Evolution or Creation

So, which one is right?  They're both right, but they are not speaking of two different Creations. I mean, ya know, the Lord was really pooped (after all that work of creation) and "rested." Ken, why would He go through all that again? :)) Besides, as you're attempting to point out, He'd lose all His credibility evolutionist would really jump all over Him. Interesting though, if the Bible was written, as some say for "self-interest" why would they make such an apparent contradiction, and right in the beginning? You'd think they would have caught and edited it. :)) Genesis 1 tells of the creation of the whole universe, including man and woman; while Genesis 2 specifically describes the origin of man and woman without repeating the story of the creation recorded in Gen.1. Thus Gen. 2 says nothing of the creation of light, of the separation of the waters, or of the formation of sun, moon, and stars. Nor does it actually describe the creation of vegetation or of animals. Gen. 2 is sometimes erroneously interpreted as describing the creation of vegetation, BUT it only mentions the planting of a particular garden. Verse 19, often misinterpreted as another description of the creation of animals coming after rather than before Adam. To think that the planting of the garden described in v. 8 was not done until after man had been formed, as stated in v.7, is really absurd. In both cases (the "planting" of the garden and the "forming" of the animals) the Hebrew verb could be more correctly translated by the English "had planted" and "had formed."  Nope, only one Creation and one Creator. "In the beginning God...."
Six Literal Days Of Creation
The concept of theistic evolution does violence to the Scriptures since its acceptance casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible to relate honestly. Genesis says ALL life was created after its own kind. These conflicts with evolution, which says some kinds changed to other kinds. If the six days of creation are not six literal days then how did the plants created on the third day survive until the sun was created on the fourth day and the insects were created on the sixth day? Plants cannot survive without sunlight or insects to help them pollinate and reproduce themselves. We cannot be dealing with long eras here but six literal, 24-hour days. Twenty-four hours is qualified by the repeated use of the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the _____ day." Everywhere in the Pentateuch the word 'day' (Yom) when used (as here in Genesis 1, 2) with a definite article or numerical adjective means a solar day, or a normal 24 hour day.
Evolution - Useful In Education?
The science classroom is another area where we continue to see the uselessness of the evolutionary model. There is no area in the study of biology where this concept is necessary or the least bit helpful. One can learn all we know about the aforementioned fields of bacteriology, immunology, and embryology, as well as cytology, botany, physiology, genetics, and any others, without a mention of evolution. Take the area of genetics, for example. All the well-established laws of inheritance, as well as all the careful observations of science, are perfectly compatible with the creation hypothesis. Kinds of organism have always been observed to produce like kinds, without exception. Any unexpected genetic changes in the inheritance pattern of an organism, which cannot be explained by normal laws of inheritance, are usually negative or harmful, never beneficial to the organism. Evolution demands millions of these beneficial changes, which have never been observed. Even the natural selection theory (survival of the fittest), which is much heralded by evolutionists, fits the creation model better. Natural selection works to eliminate weaker organisms, which have accumulated too many negative changes, thus preventing significant change in the identity of the kind of organism. So the more we learn about inheritance, the more we see that all the observations and laws of genetics are working to keep a frog a frog and a chicken a chicken, and not to turn a frog or a chicken into some other organism, as evolution claims. It is not wonder that Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist for the British Museum, spoke of evolutionary ideas as "anti-knowledge" (5). Evolution, at best, may have been though of as a benign assumption in the scientific world, but in recent years we have come to realize that frequently the basic presuppositions of evolutionary thinking have actually been a malignancy retarding true scientific discovery and preventing biological research from efficiently meeting the needs of mankind in many areas. Creation with plan and purpose, on the other hand, provides an excellent basis for solving problems in the real world of scientific research. So it seems that one of the best things scientists could do for their research, and for the needy world would be to develop a foundational attitude like that of the great 17th-century physical astronomer, John Kepler, who said that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
(Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley) is Associate Director of the Institute of Creation Research and Professor of Natural Science and Apologetics at Christian Heritage College, San Diego, California. He spent 18 years in biochemical and biomedical research with the Upjohn Company and at Cornell University and Berkeley. There are over 450 scientists with a master's or doctor's degree in some field of natural science is now voting members of the Creation Research Society. The following lecture was given at the University of California at Davis and has been greatly condensed for the sake of space. As a scientist, I believe we must examine all the evidence and facts before we can come to any conclusion on any given subject. I'm asking only one thing of this audience... that you examine the facts thoroughly and without prejudice. The refusal by science teachers to consider creation as a possible explanation for the origin of all things is unwarranted and undesirable. The student is being indoctrinated without being given a complete presentation of the evidence. This situation could be remedied by taking a closer look at both creation and evolution. First, let's examine the claims of each. The EVOLUTIONIST states that all life gradually evolved from a single cell, which had evolved from dead matter. CREATIONISTS believe that life and our existence came by the acts of a Creator. The evidence that the EVOLUTIONIST needs to establish his claims is a fossil showing a gradual step-by-step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms. And this should be evident by the presence in the fossil record of many transitional forms. The evidence needed to support CREATION, is fossils showing complex life appearing suddenly...with no fossil evidence of lower animals developing into new and complex forms of life. Now, lets look at the actual fossil evidence. The earliest fossils to be found are in the Cambrian rock strata. And the billions of fossils found there are all of highly complex forms of life with no evidence of these complex forms gradually developing from a simple form of life. According to evolutionists it would have required 1.5 billion years for these animals to evolve. Not a single, indisputable multi-cellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock supposedly older that Cambrian rocks. Billions of highly complex animals...trilobites, brachiopods, corals, worms, jellyfish, etc.just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower forms. Also, throughout the remainder of the fossil record there is a remarkable absences of the many transitional forms demanded by the theory of evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of missing links between invertebrates and vertebrates. The sea squirt is presumed to be the ancestry of the vertebrate. According to evolutionists it would have taken 100 million years for fish to evolve from an invertebrate. But there is absolutely no fossil evidence showing that this took place. Again, the evolutionists claim that it took perhaps 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But again, there are no transitional forms. For example...not a single fossil with part fins...part feet have ever been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly. Let me quote some comments by LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS. Charles Darwin admitted "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, who do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate kinds, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. "Prof. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard University has said, "Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large." Prof. E.J.H. Corner of Cambridge University has stated, "I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." There is no evidence of even one species changing into another. As the late Prof. R. Goldschmidt of the University of California observed, "It is good to keep in mind... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro-mutations". If evolution is true, why don't we see living stages of evolution today? Shouldn't new organs and new structure still be appearing today? Surely if evolutionary processes had truly existed in the past they would still be operating today. The fossil of the bird (Archaeopteryx) is claimed by some to be a link between birds and reptiles. But there was a world of difference between reptiles and Archaeopteryx. It had wings, feathers...and it flew! The fact that it had claws on its wings does not prove that it had a reptilian ancestry. There are two birds living today that possess claws! All paleontologists (those who study fossils) now acknowledge that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. The alleged horse series was created more out of imagination than from fossil evidence. The fossils for this series are not found in the proper time sequence as indicated by the evolutionists, and the major types appear abruptly, without transitions. And there is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this series. Eohippus had 18 pairs of Ribs. Orohippus had only 15 pairs. Then Pliohippus jumped to 19 Equus Scotti is back to 18.Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of natural selection. Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the tops of the trees, and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off. And the giraffes, which grew longer necks, survived. However, there is no evidence whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short necks have ever existed. And what would have happened to young giraffes with relatively short necks? Darwin failed to realize that body characteristics in offspring are determined and programmed by DNA factors of the Genes or the Genetic material of the parents, and not by the stretching of the neck or any other bodily exercise. The cover of the journal, Science, December 9, 1966, shows a photograph of a bat fossil that is alleged to be over 50 million years old. This is said to be the oldest fossil bat, but it is the same as a modern bat! Why isn't there any evidence of change after 50 million years? It might be will now to look at the "evidence" which anthropologists have assembled, in an attempt to reconstruct the evolution of man. Some consider Ramapithecus to have been hominid (a man-like ape), and this judgment has been made solely on the basis of a few fragments of the jaw. That's all the fossil fragments they have. Dr. Jolley has recently reported that a species of baboon in Ethiopia has the same dental and jaw characteristics as Ramapithecus. These characteristics are therefore not those of man! Other anthropologists have agreed that Ramapitecus was simply an ape. The first find of Australopithecines was by Dart in 1924. He pointed out many ape-like features of the skull, but he believed the teeth to be manlike. Its brain was only about 1/3 as large as that of modern man. It was only about 4 feet tall. Recently, Richard Leakey, the son of Dr. Leakey. Published evidence that indicated that the Australopithecines were long-armed, short-legged knuckle walkers, similar to living African apes. These creatures were nothing but apes! In China, during the 1920's, fragments of skulls, jaws, and teeth, were found in a limestone cliff near Peking. However, during World War II all the original bones were lost. All of these creatures had been killed and eaten, and the skulls preserved as trophies. Some prominent anthropologists believe that hunter was true Man. Peking "man" must then have been simply a giant ape. Java Man is put together on the evidence of a femur (large leg bone), a skullcap, and three molar teeth. These parts were found within a 50-foot range, in a space of one year. Dr. Dubois, its discoverer, concealed for 30 years the fact that he found human skulls near his Java man, and at the same level. So man was already there when this creature was alive. The femur was probably from a human, and the skullcap was probably that of a giant ape. Before his death, and after he had convinced most of the early skeptics, Dubois changed his mind and decided that Java man was probably a giant gibbon and not a man-like at all. Neanderthal Man has a skeletal structure of modern man. His cranial capacity exceeded that of modern man. It was claimed that he lived as long as about 100,000 years ago, but all anthropologists now believe that he was just as human as you and I. Complete skeletons of the Cro-Magnons have been found. Their cranial capacity was greater that modern man's. If he were alive