PART 1 : Dealing the Death Blow to Evolution! A Series from the Book: Unmaking Evolution- The Resource Book by Laurence D Smart BScAgr, Dip Ed, Grad Dip Ed

 Copy freely

Copyright

The copyright for this publication
belongs to Laurence D Smart.

Acknowledgements

All quotes included in this publication are the property of the various writers. Re-use of these quotes should include the relevant bibliographic acknowledgement.

Reproduction

This publication may be freely copied for personal use, or for distribution. Such reproduction must be without alteration, subtraction or addition, and in the exact format. The name of this author must always be visible. Reproduction may be in part or whole. Distribution price must only cover duplication and postage costs.
first edition: -     August 1995
revised: -     May 1996
reprinted: -     July 2000
Web version: -     September 2000

Published by
Laurence D Smart
PO Box 175, Kippax ACT 2615
Australia
Please copy and distribute
ISBN  0-646-36143-0
homepage: www.UnmaskingEvolution.com
email: laurence@unmaskingevolution.com

Initially Published by
Belconnen Baptist Church, Page, ACT, Australia
THANKS:     My thanks to Senior Pastor Linton Smith of Belconnen Baptist Church for the
initial encouragement to create this book from my 6 years of research material.

 FORWARD

The theory of evolution is believed to be an incontrovertible fact by the general public and most of the scientific community, and is taught as such by most educators. This should not be the case.

The theory of evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis, but the facts are that it has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be proven valid, the theory of evolution must undergo the scrutiny (rigours) of the scientific method. This, however, cannot be accomplished because the millions of years required for experimental testing are beyond the reasonable limit of human observation.

The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny. There would be indications that biased interpretation of data had occurred, as alternative theories could be presented to account for observed and tested facts.

The theory of evolution needs its facade of scientific immutability lifted, and exposed for what it really is - an unproven scientific theory.

My university training and experience as a research scientist, led me to do an analysis of the scientific data on evolution. This set of facts and quotes is my expose, and it is a step in the direction of lifting evolution's facade.

 (15/4/95)

 PREFACE

 I have been teaching science for over 25 years, but I have had a number of problems with the theory of evolution.

1. I knew that there were no absolute proofs for evolution.
2. Almost all of my colleagues taught evolution as a fact.
3. All the textbooks presented evolution and the geological ages as facts.
4. The media presented evolution as a fact, announcing new 'proofs' with great fanfare, but not reciprocating when 'proofs' were falsified.
5. I knew that many of the 'proofs' of evolution were no longer regarded as proof by the world's leading scientists.
6. I knew that a lot of research was disproving evolution, but the results were either not reaching the teaching profession, or the teachers were biased and refused to present them to their students.

With this background, I decided to write this book. It was written as a resource for science teachers and students, as a collation of information that contradicts what is being taught in schools.

I have structured each section by addressing its basic premises and then replying from logic, research, and the world's leading scientists.

Each section is introduced with the statement, "Evolution says". I did this because this is the way it is imposed on school children, i.e. as an irrefutable dictum. I reply with "The facts are", presenting factual material that should be included in lessons in schools.

The material I present in this book represents the factual information that was available at the time of publishing. There will be a myriad of responses regarding their validity, age, etc., however, these will be personal opinions which do not restrict the contents from being considered by others.

*****************************************************

"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with Evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ....."


"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"."

Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.

1 The Big Bang

Evolution Says .....

The universe started with a huge explosion called the'Big Bang' 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.

The Facts Are .....

(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24

(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20

(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7

(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84

(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist,  Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523

(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40

(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812

(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3

My Debate with an Atheist on Sodahead- PART 2

MY RESPONSE:

Moses was raised Egyptian, or did that escape you? Of course his NAME would be Egyptian....Duh! Really another Straw-Man? What does that prove?

"Hyksos were not slaves, but wealthy merchants and rulers of Egypt. The Hyksos, in fact, ruled Egypt for 108 years. They built palaces and temples at their capital city of Avaris, and had far-flung commercial operations." Hardly what the Bible describes in any way

Multiple Land bridges? Wow!, you insult the man who discovered the one Land bridge right where the Bible says the Hebrews crossed, then put on your other mask and state there ARE multiple Land-bridges no one knew about until he found that one. His theory isn't the be all end all, never said it was. Science disagrees though and states there is a LACK of Land bridges in the area, no multiples around ever!

http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/s...

Science seems to agree it happened but wrongly assert something never said, Moses was never said to have done the parting, God did the work since he is master of physical laws that control nature.

"Winds may have parted the Red Sea, and not the biblical and Koran's account of it, according to a team of researchers. Based on computer simulations, the famous "parting of the Red Sea" could have been caused by a strong pattern of winds and other land phenomena supported by the theory of "wind set-down" based on the laws of physics."

What they missed was that the Bible said the SAME THING just not according to their VIEWPOINT! The point is there is great president to prove it occurred, and if it occurred then the Bible's description has as much a chance of being the way as any other!

 Your Idea of the Biblical accounts dates and times being wrong, based on what? The History channel video, which I do not completely agree with proved that the date of tradition could be wrong but that's not the bibles fault that's a man made mistake.

Debunking "The Exodus Decoded" This is a very good rebuttal, I always look at both sides of an issue.
http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

I'm not saying its all perfectly in line we're still laying out the understanding, some have one part, others get other parts of the puzzle and its interesting to study!

Yes they were meticulous record keepers about their GREAT HISTORY, but like all mere men of mortal weakness they were PROUD and unable to record that slaves beat them down. If The Egyptians were so proud, would they have admitted they were beaten by their own slaves? Striking things from public record isn't a modern occurrence only!

Here's an answer from Yahoo Answers:

Given that the Egyptians were excellent record keepers, where is their account of the parting of the Red Sea?

"Would you chronicle how the God of slaves defeated your multitude of gods and wiped out your entire army? Here is how they documented this event...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Egyptians picked and chose what they wanted to record. If you read the account of the Merneptah stele, it notes that "Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more.". True?

They do the same thing today. I went to Egypt and was shocked to discover that they actually won the Six Day War.

In the ancient Egyptian days, yes, they were meticulous record keepers. But they carried these records into the next life. Do you really think they would carry an immense defeat--from SLAVES--at the hands of one single God over their own myriad of gods?

