Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children
Archaeological Evidence Demonstrating The Reality Of God
Welcome! Here it will be demonstrated SCIENTIFICALLY that Darwinian Evolution is the most unscientific, irrational religious cult on the planet, with no apologies to the atheists that worship at (and hide behind) this religious alter!
Among the most asked questions in the history of humanity are the inquiries about why God allows things like suffering, injustice, abusive and hurtful criminal activity and sin in general to be so rampant on the Earth, the jewel of His Creation?
The answer is rather simple, but it is not that easy for the hardened human heart to heed and desire to honestly understand, because of what it actually points out.
First, God did not create human beings as robots, He gave us free will choice concerning our life here on Earth, as well as for our future destiny once we leave our physical, earthly bodies behind. God created us to be able to have a deep, loving relationship with Him, on a very personal level; something you just cannot have without free will choice. Unfortunately, free will choice has a down side too, because rebellion, cruelty, hatred, dismissal, complete selfishness or apathy toward our Creator or our fellowman are just a few of the other options that choice makes available to the human race and we have the tendency to exercise these types of options in abundance.
The other great truth involved with these questions is a major stumbling block for those who have exercised their “right” to choose to rebel (consciously and subconsciously). It deals with the fact that God is the Creator and He has made all things (including humans) to be for His glory (not ours). This means that everything is ultimately going to glorify the HOLY, ALMIGHTY CREATOR, and no human will stand in their own glory before Him for what we have done.
Simply put, it is about HIM, not us. We exist for His glory, or His purposes and plans to glorify Himself (Colossians 1:15-17). Most cannot accept this truth, and it would be a hard thing to endure if God was not HOLY, or perfect, righteous (always right) and full of the highest wisdom in all His ways, but He is (Isaiah 6:1-4 & Isaiah 55:8-9).
This is where we humans get into trouble, because we have a strong tendency to dislike God’s righteous ways and we rebel against our Creator. Sometimes it is open rebellion, but most often it is through a subtle form of rebellion, usually one which can be rationalized and justified within the realm of human reasoning, so that it is made out to be “okay” or acceptable for ourselves and our human peers. A good example of this is turning the Ten Commandments into “the ten suggestions” or removing them entirely from our thinking (like in the public square) and doing just as we please, disregarding God’s clear instructions for right and wrong.
Our rebellion, and all the fruit from it, answers WHY so many things are wrong in this world. But, that is not the answer a rebel wants to hear, because it leaves them in a bad place (Revelation 20:11-15) and they don’t want to give up their sinful rebellious ways, so they will continue questioning.
But WHY DOES GOD ALLOW GOOD PEOPLE TO SUFFER AND DIE WITH THINGS LIKE CANCER?
First, God alone is “good”. We humans wish to put our spin on what or who is “good”, then turn around and question God from our redefined position. Second, sin has infected everything and everyone on the planet and this is part of its destructive power. This is one big reason why God hates sin, because of the pain, suffering and death it brings to His creation. Third, we are all infected with sin and there is only one cure, the blood of Jesus Christ.
But WHY DID GOD NOT stop the tragedy, or disaster, instead of allowing it to happen?
For starters, this would be hyper-management and actually nullify free will. Second, who would learn anything about sin or love under such a system? We would just be mystified about all the intervention and never really understand the evil or consequences of the sin we kept wanting to commit. It would really be a bizarre way to live. God’s wisdom runs much deeper than humans care to think and that’s why we get into trouble every time we seek to judge God from our extremely limited perspective.
But WHY DID GOD NOT DESTROY THE CHIEF REBEL (SATAN) RIGHT AWAY AND PUT AN END TO IT?
God could have easily disintegrated Satan the moment he rebelled and put an end to it, but that would have only proved who was more powerful, not necessarily who was right. Further, both angels and humans would have only served God out of the sheer terror of crossing Him from then on, worshiping only His power, never really knowing His love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness, which is no way to have a good relationship with anyone.
Yet, because God is love (1 John 4:7-8, 16), He provided a way out for sinful rebellious humanity, by choosing to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay for our sins by His death and sacrifice of His own Holy and innocent life on the cross, because sin requires the blood of the guilty, or the blood of a perfect innocent in their place. No human is perfect, but Jesus being God, the second part of the Trinity (Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 9:6, Luke 3:22, Matthew 28:18-21, etc.), is perfect and was willing to obey the Father’s desire, to come and give Himself for us, to give us a way back to a right relationship with God (John 3:16, John 5:30, John 11:25, John 14:6 and John 20:19-29).
Unfortunately, most of humanity will not accept and receive God’s gracious free gift (Matthew 7:13-14) of payment and forgiveness of their sins through Jesus Christ, which comes with a sealed guarantee of eternal life with God (Ephesians 1:13-14).
No, most would rather continue in their rebellion and sin. Thus, they will become vessels for God’s wrath in the Day of Judgment (Romans 1:18-32 & 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). God, Jesus Christ, is coming back very soon to bring to a conclusion the open rebellion of human independence from Him, via their free will choice, which has led to all of the destructive consequences of sin that we see filling up the Earth today. For it is written, in the great tribulation God will pour out His wrath and punishment on the rebellious, to destroy those who are destroying the Earth (Revelation 11:18 & Chapters 15 & 16). It is rather ironic that these people are many of the very ones claiming they are actually “saving” the Earth through things like the fraudulent carbon usage scam (which is nothing more than socialistic theft, to redistribute wealth, help further destroy the middle class and enrich the elite ruling class with money and power). Yet, their reign will be very short and they will not escape Jesus Christ when He returns (Daniel 12:1-10 & Revelation 19:11-21).
What Exactly Is Science
In the realm of scientific knowledge there is law, theory and hypothesis. The hypothesis is simply an unproven idea that must be explored to see if any evidence exists for it. If, through the course of scientific discovery, the evidence found is contrary to the hypothesis and no evidence is found to support the idea, then the hypothesis must be rejected. A theory is a hypothesis that there only seems to be some evidence for its support. So equally, if through the course of scientific discovery, direct evidence found is to seriously contradict the theory (like it repeated violates established scientific laws), then the theory must be discarded and not continually upheld, as if it were still a legitimate theory.
Darwin’s “theory” on the evolution of species is a perfect example of a bad idea that has been repeatedly invalidated and should no longer be given any serious scientific consideration (more on this in a moment). A law in science has moved beyond the idea stage to a place of consistent provability on a daily basis. A law is something we can observe repeatedly in the present with our five senses. Gravity is probably the most widely know example of a law of science that we can continually observe, as it is the one law that is most commonly taught to school children with a simple demonstration. Yet, Albert Einstein claimed there is a law of science even more observable and proven than gravity. It is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that (ultimately, as time passes) everything in the universe is moving from a state of order (greater organization and usable energy) to a state of disorder (less organization and usable energy). In other words, everything is winding down, being used up, decaying, dying and coming apart.
This explains why we can observe our sun shrinking, because it’s being used up. This law explains why we observe, people, plants and animals aging and dying with the passage of time. It explains why we see clothes, cars, roads and houses falling apart and wearing out. It explains why we have never seen, nor ever will see, any new kind arise from another kind, as well as, why we do see the extinctions of species. One of the foundational pillars of Darwin’s theory of evolution is the production of new species, which assumes that things must be moving in a constantly upward and more organized direction. This belief absolutely contradicts the well-established second law of thermodynamics. Make no mistake about it, Atheism’s blind faith is the only explanation for why an unobservable theory is being exalted above the most observable law of science in the universe.
Because Darwin’s atheistic belief of specie transformation is so blatantly in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics, the modern atheistic evolutionists attempt to cover one lie with another. In an effort to confuse the scientific novice, they will claim that by adding energy to a given environment the second law of thermodynamics is “overcome”. The catch with this lie is that it’s only a temporary phenomenon under special conditions in the smaller picture of an open system, like the Earth, which does not negate the overall long-term effect of the second law of thermodynamics in the big picture within the natural universe, which is a closed system.
This supplementary deception is easily refuted by two truths: first, they would agree that the whole universe is a closed system. For energy to be introduced in one area, it had to be lost in another area, so it can only be a temporary occurrence, for the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Second, adding energy is always destructive unless there is a specific mechanism to utilize or harness that energy, like chlorophyll in plants, but the plant will eventually die anyway, because the second law of thermodynamics is still true. Given enough time, the second law of thermodynamics is always proven true, which is ironic because the evolutionists hide behind long periods of time in an attempt to make their arguments sound plausible for upward evolution! This atheistic argument about the addition of energy is as fallacious as saying that because airplanes can fly, the law of gravity no longer exists. Hebrews 1:10-11 spoke forth the principle of the second law of thermodynamics over nineteen hundred years ago, along before men of science figured it out. For in that passage of the book of Hebrews it states that the heavens and the earth will wear out like an old garment.
Another proven law of science is the law of biogenesis, which states that in the sphere of life, living things arise only from other living things. The hypothesis of abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, which is the idea that life magically springs forth from non-living matter, has been disproved repeatedly for centuries. Yet, the modern big bang theory assumes, as its foundation for life, the premise of spontaneous generation! It claims that out of a “special mixture” of non-living matter, which resulted from a fiery explosion, all the complex life we see today came into being. How is it that intelligent minds can accept a theory, which has a disprovable hypothesis as its principle foundation, which additionally contradicts known scientific laws? How bright is it to say we evolved from dissolved rocks or nothing at all? It certainly has nothing to do with science and once again demonstrates the blind, irrational faith of the heart-hardened atheist.
Let the reader understand: The atheistic viewpoint has no ethical, moral or legal boundaries or any real reason to remain honest and impartial in its interpretations, because the atheist believes everything is completely relative anyway! This explains why they remain in a position willful ignorance, suppressing the truth, contrary to what is so overwhelmingly obvious. Once a person hardens their heart to the truth, they automatically close their mind to remain objective or see what is evident. Also, it may explain why the atheist can take great pride in his or her blind beliefs, with enormous stubbornness and dishonesty, shamelessly proclaiming that their beliefs are based on “hard scientific facts, instead of some flaky religion like the Bible”, when just the opposite is true, as blind faith is all they stand on.
It’s time for those who say they hold to a biblical worldview to wake up and realize that the atheists have no intention of playing by the same rules and code of ethics, which honor the truth! When they attack us for our faith, we need to simply explain the absurdity of faith in the big bang, as it relates to foundational scientific laws and counter with effective questions that show the untenable position they are trying to judge us from. Once we learn to do this successfully, the atheists will quickly lose the false aura of authority they hide behind and the general public will begin to see through it as well.
REAL SCIENCE can be demonstrated as OBSERVABLE IN THE PRESENT, without any excuses!
Naturalistic Evolution’s Two Main Mythological Pillars)
I. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (ABIOGENESIS) – that life can spring forth from non-life IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, as it cannot be observed in the present, nor was it possible in the past! Abiogenesis is the mythology that life can form from non-life. The eleven things needed to work in perfect concert together on the molecular level to create life from non-life are: the right materials, the right conditions, the right products, the right kinds, the right amounts, the right reactions, the right locations, the right sequences, the right information, the right structure and the right function. Listed below are just a few of the life halting catch-22’s involved in these eleven steps that make spontaneous generation a complete impossibility of ever being or becoming a reality, because of the scientific laws of chemistry and physics won’t allow it to ever happen. The amazing thing is that this has not stopped the atheistic “scientists” from vainly pursuing to find some way to prove it anyway. They remind one of those who believe the Earth is flat and say they can “prove it” or those who search for the mythical pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. It is truly delusion at it worst, yet this pursuit of absolute madness is often funded by our hard-earned tax dollars.
OXYGEN destroys the formation of the amino acids necessary to make life, through oxidation, which stops all synthesis. Yet, oxygen’s presence is required for the protection and support of these same materials, making it indispensable for the beginning processes of life. Oxygen has been found in abundance in earth’s foundational rocks, which ends random chance notion, because oxidation would have been destroying any possible initial production. This is why Stanley Miller left oxygen out of his apparatus and his idea doesn’t work out in the real world.
FORMALDEHYDE that would be needed to produce the sugars would disproportionably produce amines or dead end products of no use for life. In other words, formaldehyde would fix any proteins as soon as they would form, rendering them useless.
AMINO ACIDS are the building blocks of proteins and they are either right-handed or left-handed. What few people realize is that living organisms can only have 100% left handed amino acids in their proteins, or no functional life exists. Yet, all the natural, observable laws of physics and chemistry consistently demonstrate a mixture of the right-handed and left-handed amino acids that is nothing even close to the 100% needed for life. In other words, all natural processes, regardless of how much time they are given, can never produce the pure left-handed chains of amino acids needed for life. Stanley Miller experiment did not produce anything close to the pure left-handed chains of amino acids needed for life; a fact conveniently left out of all biology textbooks.
SUGARS are either right-handed or left-handed, as well, and sugars required for living organisms must be 100% right-handed or no functional life can exist either. And yes, you guessed it; all the natural, observable laws of physics and chemistry consistently demonstrate a mixture of the right-handed and left-handed sugars, which can’t be overcome through prolonged and stubborn denials. The same line of reasoning applies to the sugars as it did to the amino acids. If there is just one left-handed sugar within the chain of the DNA, it’s dead on arrival! “Mother Nature” can’t make what the naturalists require in their formula, she just doesn’t have it in her.
HEAT is the energy needed to form amino acids. But, the very same heat/energy needed to form the amino acids would absolutely melt or vaporize any amino acids that might of had any chance to develop! This is why Stanley Miller cheated and put a trap in his apparatus to keep anything that did develop away from the heat.
PROTEINS are necessary to make DNA, but the DNA contains all the necessary information to form the proteins. This is like having a DVD with the instructions on how to build a DVD player on it, but not having a DVD player to play the DVD on to get the information. Without some form of intelligent intervention, the DVD player would never get built!
In short, this is the ultimate
demonstration for proof of the law of biogenesis (that life can only come from
life), and it should close the book on the fable of spontaneous generation from
a big bang theory slant once and for all, for any truly honest intellect.
II. MUTATIONAL TRANSFORMATION – the idea that one Kind of living organism can change into another Kind IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, as it cannot be observed in the present, nor was it possible in the past (an honest evaluation of the fossil record confirms this)!
Mutations: What Darwin didn’t know in his day, but scientists of today now know, is that information (design demonstrating intelligence) on the genetic level is so unimaginably complex and precisely structured that the absolute improbability of one Kind evolving into another Kind can easily be understood and demonstrated. Each individual Kind’s DNA is so multifaceted and unique in its structural design that it has caused geneticists to state that it could never be feasible for one Kind to evolve or mutate into another Kind, no matter how much time one introduces into the equation.
The evolutionists have
stated that because the chemical composition of humans and chimpanzees is very
similar it “proves’ we have a common ancestry. Yet, between a chimpanzee and a
man, there are over 60 million coded differences in a single DNA molecule.
There are at least 50 trillion of these differing molecules in the cells of a
human body. All 60 million differences in each of the 50 trillion of DNA
molecules would have to all reorganize themselves in an instantaneous
synchronized event, into a miraculously perfect rearrangement, to have a chimp
transform into an naturalist. So, even though the chemical makeup is 98% the
same for man and chimp, it is a statistical impossibility for a chimp to change
into a human, regardless of how long you give the chimp chances to change. [3
billion nucleotides per cell x 0.02 = 60 million]. NOTE: This is outdated. We now know that 60 million coded differences in a single DNA molecule was not even close! There are so many more differences that they are continuing to discover, which is a moot point, since evolution could not have happened with 60 million anyway!
Why Time Can’t Help The Naturalist: Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher (yet, still brainwashed with atheistic evolutionary terminology), put it this way, “Now the genetic differences between human and his nearest relative the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change”. (From the Human Genome Project, Quantitatively A Disproof Of Evolution, CEM facts sheets. Cited in Doubts About Evolution?) This demonstrates the statistical impossibility of gradual change.
Here’s all you really need to know about mutations: Without exception, for it is a well-documented scientific fact, when a mutation occurs, there is always a loss or removal of specific information, which is the exact opposite of what is required for Darwinian evolution of species to take place(from a lesser specie to a higher specie).
Can mutations ever produce new information? It is now clear that the answer is a resounding NO! Naturalist, DSpetnerSpetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book, Not by Chance! He observed several exampmicroevolutionolution, particularly mutations, which showed information did not increase. In facSpetnerSpetner has never found or heard of a single mutation that added information. SpetnerSpetner stated, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase itSpetnerSpetner isn’t sure what he believes now, but he knows that Darwinian evolution, concerning the “origin of species”, is no longer scientifically feasible.
We shouldn’t be fooled by all the new and clever ways the Darwinian naturalists are attempting to spin the genetic research either. We are hearing about the creation of “complex, new forms” with “new traits” giving us “new life forms”. First, the reality is that they are only proving the law of biogenesis, because they are merely producing these things from living organisms, not from inorganic chemicals. Second, they are simply duplicating, manipulating, and/or mixing the information that is already available. It’s a little like using a laboratory to manipulate genes to breed a wolf into a dachshund. It is a “new life form” with “new complex features” and “new traits”, but no new information was added, it’s still a dog and information was lost in the process! Darwinian naturalists are a lot like magicians, they have to keep coming up with new tricks to fool their audience or they will soon be out of business. Don’t fall for their smoke and mirrors routine. Always remember that the issue is really NEW INFORMATION! The Darwinian naturalists will never find new information being added in, which is absolutely necessary for Darwin’s theory to work.
CONCLUSION: Spontaneous Generation (abiogenesis) and Upward Mutational Transformation are the two main pillars that naturalistic Darwinian Evolution is propped up on. Once people begin to comprehend the actual hopelessness and rational fallacy of these two ludicrous foundational premises, in regard to true scientific principles, the whole fairytale of Darwinian evolution will begin to collapse in their minds, just as it did long ago scientifically, which will be an interesting thing to watch as the masses begin to realize how their thinking has been manipulated and controlled through the many clever lies from the “authoritative” sources (cultists) they were taught to trust. A hundred years from now, children will mock Darwinian evolution, much like we now mock the Flat Earth Society.