today, and if he were to walk down the street in a business suit, he would go completely unnoticed. Two of the most embarrassing so-called missing links for evolutionists, are the NEBRASKA MAN and the Piltdown man. At the famous Scopes evolution trail in Dayton, Tennessee, the NEBRASKA MAN evidence was presented by the leading scientific authorities of that day as proof of evolution. They scoffed and laughed at William Jennings Bryan, when he protested the scanty evidence. The evidence was that of a tooth that was supposed to have come from a prehistoric man who supposedly lived one million years ago. However, years later, when more fossils were unearthed, it was discovered that Nebraska Man was only a pig. I think this is a case where a pig made a monkey out of an evolutionist! In 1912 Charles Dawson brought forth the Piltdown man. A piece of skull was the evidence acclaimed by experts as that of an ape-man who was about a half million years old. But in 1953 the hoax was exposed. The jawbone turned out to be that of a modern ape. The teeth had been filed down, and the bones were artificially colored to deceive the public. The ease with which this fraud fooled the world's greatest authorities illustrated the powerful influence of preconceived ideas among evolutionists. But in the August 1973 issues of Reader's Digest there was a report about two phenomenal discoveries, which were recently made in Africa. These discoveries have shaken the anthropological world, because they challenge the validity of long cherished theories concerning the origin of man. One was the finding of a human skull, dated by evolutionists to be about 2.8 million years old. Most textbooks state that the first man did not evolve until around one million years ago. Yet the bones found are said to be even more modern that those of Pithecanthropus, our presumed man-like ancestor. Obviously these presumed ancestors cannot be man's true ancestors, for who ever heard of parents being younger that their children? The second was the finding of skeletons of sophisticated humans who are reputed to have lived 100,00 years ago. They had developed the art of mining, were able to keep records, count, and had also developed sophisticated tools. But according to the evolutionists this type of sophisticated humans was not supposed to have appeared on the scene until 65,000 years later. Duane personally heard Richard Leaky the discoverer of the 2.8 million year old man speak in San Diego. In commenting on these two discoveries Mr. Leaky stated, "What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place." Let us now consider the beginnings of life itself. By chance, nothingness developed into substance. That evolved into a very highly complex organization... without a designer. Darwinists assume that life, or the primitive cell, arose by pure chance. For example, by chance some amino acids were formed. Then from these the necessary protein was formed. The first problem is that the rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. No significant quantity would thus ever be produced. Another insuperable barrier is that these amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein...just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein of only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1/10 to the 65th power, or in layman language-100, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 to ONE! Even the very simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA, and other highly complex molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in an incredibly complex system. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. Which, then, came first? Dr. N.W. Pirie of the Rothamstead Experimental Station at Harpenden, England, rejects this whole concept of spontaneous biogenesis simply on the well-founded fact that "complicated molecules such as proteins do not, in our scientific experience, arise spontaneously, even by stages. And all forms of life known today are dependent on protein." Dr. John Moore spoke during the annual session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He described the theory that man evolved from "amoeba and sea-slimes" as an "incredible religion," but not "science." Dr. John Moore stated: "Chromosome variation in animals does not correspond to predictions based on evolution theory. There is absolutely no pattern of increase of chromosome number from less complex to more complex, but this should take place if evolution were true. Furthermore, hereditary material in the genes of chromosomes shows great variation, frogs having more genetic material that do humans, which contradicts the theory of evolution. Darwinism is more illogical than biological." Professor Henry M. Morris has shown that the theory of evolution contradicts the universally accepted laws of thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things left to them selves always tend to go from the complex to the simple form, the organized to the disorganized. Evolution would require just the opposite... the continually building up from the simplest to the more complex forms. I would now like for us to consider the complexity of the order and design of our planet and universe. In researching the size of the earth we discover that the mass and size of the earth are just right. If the earth's diameter were 7,200 miles instead of 8,000, almost the whole earth, due to a lessening of its atmospheric mantle, would be reduced to a snow and ice waste. If there were a variation of only 10 percent, either in the increase or decrease of the size of our world, no life, as we know it on earth would be possible! If the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees you could bid goodbye to many of the big cities of the earth, for the glaciers would melt, and that in turn would flood many of the big cities. This would also inundate hundreds of thousands of square miles of our most fertile lands. The earth's axis, which now points toward the North Star, is tilted just right - at the strange angle of 23 degrees from the perpendicular, that is, in relation to the plane of its orbit. Because of this tilt the sun appears to go north in the summer and south in the winter, giving us four seasons in the temperate zone. For the same reason, there is twice as much of the land area of the earth that can be cultivated and inhabited, as there would be if the sun were always over the equator, with no change of seasons. Think what would happen if the earth were tilted any other way than it is. We live miraculously on this planet, protected from eight killer rays from the sun, by a thin layer of ozone high up in our atmosphere. If that little belt of ozone, approximately forty miles up and only one eighth of an inch thick (if compressed), should suddenly drift into space, all life on earth would perish. The first miracle, in the light of what the rest of the universe is like, is that there IS an ocean here! In the universe as a whole, liquid water of any kind - sweet or salt - is an exotic rarity. Contrary to common belief, the liquid state is exceptional in nature; most matter in the universe seems to consist either of flaming gases, as in the stars, or frozen solids drifting in the abyss of space. The amazing accuracy and smoothness with which the Universe revolves - as a flawless, perfect machine - can be seen in the perfection that characterizes the journey of our earth around the sun. It takes the earth 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds to make its journey around the sun. And in this circuit the earth has varied in only the slightest degree. None but an infinite GOD could achieve such flawless, continuous PERFECTION.I believe as GOD states in the Bible (Romans 1:20) that nature and creation itself reveals that there is a Creator. We know that for every design there is a designer, and for every law there is a lawgiver. "In the beginning God created" is still the most up-to-date statement on the origin of the universe and all that it contains. And now I would like to speak personally to you ... the reader of this little book. God is revealed through His creation...but the greatest revelation God has given to man, He gave through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Old Testament part of the Bible informs us that God made man in His own image and likeness, to be His sons. Man, however rebelled against God. We have all determined to go our own way and disregard our real Father. Jesus Christ revealed that God dearly loves us, and that He sent Him to live among us briefly, and then to give His life as a ransom (a sacrifice) for our sins. We may now be reconciled to God... to eternal life with Him, by accepting forgiveness of our sins through Jesus. That which is also necessary is that we repent (turn) from our sinning and live to please God. All who refuse to accept God's love and forgiveness will receive terrible judgment. I urge you to make your peace with God today. Then read the Bible that you may grow in your new life. I suggest that you begin reading in the book of Luke in the New Testament. God bless you!
Who Is the Ignoramus?
Evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Today there is not a scientist in the entire world, who can trace one single species to any other, and yet they call us ignoramuses and bigots because we do not throw away our Bible and accept it as proved that out of two or three million species not a one is traceable to another. And they say evolution is a fact when they cannot prove that one species came from another, and if there is such a thing, all species must have come, commencing as they say, commencing in that one lonely cell down there in the bottom of the ocean that just evolved and evolved until it got to be a man. And they cannot find a single species that came from another, and yet they demand that we allow them to teach this stuff to our children, that they may come home with their imaginary tree and scoff at their mother's and father's Bible. -William Jennings Bryan, July 16, 1925
This theoretical discovery has led some cosmologists to say
·     SMthat the universe could have been created by a chance
·     SMfluctuation in space-time. In the words of physicist Frank
·     SMWilczyk, "The reason there is something instead of nothing
·     SMis that 'nothing' is unstable."
This primeval explosion is supposed to have resulted in a uniform radial expansion of energy and matter. One of the most basic conservation laws of physics is the principle of conservation of angular momentum, which, states, among other things, that uniform radial motion could never give rise to curvilinear motion. How, then, could the linearly expanding gas soon be converted into orbiting galaxies and planetary system?  As I said before the "Big Bang" flatly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sir Fred Hoyle and many others have rejected the Big Bang theory. As Weisskoph has said: "No existing view of the development of the cosmos is completely satisfactory, and this includes the standard model, which leads to certain fundamental questions and problems." -V.P. Weisskoph, "The Origins of the Universe", American Scientist 1983. The oscillating-universe idea is also being abandoned. As what appears to be a desperate attempt to escape the creationist implications of genuine cosmogony, a new wave of Cosmo-physicists has offered what you call the "inflationary" Big Bang. This nonsense suggests that the universe (including all of space and time) began as an infinitesimal particle, which inflated to a grapefruit size in its first in stand of existence. This initial "cold big swoosh" was then supposedly followed by the standard "hot big bang. What about the initial particle-sized universe??? Two of the originators of this concept have an answer: "It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." Tryon conjectures: "that our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation for some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness." -Edward Tryon, "What Made the World" New Scientist, 84. Therefore ones choice finally boils down to the following: Evolution ex nihilo or Creation ex Deo. The choice used to be: "Eternal Matter" or Eternal God." Now it has become: Omnipotent Nothingness" or Omnipotent Creator." "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth."
Well, we know the evidence against evolution, so what is the evidence for creation? The Universe!!  Seriously, as I've stated before creations like evolution cannot be proven, but creation has a much stronger case. "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" (D.J. Futuyma, 1983). The facts against evolution (gaps between kinds, no mechanism, increasing entropy, no new species, no recapitulation or vestigial organs, DNA itself, etc., are actual predictions from the creation model. I think you would appreciate and enjoy the book "What Is Creation Science" by Henry Morris. While not technically deep it shows scientifically the viability of the creation model. The existence of a creation necessitates the reality of a Creator. Intricate design requires a careful and intelligent master; organization requires an Organizer. Scientific Laws demand a Law Giver. Pure and simple logic. Historical geology is based on the assumption of evolutionary biology. Therefore, the primary evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!!! Blatant circular reasoning that is completely invalid...Evolutionist are in a precarious position when sitting on the chair of the general theory (I stress theory, not fact as taught in our schools today, of evolution. This expresses their position nicely: "As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."
