RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years

Oooo! Fun. A counting game. Lets count the number of assumptions the humanist makes:

First and foremost it is assumptive to think that man-made clones don't result in a corruption of the original DNA. Also, it is assumptive to think that the DNA has not broken down and corrupted hundreds of years after death. Also, it is assumptive to think that the DNA tested was not contaminated over the hundreds of years exposed to elements. It is assumptive to think that the DNA falls outside the realm of humans as we don't have DNA mapped for every human culture, ethnic group, -- moreover the DNA that is mapped has ignored the "junk DNA" (non-protein coding DNA) which scientists have now discovered is the biggest mistake in Genetic science. For example, they said monkeys were 98% the same as humans... ooops - take just some of the "junk DNA" into account and that number drops to ~ 95%. Ah... aren't assumptions a WONDERFUL basis for science? Evolutionists seem to think so.

According to your assumptions. Do we have a sample of Adam's DNA? Can we test it to see what the Neanderthal has in common with him? No we don't, and no we can't. However, we do have the reliable written record of someone who knows that answer - it's called the Bible.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

This verse rules out 'common ancestry' of organisms (aka a monkey and a man had a common ancestor).

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This verse says that all men on earth are bound to one another by heredity. It does not say "everyone except the Neanderthals".

I assume you have some riveting video footage of this? Perhaps some lab notes of the scientists who observed the living Neanderthals in the native environment? Unless this is just some more forensic assumptions - which is what it seems to be.

A 3 year old is less intelligent than a 10 year old - but many 15 year olds are more intelligent than many 25 year olds. Moreover, a rocket scientist is more intelligent than an aborigine, but does that mean that the rocket scientist has this intelligence via genetics or by opportunity to have received an education? To pigeonhole the Neanderthal's intelligence forensically is assumptive - moreover it's bigoted and wrong.

How are those dates derived? The way things are done now, you date the rocks by the fossils that are in them, and you date the fossils by the rocks you find them in (evolution's circular reasoning at it's finest). Both dates are derived from radiometric dating - which the RATE group has now exposed as more assumption than science. The assumption that decay rates have always been constant can no longer be blindly assumed, therefore all dates derived from radiometric dating are unreliable because all radiometric dating methods use these assumptions.

I think the Bible does mention Neanderthals. It says "man" many times. Clearly, the Bible supports the idea that Adam was created and all men on earth were derived of his heredity. The account of the Tower of Babel gives us a record of an event which could have served to isolate gene pools into groups.

 

Why not give Neanderthal offspring rights? Homosexuals have rights based entirely upon how they choose to behave - why can't Neanderthals have rights too!!?

My Dad was born in Minnesota, but I go back to Adam and Eve. The Neanderthal in my genetic background was a genetic pitstop my family doesn't like to talk about (for fear of racial discrimination).

Abortion rights for fetuses - abort your parents today!! If I can choose to get special rights based on whom I choose to fornicate with, why can't we choose to have special privilages and rights based on our Neanderthal heritage? Maybe Neanderthals were just underprivilaged and in poverty - like the poor French Muslim children setting fires to cars in France.

Here we go - it's simply days into the NRM (neanderthal rights movement) and already you are playing politics by trying to create politically correct terms for the neanderthals. Can't we just call everyone "mankind" and get on with it?

 

It's translated english AND, however it is the Hebrew character WAW which is logically inclusive when used in that sense. Jesus quotes it properly when he says:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

He quotes Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 as if it were one contiguous statement. Logically, by the rules of Hebrew grammar, it is one contiguous statement. Because of the WAW character use, "In the Beginning God created" (verb) in 1:1 serves 1:27 "man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (subject)

So when Jesus quotes scripture (evident by the statement "have you not read") and in doing so quotes Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 as one statement he is logically correct - and he demonstrates that this is the correct interpretation of those scriptures.

BTW - this inclusiveness was NOT lost in translation. The English version has AND statements. AND statements are logically inclusive in English, just as they are logically inclusive in Hebrew. For example, if I say:

Would you like a cheeseburger AND freedom fries?
Would you like a cheeseburger OR freedom fries?

The word AND is logically inclusive, while OR is logically exclusive.

God created the heaven AND earth.
God created the heaven OR earth.
God created the heaven THEN earth.

The word AND is logically inclusive. Many other conjuctions could be used in place if the author didn't want to include the subsequent subjects in the verb statement.

The scripture advocates that the earth was ~ 4000 years old when Jesus Christ came. Any idea that promotes it's knowledge against the information of scripture is wrong (evolution - millions of years).

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The RATE group has shown that the assumption that decay rates have always been constant is wrong. Let alone all the other assumptions that go into radiometric dating (such as contamination assumptions). Why trust in man's science above the Word of God? Why place men's fallible intellect in authority over an Omniscient God? Trust the Bible - the Word of that Omniscient God - which never changes. People say "well the Bible isn't a scientific textbook" - and to that I say thank God! Scientific textbooks have to be re-written and changed year after year as new discoveries are made to discredit past discoveries... and new ideas replace old ideas. But God's word is eternal. It is true, yesterday, today, and forever.