It is important to define the many different terms that the materialists/naturalists use for the single word of “evolution”. The naturalists loosely use the word “evolution” and wrongly apply it to several meanings, but only one definition concerning evolution is actually scientific. By defining each specific term, the masquerade is quickly revealed, leaving the naturalist with nothing but their condescending posturing and blind faith to hide behind, as they continue to attempt to conceal, redefine and suppress the truth.
1. Cosmic evolution – the materialistic origin of time, space, and matter, i.e. the big bang. No real scientific evidence exists for this unstable fairytale, yet there is a great deal of good science that refutes it. For example, supposedly the big bang occurred from an insignificant amount of matter that was spinning very fast and then it exploded. So, if the big bang theory were correct, all the matter in the universe would be spinning in the same direction as it expanded outwardly into vacuous space. This is so because of the SCIENTIFIC LAW of the conservation of angular momentum, which in effect states that all particles that fly off of a spinning object will rotate in the same direction, out from that object, and most specifically in a frictionless environment (like space). But scientific observation shows us that in just our solar system alone, at least two planets and 6 moons (of the more than 60 moons) are spinning in an opposite direction from the rest. Some of the moons are even orbiting in the opposite direction! What’s up with that? Naturalists have absolutely no answer for this clear contradiction that scientifically refutes their belief system. By the way, even the naturalists now admit the universe had a beginning, which implies a Beginner via the Law of Biogenesis – life only comes from life.
2. Stellar and planetary evolution – the materialistic origin of the stars and planets. This is an unknown, on an equal level of an absolute myth, for no one has ever observed such evolution, as no one has ever actually seen a star form. But we have observed stars exploding, which agrees with the Second LAW of Thermodynamics. Additionally, the continual observation of the star Sirius, for two millennia, watching it change from red to white (loosing, not gaining energy), showed us just the opposite of what evolutionist/naturalists claim we should see.
3. Chemical evolution - the materialistic origin of higher elements from hydrogen and some helium. The evidence from the scientific disciplines and all the known LAWS of chemistry, physics and statistical probability absolutely refute even the remote possibility of such evolution.
4. Organic evolution – the materialistic origin of complex life forms from non-living matter. This is abiogenesis or spontaneous generation; a false concept that has been scientifically disproved more than once by good science through the centuries. In separate experiments by William Harvey, Francisco Redi and Louis Pasteur, spontaneous generation was shown to be a false hypothesis. The daily observable LAW of Biogenesis negates this fable entirely, as do several other LAWS of chemistry and physics, which conclusively demonstrate the impossibility of life coming together at the molecular level within an imaginary primitive soup that the naturalists concocted out of their desperate imaginations.
5. Macroevolution (the origin of species) – the changing of one kind into another kind though chance mutations over long periods of time. First of all, the second LAW of thermodynamics refutes the “time” element for this bad idea, because time is the enemy of positive, upward change. Even Albert Einstein said it was the most obvious and observable LAW of science, even above gravity. Secondly, the scientific disciplines of genetics (through DNA structure, function and intelligent design), microbiology (through mutations, which always leads to a loss of information), statistical probability (the practical odds being well beyond the realm of possibility) and paleontology (the fossil record, which is missing the millions of transitional forms that would be present if this notion had any merit) all soundly refute this failed hypothesis as nothing more than the most flagrant form of blind faith possible for any human being to hold. One brief example of this is a recent study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study examined certain proteins found on the external covering of mammal’s eggs. Two of the proteins permit sperm cells to attach and combine with eggs. These proteins (and the genes that make them) vary greatly from kind to kind, even closely related ones. Also, they discovered that the proteins are very particular. If a sperm cell doesn’t have the exact proteins on its own surface, it cannot attach with the egg. Thus, there is no way that, for example, sperm cells from a skunk could fertilize a cat’s egg. The intelligent design argument points to this as a prime example of purposeful planning with each kind having its own reproductive padlock and combination. Moreover, the proteins are so essential, so varied and so selective that they defy any naturalistic explanation. If the genes for these proteins were to pick up chance mutations, the combination would no longer unlock the padlock and fertilization would become unattainable. Much is being done in the realm of genetic manipulation these days, but the missing link for the evolutionists is the creation of brand new information (that also would somehow not be harmful), which could cause an upward change. ALL THE LAWS OF SCIENCE and ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE tell us this does not and cannot ever happen, even with an infinite amount of time.
6. Microevolutionolution (which is really only genetic variation within a Kind and purely horizontal, not vertical) – Of all the definitions of “evolution”, this is the only one that is actually scientific. But because of definite boundaries of genetic limitation a kind, it always remains the same kind and can never change into another kind (for all the reasons listed for macroevoluMicroevolutionolution or “natural selection” is falsely used as “proof” for all the other unscientific brands of evolution, which are nothing more than a thinly veiled religion for the intellectually dishonest. I.Q. test scores and fancy degrees of higher learning should never be confused with truthfulness when it comes to naturalism’s spin on “science”. Just because someone is intelligent does not mean that they won’t lie to you. In fact, the more mentally capable a person is, the greater their ability is to deceive a person, if they wish to be deceitfMicroevolutionolution can never be extrapolated into any of the other forms of materialistic evolution listed above. Yet, the school textbooks are full of examples of serious false advertising for naturalistic evolution in this very manner. One such example is the statement that “natural selection causes evolution of species by descent” (meaning macroevolution or the origin of species). But natural selection only stabilizes a kind to keep it strong, it does not create new kinds, as every kind has its genetic limits. This is why we see the dog kind and the cat kind (and not
datsdats/>dats and cogs). The same is true for mankind, the only kind created in the image of God.
It is important to understand that the radiometric dating methods currently used to come up with long periods of time are extremely unreliable and often purposely deceptive. There are over 100 types of dating methods available, 90% of which produce young dates for the earth. A little known fact is that the secular “scientific” community is presently using less than 10% of the dating methods available. This is because the few methods they choose to use can be manipulated, to appear to lend support for the evolutionary, atheistic worldview, because results of long periods of time can be “achieved” with these methods.
Outside of the faulty atheistic premise that the earth is very old, contrary to the historical evidence, three other major assumptions are made when dating is done. Those who understand basic math know we can’t have (xyz) as unknowns and expect to come up with a valid numerical value in our answer unless we have the actual numbers, or known constants, to plug into our formula. Only one unknown in the equation is acceptable to be able to find a real (concrete and tangible) numerical answer. The arbitrary values used by evolutionists are subtly disguised as “real known values”, and thus, they are a “natural” part of the equation for the atheists. Yet, they know that their presumptions are faulty based on other recognized variables that affect the material they are dating, but they just ignore those facts, as it would damage the believability in long periods of time that are needed for evolution.
Decay Rate Measurement (Parent material decays to the daughter material, i.e. potassium to argon, at a measurable rate)
The first assumption concerns the original amount of parent material being measured, when there is no way to know for certain the original percentage of what the parent material in a given sample was to start with. The atheists dishonestly and deliberately set the value at 100% for the parent material to help extend the “measured” value. This directly relates to their second presupposition that no daughter material was present in the beginning, even though daughter material is ordinarily found in samples, like newly formed rock from volcanic runoffs. Again, the atheists dishonestly and deliberately set the value at 0% for the daughter material to help extend the “measured” value. Third, it is postulated that the decay rate has been constant, with no outside interferences that could influence it to change. Yet, scientific observation shows us that there can be several interfering affects changing all of the above.
Scientists understand that when rocks are formed through the natural processes, they most always have both parent and daughter material in them (i.e. volcanic rocks that are formed with both potassium, the parent, and argon, the daughter, in them). This would automatically give the illusion of the rocks being much older than they really are, as the argon present at formation would be interpreted as past decayed material.
Scientists recognize that outside influences, such as cosmic radiation, can affect the decay rate. The amount of remaining parent material to be dated can be affected by the washing out of its salts from the material by water, as well (i.e. when potassium salts are washed out of a sample, it will give the false impression of being much older than it truly is).
A clear example of this problem was found with volcanic rocks in Hawaii from the 1800 and 1801 eruptions that were dated by some of these “discriminating” techniques to yield longer periods of time. The dates achieved ranged from a couple of million to three billion years old. This wide range of variance and obvious inaccuracy of dates on rocks that we know are only about 200 years old should clearly demonstrate that such dating methods cannot be trusted, nor should they be presented as “scientific fact” to the trusting public. Recently, similar radiometric dating methods were tested by geologists on separate lava flows at the bottom and the top of the Grand Canyon. The top lava flow dated to be much older than the one on the bottom, but according to evolutionary interpretation, the rock at the bottom should have been much older than the one on the top. Inconsistencies and gross inaccuracies are extremely commonplace with radiometric dating, but the atheists select out the few dates that fit their propaganda and present them to the public as “fact”, ignoring all the presumptions and problems.
Yet, even worse than all of this, because of the above mentioned problems, if you bring a rock to a secular laboratory to be dated, you must first tell those who are doing the testing the type of strata and approximate “time period” the rock came from (according to Charles Lyell’s concocted geologic time scale), or they won’t even date it. Once they have a target range to shoot for, they will continually tweak their instruments until they get a number that matches the range of the assumed time period on the mythological, geologic scale. All the tested dates that do not match the intended target range during this process are conveniently discarded! Just imagine what would happen if N.A.S.A. conducted their scientific business in such a manipulative and dishonest manner; no rockets would have ever made it off the launch pad!
The real reason that they use such subjective and unscientific methods for dating is that their whole philosophy is rooted in illogical circular reasoning; the “stage of evolution” or sequence and age of the fossils determines geologic age of the rocks, and the geologic age of the rocks determines the sequence and age of the fossils. One supposedly proves the other, yet neither assumption proves anything, as they are both based on an anti-God philosophy and not “indisputable facts” as to the age of things.
The carbon-14 dating method’s problems are really no different. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere (it breaks down at the same rate that it is being produced). Yet, calculations show that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating, which would give us older dates. Also, it is known that some plants absorb C-14 at a much lower rate than the assumed normal rate, which would give the result of a longer period of time. The C-14 method subjectively allows for contamination, fractionation, and recalibration whenever needed. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the “accepted dates” are actually biased and unscientific selected dates. The other 50 percent of the dates that fall short of the evolutionary standard for longer time are considered unnecessary and conveniently removed from the record. Basically, every date that is reported to the public is contrived in this manner. Future generations will ridicule the arrogant foolishness of our current generation’s willful ignorance and love affair with the fairytale that Darwin popularized. They will laugh at how the dates were manipulated, just so people could look “credible” while they continued to believe in the evolutionary mythology. I believe our great grandchildren will find our current generation’s mentality more appalling than the superstitious generations of the so-called Dark Ages!
To demonstrate the problems with radiocarbon dating, let’s look at a few examples, out of thousands that could be cited. A living mollusk’s shell was dated to be 2,300 years old, and a freshly slaughtered seal was dated to be 1300 years old, while a thirty year old mummified seal’s carcass was found to be 4,600 years old (From Evidence for Creation, by McLean, Oakland & McLean, p. 45, published by Whitaker House). So, the next time the reader hears a ludicrous report about some caveman’s remains that were discovered and found to be 25,000 years old (even though the maximum range of carbon dating is around only 10,000 years), or that some fossil or rock formation is “millions or even billions of years old” you will now known how they came up with those fictitious figures.
Few people today realize the history of how the geologic time scale was produced and sold to the public as science. Just as few realize that the geologic time scale, as it has been drawn up, does not actually exist anywhere on the Earth, as it is only found in the textbooks and museums where the atheistic worldview is promoted. It is one, among many, of the atheistic trade secrets used to promote their false religion.
It’s worth briefly repeating that Charles Lyell concocted the modern geologic time scale from his very vivid imagination (and his personal hatred of God) with the help of the philosophy of Uniformitarianism, which he adapted from James Hutton. This “dating game” began through a desperate attempt by sinful men to try to erase the global flood and remove God, as the intelligent Designer/Creator of all the great complexity we call life, from both history and any remembrance within the minds of men for all generations to come. The atheists willfully think up this kind of nonsense to try to rid themselves of God, to whom they must one day give an account (Hebrews 9:27). Atheists are actually deluded enough to believe that they have the power to make the truth disappear, if they can come up with an alternative that seems believable, when it is spun just the right way.
Food for thought: Since dating methods have been demonstrated to be extremely unreliable, is it wise to put our trust in them? If a stockbroker came to you claiming to have a perfect track record of success, yet when you checked up on him, you found that he had a dismal and consistent track record of serious failure, would you still invest your money with him? Certainly not, as he would fall into the category of a deceitful con artist! Similarly, why would we bank our intellectual stock on radiometric dating methods that are wholly unreliable, just because atheists are telling us we can trust the results? I find it interesting that people, to a much greater extent, are far more careful with their money than they are with their thinking, especially as it relates to their most valuable possession, their soul!
“And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's shall save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.’ ” – Mark 8:34-38
The Collapse of Geologic Time:
Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory: httpanswersingenesisgenesdocs2001o0321acc0321acc_beta_decay.asp
How accurate is Carbon-14 dating? httpanswersingenesisgenesdocs2002ocs2002/carbon_dating.asp
The Fossil Record
Contrary to what most of us have been taught, or perhaps brainwashed would be a better term here, the fossil record backs up what the scientific field of genetics now reveals; transitions from one kind to another kind don’t take place. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show countless transitional fossils, yet over a 140 years later, all the atheists have are a handful of highly disputable examples. Textbooks, professors, and even museums have taken great “artistic” license to conjure up images, through models and pictures, of evolved transitional forms, which there is absolutely no evidence for. Normally, this would be referred to as a deliberate deception and blatant fraud, not a “scientific fact”, which the atheists presenting these displays would like to lead the public to believe.
First, let’s discuss how we get a fossil. Generally, a fossilized object usually was buried rapidly to exclude the natural decaying processes and is replaced over time by minerals that take on its shape. Fossils most often develop as a by-product of a catastrophic event, as well. This is the reason we don’t see millions of buffalo fossils in the North American plains, because they were exposed to the natural elements of decay. Additionally, fossilization has been shown to be possible in only a few short years, contrary to the comparative atheistic claim that it had to take many years over a long period of time.
We now know that layer upon layer of sedimentary rock covers three quarters of the earth. Sedimentary rocks are formed through water action and the laying down of sediment, often through turbidity currents, which are akin to underwater avalanches. This is where we find the vast majority of the fossil record. Not surprisingly though, as this is exactly what we would expect to find as part of the evidence of a global catastrophic flood.
Most of us have seen Huxley’s concocted evolving horse scale in our textbooks and many museums. Yet, even most of those who still cling to evolution consider it an embarrassment, as many of the animals on the scale have been found buried in the exact same layer and even worse, they were found buried in South America in reverse order to Huxley’s fabricated scale! The general idea is, if they were buried together, then they lived together, which negates the proposal that they lived many years apart and changed one into the other over time. Although faults and upheavals can mix layers and the fossils in them at times, this is not what we’ve seen here. Yet, this concept of horse evolution is still being presented today as true science from the fossil record in many places. In every case, whether it’s fish supposedly changing into amphibians, lizards into birds, cows into whales or monkeys into humans; it can be demonstrated to be completely false from the real evidence of the fossil record.
The evolutionists are notoriously guilty of selecting out only the smallest fraction of material evidence, while ignoring vast amounts of very relevant contradictory material evidence available, and then with a strong bias based upon their atheistic, blind faith they “interpret” this small fraction to fit into their religious worldview. This is why many very serious, and rather obvious, problems are kept far away from the view of the public (like no evidence for invertebrates converting into vertebrates), while pretend drawings of fictitious transitional forms are put into school textbooks, national parks, and museums, etc., and presented as a “fact”, even though there is little or nothing at all to support the claims. The truth is that out of the tens of millions of fossils we have on record all over the world, there is not one viable transitional form among them. The educated evolutionists know this, but few of them are willing to admit it. The few who will admit to the problem in the fossil record have fled, in desperation, over to the punctuated equilibrium camp, as if that were the more intelligent thing to do. For what this group wants us to accept is that a pair of genetically similar birds, male and female, miraculously popped out of a couple of lizard eggs, within a very close proximity to one another on the earth and at about the exact same time frame in history, so as to be able to reproduce, with the “help” of a magical virus or some other mysterious ingredient, of course, to try and make this new fairytale somehow more believable. There is not one honest geneticist in the world that would ever accept this nonsense as even being remotely scientific or possible. The late atheistic champion of Harvard, Stephen J. Gould, was one of these punctuated equilibrium desperados because he was at least honest enough to admit to the serious problem of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The arguments for evolution are nothing more than a straw man dressed in a fine silk suit. Evolution has many “expert” tailors that extol the quality of the fine silk suit and their work on it, all the while ignoring the true make up of the straw man. In other words, they make themselves the “recognized” authorities, which only the “ignorant” would dare to question. If you’ll notice, when the atheistic scientists are given the media spotlight to debate creation science, they argue with character assassinations, not science. Some, like Dawkins, even goes so far as to say that the reason they don’t debate is because they don’t want people to think that creation science should even be considered worthy of or on par with the “legitimate” scientific discussion of evolution.
Yet, the truth of the matter is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in absolute ruin, but one can hardly tell it by listening to what we are “officially” being told. Some lies (like big mean snakes) just die harder than other lies. Next, we’ll take a look at some of what these self-proclaimed masters of eternal understanding and knowledge have been claiming about our direct ancestry over the years.
The Great Ape-man Myth
Exposing the deception and nonsense of the ape-to-man myth is not a difficult thing to do when one gains access to the real evidence behind such claims. It might be of interest to note that the first two examples to be mentPiltdowniltdown Man and Nebraska Man, were used as primary evidence for conclusive “proof” of evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial. The sad reality is that this highly publicized trial, with its false testimony that supported evolution, turned many in this world away from the truth and toward a strong belief in evolution, because powerful lies were presented to the public as certainty. The effects of this deception are still being felt today.
turned out to be a complete forgery. A human skull had been deliberately patched together with an orangutan jawbone. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human-like. It fooled some of the world’s top scientists for thirty-five years because they wanted to believe that it was true.