A papyrus called the Admonitions of Ipuwer describes a catastrophe like the Exodus. The author of Admonitions complains of a lack of authority, justice and social order as if the central authority no longer had the will or power to keep control. He also complains about barbarians and foreigners as if the country has been invaded. Nobody is planting crops because they are not sure what will happen. The southern most districts are paying no taxes.

He complains that the Nile has strangely turned to blood and "If one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water." He wrote, "Grain is perished on every side." Gardiner dated its events to the FIP but it is conceded that the language and orthography belong to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969c, p 442]. 

Velikovsky noted the obvious similarities with the plagues of the Exodus and pointed out that, contrary to Gardiner, Sethe dated the Ipuwer Papyrus to the SIP [Velikovsky, 1952, p. 48-50]. Van Seters also argues for an SIP date [Van Seters, 1966, p103-120].

There are also records beyond the written letter you know. Ancient chariot parts were discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba. The city of Python has lower bricks with straw, mid bricks with stubble, and upper bricks with anything they could get their hands on. Exactly as the event of Exodus chronicles."

There is historical evidence that they tried to wipe out evidence of things that the newest Pharaoh didn't want remembered. (i.e., Akhenaton and Hatshepsut) So much for HONESTY in reporting!

You put so much faith in the Egyptians record keeping when they had the most to lose by being honest? All that pride and all. And despise Jewish record keeping and they INCLUDE their own shortcomings along with the fact they experienced God's miracles.....hmmmm! Seems like you don't like where it all leads?

Your statement about the wheels is silly, really, it means nothing, is that your story? Their trade routes did go up through the sea and they wouldn't just throw away their chariots or give them to other nations in trade, they traded food and supplies for slaves not weapons.

Why is there no Egyptian record of a LOSS of a whole armies Chariots in the sea? I'll tell you, because they had their butts handed to them and pride has stricken it from the records!

*********************************************

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"there was NO MOSES! get it? it seems you really are desperate to prove the book of tall tales is true. "

 

 

 ***********************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

Why am I not surprised that you have nothing to back up your lame claim, is denial your only recourse?

Your still stuck on this crappy accusation? Well get ready to be owned again, Oh! I mean deny again, because that's all you do!

Funny how I can find so much evidence of a non-existent person and non-existent Exodus without a sweat breaking out isn't it? THIS SITE IS AWESOME!

FROM: http://www.biblicalchronologi...

ABOUT Dr. Aardsma: In case you want to study his credentials.

Ph.D., Nuclear Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1984

M.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1979

B.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1978

NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada), Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1984-85, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1979-84, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1978-79, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

E. C. Stevens Scholarship, 1983, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Gordon Ferrie Hull Fellowship, 1982, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

E. F. Burton Scholarship, 1981, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

J. C. McLennan Award, 1979, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Copernicus Award, 1977, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

http://www.biblicalchronologi...

Is there evidence of the Exodus from Egypt?

The following article is based on the book A New Approach to the Chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2, Number 2.

http://www.biblicalchronologi...

Further details and references can be found there.

A Long Reign

Before the account of the Exodus itself, the Bible tells of the enslavement of the Israelite's and the first 80 years of the life of Moses. One remarkable feature of this story is apparent from the following sequence of events:

A new king comes to power in Egypt who "did not know Joseph." (Exodus 1:8)

This king orders the death of all newborn Hebrew boys. (Exodus 1:22)

Moses is born into this regime. (Exodus 2:2)

Moses is adopted by the Pharaoh's daughter. (Exodus 2:5)

Moses grows up, murders an Egyptian, and flees the country. (Exodus 2:12,15)

Moses marries Zipporah and they have a son. (Exodus 2:12,15)

Eventually, "in the course of those many days", the king of Egypt dies. (Exodus 2:23)

God meets Moses and sends him to the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 3,4)

Moses is 80 years old when he stands before the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:7)

The Bible indicates that the same Pharaoh whose daughter adopted three-month-old Moses died when Moses was nearly 80 years old! This Pharaoh must have reigned for a very long time.

Pepy II

Only one pharaoh in the history of Egypt can meet this Biblical requirement---Pepy II.

Pepy II is traditionally thought to have governed the country for ninety-four years... (Grimal, page 89.)

Pepy II's Successor

From the Biblical account we would expect the reign of Pepy II's successor to be quite short. This pharaoh had to deal with Moses and the plagues, and the Bible indicates that he drowned in the "Red Sea" with the rest of his army. Grimal makes this mention of the pharaoh who followed Pepy II:

The exceptional longevity of Pepy II resulted not only in the gradual fossilization of the administrative system but also in a succession crisis. The Abydos king-list mentions a Merenre II (also called Antiemdjaf), who seems to have been the son of Pepy II and Queen Neith.

This very ephemeral ruler, who reigned for only a single year, would have been married to Queen Nitocris, who according to Manetho was the last Sixth Dynasty ruler. (Grimal, page 89)

So there is a good fit between the secular history of Egypt and the Biblical account with these two pharaohs; an extremely long reign is followed by a very short reign, as required.

More Evidence

The Biblical account of the ten plagues is quite detailed. It describes the pollution of the water supply, and devastation of the livestock and vegetation of the land. The Israelites left, depriving the land of its slave labor, and they carried away much of the land's wealth in the form of silver, gold, and clothing (Exodus 12:36).

Also, the army and the Pharaoh were drowned in the "Red Sea," leaving the country with weakened defenses. The Exodus must surely have left a bold signature in Egyptian history. What do the historians find following the reign of Pepy II's successor?

Pepy II's successor was the final Pharaoh of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.

Grimal says: "The Old Kingdom ended with a period of great confusion." (page 89). Summarizing an ancient Egyptian literary/historical work called Admonitions, which comments on Egypt following the reign of Pepy II's successor, Grimal says:

It was the collapse of the whole society, and Egypt itself had become a world in turmoil, exposed to the horrors of chaos which was always waiting for the moment when the personification of the divine being - the Pharaoh - neglected his duties or simply disappeared. (Grimal, page 138)

This time period was characterized by famine, an expected result of the plagues described in the book of Exodus. This famine was limited to the Nile valley (Grimal, page 139)---as the Bible's narrative would lead one to expect.

There was anarchy and a struggle for political power. Egypt's foreign trade ceased and Egyptian mining in the Sinai peninsula "also seems to have been abandoned" (Grimal, page 139).

