Answers to some questions
I received the following questions from a young earth creationist on facebook. Not much room to answer there, so I've posted them here:
Question 1: Are we (eg humans) energy?
Answer: No, humans are not energy though we are composed of energetic particles that form the matter in our bodies. An assembly of energetic particles does not necessarily equate to a living being.
Question #2: Does energy die?
Energy is neither alive nor dead, so the question is unanswerable because it is based on a false premise.
Question 3: Is there evidence to show that man and dinosaur coexisted?
Answer: Of course, this depends on what you call a 'dinosaur'. Birds, by scientific consensus are in the dinosaur family tree and we certainly co-exist with birds. If by dinosaur you mean "Did man ever hunt t-rex?" the answer is no. T-rex died out 60 million years before the first hominids appear on earth. There are people like Carl Baugh who claims that human and dinosaur footprints are found together at Paluxy; however careful analysis refutes this claim.
Question: Is there evidence for a global flood?
Answer: No, there is no evidence for the type of flood described initially in the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh (later incorporated into the Hebrew legend of Noah). There have been large floods in the past, but none that completely enveloped the globe and killed all living organisms except for a few on a boat. In fact, there is a wealth of evidence refuting the flood and creationists refuse to specify just what constitutes the flood interval in the geologic record.
Question: Is there proof for evolution?
This answer could be very long, but I'll make it short because it is based upon a lack of background. Evolution is observable and verifiable and is also profitable in that it leads to useful predictions and retrodictions about life.
Question: Is there any prophecy that has been refuted?
Answer: By prophecy, I assume you mean biblical prophecy? It doesn't matter most 'prophecy' is always interpreted in hindsight and the true believer will find someway to justify that prophecy. let's take the case of the messiah. Jewish people don't believe that the prophecy has come to fulfillment yet. Christians make the claim that it did. So how are we to judge this very simple prophecy that two religions disagree upon? Similarly, you'll find proponents of Edward Cayce who claim that he is prophetic. Velikovskian followers tout his prophecies, but I would have to say that all prophecy is largely viewed as 'true' or 'false' depending on whether one wants it to be true or false not on evidence. But I'll give you one prophecy at the beginning of the bible that was false. God supposedly told Adam that on the day he ate from the tree of life he would surely did. He did not die on that day. Prophecy was wrong. Sure I know that the believers try to argue that because he eventually died (if he existed at all) the prophecy was true, but that's simply rationalization. Biblical literalists can't have it both ways. The bible clearly shows that Adam did not die on the day he ate from the tree.
Question: Where is the grave of Yeshua?
Answer: Who knows and who really cares? I don't, but if you are arguing that the absence of a grave means that he rose from the dead, then apparently so have many millions of other people who have no marked grave. I can't believe that even the most ardent thinking Christian would argue that the resurrection is true based on the absence of a grave!!
Question:What writings are more reliable than the bible?
The question assumes a priori that the bible is the most reliable book. I would argue that nearly any modern book is far more reliable than the bible, but every book contains errors, omissions, misinterpretations etc because books are written by humans who are prone to errors. I would also ask 'which bible?'. There are many different bibles out there with different contents and words. So when you ask is the bible the most reliable book I would say not even close.