Nebraska Man, and the entire imagined community of the Nebraska Ape-Man (men, women and children with all their gear) were derived from a single tooth! Pitifully small bits of material are often called “evidence” and used by evolutionists to sell their pseudo-science to unsuspecting and gullible audiences. It was no huge surprise to thinking and informed scientists, when that single tooth turned out to belong to a pig. This case should demonstrate, to any rational person, just how far the atheists will go to try and sell their religion.
Peking Man was said to be another one of mankind’s ancestors. All the reported evidence is now missing, but the alleged material that had been found contained some indication of stone tools and fire with a large amount of broken monkey skulls. To the atheists this was “proof” of an early “missing link”. But to the unbiased scientist this was simply were humans had feasted on some monkey brains, which is not an uncommon occurrence in that region of the world.
was developed from a fragment of a jaw and several teeth and stated to be one of our ancestors. Over forty nearly complete specimens have been unearthed at the same site now aPilbeamPilbeam, its founder, admitramapithecusithecus is only an orangutan.
Java man,Pithecanthropecusropecus (Homo) Erectus, was fraudulently concocted from a scull cap and what appears to be a human thigh-bone, found fifty feet apart. Later three teeth were found, two of which have been identified as orangutan teeth. Two human skulls were also unearthed at the same general site, as well. This later fact was kept secret by “Java man’s” discoverer, Dubois, for 30 years. Do we see a pattern here? Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, never actually recanted his interpretation of the discovery he made, he just “redefined” it as being a giant gibbon-like creature that was “evolving” toward being human, because he still wanted it to be a “missing link”.
Heidelberg Man was drawn up from a jawbone that has been conceded by most to be human.
, southern ape, or Lucy is one of the more recent and famous fabrications of mankind’s ‘missing links.’ The big news about Lucy was that because of the knee joint and pelvis she walked upright, “much like you and me today.” Yet, today we have pigmy chimps that walk upright much of the time. Maybe this means we’ve found a special link to all the atheists fewer than five feet tall? Their powers of reasoning are definitely seem similar.
There are secrets about Lucy
that the atheistic evolutionists would rather you did not know. First, the knee joint was dug up over a
mile away and 200 feet deeper than the rest of the bones. That seems to be quite a willful stretch to
put those bones together and make them fit for a desired effect. Second, Dr. Charles Oxnard has done a
thorough computer analysis of the pelvis and knee joint and concluded that the claims
for the upright position are unfounded.
Another frivolous claim concerning Lucy is that the angle of the teeth
on her lower jaw structure is between that of what we see in humans and
apes. Both human and ape jaws have a
rather wide range of angular variance, which actually cross over each
other. So, once again, this proves
absolutely nothing. Finally, not unlike
New Guinea Man looks just like a modern man from New Guinea. Wow! What an amazing discovery, stop the presses and call all the tabloids!
is one of the earliest and best fossils on record, with equivalent physique and brain capacity to modern man. There is really no difference. When the “prehistoric” brainwashing term is removed, it helps us realize that this is a fossil of a human, like several others in these examples, and they were likely buried in Noah’s flood.
Neanderthal Man consists of several rather complete skeletons, most of which look like modern man. But a few have a rather stooped over and brutish appearance to them. Scientists from Johns Hopkins University X-rayed these stooped over specimens and found that they had been diseased with arthritis and a vitamin D deficiency, causing what was believed to be rickets. Perhaps, you might have seen one of these ancient, stooped over specimens down at the local nursing home for the aging. Could this mean that human kind is devolving into a bunch of Neanderthals? Philosophically and socially there might be a gain of truth hidden in that question, since the atheists are influencing most of our societal thinking. But seriously, like the other fraudulent claims, Neanderthal man has been removed from our so-called ancestry and reclassified with modern man. Perhaps, these human fossils, which were found in the Neanderthal valley, are more evidence of the remains of those who mocked Noah?
There is much that could be said about this subject to expose the blatant fraud committed by the atheists on this issue. The basic thing to be understood here is that the evolutionists deliberately interpret anything they are “able” to observe, in such a way, so it will fit into their atheistic worldview. “Able” is the key word here, because the fossil record is one of abrupt appearance (all the kinds appeared at once) and then stasis (the kinds remained in tact with no transitional forms). Even leading evolutionists have conceded that species appear in the fossil record suddenly, and are not slowly formed by gradual transitional sequences.
So, regardless of how clearly the evidence may speak to the contrary, including the evidence about mutations and cellular life, the atheistic evolutionists are willfully determined to promote their belief, as if it were a fact of science. Whenever a knowledgeable scientist challenges a materialistic evolutionist about the fossil record, the evolutionist cannot actually produce a single reliable transitional form, because the example is immediately demonstrated to be something other that what is being claimed.
It’s time to admit that none have been found, because they just don’t exist. The reason for this is obvious, once one understands that the entire genetic process needed to be able to produce transitional forms to develop new kinds, they quickly realize that it is entirely bankrupt from its most foundational premise (see genetic mutations discussed later in chapter 13). Bones of apes and bones of humans have been found, but no true ape-man bones have ever been discovered, nor will they ever be. The same type of stasis is true for every other observable kind all the way down through single cell organisms.
Evolutionists will often claim that similarities in the structure, or make-up, prove common ancestry. This is purely an assumption based upon their atheistic blind faith that flies directly in the face of all that is scientifically known in the fields of genetics and microbiology. The similarities are present because the same brilliant engineer made all things. The similar structures are the signature fingerprints of intelligent design produced from a single Designer that stuck with His excellent plan. Random evolution would have produced far more differences than similarities in the different species, along with a fossil record of innumerable transitional forms. As usual, the atheistic arguments are completely backward and don’t resemble anything close to the truth.
Darwin himself warned that the theory of evolution, without transitional forms, was merely worthless speculation. It’s really a shame that the modern atheistic scientists refuse to heed Darwin’s own warning.
Starlight And Time
Without a doubt, one of the greatest stumbling blocks for people accepting biblical history and rejecting the fraudulent atheistic worldview is the stars in the heavens that appear to be over 10,000 light-years away from the planet Earth. This visual observation, which can be made by anyone, is what opened the door for the Uniformitarian philosophy to give the impression of having some possible merit. But Uniformitarianism fails completely when scientific principles are applied to it. Therefore, there is obviously another explanation.
Some wish to say that God just created it as we see it, already in place. But there is a better scientific and biblical account that offers acceptable insight to this alleged problem. First, we must look into the scientific evidence concerning how gravity effects time. The closer a time keeping device, such as a clock, is to a gravitational source, the slower it runs. Equally, the further the “clock” is from that same gravitational source the faster it will run. This has been proven with atomic clocks placed at sea level and on mountaintops. The clocks at sea level run slower, because when more gravitational force is applied it causes time to move slower. Thus it was discovered that gravity distorts time! This observation has been given the name gravitational time dilation.
There is a very good theory that has been developed by a world-class PhD in physics, Dr. Russell Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys utilizes Einstein’s general theory of relativity to combine the biblical account of the “stretching of the heavens” (Isaiah 42:5 & Jeremiah 10:12) and the White Hole theory, which accounts for gravitational time dilation, to offer a very plausible explanation for the visual observations we can make concerning starlight and time. Thus, the title of Dr. Humphreys’ book on this subject, Starlight and Time, which is highly recommended reading for those who wish to pursue this topic further.
Dr. Humphreys points out in his book that the White Hole theory is just as well known in scientific circles as the Black Hole theory. I believe the main reason that the White Hole theory has gone largely unmentioned to the general public is that it can be utilized to support the creation model. The atheistic scientists, who control the information that is fed to their cohorts in the mainstream media, only wish for the Black Hole theory to be understood, as it is the idea that fits with the Big Bang theory and the overall atheistic worldview. Yes, a good deal of valuable scientific information is being deliberately censored and kept from public scrutiny. It’s the only way a myth of such magnitude, disguised as “science”, has been able to survive.
The White Hole theory is basically a black hole running in reverse. Instead of drawing everything around it into its vortex like a black hole would, a white hole pushes everything out away from its vortex. At the edge of the vortex of a white hole is the same event horizon that is believed to exist with a black hole. The event horizon is the place where light bends back on itself, unable to escape the gravitational pull of the hole’s vortex. This is where time effectively stands still, according to general relativity.
Therefore, objects positioned close to a white hole’s event horizon would have time pass very slowly (because of the gravitational pull or distortion on time), while comparative objects that expanded outward and distant in position from the vortex’s event horizon would have great lengths of time expressed upon them. This provides an adequate explanation to why the stars in the heavens appear to be over 10,000 light-years away from the planet Earth.
Also, with a white hole, the event horizon would eventually shrink to nothing, with only scattered matter moving away from a central point. This fits the sound scientific observations that the universe has expanded in the past, which strongly supports the common sense of a bounded universe with the Earth at, or every near, the point where it all began.
Contrary to this, the atheists start with an “arbitrary” assumption of an unbounded cosmos, which defies most of the observational evidence and common sense, because it’s the only way they can make their Big Bang theory (which needs a black hole) even remotely feasible. It’s the difference between black and white.
Although the White Hole theory has not been conclusively proven, it is a far better scientific theory than that of a Big Bang from out of a black hole, which fails miserably on several points.
Also, it should be mentioned that in using the White Hole theory, Dr. Russell Humphreys made several predictions of what we should see in the cosmos if it were true. Many of these predictions were fulfilled precisely, once the Hubble telescope was set up and information started to be gathered from it!
So, in summary, this new cosmology demonstrates that gravitational time dilation in the early universe could have meant that only a few days passed on Earth, while over 10,000 light-years of light could have been stretched out from the stars that were flung to the distant reaches of the cosmos. This fits well with the Genesis account of six ordinary 24-hour days for creation, while explaining the distant heavens we observe. All science will eventually agree with the Bible, for “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away” – Matthew 24:35. It’s time for those who say they hold to a biblical worldview to completely rely on the Word of God and stop listening to the atheistic pseudo-scientists!
The Big Bang Theory Is Scientifically Bankrupt
(Evidence For A Young Universe & A Young Earth)
The story goes like this, in the beginning, some 20 billion years ago, something, so infinitesimally small that it was basically nothing at all, exploded. Then, about 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth developed a hard rocky crust. After this, atmospheric conditions mysteriously developed and rain started to fall on the rocks leaching out elements that formed a special and very specific primordial soup with all its pre-life, non-living chemicals and gases. Then, a bolt of lightening from out of the blue struck the soup and spontaneously generated life from non-life, and here we are after a few more hundreds of millions of years of macroevolution, which developed from the first “simple” single cell organism.
For starters, have you ever witnessed a fiery explosion produce organization and life? Where did the non-toxic, life friendly atmosphere come from? Do you really believe we evolved from wet-rock residue? Additionally, there is no such thing as the imaginary “simple” single cell organism that the atheistic add to their fable. A single cell bacterium is more complicated in its make up than the best high-tech engineered spacecraft mankind can build with all of our intelligence and know how combined! How do the atheists get away with calling such nonsense, “science”, and publishing as if it were a fact in school textbooks? Could it be through forced taxation for funding which is used to support key government bureaucracies that the atheists control to keep their lie in place and restrict real evidence and other damaging information from the public’s ears?
Let’s take a fun look at how the myth of the big bang has “evolved” in the minds of the storytellers over a short period of time concerning the size of the initial “matter” that supposedly exploded. (Notice the progression of infinite wisdom in the list below. It’s as if each new teller of tales feels compelled to out do his predecessor.)
(The last two are only intended as humorous examples of similar nonsense, even though the atheist’s ideas are quite comical all by themselves. Actually though, I wonder if I’d get the Noble Prize for physics if I would propose this anti-matter idea and make up a theory with some peculiar math to support it? I could become rich and be Time Magazines man of the year.)
Is The Big Bang Scientifically Realistic?
Besides the clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis, there are several other problems with the feasibility of the foundational atheistic belief in the great fiery blast from the past. Below is a list of problems and interesting facts that demonstrate why the big bang theory and materialistic evolution, requiring long periods of time, are not realistic.
Supposedly, the big bang occurred from an insignificant
amount of matter that was spinning very fast and then it exploded. So, if the big bang theory were correct, all
the matter in the universe would be spinning in the same direction as it
expanded outwardly into vacuous space.
This is so because of the law of the conservation of angular momentum,
which essentially states that all particles that fly off of a spinning object
will rotate in the same direction, as that object, in a frictionless
environment (like space).
scientific observation shows us that at least two planets and 6 moons, of the
more than 60 moons, in our solar system are spinning in an opposite direction
from the rest. Some of the moons are
even orbiting in the opposite direction!
The atheists have absolutely no answer for this clear
Red giant stars would not evolve into white dwarf stars in a short period of time. (Red to white is losing, not gaining, which is the opposite of what the myth of stellar evolution requires.) The star Sirius was observed to be red from as early as 2000 B.C. in Egypt up to Ptolemy in 150 B.C. Today Sirius is white! In approximately two millennia, it was observed to change from red to white. Yet, within the definable parameters of the fable of materialistic evolution, this could only happen over millions and millions of years. The fact that Sirius is a binary star makes no difference in the problem it creates for the evolutionists. This type of information absolutely perplexes the poor atheists, but it makes perfect sense within the basic laws of science, which readily point to the Creator.
Short term comets burn up all their material, exhausting
themselves in about 10,000 years time, yet they were supposedly born at the
beginning of the big bang billions of years ago. There should not be any of these comets
left to observe. In an Effort to
try to cover up this very evident problem, the evolutionists invented the Oort
cloud theory, which assumes there is a “comet producing cloud” beyond
our observable range that magically spits out new comets on a periodic
basis. The whole theory was based of a
math equation that was inaccurately calculated. Short term comets are strong evidence that
the entire cosmos is less than 10,000 years old! Evolutionists wish to make creationists prove
that the Oort cloud does not exist, when in reality the burden of proof is upon
the atheistic scientists to prove that such an idea is both authentic and
measurable and not just another clever lie to cover for a very bad theory.
Once again, the reader must realize that
untruthfulness does not violate the atheistic scientist’s amoral ethic; so
frequent inventions of science fiction to defend their dying theories should
not shock anyone, since “truth” is completely relative to them. The atheist’s attitude about “truth” is the
chief reason why the public should no longer accept evolutionary scientists as
reliable sources of information concerning origins.
If a big bang happened from an exploding spinning vortex within a black hole, then we would see matter evenly distributed throughout the entire universe. Instead we observe consolidated mixtures of star clusters and great voids.
If long periods of time were true, we would not still
see heat being given off from Jupiter.
Yet, Jupiter has been measured to be cooling off at a rapid pace. If it where very old it would not have any
heat left to emit.
If the cosmos had been around for very long, we would no longer observe the rings of Saturn or the Earth’s moon. The rings of Saturn and the Earth’s moon are moving further away from their home planets at a constant rate. They would have been long gone after billions of years. Also, very serious tidal problems from the affects of the Earth’s moon being much closer over an extend period of evolutionary years would have wreck havoc for life on our planet. The Inverse Square Law states that if the distance is 1/4 for example, the force of the attraction between two objects is sixteen times greater (1/4 inverted is 4/1 or 4, and 4 squared is 16). What this basically amounts to is that land creatures would have received a deep-sea bath every time the moon orbited to their side of the planet “long ago when the moon was closer”. (This would make great fodder for a comic strip: “Hey look”, says the lizard to the fish, “I just miraculously evolved out of my fins and gills this morning into my brand new body with lungs and legs, aren’t I special”? The fish replies back, “I hope you can find something good to eat on those barren rocks you’re standing on, and real soon, because it will be your last meal”, as we see a 200 foot high wall of water in the background about to slam the "evolved" lizard.)
If the Earth were a product of a big bang, the magnetic field of the Earth would have long since degenerated, due to a very measurable loss it its magnetic field. The atheistic response, that the Earth is a self-sustaining dynamo, like an electric generator, has gone completely unsubstantiated for more than fifty years. (In other words, they made it up). It has lost 6 % of its strength in only 150 years. Some scientists believe that the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying so rapidly that it cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Also, some believe that there is instability recorded in the magnetic field, instead of reversals. Either way, the evidence shows that the Earth’s magnetic field has been constantly and rather dramatically decaying, and thus the Earth could not be very old.
If the cosmos were billions of years old the Earth would not
exist, because the Earth’s rotation is slowing down at a constant rate. If life on the Earth were many millions
years old, as the evolutionists suggest, the centrifugal force would have very
likely made life impossible. If the
earth’s age were even close to the billions of years that the atheists
advocate, it would have literally ripped itself apart, due to the extremely
high rate of rotational speed it would have had in the beginning.
A common misunderstanding in the field of geo-science is
that the “science” of evolution has allowed the petroleum industry to discover
where oil is found in the ground.
Actually, it is merely the understanding of where the oil and gas
are found in certain strata, which has absolutely nothing to do with any
evolutionary interpretation for the age of the strata itself. The incorrect idea of how the
strata were formed, very gradually collecting soil and dust over millions of
years is the invention from James Hutton and Charles Lyell. The strata where oil and gas are found have
been inaccurately dated to be millions of years old by this atheistic
explanation (see chapter 14 “The Radiometric Dating Game”).
Yet, many oil fields today still contain enormous amounts of pressure that should have completely dissipated by now, if long periods of time were true. The oil in the ground is usually contained under high pressure. The dissipation rate of this pressure has been measured and in a time limit of only 10,000 to 100,000 years (at the extreme outside), the pressure should have all escaped and been gone long ago. So, why is it that we still have massive oilfields all over the world that have pressure in them? The young age of coal and a very easily demonstrated experiment of the rapid formation of coal in the laboratory fit only into a young age for the Earth. Coal and oil are formed from organic material. Noah’s catastrophic global flood around 4,500 years ago readily explains the rapid accumulation of vegetation and other organic material responsible for the Earth’s vast coal and oil reserves, whereas the evolutionary fable of the age of the Earth has no believable justification for this observable fact.
