Creation: Is It Important?
By Stephen M
Golden, Copyright © 14 May 2003
Believing God in an
intellectualized culture.
A culture strongly influenced by Elite
naturalists whose a priori belief is that there is no God.
— Foolish intellectuals. —
Psalm 14:1 and 53:1
Without understanding what God says about
Creation …
You’re
starting in the middle of the story
You
have no explanation for suffering and death
Genesis
is foundational to all Christian doctrine (Ps.11:3 if the foundations be
destroyed…)
If the
first Adam is allegorical, why should the last Adam be real?
Why can’t we just teach the essentials?
“Why can’t a Christian believe both
the Bible & Evolution?”
Creation has three points in its favor
right from the start:
Gospel References to Genesis 1-11:
Other passages referencing Genesis 1-11:
Take God at His word — Your
salvation depends on it.
Reconcile evolution with the Bible?
C.
-Billions of dead things before sin
D.
-Jesus said things would be restored
What scientific evidence is there
for creation?
Polystrate & out of place fossils
Evolution falls on every front.
No fear: God is the author of
Science.
In an age of intellectualism, Christians often try to avoid the issue of
a straightforward reading of Genesis by believing it’s not important. They say, “Faith in Jesus Christ is what’s
important.” That’s true. But having
faith in Jesus Christ without a solid understanding of Jesus Christ is like
seed sown on rocky soil; it has no root and withers. (See Matthew 13:6)
Why believe the middle, but not the beginning?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Jesus believed Genesis, and quoted it as literal history
Luke 16:31 (Moses and Prophets); John 5:46-47 (Moses); Matthew 19:4 (Male/Female);
Matthew 19:8 (Moses/Divorce); Matthew 19:56 (One flesh); Matthew 23:35, Luke 3:36-38
(Abe)l; Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:27 (Noah);
The origin of life, the origin of man, Government and Laws, Marriage,
Culture, Nations, Death, Chosen people, Sin, Clothes,
The Gospel, Restoration of all things
Death because of Sin.
Judgment – punishment for sin
Separation – represents our current relationship with God
A blessing. An opportunity to be
reconciled to God
God created man with no imperfection and designed him to live forever
Man had fellowship with God
Man rebelled and became separated from God
Man cursed with death
God provided a path of redemption through death
Jesus, God’s son, took the penalty for our sin, and conquered death
Through faith in Jesus, we can spend eternity with God.
And
so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became
a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:46
Some will cry, "This topic is so divisive, why can't we just
concentrate on the essentials of our faith?" Creation is the ultimate “essential”. It is the first order of essence; an
inseparable part of the gospel
Are there errors in God's Word? Are
parts of God’s Word wrong? If one part
is wrong, how do we know other parts aren’t wrong?
Can we throw out the parts of God’s Word we don’t like? The only way one would know anything about
being a Christian is through God’s Word.
Without God’s Word, there can be no Christians, for we would know nothing
about Jesus Christ and what he has done for all people. We have faith in Jesus Christ, and we believe
the things he believed and taught: God’s Word. This is what it means to be a
Christian. If you don’t like God’s Word,
instead of being a Christian, perhaps you should be something else.
Luke
16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they
will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Luke
24:25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe
all that the prophets have spoken.
1John
5:10 “...the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar...”
Romans
3:3-4 “...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar...”
Romans
4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited
to him as righteousness.”
Psalm
119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous
judgments endureth for ever.
Many people, even some Christians, have been intimidated
into thinking that you have to give up science in
favor of faith, or give up faith in favor of science. The world has convinced them that science
& God are enemies.
Evolutionists
will often begin statements supporting their view with phrases such as “No
rational person,” or “No educated person” with intent to intimidate those who
disagree with their dogma. This is
really an emotional appeal to the uneducated and insecure who, wanting to
appear rational and educated, will tend to side with the evolutionist. Who wants to appear to be irrational? Whenever an evolutionist wants to belittle a
creationist, he will appeal to rationality by saying, “The rational person will
agree with me.” What he really means is,
“I’ll call you rational if you agree with me.”