The book by Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is a secular critique of evolution. It is thoughtful, logical, empirical, and well written. Denton is sympathetic and fair, showing rare insight and compassion towards Charles Darwin. He distinguishes MICRO-evolution form MACRO-evolution. The first occurs within genotypes. Darwin's Galapagos finches illustrate microevolution, as does the circumpolar overlap among species of gulls, and the many varieties of fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands. However, selective breeding of pigeons, chickens, turkeys, cattle, horses, dogs, cats and many other domestic animals yields similar results over less time. MACRO-evolution, the second type, had to occur if evolution were to get the first cell, or to leap across genotypes, say, from a reptile to a bird. While MICRO-evolution is evident in the geographical distribution of many living species (2) and in selective breeding, it sustains only Darwin's special theory of evolution--variation within genotypes. The general theory, change across types on the other hand, (MACRO-evolution) requires upward rather than lateral movement. For MACRO-evolution the problem is how fully developed viable life forms might arise completely by accident. Denton cites Monod who said, "Chance alone is at the source of every innovation of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance absolutely free but blind (3). Chance supposedly gave rise to the first organism--perhaps a bacterium, alga, or protozoan. Later, the theory says, chance resulted in complex invertebrates and plants, followed by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and, finally, mammals. According to Denton, proof of such a sequence requires at least one of two kinds of evidence: either an unbroken chain of transitional fossils or surviving intermediates, or plausible reconstructions of such series together with their respective ecological niches. The trick is to show how each link could be viable enough for the next to get going. Only by establishing complete transitional series can the hypothesized connectedness in the hierarchy of genotypes be made plausible--empirical proof, of course is a much taller order. Here the issue is mere plausibility. If such transitions ever happened, intermediate forms should be found in the fossils and in living organisms. Existing classes should overlap. Clear boundaries ought to be exceptional rather than normative. Though Darwin hoped fossil transitions would appear eventually, none did. Only trivial cases of microevolution, hardly rivaling selective breeding, were evident. Nor for more than a hundred years would any accurate measure of distances between existing classes become possible. Or, take the Coelacanth. On the basis of fossil evidence, evolutionists believed it was an intermediate between fish and amphibian. Reconstructions showed Coelacanth to have both amphibian and fish-like characteristics. Later, live Coelacanths turned up in the Indian Ocean near Cape Province, South Africa. They were fish! The reconstructions had been wrong. All of which shows that fossils provide a poor basis for detailed inferences about proposed links between classes. However, Denton points out that advances in microbiology make possible a new sort of evidence. It is now possible to compare directly the basic building blocks--the proteins--of living things. Denton notes that proteins determine "all the biology of an organism, all its anatomical features, its physiological and metabolic functions. (4)."It is hard to believe that protein structure and evolution could be unrelated. Denton writes: "The amino acid sequence of a protein from two different organisms can be readily compared by aligning the two sequences and counting the number of positions where the chains differ": (5). And these differences can be quantified exactly and provide an entirely novel approach to measuring differences between species... As work continued in this field, it became clear that each particular protein had a slightly different sequence in different species and that closely related species had closely related sequences. When the hemoglobin sequences in different mammals, such as man and dog, were compared the sequential divergence was about twenty percent, while when the hemoglobin in two dissimilar species such as man and carp were compared, the sequential divergence was found to be about fifty percent (6). Such comparisons make possibly the testing of hypotheses, suggested by neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. For instance, suppose bacteria have been around much longer than multi cellular species, e.g. mammals. Suppose further that bacteria are more closely related to plants than fish, amphibian, and mammals, in that order. If so, we should see evidence of these facts in the sequences of amino acids of common proteins. For example, all the mentioned groups use cytochrome C, a protein used in energy production. The differences in that protein should fit an evolutionary sequence. However, bacterial cytochrome C compared with the corresponding proteins in horse, pigeon, tuna, silk moth, wheat, and yeast show all of them to be equidistant from the bacterium. The difference from bacterium to yeast is no less than from bacterium to mammal, or to any of the other classes. Nor does the picture change if we choose other classes or different proteins. The traditional classes of organisms are identifiable throughout the typological hierarchy, and the relative distances between them remain similar regardless of hypothesized evolutionary sequences. For example, Denton observes that amphibian do not fall between fish and terrestrial vertebrates. Contrary to the orthodox theory, amphibian is the same distance form fish as are reptiles and mammals (7). In all comparisons, the hypothesis of general evolution is false. Denton writes: The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series (8). The upshot is that the whole concept of evolution collapses (9) [because] the pattern of diversity at a molecular level is unique, isolated, and unlike by intermediates (10). Moreover accidental design adjustments, as necessary for general evolution, are logical disasters. Random mutations from radiation, replication errors, or other proposed sources, rarely result in viable design adjustments, never in perfect more advanced designs. Evidence for general evolution is altogether lacking and predictions from the theory are false. Darwin confessed the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty (11). Still he insisted on gradual change due to natural selection which he said can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps (12). More than a century later the fossil record still does not fit Darwinian orthodoxy. Ironically, by admitting this "trade secret of paleontology" (13). Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould has achieved fame and glory. From Darwin forward, everywhere in the biological hierarchy researchers came to uncrossed chasms. Yet they pretended the gaps did not exist. This set the stage for Gould's salutation theory - an idea Darwin explicitly rejected. Gould's idea is like the fantasies of Fred Hoyle (14) and Francis Crick (15) about extraterrestrial civilizations. While Gould, along with colleague Niles Aldridge, proposes miraculous sudden leaps in evolutionary progress (16), Hoyle and Crick, propose panspermia--life-seeds form some extraterrestrial civilization. All such theories merely postpone thinking. Denton rejects them and concludes that perfect design implies supreme intelligence. But, unlike Gould, Aldridge, Hoyle, and Crick, he does not reach his own proposal by wild imagination, but by a ruthless application of logic. He notes that the design problem and its solution find a nearly perfect analogy in the difficulty of generating texts in a language. While the number of possible texts is large, the number of nonsensical strings is larger by orders of infinity. It is an understatement to say that the probability of generating by chance even one grammatical text of just a few hundred words is vanishing small. Any such string implies intelligence. In the same way, viable sequences of life's material are an infinitesimal proportion of possible arrangements. The question is how a viable sequence could arise by accident. Denton considers the odds. He cites Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who estimate the chance of a single living cell spontaneously coming into existence as 1 in 10^40,000 tries (one to the 40,0000th power)--"an outrageously small possibility...even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup (17)." Referring then to the "elegance and ingenuity of an absolute transcending quality, which so militates against the idea of chance," he asks: "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene--is complex beyond...anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (18) In the end, Denton suggests, the advocates of orthodox evolution are like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. When Alice protested that there's no use trying to believe impossible things, the Queen said: "I dare say you haven't had much practice...When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (19) Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7 "...natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures..." Charles Darwin The Origin of Species, 6th Ed. Baptist de Lamarck that Darwin owes the greater part of thanks. Lamarck, botanist and zoologist at the Jardin des Plantes, a famous natural history museum in Paris, was the first naturalist of his day to abandon the biblical concept of fixed species. Lamarck's theory was the first complete conceptualization of evolution, but it is because of his doctrine of acquired characteristics that he is remembered today. This doctrine suggests that if your parents had exercised habitually you would inherit large muscles, or that moles lost their eyes because they did not need them in their dark tunnels. That is it is the desire for the use or disuse of bodily parts by man or animal, which brings about modifications to these parts. It is to his credit that Darwin initially rejected Lamarckism, but by the sixth edition of his book he used it to circumvent the lack of evidence and grave theoretical complications, which plagued the theory of evolution. And yet, if Darwin's book had not become so immediately popular it is doubtful that we would remember him as a geneticist. Like so many of his contemporaries he believed in a Lamarckian like concept of a blending inheritance because the theory of evolution by natural selection depended so much upon the inheritance of characteristics. Darwin's search for proof to bolster The Origin of Species was in his theory of Pangenesis. According to this theory each part of the body produced pan genes (gem mules), which were found in the blood and distributed about the body by the blood. Reproductive cells then carried these traits (from various parts of the parent's body) to the offspring; thus the child acquired characteristics of the parent. It is clear that the ideological search for proof by Darwin had little to do with the scientific method and that he was more a philosopher on the nature of origins than a scientist seeking out the truth. The elevation of natural selection to the god of nature by Darwin was a natural result of an atheistic bias against a Creator. The history of this bias and the development of a purely naturalistic interpretation of God's creative powers pre-date the publication of The Origin of Species by thousands of years. Man has from the fall searched for a way around allegiance to the creator for if there were no God, if the world and all of nature arose by chance, if all of life and breath were derived from the formula: "Chemistry + Time + Energy + Chance + Natural Selection = Man," then there is no God. It is in the search for an excuse not to believe that the barren theory of Evolution was developed.
Evolution, The Humanist Religion
The best statement, which can be made concerning evolution is that, the only proof of change from the simple to complex, from the primitive to the modern has been in the theory of evolution itself. As the supposed age of the earth was pushed back into the archean mists of time --a backhanded acknowledgement that the complexity of God's creation is overwhelming-- the estimated age of the earth (in evolutionary terms) has doubled six times over since 1900. The sextupling of years is not, as evolutionists would have us believe, merely the result of a more reliable and increasingly accurate scientific method. It is the result of a growing awareness that not all is well with Darwin's enigma. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, presented an ancient argument against the Special Creation of each individual being. Darwin argued that no species has been created, but that rather through the process of natural selection all species trace their ancestry back to several primary beings. Natural selection became Darwin's god, a god of nature, choosing, preserving, and enhancing the genetic variations, which were the result of adapting to and surviving in the wild. Each organism was thought to pass on these acquired characteristics to succeeding generations, thus preparing them for the struggle to survive in a hostile environment. Eventually, it was believed, these newly acquired characteristics would create a new (perhaps more vigorous) species. It is unfortunate that Darwin was unaware of Gregor Mendel's pioneering work with common garden peas. It was not until the 6th edition of his book that Darwin hinted at evidence contrary to his view of natural selection. Mendel's work provided verifiable proof that species pass on characteristics (though they may become recessive) to its offspring.  Darwin's ideas about natural selection presupposed that through the blending of characteristics only those beneficial to speciation would be preserved. It was presumed to be as simple as mixing paint (as in mixing black and white to achieve grey) where the original parent material is lost forever. Darwin believed that the blend would be inherited and that through this process evolved the entire plant and animal kingdoms. Despite his beliefs Darwin knew that there existed no concrete evidence for much of what he wrote, thus he hoped that future generations would provide the evidence needed to bolster the stillborn theory of evolution. The next article in this series will begin with the Scopes Monkey Trial. In the 1920's, during the Scope's Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow presented the Nebraska Man as proof of evolution. This tooth was later discovered to be from an extinct pig. Darrow's arguments did not sway the jury, however, and his famous client was convicted of breaking the law.
Both creationists and evolutionists spend a great deal of time trying to find the exact age of the earth, and for a good reason. As extensive evidence continues to unfold that indicates the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the evolutionary theory falls apart. If the earth were truly less than 10,000 years old, it would be impossible for man to have evolved from a lower order in that amount of time. Let's look for a moment, at how evolutionists date the age of the earth.
