Friday, March 26, 2010

CTS- Absurb Torah Science

Again Charlotte steps into the world of science, not theology. This does not appear to fulfill's goal of proving that there is immorality in the Bible, but this is important to debunk nonetheless. Bear in mind the links to the right are very helpful in dealing with creation science. Many of these explanations encompass more than one of Charlotte's points, so I'll list the ones where it applies.

1) Charlotte says that science tells us the order that things came into being, and that it was very much different that what it says in the Bible. Science determines these based on dating methods like carbon dating, proven unreliable time and time again. See links to the right for more information. This is also determined by the layers of soil in which fossils are found, but the fossils also tell the age of the soil (circular reasoning). Furthermore, these layers are very rarely found consistently in more than one place, and never everywhere.

2) As shown in my article debunking "A day is a day" (click here), evening and morning come from Hebrew words that are used to show progression of time, not literal evening and morning shown by the sun rising and setting. As such, this objection is unfounded. Charlotte says "considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun". That statement shows very little thought for the context. The context would reveal that the sun wasn't the source because it wasn't created until later. It makes no sense for those statement to be contradictory in such a small space.

3) The day 2 creation was the sky, separating the waters of the earth from the waters of the sky. This is consistent with the most modern model of the pre-flood world, the canopy theory. Before the flood there was a coat of water in the upper atmosphere, which crashed down to help cause the flood. The obvious greenhouse effect created a world where the dinosaurs could live as well. Heaven was nowhere involved in the verse.

4) "Plants are made before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes." Charlotte has left out that there was LIGHT, the very first creation. Furthermore, there was no death before the Fall, so the plants were likely supported by God as well.

5) This was the land gaining living creatures and plants before the sea. There is also a creation model Charlotte is forgetting. God created things with apparent age. It says "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. " (Gen 1:12), and about Adam "So God created man in His own image". Man, not boy. Tree, not seed. Beyond the fact that they had apparent age, we don't know how old they were in comparison to one another, but perhaps science has told us. God created the sea with more apparent age than the land.

6) Charlotte used an unclear translation for this verse. Here's Genesis 1:20 in the NIV: "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." That should clear it up, shouldn't it?

7) This point, about ages of reptiles vs. mammals, goes right back to dating methods and apparent age, already addressed.

8) These calculations are using a young earth perspective. With an old earth perspective, the numbers become much different. Beyond that, Charlotte is correct, a young earth perspective is shows a massive gap between itself and science's current timeframe, which goes up by another million or so every day.

9) This, again, isn't taking into account the world before the Fall. Now, there are two possibilities here:
1. Nothing ate meat before the Fall, very possible since with sin came death, and sin had
not yet come.
2. This would be accurate even today. I don't think I need an energy pyramid to tell you
that energy, originally harnessed by plants from the sun, makes its way up the food chain
by predation, so predators are indirectly using the plants for meat.

10) Again Charlotte ignored the old-earth interpretation. Maybe she thinks she shot it down permanently with the last article? Also, the links to the right should tell you about evolution, it's by no means a proven fact.

11) Same thing, evolution being stated as a fact. See links to the right.

12) Climate change would've killed the animals? Ignoring life before the fall again. Modern scientists believe that there was was a "mega continent" that split because of tectonic activity. This is consistent with a free-flood world. Furthermore, he named all the birds, livestock, and land animals. Many of the unknown animals now live in the water. Beyond that, bear in mind that there are many more animals that exist now than did before. Not necessarily because of evolution, but because of cross breeding, minor mutations, etc. About the phrase "none seemed to have what it takes to please him" is nowhere in the Bible. It says "for Adam, a suitable helper was not found." God's criteria, not Adam's.

13) This is pure speculation. Maybe it had legs before this happened, and God made them go away? Impossible to say without admitting this is pure guesswork, but it's hardly evidence against the Bible. Also, eating dust is a figure of speech. When you yell "eat my dust" at someone during a race, you don't literally want them to bend down and begin consuming the dirt you've tramped on any more than was intended here.

14) Nephilim is a Hebrew word meaning "Fallen One". They are the offspring of demons who had come down to earth, and human women. They would be abnormally tall and strong, hence the giants mentioned earlier. Charlotte claims a lack of evidence, but how do we know that the neanderthals found are not nephilim? I've cited a source at the bottom of the page that records archaeological evidence for their existence.

15) Noah was able to build the ark, larger than virtually every ship in ancient history, because he had God's guidance. You think an all-powerful, all-knowing God wouldn't know how to build a big boat?

16) God was helping here too. He helped bring them to Noah, and the existence of only one continent certainly helps. We don't have very much information on what the pre-flood world was like, or the amount of species then, so this is entirely possible.

17) Genesis never says all of the animals entered the ark on the same day. It says "on that very day, Noah's family entered the ark, and they had with them every wild animal according to its kind." THAT is referring to the day when the flood began, not the day that all of the animals entered the ark. As a rephrase: "Once they had every wild animal, they entered the ark."

