Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

[center][/center]
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents� must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. For example, Why do human females live past menopause? If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body� from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,� mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,� Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,� Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

u “When egg meets sperm in mammals, zinc sparks fly. ... [They] are needed to stimulate the transition from egg to embryo.� Ashley Yeager, “Images Reveal Secrets of Zinc Sparks,� Science News, Vol. 187, 10 January 2015, p. 14.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.� Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,� Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.� George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

u “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.� Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

u “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.� Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,� New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

u “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.� Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?� Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

u “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.� Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,� Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

u “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?� Nilsson, p. 1225.

u “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.� [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?� Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.� Pitman, p. 135.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp5214829

[Pahu]

There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

That's an awfully contorted explanation to make what we have actually learned about our universe through observation and experimentation fit with a set of documents written thousands of years ago by people who had no clue what stars even were.

First of all, we only need one star to accomplish dividing day and night, as a chronological indicator, and for illuminating the Earth. For navigation, something in the order of at most 100s, not 100 billion or so would be much simpler. As for declaring the glory of God, again, why 100 billion? Would we not be impressed with a smaller, simpler, more usable set?

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

What does the distance to stars have to do with 'fully functional'? As I already said, it would have been a lot simpler to only create a few stars aligned evenly to make navigation possible and simple. Creating in the order of 100 billion of them (observed to date) certainly is not 'functional'.

I applaud you and whatever creationist site you pulled this from for your mental gymnastics, but most of us prefer to use actual observable, verifiable data. If the data matches some old documents, great! However, the more we learn, the more we see that the Bible is not a science textbook.

The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct.

How do you know?

If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears to the wisdom and knowledge gained by humanity's collective efforts to understand the universe (or if you want, God's creation) then so be it. The rest of us will continue to learn and be amazed at how things actually work and discover more and more about what's around us.

Our wisdom and knowledge does not compare with God's.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/

There's no point trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. If what we learn through observation doesn't mesh with what someone wrote down thousands of years ago, maybe we should look somewhere else for knowledge.

It meshes.

[benchwarmer]

The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Again with the creationist and religious sites. Of course people who promote their religion are going to state that their religion is correct. If you want to impress and/or convince me, point me to a peer reviewed scientific article that agrees with your position. Heck, even just a non-religious site would be a great start.

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct.

How do you know?

You can easily see the Bible is not correct because it gives two accounts of creation that aren't the same. One or both of them must be wrong. At best one of them could be right, but neither agrees with the mountain of evidence gathered and studied by experts in various scientific fields.

If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears to the wisdom and knowledge gained by humanity's collective efforts to understand the universe (or if you want, God's creation) then so be it. The rest of us will continue to learn and be amazed at how things actually work and discover more and more about what's around us.

Our wisdom and knowledge does not compare with God's.

If God does exist, then I will grant you that. However, that doesn't prove He wrote or inspired the Bible as it is obviously filled with various flaws as shown above.

There's no point trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. If what we learn through observation doesn't mesh with what someone wrote down thousands of years ago, maybe we should look somewhere else for knowledge.

It meshes.

That's your opinion. It's not very convincing to me.

[Pahu]

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct.

How do you know?

You can easily see the Bible is not correct because it gives two accounts of creation that aren't the same. One or both of them must be wrong. At best one of them could be right, but neither agrees with the mountain of evidence gathered and studied by experts in various scientific fields.

This is a 19th century invention. And because there are no 2 creation accounts, there is no contradiction. I.e. the premise is false, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.

Genesis conflicts with the stories told by those who call themselves scientists. So trying to fit Genesis into such accounts, won't work. They are clearly opposed. One of them has to yield.

I want to protest against the phrase “events that are known to science.� Because where does truth come from? Is that from things told by scientists? In that case we have been deceived many times in the past as the facts turned out to be different. But also, were scientists present when these events unfolded? They were not. Can they repeat them in a laboratory? They can not. As even many young earth creationists believe that the rest of the universe is much older, one could say that we could use that as some constraint on our hypothesis. But have we ever seen a star form? We have not. Have we ever seen planets form? We have not. Does our current solar system conform to theories that have been invented on how solar systems come to pass? It does not. Every feature of our solar system is thought to have come to pass by an act of God, or as scientists like to say: some comet hit something and that's why things are the way they are. That's not a scientific explanation.