Professor Willard Libby from California, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, developed the radiocarbon dating method. It is quite accurate in many applications for which the specimens are only a few thousand years old. Here is how it works. The stratosphere above our earth is bombarded with cosmic rays from the sun, which converts the N14 in the stratosphere to radioactive carbon, or C14. This weak isotope is a part of our environment, and is absorbed by all living organisms (plants and animals) along with another version of carbon, C12, which is not radioactive. As long as the organism is alive, the ratio of C12 to C14 in the organism is theoretically the same as that of the environment; that is, the organism is in balance with the environment. Once the organism dies, there is no longer a carbon intake. The amount of C12 in the organism remains constant, but the radioactive C14 decomposes with a half-life of 5730 years into nitrogen. Nitrogen is a gas, which leaves the organism. This means after 5730 years, there will only be half as much C14 as when the organism died. Thus, by measuring the ratio of C12 to C14, one can (at least theoretically) determine when the organism died. For practical reality, however, this doesn't always work. Researchers testing the shell of a live clam showed this live clam had been dead for 300 years. Dried up seal- carcasses only thirty years old have tested as old as 4600 years. Fresh carcasses often date as old as 1300 years.  Why is this so? Radiocarbon dating makes several Assumptions. If any of these is wrong, the results can be in error. Assumption 1: The Living Organism is in Balance with the Environment this method assumes the organism at the same rate absorbs the C14 As the C12 from the environment. This is not always true. Some organisms have some type of internal metabolism that can reject the C14 more Effectively than the C12. At death, then, these organisms have Abnormally low C14 levels and appear much older than they really are. In addition, while living the organism may eat and metabolize Organic material that is old, thus loading their own system with the outdated organic material that returns the false reading. Assumption 2: The C12/C14 Level of the Atmosphere has remained constant. Another assumption made in radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C12 to the radioactive C14 has remained constant for thousands of years. Scientists today have a growing conviction that this ratio has not been constant. Immanuel Velikovsky and other scientists believe that cataclysmic events in the history of the earth could have radically altered the stratosphere, affecting the amount of C14 created. Velikovsky, writing in WORLDS IN COLLISION, believed that the history of the earth was dramatically altered by the close approaches of Mars and Venus. The book described Venus as originally a planet, which passed the earth as a comet only 3500 years ago and was captured by our solar system. Velikovsky believed the flood, the parting of the Red Sea as the Israelites escaped Egypt, the manna from heaven, and the day the sun stood still as the Israelites battled their enemies were all related to natural events. For years several noted astronomers vigorously blocked the publishing of this book by Macmillan, as these concepts were contradictory to their own theories and the publishing would have affected their own income and status. With the landing of the astronauts on the moon, however, the dust levels that should have been several feet high for the Big Bang theory were found as only a few inches high, giving credence to Velikovsky's theories and giving him fresh recognition during the last years of his life. Today more and more scientific evidence gives proof to Velikovsky's theories. The Bible describes the long life- times of early man, perhaps due to the increased cloud cover at that time. The lower levels of C14 at that time would make the current samples appear older than they actually are. Evidence exists that the earth's magnetic poles switch occasionally, as old samples often show magnetic patterns that do not match with he current magnetic alignment. Tropical plants have been found buried in Sweden that could not have there unless Sweden was, at one time, a lush tropical paradise. Velikovsky's theories would also Assumption 3: The dating method assumes the sample is in a closed system. Once the organism has died, the theory assumes the only continuing process is the decay of the C14. This, in fact, is seldom true. Ground water can leach C14 from a rock. Heat, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14. Assumption 4: There are no daughter elements in the sample originally. There is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. Other elements can affect the ratio.
Other dating methods are often used that have similarities to the radiocarbon method. One popular method is potassium-argon dating. Radioactive potassium is found in small quantities in some rocks. This decomposes into calcium and argon. Another alternative is uranium-lead dating. With uranium-lead dating, radioactive uranium decomposes into lead and other elements. The half-life is a long 4 1/2 billion years. All of these suffer from the same basic assumptions. Tree-Ring Dating Another method of dating that is popular with some scientists is tree-ring dating. When a tree is cut, you can study a cross-section of the trunk and determine its age. Each year of growth produces a single ring. Moreover, the width of the ring is related to environmental conditions at the time the ring was formed. The Bristle cone Pine, found particularly in California, is a very old tree, with specimens supposedly dating as old as 7000 years. Scientists have studied the rings on these trees in an attempt to date the tree and the origins of the earth. Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year. This leads to what is known as the "missing ring" problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret.
There are many methods that can be used to find the actual age of the earth, as various effects can be measured over a period of time and used to establish the historical time line. The Shrinking Sun Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.
The Moon's Dust Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.
The Magnetic Field The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reasons the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.
The Earth's Rotation The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of Saturn.
The Missing Helium Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.
The Comet Mystery Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years.
SUMMARY Putting this all together, there is growing evidence that the solar system is certainly less than 10,000 years old. As mentioned at the beginning, the issue is particularly important, as if the solar system is less than 10,000 years old there is not enough time for man to have evolved from a lower form.
By Kevin Martin
1. MOON DUST Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated. However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon. Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.
2. MAGNETIC FIELD The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core were responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory." Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps." Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archaeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird. Archaeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archaeopteryx, following here. (The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.) 1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's. In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archaeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the hypostyle. The tailbone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archaeopteryx. One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile. 2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered fore- limbs. However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the tour co in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings. 3. It had teeth. Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archaeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without. 4. It had a shallow breastbone. Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of no flying birds, both living and extinct. Recent examination of Archaeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds. 5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's. This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archaeopteryx are now known to be hollow. 6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years. This also has been refuted by recent pale ontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock. This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archaeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton. This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found. In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote: "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?" Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.
Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." Ernst Haeckel popularized the idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory. The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands. The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells. The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do. Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.
5. PROBABILITY The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge "applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the microplasm hominids H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!" According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 powers. Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay in- creases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation. Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment. 1. The system must be an open system. 2. An adequate external energy force must be available. 3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms. 4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms. The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body, which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16. 1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution. 2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.) 3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial. 4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial. 5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them. 6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them. 7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes. 8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out. 9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood. Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars, which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record. Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibrium has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep. But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory. In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following. Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27% to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp . . . . . . .25% to silk moth . . . . .. 65% to pigeon . . . . . .26% to tuna . . . . . . .. 65% to turtle . . . . . .25% to pigeon . . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30% to horse . . . . . . . 64% Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates to bullfrog . . . . .. 13% to human . . . . . .73% to turtle . . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo . . . . .76% to chicken . . . . .. 14% to chicken . . . . .78% to rabbit . . . . . . . 13% to frog . . . . . . .76% to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp . . . . . . .75% Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years. Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii, which erupted in 1801, were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years. Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (i.e., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (i.e., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know: 1. How much of the parent material was in it at the start, 2. How much of the daughter material was in it at the start, & 3. If there has been some type of contamination since. In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons. Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Palely River in Texas. Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world. Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged. However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists. "But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750. There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it are, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.
Copyright 1988 by B.D. McLaughlin
PREFACE: In this book, answers are given to 10 questions. I believe a sound; logical basis has been provided for each answer. If you read this book and question the logical basis for one or more of the answers, you could do me a favor by writing a letter delineating what you believe to be the flaws in my thinking. If, on the other hand, you cannot reject my logic, then reading this book will accomplish one of two things. If you are a Christian, you will become a stronger apologist. If you are not a Christian, you will re-examine your beliefs. The logic used in this book is based on the concept of thesis/antithesis. Any simple sentence (subject/predicate) may be called the thesis. The negative of that sentence is called the antithesis. Given any thesis and its antithesis, one is true the other is false. In addition, thesis A can be connected to thesis B to form the complex sentence "if a then B." In such a sentence, A and B may be different ways of stating exactly the same idea. If so, the sentence "if a then B" is called a tautology and is always true. Conversely, A and B may express different ideas. In that case, the sentence "if a then B" cannot be regarded as true unless the truth of B can be independently established whenever the truth of A can be verified. Intellectuals often use another type of logic, called dialectic. This type of logic is based on the concept of thesis/antithesis/synthesis. In dialectic reasoning, both the thesis and its antithesis are false. Considered together, however, they lead to another statement called the synthesis.  The synthesis is not viewed as true in an absolute sense, but merely "more true" than either the thesis or the antithesis. Dialectic reasoning is totally inconsistent with rational human consciousness; it should be rejected as intrinsically unsound. The 10 questions, with which this book is concerned, are given in the following list:(1) Is the Christian description of the beginning of the universe consistent with the scientific description? (2) Does the universe exist primarily to serve as a home for us? (3) What is the origin of the moral law written on each of our hearts? (4) Did life arise spontaneously from non-living matter? (5) Is "survival-of-the-fittest" a rational basis for the concept of biological evolution? (6) Are Christians supposed to think about the basis for their beliefs? (7) Are each of the known Greek manuscripts and manuscript fragments, of a particular New Testament book, "pure" representations of a unique autograph? (8) Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did? (9) Who was Jesus? (10) Were the autographs, for the book referred to as the Christian Bible, inspired by God? Are you one of these individuals whose heart can be reached only by a path that goes through your head? If so, this book was written for you. An appeal is made, not to your emotions, but rather to your cold, hard logic. In some cases, a question cannot be answered with certainty. In those cases, however, so much evidence can be amassed in support of a particular answer that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind's. D. McLaughlin, Sc.D.A Humble Servant of Jesus Christ20 Hartford Rd.Sewell, NJ 08080