Radioactive tracoalifiedalified wood collapse the geologic
time scale from hundreds of millions of years to just a few thousand
years. Additionally, the foundational
granites with their polonium radioactive halo finger prints invalidates the
atheistic evolutionist’s basic assumption that everything can be measured on
the basis of uniform radioactive decay.
Without the certainty of this constant, and the other dating assumption
problems that were mentioned in “The Radiometric Dating Game”, the entire
structure upon which the atheistic, evolutionary geologic time scale is based
(4.5 billion years), utterly disintegrates into pure fantasy. Polonium 218 has a half-life of 3 minutes and
polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds – therefore, finding
The sun shrinks at a measurable rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, going back just a million years in time, the sun would have been so close to the Earth that no life could have existed on this planet, at all, due to the solar radiation. Yet, evolutionists claim that man started his evolution over two million years ago and dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago. These unscientific ideas of evolution should have gone up in smoke some years ago. But, this has been the only option for the atheistic religion and many of its followers can’t honestly tolerate the thought of being personally responsible to a Creator, God, so they remain in defiant denial.
Helium is given off through radioactive decay and it cannot escape the earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, the sun infuses even more helium into our atmosphere, which should yield an atmosphere thoroughly saturated with helium if the earth has been here for billion years. But the total amount in the atmosphere, from a favorable measurement for the atheists, is only 1/2000th of that expected. The helium originally escaped from rocks and helium emissions occur at a rather rapid rate. Yet, scientists have measured large amounts of helium in some of the “old” rocks, which refutes the idea that they have existed for billions of years and tells us that the Earth’s crustal rocks are actually young.
Galaxies are spinning and moving further away from their central point – if they were billions of years old they would have lost their spiral shape by now.
We observe Supernovas occurring approximately every 30 years, yet we only
can see less than 300. There should be
hundreds of millions of supernovas to observe if evolution where true. Also, the supernova remnants or SNRss (SNRs)
should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, there are no widely expanded (Stage 3)
Hemoglobin, along with complete red blood cells, has been found in some dinosaur bones that had yet to completely fossilize! Yet, this dino-blood could not have lasted more than a few thousand years in the best of conditions. So, dinosaurs did not go extinct 70 million years ago. There have even been several reports of dinosaur like creatures spotted in various places around the world through the last millennium. Currently, natives of the great Congo area (a largely uninhabited swamp region the size of Texas) in Africa are describing sightings of certain creatures that fit perfectly with specific kinds of known dinosaurs. A few Westerners are undertaking expeditions to try and find these creatures; news at eleven.
Petrified trees are commonly found implanted in an upright
position through multiple layers of strata.
The millions of years for the formation of each layer of strata is just
one more evolutionary falsehood. For
the trees could not have lasted a million years while waiting to be buried by
the next layer. Catastrophe is the only
answer. Although, many evolutionists are
now admitting this, they only wish to agree with “many mini-catastrophes”,
still wishing to dismiss the historic flood of Noah’s day.
The volcanic eruption of Mt. Saint Helens produced
multi-layered strata formations, some hundreds of feet thick, that were laid
down in a matter of days, some of them in just hours. A canyon 1/40 the scale of the Grand Canyon
was carved out of solid rocmudflowmudflow in one day! Many dislodged trees that ended up in Spirit
Lake have sunk to the bottom and are standing in an upright position, as layers
of sediment build up around them. These
trees are a demonstration in how trees can be found upright through multiple
layers of sedimentary strata. A global
catastrophe with water easily and scientifically explains how three quarters of
the earth is cover with sedimentary layers filled with fossils. This is the best explanation for the
massive fossil graveyard all over the world or “billions of dead things buried
in rock layers that were laid down by water all over the Earth” (Ken Ham). Science now demonstrates that strata form
sideways in a rapid fashion, one layer on top of the other through water
action, instead of gradual strata formation, slowly over long periods of time
(which is a perfect explanation of what the global flood would have produced
with the fountains of the deep exploding out massive volumes of water and
volcanoes erupting, creating one tidal wave after another). To see the technically detailed article on
strata formation visit the following web page: httpanswersingenesisgenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/
The human population on the planet Earth fits the biblical/historical model. If everything was restarted about 4,500 years ago with eight people, factoring in every variable for increasing and decreasing population growth, we should see a population of around six billion people today. If the human race started a few million years ago we should see around 150,000 people per square inch today. How many people do you see? Would you rather trust your eyes or someone who thinks “truth” is whatever they want to make it to be?
The largest desert in the world, the Sahara has only been developing and expanding for around 4000 years. The oldest tree alive is only 4,300 years old. The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old. What a strange coincidence, Noah’s global flood took place about 4,400 to 4,500 years ago. These are only three of many examples that could be sighted that point to the fact that we are living in a post-flood era, and not in some post-prehistoric time frame. Again, the philosophy of Uniformitarianism was developed by atheists to revise the history concerning Noah’s flood. The reality of God and His judgment is the last thing atheists want to acknowledge. Unfortunately, for the atheists, they are only putting off the inevitable, a meeting with God. It is much better to recognize Him now and meet God on His gracious terms as a Savior, than to meet Him as an enemy in final judgment (John 3:18, 36).
Questions "Big Bangers" can’t even hope to honestly answer:
Where did the matter come from? (God made it and holds it together – Colossians 1:16-17)
Where did the energy come from? (God energized the universe – Genesis chapter one)
Where did the laws come from? (God is the law giver – Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
Yet, the creation model has no problem with God establishing these things from Himself from the beginning of His creation until now.
Even the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was force to admit, “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory”. Give it up Fred, it flat-lined along time ago!
To see more evidence for the ‘Young’ Age of the Earth/Universe visit the following web page: httpanswersingenesisgenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp and httpwasdarwinrightinright.com
[Ed. note: In late 2005, a report in TJ provided an update on the scientific appraisal of some of the bones discussed in this article. See John H. WhitUnfossilizedsilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? TJ19(3):60.]
Actual red blood cells in fossil bones froTyrannosaurusosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.
It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.
In a recent article,1 scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found.
The story starts with a beautifully preserved T. rex skeleton unearthed in the United States in 1990. When the bones were brought to the Montana State University’s lab, it was noticed that ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ Tunfossilizedsilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the fossils (see More on fresh dino bone, below).
Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking through a microscope at a thin section of this T. rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels.
‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’2
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’
Looking for dinosaur DNA in such a specimen was obviously tempting. However, fragments of DNA can be found almost everywhere—from fungi, bacteria, and human fingerprints—and so it is hard to be sure that one has DNA from the specimen. The Montana team did find, along with DNA from fungi, insects and bacteria, unidentifiable DNA sequences, but could not say that these could not have been jumbled sequences from present-day organisms. However, the same problem would not be there for hemoglobin, the protein which makes blood red and carries oxygen, so they looked for this substance in the fossil bone.
The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the ‘millions of years’ idea) is, to date, as follows:
· The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
· Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
· Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
· To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood celunfossilizedsilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.
Dissolved T. rex bone yielded flexible, branching
vessels (left), some of which contain cell-like structures (right).
CREDIT: M. H. Schweitzer
DINOSAUR TRACKS along side HUMAN FOOTPRINTS!
One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs existed).
Dino Hunt – What creature could be more spectacular than a living, breathing dinosaur? No, not the computer-generated dinos from Jurassic Park – I’m talking about real dinosaurs... alive... today! Impossible, you say? There have been reported sightings of pterodactyls in the U.S. going back 100 years or more, and alleged stories ofsauropodsuropods in the African Congo. Residents of the volcanic island province of East New Britain in Papua New Guinea claimed to have sighted a gray-skinned, nine-foot-tall dinosaur-like creature with a head like a dog and a tail like a crocodile, and “as fat as a 900-litre water tank.” They said it lived in a marsh near the provincial caKokopo Kokopo.
According to some cryptozoologists, however, some modern humans have set eyes on even more incredible animals with a far more ancient lineage – dinosaurs. Living dinosaurs, they claim, have recently been seen, heard and possibly even killed in nearly inaccessible parts of the African Congo.
Tales from the Jungle
The evidence for living dinosaurs is almost exclusively anecdotal. In fact, few people other than natives have claimed to have actually seen the animals:
Dozens of eyewitness accounts and a few intriguing photographs suggest that this flying monster, thought to have died with the dinosaurs, might still exist.
There have been many modern-day sightings of creatures that by eyewitness description sound like pterosaurs. There are also intriguing rock carvings and even photographs that suggest that this species of amazing flying monsters could have survived extinction, could have soared through the skies of the southwestern United States until very recently, and might still exist in small numbers in remote parts of the world.
Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs, but a family of large flying reptiles ("pterosaur" means "winged lizard") that includes the pterodactpteranodonranodon. The pterosaur stood on two rather spindly legs and had wings composed of a leathery membrane that stretched from the animal's extremely long fourth finger to its body.
Stories of flying reptiles have been recorded for many hundreds of years. Some think that tales of the "mythical" dragons in the lore of many cultures around the world could be attributed to the sighting of pterosaurs. Here are some more modern accounts:
May, 1961, New York State - A businessman flying his private plane over the Hudson River Valley claimed that he was "buzzed" by a large flying creature that he said "looked more like a pterodactyl out of the prehistoric ages."
Early 1960s, California - A couple driving through Trinity National Forest reported seeing the silhouette of a giant "bird" that they estimated to have a wingspan of 14 feet. They later described it as resembling a pterodactyl.
January, 1976, Harlingen, Texas - Jackie Davis (14) and Tracey Lawson (11) reported seeing a "bird" on the ground that stood five feet tall, was dark in color with a bald head and a face like a gorilla's with a sharp, six-inch-long beak. A subsequent investigation by their parents uncovered tracks that had three toes and were eight inches across.
February, 1976, San Antonio, Texas - Three elementary school teachers saw what they described as a pterodactyl swooping low over their cars as they drove. They said its wingspan was between 15 and 20 feet. One of the teachers commented that it glided through the air on huge, bony wings - like a bat's.
September, 1982, Los Fresnos, Texas - An ambulance driver named James Thompson was stopped while driving on Highway 100 by his sighting of a "large birdlike object" flying low over the area. He described it as black or grayish with a rough texture, but no feathers. It had a five- to six-foot wingspan, a hump on the back of its head, and almost no neck at all. After consulting some books to identify the creature, he decided it most looked like a pterosaur.
Out of Stone
If pterosaurs really died out with the dinosaurs and their fossil remains were not first discovered until 1784 (in Germany), then a depiction of one could not possibly exist in an old rock carving. Yet a pictograph found high on a cliff face near Thompson, Utah seems to show just that. (See photo at right.) While many experts believe the drawing is of a bird, the beak, head prominence, wings without feathers and legs also look very much like those of a pterosaur.
In this regard, evolutionists and geologists would appear to have developed a sort of a dinosaur-in-the-livingroom problem over the last few years. Take the cMishipishuhipishu, the "Water panther" for instance.
Petroglyphs show him with the dorsal blades of the stegosaur and Indian legends speak of him using his "great spiked tail" as a weapon. Remarkably, the Canadian national parks, which maintain these pictographs, are unaware of the notion of interpMishipishuhipishu as a stegosaur, and refer to him onlymanatoumanatou", or water spirit.
This petroglyph, in fact, first came to light with the Doheney Expedition to Java Supai, the report of which comes not from the National Enquirer, but from the Peabody Museum of American Ethnology at Harvard University.
Then there is the case of the man and brontosaur petroglyph at the Natural Bridges National Monument:The picture to the right was drawn by North American Indians that lived in the area that has now become Natural Bridges National Monument in the western United States in Arizona’s Canyon (photo taken DeLancyDeLancy). Even noted anti-creationists agree that it resembles a dinosaur and that the brownish film which has hardened over the picture attests to its age.
A book on Indian rock art sold at the park visitors center
notes: "There is a petroglyph in Natural
Bridges National Monument
that bears a startling resemblance to dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus,
with a long tail and neck, small head and all." (Prehistoric Indians,
Barnes and Pendleton, 1995, p.201) The desert varnish,
which indicates age, is especially heavy over this section.
Deep in the jungles of Cambodia are ornate temples and palaces from the Khmer civilization. One such tempProhma Prohm abounds with stone statues and reliefs. Almost every square inch of the gray sandstone is covered with ornate, detailed carvings. These depict familiar animals like monkeys, deer, water buffalo, parrots, and lizards. However, one column contains an intricate carving of a stegosaur-like creature. But how could artisans decorating an 800 year old Buddhist temple know what a dinosaur looked like? Western science only began assembling dinosaur skeletons in the past two centuries.
(Pictures are courtesy of Don Patton.)
There are some clearly ancient engravings in dolerite and gneiss that have been found in , South Africa. Amongst the many depictions, dinosaur footprints, and other artifacts in this region; two are of special interest. One resembles a sauropod dinosaur and the other looks like an attempt to depict a pterosaur.
Inca Ceremonial Burial Stones that is likely from the
In 1945 archeoWaldemaraldemaaldemarJulsrudJulsrudJulsrud discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the
outskiAcambarocambaro, Mexico. Eventually
over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found in the area and identified with the
Pre-claChupicuaropicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD). The authenticity of
Ancient Peruvian tapestry.
A slate palettHierakonpolisonpolis showing the triumph of King Nar-mer with long necked dragons and an ancient palette depicting a pair of "dinosaur-like" creatures along with numerous clear representations of living animals (taken from p. 93 of Pritchard’s book The Ancient Near East in Pictures).
In 1496 the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, was buried in Carlisle Cathedral in the U.K. The tomb is inlaid with brass, with various animals engraved upon it (see right). Although worn by the countless feet that walked over it since the Middle Ages, a particular depiction is unmistakable in its similarity to a dinosaur. Amongst the birds, dog, eel, etc. this clear representation of two long-necked creatures should be considered evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.
One of many sighting recorded from the past
On April 26, 1890 the Tombstone Epitaph (a local Arizona newspaper) reported that two cowboys had discovered and shot down a creature - described as a "winged dragon" - which resembled a pterodactyl, only MUCH larger. The cowboys said its wingspan was 160 feet, and that its body was more than four feet wide and 92 feet long. The cowboys supposedly cut off the end of the wing to prove the existence of the creature. The paper’s description of the animal fiQuetzelcoatluscoatlus, whose fossils were found in Texas. (Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, 1992, p. 16.) Could this be thunderbWakinyanakinyan, the jagged-winged, fierce-toothed flying creature of Sioux American Indian legend? This thunderbird supposedly lived in a cave on the top of the Olympic Mountains and feasted on seafood. Different from the Wanbli(Wanbli) orCetan (CetaWakinyanakinyan was said to be huge, carrying off children, and was named because of its association with thunder and lightning--supposedly being struck by lightning and seen to fall to the ground during a storm. (Geis, Darlene, Dinosaurs & Other Prehistoric Animals, 1959, p. 9.) It was further distinguished by its piercing cry and thunderous beating wings (Lame Deer’s 1969 interview).
This is just a small sampling of the evidence for dinosaurs existing along side of humans throughout history all around the world. One would think that such hard evidence would be highly problematic for evolutionary theory. Indeed Dr. KitcherKitcher, in his anti-creationist book Abusing Science, claims that solid evidence that dinosaurs and man co-existed would "shake the foundations of evolutionary theory." (1998, p. 121) LikStrahlertrahler insists that "it is conceivable that a scientist will some day discover human bones among dinosaur bones in such a relationship that it is judged highly likely that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Such a finding would deal a crushing blow to the widely favored hypothesis of a unique evolutionary sequence. In Popper language, the hypothesis of evolution would be falsifStrahlertrahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History: The Evolution /Creation Controversy, 1999, p. 17.) [Information courtesy of: CREATION SCIENCE SEMINARS, Mr. Robert C. Frey, 13150 Stewart Ave., Norwood, MN 55368-9674
The material for this site was
taken from two books, compiled by free-lance Reporter Vance Ferrell. BA. MA. : 'EVOLUTION DISPROVED
SERIES’ The Volumes are entitled: Vol. 1 - ORIGIN OF THE
UNIVERSE; Vol. 2 - ORIGIN OF LIFE; Vol. 3 - OTHER EVIDENCE, Published by Pilgrims Books; Altamont TN
copyright 1992 by Research Institute for Better Reading Inc.
The second book is
'EVOLUTION CRUNCHER' Copyright 2001
(Now updated to 'Evolution Handbook' Copyright 2006)
Published by "Evolution Facts, Inc."
Box 300, Altamont, TN. 37301
Dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible
“Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Let his maker bring near his sword. Surely the mountains bring him food, and all the beasts of the field play there. Under the lotus plants he lies down, in the covert of the reeds and the marsh. The lotus plants cover him with shade; the willows of the brook surround him. If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth. Can anyone capture him when he is on watch, with barbs can anyone pierce his nose? Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in his nose? Or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many supplications to you? Or will he speak to you soft words? Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him for a servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird? Or will you bind him for your maidens? Will the traders bargain over him? Will they divide him among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hand on him; remember the battle; you will not do it again!” (Job 40:15-41:8) This can only be talkingsauropodsuropods and plesiosaurs! The book of Job was written not long after the global flood of Noah’s day around 4500 B.C.
“And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Then God said, ‘Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.’ And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:19-25) This would have included the sea and land dinosaurs.
(Much of this material was borrowegenesisparksispark.com and Bible.ca. You can visit these sights and fine much more fascinating evidence available.)
HOW CAN I KNOW THERE IS A GOD?
(Taken from Pastor Robert Jeffress series, "How Can I Know?")
There are many things that tell us God is there:
1.) The cosmological evidence: Why is their something, rather than nothing? The naturalist had dogmatically concluded - Nothing x No One = Everything. This defies all the observable laws of science, and it is a serious contradiction for the atheist who claims to base all their science on order, instead of random chaos. Trying to make such a wild exception for the origin of the universe is unscientific nonsense and it is why they run away from the term they first used, spontaneous generation, because they know how foolish it makes them look, even though they still want to believe in it.