For those interested in physics: it's interesting to see that the first created things are water and light. The chemical formula for water is H2O. Meaning that it consists of two elements, H, hydrogen, and O, oxygen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It's the most simple one as well, consisting of two particles with mass: a proton and an electron. So at the beginning of creation we see Scripture mentioning the most basic elements. But we also see a far more complex element O: this indicates that atoms were not formed after millions of years by naturalistic processes, but immediately by God.
The Bible never mentions these elements as we call them, as the Bible is not a shortcut to scientific knowledge. But the Bible does not contradict science, and when science contradicts the Bible, science itself will prove such science to be wrong, although we might have to wait some years for that to happen.

If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears to the wisdom and knowledge gained by humanity's collective efforts to understand the universe (or if you want, God's creation) then so be it. The rest of us will continue to learn and be amazed at how things actually work and discover more and more about what's around us.

Our wisdom and knowledge does not compare with God's.

If God does exist, then I will grant you that. However, that doesn't prove He wrote or inspired the Bible as it is obviously filled with various flaws as shown above.

It has never been shown the Bible is filled with flaws. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving God's authorship:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

[rikuoamero]

Hey Pahu, since you quoted from ICR, have a gander at what they say about themselves here

The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

Now, I'm going to assume that you don't see a problem with that. You probably read that and think to yourself that they're great for saying so.
Not so.
Here's why

1) Their research is committed to the 'absolute authority' of a pre-determined book (that book being the Bible). Science DOES NOT WORK this way. Science does not work if you pick a book, call it an ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY and look at evidence that agrees with it. So when they say they are a scientific research organisation, they are lying.
2) They say the 'real facts of science' will always agree with the Bible. Do you know of any other scientists, outside of religions, who say "facts will always agree with this book"?
The answer is no, because books can be wrong.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Pahu]

It has never been shown the Bible is filled with flaws. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving God's authorship:

Sigh...yet another 'fulfilled prophecies' post. Here, a 'prophecy' from Ezekiel 29
Relevant parts in bold

thus says the Lord God: I will bring a sword upon you, and will cut off from you human being and animal; 9 and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.

Because you[c] said, “The Nile is mine, and I made it,� 10 therefore, I am against you, and against your channels, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia.[d] 11 No human foot shall pass through it, and no animal foot shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries.

13 Further, thus says the Lord God: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered; 14 and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. 15 It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations. 16 The Egyptians[e] shall never again be the reliance of the house of Israel; they will recall their iniquity, when they turned to them for aid. Then they shall know that I am the Lord God.

Guess what NEVER happened?
1) Egypt was never laid to waste. Conquered yes, many times, but desolate? Nope
2) There has never been a period, at least not in the past several thousand years, of there being NO HUMANS within Egypt, for 40 years or less.
3) Egyptians have not been scattered among the nations, in a kind of exodus.
4) Egypt today is quite powerful, classed as a middle to high power in Africa. It has a population of 90 million and a GDP of 330 billion US dollars.

[benchwarmer]

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct.

How do you know?

You can easily see the Bible is not correct because it gives two accounts of creation that aren't the same. One or both of them must be wrong. At best one of them could be right, but neither agrees with the mountain of evidence gathered and studied by experts in various scientific fields.

This is a 19th century invention. And because there are no 2 creation accounts, there is no contradiction. I.e. the premise is false, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.

Genesis conflicts with the stories told by those who call themselves scientists. So trying to fit Genesis into such accounts, won't work. They are clearly opposed. One of them has to yield.

Genesis conflicts with itself. See the following link for a side by side comparison of the 2 creation accounts. I'm not sure what you mean by 19th century invention. Are you proposing Genesis was written in the 19th century? I'm hoping not, but I don't know what you mean.

http://www.leighb.com/genesis.htm

I want to protest against the phrase “events that are known to science.� Because where does truth come from? Is that from things told by scientists?

