Is AiG lying when they report on new scientific results?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

There seems to be a bit of unwarranted animosity towards AIG. I can’t do anything about that; I don’t know them much, and have never seen their museum. But based on the comments, the animosity is unwarranted and uncharitable. I agree with you Timothy that the floating of the ark is not a major concern. It was a pretty big boat and would be able to withstand pretty big waves, as long as it was not close to a shore. Tsunamis are barely noticed out to sea, while near shore are devastating.

What about the animals, could 8 people care for them? Well, a number of things need to be considered. How many animals were in hibernation state. How big were the animals. As I suggested in another place, how do we know that they didn’t organize some kind of feeding system for those animals that needed it? They had a year or more to get the feeding system ready. Set up right with feed in the right spot, it wouldn’t take long to open a chute or gate to let animals feed. Today we have a lot less than 8 people feeding 40,000 birds, or 10,000 pigs. I know it used to take me less than 15 minutes to feed 300 pigs by hand. Do the math. The more animals you feed the less time it takes per animal. Most animals are much much smaller than pigs. Even cows… I used to feed 40 full grown cows outdoors in about an hour per week. Yes, I had a tractor, but with a different system, it would have even taken me less time. If the feed is placed right, with moveable gates… I doubt you have to worry about feeding or caring for mice and rats or sparrows or swallows. You are magnifying a problem that simply is not insurmountable.

I can see where not understanding this causes problems. But it is not a problem. First there is enough water on earth to cover the entire earth to a depth of several miles (not feet, not cubits, but miles) if the earth was flat. There is a lot of water on earth. 2/3 of the earth is even today covered by water. Some of that water is ten miles deep. So of course, the assumption would be that mountains rose subsequent to the flood, that ocean valleys deepened, and that continents separated. Water came from somewhere underneath, either groundwater or ocean water or both. As well as much rain, obviously.

This is the easiest problem: Insects can survive many many conditions. Many insects go through pupal stages and egg stages which are virtually indestructable, or at least a few would survive tough conditions. They don’t have to survive on mats. Like seeds of various kinds, some of them would be preserved in various soils, or just floating on water, or within the floating tree trunks, etc. Some insect parasites would survive on rotting corpses. There are many many insects that survive torrential monsoons every year. Insects are the most durable organism around.

Who says trees survived underwater for a whole year? Trees have roots and seeds that enable their survival. Interestingly, many trees survive freezing winters every year, others survive multi-year droughts, and some seeds require a fire in order to open the seeds enough for them to germinate. Plants have amazing survival ability under all kinds of conditions. Some seeds don’t germinate for twenty five years, when finally they do.

None of those things are very problematic. I suspect even when we think they are problematic, if we look harder we will discover the ways they could survive.

22

They most certainly do not believe that 125 million year old fossilized birds exist or that birds existed 125 million years ago. They believe those rocks are some other thing. If you believe they are some other thing, you can’t use the conclusions of a person who has based their conclusions on the premise that they are a totally different thing to back up your assertions. That’s ridiculous.

It would be like if I were a marine archaeologist and I discovered what I had good verifiable evidence for claiming was a 16th century Spanish ship shipwrecked off the coast of Bermuda. And I discovered something surprising in that shipwreck that shed light on some aspect of sea travel at the time which was up until now assumed to be different, and published my conclusions. Someone who doesn’t believe Spain existed in the 16th century, and in fact insists that humans only began traveling by ship in the 18th century cannot come along and use my conclusions to back up their own assertions about boats in the American Civil War. That doesn’t make sense.

23

I seem to remember someone claiming it was maybe a plesiosaur. Yep, here you go. Meet Leviathan | Answers in Genesis

24

A fossilized bird is dead. The bird does not exist, while the fossil does. They believe the fossil exists, and that it originated from a real live bird.

They say that if the evolutionary timeline is right, then birds existed as birds from the time they are discovered in the fossil record. So they say that the fossil record contradicts the process of evolution. That is their argument. You ought not to twist this to say that they don’t believe fossils exist. Your concentration on the supposed age of the fossils obscures your ability to understand their point. The comparison of historical time to prehistoric time is in my opinion not valid. They are pointing out an inconsistency in the evolutionary reasoning, which is valid no matter what their own assumptions are.