In
“No rational man, cognizant of the
facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior,
of the white man. And if this be true,
it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our
prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he
will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed
rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.”
-Thomas H. Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, p.20 as reprinted in The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry
Morris, p.60
So, from
evolutionists’ perspective of Huxley’s day, the rational man believes the supposedly lesser-evolved black man will
never be able to compete with the supposedly more highly evolved white man.
Don’t be
intimidated.
You
don’t have to “check your brain at the door,” as some say, to believe God —
although you might have to check your brain if you try to believe God and in evolution.
Some
have consciously split their minds to allow themselves to believe in God and
evolution at the same time. They try to
divide their beliefs into what they call “the realm of faith” and “the realm of
science.” In matters of the physical
world, they give “science” preference, and in matters of morality and
spirituality, they give “faith” preference.
These
people believe “science” does not involve faith, and that “faith” need not
become entangled with science. This is
quite a challenge to do in practice, because the divisions are not that
clear-cut. God has told us the truth,
and it is not limited to moral and spiritual matters.
Let me
say both creation and evolution require faith.
They are both interpretations of our world, whether with God or without
God. Neither belief can be observed.
Theistic
Evolution or Progressive Creation:
While
some try to separate God from science, others try to reconcile the Bible with
Evolution. Both Creationists and
Evolutionists agree this is the most ridiculous position of all. It simply cannot be done unless you relegate
the entire Bible to allegory. That's not
much of a reconciliation.
First of all, the
sequence is out of order. For example,
the sun wasn’t created until day four, plants were created before the sun, and
flying creatures before land creatures.
Evolution (the Big Bang theory) says the sun came first, and flying
creatures evolved from land creatures, and many more inconsistencies appear,
the closer you look.
Next, the
belief in “millions of years” is inconsistent with what God says in His Word. Even trying to impose the “Gap Theory” or the
“Day/Age Theory” produces some mighty strange conclusions. You simply can’t insert a significant amount
of time without doing severe damage to the truth of God’s Word.
Then,
God says death came through sin.
Evolution says death has been around for millions of years. Death is a rather nasty way for a loving God
to have created. “Evolution would be the
most wasteful, inefficient, and cruel process that could ever be conceived by
which to ‘create’ human beings. It is
absurd to suggest that the omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and saving God of
the Bible could ever be guilty of such a thing.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.109
Many
evolutionists, including the late Carl Sagan, point this out in ridicule.
Atheists
seem to understand the situation better than most Christians: “Christianity has
fought, still fights, and will fight science [sic] to the desperate end over
evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.... If Jesus was not the
redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity
is nothing.”
-Genesis and Evolution, American
Atheist 30 (Jan.1988):7, as quoted in The
Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.119
Finally,
the only reason to believe in evolution is if you don’t believe in God and His
Word. That’s a rather precarious
position for a Christian to hold, don’t you think?
1. There is an adequate cause for the effect,
2. Intelligence and a plan,
3. God was there. Evolutionists were not.
You see,
it’s not God v. Science. It never has
been. It’s truth v. Orthodoxy. It’s the Judeo-Christian religion v. the
Secular Humanist religion. It’s God v.
Evolutionists. It’s God v. the
ungodly. “It’s the Word of God v. Man’s
fallible theories.” -Creation
23(2) March-May, 2001, p.18
Even in
Galileo’s day, it was not God v. science but rather, God v. the orthodoxy of an ungodly priesthood,
whose view of the Bible was distorted by the pantheistic teachings of Plato,
Socrates, and Aristotle, standing in the way of truth. We have a similar orthodoxy today that calls
itself “the Scientific Community.” In their way of thinking, it is
unscientific to believe any explanation that
indicates the existence of God — even if it’s true.