The nation of Egypt had obviously suffered a severe blow---as one would expect from what the Bible tells us of the events accompanying the Exodus.
Chronology

The match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom might possibly be brushed aside as coincidence were it not for the fact that this match happens at the right date according to modern Biblical chronology.

Dr. Aardsma's chronology places the Exodus 2447+/-12 B.C. The current "standard" chronology of Egypt places the end of the Old Kingdom---when the evidence discussed above says the Exodus happened---around 2200 B.C.

The difference of 247 years between these two dates is close enough for such ancient times to regard the dates as the same. Uncertainties of a few hundred years in historical/archaeological chronologies are normal at such early times in the history of civilization.

Nicholas Grimal notes that "The chronological span of the First Intermediate Period [which must be known to date events in the Old Kingdom accurately] is also a problem." Haas et al. have suggested, based on an extensive suite of radiocarbon dates (totally independent of Dr. Aardsma's work), that the First Intermediate Period should be lengthened by about 260 years.

This would push the secular date for the end of the Old Kingdom back to around 2460 B.C., indistinguishable from Dr. Aardsma's Biblical date of 2447+/-12 B.C. for the Exodus. Pottery analysis in the Sinai Peninsula by E. D. Oren and Y. Yekuteli is also supportive of this adjustment.

Thus the qualitative match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom is supported by quantitative chronology.
Conclusion

Evidence for the Exodus from Egypt is plentiful---as long as one has their Biblical chronology right, and thus knows to examine Egypt's history around 2450 B.C., rather than around the traditional 1450 B.C.


References

Grimal, Nicolas A History of Ancient Egypt Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1993.

http://www.tageo.com/get_map....

NOTE: YOU CAN NOTICE THAT THE MORE EVIDENCE I PRESENT ABOUT THIS THE MORE SHE DENIES ITS TRUE, THIS IS TYPICAL ATHEISTIC MINDSET [IN CONCRETE] THEY DO NOT WANT THE ANSWER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR GOD TO BE REAL, JUST REARRANGING THE PUZZLE TO FIT EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT!

 *****************************************************************

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

" ho hum! i see you still prefer biased sites.

[Its interesting how every site I go to, too find answers from is biased but hers, which are Atheistic thought are right on accurate]

No direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 400-plus years in Egypt, or the Israelites’ miraculous exodus from slavery.

No physical trace has been found of 40 years in the Sinai wilderness, and nothing outside of the bible shows Moses existed. The exodus cannot be treated as history because there is no support for it except the bible. 

The authors of Exodus would have been familiar with Egyptian conditions if the book had been written in Egypt, and exodus first appeared when the Ptolemies in the third century BC translated the scriptures into Greek for the library of Alexandria. 

The exodus was then composed from a Persian account of Jews being Egyptian slaves because Canaan had been an Egyptian colony for centuries. Israelite settlements showed no Egyptian culture in their archaeological remains. 

They were uniform with those of the Canaanites, so they were not immigrants from Egypt but native Canaanites. A reply to Christians who seek to justify the biblical exodus."

 ********************************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

 Excuse me,....... that's the dumbest statement I've ever heard, as if you regularly read from Christian sites, YOUR BIASED! YES IT HAS ARE YOU JUST IN DENIAL OR WHAT, I'VE PROVED IT OVER AND OVER.

Atheists are simply avoiding the evidence by denial, your not even fair in your criticisms....WOW its mind numbing how blind you are!

You just argued before, that Orthodox [RELIGIOUS] Jews would not be secular in their practices under penalty of death TO PROVE YOUR ISSUE ABOUT PALESTINE, NOW YOUR SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE EGYPTIAN PRACTICE AND CULTURE WHICH WAS AGAINST THEIR GOD, IN THEIR REMAINS? That is insane rambling at best!

WHICH IS IT, OR DOES IT MATTER IN YOUR DENIAL?

FROM THE SAME 'BIASED' SITE THE ANSWER:
http://www.biblicalchronologi...

"The Evidence

From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group.

They found that the larger center sites were "base sites" where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said "In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos."



Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well.



Chronological Issues

So why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the pottery they've found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago. They assume that this pottery must not be from the Exodus because of its date.

But the traditional date for the Exodus is wrong. Dr. Aardsma has shown that a full millennium has accidentally been overlooked by biblical chronology scholars in the past. (See What is the missing millennium discovery? http://www.biblicalchronologi... When the overlooked millennium is restored to biblical chronology, the problem of the missing Exodus pottery shards disappears.
Conclusion

Because the archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time period, they haven't found it. Unfortunately, they have then gone on to conclude that the Exodus must never have happened. This is the wrong conclusion. When you look in the right time period, there's plenty of evidence to show that, in fact, the Exodus did happen, just as the Bible describes it.
The foregoing article was based on research reported on in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1 [http://www.biblicalchronolog... Number 6 and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2 [http://www.biblicalchronolog... Number 1. Full details and references to the scholarly literature can be found there."


What's amazing to me is that you REFUSE to believe even though I've proven it over and over again to you, this man is so much smarter than both of us, you saw his credentials! This is the answer you needed but you refuse to look at from a scientific mind, your mind is drowning in unbelief of even solid evidence.



Exo 17:3-7

" And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?

And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not? "

RIGHT WHERE IT IS SAID TO BE IS:


About 3,000 years ago someone put up pillars at the site marking the place of the crossing. It was King Solomon's pillars, he was very aware of the site and it says it in the bible here: "In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD near its border." Isaiah 19:19.




You can see the shadow on the Egyptian Side Here: 28°58'11.58"N - 34°38'32.86"E The pillar on the Saudi side was removed after Ron Wyatt showed the authorities where it was. Why? Because it proved Israels crossing there, talk about biased?

There is a place marker there set in concrete. There were inscriptions on that pillar that said: Pharaoh, Mizraim (Egypt), Moses, death, water, Yahweh, Solomon, Edom


RIGHT WHERE IT WAS SAID TO BE:



The Evidence is overwhelming against your claims YOU KNOW IT and I know it, but you'll do what you always do DENY, DENY, DENY its all you have! THESE EVIDENCES ARE PHYSICAL THINGS FOUND ALONG THE EXODUS ROUTE AND THERE ARE MANY MORE!

I mean really what are the odds that The name Nuweiba is short for Nuwayba' al Muzayyinah which means "Waters of Moses Opening" wow they named it after a non-existent man? Amazing! At the exact spot where the crossing took place, we have the site confirmed by maps.

https://sites.google.com/site...

http://www.squidoo.com/redsea...