2.) The teleological evidence: How do one explain the extremely complex design within our universe? It took just the right amount of initial matter to make it. Where did that matter come from? There are at least 122 necessary components that have to be in existence PERFECTLY for the earth to sustain life. Slight imbalances in any direction for most all of them would cancel out all life as we now it. The right mix of atmosphere, the correct distance from the sun, the right gravity that must remain very steady, etc. The odds of this are 10 to the 138th power.
HOWEVER, it gets even more impossible when we more down to examine things on the cellular level. All the parts had to be in place and functioning at the same time in the beginning, which has been estimated to be about a 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power by the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle. Anything over 1 in 10 to the 200th power is considered outside the possibility of any random chance, regardless of the amount of time one would wish to give it. Thus, even if one took the flawed position of an eternal universe (it is expanding and thus had a beginning and this is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics), it still would never happen by itself.
This problem was one of many reasons why the invention of “multiple universes” was created. Yet, the existence of multiple universes would be harder to prove than God, which only proves just how remarkable the faith of some atheists really can be. And that’s just one cell, think of the trillions of complex cells that make up the human body to form even higher complex mechanisms like the eye! The multiple universe theory is like saying that if you put all the parts for a jetliner in an infinite number of wind tunnels for an infinite amount of time, eventually a jet would come together just like one assembled at the factor. Sorry, but chunky dust is the best you would ever get from such an absurd method.
3.) The anthropological evidence: How do you explain mankind, without a Designer/Creator? Our existence – observational science demonstrates to us repeatedly on a daily basis that life only comes from life (the law of biogenesis). Human consciousness – our awareness of ourselves (rocks can’t do that), our awareness of God (animals don’t build alters and idols, or burn incense).
Why would humans accept persecution and death for there belief, unless they innately understand they were made for another world (the spiritual dimension beyond the material existence)? If it were just some “genetic defect” as the atheist wish to postulate, then why does over 90 % of humanity believe in a God of some kind? Genetic defects are commonly found in the minority of the population of a species, so this argument would actually mean it is the atheists that are defective.
Finally, how would you explain our awareness of morality (right and wrong)? Those who would say there are no absolutes (an oxymoron) would be quick to say it was wrong for someone to rape and kill them and steal everything they had without consequence. Some counter with it is all taken from “society’s opinion”, yet when society decides to enslave, rape, murder, or steal from THEM, then that opinion can be conveniently be overridden. The arguments against moral awareness are vain and hypocritical.
4.) The experiential evidence: Why do people keep finding God if He does not exist? Over 500 eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Christ. The disciples did not expect the resurrection, as they went into hiding after Jesus was crucified. They went on, after seeing the evidence of Jesus resurrected to tell the whole world, displaying the same miraculous power Jesus did and at a great cost to themselves; against their own self-interests.
There is the choice to follow the objective evidence, which is all around us, or there is the subjective choice to believe something else in spite of the evidence. And don’t think it does not matter either, for as Mortimer Adler said, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God, than from any other question”.
If interested, you can find how to encounter God by scrolling down to the bottom part of this page.
Atheism's Historical Revision
The whole of materialistic evolution, including Darwin’s theory, was conceived from Atheism. It primarily began with various hypotheses from three French atheistic scientists in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. They were all trying to find ways to justify their religious faith with long periods of time and/or life spawning from non-living material through natural processes. New theories in geology were also being promoted by the early 19th century, as geology began to become a broader field of scientific discipline. Abraham Werner theorized that the strata of the Earth had been precipitated chemically and mechanically from a slowly retreating worldwide ocean. His influence on geology (postulating that the Earth was at least one million years old) was substantial because many of the 19th century’s foremost geologists had been his students and followed his lead.
The atheists love to claim that James Hutton (1726-1797) was a “devout Christian” who basically became “enlighten” to discover the “facts” about long periods of time for the geologic columns through his philosophy of Uniformitarianism. The truth about Hutton is far less favorable for the atheists than they would care for anyone to know. And by the way, since when do atheists have the ability to discern a “devout Christian” from “a wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing”? This ploy is not hard to recognize, as wolves generally gravitate toward their own kind. The truth about James Hutton is that he rejected Genesis as reliable history, particularly when it came to origins, much like the liberal theologians of today.
Yet, we now have evidence
from the nearly 20,000 clay tablets of aEblant Ebla
that demonstrates hundreds of corroborating cities, places and kings mentioned
in the early chapters of Genesis. Their language is known as
Additionally, and in particular, Hutton was very uncomfortable with the historic reality of Noah’s flood of global judgment and sought to explain away the majority of the geologic record that contained sedimentary rock laid down by the flood, with a concocted “prehistory” of long ages through endless geologic cycles. Yet, today anthropologists and others who have interacted with isolated and primitive cultures have found over 260 separate references to a global flood, most of them very similar to the biblical account. Not only this, but several of the other stories from these cultures, which represent people from all over the world, agree with the first eleven chapters of Genesis, even though they had never been introduced to the Bible! They were simply repeating the stories that had been passed down to them through their “oral traditions”. This correlates perfectly with the biblical account, because in Genesis chapter 11 we see the confusing of the languages and men dispersed throughout the world. This is the point where the stories of each culture changes, because their forefathers parted ways at the tower of Babel. This is further verified by the fact that evidence for a primitive language has never been discovered or even hinted at historically. The only mythology that needs to be dismissed is that which the atheists have invented to bolster their religion.
Hutton was clearly a deluded closet atheist looking for a way to distort the truth about the Earth’s history, as he made it clear that he could see no evidence for a beginning to the Earth. In Hutton’s imagination, the world was composed of great geologic cycles of upheaval and erosion--cycles without beginning or end. Hutton saw no “evolution” in the sense of gradual, directional change. There were only great endless cycles, an idea that is closer to Eastern Mysticism than science, which is not found in any historical record or the biblical worldview. He is mainly credited for being the one who developed the idea to restructure history by developing/inventing “long geologic time periods” with “millions of years” in it. From Hutton’s fabrication of a prehistory came the atheist’s number one brainwashing term used on the public today, “prehistoric”. This revised historical idiom is freely used in places like textbooks, museums, parks, zoos, cartoons, toys, public television programming and the mainstream media to the extent that most people actually believe it is true. Even Hitler stated that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough it becomes “truth” to the masses.
Although, Werner and Hutton never paid any attention to the fossils in the rock formations, William Smith (1769-1839) and Georges Cuvier (1768-1832) did. Their findings and Hutton’s philosophy helped form the basis for Charles Lyell’s three volume work Principles of Geology.
Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was an openly hardened and militant atheist, who popularize Hutton’s Uniformitarian philosophy by selectively placing certain “index” fossils within specific geologic layers, he then categorized, to formulate a more believable mythology as to when the different kinds (species) lived on the Earth, separating them purposely by “millions of years” to make the concoction of long periods of time or “geologic ages” seem plausible for his imaginary “geologic column”. Lyell’s fabricated “geologic time scale” has become the equivalent of the atheist’s Bible. It has been the foundation for every other pseudo-scientific illusion that the atheist’s have paraded before the world. The most interesting and largely unknown fact about Lyell’s “geologic time scale” is that it doesn’t really exist like he drew it up and it is presented to the public. If there were a geologic column of authentic formation of the sediments from the beginning of the formation of the Earth, then the complete history of this planet could be easily reconstructed without question over most all the earth, as the column would be over 100 miles thick fairly consistently around the planet. But such a geologic column only exists on paper, in theory, as it is not found out in nature the way it appears in the textbooks! Well over 80% of the Earth’s land surface does not even have three geologic “periods or ages” appearing in the correct order. The atheists merely dismiss this colossal problem as just a simple issue of “unconformities”. In addition to this dishonestly, there is no mention of the fact that each of these layers should have erosion marks all through them if they had been there for such a long time. Instead, they demonstrate rapid formation with no time for erosion.
Lyell went on to establish the “index fossils” to date the “geologic periods” and then used these “geologic ages” to ascertain the dates of the “index fossils”. This is called circular reasoning and equates to the brilliance of a dog chasing its own tail. An honest look at the fossil record confirms that Lyell’s speculations were false, as many of the “earliest” creatures are found buried in the same layers as many of the “later” creatures. Lyell’s ideas for geology are pure fiction and the very strong hold of the atheistic belief system. The “artistic license” for the deceptive “geologic time scale” is both shameless and criminal, having been placed in almost every scientific textbook in the world and posted in almost every public museum and park that has anything to do with a “scientific” display. Even more telling concerning Lyell’s fraud, is the fact that radiometric dating was not even developed until a half of a century after Lyell invented long periods of time for his geologic time scale, proving unequivocally that Lyell concocted it purely out of his imagination, and not from any real scientific data.
Later, Charles Darwin (1809-1882), heavily influenced by Charles Lyell’s writings, decided to take up the modern fable and add a new twist to it. He threw in the idea that one kind (he used the term specie) could change into another kind, through many small mutations over these long periods of time. A kind is what is defined as being able to bring forth or reproduce after its own type. Darwin had no “transitional forms” to support this new addition to the fairytale, but he was certain that myriads of samples would be found in the fossil record buried in the geologic strata, because he sincerely believed in his own fabrication. Yet, this continued and glaring lack of legitimate transitional forms has sharply divided the modern evolutionary camp (more on this later). Darwin grew up in the Christian faith, but like Hutton, he rejected the Bible’s actual meaning and authority concerning the early chapters of Genesis and all the supporting history that went with it.
Since Darwin’s time, many other hardened atheists joined into the fable building business and added what seemed to be insurmountable “scientific evidences” to support the original myth of Hutton, Lyell and Darwin. Fictitious “apemen” were produced as “missing-links”, along with several other “transitional forms” of other kinds. Unreliable radiometric dating methods (and a small, selected minority of their resultant dates) were used to support the concoction of long periods of time for the revised history and the placement of the fossils within the imagined geologic columns. So, all we really have is one enormous conglomeration of a series of lies that have been invented to support the first lie told by Hutton! These lies have been cleverly cloaked as being “scientific” in character to hide the religious deception of Atheism, which never would have been received any other way.
However, even the atheists knew a lie of this magnitude could not last unless it was carefully managed. So, they took control of the public forums for communicating these ideas, tax-supported public schools, textbooks, museums, parks and television, along with all the major forms of the mainstream media, via television, magazines, and newspapers. Now with one solidly unified voice, the atheists preach their religion to the masses and censor everyone and everything possible within their range of power and influence. And when an occasional voice rises up to unmask what could be the greatest lie ever told, the atheists marshal their forces and descend mercilessly down upon the brave soul who has dared to speak out. They use all their resources to distort the real issues being raised and then they ruthlessly ridicule, berate, slander, malign, and utterly marginalize the individual (through their false accusations and the use of the media) into a place where their brainwashed faithful (the general public) will never know or care about what was really being addressed. If for some reason this malicious defense of Atheism does not prevail or the atheists in power feel threatened enough by what a simple public school teacher might dare to introduce about real scientific principles on origins in the classroom, the atheists will usually call in their big legal guns (i.e. the A.C.L.U.) and threaten to launch a lawsuit, or actually begin frivolous and very costly legal action, which the average teacher or school district cannot afford to fight. Thus, they have maintained their control through bullying and manipulative tactics by effectively silencing any opposition. Examples of the above are the Kansas school board decision, and legal cases involving the teaching of “Creation Science” (real science) in Louisiana and Arkansas public schools.
It is unlikely that the
issues of real science will breakthrough and convince the minds of the majority
of the programmed masses, until the roots and mechanisms of the false religion
of Atheism are exposed. This is so,
because of the way in which the atheists have convinced people to think. They have lied to the world and said, “There
are no absolutes and all things are relative”.
So, your “scientific truth” can be different from my “scientific
truth”. This relativistic thinking
includes scientific laws, which explains why the atheistic ideas about
evolutionary origins are inherently dishonest and unscientific. Thus, the reader must have a good grasp of
how the false religion of Atheism works, to expose its foundation, which then
can lead to the unshackling of the minds of the people, so they then can see
the obvious truth about objective science.
I honestly believe this is why the creation science movement has only made a small dent in societal thinking and I believe it is the same reason why the excellent historical defenses of the centrality of the Christian faith have failed to have a lasting impact with the youth. Materialistic evolution’s mother, Atheism, is the real monster devouring our children and the landscape of the society. If Atheism is not dealt a decisive blow, then her children (evolution, liberalism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Communism, Humanism, Fascism, the homosexual movement, the women’s “liberation” movement, random violence, vengeful murders, growing hopelessness leading to an increase in suicides, pornography, racism, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) will continue to only grow stronger, until they consume everything in their path, including you and me. This is true because Atheism is every idea and action that is derived by man apart from a personal Creator, God, to whom we are all accountable. Without the personal, internal restraint of a holy God who will judge us in the next life by the moral boundaries that He has established for our protection and good, human beings are capable of every form of evil imaginable.
WHY ARE WE HERE? & WHAT IS LIFE REALLY ALL ABOUT?
Greetings, as neighbors, we once used to demonstrate concern for each other, yet we now live in more of the “every person for him or her self” society, which actually weakens all of us by moving us away from a community environment that generates maturity and provides peace and protection for everyone involved. But how did we come to this place? What caused the change? The answer is quiet simple for most in our society - the worldview changed.
The one key ingredient, or basic issue, that becomes the driving force in every individual’s life, whether they are aware of it or not, is a person’s underpinning worldview or view of life. The most specific and critical part of one’s worldview, upon which everything else hinges, is the assumptions and choices of belief we make about our origin. Allow me to explain.
Some may be wondering: is the worldview we possess really all that important? Well actually it really is, because a worldview is the foundational belief system that determines how we filter everything else in life. It controls how we scrutinize all the meaningful issues of life and the degree of value we will place on them. But most importantly, a worldview determines the really big questions about our existence and how we choose to live out our lives:
HOW DID WE GET HERE? WHO AM I? WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE? WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN I DIE?
In other words, how we choose to live life is based upon our perception of the answers to these all-encompassing questions. Therefore, we believe it is definitely time for this to be examined and discussed in an intellectual, “take our brains out of neutral”, manner. To begin, we need to take a look at the basis of how typical worldviews are formed in our thinking. Then, we must examine how this affects our decisions.
THE MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW
The materialistic worldview dictates the philosophy of those who believe we originated by purely natural means. The materialistic worldview takes on many forms within human belief systems, from traditional Atheism to Secular Humanism to Eastern Mysticism, all of which hold the idea that a personal Creator (God) does not exist and therefore is not responsible for our origin. This is the view that believes “science” has proven mankind originated from a big bang, when basically “nothing” (the latest postulation) exploded and expanded outward to form everything we see in the universe. Although materialists would wish to substitute in the words ‘think’ or ‘know’ for ‘believe’ in the above definition, it is a complete rational fallacy to do so. Why…?
Unfortunately, this is a classic example of “blind faith”, for no human being contains the type of infinite knowledge required to comprehend such a great mystery. If one is to be a true atheist, they must have all knowledge of everything, both known and unknown to us now, concerning the entire universe and be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a Creator truly does not exist. Therefore, Materialism/Atheism is a belief system or religious choice, which commits a logical, intellectual flaw in its foundational premise due to the true lack of complete knowledge. Thus, the most anyone can realistically be is agnostic, which means they really just don’t know at all, because of limited understanding. However, there are two types of agnostics: the ordinary agnostic, which is an open-minded individual who will examine the evidence presented to them and give it fair consideration, and then there’s the ornery agnostic, which is a very closed-minded individual who rejects any evidence (i.e. legal, scientific, historical, rational, etc.) that demonstrates any possibility of the existence of God, intelligent design or supernatural power. Generally, a person choosing this type of belief system for the basis of their worldview accepts no boundaries for consistent logic or morals, as they believe there are no absolutes, other than what a person chooses, which is an oxymoron, because it is an absolute statement within itself. Ultimately, this view leads to chaos, followed by acts of evil.
However, this is not the worst of the matter, for Materialism’s subjective faith leads people into a total meaningless existence that is void of any real hope. For consider how atheistic materialism answers the four great questions of life:
Who am I? & Where did I come from? You are a by-product of chemicals that crawled out of the goo millions of years ago, which came from a cosmic explosion many billions of years ago.
What is the meaning to life? There is no real meaning to life, so you might as well just do whatever you please, because a standard of right and wrong are relative or nonexistent. Thus, as long as you are strong enough to kill others and take their possessions you can do it for “might makes right”. Atheism’s philosophy actually promotes crime and war within the human race because it provides a powerful rationalization for it. After all, what real point is there in being a good little atheist who has no money, no power, no prestige, no future and no hope? And the communistic ideal of everyone being equal is an absolute con job, because someone will always want more than someone else and those who rule always end up being “more equal” than those they rule over. Those who wish to say that man is basically good and put their hope in the here and now of humanity haven’t taken a realistic look at the news lately. This world is increasing in corruption, theft, murder, wars, self-inflicted famine and diseases, etc. and we are very close to seeing our planet be reduced into a nuclear inferno, mainly because of selfish interests. Materialism isn’t just a blind faith; it is a systematic faith of lies, denial and death!
Where am I going, or what happens, after I die? You have no soul and there is no God, or afterlife, so your body rots and returns to the chemicals it came from. In other words, this is all there is to life, you have no future hope, so do whatever it takes to make yourself happy in the here and now, no matter who or what you have to step on or destroy to do it, that’s “okay”. Materialism ultimately reduces human beings to an animalistic character that is purely destructive, and this fact is easily verified by any honest analysis of history.
ALTERNATE ‘SPIRITUALIZED’ MATERIALISM – no personal God, just a god-force.
From the open Eastern Mysticism of Hinduism to Star Wars to the New Age and the occult, the materialistic belief system of humanity’s origin all is based upon the belief in a big bang and a rise from the slime, long ago. This is just a metaphysical spin on the same Materialistic Atheism discussed above. No personal God was involved in how we arrived here and everything is a derivative of cosmic energy. The energy is god, matter is formed from energy, and since we are made of matter, therefore we are all really god. This belief attempts to encourage its followers to simply realize this “truth” and be transformed into god or return to the original energy source from which they were magically produced.
