AiG of the week

[Nitron]

If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?

The author makes a few statements and then jumps to a conclusion, without any explanation of how she arrived to that result.

Creation in Christian Colleges

The answer the president gave is pretty much what creationists believe. It it interesting to see how much YECs think their interpretation of the bible is the only acceptable and teachable one. Theistic evolution is liberally referred to as "compromise". (Asa Gray would be proud!) They seem to want all christians to follow their beliefs and only theirs, with no room for other views.

In other words, young-earth creationists view the evidence in light of God’s revelation to us; in reality, Darwinists and intelligent design advocates also view the evidence through their own unproven presuppositions about the way the world works.

Oh, how ironic. And intelligent designers ARE creationists.

It's possible to use satire to make a point about more than one position.

To understand not only creation, but also sin, death, and salvation, people need the special revelation of the Bible—not just the general revelation around us that implies a designer.

What about the revelation of the Koran? The Baghavagita? Cigars of the Pharaoh?

A Look at the Canon

One only needs to read the conclusion to understand this impressive exercise in circular logic. My head is still spinning.

Does Archeology Support the Bible?

Enuma Elish—This is the Babylonian Creation Record. We also have the Ebla Creation Tablet. The Bible record is clearly superior to this as the Enuma Elish has creation from pre-existing matter, which really isn’t creation at all. The Bible is the true account of this historical event.

Huh? Just because there is pre-existing matter in one doesn't make the other superior. How do you measure superior, anyway?

The Epic of Gilgamesh includes the Babylonian Flood Story. Again, the biblical record is greatly superior. As Nozomi Asanai wrote in her master’s thesis on a comparison between Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamish [sic] Epic, “According to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record.”

Superior is in the eye of the beholder. Any actual evidence?

Long-living Kings at Kish (Sumer)—These kings supposedly lived from 10,000 to 64,000 years ago. The Bible’s record is conservative and is the true account, while the Babylonian and other traditions have been embellished over time. It was later realized that the Babylonians had two bases for arithmetic calculations, based on either tens or sixties. When the records were retranslated using the system of tens rather than sixties, they came to a total within 200 years of the biblical record.

All this would mean is that Biblical myths were copied from Sumerian myths.

(My, that article is huge. It deserves a post of its own. If you want to bring our attention to something, just post it here. But I'll keep what I already wrote.)

Creation vs. Evolutionism

The author changes the meanings of "religion" and "science" so that their strawman version of evolution becomes a religion. (Evolution does not claim to be a total explanation of reality.) Also, irony meter:

Lack of precision occurs when evolutionists apply “theory” to an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Feedback: Can we prove God without the bible?

Ockham's Razor goes snip-snip.

News to Note

1. Credentials do not assure that an idea is sound. The two articles in the journal are complete bunkum, with nothing that amounts to science. Yknow, not even BAD science.

2. The elephants are evolving smaller tusks due to poaching. It's an effective example of natural selection, but nobody's jumping around saying it's the newest best proof for evolution. There is no such thing as "horizontal evolution" and "vertical evolution", creationists made it up.

3. The skull is, as far as I am aware, not completely fossilized.

4.

Meteor impact is compatible with the biblical Flood model, but more likely is that the Flood itself caused a massive dose of volcanism, which deposited the iridum-rich layer worldwide (see Setting the Stage for an Ice Age). When wearing biblical lenses, the prevailing geological models of millions of years can be easily understood as the result of the Flood’s massive reworking of the earth’s surface, rather than the theoretical gymnastics of any catastrophism but that.

And yet the creationists fail to provide any evidence for the ideas they say are "far more likely".

5. Huh? This does not mean that evos are agreeing with creationists, only that platypuses lived with dinos. (including Hergé!) Conjecture is GO!

 

[Nitron]

.