Funny how historical physical remains don't match your mental picture of things but that's life! Denial has its problems when you don't have an open mind, but that's expected from a closed universe of the Atheist.

************************************************** 

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"wrong again. you deny reality and live with fantasy. how sad for you.
http://www.ynetnews.com/artic...

top Israeli archaeologists contest Jewish ties to Jerusalem
[ 08/08/2011 - 05:43 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Top Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has denied the existence of Jewish roots in the city of Jerusalem, contrary to Israel’s claims that have prompted continued Judaization of the city.

Finkelstein, a professor at Tel Aviv University, said Jewish archaeologists have failed to unearth historic sites to support some of the stories in the Torah. Among those stories are the Jewish Exodus, the forty-year wandering in the Sinai desert, and Joshua’s victory over the Canaanites.

He also said there was no archaeological evidence that concludes that the alleged Temple of Solomon ever existed.

For his part, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University Raphael Greenberg said that the Israelis should have found something after digging for six weeks in the City of David in East Jerusalem’s Silwan district, but have found nothing in two years of continuous excavations.

Prof. Yoni Mihrazi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Finkelstein’s findings, saying that top settler organization Elad had not stumbled upon even a banner saying “welcome to the city of David”, given that claims were made to have been relying on sacred texts to guide them in their work. "

************************************************************
MY RESPONSE:

Moronic, just moronic, I just proved that every thing contained in your rant was not so, proved it by thousands of proofs and all you can do is RE POST the same nonsense, over and over again.

The mounting evidence against your thought process is getting high but still no proof against it only hearsay evidence from self hating Jews and Atheists who have a vested interest in keeping it under wraps.

Of course their are Jews who have vested interest in selling out their own country, its as simple as 'Goggling them' but it proves only that. There is little evidence for completely different reasons that you imply.

The Muslims, that you love so much are destroying thousands of priceless artifacts all the time, but no response from you except defending their cowardice on that I'm sure.

They don't want the evidence to surface and neither to these archeologists you mention here, even if they did they know full well the difficulty digging in those areas and that they may never move beyond a small area where they are now, its insane to take the word of people who know that what their saying is greatly qualified by circumstances beyond their control.

WHAT IF THE EVIDENCE IS IN ANOTHER PLACE? CAN WE GET TO IT? NO, SO THIS POINT IS MUTE FROM THE START. THIS IS ONLY PROVES THAT THE ARABS AND SECULAR ZIONISTS DON'T PLAY FAIR WHEN TRUTH IS UNDER SCRUTINY!

http://www.templeinstitute.org/archaeological_finds-2.htm

"Piecing Together The Holy Temple


SINCE 1999 THE MUSLIM WAKF, which was granted de facto day-to-day control of the Temple Mount by the Israeli government in 1967, has been conducting illegal construction of an underground Mosque on the southern third of the Temple Mount. In the course of this illegal construction the Wakf has been using heavy tractors to excavate the earth. Both the construction and the excavation have been conducted without any archaeological supervision, rendering both aspects of this violation of the holy site illegal.  The stated purpose behind the Wakf's actions has been both to "create facts" on the ground, rendering the Mount a "Moslem only" site, and to destroy any archaeological evidence of the first and second Holy Temples which stood on the Mount. This is part and parcel of a consistent policy of the Palestinian Authority to deny that the Holy Temple ever existed.

Although many have protested the brazen assault on this holiest of sites, the Israeli government has consistently followed the policy of acquiescence. Even the archaeological community which has been outspoken in its protest, has done little more than throw up its arms in resignation. A young archaeologist by the name of Zachi Zweig, however, refused to stand idly by. Led by Dr. Gabriel Barkay, Zachi organized and oversaw the transfer of the debris from where it was dumped, (illegally), in the Kidron Valley to an alternative location, where a crew of volunteers under Dr. Barkay's supervision have been painstakingly sifting through the dirt and rubble looking for signs of the past. This constitutes the first archaeological "dig" on the Temple Mount in history. Ironically, archaeological research has been forbidden on the Mount due to the sensitivity of the location for religious, (read, political), reasons.

The Moslem attempt to obliterate any remaining physical evidence of the Holy Temple has actually enabled Zachi and Dr. Barkay to uncover priceless links to the past. It must be kept in mind, however, that the wanton Wakf destruction has severely impaired the ability of archaeologists to properly analyze the discoveries, due to the fact that they were removed from their original location.

And, of course, the archaeologists are not able to study those remnants that were pulverized into dust by the Wakf bulldozers. Yet, despite the adverse conditions, significant discoveries have been made of artifacts from both the first and second Temple era.

Bronze coins dating from the Great Revolt against the Roman authority in the year 70 CE. have been uncovered. Below are three other fascinating discoveries made by Zachi's crew. Those of us who believe in the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible do not require archaeological evidence to bolster our convictions, just as those that are willing to employ any and all methods in an attempt to pervert, deny, and obliterate the truth certainly won't be moved by a few archaeological finds, however startling they may be. Yet these discoveries, as you will see below, can bring us tantalizingly close to a period in human history of nearly a thousand years, when the Holy Temple stood on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem."

http://www.templeinstitute.org/temple_mount.htm
http://www.templeinstitute.org/moslem_destruction.htm
 
"In an unbelievable disregard for holy respect, scientific principles and simple decency, see what is permitted to go on at the Holiest site on Earth!"

THE VERY FACT THAT THIS IS GOING ON IS PROOF THAT FEAR OF FINDING EVIDENCE IS FOREMOST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO DO THIS COWARDLY THING!

Muslims KNOW that this site is Jewish alone and fear that it can and will be proved someday so they do what all cowards do they bully and intimidate those who look for that proof!

"Despite Israel's victorious return to the Temple Mount in the miraculous Six Day War of 1967, Moslem authorities have embarked upon a campaign to destroy the Jewish people's historical and Divinely-appointed connection to this holy site. Their efforts have reached a fever pitch, and nothing is being done to stop them!"


Each place you mentioned unsurprisingly like  East Jerusalem`s Arab village of Silwan which is called by Israelis "The city of David" are in dispute so excavations are difficult if not impossible. And with Arab sanction to destroy anything that would prove the Land belongs to the Jews how can anyone expect to get to the truth?

Its interesting how you find the only places where there are no freedoms to dig without great issues being raised, but avoid the obvious evidences I've presented. You quote moronic people with little self respect or historical method but avoid dealing with those whose credentials are solid. Interesting but not surprising to anyone!