This is a typical misunderstanding of what science is about. Science and scientists do not proclaim truth. From dictionary.com "Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". In other words scientists are constantly observing, experimenting, and updating what the best possible explanation for any given thing is. Scientists generally love to find data that doesn't jive with existing theories because that means they need to come up with a new theory to explain ALL the data (assuming the data is not in error due to flaws in the experiment or data collection). This is Nobel prize territory. You seem to present scientists as stuck in their ways, proclaiming truth and then stopping any further study. It doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately for creationists, they are stuck with documents thousands of years old which are based on even older myths from other cultures. There is no updating of the knowledge based on simple observation because of the belief the documents are right.

You, of course, are welcome to your beliefs. However, the OP of this thread was about science disproving evolution (which it doesn't or there would be a Nobel prize about to happen since the Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories backed by data from multiple disciplines).

But have we ever seen a star form? We have not.

Do you mean like this?

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-obs ... milky-way/

Have we ever seen planets form? We have not.

Do you mean like this?

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists- ... -time-ever

Does our current solar system conform to theories that have been invented on how solar systems come to pass? It does not.

Do you mean like this?

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-system-formation/en/
or
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/fa ... olarsystem

some comet hit something and that's why things are the way they are.

Say what? I'm not sure what theory you are looking at about solar system formation. Check the above 2 links and or google it yourself. I'd be curious to know what scientific theory states the solar system came about because a comet hit something.

[Pahu]

Hey Pahu, since you quoted from ICR, have a gander at what they say about themselves here

The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

Now, I'm going to assume that you don't see a problem with that. You probably read that and think to yourself that they're great for saying so.
Not so.
Here's why

1) Their research is committed to the 'absolute authority' of a pre-determined book (that book being the Bible). Science DOES NOT WORK this way. Science does not work if you pick a book, call it an ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY and look at evidence that agrees with it. So when they say they are a scientific research organisation, they are lying.
2) They say the 'real facts of science' will always agree with the Bible. Do you know of any other scientists, outside of religions, who say "facts will always agree with this book"?
The answer is no, because books can be wrong.

Except the Bible which is the Word of God. And the fact remains that the information contained within their articles always agrees with the facts of science.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 23 by Pahu]

It has never been shown the Bible is filled with flaws. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving God's authorship:

Sigh...yet another 'fulfilled prophecies' post. Here, a 'prophecy' from Ezekiel 29
Relevant parts in bold

thus says the Lord God: I will bring a sword upon you, and will cut off from you human being and animal; 9 and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.

Because you[c] said, “The Nile is mine, and I made it,� 10 therefore, I am against you, and against your channels, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia.[d] 11 No human foot shall pass through it, and no animal foot shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries.

13 Further, thus says the Lord God: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered; 14 and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. 15 It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations. 16 The Egyptians[e] shall never again be the reliance of the house of Israel; they will recall their iniquity, when they turned to them for aid. Then they shall know that I am the Lord God.

Guess what NEVER happened?
1) Egypt was never laid to waste. Conquered yes, many times, but desolate? Nope
2) There has never been a period, at least not in the past several thousand years, of there being NO HUMANS within Egypt, for 40 years or less.
3) Egyptians have not been scattered among the nations, in a kind of exodus.
4) Egypt today is quite powerful, classed as a middle to high power in Africa. It has a population of 90 million and a GDP of 330 billion US dollars.

John Gill comments:
This must be understood not strictly, but with some limitation; it cannot be thought that Egypt was so depopulated as that there should not be a single passenger in it; but that there should be few inhabitants in it, or that there should be scarce any that should come into it for traffic; it should not be frequented as it had been at least there should be very few that traveled in it, in comparison of what had:
The duration of this state of affairs was till Cyrus conquered Babylon and the captivity of the Jews ended. And as per verse 15 the glory times of Egypt were past:

15 It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.

Note, Egypt has remained "the basest of the kingdoms" to this day.

In Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon's attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is an independent nation again. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Egypt tried to dominate Israel but was unsuccessful each time, despite the fact that Egypt is 10 times larger than Israel. Egypt today, in many respects, is an impressive nation. But since the time of Ezekiel, it no longer rules over other nations.

Egypt had also been a mighty power in the Middle East. The period of its greatness was about 1600 B.C., when the armies of the conquering Pharaohs pressed southwards into the Sudan, westwards along the North African coast, and northwards through the land of Canaan (later Israel) and into Syria. The discovery of some of the ancient temples, monuments and tombs of Egypt has revealed the glory of the Pharaohs at the height of their power.

But from about 1400 B.C. Egyptian power began to decline, due to civil war and to the rise of Assyria, and later Babylon. Nevertheless, during the period of Israel's occupation of the land of Canaan, 1400-600 B.C., the Egyptians interfered periodically in the politics of the Middle East, with varying success. The Israelites, fearing invasion from the Assyrians or Babylonians, were often tempted to seek support from Egypt instead of relying in faith upon their God.

Now the prophets of Israel had something very definite to say about the destiny of the Egyptians. The prophet Ezekiel, whose pronouncements were made in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, from about 600 B.C. declared that as a result of the judgment of God, Egypt was to be desolate for 40 years. Then there was to be a revival, but not to the former glory and power:

“For forty years not a soul will pass that way, neither people nor animals. It will be completely uninhabited. I will make Egypt desolate, and it will be surrounded by other desolate nations. Its cities will be empty and desolate for forty years, surrounded by other desolate cities. I will scatter the Egyptians to distant lands.

“But the Sovereign Lord also says: At the end of the forty years I will bring the Egyptians home again from the nations to which they have been scattered. I will restore the prosperity of Egypt and bring its people back to the land of Pathros in southern Egypt from which they came. But Egypt will remain an unimportant, minor kingdom. It will be the lowliest of all the nations, never again great enough to rise above its neighbors.

“Then Israel will no longer be tempted to trust in Egypt for help. Egypt’s shattered condition will remind Israel of how sinful she was to trust Egypt in earlier days. Then Israel will know that I alone am the Sovereign Lord…This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will smash the idols of Egypt and the images at Memphis. There will be no rulers left in Egypt; anarchy will prevail throughout the land!� (Ezekiel 29:11-16; 30:13).

Again the sense of the prophecy is clear: Egypt was to suffer the calamities of invasion and the deportation of captives. Although no precise historical records of these events have been discovered yet, they must have been the result of the invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians, as Ezekiel himself prophesied (see Ezekiel 30:17-20). But that was not to be the end of Egypt. For after 40 years the captives were to return to their own land. Egypt as a kingdom was not to be destroyed: it was to survive but with greatly reduced power—"a lowly kingdom," never presuming to exert power over the surrounding nations any more.

And so it came to pass. From about 600 B.C. Egypt fell under the domination of a succession of conquering invaders: first the Babylonians in the 6th century B.C.; then the Persians, from the 6th to the 4th centuries; then the Greeks in the 4th century; then the Romans from the lst century B.C. to the 5th century A.D. They were followed by the Arabs and the Turks from the 7th century A.D. onwards. Even the British ruled in Egypt for a period in the 19th century. For 2500 years Egypt has remained, as Ezekiel prophesied it would, "a lowly kingdom", always dominated by others. But Egypt and the Egyptians did not disappear. They still exist, and they have even recovered a measure of independence in recent times, thanks to massive financial support from the U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia.

This 40-year period of desolation in Egypt is hard to pinpoint. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt around 572 B.C. and carried many people off to Babylon, while others fled for safety to surrounding nations. Approximately 33 years later, Cyrus, king of the Persian Empire, conquered Babylon and allowed the nations that Babylon had conquered to return to their homelands. Adding a possible seven-year regrouping and travel period, this could then make up that 40-year time period. Since that time, Egypt has never returned to its previous dominance as a world power.