Twentieth
(and twenty-first) century man has redefined
science. (See Science
is a Game)
“Richard Dickerson, an authority in chemical evolution says,
‘Science, fundamentally, is a game. It
is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what
extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in
terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the
supernatural.’”[1]
“Thus, evolutionary 'science' is not necessarily a search
for truth, as we used to be told, but a game
in which they try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the
universe and all in it.”[2]
This
arbitrary assertion leads to one of two necessary conclusions:
1.
Either science and truth go separate ways (if God turns out to exist) or
2. There
is no God.
The
humanistic evolutionist, of course, believes the second.
However,
neither of these conclusions is correct because the assertion is false. The truth
is that God is the author of
science. Science and belief in God go
hand in hand.
Some
have been intimidated into believing that you need to interpret the Bible
through our current understanding of the world; that is, to apply contemporary
scientific interpretation, and modify the Bible accordingly. Christians must resist this temptation. One need only look at the current state of
medical science to see clearly how little man knows. Scientific “facts” are regularly discarded in
light of new “facts.” Even dietary
“facts” have changed significantly in the last five years.
So,
should we take the word of fallible men who were not there over the Word of our
infallible God who was there? Of course
not. “We should judge the words of man
against the word of God, and not the other way around.” —Ken Ham
It is
presumptuous and arrogant of us (especially as Christians) to try to interpret
God’s revelation through our incomplete knowledge of the world rather than to
interpret our world through God’s revelation.
“Many
erroneous medieval interpretations of biblical texts (e.g., the idea of a flat earth)
were wrong, not because the actual Scriptures were wrong, but because
expositors had tried to explain them in terms of the then-accepted scientific
ideas. The Dark Ages were dark, not
because Scripture discouraged scientific investigation (the “dominion mandate”
of Genesis 1:26-28 actually commands scientific
research), but because the Platonic philosophy with which the church fathers
tried to compromise did so.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.206
In the
early ages, “if Christians had built their world view on the Bible —as Kepler,
Newton, and others tried to do much later— [instead of building it on Greek
“science”] the development of true science might have come much sooner.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.203
You
might ask, “What about all the scientific discoveries that indicate there is no
God and that evolution is a fact?”
There are no such scientific discoveries. These statements are based on the biased
conclusions of fallible people. All
facts must be interpreted. Science
doesn’t draw conclusions; people do.
[Ken Ham
example:]
Which of
these statements are true about scientists?
1. They wear white lab coats
2. They work in laboratories
3. They are unbiased
4. They have white hair
(The
answer: none)
Are
scientists infallible? No, they are
human, and therefore prone to error.
Evolutionists
like to use the phrase “The present is the key to the past.” But that’s a misleading, ideologically
motivated reflection of a philosophy diametrically opposed to the Bible. That philosophy is uniformitarianism. It means that everything we see can be
explained in terms of natural processes we see every day. It rejects catastrophes and shuns special
events as explanations for things. As
Christians, we know the Bible is the key
to the past. As people, we also know
extraordinary and non-repeatable catastrophic events have occurred in the past.
Jesus
reinforced this position.
Luke 16:31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Matthew 19:4-5
4 And He answered and said, “Have you
not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL
BECOME ONE FLESH’?
Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was
not this way from the beginning.
