When standing correctly for the truth, which is the Word of God, one should expect challenges. To challenge the truth is the very nature of Satan and his carnal followers. In the beginning, Satan convinced Eve, the mother of all mankind, to reject the truth for a lie by challenging the veracity of the Words of God. His infamous line was, “Yea, hath God said.” (Genesis 3:1). This M.O. has been demonstrated by students of carnality ever since. Many challenges are innocent and could be merely classified as inquiries, but many are arrogant, bitter affronts such as the challenge that follows, which we are printing in its entirety. It came to us by e-mail:
You people are so totally lost, it’s almost unbelievable. Here is some real TRUTH for you. The truth is nothing without facts. Number one, dinosaurs weren’t reptiles. Whereas reptiles belong to the class Reptilia; dinosaurs are scientifically classified under the class Dinosauria. You really need to do a little more research. That’s the great thing about science: it deals with FACTS. It is always refining itself as new findings are made. Think about it: God wants us to learn, to question, to make new discoveries. Number two: The Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, translated from Hebrew to Latin and then to Old English. You don’t think that some things were lost in the translation?
Here is the true test. This is the one that no hardline religious people ever discuss, possibly because they are ignorant to its very existence. Astronomers use a technique called red shift to measure how far a star is from Earth. By analyzing the red part of the spectrum from the light of any given star, they can use mathematics to determine its distance. Some objects are BILLIONS of light years distant from Earth. That means if you could travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second or 10 trillion kilometers per year!) it would take you billions of years to get there. So by that FACT alone the universe is BILLIONS of years old, because it took the light from these stars billions of years to reach us.
If there is a higher power, and I’d like to think there is, it is absolutely nothing like what you think it is. The only thing religion has really done for humanity is to give people a false sense of reality and a reason to hate others. For centuries, religion has been used to control and dominate the world.
On another subject, what do you think about carbon- dating? Do you think that is a magician’s trick? The answer is no. It is based on FACT. All organic compounds—fossilized animals’ remains being the most argued example—contain Carbon atoms. These atoms lose electrons, at a regular rate over time. By determining how many electrons are missing, one can determine the age of an object. I’ve heard the argument that it is inaccurate. If the measurement is off by even one million years, when you’re looking at a several dozen million year window, that’s pretty close.
If anyone at your organization wishes to debate these views, please email me. Please do not send any mass mailing, spam, junk email. I do not have the time for nonsense. GET EDUCATED!
“Irrelevant” (as the prior e-mail writer names himself) contends that he deals with real truth. Let’s deal with his allegations one by one. The first challenge is to the feature on this website titled “Dinosaurs.” It is found in the “Archaeology” category located to the left of your computer screen.
1.) “Irrelevant” says: “[D]inosaurs weren’t reptiles.*”
In the Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, it reads: “Dinosaur, common name for Dinosauria, any of the large group of reptiles, now extinct.” Again the encyclopedia reads, “Dinosaurs comprise two orders, the Saurischia and Ornithischia. The earliest saurischians were chiefly two-footed carnivorous animals belonging to the Theropoda, a group that included the largest carnivorous terrestrial animal, the Tyrannosaurus. This reptile, which lived...” [End of quote]
A noted authority on dinosaurs, Dr. Edwin Colbert, is quoted in Scientific Monthly:
It is interesting to note that giantism was achieved independently by various separate lines of dinosaurian evolution. Time and again in the collective history of these reptiles a phylogenic line had its beginning with small animals and very quickly progressed to animals of large or even huge size. [End of quote]
Please note that GodSaidManSaid is not endorsing the concept of evolutionary theology in these references, but simply pointing out to “Irrelevant” that dinosaurs are in fact nothing more than giant reptiles.
2.) According to “Irrelevant:” “[R]eptiles belong to the class Reptilia; dinosaurs are scientifically classified under the class Dinosauria.”
Dinosaurs are simply giant reptiles. The word Dinosaur and Dinosauria were coined in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen, who was a famed British anatomist and also the first superintendent of the British Museum. His word originated from the two Greek words, dinos and sauros, which together mean “terrible lizard.” For example, as far as classifications are concerned, Ken Ham, an author of dinosaur literature, compares Brachiosaurus (brak-EE-oh-SORE-us) to Behemoth, which is spoken of in the Scriptures in the book of Job 40:15-24. Brachiosaurus is categorized as follows:
Class: Reptilia; Infraclass: Archosauromorpha; Superorder: Archosauria; Order: Saurischa (Lizard-hipped dinosaur); Suborder: Sauropodomorpha; Infraorder: Sauropoda; Family: Brachiosauridae.
Yes, a dinosaur is the class Reptilia.
3.) According to “Irrelevant:” “That’s the great thing about science, it deals with FACTS.”
Noah Webster, in his 1828 work, American Dictionary of the English Language, in the primary definition of the word science, reports: “In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.” [End of quote] The proven text, the book of true science, the Holy Bible, the Word of the only true God, is the foundation of truth. Webster ends his primary definition of science with “The science of God must be perfect.” Jesus said to God in John 17:17:
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
No scientific discovery has ever controverted the Word of God—none. Many people such as “Irrelevant” have confused unproven assertions and guesstimations with truth. It should be obvious they are not one and the same. God’s Word is fact.
4.) According to “Irrelevant:” “The Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, translated from Hebrew to Latin and then to Old English.”