25

Now Timothy does not have to be surprised. :slight_smile:

I always defend the underdog… I don’t like group bullying, not that anyone here is doing that, but I have seen it done. :smiley:

26

The fossil being discussed has an identity that includes a date. If you reject the fossil’s identity, you reject it’s existence as it is being put forth. They do not believe the referent of the word “fossil” in the study they are citing, a referent which is a 125 million year old rock with remains of a 125 million year old bird, exists. It is really irrelevant that they acknowledge that the scientist held something real in his hand. They reject the identity given to that real thing.

This whole idea that you can have a conversation with someone’s research when you reject the entire reality in which the research took place is part of AiGs obnoxiousness. No, it’s not a matter of just “disagreeing about dates.” To pretend you can have a conversation with any meaning about a fossil that one person thinks is 125 million years old and another person thinks is 6,000 years old is silly. The conversation partners are not speaking of the same reality. Come on John, they are not granting for one minute that the fossil record as scientists date it could be correct, there are just inconsistencies in the evolutionary reasoning.

They think they are playing some kind of gotcha game, but it’s really only coherent to people in their belief system already. From the outside, it’s just goofy rhetoric.

27

@johnZ

I would argue that Behemoth is very likely describing a modern day creature — specifically the elephant.

The Behemoth - This is NOT a Dinosaur - YouTube

The above is a very informative video talking about the Behemoth passage, going step-by-step, through each verse, and translating the original Hebrew. Once all is disussed I think the evidence is pretty strong for the description of an elephant.

As far as Leviathan goes I’m not quite sure. Sometime Leviathan sounds like a creature that might be interpreted as the Loch Ness monster. I’ve never seen the Loch Ness monster, but there seems to be quite a lot of sightings of the creature (some probably hoaxes others might not be) … In any case it could be referring to something similar to that.

The creature Leviathan is never really discussed as a friendly creature. God wrestles with Leviathan, and is also described as having multiple heads. The description in Job says that he breathes fire and that he is “the King of the children of pride” whereas Behemoth was “the chief of God’s way”. That shows some context.

It’s possible that Leviathan was a real creature that the Hebrews saw, or it could also be a legend of some kind. The precise descriptions of Leviathan seem to infer that somewhat mythical qualities were attached to Leviathan over the years… Multiple heads, God’s wrestle match with the creature, fire-breathing etc.

As far as AiG goes, I’ve stated earlier that I appreciate them in the sense that they are a ministry that, in all likelihood, have brought many thousands to Christ. My contention is when things are taken out of context, or distorted — I don’t know if they are doing this on purpose or not (where Behemoth is concerned, I think it’s likely that deception is taking place).

Whether they realize it or not, I believe that although they’ve done a lot of good, they’ve also done damage by equating young-earth doctrine with the Gospel message and Jesus Christ… I don’t think that they are at all on the same level, and one can easily believe in Jesus and have mixed feelings about the age of the earth (or even definite feelings). I can’t remember the organization or not (I think it was Institute for Creation Research), but there was a YouTube video I watched of two of the groups speakers that full heartedly believed in young earth creation… But they also made the point that it’s possible to be a Christian while believing in evolution. While they don’t at all agree with evolution, and think that there’s problems making it fit, they also don’t make the young earth doctrine a requirement for Christianity. I have respect for those guys in the sense that they don’t overstate the importance of certain doctrines.

There are cave paintings, sculptures, carvings, legends etc., about creatures that are similar to dinosaur like creatures. Some of them are hoaxes, but others are not. The two main theories are that they are face-to-face accounts with such creatures or that those particular people found fossils of creatures, and formed stories, imaginations, etc., of what they might look like… Or maybe they were afraid of a creature that was still around, just lurking around the corner.

Some of the problems with saying face-to-face accounts happened is that other legends of cyclops and griffin encounters also abound… But I’m just stating what little I know of the topic.

As far as group-bullying goes, I’m afraid its just an unfortunate part of human nature. I attempt to be gracious in my words, but I often fail at that, in the heat of the conversation. Sometimes things sound harsher in text than in face-to-face conversation. Maybe the reason why my words come off as harsh against AiG is because I used to really love their articles and seminars. But after seeing information being misrepresented at times, whether scientific or biblical, I could no longer watch or read their clips/articles in confidence that I was getting the full scoop.

I used to like Hovind’s witty remarks, but after repeatedly accusing other Christian of heresy, where people are simply trying to harmonize two of God’s revelations, scriptural and natural… I could no longer watch his segments.