|
Reference |
Topic |
Genesis Reference |
1. |
*Matthew 19:4 |
Created male and female |
1:27, 5:2 |
2. |
*Matthew 19:56 |
Cleave to his wife; become one flesh |
2:24 |
3. |
*Matthew 23:35 |
Righteous Abel |
4:4 |
4. |
*Matthew 24:3739 |
Noah and the Flood |
6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22 |
5. |
*Mark 10:6 |
Created male and female |
1:27, 5:2 |
6. |
*Mark 10:79 |
Cleave to his wife, become one flesh |
2:24 |
7. |
*Mark 13:19 |
Creation which God created |
1:1, 2:4 |
8. |
Luke 3:34-36 |
Genealogies: Abraham to Shem |
11:10-26 |
9. |
Luke 3:36-38 |
Genealogies: Noah to Adam to God |
5:3-29 |
10. |
*Luke 11:51 |
Blood of Abel |
4:8-11 |
11. |
Luke 17:27 |
The flood came and destroyed them all |
7:10-23 |
12. |
John 1:13 |
In the beginning God |
1:1 |
13. |
*John 8:44 |
Father of lies |
3:45 |
*Words
of Christ
|
Reference |
Topic |
Genesis Reference |
14. |
Acts 14:15 |
Who made the heaven and the earth |
2:1 |
15. |
Acts 17:24 |
God made all things |
1:1-31 |
16. |
Acts 17:26 |
From one man [God] made every nation of men |
Indirect |
17. |
Romans 1:20 |
The creation of the world |
1:1-31, 2:4 |
18. |
Romans 4:17 |
God can create out of nothing |
1:1-31 |
19. |
Romans 5:12 |
Death entered the world by sin |
2:16-17, 3:19 |
20. |
Romans 5:14-19 |
Death reigned from Adam |
2:17 |
21. |
Romans 8:20-22 |
Creation corrupted |
3:17-18 |
22. |
I Corinthians 6:16 |
Two will become one flesh |
2:24 |
23. |
I Corinthians 11:3 |
Head of the woman |
3:16 |
24. |
I Corinthians 11:7 |
In the image of God |
1:27, 5:1 |
25. |
I Corinthians 11:8 |
Woman from man |
2:22-23 |
26. |
I Corinthians 11:9 |
Woman for the man |
2:18 |
27. |
I Corinthians 15:21-22 |
By a man came death |
2:16-17, 3:19 |
28. |
I Corinthians 15:38-39 |
To each. . . seeds of its own (kind) |
1:11, 1:21, 1:24 |
29. |
I Corinthians 15:45 |
Adam became a living being |
2:7 |
30. |
I Corinthians 15:47 |
Man from the earth |
3:23 |
31. |
II Corinthians 4:6 |
Light out of darkness |
1:35 |
32. |
II Corinthians 11:3 |
Serpent deceived Eve |
3:16, 3:13 |
33. |
Ephesians 3:9 |
Created all things |
1:1-31, 2:1-3 |
34. |
Ephesians 5:3031 |
Cleave to his wife, become one flesh |
2:24 |
35. |
Colossians 1:16 |
All things created by Him |
1:1-31, 2:13 |
36. |
Colossians 3:10 |
Created in His image |
1:27 |
37. |
I Timothy 2:1314 |
Adam created first |
2:18-23 |
38. |
I Timothy 2:14 |
Woman deceived |
3:16, 3:13 |
39. |
I Timothy 4:4 |
Everything created by God is good |
1:10-31 |
40. |
Hebrews 1:10 |
In the beginning God made heavens and earth |
1:1 |
41. |
Hebrews 2:78 |
All things in subjection under man |
1:26-30, 9:23 |
42. |
Hebrews 4:3 |
Works were finished |
2:1 |
43. |
Hebrews 4:4 |
Rest on the seventh day |
2:2-3 |
44. |
Hebrews 4:10 |
Rest from His works |
2:2-3 |
45. |
Hebrews 11:3 |
Creation of the universe |
1:1 |
46. |
Hebrews 11:4 |
Abel offered a better sacrifice |
4:35 |
47. |
Hebrews 11:5 |
Enoch taken up |
5:21-24 |
48. |
Hebrews 11:7 |
Noah’s household saved |
7:1 |
49. |
Hebrews 12:24 |
Blood of Abel |
4:10 |
50. |
James 3:9 |
Men in the likeness of God |
1:27, 5:1 |
51. |
I Peter 3:20 |
Construction of the Ark, eight saved |
6:14-16, 7:13 |
52. |
II Peter 2:5 |
A flood upon the ungodly, eight saved |
6:8-12, 7:124 |
53. |
II Peter 3:45 |
Earth formed out of water and by water |
1:67 |
54. |
II Peter 3:6 |
The world destroyed by water |
7:17-24 |
55. |
I John 3:8 |
Devil sinned from the beginning |
3:14 |
56. |
I John 3:12 |
Cain slew his brother |
4:8, 4:25 |
57. |
Jude 11 |
The way of Cain |
4:8, 4:16, 4:25 |
58. |
Jude 14 |
Enoch, the seventh generation from Adam |
5:3-24 |
59. |
Revelation 2:7 |
Tree of life |
2:9 |
60. |
Revelation 3:14 |
Beginning of the creation of God |
1:1-31, 2:14 |