“Irrelevant” has been reading the wrong Bible. The Old Testament of the majority-text Authorized King James Version was not translated from Hebrew to Latin, then into Old English. The Old Testament for the King James was translated into early modern English (not old English) from the Hebrew Masoretic text. “Masoretic” means “handed down.” The Masoretes preserved the ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament—meticulously copying the Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. It’s from this Holy Hebrew text that the Old Testament in the King James Version comes.
5.) “Irrelevant” continues: “Here is the true test. This is the one that no hardline religious people ever discuss, possibly because they are ignorant to its very existence. Astronomers use a technique called red shift to measure how far a star is from Earth. By analyzing the red part of the spectrum from the light of any given star, they can use mathematics to determine its distance.”
Halton C. Arp, who in 1987 was of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, won’t buy the red shift hypothesis. The prestigious journal Scientific American reports:
Arp says he has observed many objects with red shifts that do not conform to the Hubble relation. He maintains that quasars, for example, whose large red shifts suggest they are the most distant objects in the universe, are actually no more distant than galaxies and are probably offshoots of them.
The following excerpts are from an article published in The Sciences by Anthony Peratt, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory:
In spite of their many successes, proponents of the Big Bang have lately been forced to acknowledge a growing number of inconvenient observations, and older but still nagging difficulties with the model have refused to go away. In the past twenty years, for instance, astronomers have noticed numerous cosmological objects whose enormous red shifts may be intrinsic properties of the objects themselves; if the red shift is no longer a reliable demonstration of an expanding universe, the Big Bang model is left without the phenomenon it was invented to explain.
Again, from the article:
One criticism of the Big Bang, delivered from outside the plasma physics community, challenges the idea that the observed pattern of red shifts is evidence for the expansion of the universe. If the universe is expanding, a high red shift should indicate a greater distance from the Earth. But Halton C. Arp of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, West Germany, has noted numerous objects in the past two decades whose red shifts do not seem to correlate with distance.
And lastly, this telling statement:
If quasars and the nearby galaxies are connected, the two objects could not be moving at greatly different speeds; more likely their red shifts—and possibly all red shifts—result from something other than a rapid retreat from the Earth. [End of quote]
Finally on the subject of red shifts, is the following excerpt from Sky and Telescope:
This was an early sign that redshifts reliably indicate the distances of galaxies. For QSOs [“QSO” = “Quasi-Stellar Object” = “Quasar”], however, the diagram shows a wide scatter in apparent brightness at every redshift. In fact, there is little correlation of brightness to red shift at all! Either QSOs come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosities, as most people believe, or their red shifts do not indicate distance. Quite a number of bright QSOs lie close to relatively bright, nearby galaxies (nearer than several hundred million light-years) that have much lower red shifts. This statistical evidence, and signs of optical or radio connections between galaxy and QSO, lead us to conclude that they are physically associated....Contrary to what you are often told, the statistical evidence for association is well documented and has held up since the first proper analysis of QSOs in the 3C catalog which was made in 1971.Thus for us the only conclusion that can be drawn is that at least some QSOs are relatively nearby, and that a large fraction of their red shift is due to something other than the expansion of the universe.
6.) “Irrelevant” writes: “Some objects are BILLIONS of light years distant from Earth. That means if you could travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second or 10 trillion kilometers per year!) it would take you billions of years to get there. So by that FACT alone the universe is BILLIONS of years old.”
The answer to “Irrelevant’s” scathing attack is surprisingly simple. This following excerpt is from the feature article “Chicken or the Egg and Starlight.” It reads:
All of God’s creation was created fully mature and fully functioning. The seas and their tides and boundaries were created fully mature and fully functioning. The grass, the herbs, the trees and the trees bearing fruit were created fully mature and fully functioning. On the fourth day of creation, God created the sun, moon, and stars and set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. As in all of creation, they were fully mature and fully functioning. Not only was their purpose to give light and the energy of life but also for signs, seasons, and for days and years. The sunlight, the moonlight, and the starlight were created by God fully mature and fully functioning. Their lights were shining on the earth in the beginning of their creation, at the very first moments. The light from some stars appears to be millions or even billions of years away but their light was fully mature and fully functioning on the very first day of their creation—already here, giving their light upon the earth and fulfilling their specific designated jobs. The light beam on the day of its creation appeared to be billions of light years old when in fact it was just seconds. Remember the old line, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” The answer of course is the chicken, fully mature and fully functioning. A GodSaidManSaid team member made an additional simple observation when he said, “Of course the chicken came first. Or else, who would have sat on the egg?”
7.) “Irrelevant” is a big booster of carbon-14 dating. Just in passing, “Irrelevant” said that if carbon dating was “just off one million years” what real difference would it make in a window of several dozen million years? “Irrelevant” evidently was unaware that even the most ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating’s accuracy beyond 3,000 years.
8.) Finally “Irrelevant” writes: “I do not have the time for nonsense. GET EDUCATED!”
“Irrelevant,” the Word of God records in John 3:16-18:
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world: but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
“Irrelevant,” this passage pertains to you as well as all. Click on to “Further With Jesus” on this website for details. Choose life and live or it will unfortunately be prophetic that you have chosen “Irrelevant” as your e-mail name tag.
King James Bible
Colbert, E.H., “Evolutionary Growth Rates in the Dinosaurs,” Scientific Monthly, vol. 169, August 1949, p 71
Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia
Ham, K., The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved, Master Books, April 1998
Horgan, J., “Big-Bang Bashers,” Scientific American, vol. 257, September 1987, p 22
Morris, H.M., That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, Institute For Creation Research, 1997.
Peratt, A.L., “Not With a Bang,” The Sciences, January/February 1990, pp 24-32
Webster, N., American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828