Is the Christian description of the beginning of the universe consistent with the scientific description? This question can be answered with certainty. To answer it, examine the basic scientific and Biblical facts about the beginning. Science says: -- The universe began at a definite point in time. -- Verification of any type of existence prior to the beginning of the universe is beyond the domain of science. -- Since the beginning, the universe has evolved in a qualitatively understood manner for about 18 billion years. The Bible says: -- The universe began by "ex nihilist" creation (bare) at a definite point in time (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3). -- God existed prior to the beginning of the universe. -- Since the beginning, indefinitely long periods of time (Yom) have elapsed. Although science and the Bible do not say exactly the same thing about the beginning of the universe, there is clearly no inconsistency; therefore, the answer to the question is "yes." Claims of inconsistency generally originate with Christians who advocate one of the following concepts: (a) the "big-bang" theory cannot explain the bringing of the universe into existence from nothing (ex nihilist) because it requires the pre-existence of space, time and energy/matter. (b) Biblical genealogies can be used to construct chronologies of personalities from Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham. Also, each creation day (Yom), described in Genesis, was 24 hours long. It follows that Adam was created no more than six to ten thousand years ago and the universe was created no more than 144 hours earlier. Concept (a) is scientifically unsound; concept (b) is theologically unsound. Both concepts have served as needless barriers to the acceptance of Christian beliefs. At no time has either concept represented the thinking of mainline science or mainline Judeo-Christian theology. (1,2)
Does the universe exist primarily to serve as a home for us? This question cannot be answered with certainty. However, considerable evidence can be amassed in support of a "yes" answer. Consider the following facts. Life is possible only because the universe has been expanding and is continuing to expand at precisely the critical rate required to avoid recluse. If it had been expanding any faster, regions, which had developed slightly higher than average densities would have continued to expand indefinitely and would not have formed stars and galaxies. If the universe had been expanding any slower, it would have eclipsed long before the elements of life could have been generated in stars by nucleosynthesis. The numerical value of expansion rate is called the Hubble constant (H) and is approximately 15km/sec/million light years. Life is possible only because the gravitational constant (G), the quantum of angular momentum (h), the speed of light (c) and the elementary unit of electrical charge (e) have the precise values required for the evolution of a very particular kind of universe. This universe contains short-lived, metal scattering blue stars and long-lived, evenly burning, slowly turning stars like the sun. Life is possible only because of the delicate balance between the strong force that binds nuclei together and the enormous repulsive force between protons. Life is possible only because the electromagnetic coupling constant and the ratio of electron mass (m) to proton mass (M) are precisely what is required to allow the formation of chemical compounds. Life is possible only because the weak-interaction coupling constant has precisely the proper value. If it were slightly smaller or larger, helium production would either be 100% or zero. In one case there would be no water, in the other an entirely variant stellar evolution. Since H and c have precisely the proper values to permit life, it follows that the characteristic length or "radius" of the universe (c/H) could not be changed without precluding our existence. Since the universe is expanding at the critical rate to avoid recluse, its density must be equal to 3c^2H^2/8(pi) G. The quantities c, H and G have precisely the correct values to permit life; therefore, the density of the universe is exactly what is required to permit our existence. This list could be continued but it is already long enough to justify a conclusion: not one of the fundamental properties of the universe could be changed without eliminating the possibility of life. Could this be what the Bible refers to when it says God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly evident in the things He has made (Rom 1:20)? Did a Supreme Being deliberately create the universe in such a way that the slightest change in any one of its properties would preclude our existence? The only serious alternative offered, to date, is based on the idea that not just one but rather an ensemble of universes exists; each member of the ensemble is self-contained and unaffected by the rest. In this ensemble of universes, only our universe and those similar to ours contain living creatures. The rest are lifeless. The ensemble concept makes our universe just one of many and thereby avoids the need for us to occupy a special place. Aside from the fact that no supporting evidence exists for the ensemble concept, is it really more difficult to believe in God than in an ensemble of universes? (3,4,5)
What is the origin of the moral law written on each of our hearts? This question presupposes that you and I have identical codes of conduct embedded deep in our subconscious minds; we can try to suppress or ignore this code but it is there nonetheless. This deeply embedded code of conduct is the little voice inside which, for example, tells you not to: -- steal from, double-cross or murder persons who treat you with kindness. -- Abuse your children, elderly, sick or disabled. -- Admire selfishness If you question the existence of this code of conduct or "moral law," try to locate a stable society, anywhere in recorded history, which espoused the three items listed above. The origin of the moral law cannot be determined with certainty; but, once again, the evidence points strongly in a particular direction. Three origins have been suggested: (1) the words "moral law" encompass certain types of behavior, which have developed in us by the process of biological evolution. The details of this development process are covered by such theories as "kinship" and "reciprocation" and may even employ the principles of game theory. The types of behavior classified, as "moral law" accomplish no purpose other than to enhance the survivability of the human race. (2) The "moral law" is learned social behavior passed from adults to children; collective human intelligence has recognized that certain restrictions on social behavior result in a more pleasant society for all. (3) The "moral law" is really God's commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Mat 22:36-40). This commandment embodies the sum total of the law given to us by God (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). To make sure no one missed the instructions, he wrote his law on everyone's heart (Rom 1:19,32; 2:14,15). Which of these explanations is consistent with the facts? Consider, for a moment, the following groups of people in our society; assume these people are institutionalized with no means of support beyond public charity. -- Elderly (with no relatives) suffering from severe Alzheimer's disease -- Orphan babies with AIDS -- Orphan babies with Down's Syndrome Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Would you like to have them killed? If a little voice inside you is saying, "These people need love and compassion," that voice does not have biological evolution as its origin. Mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection cannot explain love. Collective human intelligence has clearly recognized that certain restrictions on social behavior result in a more pleasant society for all; the existence of civil and criminal law reflects this recognition. However, in your daily life, cheating would often be more pleasurable than truthfulness. On those occasions when you know you won't be caught, do you really refrain from cheating because you know, in the long run, society will be a better place for it? If so, you are an unusual person. Cultures, which use the "good of society" as a basis for morality, are generally rife with crookedness. If confronted with opportunities to:
·     Keep $10,000 cash you found in a wallet on the sidewalk.
·     Commit adultery while away from your spouse
·      Conceal $15,000 of your income from the IRS Would what's "good for society" be an important consideration when making a decision? Is your innermost, secret character based on learned social behavior about what's "good for society?" There is no evidence to support such a premise. This leaves God as the most likely source of that little voice telling you right from wrong.
Did life arise spontaneously from non-living matter? This question can be answered with certainty. Every living creature contains at least one blueprint, which furnishes instructions for making all the creature's biochemical's. This blueprint is a long chain of chemical units called nucleotides. The chain is neither ordered nor random but is, instead, complex; information is stored by means of a linear sequence. In a living creature, a complex polynucleotide is never constructed from nucleotide building blocks without the assistance of another kind of chemical called an informed enzyme. The informed enzyme is a long chain of chemical units called amino acids. This chain is also complex and also stores information by means of a linear sequence. In a living creature, an informed enzyme is never constructed from amino acid building blocks without a complex polynucleotide to provide the code. Thus, we are faced with the catch-22 of life's origin. The complex polynucleotide, which is the blueprint for all the biochemical's of a living creature, cannot be constructed without an informed enzyme; but the informed enzyme cannot be constructed without a complex polynucleotide to code for it! If life developed spontaneously in a primordial soup of nucleotides, amino acids and nutrients, then either the first complex polynucleotide or the first informed enzyme was formed purely by random chance. The probability of such an event is virtually zero. By way of illustration, consider a racemes mixture of all 20 L-amino acids and the corresponding 19 optical isomers. What is the probability that these 39 different kinds of amino acids will assemble themselves into a particular kind of primitive complex amino acid chain called cytochrome-c? This particular chain has 101 amino acid sites. If each of the 39 types of amino acid has the same probability of being incorporated into the chain, then the number of sequences, which can be formed, is simply 39 raised to the 101 powers or 4.98E+160. Given a more than generous estimate of the number of synonymous amino acid residues for each site in the cytochrome c chain, the number of cytochrome c sequences which can be formed has been estimated to be 12E+63. Therefore, the probability of producing a cytochrome c chain by random chance is 2.4E-97. If the primordial soup contained E+44 amino acid molecules (a gross overestimate) which combined, broke-up, and recombined in groups of 101 every second for a billion years, the probability of finding one molecule of cytochrome-c during that period is (2.4E-97)(3.15E+58) or 7.56E-39. This is the probability that a sequence of honest coin tosses will produce 126 heads in a row. Keep in mind that cytochrome-c is only a primitive protein, which contains nowhere near the information found in an informed enzyme. The cytochrome-c illustration was based on the assumption that amino acid chains were formed in a periodic soup by a specific chemical process: random formation and destruction of full-length chains each second for a billion years. If the illustration had been based on path independent thermodynamic concepts, the computed probability would have been virtually the same. The only way to achieve probabilities significantly larger than zero is to assume that spontaneous generation of life did not occur by random chance. In other words the chemical bonding preferences of nucleotides or amino acids caused them to spontaneously form complex sequences. Unfortunately for those who would prefer to view first life as the inevitable consequence of nature's laws at work over vast spans of time, the concept of "directed chance" or "biochemical predestination" has neither experimental nor theoretical support. A conviction that complex amino acid or nucleotide chains appeared spontaneously in the primitive milieu on earth is clearly based more on faith than science. The scientific answer to the question asked at the beginning of the chapter is "no." (6,7)
Biological evolution presumably functions by mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection. Natural selection is supposed to operate through differential reproduction or "survival-of-the-fittest." Is "survival-of-the-fittest" a rational basis for the concept of biological evolution? This question can be answered with certainty. Consider the following two theses: A = a creature is the most fit B = the creature will, all things being equal (ceteris paribus), live the longest and have the most offspring The principle encompassed by the phrase "survival-of-the-fittest" can be expressed using the sentence "if A then B." In such a sentence, A and B may be different ways of stating exactly the same idea. If so, the sentence "if a then B" is called a tautology and is always true. Conversely, A and B may express different ideas. In that case, the sentence "if a then B" cannot be regarded as true unless the truth of B can be independently established whenever the truth of A can be verified. If the particular sentence with which this chapter is concerned is viewed as a tautology, then it is just as devoid of scientific content as the sentence "if a man is married then the man is a husband." Conversely, if A and B express different ideas, then circumstances must be found such that the truth of A and the truth of B can be independently tested before the truth of "if A then B" can be evaluated. Herein lies the problem. The truth of "a creature is the most fit" cannot be tested for any creature under any circumstances because the overall "fitness" of the creature can neither be measured nor computed. Since the truth of A is untreatable, it follows that the truth of "if A then B" is likewise untreatable. Therefore, the answer to the question addressed in this chapter is "no." Although the scientific community is gradually recognizing deficiencies fatal to the theory of biochemical evolution, our inability to measure or compute the "fitness" of a creature has not yet been viewed as fatal to the theory of biological evolution. Investigators generally settle for measuring small numbers of morphological, physiological or behavioral "traits" and insinuate that, if all other aspects of "fitness" are fixed, these traits alone will suffice. Unfortunately, no theory is available which shows how the vast majority of aspects may be fixed while a chosen few are free to vary. A change in a single trait may alter 1000 aspects important to the overall "fitness" of an organism. What sort of interfering parameters might exist cannot even be imagined due to the absence of a theory for reducing the organism to a calculable whole. If the concept of natural selection is clearly untreatable, why does the theory of biological evolution continue to dominate the field of biology? Partly because the concept's unsuitability makes it immune to falsification. Partly because the concept has become integrated into the common working knowledge of the biological community and has become the context within which that community understands the world. Partly because the alternative appears to involve God. (8)