61. |
Revelation 4:11 |
Created all things |
1:1-31, 2:1-3 |
62. |
Revelation 10:6 |
Who created heaven. . . and the earth |
1:1, 2:1 |
63. |
Revelation 14:7 |
Who made the heaven and the earth |
1:1, 2:1, 2:4 |
64. |
Revelation 20:2 |
The serpent of old, who is the devil |
3:1, 3:14 |
65. |
Revelation 21:1 |
First heaven and first earth |
2:1 |
66. |
Revelation 21:4 |
No more death, sorrow, crying or pain |
3:17-19 |
67. |
Revelation 22:2 |
Fruit of the tree of life |
3:22 |
68. |
Revelation 22:3 |
No more curse |
3:14-19 |
69. |
Revelation 22:14 |
The tree of life |
2:9 |
Taken from:
In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Does the New Testament Support
Genesis 1-11?, by Dr. Walt Brown.
a. Every New Testament writer refers to the early chapters
of Genesis (Genesis 1-11).
b. Jesus Christ referred to each of the first seven chapters
of Genesis.
c. All New Testament books except Galatians, Philippians, I
and II Thessalonians, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and II and III John have
references to Genesis 1-11.
d. Every chapter of Genesis 1-11, except chapter 8, is
referred to somewhere in the New Testament.
e. Every New Testament writer apparently accepted these
early chapters of Genesis as historically accurate.
Taken from: In the
Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Dr. Walt
Brown.
That’s
what faith is all about.
Why do
we need a savior? To save us from our
sin. If evolution happened, death
was already occurring before man evolved.
But if death came before man, and was not a consequence of Adam’s sin,
then sin is a fiction. And if sin is a
fiction, we wouldn't need Christ to save us from it. (See 1Corinthians 15:21-22 and 45)
God is
not a liar.
1John 5:10 “...the
one who does not believe God has made Him a liar...”
Romans 3:3-4
What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not
nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
May it never be. Rather, let God be found true, though every man be
found a liar, as it is written,
“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to
those who take refuge in Him.
Not only
in Genesis 1, but He wrote it in stone with His own hand.
Exodus 31:18 When the LORD finished
speaking to Moses on
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD
made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested
on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
“But I believe the word 'day' doesn't
necessarily mean an ordinary day.”
Let’s consider the Hebrew word for day, “yom.” Some will say that this Hebrew word is
non-specific and can refer to an indefinite period.
While
this word can mean an indefinite time
period, it almost always means a literal day.
Furthermore, it always means a
literal day when modified by a number (i.e., 2nd day), or when accompanied by
the words “evening,” “morning,” or both.
In addition, it also always means
a literal day when used in plural form as it is in Exodus 20:11.
The
early chapters of Genesis are a chronological historical narrative. Every indication is that they are to be taken
literally.
Some
have tried to say that Genesis 1 and 2 describe
separate creation events, however there are several reasons why this cannot be,
two of which are mentioned in points B & C below. The distinction to make regarding Genesis
chapters 1 and 2 is that Genesis 1 is a summary of what God did in creation
week, while chapter 2 essentially says, “Now, let’s look at some detail in a
few important areas.”
a. Heavens and earth,
Light, night and day
b. Expanse [stars, space]
c. Dry land, plants
d. Stars, sun, moon
e. Sea creatures, birds
f. Land creatures, man
2. Man is not the result of millions of
mutations, but the finalization of God’s creative work.