But things are found nonetheless:
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Israeli-archaeologists-tiny-Christian-relic-found-2243638.php

http://www.alt-arch.org/map.php
"Salvage excavations

Prior to any construction, laying of infrastructure or development in an area designated as an antiquities site, the developer must underwrite a “salvage excavation”. The purpose of such an excavation is to reveal archaeological remains and document them before they are destroyed or covered by modern construction. By contrast, research excavations are undertaken in order to address specific research issues at sites that may not be in danger of destruction. A dig undertaken for tourism development is termed salvage work, because although some of the remains are preserved and accessible, the motive for excavation and the methods used are often not oriented toward research.

Occupation layer

An archaeological site is composed of superimposed deposits or layers. Layers containing remains of material culture such as pottery or stone vessels, especially when they can be related to structures, are identified as occupation layers, i.e. strata that represent daily human activities. The term distinguishes it from layers of earth that piled up over this layer after it was abandoned.
Floor

A floor that abuts a wall and does not cover it or is not cut by it may reasonably be assumed to date to the same period as the wall. Finds on this floor would therefore serve to date the walls that it abuts. Finds made on, in or beneath floors are archaeologists’ main dating tools.
In situ finds

A find discovered in its original location. Often, archaeological artifact are displaced by human activity or natural processes. In order to associate an artifact with the place in which it was found, it is necessary to confirm that it is “in situ” (in its place). If it is not in its original place due to past events such as erosion, theft or an unsupervised excavation – the significance of the find is compromised."

Get real here even if half of this is the case it is clearly done to block, obstruct or otherwise slow down evidence from surfacing and ANYONE JEWISH OR ARAB SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN!

http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=7

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Siloam_inscription
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Experts-stumped-by-ancient-Jerusalem-markings-2355890.php

Archaeological and Historical Evidence of Jews in Jerusalem:

http://emetreport.com/Archaeological%20and%20Historical%20
Evidence%20of%20Jews%20in%20Jerusalem.htm

 

********************************************************

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"you have NOT proven anything.
tel Dan Inscription of the Aramean King Hazael?

Three fragments of a 13-line Aramaic inscription discovered by archaeologists of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in 1993/4 purportedly refer to the "House of David." One interpretation is that stele records King Hazael's 842 BC killing of "Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David. I set their towns to ruin, their land to desolation."

The inscription appears to confirm that a chieftain called David was not pure invention yet even so, it contradicts the biblical story that it was Jehu who assassinated the tribal leaders in Jezreel.

"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot ... But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot." – 2 Kings 9:24,27


But this interpretation of the fragments has been challenged, both by a realignment of the 3 fragments and a corrected rendering of the word "BYTDWD" – not "House of David" but a place-name meaning "House of Praise".

One problem with the early Aramaic of the inscription (which pre-dates the adoption of the square-form developed in Babylon) is the absence of a dot separating words. "DVD" could mean many things, including, for example, uncle, beloved and kettle.

"The desire to read the letters bytdvd as house of david is ... a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence."

– M. Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p129.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel ... the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."


(Ha'aretz Magazine, October 1999)
In contrast, to the myth of the Israelite empire, the cities of Assyria, Phoenicia and Nabatea have left extant and extensive ruins "


********************************************************************************

MY RESPONSE:


I DON'T DISAGREE that the evidence SO-FAR is sparse, but it is nevertheless there with more to be found as time goes by! You say in Contrast as though there has been NO DESTRUCTION of important artifacts by rival Nations around Israel which if you honest you know IS AND HAS HAPPENED.

This evidence is only a small fragment of the total evidence and will no doubt bring out the nay-Sayers in herds, but its only their desperate attempt to save their secular view from banishment!

“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription

A new restoration of a famous inscription reveals another mention of the “House of David” in the ninth century B.C.E.

The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the “House of David” (that is, the dynasty of David) is indeed sensational and deserves all the publicity it has received.a The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., was originally part of a victory monument erected at Dan, apparently by an enemy of both the “King of Israel” (also referred to in the fragment) and the “[King of the] House of David.”

The inscription easily establishes the importance of Israel and Judah on the international scene at this time—no doubt to the chagrin of those modern scholars who maintain that nothing in the Bible before the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy.

This so-called evidence by you proves little as well, its conjectural at this point not PROOF.

"The desire to read the letters 'bytdvd' as house of david is ... a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence."

This alone is suspect because it can be said of their results as well, they are working backwards from a secular base instead of a Christian or Jewish one.

So that being said your statements are biased in your favor since it is interpretative at best! I NOT SAYING IT ISN'T TRUE, I'm saying its not in any way a fact as yet so stop using it as a fact.

The House of David Inscription

The House of David Inscription (also known as the “Tel Dan Inscription”) was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.

The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David” (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.


House of David Inscription

Was king David's name inscribed on this black stone slab?

An inscription containing the words "house of David" was found on a black basalt stone slab called the Tel Dan Stele, from Tel Dan, Israel, 9th Century B.C.

It was a victory stele erected by an Aramaean king north of Israel. The inscription contains an Aramaic writing commemorating his victory over Israel. The author is most likely Hazael or his son, Ben Hadad II or III, who were kings of Damascus, and enemies of the kingdom of Israel. The stele was discovered at Tel Dan, previously named Tell el-Qadi, a mound where a city once stood at the northern tip of Israel.

The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
House of David Inscription, Biblical Archaeology

1 Kings 2:11 - And the days that David reigned over Israel [were] forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.

Material - Basalt Stone Stele
Israel Period of the Kings
Date: 858-824 BC
Language: Aramaic
Height: 32 cm
Width: 22 cm
Depth:
Tel Dan, Galilee
Excavated by: Avraham Biran 1994
Location: Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Excerpt

The Aramaic Stele

Fragments of the Aramaic stele

Fragments of a large inscribed basalt stele were found in the square located in front of the Israelite city gate complex. The largest of these fragments measures 32 x 22 cm. and, of the original inscription, thirteen lines have been partially preserved. The language is ancient Aramaic.