[Pahu]

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct.

How do you know?

You can easily see the Bible is not correct because it gives two accounts of creation that aren't the same. One or both of them must be wrong. At best one of them could be right, but neither agrees with the mountain of evidence gathered and studied by experts in various scientific fields.

Your problem is a misunderstanding of the Garden of Eden story. I believe the story of the Garden of Eden is a parable or allegory. If we accept the story of the Garden of Eden as literal we are faced with several problems. One is the fact that on the sixth day of creation week it is revealed that God created man male and female (Gen. 1:27). That would mean Adam and Eve were both created in one day. But according to the Eden story God first made Adam, then He had him name all the cattle, the fowl of the air and every beast of the field. Did he do all that in one day? Then finally God made Eve from Adam’s rib.

Another problem with a literal interpretation is we are told about two special trees that have special powers; the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both of these trees have fruit that impart special powers. One imparts eternal life and the other special knowledge. Also, there is a special talking snake in this garden that is later identified as Satan (Rev. 9:12; 20:2). Nowhere else in all of Scripture is there any suggestion that eternal life or knowledge can be transmitted by eating magic fruit. On the contrary, in the case of eternal life, we are told throughout Scripture that we must repent of our sins and submit to God (Jesus Christ) as Lord. Scripture consistently teaches that forgiveness always follows repentance. For example:

➢ “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. (Ezek. 18:30).

➢ “...the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye, and believe the gospel� (Mk. 1:15).

➢ “…except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish� (Lk. 13:3,5).

➢ “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost� (Acts 2:38).

➢ “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out� (Acts 3:19).

If we accept the story of the Garden of Eden as literal, then we will have to say the scriptures contradict in the most important doctrine—salvation! Eternal life is attained through Christ, not by eating magic fruit from a magic tree. Neither is knowledge gained by eating magic fruit. Rather we attain knowledge by experience and study. Knowledge that cannot be attained in these ways can be attained by revelation. God has revealed knowledge about Himself, beginnings, our nature, our need for salvation and His plan for our salvation. None of this knowledge can be gained by eating fruit from a tree. Therefore, I believe the Garden of Eden story is an allegory containing symbols. I believe it is the symbolic story of the beginning of the human condition and our fall after Genesis 1:1.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible?
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reincar ... 1491811009 ]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by Pahu]

but with some limitation; it cannot be thought that Egypt was so depopulated as that there should not be a single passenger in it; but that there should be few inhabitants in it, or that there should be scarce any that should come into it for traffic; it should not be frequented as it had been at least there should be very few that traveled in it, in comparison of what had:

So when God gives a prophecy saying Egypt will be UNINHABITED for 40 years...he doesn't actually mean that? Great. The Bible doesn't mean what it says, and says whatever it is you think it means.

Note, Egypt has remained "the basest of the kingdoms" to this day.

One of the most powerful nations in Africa, with a GDP of hundreds of billions of dollars...and it is the basest of kingdoms...?
What's it like in your head?

But since the time of Ezekiel, it no longer rules over other nations.

What about the part where it says 'exalt itself above other nations'? You completely ignored that.

Egypt was to suffer the calamities of invasion and the deportation of captives. Although no precise historical records of these events have been discovered yet, they must have been the result of the invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians,

Babylon never conquered Egypt.

It will be the lowliest of all the nations, never again great enough to rise above its neighbors.

Again, Egypt is a middle to high power in Africa, more powerful than several of its neighbours. How can you call a nation with a GDP of 330 billion dollars US the 'lowliest of nations'?

This 40-year period of desolation in Egypt is hard to pinpoint. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt around 572 B.C. and carried many people off to Babylon, while others fled for safety to surrounding nations.

Attacked, not conquered. Also again, this is not desolation. The 'prophecy' is clear that Egypt was supposed to be uninhabited; this has NEVER happened.


---
Long story short, when it comes to a clearly false prophecy in the Bible, you have to say that it does not mean what is written on the page. If it means something else entirely, then the text is useless and pointless. You're now talking about something completely different.