Are Christians supposed to think about the basis for their beliefs? This question can be answered, "yes" with certainty because not every basis provides a suitable foundation for the Christian faith
·     Beliefs are generally based on:
·     Blind faith in a learned person (authority figure)
·     Intuition or "feeling"
·      Personal experience
·      Thinking (logic, reason) which are acceptable which are not? If the dentist informs you that one of your fillings are cracked and you allow him to replace it even though you don't have a toothache, then your belief in his truthfulness is based on blind faith in a learned person. In our complex technological society, we must base some decisions on blind faith because we can't become experts on everything. However, we don't generally use blind faith as a basis for our beliefs if a mistake could be life threatening or financially ruinous. When a false belief can have grave consequences for our loved ones, or ourselves we may consult available experts or "learned persons" but, ultimately, we weigh the evidence ourselves and personally make a decision about what is true or what represents the best course of action. Consider, for a moment, the interesting possibility that you, as a person, may continue to exist after the death of your physical body. Consider the additional possibility that this existence may be either meaningful or meaningless depending on what's in your heart when you die. Given these premises, a false belief about what should be in your heart will have grave consequences. If you deal with this possibility like you deal with other important issues, you will not blindly accept the opinion of a learned person. You might consult a parent, teacher, pastor, priest, rabbi, mullah or guru but, ultimately, you will personally weigh the evidence and personally make a decision. Blind faith in a learned person is not an acceptable basis for any religious belief because the stakes are too high. Intuition or "feeling" is equally unacceptable as a basis for Christian beliefs because a very basic Christian belief is that the human heart is too deceitful to be trusted (Ps 14:1; Prov 12:15, 14:12; Is 32:6; Jer 17:9). The Bible never encourages us to trust our emotions. On the other hand, a personal experience is quite acceptable as a basis for certain Christian beliefs provided the experience is real and consistent with scripture. What about "thinking?" Many people believe the Bible teaches us to replace thinking with blind faith. If that were the case, the Bible would be encouraging us to do something inconsistent with our own common sense. In truth, the Bible encourages us, from cover to cover, to think! The following examples will illustrate this point. Deut 18:21-22 - We are encouraged to use simple logic to distinguish between a false prophet and a prophet of God. "If a prophet makes one mistake then the prophet is not getting his or her information from God" or, what is the same thing, "If a prophet is of God then the prophet always speaks the truth." Is 1:18
·      We are told God wants to reason with us. Hos 4:6
·      We are informed that we can be destroyed by lack of knowledge. Luke 7:19-23
·      John the Baptist sends two of his followers to Jesus with the following question, "Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" Instead of saying, "Yes, I am the one you have awaited," Jesus performs miracles in full view of John's followers. After a while, Jesus sends the followers back to John with information obtained by first hand observation. Jesus says for them to tell John what they've seen so he can deduce the answer for himself. Rom 1:20
·      We are invited to look carefully at each of the things around us
·      An incredible level of information stored in the most primitive DNA, a universe expanding at the critical rate to avoid recluse, abstract thought along with love in the mind of man
·      And try to explain these things without invoking the existence of God. 1 Cor 14:20
·      Christians are advised to think like adults. 1 Thes 5:21
·      Christians are advised to carefully examine everything. 1 Pet 3:15
·      Christians are advised to always be ready to defend their beliefs by providing a sound basis. 1 John 4:1-4
·      Christians are advised to test every prophet to determine if he or she speaks for God. Jude 3
·      Christians are encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith. Clearly, the fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be based on sound thinking supplemented by personal experience. Christian beliefs should never be based on blind faith or intuition. What about your beliefs? What exactly do you believe and why do you believe it?
Are each of the known Greek manuscripts and manuscript fragments, of a particular New Testament book, "pure" representations of a unique autograph? This question cannot be answered with certainty since no autographs have been found. However, the available evidence supports a "yes" answer. By 1968, the existence of 5358 Greek New Testament manuscripts and manuscript fragments had been documented by scholars. Among these, more than 200,000 variants have been detected. To put this in perspective, the following facts should be considered: -- If a single word is misspelled in 3000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments, this single word is listed as the cause of 3000 variants. -- The more than 200,000 variants can be assigned to about 10,000 locations in the New Testament; serious controversy exists concerning the legitimacy of words found at approximately 400 of these locations. Because the New Testament contains roughly 200,000 words and only 400 are the subject of serious controversy, it must be concluded that the Greek New Testament text, derived from all 5358 manuscripts and manuscript fragments, is more than 99% "pure." This compares with 95% "purity" for the Iliad based on 643 manuscripts and 90% "purity" for the Mahabharata (the national epic of India). Even the Koran, which originated in the seventh century A.D., suffered from a large collection of variants that necessitated the Othman revision. The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other ancient writing but it has survived in a much "purer" form than any other great book. In addition, it is interesting to note that not one shred of Christian doctrine hangs on debatable text. The documented high degree of agreement, among the Greek manuscripts and manuscript fragments of a particular New Testament book, cannot logically be viewed as accidental. More likely it implies that each manuscript and fragment reflects a unique autograph as its ultimate source. (9)
Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did? This question will be addressed with the help of a logic tree.
(1) Jesus did not exist.
(2) The New Testament autographs provided an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did.
(3) The New Testament autographs accidentally provided an inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did.
(4) The New Testament autographs deliberately provided an inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did. The subsequent paragraphs of this chapter will examine the likelihood that statements (1), (3) and (4) represent truth. The falsity of these three statements and, therefore, the truth of statement (2) cannot be established with certainty. However, so much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind.
The existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by:
·     Josephus, the first century Jewish historian
·     Tacitus, the first century Roman historian
·     The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels
·     The first century authors of the New Testament autographs
These four sets of authors did not share a common background, philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character that would have been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even if one or more of them did invent such a character, why didn't eyewitnesses unmask the hoax why didn't someone stand up and say, "This man Jesus never existed"? I can't think of any good reasons. Can you?
Consider the following:
·     The contents of the New Testament autographs must have been completely consistent with the beliefs of the Christian community at the time the autographs were circulated. Otherwise, the autographs would have been rejected just like the Gnostic gospels and other "heretical" writings were rejected.
·     The New Testament autographs must have pre-dated the oldest known manuscript fragments. The oldest known manuscript fragments have been placed in the early second century A.D. This most likely means some portion of the Christian community during the first century knew the actual Greek autographs. Furthermore, the fact that their readers as statements of truth accepted the autographs means that those autographs accurately described the beliefs of the Christian community at that time. How then, could first century Christians, including those who wrote the autographs, have developed, totally by accident, inaccurate beliefs about what Jesus said and did when eyewitnesses were available to challenge those beliefs? I can't think of a way. Can you? Clearly, the idea that New Testament autographs accidentally provided an inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did is viable only if the events in the life of Jesus had been recorded long after the death of all eye-witnesses. For example, if the events in His life had been handed down by word of mouth until 300A.D. and then finally began to be written down in what we now refer to as New Testament autographs, it is reasonable to believe that what He said and did could have become distorted. What was recorded would have been consistent with the beliefs of the Christian community of 300A.D. but those beliefs would have been erroneous.
This means the New Testament autographs contained deliberate lies set forth by certain individuals in the first century Christian community. Since eyewitnesses were alive to challenge these lies, the hoax could not have been perpetrated without the "clout" of the disciples. The disciples must have been at least willing conspirators if not the actual originators of the fraud. Since individuals do not usually conspire to defraud without anticipating some kind of gain, it is reasonable to ask, "What did the disciples get for their trouble?" There is no record to indicate they achieved wealth or political power. Instead, the disciples, along with the rest of the first century Christians, received persecution, torture and death as a reward for their beliefs. Yet no disciple ever recanted his story. When, in recorded history, have sane men ignored personal gain and freely chosen persecution, torture and death to preserve what they knew to be a lie? If you can rationalize the idea that eleven men, and their associates, risked their lives, with no hope of personal gain, to promulgate what they knew to be a lie, and then another question must be asked. Why did anyone believe them? History confirms that Christianity became a powerful evangelical force during the first century. Were all the converts more gullible than you? Were they so dumb they could be convinced without evidence that a poor carpenter rose bodily from the dead after spending three days in a tomb? If these converts were only of average intelligence, they would have demanded something more than the claims of a rag-tag bunch of amateur preachers. Surely they would have demanded something like the personal word of a trusted friend who witnessed a miracle or even saw the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes. Some autographs even offered bold challenges daring skeptics to refute the lies (Acts 2:22; 26:24-28; 1 Cor 15:3-7). These challenges were thrust in the face of Jew and Roman alike. Yet no one stepped forth to unmask the hoax. Why? Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of a disciple in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:
·     Certain disciples argued about whom among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
·     The disciples deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
·     After the arrest of Jesus, one of the disciples denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
·     Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
·     Jesus could not perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).
·     Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
·     Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
·     Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
·     Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).
If you were fabricating events for a text, which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items? I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence. Therefore, the question asked at the beginning of this chapter can be answered "yes" with near certainty. (10,11,12)
Who was Jesus? Once again, the question cannot be answered with certainty but so much evidence can be amassed in support of a particular answer that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind. Let us begin by trying to find out who Jesus claimed to be. Based on chapter VIII, "who he claimed to be" was accurately recorded in the New Testament autographs. Based on chapter VII we can learn the content of these autographs using the Greek text derived from more than 5000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Finally, if we consult a translation faithful to the Greek text, we don't even need to learn Greek. The fifth chapter of John tells us Jesus broke the fourth commandment by healing a man on the Sabbath; He then encouraged this man to likewise violate the Sabbath by telling him to pick up his bed and carry it away. When confronted by the Jews, Jesus said He was working because his Father was working. To the Jews, this meant Jesus was making himself equal with God. In the eighth chapter of John, Jesus claimed to have existed as a person since before Abraham was born. The tenth chapter of John indicates Jesus claimed to be one with the Father; the Jews understood this to mean Jesus was making himself out to be God. When Jesus appeared to "doubting" Thomas, as recorded in the twentieth chapter of John, Thomas addressed him as God; Jesus accepted this greeting. Jesus healed a paralytic in the second chapter of Mark but, before the physical healing, He forgave the man's sins. Scribes in the audience asked themselves, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" In the fourteenth chapter of Mark, the high priest asked Jesus if He was the Son of God. Jesus replied, "I am." These examples show who Jesus claimed to be; Jesus claimed to be God! He was executed, not for any crime against man, but for blasphemy. Was the claim of Jesus true or false? This question will be addressed with the help of a logic tree.