The
fossil record is “Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by
water all over the earth.” -Ken Ham
The
fossil record is “dead things.” God (the
Bible) says death came into the world through sin. Under evolutionary hypothesis, it marks
millions of years of suffering and death.
How could a good God call that “very good?” (Genesis 1:31)
To the
way they were in the beginning. He
didn’t mean a state of struggle and death.
He meant harmony and life.
Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them,
"I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man
sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive
until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the
mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
Rev.21:5 And the one sitting on the
throne said, “Look, I am making all things new.” And then he said to me, “Write
this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.”
The word
“new” here means restored not different.
Isaiah 11 -Wolf w/ Lamb
Evolution
is an attempt at explaining the existence of everything through natural
processes. Evolution can take many
forms, of which Darwinism is only one.
“The essential attribute of an evolutionary concept is that
it identifies ultimate reality with the universe of matter, space, and time,
rather than with the transcendent Creator of that universe.”
-The
Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.207
In other
words, evolution is any belief system that maintains the idea that the universe
is self-originating and was not created.
From a biological standpoint, “...the natural generation of living
creatures out of earth materials.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213
Greek
Stoics and Epicureans even in Christ’s day believed “everything on the earth
evolved directly from the earth material itself.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.212
The
Gnostics held similar beliefs.
Romans 1:25 Instead of believing what
they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So
they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be
praised forever. Amen.
Evolution
was invented to explain our existence without God. A Christian has no reason to believe
atheistic teachings. A Christian must not believe in evolution.
What is
science? It is the study of observable,
repeatable processes and events in the present.
"Millions
of years in the past…" Is that
Science? The best you can do when
“scientifically” studying the past is to perform actions in the present using
processes existing in the present to make conjectures and speculations about
the past. Science doesn’t draw
conclusions, people do.
Six to
ten thousand years. Ten thousand years
is really stretching the limit. It’s
most likely right around six thousand years.
What
about millions of years? Millions of
years? Who says? Science?
No, Evolutionists. In every case
where someone has stated something is more than approximately 6000 years old,
if you examine their assumptions and methods, you can see that it isn’t
necessarily so.
“But it
looks old.”
Well, it
is
old. Six thousand years is a long
time.
“No, I
mean it looks millions of years old.”
How do
you know what millions of years of age looks like? Can you tell the difference between a six-thousand-year-old
rock and a six-million-year-old rock?
No, you can't.
“Maybe
God created the world to look old.”
God would
not create something to appear older than it is. That would be deceptive. When we say something looks old, we are
assigning the age, not God. Remember,
God told us how old the world is. It is
not His fault if we don’t believe Him. It
is not His fault if we see His creation and reach an incorrect conclusion based
on our preconceived ideas. If we
conclude the world, indeed, the universe, is older than God said it is, that’s
our own misinterpretation.
Do we
know what six million years looks like vs. six thousand years? No. Were
you there? Shouldn’t we take the word of
someone who was there? Do we have the
word of someone who was there?
Absolutely. God was there. God is infallible.
People's
own fallible interpretation of the facts leads them to conclude great age. When they assert a date of more than 6000
years, it’s based entirely on their assumptions.
Since
1900 Evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the earth by 100
times. Why? Because the more they discover, the more they
realize there is not enough time to explain their hypothesis — Evolution.
“There
is so much evidence for evolution that it is a fact.”
Oh,
really? An infamous leader once said if
you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.
“...Evolution
is proclaimed everywhere as a basic and sure fact of science, yet without one
iota of scientific proof. No one in all
human history has ever observed one species evolve into a more complex and
better-adapted species by natural selection or any other mechanism. No one has seen evidence of any mechanism
that would make evolution work. In the
fossil record of the past, with billions of fossils preserved in the earth’s
sedimentary crust, no one has ever found any fossils showing incipient or
transitional structures leading to the evolution of more complex species. The same applies in greater degree to the
evolution of higher genera, families, or any other classification.