28

No, not really… the date is projected. It has no license plate, no label, not even wrinkles. The fossil is found in sedimentary layers which can not even be directly dated, but only dated by interpolation of their locations between other layers, which they think they can date. If I find a boat in the water and do not know how old it is, that does not mean that I reject its existence. If I think a house is 60 years old, and it turns out to be four hundred years old, that doesn’t mean I reject its existence. Even if I make a mistake about its age, that does not mean I reject its existence. You are conflating something.

They do not reject the identity even. They acknowledge that the fossil was formed, that it was formed from a living thing, that it was formed through a particular chemical substitution process, that it is found in a particular geographical and geological location. If they deny the age attributed to it, they have done nothing more than disputed the hair color of a particular individual, which may be important to some, but certainly not the equivalent of denying the existence or identity of the individual. You are right they are not granting the fossil dating as correct. But that is not the point. They are saying that if it is correct, then it does not show the evolutionary process, but rather it shows the bird type there in modern form from the beginning. I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. I could argue that this argument is only incoherent to those with an iron in the fire already.

29

Maybe I got the wrong video… it was of a police officer talking about evidence, prosecutors, etc.

…In Christian circles a symbolic explanation or application has been present for a long time. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, equated behemoth with an elephant, and leviathan with a whale. Since Samuel Bochartus, in his Hierozoicon (1663), identified behemoth with the hippopotamus and leviathan with the crocodile, this has become the current consensus. Mart-Jan Paul. March 20, 2015 (42 references) Behemoth and leviathan

Behemoth can stretch its tail like a cedar.5 This tree is known for its size and its hard wood, which is very well suited for building. The tail thus should be strong and long. The tail of the hippopotamus has no resemblance to a mighty cedar or cedar branch at all. The short and thick tail is only 35 to 50 cm long; it is broad at its base and has a pointed end. (same as above)

The tail like a cedar just doesn’t work. Besides, the elephant was used for work, and not hard to control if trained from young, while the hippo was often hunted, and also, like the elephant, had a relatively short tail. Egyptian pharoahs were apparently proud of being able to kill a hippo.

> Papyrus Cha (ca. 1430 BC) depicts a man keeping a crocodile under control with a rope that comes from the mouth of the animal. He threatens to kill the crocodile with a knife that he holds in his hand, ready to strike.18

> The next question to Job is: can he put a cord through its nose or pierce its jaw with a hook? (v. 2). This image derives from fishing, which used sharp thorns and tough reeds. The fish was taken home or preserved in the river, with the hook in its mouth, attached to the reed. This does not work with leviathan. (same writer as above). Herodotus writes: “The people from the area of Elephantine, in contrast, do eat crocodiles and do not at all consider them to be sacred … Crocodiles are frequently hunted and in many ways.”20

Are the animals real or mythical?

The first time the Lord speaks in Job 39 He describes real animals (from which we can glean important truths about the nature of the world and the special place of mankind). In the following verses two more living animals are mentioned, which strengthens the argument that the Lord is referring to real creatures.
Behemoth is not described as a horrible and rapacious animal, as in several creation myths. On the contrary, it is described as a grass-eating animal (Job 40:15). It lies peacefully in the shadow of the river plants (vv. 21–22).
God does not describe past cosmic events in relation to behemoth and leviathan, but rather the appearance and habits of animals that were present. Therefore he is referring to animals that Job observed personally. Both animals are extraordinarily powerful and evoke awe. Mart-Jan Paul

30

@johnZ

No it’s the right video. You can skip the first 10 minutes or so… He has a long introduction.

The problem is the assumption that it’s talking about an American cedar tree, which is not indigenous to the Middle East. It’s most likely talking about the Lebanese cedar tree, which is something Job would have been familiar with… Not huge American cedar trees that are thousands of miles away.

The other problem is that it does not say it “stretches it tail out like a cedar tree”. It says it “moves” like a cedar tree. The Lebanese cedar tree sways back and forth in the wind and is a rather short tree — just like an elephants tail. Look it up.

It says the shady trees cover him with their shadow. This is not possible for a brachiosaurus. But it is possible (and indeed true) for an elephant.

Watch the video. Skip the first 10 minutes if you like. After you watch the video tell me whether or not the evidence is compelling.

I’m not going to argue that Leviathan is a whale, but I will argue that Behemoth is an elephant.