So you believe in Jesus, but you don't believe Jesus? What reason do you have for believing Jesus? How can you even know God? Without the scripture, what knowledge of God have you gained? Without His Word, what revelation of God could you have? And if you did have a revelation of God, how would you know it is from God without comparing it to scripture? WHAT IS YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST BASED UPON?? WHAT REASON OR FOUNDATION DO YOU HAVE FOR YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST?

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
-
17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

You profess to believe in Christ, but you in the same breath profess to disbelieve the scripture - the hearing of which has lead to your faith! I am amazed at the logical inconsistency of that position.

It is possible he made a mistake in his reasoning. But that mistake was to give the word of men more authority than the Word of God.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Who is a fool?

Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] 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.

What is evolution based upon and dedicated to? Material causes and conclusions. This excludes God, as he is immaterial.

2Cr 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Nothing wrong with it. But your conclusions had best line up with scripture, otherwise you have made a mistake somewhere.

If you test your science against the Word of God, then the Word of God is authoritative and higher truth. However, if you test the Word of God against science, then you are committing to science as more authoritative and true than God's Word. The ultimate truth is the Bible - this should be the 'control group' with which to verify the validity of your science. If your scientific conclusions disagree with scripture, you have done something wrong. If they do agree with scripture - or do not contradict scripture - continue on... your probably on the right track.

You don't think Genesis is contradictory with evolution?

Here I think is a good place to show even more humanistic bias injected into the belief of evolution. Evolution, by definition, is a forensic study with no direct observation. Surely, one could take this same approach to scripture and proove it. One could say -- the Bible describes our creation, and our fall. It says that death is the result of sin. We see death on the earth today, so the Bible is verified. Continuing on, one could look at all the history and prophecies which have come true. There is further verification that the Bible is what it claims to be. In fact, the only game in town if you are an atheist is to disrupt the Bible's authority by replacing it's history with a false version of history -- in essence try to submit the authority of God and His Word to the authority of man.

And in fact, that is what the atheistic leaders of evolutionary science try to do on a regular basis. For example, take hardened atheist Eugenie Scott. She heads the organization National Center for Science Education (NCSE)—an organization devoted to helping teachers teach evolution in public schools and also to combating creationists.

This quote is from the article in the link above:

Yes, really

Not necessarily. Computer science, for example, or rocket science has definate and direct observations that can be made to determine exactly what works. Forensic science is historic storytelling. No matter how 'likely' your possibility, you can never know for certain that your guess is correct. Unless you have a direct witness' record, you can't know wth certainty if your guess is what actually happened.

It's foolish to believe that propaganda. In fact, the evidence for ID and evolution are very similar - the only difference being that ID is open to evidence that does not lead to a material conclusion. ID is a MORE scientific approach as it does not exclude evidence it doesn't like simply based on the conclusions that evidence leads one to. Evolution is a worldview disguised as science. Would you agree that the spirit realm is real? If so, then you agree that evolution intentionally omits evidence.

Nearly all of the founders of modern science (newton, pascal, joule, etc) were creationists. They believed that nature was orderly and natural laws could be found because they believed the creator was orderly. It was their belief in the Bible, and it's mandate for science which lead many of them to study the natural world and 'have dominion' over it. Moreover, the Bible describes how a measure of disorder (death) was introduced to the creation through the sin of Adam.

 

Well here is how I see the argument:

Evolutionists: The Bible isn't true
Gup: The Bible is true.
Evolutionists: We can't believe the Bible because of science.
Gup: You can't believe the pseudo science of evolution because of the Bible.
Evolutionists: We don't believe the Bible is true, but we believe in Jesus
Gup: how can you believe in Jesus but claim the book that introduces him and his character to us to be false?

Evolutionists: We are going to teach our children and future generations that they only need to believe in Jesus but they can ignore the rest of the Bible.
Gup: 2Ti 3:16 - All scripture was inspired by God. Jhn 10:35 - The scripture cannot be broken.
Teach future generations that good and evil can co-mingle, and that evil is more authoritative than good, and soon you will not have any good left:
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
When men's science contradicts God's clear word then men's science is subject to God's authoritative word. To do otherwise undermines the authority and veracity of scipture. Future generations will push that door open wider and wider until it is open completely. Just look at the nation of England. Less than 4% of the population there are Christians. Why? The church of England was the first that humanists and atheists went after. Their message? It's ok to be a christian and believe in Millions of years. Darwin's brother - an atheist - lobbied to have Darwin's body burried in Westminister Abbey - Why? Because he realized that if Darwin is burried by the church, then the church honors Darwin and his teachings and in doing so he thought to destroy the credibility of the church. It has worked. England is, for the most part, a wholely pagan nation.