There are some very fundamental problems with such a belief system. The most obvious is that energy never displays the intelligence necessary to shape and form the massively complex structures and systems needed for life to exist. This is as absurd as the idea of declaring that electricity has the knowledge, wisdom, intelligence and power to form things like computers, skyscrapers and space shuttles ‘at will’. No one has ever observed energy exhibiting anything even close to intelligence. It is one thing to believe something blindly about an unknown, but it pure folly to choose to believe in something that clearly and consistently contradicts everything we can observe, as to how life functions. This is why this type of belief must heavily rely upon mystical relativism, with no absolutes, to sustain its faithful, for even one ounce of rational logic destroys it completely. Obviously, most people just haven’t thought this through very well.
Moving past the many scientific and historical problems that could easily be sighted for this particular (and very popular) kind of belief, mystical materialism brings us right back to the very same nagging questions concerning what life is really all about:
Who am I? & Where did I come from? You are a by-product of a cosmic explosion from an unknown energy source. Somehow, after billions of years, through unexplainable, irrational and anti-scientific processes, which contradict all the known Laws of Science, energy magically formed your ancestors, which then miraculously crawled up out of the goo and evolved into you.
What is the meaning to life and where am I going, or what happens after I die? There is no real meaning to life, as one’s whole goal is to return to ‘the energy’ that initially discharged them out into the physical universe. Life is a continual, painful and miserable struggle until you make it back to this energy source. Somehow, unknown to the rational mind, the energy can detect whether you are good or bad and dish out karma to you accordingly, to increase or lessen your misery on your journey. How Karma works is subjective though, not only defying logic and reason at times, but also our basic human instincts for what is good and bad as well. Good works are supposed to bring good karma, but if you show compassion to the less fortunate, this good work counts against you and you are said to “inherit” the bad karma that put them in such a disadvantageous state. What a perfect excuse for selfishness! This philosophy has helped to develop the worse bigotry on the planet; it’s called the cast system, which is openly practiced in Indian even today. Disrespect, abuse and hatred all are perfectly acceptable in the name of advancing oneself closer to the mindless energy source.
THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW
On the other hand, the biblical worldview is based on information that can be objectively verified and established as true, with both the logical scientific method and a historical/legal evidential method. So, what are some of the different positions that the biblical worldview presents?
There is a God. History has recorded miraculous phenomena that cannot be explained by any natural materialistic method. An instantaneous multiplying of languages at the tower of Babel, the devastation of Egypt by the ten plagues of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea and the annihilation of the Egyptian army, which died when the Red Sea collapsed back down on top of them. The multiple miracles that took place to feed, water and generally maintain the huge multitude of Israelites and their herds of animals in the wilderness for 40 years. The withholding of the flow of the river Jordan (during the flood season) for the Israelites to cross over into the Promised Land and the collapse of the walls of Jericho. The miracles of Jesus Christ that were said to be so numerous that there would not have been enough volumes of books to write them all down in, even if the New Testament writers had wished to do so. Among these miracles are: Jesus walking on the water and the two separate occasions where Jesus fed several thousand people with just food enough for one person, by multiplying it. Let’s not forget that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the tomb, which meant that his body had already begun the process of decay. This was a very agitating fact for the Pharisees to deal with and they never denied it; instead they only wanted to kill both Lazarus and Jesus because of it! Jesus supernaturally arose from the dead three days after His death, as well. History records for us that Jesus’ disciples even did the same kinds of miracles He did in the authority of His name. Today numerous cases of medically verifiable, terminal cancers, deadly tumors and permanent paralysis are miraculously healed instantly, vanishing from the patients’ bodies. Also, there is the testimony of millions of dramatically changed lives through a personal transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, as well. This is only a tiny fraction of the evidence from the historical record, but it’s enough to make the point for anyone who has ears to hear.
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly tells us that we could only be here by intelligent design. All scientific observations in chemistry, physics, biology, microbiology, genetics and statistics flatly deny the possibility of materialistic random chance being the reason for the intelligence, structure and design we observe in living systems, and that’s allowing for indefinite periods of time!
There are absolutes: There is moral truth, legal truth and historical truth and even established scientific laws that have come from a superior Creator, by which we must base our lives and thinking upon. We must start with what is proven (and provable) to determine the unknown, not the other way around. Accountability and consequences for our actions proves that things are not relative in this life and because God is the lawgiver, this will be true for the eternal life to come as well, which God has indeed implanted in our hearts.
The biblical, theistic worldview offers tremendous purpose and hope when answering the four great questions of life:
Who am I? You are a special creation of God, who created you in His image for a very distinct and fulfilling purpose.
Where did I come from? The eternal Creator (who is outside of the physical dimensions of time, width, length and depth) made you and placed you on this Earth.
What is the meaning to life? God created you to have a special place of fellowship with Him (an intimate relationship of oneness with Him) and to enjoy all the beauty of that relationship, along with His awesome extended creation that He made for you to exist in and benefit from.
Where am I going, or what happens, after I die? Since, mankind’s intimate relationship with a loving, but holy, God was broken by our sin (wrong behavior, words and even thoughts), we now have a choice to decide to restore the relationship with Him or remain separated from His presence for eternity. For it is written, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” – Hebrews 9:27.
My hope is that you will investigate the biblical worldview for what it really is and realize that by any honest and accurate definition it cannot be mixed with any other worldview. (Unfortunately, there are even many pretenders and deceived within the Church who readily mix in parts of the materialistic worldview with the biblical worldview, which only distorts reality and leaves many confused. Please do not adopt their same folly of irrational thought). Consider the the salvation messages offered at the bottom of this page and if you want to make sure that you are in a right relationship with your Creator, do pray the prayer at the end of it and make Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior by repenting of your sins and asking Him for the forgiveness, which only He can give you to make you right with Him. If you do this, feel free to let me know. Also, if you have questions feel free to drop me a note.
Was Noah's Flood Global or Local?
First published in The
Revised and Expanded Answers Book Chapter 10
Does it matter? Does the Bible say that Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth? Is there any evidence outside the Bible for such a Flood?
Many Christians today claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood. They claim it was confined to somewhere around the Mesopotamian region and never really covered the whole earth. The discovery of a layer of mud by archaeologists in the Middle East and more recently the finding of evidence for a local flood in the Black Sea have both been claimed as evidence for a (local) biblical flood.
People generally want a local flood because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interprets the fossils under our feet as the history of the sequential appearance of life over eons of time.
Scientists once understood the fossils (which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand) to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept the evolutionary billions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the Flood—hence their belief in a local flood, or none at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, they would see the abundant evidence for the Flood. As someone quipped, ‘I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.’Those who accept the eons of time with its fossil accumulation also, perhaps unwittingly, rob the Fall of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering and death before mankind appeared; before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs God’s description of His finished creation as ‘very good’ of all meaning (see Did God really take six days?).
Some preachers will say they believe in a ‘universal’ or ‘worldwide’ flood, but really they do not believe that the flood covered the whole earth. They side step the clear teaching of the Bible, while giving the appearance of believing it, by cleverly redefining words. They mean ‘universal’ and ‘worldwide’ only in terms of an imagined limited extent of human habitation at the time. They imagine that people lived only (say) in a valley in Mesopotamia and so the flood could kill all the people without being global in extent.
The local flood idea is totally inconsistent with the Bible, as the following points demonstrate:
If the Flood were local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Traveling just 20 km per day, Noah and his family could have traveled over 3,000 km in six months. God could have simply warned Noah to flee, as He did for Lot in Sodom.
If the Flood were local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of land vertebrate animals in the world? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, or only domestic animals, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
If the Flood were local, why did God send the animals to the Ark to escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce those kinds even if they had all died in the local area. Or He could have sent them to a non-flooded region.
If the Flood were local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range. Birds can fly several hundred kilometers in one day.
If the Flood were local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. It boggles the mind to believe that, after all those centuries since creation, no one had migrated to other parts—or that people living on the periphery of such a local flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned. Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37–39).
Of course those who want to believe in a local flood generally say that the world is old and that people were here for many tens of thousands of years before the Flood. If this were the case, it is inconceivable that all the people could have fitted in a localized valley in Mesopotamia, for example, or that they had not migrated further afield as the population grew.
What did Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matt. 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day would mean a partial judgment to come.
If the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
Noah and company were on the Ark for one year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11, 8:14)—surely an excessive amount of time for any local flood? It was more than seven months before the tops of any mountains became visible. How could they drift around in a local flood for that long without seeing any mountains?
If the Flood were local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a Flood again. There have been huge ‘local’ floods in recent times: in Bangladesh, for example, where 80% of that country has been inundated.
The genealogies of Adam (Gen. 4:17–26, 5:1–31) and Noah (Gen. 10:1–32) are exclusive—they tell us that all the pre-Flood people came from Adam and all the post-Flood people came from Noah. The descendants of Noah were all living together at Babel and refusing to ‘fill the earth,’ as they had been commanded (Gen. 9:1). So God confused their one language into many and scattered them (Gen. 11:1–9).
There is striking evidence that all peoples on earth have come from Noah, found in the Flood stories from many cultures around the world—North and South America, South Sea Islands, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Japan, China, India, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Hundreds of such stories have been gathered.3 The stories closest to the area of dispersion from Babel are nearest in detail to the biblical account—for example, the Gilgamesh epic.
· ‘The earth’ (Heb. Genesis 6–9, as well as in Genesis 1. The explicit link to the big picture of creation, especially in Genesis 6:6–7, clearly implies a universal Flood. Furthermore, the judgment of God is pronounced not just on all flesh, but on the earth:
And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Gen. 6:13)
· ‘Upon the face of all the earth’ (Gen. 7:3, 8:9) clearly connects with the same phrase in the creation account where Adam and Eve are given the plants on Earth to eat (Gen. 1:29). Clearly, in God’s decree the mandate is universal—the whole earth is their domain. God uses the phrase in Genesis also of the dispersal of people at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8,9)—again, the context is the whole land surface of the globe. The exact phrase is used nowhere else in Genesis.
· ‘Face of the ground’ used five times in the Flood account, also connects back to the universal context of creation (Gen. 2:6), again emphasizing the universality of the Flood.
· ‘All flesh’ (Heb. all flesh,’Gen. 6:13,17),5 and He did (Gen. 7:21–22). In the context of the Flood, ‘all flesh’ clearly includes all nostril-breathing land animals as well as mankind—see Genesis 7:21–23. ‘All flesh’ could not have been confined to a Mesopotamian valley. apart from those on the Ark (
· ‘Every living thing’ (Heb. Gen. 6:19, 8:1,17) and in the creation account (Gen. 1:28). In the creation account the phrase is used in the context of Adam and Eve’s dominion over the animals. God said (Gen. 7:4) that He would destroy ‘every living thing’ He had made and this happened—only Noah and those with him on the Ark survived (Gen. 7:23).
· ‘Under the whole heaven’ (Gen. 7:19) is used six times outside of the Flood account in the Old Testament, and always with a universal meaning (Deut. 2:25, 4:19, Job 28:24, 37:3, 41:11, Daniel 9:12). For example, ‘Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine,’ said the Lord (Job 41:11).
· ‘All the fountains of the great deep.’ The fountains of the great deep are mentioned only in the Flood account (Gen. 7:11, 8:2) and Proverbs 8:28. ‘The deep’ (Heb. Gen. 1:2) where it refers to the one ocean covering the whole world before the land was formed. And it was not just ‘the fountains of the great deep’ but ‘all the fountains of the great deep’ which broke open.
· A special Hebrew word was reserved for the Flood or Deluge: Psalm 29:10, refers to the universal sovereignty of God in presiding over the Deluge. The New Testament also has a special word reserved for the Flood, The decrees in Genesis 9 parallel those in Genesis 1
In Genesis 9:1 God gives man the exact same commission as in Genesis 1:28—‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’ He also gives man dominion over ‘every beast of the earth’ (Gen. 9:2, cf. 1:28) and man is instructed as to what he can and cannot eat (Gen. 9:4–5), which parallels Genesis 1:29–30. These decrees in Genesis 1 are universal in extent, and clearly they are also here, after the Flood. If Adam and his descendants were to rule the whole earth, so were Noah and his descendants. If ‘earth’ in Genesis 9:1 is the whole earth, as all would agree it is, then surely it is also the whole earth in the context of the Flood in Genesis 8:13!
New Testament passages which speak of the Flood use universal language: ‘the flood came and took them all away’ (Jesus, Matt. 24:39); ‘the flood came and destroyed them all’ (Jesus, Luke 17:27); ‘did not spare the ancient world [Grekosmos>kosmos], but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly’ (2 Peter 2:5); ‘a few, that is eight people, were saved through the water’ (1 Peter 3:20); Noah ‘condemned the world’ through his faith in God (Heb. 11:7); ‘the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished’ (2 Pet 3:6). All these statements presuppose a global Flood, not some localized event.
Some have argued that since ‘all’ does not always mean ‘each and every’ (e.g. Mark 1:5) that the use of ‘all’ in the Flood account does not necessarily mean the Flood was universal. That is, they claim that this use of ‘all’ allows for a local flood.
However, the meaning of a word is decided by the context. From the context of ‘all’ in Luke 2:1, for example, we can see that ‘all the world’ meant all the Roman Empire. So, it is the context that tells us that ‘all’ here does not mean every bit of the whole land surface of the globe.
However, to determine the meaning of ‘all’ in Genesis 6–9, we must consider the context, not just transfer the inferred meaning from somewhere else.
The word ‘all’ (Heb. In Genesis 7:19 we read that ‘all (Hkol kol) the high mountains under all (Hkol kol) the heavens were covered.’ Note the double use of ‘all.’ In Hebrew this gives emphasis so as to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.7 This could be accurately translated as ‘all the high mountains under the entire heavens,’ to reflect the emphasis in the Hebrew. Leupold, in his authoritative commentary on Genesis, said of this, ‘ … the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.’7
Because the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were mentioned in the description of the Garden of Eden, and we have the Tigris and Euphrates rivers now, some have argued that the Flood could not have altered the topography of the world, and therefore it must have been local.8
However, there are major differences in the topography described for the Garden of Eden and the world now. There was one river flowing from Eden which separated into four rivers (Gen. 2:10–14), two of which were called the Tigris and the Euphrates. So the rivers had a common source before the Flood, which is very different from today. The other two rivers were the Pishon aGihone Gihon. The Pishon is not mentioned post-FloGihond Gihon is used of the locality of a spring near Jerusalem in the times of Kings David, Solomon and Hezekiah.9
The post-Flood world is not the same as the pre-Flood world. Someone may ask, ‘Then why do we have a Tigris and Euphrates today?’ Answer: the same reason there is a Liverpool and Newcastle in Australia; and London, Oxford and Cambridge in North America, although they were originally place names in England. Features in the post-Flood world were given names familiar to those who survived the Flood.
What evidence would one expect from a global watery cataclysm that drowned the animals, birds and people not on the Ark? All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them. Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation.Polystrateystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata. The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession. The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent. Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water. That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.
The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood. The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’—there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers. In reality, God’s revelation about the past is the key to understanding the present.
The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood.10,11
The problem is not the evidence but the mindset of those looking at the evidence. One geologist testified how he never saw any evidence for the Flood—until, as a Christian, he was convinced from the Bible that the Flood must have been a global cataclysm. Now he sees the evidence everywhere. It’s a case of ‘I would not have seen it if I had not believed it!’ The Bible talks about people being corrupted in their thinking after turning their backs on God (Romans 1:18ff.) and of people being so spiritually blind that they cannot see the obvious (Acts 28:25–27). See Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers for other questions about the Flood and Noah’s Ark.
A universal worldwide, globe-covering Flood is clearly taught by the Bible. The only reasons for thinking the Flood was otherwise come from outside the Bible. When we use the framework provided by the Bible we find that the physical evidence from the rocks and fossils beautifully fits what the Bible says.
Furthermore, the realization of the reality of God’s judgment by the Flood in the past should warn us of the reality of the judgment to come—judgment by fire—and stimulate us to be ready for that judgment (2 Peter 3:3–13). Those who are not ‘in Christ’ will suffer the wrath of God (John 3:36).
Were The Days Of Creation In Genesis Six
Ordinary, 24 Hour Days?
The Hebrew word for day, “YOM”, can mean either a 24-hour day or an indefinite extended period of time, depending on the surrounding context. All thirty-eight (38) other times outside of Genesis chapter one when YOM is surrounded by morning and evening it is understood to be a literal 24-hour day. Three Hundred fifty-nine (359) other times outside of Genesis chapter one when YOM is included with a number it is understood to be a literal 24-hour day. Why then do you think Genesis chapter one is the only place people wish to reinterpret YOM outside of its contextual meaning? It is because of the influence of the atheistic worldview (religion) that has passed itself off as a “science”, which "cannot be questioned", and those of weak faith and confused minds have bought into this lie.
Every honest world-class Hebrew scholar must admit that the author of Genesis chapter one clearly intended to communicate that the days of creation were indeed to be understood as ordinary 24-hour days and nothing else. Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”, verifies this as it sets the pattern for the seven-day week we now use. This is the only place where we could have derived a seven-day week in the historical annals of mankind! Think about it, with a thirty-day lunar cycle it would make more since to have something like five weeks of six days each per month. Every time you see a calendar with seven-day weeks, it is shouting out “there is a God”! No wonder the Antichrist will try to change the way we keep time. “And he will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.” – Daniel 7:25
A couple of the liberal (unbelieving) objections to the above are that the numbers mentioned for the days of creation were “ordinal” and not “cardinal” and the sun was not created until the fourth day so the first three days could not have been solar days as we know them and therefore must have been long periods of time. As is always the case with objections like these, there is an underlying effort to have a person doubt the actual context of the Word of God, which is exactly how the devil deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden. The original Hebrew actually does use cardinal numbers and it is only some English translations that misrepresent the actual Hebrew, where the idea of an ordinal number is conceived, by rearranging the wording to create an argument for ordinal numbers. Again, the author of Genesis left no doubt that he meant an ordinary 24-hour day by the way he wrote it. This is a red-herring argument designed to confuse and deceive people into rejecting a literal interpretation.
