Is God a liar?

[BobRyan]

Well, why shouldn't seminaries listen to the secular authorities, the scientists?

Science is fine.

Junk-science is worthless. Certainly not a valid excuse for rejecting the Bible just because you are confronted with "junk-science"


from - http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Human Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)[

 

[mark kennedy]

Science is fine.

Junk-science is worthless. Certainly not a valid excuse for rejecting the Bible just because you are confronted with "junk-science"

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)[

That's one of those things evolutionists are not really comfortable with, the Neanderthal actually had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own. Turkana Boy who had a cranial capacity around 1000cc is anatomically human from the neck down with a small skull that is still inside the human range. The other hominids like the Lucy and the Taung Child are much closer to the Chimpanzee. In the wake of the Piltdown hoax the Taung Child grew in popularity but it's little more then a head fake, the evidence seldom stands up to close scrutiny. The Darwinian thirst for viable transitional fossils would seem to have sparse support:

The austrolopithecienes are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes" (100 years of Paleoanthropology. American Scientist July-August 1987)​

They do like to talk in circles around the evidence but the particulars are far less convincing then we have been led to believe.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

The "crafty beast" had become an atheist.

Who?
Darwin?
Dawkins? Provine? P.Z. Meyers? those who claim to know a lot about actual evolutionism?

The Hebrews redacted book of Genesis is clear on the 6 day, young earth creation, it's just wrong. Men wrote it not God.

Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the next logical step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

You at least admit to the obvious point in evolutionism - when it comes to the Bible. One or two others here on still in denial on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree, Lapanto, that the Discovery Institute is a joke.

Says the guy that rejects the 7 day creation week, the world-wide flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ the ascension of Christ and pretty much anything in the Bible that an atheist would not approve of.

Is this supposed to be convincing??

It is convincing in one aspect - it is the logical deny-the-Bible-first option for the evolutionist. As Darwin points out it does not stop with "just deny the book of Genesis" it goes on ... and on resulting as in the case of Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers and a great many others - in a complete rejection of the Bible - if you let it go to its logical conclusion.

Just as in your own rejection of the Trinity, of the virgin birth, of the miracles in the Bible, of the resurrection of Christ and ascension to heaven -- of pretty much anything that an atheist might object to - in the Bible.

Open Heart said: ↑
Let me give my own answer to my question, and perhaps that will clear things up a bit.

1. God is not a liar. "God is not a man that he should lie." Numbers 23:19
2. The earth has a plethora of overwhelming evidence i.e. that it is ancient: radiometric dating, ice layering, meteor crators, continental drift, Y-chromosomal ancestry, seeing starlight that has taken billions of years to reach us, and so much more. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
3. If the earth were young, it would mean that God created it with all this "evidence" in tow, thus creating lies ....
THEREFORE
4. Young Earth Creationism cannot be true because it makes God a liar.

so to Hoghead1 I would say that apart from your agreement with OH - what "else" do you have to support your position?

 

[Razare]

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?
What do you believe?

Fossils are subjectively interpreted data-points. You can't perform the scientific method on a fossil.

The scientific method, requires a process of experimentation which is reproducible.

We can't go back, 1 mil years, put a fresh bone in the dirt, and then dig it up 1 mil years later. <- Experimentation

Rather, we find a bone in the dirt, often with no observably verified historical record (pre-history or non-historical) and then start recording data points on that fossil. Location, date of discovery, depth in soil, composition, radioactive elements and their potency. Then we make conjectures into the past using those data points. These conjectures are fine, but they assume a great deal we can never prove. We cannot prove these things because no experiment can be performed in the past. We can only perform them in the present, and then make the Unitarianism assumption that the experiment's results would not have changed in history. But we have no valid basis of believing this assumption.

Then also, science and historical analysis always throws out curve-ball interpretations of historical events. They uniformly conclude that "the likely cause was the actual cause because the unlikely possibilities are unlikely."

Yet if you have lived life at all, you can readily see that often, the unlikely thing happens, and the likely reason for something to happen is not what actually happened. While this is common sense to us living our daily lives, it's not generally considered good historical analysis. When looking back into history, it is always the likely first, and until the likely is excluded with some certainty, do they then turn to alternative ideas that are less likely.

Then it should also be mentioned that "likely" is a subjective idea. People just make their case for what was likely, like Hume did when he presumed that miracles were not common to the human experience. This has been refuted as there are whole cultures and groups of modern day people who claim to have seen and experienced first-hand miracles. What Hume did, was limit his worldview to his Western circle of knowledge as if his sliver of knowledge on the Western world comprised all of modern man's experience. This is an example of how men can presume a great deal when we suppose to ourselves what is "likely" and "unlikely".

So God did not lie. Men lied. Men lied to themselves and deceived themselves in pride.

 

[Meowzltov]

Fossils are subjectively interpreted data-points. You can't perform the scientific method on a fossil.

sooooooooooooooooo wrong.

 

[Abraxos]

Want makes you think fossils are proof of an ancient earth?

Can you explain what a fossil is, and how it is formed?

 

[Meowzltov]

Want makes you think fossils are proof of an ancient earth?

Can you explain what a fossil is, and how it is formed?

There are fossils older than 6000 years. The oldest fossils are of cyanobacteria and are 3.5 billion years old.