You really need to answer the question NPC:

Do you believe that there is more to this life/world/universe than the material? And if so, why do you participate in a religion (humanism/evolution) that intentionally, and with prejudice, ignores (even tries to discredit) evidence which has immaterial causes or conclusions?

 

I will as long as you will see the problem with ignoring scriptural rebuttals of evolution's claims just because the majority of scientists think so.

For our purposes here - being a group of non-scientists - we can see that the RATE group's discovery casts reasonable doubt on a long-standing assumption. Clearly, the vast majority of human beings on this planet are not saved, and do not take the Bible as God's Word. Therefore it is not surprising that the view of the majority is in contradiction to scripture. However, that is not to say - as we can see by the RATE group and their work - that a plausible explaination consistent with scripture cannot be reached. As with any and all scientific theories, there is more work to do - and what is known now will be revised again and again as new research and information becomes available. With so few to do the work of 'real' origins science, it is slow and painstaking -- but it is coming along. In fact, it is gaining momentum. (for example the 400+ scientists who signed the petition of descent for evolution).

Because of the great benefits of the scientific method in improving people's lives. </font>[/QUOTE]Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

You support a religion (evolution) that is responsible for persuading millions of people not to believe in Jesus Christ. How can they believe the Bible and be saved when Christian evolutionists are telling them that man's word is more authoritative than God's Word? Why would anyone seeking truth believe in Jesus Christ when science tells them that the Bible is a lie?

Which is exactly what UTEOTW believes -- he has stated himself that he does not believe God thought it was important to tell us the truth, and that He did not tell us the truth (that what He told us was "a little off"). Therefore, he believes God lied to us.

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

Lets look at what the Bible says, UTE.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Tell me UTEOTW - Yes or no - Do you believe this portion of scripture to be an accurate representation of how plants (grass and fruit trees), the sun, the moon, and the stars came into existence? Do you believe that plants were created 1 normal day (~ 24 hours) before the sun and moon? Do you believed they all 'came to be naturally over millions of years' or that they came to be instantly by the Word of God?

Lets look at more scripture UTE:

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Now UTE - this is very, very important. Answer me yes or no - Do you believe that the whole earth was covered by a flood? Do you believe (again, yes or no) that every human being on earth and every land animal on earth (that was not in Noah's Ark) died? The answers to these questions are of Paramount importance, because the Bible defines those who do not believe this part of scripture as follows:

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

If you do not believe in the Global catastrophe of Noah's Flood, the Bible itself calls you a scoffer who walks after his own lusts - a person willingly ignorant of the truth.

2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

The point is, UTEOTW, I could spend millions of years arguing men's interpretation of scientific "facts" with you. Unfortunately, these "facts" change from day to day. Or, we could go to a source of unchanging ultimate truth and work our way from there. This is what you refuse to do or accept. You would MUCH rather hand-waive and present YOUR scientists which you claim discredit MY scientists which discredit YOUR scientists, which discredit MY scientists, which discredit YOUR scientists.... It's all pomp and circumstance compared to ultimate truth - compared to God Himself. What is it really all about, UTE? What is the real purpose?

Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

You see, UTE, Christianity is not the way of the majority. Narrow is the way and few there by that find it. How do you know if a thing is of God or not? By it's fruit.

Look at the fruit of the religion of evolution. You have God and the supernatural ejected from mainstream science. Then, God and Prayer is ejected from Public Schools, which embrace the religion of evolution instead. We can look to the country of England as an example. They were the first where the church capitulated to Darwin and evolution, and now less than 4% of their population go to [Christian] church. YOU YOURSELF, UTEOTW, CANNOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE AS IT IS WRITTEN BECAUSE OF YOUR COMMITMENT TO HUMANISM IN EVOLUTION! You hold to Christ, but disbelieve in his purpose for coming here. You believe in Jesus, but do not believe Jesus' own words. You say Jesus is God, but that God is willing to lie to us. YOU HAVE BELIEVED THE LIE, UTE.

As I said to NPC - the battle is not over your soul - but over the countless souls you damn to hell as you support evolution -- which was born of evil, and is now the most proliferated and celebrated of ALL atheist holidays! Atheists hold this as the MOST sacred of their beliefs. If it were challenged and a belief not committed to materialism were in it's place do you think they could hold to that belief? Wake up UTE. You are playing for the wrong team, and what's worse, YOU KNOW IT (as 2Pe 2:18-21 says)!

You can spend HOURS attacking my credibility UTE, but you cannot deny the truth of scripture - the truth that God created the World in six literal days approximately 6000 years ago, and destroyed the original world with a global flood. Like it or not, the Bible says that is what happened. I choose the response of the angel in Joshua:

Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, [Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14 And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

Am I for evolution or intelligent design? Neither -- I am for whatever agrees with God and His Word. That's why I am a young earth creationist. It is the closest thing to truth of all sides in this debate.