One and only one of the three statements located at branch tips must be true.
(1)     Jesus' claim to be God was true.
(2)     Jesus realized his claim to be God was false.
(3)     Jesus didn't realize his claim to be God was false.
The subsequent paragraphs of this chapter will examine the likelihood that statements (2) and (3) represent truth. The falsity of these two statements and, therefore, the truth of statement
(1) Cannot be established with certainty. However, so much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind.
(2) JESUS REALIZED HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD WAS FALSE: This means Jesus was a blasphemous, pernicious, hypocritical, foolish liar!
·     Blasphemous because His claim would have been an insult to God.
·     Pernicious because He asked others to trust Him alone for their eternal destiny.
·     Hypocritical because He told others to be honest whatever the cost.
·     Foolish because it was His claim to be God that led to His crucifixion.
If you believe the New Testament autographs provided an accurate account of what Jesus said and did then you can study the character of Jesus using a good translation of the derived Greek text. In those pages, you will discover the most pure and noble person in recorded history. How could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have flawlessly lived the life of a pure and noble person? I don't know of a way. Do you?
(3) JESUS DIDN'T REALIZE HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD WAS FALSE: This means Jesus actually believed He was God even though He really wasn't; in other words, Jesus was insane! I challenge you to read chapters 5, 6 and 7 in the Book of Matthew and conclude you have read the words of a madman. I challenge you to pick up a red-letter addition of the New Testament, read all the teachings attributed to Jesus and conclude you have read the ravings of a lunatic. I contend that statements (2) and (3) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence. Therefore, statement (1) can be viewed as true with near certainty. The final step of faith required believing that Jesus was God is small indeed. Notice our logic tree offers only three alternatives: (1) Lord, (2) Liar and (3) Lunatic. One and only one of these three L's was an accurate description of the man Jesus. What about that other option selected by most people in the world today? "Jesus was clearly a fine, articulate fellow offering lofty principles, sound teaching and great leadership but, just as clearly, Jesus was not God." The fact that Jesus claimed to be God makes this belief irrational. Neither a deceitful liar nor a crazy person can be viewed as a great moral leader of men. Finally, if Jesus' claim to be God was true when He walked the earth 1960 years ago, then surely He is still God today. (12)
Did God inspire the autographs, for the book referred to as the Christian Bible? By Christian Bible we mean the 39 books of the Old Testament (corresponding to the 24 books of the Jewish Scriptures) and the 27 books of the New Testament. The autographs for the 39 Old Testament books were written over a period of approximately 1000 years by many different authors. If what these documents taught was not inspired by God then somewhere, among the high purity manuscripts existing in the first century, we would have expected God incarnate to identify at least one accidental or deliberate false teaching. Curiously, Jesus viewed the manuscripts to which he had access as being completely free of false teaching (Mat 5:18; 21:42; 22:29; Luke 24:44; John 5:39). The probability that God could judge the mere teachings of fallible men inerrant must indeed be small. Clearly, in the opinion of Jesus, God inspired the Old Testament autographs. What about the New Testament autographs? Jesus clearly implied that the teachings of the disciples and their colleagues "would be" inspired by God (Mat 28:18-20; John 14:26; Acts 9:15). What you believe about scriptural inspiration is determined by the importance you attach to the opinion of Jesus. If you believe Jesus is God, then the answer to the question asked at the beginning of this chapter is "yes."
EPILOGUE: If, after reading the previous ten chapters and studying the indicated references, you view my logic as flawed then I would appreciate an opportunity to examine your logic. I am not interested in protecting unsound thinking even it's my own; I am interested only in the truth. Please read no further but, instead, commence immediately to formulate a basis for the "correct" answers to the ten questions I have posed. Conversely, if you accept my logic, please continue reading particularly if the first five chapters have shaken your trust in the materialistic/humanistic answers to important questions and the last five chapters have shaken your rejection of Christianity. In the next few paragraphs I'm going to delineate some important truths growing out of the beliefs that Jesus is God and the Bible was inspired by God. These paragraphs are directed at your heart since I am assuming your head has already been reached. The one true God, existing as three eternal distinct persons, created the universe as a home for man and then created a man and a woman to live on the earth. God loved the man and woman and wanted them to return that love. They chose to reject God and desired to become gods themselves. Their disobedience ushered them and all their descendants onto the path of sin. Humanity has paid a great price for their decision: aging, disease, suffering, hatred, despair, loneliness, war, jealousy, murder, grief, death and, worst of all, separation from our creator. You see, God is holy and cannot fellowship with sinful creatures like you and I. God was faced with a dilemma. On one hand sin was preventing Him from fellowship with his creatures; on the other, God loved each individual so much He could not bear the thought of separation. But sin could not simply be overlooked; a price had to be paid for every crime. Unfortunately, if you and I paid the price for our own crimes, our souls would spend eternity in Hell. God found the solution to this dilemma. Two of the three persons who are God have a Father/Son relationship. The Father sent the Son to earth to be incarnated as a man. If this man could live a sinless life culminating in execution for crimes He didn't commit, that punishment would pay the price for every sin throughout the history of the human race. This is exactly what transpired about 1960 years ago. Jesus paid the price for the sins of every man and woman who ever lived. But there's a catch. No one has been or will be simply handed the gift of redemption automatically. You cannot receive the gift until your heart is right with God and getting your heart right with God is very difficult. You can't do it by joining a particular church, faithfully attending all church activities, tithing, dedicating your life to Christian service, becoming a pastor, living what you and your friends consider to be a holy life, making life-risking sacrifices for Jesus or exercising some spiritual gift. All these things are far too easy. To get your heart right, you must make something like the following statements to God and mean them to the depths of your soul:
·     God, I am a sinner. Perhaps I have not murdered children or stolen from the poor but to a holy God, my heart is black as coal. I can never stand before You justified by my own merit.
·     I ask Your forgiveness for my sins.
·     I believe You love me so much You chose to pay the price for my sins; I can stand before You justified only because Jesus Christ died on the cross for my redemption.
·     I accept the gift of redemption and invite You to come into my heart, become Lord of my life and lead me down the path of repentance.
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). What a science lesson God had for Job! God was teaching Job the philosophy of science, a lesson everyone needs to learn. I like to paraphrase the verse this way: "Were you there, Job, when I made the earth? Did you see Me do it, Job? Did you observe how it happened, Job? Were you there to see Me create the world, Job?" Millions of people in today's world are taught that the earth and the entire universe resulted from the Big Bang, a cosmic explosion that occurred up to twenty billion years ago involving all the matter and energy in the universe. In most instances in public education, this is taught as if it were fact, and the gullible public, by and large, just accepts it as so. Yet there is no scientific proof for the Big Bang theory. It is just a story, based on the speculations of scientist's fallible human beings who do not know everything and who were not there to see it happen. Carl Sagan presents the Big Bang theory as if it were fact. We need to ask him the same sort of questions God was putting to Job: "Were you there, Carl, when the earth came into existence? Do you know anyone who was there, Carl? Do you know anyone who has all the information?" The other important fact God was teaching Job was that only God knows everything (has all information All evidence). No human being has all the information. In fact, compared to what God knows, we fallible human beings know next to nothing. Follow through the words to Job in Chapter 38: "Who shut up the sea? Hast thou commanded the morning? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? Where is the way where light dwelleth? Knowest thou it? Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Can'st thou send lightning's?" We need to take the points God was teaching Job and apply them to the way theories of origins are taught to our children. When they are told that the universe and life evolved over billions of years, they need to ask two basic questions: "What observer saw all this happen? What scientist has all the information (all the evidence) who can therefore scientifically prove that evolution happened?" The answer? According to evolutionary theories, there were no observers to these long-ago events, and there is no human being who knows everything! Evolution is not a scientific theory; it is a belief based on the words of sinful, fallible humans who have a small, finite amount of information. Thus, when it comes to connecting the past to the present to try and explain how the world came into existence, scientists could be totally wrong. In fact, evolutionary theories themselves "evolve," as these scientists keep finding information that causes them to change their ideas. The most that can be said is that some of the evidence can be interpreted along the lines of the Big Bang scenario, but that is certainly not the only interpretation possible, nor is it the best interpretation possible. The Bible teaches plainly concerning Jesus Christ, the One "who created all things" (Colossians 1:16), "in Him... are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). The Creator God, who has always been there, "changeth not," and knows all things (has infinite knowledge). The only way we could ever come to the right conclusions about anything is by starting with the word (knowledge) of the One who knows everything, and builds all our thinking, in every area, upon that basis. It is interesting to note that God's Word, in II Peter 3, gives us the prophecy that in the last days people will deliberately choose not to believe that God created the world (described in Genesis 1:1-8) or believe that He sent a worldwide Flood as a judgment against sinful men (Genesis, Chapters 6Ä9) and that He will come back to judge the world a final time, with fire. Sadly, the prophecy of people deliberately choosing not to believe God's Word is being fulfilled before our very eyes. The majority of people today believe the universe started with a big bang. Next the galaxies and later the sun formed, and the earth finally came into existence covered with "fire" (a hot molten blob) Exactly opposite of what the Bible says. They are taught there never was a worldwide Flood exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. They are often taught that the earth will die of the cold because of the earth's freezing over when the sun runs out of energy exactly the opposite of what God's Word teaches us. We need to ask ourselves this question: "Where do we put our faith and trust? In the words of scientists who don't know everything, who were not there? Or in the Word of God the God who does know everything and who was there? At the Institute for Creation Research, our highly qualified and experienced scientists study the scientific data regarding origins, and claim their research shows that the evidence from the universe fits perfectly with what the Word of God says, and not well at all with the evolutionary theories of men! Carl Sagan's Big Bang theory is WRONG! How do we know that for sure? Because God was there Carl Sagan wasn't! God knows everything Carl Sagan doesn't! This world did NOT have a fiery start from a big bang, but it surely will have a fiery end with a big bang, for "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10). What hope is there then? "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" (II Peter 3:13). What should we do about it? "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (II Peter 3:14). We can also be diligent in telling others about the truth of creation, man's rebellion, the need of salvation, and warning them of the coming Big Bang !
In Isaiah 5:20,21, we read, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!" During an interview on the origin of life, the talk-show host insisted that there was a lot of evidence for evolution--that millions of years ago life arose by chance random processes in some primordial soup. Somehow, he explained, life arose from chemicals. He insisted that the evolution of life was a scientific theory--but to believe in creation, as I did, was just a religious idea.