Permineralization is the most common form of fossilization. It's when the cellular spaces are filled with minerals and crystalize, forming rock. It preserves the original shape of the plant or animal. You can read more about it here: http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/fossil_formation.html

 

[Abraxos]

There are fossils older than 6000 years. The oldest fossils are of cyanobacteria and are 3.5 billion years old.

That is interesting isn't it. One would expect these colonies of cyanobacteria to have radically changed, but remarkably, they are essentially the same today. Stromatolites, which are interpreted as the remains of colonies of blue-green algae, or more accurately cyanobacteria, are classic examples of living fossils.

Using objective reasoning, why have these things remained the same over billions of years?

 

[Goatee]

All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

How?

As far as i am concerned God created everything. He may have kick started life and knew how it would develop / progress!

God never lies and has never lied! God is truth and Love.

 

[Abraxos]

Though there are clear cut and easy answers for these questions, it's really a case of authority. Do we trust in God through His Bible?, or do we trust in the ever changing minds of man? And what happens if or when the secular world abandons the big bang? A lot of the Christians like Hugh Ross would be left with essentially no foundation to administer their doctrines. The compromising Christian is the lukewarm Christian referred to in the Bible.

That should have been apparent the moment a Christian questioned if God is a liar.

 

[Hieronymus]

All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth.

Nope, not true.

Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds.

Nope, not so...

*IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right?

Nope.
Popular science subscribe to naturalistic models.
Models with many big problems of their own.

So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

I believe you have been intimidated and indoctrinated by the world.
Most people have been.
The lobby behind it is huge.
Naturalism is the modern mandatory religion.

 

[Hieronymus]

There are fossils older than 6000 years. The oldest fossils are of cyanobacteria and are 3.5 billion years old.

All according to naturalistic models and presuppositions.
Fossils don't have a date stamped on them, nor do rock layers.

 

[Colter]

That is interesting isn't it. One would expect these colonies of cyanobacteria to have radically changed, but remarkably, they are essentially the same today. Stromatolites, which are interpreted as the remains of colonies of blue-green algae, or more accurately cyanobacteria, are classic examples of living fossils.

Using objective reasoning, why have these things remained the same over billions of years?

Because those remaining lines had no intrinsic capacity for mutation, but many other lines may have mutated off of the existing algae long ago.

 

[Colter]

There are fossils older than 6000 years. The oldest fossils are of cyanobacteria and are 3.5 billion years old.

Permineralization is the most common form of fossilization. It's when the cellular spaces are filled with minerals and crystalize, forming rock. It preserves the original shape of the plant or animal. You can read more about it here: http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/fossil_formation.html

Good point! Ya know, I notice that Protestantism mutated off of Catholicism centuries ago and morphed into a species of anti-science closed mindedness while the Catholics continue to harmonize the findings of science with faith in God. That's refreshing.

 

[Abraxos]

Because those remaining lines had no intrinsic capacity for mutation, but many other lines may have mutated off of the existing algae long ago.

Why was there no "mutation" while everything else evolved?

And I guess you never heard of the condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism.

But hey, they science right.

 

[BobRyan]

Fossils are subjectively interpreted data-points. You can't perform the scientific method on a fossil.

The scientific method, requires a process of experimentation which is reproducible.

We can't go back, 1 mil years, put a fresh bone in the dirt, and then dig it up 1 mil years later. <- Experimentation

Rather, we find a bone in the dirt, often with no observably verified historical record (pre-history or non-historical) and then start recording data points on that fossil. Location, date of discovery, depth in soil, composition, radioactive elements and their potency. Then we make conjectures into the past using those data points. These conjectures are fine, but they assume a great deal we can never prove. We cannot prove these things because no experiment can be performed in the past. We can only perform them in the present, and then make the Unitarianism assumption that the experiment's results would not have changed in history. But we have no valid basis of believing this assumption.

Then also, science and historical analysis always throws out curve-ball interpretations of historical events. They uniformly conclude that "the likely cause was the actual cause because the unlikely possibilities are unlikely."

Yet if you have lived life at all, you can readily see that often, the unlikely thing happens, and the likely reason for something to happen is not what actually happened. While this is common sense to us living our daily lives, it's not generally considered good historical analysis. When looking back into history, it is always the likely first, and until the likely is excluded with some certainty, do they then turn to alternative ideas that are less likely.

Then it should also be mentioned that "likely" is a subjective idea. People just make their case for what was likely, like Hume did when he presumed that miracles were not common to the human experience. This has been refuted as there are whole cultures and groups of modern day people who claim to have seen and experienced first-hand miracles. What Hume did, was limit his worldview to his Western circle of knowledge as if his sliver of knowledge on the Western world comprised all of modern man's experience. This is an example of how men can presume a great deal when we suppose to ourselves what is "likely" and "unlikely".

So God did not lie. Men lied. Men lied to themselves and deceived themselves in pride.

Absolutely correct!

As we saw illustrated here by their own atheist evolutionists -

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
...
You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

 

[BobRyan]

Because those remaining lines had no intrinsic capacity for mutation, but many other lines may have mutated off of the existing algae long ago.

There is an example of a "just-so story" -- easy enough to tell -- but it is not science.

Or as Patterson said "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

 

[Abraxos]

Yeah there are so many holes in the theory of evolution that evolutionists are grasping at straws, or flattering others for their own advantage.

 

[Colter]

Why was there no "mutation" while everything else evolved?

And I guess you never heard of the condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism.

But hey, they science right.

Sure I have, but ironically the Catholics have continued to grow up while some Protestants are stuck in 1633