18) All the water came from the upper layer of water, separated on the 2nd day of creation. Canopy Theory explains this. This explains the flood completely. There is evidence for a flood, the links to the right explain that.

19) Noah would've planned for this. The animals would have had to eat while on the ark, wouldn't they? Plants have been demonstrated to float, as shown by the olive branch brought back by the dove. Seeds have been shown to survive for some time in salt water (by Charles Darwin of all people), so plants could have survived. About the migration thing now. Has Charlotte forgotten Beringia? There existed a land bridge between North America and Asia.
Tectonics are commonly thought to have destroyed them, as well as flooding. Land is thought to have been much higher than it is now (Pleistocene for example). The link to Christian answers below helps explain this.

20) It is common knowledge throughout the Christian community that Noah brought 7 of each clean animal, likely knowing this would happen (Genesis 7:2). That leaves some to repopulate.

21) The rainbow is a sign of God's covenant to Noah. God uses it as such, and says "I have set my rainbow in the sky". God caused the rain during the flood, and consequently (not coincidentally) caused the rainbow, i.e. set it in the sky.

22) The Bible is really the only thing that offers an adequate explanation for all languages. The best evolutionary explanation is that vocabulary and grammar evolved out of the grunts and hand signs of our simian ancestors. Somehow that results in a Chinese language with THOUSANDS of characters? I would also like a source for the history Charlotte is using. For all those curious for more info, including evidence for, Babel, look below.

23) See #22

24) There are many possibilities here. First, the name could have been inspired by God, knowing that future readers would know it better that way. Second, it's possible that the name "Dan" was in use around the time of Abraham, but it didn't become it's formal name until later. It was called Liash later because of whose hands the city fell into. Third, there very well could be another Dan (possibly referred to in 2 Samuel 24:6; 1 Kings 15:20; cf. 2 Chronicles 16:4), situated near the source of the Jordan. It very well could have been a Phoenician city.

25) Charlotte makes a point that seeings something during conception will not determine the pattern of the baby, and accuses the author of Genesis of believing that. She sites Genesis 30:37, but has missed chapter 31. Look at Genesis 31.9-12:

9 So God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me. 10 "In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted. 11 The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' 12 And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.

Laban had been cheating Jacob for over 14 years, and God has seen this. He commanded Jacob to do what he did, and helped him out. It was a miracle, and much of genetics is determined by chance (God). The reeds didn't have anything to do with it.

26) This is a very basic point. Israelites were only allowed to eat things that both divided the hoof and chewed the cud. Camels were not allowed to be eaten because they did not divide the hoof, the subject of debate here. The criteria for a "divided hoof" is a COMPLETELY divided hoof. The camels hoof does not divide the entire way through, and the bottom consists of a padded sole that is not divided at all. As such, it does not fit the criteria of a "divided hoof".

27) Again, the criteria for "cud" is in question. Hares have two kinds of stools. One is feces, or poop. The other is a mucous-colored green pellet which the rabbit licks off its anus (gross I know) and re-ingests. When cud is defined as un-digested matter, this certainly fits.

28) The bottom link is helpful for this, 27, 29, and 30. Charlotte does not understand the taxonomic system employed in the Bible. In the Bible animals were classed by locomotion, as this creates much easier boundaries (but less accurate genetic ones, which they wouldn't have understood anyway). Flying animals are classified with birds, swimming animals with fish, etc.

29) This is a translation mishap. This contradiction is only present in the KJV, as after it was compiled scholars gained access to older manuscripts. The work present in the KJV manuscripts is "owph" meaning fowl. In the more older manuscripts, the word is "seres", meaning creature. This makes the most accurate translation of Leviticus 11.20-21: "All flying creatures that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you..." aka bugs.

30) This has to do with the same principle as 28. Animals are classified by locomotion, the most sensible way to do it in that time period. "Four-legged" creatures are the ones that do not walk or hop on two legs. This is created to differentiate the birds from the insects, as "seres" and "owph" are too general of words to be used without more detail.

31) The King James Version is the only Bible translation where I see unicorn (It's not even in the New KJV). Every single other one refers to a wild ox. It's possible the unicorn described was a type of wild ox Job was familiar with, the unicorn we think of would not by any means be the same type. AiG believes that a unicorn very well may have existed (Job's version, not ours) so I'll cite the link below. Similar words to "re-em" in other languages directly mean "wild bull", so that translation is likely more accurate.

32) The serpents are called "fiery" because of the effect of their bites. This could fit the description of many, many snakes known to us today. The Septuagint translates it as "deadly" rather than "fiery".


1 comment:

  1. can you perform the challenges that the auther of the put forth? You Know, like raising the dead, walk on water or cure the blind??? I've studied the bible, both ot and nt for 35 years and what she put in her statements are true. Check the top ten list on that site and christians do every one of them.