The 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE were marked by military conflicts between the kings of Israel and the expanding kingdom of Aram-Damascus. (1 Kings 15:20) Thus the stele was erected by one of the Aramean kings of Damascus who captured Dan - although which king cannot be ascertained as yet. It is probable that in lines 7-8 two kings of Israel and Judah, who ruled at the same time, are mentioned: Jehoram, king of Israel and Ahaziah, king of Judah, referred to as a king of the House of David. These two kings were allies and were defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5)

The stele describing Hazael's victory over his enemies was, in all probability, erected by him when he conquered Dan in the mid-9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that Jehoash, king of Israel, who fought the Arameans three times and defeated them (2 Kings 13:25) recovering territories previously lost, including the city of Dan, symbolically smashed the stele erected there by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus.

Although the broken stele raises serious historical problems, it is one of the most important written finds in Israel and the first non-biblical text which mentions the House of David by name. It is hoped that more fragments of this unique stele will be uncovered in future excavations.

A line by line translation by André Lemaire is as follows (with text that cannot be read due to being missing from the stele, or too damaged by erosion, represented by "[.....]"):

1'. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................]
2'. [.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....]
3'. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4'. rael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king.
5'. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................]
6'. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
7'. riots and two thousand horsemen. I killed Joram son of Ahab
8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
9'. of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................]
10'. their land ...[.......................................................................................]
11'. other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-]
12'. led over Is[rael...................................................................................]
13'. siege upon [............................................................]

 Look, I know you don't agree but I am compelled to try to convince you, NOT TO AGREE WITH ME, but with the point and purpose of Jesus' life and death.

Because he did not come to ARGUE about anything he came to seek you out and save your essence from destruction and death. He did not have to do it but wanted to leave glory to be born in this mess so that God could experience what we have to go through.

His love for all of us is so much greater than our hatred for him and not until we open our hearts to see it can we experience that love.

I remember well sitting in a church back in 1979 Drunk and High out of my mind, immersed in the Darkness of Witchcraft, not having any thought about a god existing, I had wandered in at the behest of two Christians who lived in my Dorm with me.

At some point during the service some spiritual force overwhelmed my mind in an envelope of light, a warmth of Love I had never felt before. I am certain that the drugs and the Booze didn't affect me during that time because seconds after I was totally sober of both, that was my first miracle from that God I didn't believe cared at all.

For the first time in years I could think clearly and understand God's care and Love for me, tears fell from my eyes and I weep for a long time, getting out all the abandonment and pain that I had built up in my soul.

I'm not SELLING anything, its a free service that God provides and you keep the power to reason and think for yourself, God requires you to choose for yourself, he requires thinking, skeptical Human beings to come just as they are without giving up anything but their dark souls to him so he can give them light.


If you wish NEVER to speak again I'll fully understand and respect your choice. But please know that I care about you from my heart, you matter in the larger scheme of the universe. I will leave you with this FINAL PLEA!

*********************************************************************

 MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"well your compulsion will get you nowhere! nada ,zilch ,zero! you cannot convince me of what i KNOW is a lie!

love?? love doesn't create a world such as this with hucksters and shysters sucking the life out of people so they follow what you claim without proof. there never was any proof and there never will be any proof. thats why its called FAITH! because you want to believe its true.

see your problem is you are desperate to convince someone,me,of something i absolutely KNOW is false. i KNOW this as surely as you don't know it. a creator would not create a soap opera for anyone to follow. what ever created this universe has moved on."

*****************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

 You know very little if anything at all, what you do is a disservice to Atheism, you prove nothing, you present NO evidence to prove it and then CLAIM you know something, that's called circular reasoning my friend and your infested with it!



In order to prove the assertion 'No God exists' experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality.

Comprehensive knowledge which you claim to have because you said you knew ABSOLUTELY that God didn't exist, that's called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God!

According to Atheism THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH which would include Atheistic thought which means you know NOTHING absolutely!

So, based on empirical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! Pesky fact if you ask me!

Atheism exalts reason, but it is actually irrational.

Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the empirical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the empirical method.

You might reply: "But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either."

Granted, one can NEVER disprove anything exists. The atheistic position of denying God's existence, if based on the empirical method, is absurd...plain and simple, its a 'Straw Man' builder nothing else.

And just so you know I am not the desperate one here, judging from your lack, complete and utter lack of proof [Because insults are no substitute for substance] Its simply a matter of my evidence vs your accusations and which one wins in the minds of those who see these comments!

Your right its not love that made this world the way it is it was DISOBEDIENCE TO THAT LOVE that God gave. The 'hucksters and shysters' you speak of are human beings WITHOUT God's love in control of their lives that's just plain fact, no matter what they claim to be.

You cannot prove God at fault at all, it US NOT HIM, so where do you go with this lame excuse against God? Atheists have always used FALSE religious principles as an evidence against God but that is utter nonsense since the Bible speaks about these people NEVER HAVING BELONGED TO HIM in the first place.

People who speak in his name CANNOT disprove what is already clear in black and white, they represent NOT GOD but their own agendas, false religious people are not in ministry to acknowledge themselves at Gods expense.

Job 8:13

"So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish:"

Isa 9:17

"Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

Pro 11:9

"An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered. "

God hates hypocrisy NOT the person but the act!

What is hypocrisy? It is acting like one thing while claiming something else as your intention, kind of what you did pretending to be sympathetic to the plight of the Orthodox Jew to advance an agenda of Palestinians.

One of the ways that Atheists TRY to disprove God is the riddle of Epicurus a simple straw man creation.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

In its first step, Epicurus states, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

God is either able to prevent evil, or He is not, this is one of those paint a Christian into a corner arguments that fizzles out once certain facts are seen.

# 1 You are presupposing that there is a God who can't do everything, that seems strange since he doesn't exist to do anything in the first place!

# 2 You assume that God IS willing to eradicate Evil AND THAT GOD MUST DO IT THE WAY WE THINK HE MUST DO IT! How arrogant of the Atheist with no understanding of God whatsoever to predetermine how to deal with evil in a world looking for a way to do it. LET'S HEAR JUST HOW TO DO THAT FROM ATHEISTS IF YOUR SO SMART?

God's way is nothing like our way, we do not and will not get it, so who are we to know the WAY of God plainly shown in scripture and how do Atheists know it isn't working?

The second step says "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." this is another bad reasoning on your part, that God could but won't deal with evil.

Malevolent means wanting to cause harm: having or showing a desire to harm others, harmful or evil: having a harmful or evil effect or influence hence according to Atheists God is Evil. Again they ignore the Devil in scripture who is plainly that very thing.