We do not know what type of light was present
in the first three days, but that is really a non-issue. For the Hebrew text tells us that it was
still the equivalent of a normal 24-hour day with a number and surrounded by
morning and evening. Since plant life
was created on day three, there would have been a serious problem if the
evening cycle had been a long period of time, for the light and heat necessary
in sustaining plant life would have been absent and the freshly created
vegetation would have all died. These
types of arguments obviously originate from the father of lies and they should
not sway the children of light, as they contain no true credibility what so
A final thought: Are we supposed to work for six thousand or six million years and rest for that last thousand or million? If we are going to be disrespectful and “liberal”, why stop with only Genesis chapter one?
Not so far removed from Adam, the first man God Created
We know the genealogies in the early chapters of Genesis are correct because of the precise way in which they were written down. Each reference to each individual states four defining details that give us an exact chronology without any gaps: the person’s name is affirmed, their age at the birth of their first son is given, the length of their remaining life and the total number of years they lived on the earth. If one is inclined to doubt and be “liberal” with the declared genealogical chronology in Genesis, then they are making a statement about their unbelief in the all-sufficient, authoritative word of God and will likely doubt any part of the entire remainder of the Bible that makes them feel uncomfortable.
This may shock you a bit, but the “Progressive Creation", “Day Age Theory” and “Gap Theory” theology are all actually "another gospel" foreign to the scriptures. Whether a professing Christian or not, anyone teaching the adaptation of long periods of time in the creation model clearly departs from the authority of God's word. For these ideas elevate something else, usually a speculative "scientific" theory above the undeniable context of the historical account in Genesis from the original Hebrew text.
“Progressive Creation", “Day Age Theory” and “Gap Theory”, when fully examined, all run contrary to a foundational statement of Christian faith - i.e. “we know that the foundational basis of our belief is the Bible - the inspired and authoritative Word of God from the original text”.
Now, those who put forth these contrary ideas would probably respond that they believe this also, but when you probe deeper you quickly find that they indeed hold to "another gospel". All one has to ask is what their belief is in how long the days of creation were and their position on Noah's flood - global or local? (They say local, even though the Bible clearly describes it as global.) They will likely try to do an end run all around these issues with high-sounding arguments and avoid any direct answer, since these are telling questions. But when you pin them down and make them give you a direct answer for both questions you will find they reject the original Hebrew, as it plainly reads and even selectively quote their favorite "Hebrew scholars", who have unfortunately chosen to dishonestly manipulate the original Hebrew text out of its context (usually through the illegitimate substitution technique – defining the word elsewhere and inserting that meaning into Genesis while ignoring the surrounding context in Genesis that actually defines properly). Whenever this is done, you are dealing with a false teacher, Ph.D. or not, and you should run from them, instead of attempting to understand their seducing lies.
Are These Men Cousins?
Picture a lily white, red-eyed European albino with a long nose and big ears and a very dark Australian aboriginal native with completely opposite features. Would you believe that they are actually cousins?Well yes, they actually are related and although it is a distant relation, it is true! The straight fact of the matter is that all of us are closely related to each other as part of the human race. Since this makes us all relatives, there is an important message in this for us. This is simply a short commentary to inform people about our shared and true heritage, which is something most everyone would already be well acquainted with, if a great effort was not being made to keep us from understanding it.
The unrevised historical evidence tells us that all humans are related to one another and there is only one “race”, the human race. Even modern science now agrees with what the undistorted chronological record has always taught us. For eneticsenetics now demonstrates to us that, even among the most varied extremes within the human species (i.e. size, shape, color, etc.), there is no more than 0.003% of a difference in our genetic makeup, proving we are all related and originating from the same source, and that the variations only began to be dispersed a few thousand years ago! The slight difference of 0.003% is what merely gives us all our unique features and identity, but the rest is basically the same (i.e. our many various organs, bones, vessels, tendons, blood cells, nervous system, etc.).
This may make some people uncomfortable, but they need to make an internal examination as to why. For if this truth were proclaimed throughout the world, it could birth a positive and beneficial perspective from which we could evaluate and carry out our actions toward one another. All the race baiting in the media would have to stop and people would have to examine the real motives behind those who would make excuses to mistreat their relatives.
The fact is when scientists did the math they found that the slight 0.003% diversity we observe in our gene pool was achieved in about 6000 years! Additionally, when scientists did the math for population growth, factoring in all the variables of war, famine, disease, etc., from the time of Noah (about 4,500 years ago) until today, starting with the eight people in Noah’s family that came off the ark, they came to a little over 6 billion people. Conversely, if we do the same math, starting about two million years ago (the evolutionary revisionist invention of “earliest” human history), the number of humans on this planet would be stacked side-by-side, like sardines in a can!!! Now, look around you. How many people do you see on the Earth? Maybe it’s time to start trusting your eyes for a change, instead of all the naturalistic lies you’ve been told!
Dear cousin, true history traces all of our roots back to Mt. Ararat and Noah’s family, and yes, through Noah back to Adam and Eve, the first man and woman of the human race created by God. The global flood in Noah’s day easily accounts for the vast majority of what we observe in the geologic strata, as science now reveals that the Earth’s sedimentary layers were laid down through vigorous water action over a very brief period of time.
This is just one small nugget, from a mountain of evidence that explains humanity’s true origin. Unfortunately, everything in science and history is being distorted and reworked to fit the atheistic/materialistic worldview, which desperately seeks to write our personal Creator out of the picture, because the sinful heart of man does not want to be reminded that we are accountable to the Holy God who made us, and that we are not “basically good” and neither are we truly in good standing with Him because of our sin (wrongdoing).
If this were the whole picture then things would be very bleak indeed. However, God loves us and sent His Son Jesus Christ to die a substitutionary, sinless, sacrificial death for our sin [because sin requires a death penalty to be paid (Romans 6:23)] to provide a way back for us to be in proper relationship with Him; because our connection was broken by our choice to rebel against God, in our attempt to live independently from His authority and protection over us.
This current life we are now living is mainly about our opportunity to choose to be restored back into a correct relationship with our Creator, or not, by our accepting or rejecting His method of restoration for us through the blood sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, by which we can receive total forgiveness for our sin against God, thus saving our souls from the coming judgment and destruction. Those who make Jesus their Lord and Savior are covered by His sinless blood sacrifice for them and given the gift of eternal life with God in heaven. Those who reject God’s way, through Jesus (John 14:6), must pay for their own sins, forever separated from God in a lake of fire and brimstone (Acts 4:12, Philippians 2:10-11 & ReveChsion Chs. 19 & 20). Jesus Himself made this very clear, giving many strong warnings to all who would listen, as His blood is the only solvent capable of removing sin off of our soul (John 8:24).
Although this article doesn’t come close to answering the multitude of questions about the subjects of origins and accountability, hopefully it will start you on a personal quest to find out what really is true. Seek (pray to) the true Creator, God Almighty, for the answers and do not look to the so-called “wisdom” of men’s opinions or religion that says you have to do good works of your own to make God happy. In authentic sincerity, ask God to make Himself real to you and for Him to show you what is true. For those who seek God with an honest heart, and don’t try to craft Him into their own image, will find Him. The rest, unfortunately, will die in their sins (John 3:36)
Jesus, referring to Himself said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” –John 3:16,18
What You Get When Several In The Church
The Foundation Is Destroyed And
The Next Generation Is Lost
The proof is in the eating of the pudding: According to a Barna survey on “teenagers and spirituality” it was stated that, “In total, 83% of teens maintain that moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of all teens between 13-18 years old believe that moral truth is absolute. When it comes to believing in absolute truth, only 9% of born again teens believe in moral absolutes and just 4% of the non-born again teens believe that there are moral absolutes (2001).*
Christian aCaryls Caryl<CarylMatriscMatriscianaisciana and Josh McDowell have been reporting that 75% to 85%, respectively, of Christian, churched youth that attend public education are turning their backs on the faith by their first year in College! Also, see the web article “The Indoctrinator”, which tells about a similar phenomenon of how 80% of college students are being robbed of their faith at: answersingenesisgenesis.org/news/indoctrinator.asp.
These survey statistics demonstrate a huge shift away from the influence of the traditional, biblical worldview in our culture, over to a dominating seduction and general acceptance of the atheistic worldview. We are at a very critical place in the battle for our culture, as to which one of these two religious worldviews will have control over the minds of the people. I am convinced that if we don't act with immediate decisiveness, the battle will soon be over and what has become a post-Christian era in the Western world, may quickly become known as a hostile anti-Christian age.
The Church has had a fatal attraction to atheistic pseudo-science, much like Samson had a fatal attraction to Delilah. The atheists have been bent on destroying the foundation of biblical faith and the statistics prove that they have successfully found the secret to undermining the strength of Christian belief. By “discrediting” a literal Genesis with long periods of time, they accomplished making sin a relative issue and therefore, the need for a Redeemer from that sin entirely meaningless. It is time for the Church to realize that the past compromises with the pseudo-scientific ideas of theistic evolution, progressive creation, the gap theory, the day age idea, a local flood, etc. are no longer scientifically defensible, as Darwin's theory is now completely dead and archaic as the idea of the moon being made of cheese. There is no longer any reason to appease the atheistic worldview and the uniformitarian, long periods of time! We now have new information about DNA, mutations, chemistry, physics, dating methods, geology and a great deal of young Earth/Universe evidence that refutes every postulation the atheists have put forth as "irrefutable science" for support ofunbiblicaliblical ideas about origins. Christian leaders can now accept what Genesis has told them all along, with absolute confidence, particularly in light of Dr. Russell Humphreys’ application of the White Hole theory in cosmology, as it relates to creation and starlight.
The Church has made unnecessary concessions in an attempt to create a synthesis between the Bible and the atheistic propaganda presented as “science”. Ironically, many Christians say they stand on the authority of the word of God, yet they readily accept an “interpretation” other than what is literally stated in the context of the Hebrew language used in Genesis for creation. This compromise was never necessary and it has cost the Church dearly.
It is imperative for a three-fold counterattack to be launched immediately, to expose and heal the lethal disease of Atheism that has infected the minds of the vast majority of the precious people on this planet. First, human kind must be given the opportunity to see just how intellectually impoverished any religious belief based upon the atheistic worldview actually is, in order to successfully unmask and uproot it at its foundational level. Second, the atheists’ attempt to rewrite history needs to be exposed as a perverted revision of the true history. Atheism added in a counterfeit of long periods of time and labeled it as a “prehistory”, which was intended to replace the pre-flood era (and it has largely succeeded in doing so, in most people’s brainwashed thinking). Third, we need to focus on the actual definition of what science is and how scientific laws cannot be violated by atheistic, pseudo-scientific “theories” and hypotheses, regardless of which “expert” may present them to us.
This book defines the subjective belief system of Atheism and compares it to the objective biblical worldview. Additionally, a basic exposure of several scientific laws foundational to life are presented, revealing how the atheists have freely violated good science in postulating their theories and beliefs, upon which they base the rest of their thinking. If one starts with an incorrect foundation, then everything that is built upon it is meaningless. This book will prove that the foundational premises of Atheism are as trustworthy as quicksand.
This material will be an effective way for sincere people who are not afraid of the truth to expose the fraud of Atheism and free millions of minds and hearts from the bondage of its deception and darkness. Science, history, proper exegesis, and plain logic are now all on the side of the biblical worldview! If the Church will choose to deal with its mistakes and move forward, it has a tremendous opportunity to reverse the damage and see a revival that will shake the gates of Hell itself! If the Church hesitates or hangs on to the old and outmoded ideas of the past, it may likely lose those remaining 9% of teens that still believe in absolute truth, along with the entire Western culture.
Many may be tempted to skip
forward to the chapters on science that deal with the atheistic pseudo-science,
in a desire to get to the root of the scientific issues and obtain factual and
effective “ammo” to deal with all the lies the atheists are presenting to the
public as “truth”. But unless one is
able to grasp the bigger picture and explain why Atheism is a dishonest,
subjective and irrational religion, based on a bankrupt and destructive
philosophy, that individual will only possess one half of the actual
information they need to displace the atheistic superstitions oppressing
people’s minds in the world today.
Exposing the false religion of Atheism is the key that will unlock the
door for people to be able to understand objective truth, which is supported by
real science. This will allow a stark distinction between the clever lies of
pseudo-science that the atheists hide behind and the truth of real science and
actual history, which will free every honest person from Darwin’s great
*Barna Research Group, Ventura, CA 93003. Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings barnaw.barna.org.
The Ten Dangers Of Theistic Evolution
10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution
By GITTER GITT
The atheistic formula for evolution is:
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that "God is love", "light", and "life" (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and "perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".2
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable "ramp" leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who "came to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), "Christ Jesus ... was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:5-7).
The idea of
evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. EvolutHoimar Hoimar von
The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any viewmythologizeslogizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants".4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarteleonomicalnomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
* This section is adapted from Gitt's Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
What is the "Gap Theory?", its origin and history?
Many people have tried to place a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1. There are many different versions as to what supposedly happened in this "gap" of time. Most versions of the "gap" theory place millions of years of geologic time (including billions of fossil animals) in between these two first verses of Genesis. This is the "ruin-reconstruction" version of the gap theory.
However, this undermines the gospel as it allows for death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam's sin. Because most "ruin-reconstruction" theorists have accepted the millions of years dating for the fossil record, they have thus allowed the fallible theories of scientists to determine the meaning of Scripture.
Some put the fall of Satan in this supposed period. But any rebellion of Satan during this gap of time contradicts God's description of His completed creation on day six as all being "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
All versions of the gap theory impose outside ideas on Scripture and thus open the door for further compromise.
These are the verses where there is supposed to be a gap:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and empty; and the darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2).
Where did the "gap theory" come from?
There have been many attempts over the years to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with accepted geology (and its teaching of billions of years for the age of the earth), such as "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation."
The gap theory was another significant attempt by Christian theologians to reconcile the time scale of world history found in Genesis with the popular belief that geologists provide "undeniable" evidence that the world is exceedingly old (billions of years).
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, was perhaps the man most responsible for the gap theory. The idea can be traced back to the rather obscure writings of the DuEpiscopiusscopius (1583-1643), and was first recorded from one of Chalmers' lectures in 1814. Rev. William Buckland, a geologist, did much to popularize the idea.
Although Chalmers' writings give very little information about the gap theory, many of the details are obtained from other writers such as the 19th century geologist Hugh Miller, who quoted from Chalmers' lectures on the subject.
This ruin-reconstruction view is held by many who use Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible.
The most notably influential 19th century writer to popularize this view waPember Pember, in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, first published in 1884. Numerous editions of this work were published, with the 15th edition appearing in 1942.
The 20th century writer who published the most academic defense of the gap theory was ArtCustanceustance in his work Without Form and Void.
The basic reason for developing and promoting the gap theory can be seen from the following very telling quotes:
Scofield Study Bible: Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.
The above quotes are typical of the many compromise positions -- accepting so-called "science" and its long ages for the earth, and incorporating this into Scripture.
A Testimony of Struggle
RecoPember'sember's struggle helps us understand the implications of the gap theory. The following is based on or quoted from his book Earth's Earliest Ages.
“For, by skillfully blending their own systems with the truths of Scripture, they so bewildered the minds of the multitude that but few retained the power of distinguishing the revelation of God from the craftily interwoven teachings of men.”
And the result is that inconsistent and unsound interpretations have been handed down from generation to generation, and received as if they were integral parts of the Scriptures themselves; while any texts which seemed violently opposed were allegorized, spiritualized, or explained away, till they ceased to be troublesome, or perchance, were even made subservient.
He then warns Christians:
“For, if we be observant and honest, we must often ourselves feel the difficulty of approaching the sacred writings without bias, seeing that we bring with us a number of stereotyped ideas, which we have received as absolutely certain, and never think of testing, but only seek to confirm.”
What happenePember Pember should warn us that no matter how great a theologian we may be, or how respected and knowledgeable a Christian leader, as finite sinful human beings we cannot easily empty ourselves of preconceived ideas. We sePember Pember did exactly what he preached against, and did not realize it. Such is the ingrained nature of the "long ages" issue. He did not want to question Scripture (he accepted the six literal days of creation), but he did not question the long ages either (perhaps he just took the word of Chalmers, who was a highly respected Christian). So he struggled with what to do. Many of today's respected Christian leaders show the same struggle in their commentaries as they then capitulate to "progressive creation" or even "theistic evolution."
For, as the fossil remains clearly show not only were disease and death -- inseparable companions of sin -- then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter.
He understood there could be no carnivores before sin:
On the Sixth Day God pronounced every thing which He had made to be very good, a declaration which would seem altogether inconsistent with the present condition of the animal as well as the vegetable kingdom. Again: He gave the green herb alone for food "to every beast of the field, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth." There were, therefore, no carnivora in the sinless world.
Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world, and have a sin-stained history of their own.
Thus, in trying to reconcile the long ages with ScriPember Pember justifies the gap theory:
There is room for any length of time between the first and second verses of the Bible. And again; since we have no inspired account of geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were developed just in the order which we find them. The whole process took place in pre-Adamite times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings, and, consequently, does not at present concern us.
With this background, let us consider this gap theory in detail. Basically, this theory incorporates three strands of thought:
There are many variations of the gap theory. According to Fields, the theory can be summarized as follows:
In the far distant dateless past, God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler of the earth, which was peopled by a race of "men" without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan's fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God's judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of 1:2), and then a global ice age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed.
All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this "Lucifer's flood" and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals, and fossils living upon the earth today.
Some versions of the gap theory state that the fossil record (geologic column) formed over millions of years, and then God destroyed the earth with a catastrophe (Lucifer's flood) that left it "without form and void."
