assume the Bible is meant to be taken literally? And how far do you take the presupposition?

I ask because I've never actually met a Christian who interprets the entire Bible literally, so how do you decide what should be literal and what is figurative/symbolic?

[Arcoon Effox]

Mens Frights Activist

Why assume the Bible is meant to be taken literally? ...How do you decide what should be literal and what is figurative/symbolic?

There's no indication of what's literal and what's not in the Bible, so the OP must claim that it's all literal by necessity. If he didn't, then anybody could call any given passage into question, and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on by claiming that it was more than just a metaphor or symbolism.

In short: Christian Fundamentalists like the OP make this assumption because they have to.

[Faustine Liem]

Arcoon Effox

In short: Christian Fundamentalists like the OP make this assumption because they have to.

To be honest I think we scared him off. *chuckles* And to be honest, I would so enjoy talking to Kent Hovind, or Kirk, or even the OTHER guy. Though this happened a few years ago.

But I can't find that clip where Ray Comfort bets some cash there are zero contradictions and a guy just whips out a bible and immediately proves him wrong. So Ray had to pay up. It was hilarious. I believe it is in a old thunderf00t video, as I do remember seeing it.

[scrivenly]

Arcoon Effox

Mens Frights Activist

Why assume the Bible is meant to be taken literally? ...How do you decide what should be literal and what is figurative/symbolic?

There's no indication of what's literal and what's not in the Bible, so the OP must claim that it's all literal by necessity. If he didn't, then anybody could call any given passage into question, and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on by claiming that it was more than just a metaphor or symbolism.

In short: Christian Fundamentalists like the OP make this assumption because they have to.

Well, sure, but they don't really follow through on it, do they? So I was kinda curious to see if he had some kind of method outside of "this verse supports my worldview when interpreted literally and this one does not, so the former must be literal and the latter figurative."

However, I do think that there's often a lot of indication as to what is and isn't literal in the Bible, though when actually paying attention to context and cross-referencing varying passages, it generally appears to be mostly figurative. And yet I find a lot of fundamentalists take contextually figurative passages and interpret them literally (apocalyptic language of both the Old Testament and the New Testament) while also taking passages that appear to be literal and interpreting them figuratively (Jesus claiming the rich will not inherit the kingdom of God).

And that's not even touching on the whole issue of what is considered solely cultural (the braiding of hair being considered immoral/immodest) and what is supposedly applicable throughout all time (passages that ostensibly ban homosexuality) and the mental gymnastics some people engage in to explain why they don't need to wear head coverings but same sex relationships are abominable.

[Vincentforsure]

Do you know how to swap out a charger port on an iphone 5?

[Arcoon Effox]

Faustine Liem

I would so enjoy talking to Kent Hovind, or Kirk, or even the OTHER guy.

Are you referring to Ray "Banana-man" Comfort, Ken Ham, or somebody else?

Faustine Liem

Though this happened a few years ago.

Ugh, this is that duplicitous old goat Joseph Mastropaolo. He called his challenge a "bet", but it was more like a sucker-bet because JoMo defined the rules and venue to be in his favor. The rules of his disingenuous "challenge" allow him decide what is and is not "scientific" (for example, he prohibits the use of radiometric dating as evidence, on the grounds that it is "grossly biased, not valid, unreliable, and uncalibrated"), and to hand-pick his own panel of judges. Furthermore, anyone who wanted to debate him had to put $10,000 of their own money up front first (which, of course, he’d pocket when his kangaroo court declared him the winner).

Naturally, nobody accepted his false challenge - which is ultimately just what the old b*****d wanted, because he used that as fuel to write smug screeds such as "The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer in Miracles, King of Criminals", wherein he blasts those who rejected his trap invitation as cowards and fools, and claims that evolution is refuted because "Evolutionists" won’t "debate" him.

As far as Mastropaolo's degree of actual scientific competence goes... well, we're talking about a guy who claims that the Biblical patriarchs were able to hunt and domesticate the T-rex, the same way modern humans have domesticated elephants and cattle, as recently as 4200 BCE, so it's what you'd expect. However, in spite of his gross ignorance, he belligerently pretends that he's a legitimate scientist, and publishes sciencey-sounding articles which forward his purely religious agenda. For example, he claims to have totally disproven Abiogenesis Theory because of the following:

Joseph Mastropaolo

...To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is no evidence that the "primeval soup" is anything but fanciful imagination.

Here’s his compelling argument to cast doubt on the age of the Earth:

Joseph Mastropaolo

Evolutionists of the 19th century claimed that the Earth was millions of years old. Their estimates from nature, solar thermodynamics and ocean salinity ranged from 75,032 to 100,000,000 years old or 53,015,006 ± 45,199,699 years old (mean ± standard deviation). The evolutionists of the 20th century claimed that the Earth was billions of years old. Their estimates ranged from 200,000,000 to 5 billion years old or 2.61 ± 1.79 billion.

Curiously according to the evolutionists, in one century, the Earth aged 2.56 billion years. It seemed strange that in 1921, according to them, the Earth was 1.5 billion years old and in 1991 it was 4.5 billion years old. In those 70 years, according to the evolutionists, the Earth and I as well, aged 3 billion years.

According to the evolutionists, I am a 3 billion-year-old ambulating fossil.

Here, have another; this one allegedly disproves Evolution Theory:

Joseph Mastropaolo

Let us extrapolate to the past and see what medical science specifies. Going backward in time we find the Earth’s human population ever diminishing until we arrive at an original couple. The medical evidence also reveals fewer and fewer genetic disorders until we find that the original couple, Adam and Eve, are genetically perfect.

For every other complex life form we find their genetically perfect Adam and Eve in what would be a genetically perfect garden, Eden, with pristine air and water and soil, where longevity for humans is normally 900 years. We also have unimpeachable medical evidence that suggests the correlation of the curvilinear decline in post-flood longevity, from Noah to David, with the curvilinear incline of new genetic disorders. The data suggest that genetic disorders began to increase after the flood and that probably was associated with the diminished longevity to 70 years by the time of David.

This suggestion is shown by the dashed line in Figure 1. Uncensored medical science confirms the Bible and destroys the lethal, psychotic, inverted-fantasy antiscience of evolution.

Figure 1. The correlation of the curvilinear decline in post-flood longevity with the curvilinear incline of medically reported cumulative new genetic disorders supports Genesis and refutes evolution.

Truly riveting stuff, no...?

Faustine Liem

I can't find that clip where Ray Comfort bets some cash there are zero contradictions and a guy just whips out a bible and immediately proves him wrong. So Ray had to pay up.

Skadoosh:

[Master of Inconsistency]

(Lol, bananaman...)

So you're clearly a young-earth creationist. I at least commend you for TRYING to use some kind of process of facts and evidence to square the message of your book with the world.

Right now I'm just trying to decide if you're also geocentrist, or what?

While I'm here, though. By what criteria do you determine which biblical teachings to follow and which to reject? For example, I presume you don't think it's appropriate to stone disobedient young men (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). How do you square the supposed perfection of the bible with a passage admonishing you to do that?

[Aurelius Augustus]

Why are you a Christian? And what makes Christianity different from all the other religions out there?