“Yet
large numbers of examples are known of deterioration and extinction, both in
the present and in the records of the past.
It is estimated by modern ecologists that several species of plants or
animals are becoming extinct each day, yet no one has ever seen a truly new
species evolve. All of this is perfectly
in accord with the universal scientific law of increasing entropy (that is,
decreasing complexity) in the world, but is directly contrary to the supposed
law of evolution.[3]
The
problem of evolution is not one of just details, but the entire issue of
mechanism.
“‘Today
we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting
ferment. Evolution is ... nagged from
within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms
and new questions about the central mystery —speciation itself.’”[4]
This was
100 years after
Taken
from Creation, 23(3) Jun-Aug 2001 p.28-29:
a.
Natural selection adds no information.
In fact, it reduces it.
b.
Evolution requires a way to add new information.
c.
Mutations (genetic copying mistakes) must be invoked to explain how new
information arose in order for natural selection to ‘guide’
the assumed evolutionary process.
d.
Mutations studied to date all appear to be losses of information — not
surprising for a random process.
e. It is
thus quite illegitimate to use instances in which natural selection is
happening (reducing the information in populations) as examples of ‘evolution
happening’.
f.
Natural selection, operating on the created information in original gene pools,
makes good sense in a fallen world. It
can fine-tune the way in which organisms ‘fit’ their environment and help stave
off extinction in a cursed and dying world.
By splitting a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to the
amount of observed variety within the descendants of an original kind, just as
with the many varieties of horse from one type.
Even new “species” can come about like that, but no new
information. This helps explain greater
diversity today than on board the ark.
Natural
selection is a downhill process. It gets
rid of information. The only way to get
the information back is to breed the species with a variety that still has the
genetic information.
We live
in the same world with evolutionists — we share the same facts.
Dating
methods:
Most scientific
dating methods indicate a young earth.
Evolutionists tend to emphasize dating techniques that fit their belief
in old earth (mostly radiometric) and ignore those that show a young earth.
C-14 –may indicate an
old earth*
K-Argon - may
indicate an old earth *
U-Pb - may indicate
an old earth *
Radio halos –indicate
a young earth
*Radiometric Dating
assumptions:
-That there was a known
initial quantity of the elements at the start
-That the decay
rates of the elements have been constant
-That there were no
external influences, such as contamination, that changed the sample
None of these assumptions can be proven.
-The very existence
of fossils. Many have fragments of bone
mixed in with them. -indicate a young earth.
-Red blood cells found in dinosaur bones. Not
possible if more than a few thousand years old. -indicates a young earth.
-Earth’s magnetic
field -indicates a young earth.
-Helium in atmosphere
-indicates a young earth.
-Supernova remnant
expansion -indicates a young earth.
-Moon’s recession
from Earth -indicates a young earth.
-Quantity of salt in
the sea -indicates a young earth.
-Number of people
alive today -indicates a young earth.
(See
https://www.smgolden.com/where-are-all-the-people.php )
-There are huge gaps
between non-living & single cell, single cell & multi-cell,
invertebrates & vertebrates, & etc.
-All 32 mammal orders
appear abruptly & fully formed.
-No evolutionary
change at all. Creatures that are now
living are identical to many found in the fossil record: Cockroaches, bats, rats, turtles, mosquitoes.
-The Coelacanth, a
particular fossil fish thought to be extinct is now known to live off the coast
of
-Historical documents
indicating dinosaurs as contemporary with man.
Some prominent evolutionists have said if it can be proven
man and dinosaur were contemporary, the theory of evolution will be falsified.[6]
Richard
Dawkins, Oxford
Steven Stanley, Johns Hopkins
Earnst Mayer,
Harvard
Niles Eldridge, American Museum of Natural
History
Guess what…
On a recent expedition into Cameroon (Africa), researchers
made some surprising discoveries about the people’s familiarity with specific
animals.[7]
They described an animal the tribespeople called Embulu-em’bembe or Mokele-mbembe and Li’kela-bembe. That is, "Neck like a giraffe, legs like
an elephant, small snake-like head, 30 foot tail."