NOT TRUE on any count, the Bible reveals that God hates evil and that he made a place for evil to be SELF tormented, no different than our prisons which were built to KEEP EVIL FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD.

Hell is not a torture chamber that God uses to 'get off' torturing us forever. The torture of hell is SELF INDUCED BY US KNOWING THE JUSTICE OF GOD FOR SIN. We would truly be tortured if we went to heaven instead of hell, because Hell was created for the specific of keeping evil within its hold, hence God is both willing and able and IS ERADICATING EVIL! In fact God is the sole eradicator of evil in existence.

Step three of the riddle states, "Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil?"

A straw man argument in the making, the bible clearly states that EVIL came from the heart of Lucifer, the first lawbreaker, evil is disobedience to the Laws that God created to contain creation within its perfect operational function, NOT TRAP IT AS EVIL DOES IN A DYSFUNCTIONAL TAILSPIN!

This argument only works with those who can't think their way out of a straw-man creation, it assumes to much is true without proof that this is how God acts against evil!

The Bible is completely ignored with this argument, the chief evidence to refute it, how typical. Its obvious to anyone that you have to assume to much so what is the point here?

The FORTH and last part of this nonsense riddle [Straw Man] "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" For one thing Why not knowing this is based upon faulty reasoning and character assassination, totally against the facts of scripture!

This was enough to disprove God to the unintelligent listening to the so-called intelligent?, in the arena of human reason and logic that's amazing!

****************************************************************************

CONTINUEDON NEXT BLOG POST

The Definition of an Atheist , AKA Psalms 14:1

"The Fool Hath Said...There Is No God"

FROM:

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR251.htm

 

The biggest bill of goods ever sold to supposedly intelligent people is that there is no God and that present life originated from one simple cell and evolved through a process of natural selection to its present form.

I submit that this hypothesis is not only unfounded, unscientific, and untenable, but that it is also, based on all known and established laws, impossible. Moreover, I suggest that when man denies God, man becomes a fool (Rom. 1: 21, 22). There are many irrefutable proofs that spontaneous generation is responsible for life. Creation implies a Creator and design a designer.

If I were to show you my wrist watch and tell you that it simply evolved from the basic shapeless metals and materials into its present state, you would view me as the fool that I most surely would be. "Such is impossible," would be the outcry.

 "If such could happen, from where were the basic metals and materials derived?" Still, a further question could be asked, "what intelligence provided the impetus for the formation of the watch?" Yet, my wrist watch example is very crude and simple compared to the more advanced complexities involved in the universe.

The Bible believer who necessarily accepts the six-day creation account of Genesis one and two is often styled as uneducated. Notwithstanding, Doctor Russell Humphreys (practicing physicist) wrote, "there are around 10, 000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day recent creation"

(Creation Ex Nihilo, pg. 37, referenced by Doctor Steven Taylor, In Six Days, pg. 304, see addendum).

How can I say that Darwinian evolution or naturalism is impossible? I believe one of the most successful proofs that renders evolution not only untenable but utterly impossible is the factual study of how creation interacts. Not only interacts but how each particular component is a dependant component of the whole.

These components are often absolutely necessary for even the primary and rudimentary existence of each other. Allow me to introduce this line of thought by quoting Doctor Jerry Bergman who is a biology scientist who is instructor of science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio (Doctor Bergman has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books):

"Naturalism must account for both the parts necessary for life and their proper assembly.

For life to persist, living creatures must have a means of taking in and biochemically processing food. Life also requires oxygen, which must be distributed to all tissues, or for single-celled life, oxygen must effectively and safely be moved around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed, without damaging the cell. Without complex mechanisms to achieve these tasks, life cannot exist.

The parts could not evolve separately and could not even exist independently for very long, because they would break down in the environment without protection.

Even if they existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens.

For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life…Creating the universe in parts would not be unlike creating a liver and waiting a few days before creating a brain, then several more weeks before creating a femur bone - until the body was eventually complete.

No other method appears to exist to produce life other than creating instantaneously a fully functioning complete organism. This does not preclude that changes may have occurred since that time, only that a certain level of complexity must have existed for both an organism and a universe to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 27, 31, all emphasis throughout mine, dm).

What I shall address in the remainder of this study are a few areas to illustrate how there must be initially a totality of the interactive and co-dependent parts in order to have the functioning whole. I shall begin with the simpler and advance to the more complex.

The human skeleton.

Doctor Bergman wrote:

 "To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered structure of just 206 parts will be examined. This is not a large number - the adult human skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together in a perfectly integrated functioning whole" (In Six Days, pg. 34, 35).

Before I proceed, please allow me to ask you the question, have you ever wondered about the perfectly shaped, located, and supporting relationship positioning of the bones making up the human skeleton? In view of this basic anatomical fact, how could these 206 bones have evolved separately and sequentially? This may sound very simple, but it becomes mind boggling. Allow me again to quote biologist scientist Doctor Bergman:

"To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system or two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1, 2, and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 1; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 4) and so on.

Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3…206 different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3…x 206. This number is called '206 factorial' and is written '206!.' The value 206! is an enormously large number…, which is a '1' followed by 388 zeros…." (Ibid., pg. 34, 35).

Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10 to the 388th power random assortments….

If one new trial could be completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate gives us 10 to the 18th power seconds."

 In view of this, I might ask, what does this mean in simple terms? Hear Doctor Bergman: "…The chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years…." (Ibid., pg. 36).

Notwithstanding the simple matter of the human skeleton, not even mentioning all the different anatomical differences and structural interaction of all living forms, the evolutionist considers all uneducated who do not accept their unintelligent explanation for life!

A God who could create the human skeleton that would be immediately aligned and functioning would have no difficulty in restoring "strength" to the feet and ankle bones of the lame man (Acts 3: 1-11).

The means of sight, the eye. We are told regarding Eve, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (Gen. 3: 6). God told Abram, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13: 14, 15). Doctor Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. Doctor Roth is a biology scientist. Concerning the 670 muscles in the human, Doctor Roth wrote: "The presence of complexity - interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present - poses another major problem for evolution.

For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without the complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles.

Without these three essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary changes, how does complexity evolve?" (In Six Day, pg. 87). Doctor Roth next mentions the eye:

"Without the foresight of a plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary advancement.

Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any of these random combinations…The simple example of a muscle…pales into insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain.

These contain many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects.

We do not fully understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens….Then there are the 100, 000, 000 light-sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain through some 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture.