-Tim

31

The reality in which fossils can be dated at 125 million years and the reality where fossils can not be older than 6,000 years are two totally different realities. It is a silly game to pretend we are just talking about disputing a superficial detail like hair color. We are disagreeing about something fundamental about the nature of the universe.

It’s not hard for me to understand what they are doing. It’s hard for me to understand why they think it constitutes a coherent argument that is at all convincing. You don’t grant for five minutes a reality you totally reject and then use a conclusion that is completely tied to that reality (ancient birds could fly earlier than previously believed) to somehow bolster your completely different view of reality (therefore birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and have only ever been birds and have only existed for 6,000 years).

Did evolutionary theory come crashing down as a result of this fossil? It did not. Does the study they are reporting on even remotely show that ancient birds were not really ancient birds but modern birds like Ham is insinuating? It does not.

32

Before claiming that the ark was seaworthy and could simply float with no problem, we have to remember that, in the story, water covered the whole earth. There would be no natural harbors or protected areas such as Long Island Sound. It would be all open ocean.

33

Tim,
Kent Hovind is hardly a shining star in the YEC world. His “degrees” are all from unaccredited schools, including a “doctorate” from a diploma mill which no longer exists. AIG had a long running feud with him for using outdated, discredited arguments to support YEC. In addition, he just got out of jail after serving 8 years for tax fraud. In short, talking fast in a shallow manner only works with supporters who think in a similar manner. I would suggest staying with AIG, CRS and ICR if you want to hear the best arguments on that end of the spectrum. Cheers.

34

Kent Hovind?!? Felon? Tax Fraud. Come on. Certainly not a role model. AIG, CRS and ICR are harmful to children. No parent or grandparent should let there children see their stuff without telling them that it is anti-science fiction. The creation museum is a complete fraud. Dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. A global genocide by water did not occur. Earth is 4.54 billions years old and life has been on the Earth 4.1 billion years. It is child abuse to tell children that what they are seeing at AIG isn’t anything more than just depictions of Biblical stories.

35

How did Noah tell female spotted hyenas from male spotted hyenas?

36

Not apparent what your point is. I clearly pointed out Hovind’s degree and criminal history without your help. If someone wants to hear what YEC folks have to say, I simply told Tim where to go since he is in the searching mode. Who said Hovind was a role model? And Tim is not a child, so I bet he can figure out this stuff without being preached to. I also noted that those groups are “on that end of the spectrum”, indicating their theologically conservative bent. Since I have four STEM degrees from top schools and am well aware of everything you said, please read the post before shifting into your ‘know it all’ gear.

1 Like
37

@johnZ
@Christy

Years ago, while I was reading Genesis 1, I came to the conclusion that it was describing water that was behind the sun, moon and stars. This weirded me out so I did a quick Google search. It didn’t take me too long to find out that NASA actually discovered water way out there in space … Trillions of tons of it. I was elated by this news because it proved Genesis correct… However, because my flawed way of thinking it didn’t occur to me how bizarre it must seem to someone on the outside, who examined my logic. I used the data from NASA to prove something about the Bible, while simultaneously rejecting the other data that came with it… That this water was discovered millions of lightyears away, and thus suggesting an old universe.

It seems somewhat dubious to me to suggest that we have the technology to see things from incredible distances, using extremely highly tech telescopes, but have no clue as to how far away we are zooming in (is it 6,000 lightyears away or several million?)

I believe that’s the point Christy is trying to make. The logic behind the argument seems odd to someone who doesn’t share his viewpoint.

I agree with you John, that the book of Job describes many real animals… The peacock, the ostrich, the horse, goats, ravens, lions etc.

The two creatures that are described in the most detail are Behemoth (10 verses) and Leviathan (34 verses). They are also saved for last, when God talks to him the last time, telling him to “gird up his loins like a man”.

I’m reading the other passages of Leviathan to get a clearer picture of him (Psalm 74:12-15, Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1).

I also wish to examine the three basic interpretations of this creature:

  1. possibly a pleisosaurus… Fire-breathing?

  2. a crocodile with highly metaphorical language

  3. a personification of Satan, or some mythological creature

Hugh Ross argues for #2, that Leviathan is a crocodile, with metaphorical imagery (fire-breathing, bubbling sea etc.,). He claims the fire imagery is what it would appear to someone who is coming up against it with nothing but a stick.