EVOLUTION IS BELIEF: I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, "science" is defined as "knowledge," and that which can be "observed and repeatedly tested." I insisted that evolution was belief--NOT science. A rather irate professor from a local university called in to say that evolution IS science because you can investigate it in a laboratory. He went on to say that one can set up apparatus in a laboratory to simulate the original atmosphere and oceans (the presumed original conditions on the primeval earth) to show how life may have formed millions of years ago. I then told the professor that in doing this experiment he could never prove life evolved by chance because he was obviously putting intelligence into his experiments. He then yelled at me over the telephone, "we are not putting intelligence into our experiments!" In a sense, I was inclined to agree with him. However, I believe the talk-show host (and, I hope, the listeners) got the point. Even if scientists did make some form of life in the laboratory, this would have nothing to do with chance, but everything to do with intelligence. If it took intelligence the second time, then, obviously, it took intelligence the first time. When professors start insisting that using their intelligence to design experiments can help them understand how chance and randomness produced life, one starts to wonder if we are speaking the same language. This reminded me of John 1:5, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 3:19 states, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Even though everything we observe fits with what the Bible says about the origin of life and the history of the world, the evolutionists insist that evolution is a scientific fact. What we observe in the present DOES NOT fit with evolution, but DOES fit with the Bible. The Bible then must be the basis of TRUE science. WHY is it that the courts are ruling in the evolutionists' favor? Why is it that evolution can be taught as science but creation is considered to be religion in the public education system? Is science no longer interested in truth?
GOD ELIMINATED: What has happened is that the evolutionists have changed the definition of science. It was once accepted that a scientific explanation was the same as a feasible explanation. For example, if the evidence fitted with there being a Designer (God), then that explanation was accepted as a possibility. However, because many scientists want nothing to do with God, they have determined that science must be defined in terms of explanations that can have nothing to do with God. In other words, an arbitrary decision has been made by fallible humans to insist that to be scientific, God cannot be a part of the explanation. The reason for this should be obvious. If there is a God and the Bible is true, then men and women would have to obey HIS rules for their lives.
WARNING: It is not just that these people want evolution accepted--they want a total man-centered philosophy. And yet the Scripture tells us "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Man is redefining words to make them fit his anti-God philosophy, even though the evidence is obviously totally opposite to what he is saying. Don't be led astray by "science falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20). Don't be led astray "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). Help ICR to warn the nation of America "that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Ephesians 4:17,18). Woe to those who have redefined science, to those who want evolution presented as fact: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
By Ken Ham
What about the Gap Theory? This is a question often asked at creation seminars. A good many well-meaning, Bible-believing Christians hold to what is called the" Gap Theory" because of the popular belief that geologists provide undeniable evidence that the world is exceedingly old (i.e., 4.5 billion years). They do not accept evolution, and therefore claim to hold to a literal Genesis. This article will show that the typical "ruin/reconstruction" Gap Theory actually destroys the foundation of the work of the cross, by accepting the non-proven evolutionary geological time scale. February 1990 what is the Gap Theory? A long period of time, perhaps millions or billions of years, sup- posed fits between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Although modern expressions of it are quite varied, the traditional view is best summarized by Weston W. Fields in his book, Unformed and Unfilled (page 7), where he states: 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 cuff. -Den 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 (I nod 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. Mention should be made here that some modern advocates propose a Gap only for the purpose of attempting to account for Satan's fall. Many others hold it to allow for evolution and an old earth, thereby accepting both evolution of the previous world and creation of the present world. Difficulties and Inconsistencies with the Gap Theory
·     The "Lucifer's Flood" concept destroys the reason the Gap Theory was first proposed. Gap theorists accept the earth as very old (billions of years), because evolutionists claim that the fossil containing rocks were supposedly laid down over millions of years. To account for the fossil record that is thus said to predate man, some Gap theorists propose that the fossil-containing sediments were formed by "Lucifer's Flood" (as described above) which supposedly occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 millions of years ago due to the fall of Satan. By doing this, they are saying that the fossil record was formed by a catastrophe. But this means they have just destroyed the very reason they wanted a gap in the first place-the idea that the sediments were formed slowly over millions of years; thus the earth is very old. This is a major inconsistency. Those who hold that the fossils record evolution over a long time ignore the fact that a catastrophe, b which could tall if e and leave the earth dark and completely underwater, would destroy the fossil bearing strata as well. In both scenarios, there is an insurmountable inconsistency.
·     The flood of Noah's day must have been only a local or tranquil event. If the fossil record is explained on the basis of either "Lucifer's Flood " or the evolutionary ages, then the flood of Noah's day must have left virtually no trace. Thus, Noah's flood must have been just a local event or a tranquil flood that did no geologic work. This is the reason most ardent Gap theorists insist Noah's flood was just a local event. However, Genesis depicts Noah's flood as a catastrophic event that covered the whole world. It was not a local flood, and it certainly was not a tranquil event. (Read Genesis 6-9.) If the Gap theorist wants to explain the fossil record with a catastrophe, why not do it with one the Bible does talk about (Noah's flood) rather than one it doesn't talk about ("Lucifer's Flood")?
·     There is much scientific evidence indicating a young earth. The true Gap theorist also ignores the large amount of evidence amassed by scientists that is consistent with a belief in a young age for the earth and universe. Cosmic dust, breakup of galaxy clusters, existence of comets, decay of the earth's magnetic field, chemicals in the oceans, etc., all point to a recent creation of all things.
·     The Gap theorists believe that there was animal death before Adam, but the Bible teaches adamantly there was no death before Adam. To accept death before Adam is to destroy the foundational message of the cross. On the basis of a number of passages of Scripture (e.g., Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21), it is understood that there could not have been sin or continued on page C death before Adam. I Corinthians 15 make it plain that this is physical death, not just spiritual death. This is consistent with the fact that Genesis 1:29 and 30 teach us that the animals and man were originally created vegetarian. In Hebrews 9:22, we are told that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" of sin. In other words, God introduced death and bloodshed because of sin as the means by which man could be redeemed. If death and bloodshed of animals (or man) existed before Adam sinned, then the whole basis of atonement-the basis of redemption-is destroyed. WHY DOES IT MATTER? Genesis records a catastrophe responsible for destroying all land organisms that had the "breath of life" in them, except for those preserved in Noah's Ark. Christ refers to the global flood in Noah's day in Matthew 24:37-39, and Peter writes that, just as there was once a world-wide judgment of mankind by water, so there will be another world-wide judgment, this time by fire (11 Peter)
·     To call Noah's flood either a local or tranquil flood, which followed long geologic ages, destroys the doctrine of coming judgment. Furthermore, to advocate death before Adam sinned is diametrically opposed to the Scripture's explanation that death came after Adam sinned and became the necessity for man's redemption. We need to give up the Gap Theory! That the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 in the King James Version does not mean, "refill?" (Researched by Dr. Charles Taylor, linguist with the Creation Science Foundation of Australia). Some have used the word "replenish" to support the Gap Theory, which makes it necessary for God to refill the earth after "pre-Admits" perished due to Satan's fall. Does "replenish" really mean "refill?"
·     The Hebrew word translated "replenish" simply means "fill"-not "refill"! The Hebrew word occurs 306 times in the Old Testament and in not one instance does it mean, "refill."
·     The Latin pref ix "re" originally meant "again," but then it lost this meaning. At the time the King James Bible was translated in 1611, "replenish" was just a scholarly word for "fill." They almost certainly came to use it because an old word, "perish," was dying out.
·     An examination of the Oxford English dictionary shows the English word "replenish" was used to mean "fill" from the 13th to the 17th centuries. In no case, during these five centuries does it mean, "refill."
·     In the 17th century, English scholars began trying to restore original meanings to words and prefixes, so "re" in English once more came to mean "again." Today, most words with "re" do mean again, such as "rewrite," etc. There are other instances, however, as in "replete," where there is no such meaning. In the King James Version, Genesis 1:28 means "fill the earth," not "refill the earth"!
The so-called Gap Theory, proposed early in the 1800's, but which became popular around the turn of the century, has very few scholarly advocates these days. However, many Christians do still hold to it, mostly by tradition, having never examined it closely.  There have always been many scientific and theological problems with the idea of a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but perhaps the "death" of the Gap Theory came with the 1978 publication of Dr. Weston W. Fields' fine book, Unformed and Unfilled. In it, Fields specified the many Biblical problems inherent in the concept, and with only a few exceptions, Bible scholars have now abandoned it. Some of his main arguments are briefly summarized below. Gap advocates hold that only the surface of the earth was "created" during the six-day series of events detailed in Genesis 1:2 through 2:25. This creation followed a global holocaust brought on by the fall of Satan, which destroyed a supposed pre-Atomic world. But the all inclusive summary statements of Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20 ' 1, and elsewhere, argue otherwise; "the heavens and the earth ... all the host of them ... all that is in them ... all His work which God created and made," seem better to refer to all of creation, not just the earth's surface. Some have claimed that in Exodus 20:11 the verb "to make" is used instead of "to create, "and, that, therefore, the summation is referring only to the earth's surface, leaving the rock strata and the earth's interior untouched. But in reality, while there is an important distinction between the words in Genesis 1, both are used in Genesis 2:2,3 and Nehemiah 9:6 to refer to all of creation; and are even used in synonymous parallelism in Genesis 2:4, Exodus 34:10, Isaiah 41:20, and Isaiah 43:7. Another oft-repeated claim is that Genesis 1:2 should read, "the earth became without form and void," as opposed to the traditional understanding that when God first created the earth in verse 3, it "was without form (i.e., not yet in completed form) and void (i.e., not yet inhabited)." The verb's normal meaning, however, is simply "was," and while it may be translated "become," the context does not warrant it, and all accepted versions of the Bible use "was." Each verse in Genesis 1, except verse 1, begins with the conjunction "and," thereby connecting each verse sequentially to those before and after. There is no hint of the passing of millions or billions of years of time between verses 1 and 2. Gap advocates frequently turn to other portions of Scripture for support, particularly those that use the words "without form" and "void" (Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 24:1, and 45:18 are most important). In each case, the prophet refers to a wasted state due to the judgment of sin, thereby implying that Genesis 1:2 likewise implies a condition brought about by judgment. But in each case, the context regards the land of Israel, not the original earth. There is no justification for postulating long ages present in a supposed gap in Genesis. The Gap Theory, as with all efforts to harmonize Genesis with the geologic ages, faces insurmountable problems on several fronts. How much better to take God at His Word and simply believe what He says.

Article from allongod