Western Bible commentaries written before the 18th century, and before the belief in a long age for the earth became popular, knew nothing of any gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Certainly some commentaries proposed intervals of various lengths of time for reasons relating to Satan's fall, but none proposed a "ruin-reconstruction" situation, or pre-Adamite world.
In the 19th century, it became popular to believe that the geological changes occurred slowly, and roughly at the present rate (Uniformitarianism). With increased acceptance of Uniformitarianism, many theologians urged reinterpretation of Genesis (with ideas such as day-age, "progressive" creation, theistic evolution, days-of-revelation, etc. - see Six Days? Honestly!).
Is the "gap theory" an acceptable way to harmonize the Bible and the geologic record?
The ruin-and-reconstruction theory (also called the "gap theory") places a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1. This supposed "gap" has been used to try to harmonize the Bible with the supposed millions of years of the geologic record. (Learn about the source and history of this theory - Go...)
Problems with the Gap Theory
It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.
Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy". Thus, the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sea and all that is in them (the rest of creation) was completed in six days. Where is there time for a gap?
It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.
From Romans 5:12, "Therefore, even as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as have sinned," we understand that there could not have been human sin or death before Adam. The Bible teaches (1 Corinthians 15) that Adam was the first man, and as a result of his rebellion (sin), death and corruption (disease, bloodshed, and suffering) entered the universe. Before Adam sinned there could not have been any (nephesh) animal or human death. Note also that there could not have been a race of men before Adam that died in "Lucifer's flood" because 1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us that Adam was the "first" man.
Genesis 1:29-30 teaches us that the animals and man were originally created vegetarian. This is consistent with God's description of the creation as "very good." How could a fossil record, which gives evidence of disease, violence, death, and decay (fossils have been found of animals apparently fighting and certainly eating each other), be described as "very good"? Thus, the death of billions of animals (and many humans) as seen in the fossil record must have occurred after Adam's sin. The historical event of Noah's flood, recorded in Genesis, provides an explanation for the presence of huge numbers of dead animals buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
Romans 8:22 teaches us that, "we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." Clearly the whole of creation was, and is, subject to decay and corruption because of sin. The fossil record shows disease, decay, and death. When gap theorists believe that disease, decay, and death existed before Adam sinned, they ignore that this contradicts the teaching of Scripture.
The version of the gap theory that puts Satan's fall at the end of the geological ages, just before the supposed pre-Adamic Lucifer's flood, has a further problem -- the death and suffering recorded in the fossils must have been God's fault. As it happened before Satan's fall, Satan and sin cannot be blamed for it.
The gap theory is logically inconsistent because it explains away what it is supposed to accommodate -- supposed evidence for an old earth.
Gap theorists accept that the earth is very old. They base this on geologic evidence interpreted with the assumption that the present is the key to the past. This assumption implies that in the past, sediments containing fossils formed at basically the same rate as they do today. This is also used by most geologists and biologists to justify belief in the "geologic column" as represented by billions of years of earth history. This geologic column has become the showcase of evolution because the fossils are claimed to show "ascent" from simple to complex forms.
This places gap theorists in a dilemma. Committed to literal creation because of their acceptance of a "literal" view of Genesis, they cannot accept the conclusions of evolution based on the geologic column. Nor can they accept that the days in the Genesis record correspond to geologic periods. So they propose that God reshaped the earth and re-created all life in six literal days after "Lucifer's flood" (which produced fossils); hence the name "ruin-reconstruction." Satan's sin supposedly caused this flood and the resulting judgment upon that sin reduced the previous world to a state of being "without form and void."
While the gap theorist may think Lucifer's flood solves the problem, this actually removes the reason for the theory in the first place. If all, or most, of the sediments and fossils were produced quickly in one massive worldwide Lucifer's flood, then the main "evidence" that the earth is extremely old (based on the assumed slow formation of the sediments) no longer exists.
Also, if the world was reduced to a shapeless chaotic mess, as gap theorists propose, how could a reasonably ordered assemblage of fossils and sediments remain as evidence? Surely with such chaos the fossil record would have been severely disrupted, if not entirely destroyed. (This argument also applies to those who say the fossil record formed over hundreds of millions of years before this so-called "Lucifer's flood," which would have severely rearranged things.)
The gap theory does away with the evidence for Noah's flood.
If the fossil record was formed by "Lucifer's flood," then what did the global flood of Noah do? On this point the gap theorist is forced to conclude that Noah's flood left virtually no trace. To be consistent, the gap theorist would have to defend Noah's flood as a local Custanceustance, one of the major proponents of the gap theory, did this. He even published a paper defending a local flood.
Genesis, however, depicts Noah's flood as a judgment for man's sin (Genesis 6). Water flooded the earth for over a year (Genesis 6:17 and 7:19-24). Only eight people, and air-breathing, land-dwelling animals with them on the ark, survived. (Genesis 7:23).
Sadly, in relegating the fossil record to the supposedgappistsappists" have removed the evidence for God's judgment on the violent pre-flood world in the graveyard of the flood. The fossils buried by the flood should warn us of God's judgment to come on sinful humans (2 Peter 3:2-14).
The gap theorist ignores the evidence for a young earth.
The true gap theorist also ignores evidence consistent with an age for the earth of less than 10,000 years. There is much evidence for this -- the decay and rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field; the quantity of helium in the earth's atmosphere; the amount of salt in the oceans; the wind-up of spiral galaxies; and much more.
The gap theory fails to accommodate standard uniformitarian geology with its long ages anyway.
Today's uniformitarian geologists allow for no worldwide flood of any kind -- the imaginary Lucifer's flood, or Noah's real flood. They also recognize no break between the supposed former created world and the current re-created world.
Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.
By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).
Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15; Genesis 3:22-23). These passages tell us that Adam's sin led to physical death as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the death of the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man's sin, because Adam, the first man, died physically because of sin. Genesis 3:22-23 tells us that if Adam and Eve could have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, but God decreed that they should die physically because of their sin.
In placing on man the curse of physical death, God provided a way to redeem man through the person of His Son Jesus Christ, who suffered the curse of death on the cross for us. "He tasted death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9). By becoming the perfect sacrifice for our sin and rebellion, He conquered death. He took the penalty that should rightly have been ours at the hands of a righteous judge, and bore it in His own body on the cross. All who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are received back to God to spend eternity with Him. That is the message of Christianity. To believe there was death before Adam's sin destroys the basis of the Christian message, because the Bible states that man's rebellious actions led to death and the corruption of the universe (Romans 8:19-22). Thus, the gap theory undermines the foundations of Christianity.
Genesis records a catastrophe that destroyed all organisms that had the "breath of life in them" except for those preserved in Noah's ark. Christ refers to Noah's flood in Matthew 24:37-39, and the apostle Peter writes that, just as there was once a global judgment of mankind by water, so there will be another worldwide judgment by fire (2 Peter 3).
It is more consistent with the whole framework of Scripture to attribute most fossils to Noah's flood than to resort to a strained interpretation of the fall of Satan and a totally speculative catastrophe that contributes nothing to biblical understanding, or to science.
Moreover, advocating death before Adam sinned contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that death came only after Adam sinned and made man's redemption necessary.
A Closer Look at Genesis 1:1-2
The earliest available manuscript of Genesis 1:1-2 is found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), prepared about 250-200 B.C. The LXX does not permit the reading of any "ruin-reconstruction" scenario into these verses, aCustanceustance admitted. A closer look at these verses reveals that the gap theory imposes an interpretation upon Genesis 1:1-2 which is unnatural, and grammatically unsound. Like many attempts to harmonize the Bible with uniformitarian geology's supposed long ages of earth history, the gap theory involves a well-meant but misguided twisting of Scripture.
In the following we deal with the five major issues of interpretation bearing on the gap theory. For a much fuller analysis, we recommend the book Unformed and Unfilled.
Creating and making (Hebrew: baasahnd asah)
It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word bara, used with "God" as its subject, means "to create" -- in the sense of the production of something which did not exist before.
However, in the Fourth Commandment God "madasahasah) the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days (Exodus 20:11). If God made everything in six days then there is clearly no room for a gap. To avoid this clear scriptural testimony against any gap, gap theorists have alleged tasahasah cannot mean "to create," but to "form" or even "re-form." They claim that Exodus 20:11 refers not to six days of creation, but six days of re-forming a ruined world.
Is there such a difference between bara
asahasah in biblical usage? A number of verses show that whasahasah
may mean "to do," or "to make," it can also mean "to
create," the same as bara. For example, Nehemiah 9:6
states that God maasahasah) "heaven, the heaven of heavens, with
all their host, the earth, and all things in it, the seas, and all in
them." The reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo
creation, but the wasahasah is used. (We may safely assume that no
The fact is that the words bara asahasah are often used interchangeably in the Old Testament; indeed, in some places they are used in synonymous parallelism (e.g., Genesis 1:26-27; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).
Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11 (cf. 31:17) as well as Nehemiah 9:6, we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.
The Grammar of Genesis 1:1-2
Many adherents of the gap theory claim that the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 allows, even requires, a time-gap between what happened in verse 1, and what happened in verse 2. Into this gap -- believed to be billions of years -- they want to place all the major geological phenomena that have shaped the world.
This is a most unnatural interpretation, which is not suggested by the plain meaning of the text. The most straightforward reading of the verses sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb-clause, with verse 2 containing three "circumstantial clauses" -- that is, three statements further describing the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1.
This conclusion is reinforced by the gramGeseniusesenius. He says that the conjunctwaw waw ("and") at the beginning of verse 2 iswaw"waw copulative," which compares with the old English expression "to wit."
This grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 thus rules out the gap theory. Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth: "And the earth was without form, and empty" (Genesis 1:2).
"Was" or "Became"?
was without form and empty" as "the earth became [or, "had become"] without form and empty." At stake is the translation of the Hebrew whayetahhayetah (a form of the Hebrew vehayahi>hayah, "to be").
hayetahhayetah must mean "became" and not simply "was."
Note again that the meaning of a word is controlled by its context, and that in the previous section we showed that verse 2 is circumstantial to verse 1. Thus, "was" is the most natural and appropriate translation hayetahhayetah. It is rendered this way in most English versions (as well as the LXX). Furthermore, in Genesis hayetahhayetah is not followed by the preposition le, which would have removed any ambiguity in the Hebrew and required the translation "became."
These delightful words are usually translated "formless and empty" (Genesis 1:2). They imply that the original universe was created unformed and unfilled and was, during six days, formed and filled by God's creative actions.
Tohu BohuBohu appear together only in the three above-mentioned places of the Old Testament. However, tohu appears alone in a number of other places and in all cases simply means "formless." The word itself does not tell us about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isaiah 45:18 (often quotgappistsappists") is rendered in the KJV "he created it not in vain [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited." In the context, Isaiah is speaking about Israel, God's people, and His grace in restoring them. He did not choose His people in order to destroy them, but to be their God and they His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God's purpose in creation: He did not create the world for it to be empty! No, He created it to be formed and filled, a suitable abode for His peGappistsappists" miss the point altogether when they argue that because Isaiah says God did not create the world tohu, it must have become tohu at some later time. Isaiah 45:18 is about God's purpose in creating, not about the original state of creation.
Though the expression tohu bohubohu in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 speaks of a formlessness and emptiness resulting from divine judgment for sin, this meaning is not implicit in the expression itself, but it is gained from the particular contexts in which it occurs. It is not valid therefore to infer that same meaning into Genesis 1:2, where the context does not suggest it. As an analogy, we might think of a word like "blank," in reference to a computer screen. It can be blank because nothing has been typed on the keyboard, or it can be blank because the screen was erased. The word "blank" does not suggest, in itself, the reason why the screen is blank. It is likewise "formless and empty" -- this can be due to the earth not yet being formed and filled, or it could be due to something becoming that way through judgment, for example.
Theologians call the form of use of tohu bohubohu in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 a "verbal allusion." These passages on judgment allude to the formless and empty earth at the beginning of creation to suggest the extent of God's judgment to come. God's judgment will be so complete that the result will be like the earth before it was formed and filled -- formless and empty. This does not imply that the state of the creation in Genesis 1:2 was arrived at by some sort of judgment or destruction as imagigappistsappists. As theologian Robert Chisholm Jr. wrote, "By the way, allusion only works one way. It is unwarranted to assume that Jeremiah's use of the phrase in a context of judgment implies some sort of judgment in the context of Genesis 1:2... Jeremiah is not interpreting the meaning of Genesis 1:2."
The gap theory imposes an interpretation upon Genesis 1:1-2 which is unnatural, and grammatically unsound.
Genesis 1:28 to justify the gap theory on the basis that this word means "refill." Thus, they claim that God told Adam and Eve to "refill" the earth, implying it was once before filled with people (thAdamitesdamites").
However, this is wrong. In the Hebrew, the word translated "replenish," male, simply means "fill" (or "fulfil" or "be filled").
The English word "replenish" meant fill from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Then it changed to mean "refill." As the KJV was published in 1611, the translators used the English word "replenish," which at the time meant only "fill," not "refill."
The Straightforward Meaning of Genesis 1:1-2
The gap (or "ruin-reconstruction") theory is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Scripture.
The simple, straightforward meaning of Genesis 1:1-2 is that when God at the beginning created the earth it was initially formless, empty, and dark, and God's Spirit was there above the waters. It was through His creative energy that the world was then progressively "formed and filled" during the remaining six days of creation.
Consider the analogy of a potter making a vase. The first thing he does is get a ball of clay. What he has is good, but it is unformed. Next, he shapes it into a vase, using his potter's wheel. Now it is no longer formless. He then might dry it, apply glaze, and fire it. Now it is ready to be filled -- with flowers and water. At no time could one of the stages be considered evil or bad. It was just not finished -- unformed and unfilled. When it was finally formed and filled, it could be described as "very good."
Many sincere Christians have invented reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid conflicts with "scientific" ideas. The gap theory was one such reinterpretation designed to fit in with scientific concepts that arose in the early 1800s and are still popular today.
In reality though, the gap theory was an effective "anesthetic" that put the church to sleep for over one hundred years. When the children who learned this compromise position went on to higher education, they were shocked to discover that this theory explained nothing. They thus accepted the only remaining "respectable" theory, evolution (which went hand in hand with millions of years). The results were usually disastrous for their faith.
Today, other compromise positions like "progressive creation" or "theistic evolution" have, by and large, replaced the gap theorygappistsappists," by attempting to maintain a literal Genesis but adhering to the long ages (millions of years), opened the door for greater compromise in the next generation -- the reinterpretation of the days, God used evolution, etc.
But whether it be a "gap theory," "progressive creation," or "theistic evolution," the results are the same. These positions may be acceptable in some churches, but the learned in the secular world will, with some justification, mock those who hold them -- they see the inconsistencies.
Christians will be derided whatever they believe about Genesis. We can choose to be scoffed at for believing the first book of the Bible as God intended it to be understood, or for believing in a compromise position that undermines the authority of God's Word.
Copyright © 1996, 1999, 2000, Answers in Genesis, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that ChristianAnswersAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 1999, Eden CommunicationsPO Box 200
The ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.
This brief summary of only some
of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of the
While Dr Ross is NOT an evolutionist per se, he does accept much of what evolutionists teach in astronomy and geology. We do not seek to pass judgment on his Christian character or commitment to the Lord.
· Noah’s Flood was a local event.
Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are publisNAVPRESSAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’
(The following quotes are all taken from lectures or publications by Dr Ross)
‘It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.
‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).
Our Comment: Read John 3:16 for yourself and compare it to the above!
Also: ‘Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.Toocoa(Toocoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)
‘But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.
‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)
Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!
‘Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.
‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).
Comment: Indeed God cannot lie, so when He tells us in Romans 8:22 that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin, then how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God?
‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.
‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)
Comment: Dr Ross accepts and defends the evolutionist radiometric dating methods, so all evidence of humans, descendants of Noah, if given evolutionary dates of more than 25,000 years (eg., The Neanderthal cave sites) must be redefined as related to spirithominoidsminoids’ which the Bible doesn’t mention. However, the same methods have been used to ‘date’ the Australian aborigines back at least 40,000 years (some have claimed much older). By Ross’s reasoning, the Australian aborigines could NOT be descendants of Adam and Eve. However, read Acts 17:26. Interestingly, some scientists now date the American Indians’ ancestors at earlier than 40,000 years.
‘The Creator of the universe must be a Being that’s a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated, more intelligent, therefore more powerful, more creative, and even more caring and loving than we human beings.’ (Focus on the Family, radio broadcast, August 7, 1997)
‘The spilling of blood before Adam’s sin in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a Creation scenario in which none of God’s creatures received a scratch or other blood-letting wound before Adam and Eve sinned … Even in an ideal natural environment animals would be constantly scratched, pricked, bruised, and even killed by accidental events and each other … Could it be that God’s purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the ‘random, wasteful, inefficiencies’ of the natural realm He created?’ (Creation and Time, Chapters 6 & 8)
Comment: Read Genesis 1:29,30; Genesis 9:3; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:17-19; Genesis 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; Romans 5; Romans 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 3:21; Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3.
God created a perfect world at the beginning—all the animals and man were vegetarians (Gen. 1:29). Plants were given for food—they do not have a ‘nephesh’ [life spirit] as man and animals do.
God killed the first animal in the Garden and shed blood because of sin—if there was death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, then the basis for the atonement is destroyed. Christ suffered death, for death was the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23). There will be no death or suffering in the perfect ‘restoration’—so why can’t we accept the same in a perfect (‘very good’) Creation before sin?
‘We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997)
Comment: Look up Revelation 6:9 for yourself!
‘What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, Chapter 8)
Comment: Dr Ross bases much of what he says on ‘string theory,’ which is NOT universally accepted, and is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists. It is so vague and speculative, and without experimental support, that to use it to apply to defining attributes of God is foolish.
In the same book Dr Ross declares: ‘We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only for God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent of our own four.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, chapter 3)
Comment: What about Hebrews 11:3,6? Whatever happened to faith? String theory is NOT proof for God’s existence. Remember Romans 10:17: ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to bring people to Christ.
A detailed critique of many more