This involves an extremely complex array of interdependent parts. But the visual process is only part of our complex brains, which contain some 100, 000, 000, 000 nerve cells connected by some 400, 000 kilometers of nerve fibers. It is estimated that there are around 100, 000, 000, 000, 000 connections between nerve cells in the human brain.

That we can think straight…is a witness to a marvelous ordered complex of interdependent parts that challenges suggestions or an origin by random evolutionary changes. How could such complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?" (Ibid. pg. 88, 89).

Can you just imagine the lens saying to the brain or in the reverse, Now evolve me 100, 000, 000 light sensitive cells and an optic nerve with 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers and put in place capability and storage for color, movement, form, and depth, oh, yes, I will need the necessary delicate muscles to activate these components?

Remember that all of these necessary components would have to come into existence within a very short time of each other or they would deteriorate. However, according to organic evolution, such an intricate and complex evolution through natural selection would take multiplied years (some say trillions) to happen.

The science of cells. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," wrote the inspired writer of Hebrews, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb. 11: 3). The more we study a matter, the more we discover.

I am not sure Hebrews 11: 3 is referring to such matters as cellular consideration, but it is possible. The more science has discovered about cells, the more ridiculous the notion of evolved life becomes. Doctor John Marcus (a biochemistry scientist) wrote regarding cellular matters and Darwinian philosophy thus, "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us" (Ibid. pg. 180, 181).

Doctor Hickman wrote: "Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells.

In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman, 1997, pg. 43). How could these 60 trillion cells in the human that are interacting and often co-dependent, I ask, have simply evolved?

Doctor Jerry Bergman in referencing the work of Overman considers the cell in the following fashion;

"Evolutionists once argued that all life could develop from some hypothetical first cell, because even today all new life develops from a single cell, but we now realize that a cell can develop into a complex organism only because all of the parts and instructions are in the original cell produced from conception.

The human mother passes not only 23 chromosomes but also an entire cell to her offspring, which includes all the organelles needed for life. A cell can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up piecemeal, because all the major organelles must have been created and assembled instantaneously for the cell to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 29 and Overman, 1997).

When the cell is microscopically considered, another area of research emerges, the matter of DNA. Doctor John Marcus wrote:

"DNA evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God's handiwork of design in a powerful way.

Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms.

 The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism. If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet so thin it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes.

 Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1, 000 books, each containing 1, 000 pages of, text" (Ibid. pg. 174, remember that there are about 60 trillion interacting cells in the human).

Amazing as the DNA molecule may be," Doctor Bergman continues, "there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery.

Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are co-dependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be meaningless bits and pieces" (Ibid., pg. 174, 175).

Relative to the cellular and DNA, all of this is comparatively simple when one considers how all of this graduates. Involved in the cell and DNA, there must be a number of proteins present. The DNA template then (when everything is perfect and equally functioning) produces RNA. For RNA to be synthesized, at least five different protein chains must be present and cooperate.

Furthermore, this enzyme complex must be able to recognize where to start reading and transcribing DNA into RNA. All of this is still simple when we advance to the three types of requisite RNA and the process produced by a large number of proteins called the ribosome. The paramount point that I wish to make is stated better by Doctor Bergman:

"Needless to say, without proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA. It should be clear that DNA, RNA, and proteins must all be present if any of them are going to be present in a living organism.

Life must have been created completely functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorance (or perhaps desperation). So, we truly have a 'which came first?' problem on our hands. I believe the answer is, of course, that none of them came first!

God came first; He designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA, and protein came all at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about by chance" (Ibid., pg. 177).

Beloved, organic evolution that is being increasingly accepted today as science is not science. It is a fanciful hypothesis that is not founded on scientific laws and it is incapable of being reproduced, duplicated, or replicated to study in a laboratory.

It is high time that this Godless philosophy be stripped of its claims of super intelligence and be presented as the unintelligent belief system that it is. Darwinian evolution is not even a theory because a theory has some facts upon which it rests. As we have seen, naturalism is not only unbelievable, it is impossible. We have shown this, I believe, based on the interacting and co-dependent nature of some of the most basic and necessary components of rudimentary life.

We have also shown from actual science that these co-supporting components cannot be viewed as sequential in their developmental and evolutionary processes, as evolutionists claim, because they cannot separately exist for even a short period of time in their rudimentary forms. Hence, life had to have opened at once, just as we are told in Genesis one and two.

In view of the complexity and the interacting nature of the most essential and basic of the components of life, we should now more greatly appreciate the biblical statement:

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good"

(Ps. 14: 1).

Addendum:

The work In Six Days was compiled by Doctor John F. Ashton.

It is a book based on asking fifty different established scientists why they choose to believe in creation as opposed to naturalism.

Hence, the fifty chapters making up the book contain simple and straightforward reasons as to why these scientists believe in the Genesis account of creation and reject Darwinian evolution.

The Definition of an Atheist

Posted: 06 Jul 2011 06:02 AM PDT

"Primate worshiper, I need your advice. When Ray says that atheists are 'fools,' is that raw hate? When he quotes (out of context, but that's another matter) Psalm 14:1 in defense of his position, does that prove that the Psalms are a reservoir of raw hate?" Steven J.

I don't hate anybody. It is clear to me that if someone believes that nothing created everything he or she is a fool (see the sidebar of this blog to see the list of the many atheists and scientists who believe that).

To believe that there was no First Cause is not only unscientific; it's unreasonable. To believe that nothing could create anything, let alone everything is absolute foolishness. And that's the position of the professing atheist.

I know that you define "nothing" as "There's nothing to eat in the fridge." By "nothing," you mean that there is something there, but you find it distasteful. Agreed.

Let's see if Psalm 14:1 is quoted in context:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14: 1-3).

The Word of God says the atheist is a fool. I agree wholeheartedly. There's no "raw hate." It's simply raw common sense.

In another comment, you (Steven J.) said "Ray frequently cites Psalm 14:1 as 'proof' that atheists are fools; occasionally he feigns erudition and calls us 'morons.'"

I don't cite the verse as proof that atheists are fools. It's not something that needs proving. It's self-evident.

Also, I am not aware of ever calling atheists "morons" on this blog or anywhere else--even once, let alone "occasionally". I would therefore be grateful if you could cite evidence of me doing this. If you do, I will sincerely apologize. If not, I think you owe me an apology. Thank you.

For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.