There are some strengths (as well many weaknesses in this view). There are descriptions of tightly woven scales that crocodiles do have, as well as a mouth that could be described as “doors with terrible teeth round about”. The eyelids of the morning makes sense, with the crocodiles brightly colored eyes that “peek over the water” similar to a sunrise.

He argues that context is key to understanding this passage. Who is God talking too… Just anyone? No, he’s talking too Job: a man who lost his entire family and all his possessions in a single afternoon. A man, who shortly after succumbing to such tragedy, is now consumed with boils all over his skin, and is left lying in the sand scratching his sores with a shard of clay, wishing he would have never been born. He’s not talking to a gladiator like figure, or Goliath… So it is possible that Job would be very fearful of a crocodile.

The problem, I think, with Hugh’s interpretation, is other passages describe Leviathan as having multiple heads (Psalm 74) whom God crushed and fed to Israel in the wilderness. In Isaiah 72:1, Leviathan is an enemy that God will crush on the last day (is God taking about a crocodile here?).

There is another possibility that God is describing a personification of Satan, using naturalistic terms. Literarily speaking, Job 1-3 is the start of the conflict, and sets the premise up for the rest of the book. While chapters 40-41 forms the conclusion — God finally responds to Job.

Interestingly the first appearance of the word Leviathan in the book is much earlier. Job 3:8 states, “Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning (Leviathan)” … The King James Bible seems to go for a more interpretive translation, while other versions say “who are ready to raise up Leviathan?”

Another thought to keep in mind is the role of Satan in the early chapters. God and Satan have an argument, or disagreement, in what is depicted as some form of heavenly court room. Satan accused God of overly-rewarding Job for his good behavior. He says that Job is only loyal because God built a hedge around him that protects him, and that Job would curse God if He took those things away from him.

Later on in the book, after the lengthy discourse with Job and his three friends, God finally responds to Job and tells him to humble himself, for Job is very proud. Through God’s lengthy questioning Job realizes that he is simply a man, and he can’t tell God what to do.

Curiously though, Satan is never heard from past the first three chapters. What does he have to say about the course of events? Did Job curse God to his face? There seems to be something missing… Unless.

Leviathan is a personification of Satan. Isaiah describes Leviathan as an enemy that God will punish on the last day. And Job describes Leviathan as the “King of the children of pride” … Which is very fitting for a satanic like figure.

Perhaps Leviathan is describing a plesiosaur like creature, or some Loch Ness monster type creature (there is many sightings of such a creature). However if that is the case, I wonder why the creature is described as God’s enemy? Or the multiple head description in Psalm 74… And why it is that Leviathan is only mentioned in the wisdom literature, poetry, and prophetic books? Job, Psalms, Isaiah etc…

It might be that both have elements of truth. A real creature described with metaphorical imagery (like how the horse is described as “clothed with thunder”), with the additional role of a personification of Satan.

38

@Patrick

Just so everyone is clear on the matter, I said that I was a fan of Kent Hovind. Not that I currently am. He got put in jail for tax fraud… I believe he’s most likely guilty, but I haven’t investigated the matter. Some Christians seem to imply that he was put in jail because he was “exposing the mainstream science farce” … Which seems a bit conspiratorial to me, but such was his popularity.

His son says that while he was in jail he brought dozens of people to Christ. If that is true then I think that’s great. But it’s not for me to judge the man … My earlier comments regarding him was toward his method of argumentation, that (though witty) often comes off as more emotional and accusatory than is necessary. There are others, I believe, that present the YEC position better … Though I am not a YEC personally.

-Tim

39

christy. first- how did you know that the date is real? its just an assumption that base on radioactive decay. those method can be wrong in a factor of one bilion from the real age (in some condition). so for start it cant even call a scientific method.

second- what if i will show you a fossil that is in the wrong place in bird evolution?(lets say a fossil with advance trait in old layer(fossil in the wrong place)). do you will drop the theory in this case?

40

john. its interesting to note that some fossils in the evolution of bird are in the wrong place (protoavis for example). also- if a bird stayed as bird for about more then 100 my where is the limit that we can say that evolution cant evolve a new kind of animal? what if they will stay as bird for about one trilion years? actually- bacteria stayed as bacteria for about 4 bilion years. in human terms is like more then trilion years of stasis.

the real question is that if there is a step wise from a non flying object to a flying one. we can test it with a car or a truck. doest it possible to change a car into an airplane step wise? if not- it isnt possible in dino eihter.