They also described an animal they called Emela-Entouka, which means "Elephant Killer." This animal is also called also called Ngoubou, "A dangerous brutish beast with one to four horns
on its nose and forehead." On being
shown dinosaur images, the tribespeople identified a triceratops image as being
this animal.
The Baka people of Cameroon, when presented with black and
white pictures of animals they would know, and moving on to pictures of animals
they were not expected to know [creatures from different parts of the world as
well as extinct creatures, such as dinosaurs], identified sauropod creatures and
the Triceratops as creatures with which they were familiar.
Other peoples in equatorial
How would they know these creatures in their culture if they
had not existed with them at least in the past if not in the present? They have no access to dinosaur digs or
scientific journals. They have no
television or even encyclopedias.
There is reason to believe that Grendel in the Scandinavian
Epic tale Beowulf was T-Rex.[8]
Its skin was impenetrable to spears and arrows. It could eat a warrior in one mouthful.
The hero was able to kill the Grendel beasts by climbing on
their backs and tearing off an arm, after which the creature would go back to
its lair and bleed to death. He did this
to more than one Grendel.
There is also strong reason to believe Beowulf is a
historical account, not a fictional tale.
You see, it’s the Bible that makes sense of the world.
We need to preach the science in our churches as well as the
theology.
We need to answer the questions of this age and connect the
Bible to the real world.
-Trees crossing
through multiple rock strata
-Modern and
unexpected items found deep in sedimentary rock beds
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown. 7th
edition #22)
-Helium from radio
decay: If earth is as old as
evolutionists say, there should be a million times more helium atoms in the
atmosphere. Helium atoms cannot escape
the atmosphere.
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown. 7th
edition #75 & #76)
If
evolution were true, at the rate of their current dissipation, all comets would
have ceased to exist millions of years ago.
Comets exist. The oldest can be
no more than about 5000 years. They had
to come from somewhere. Their orbits and
supposed composition seem to indicate they have a common origin.
Evolutionists,
to address the fact that if evolution were true comets would not exist, have
concluded there must be a renewal source for comets. They call this comet source “the Oort cloud”
named for the man who came up with the idea.
It’s supposedly a region in space surrounding our solar system
containing chunks of ice and debris. According
to the "Oort cloud" explanation, on occasion, for reasons unknown,
chunks get knocked out of this region and begin a journey toward the sun.
This
Oort cloud is completely undetectable; the only reason for believing it exists
is to explain the origin of comets. The
only “proof” of the Oort cloud’s existence is the necessity for it to exist to
fit the evolutionist’s belief in long ages.
This is
not bad science — it’s not science at all.
“Well,
from a Creationist viewpoint, where did comets come from?”
According
to Dr. Walter Brown, when God opened the fountains of the deep to initiate the
flood, jets of water, rock, & debris were shot into space and began their
elongated orbits around the sun. So they
do have a common origin —right here on earth.
It’s beyond the scope of our discussion to go into the scientific
details of Dr. Brown’s explanation, but it’s based on actual science, not on
the need for something to exist. You can
read his entire theory at
https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ .
There
were plans to actually land a space probe on the next
major comet that comes this way. Now
they have decided to just collide with it instead. Dr. Walt Brown has predicted it will be a
fluffy snowball with a relatively small rocky core. Well, they did it. When the probe collided with the comet, most
scientists were amazed at the fluffy consistency and the amount of material ejected
by the impact. Also, they determined the
core was much smaller than they had expected.
Upon
analysis, they will likely find it consists of materials found on earth. That will be the extent of the science of it
— the materials they find. However, evolutionists
will conclude the earth came from structures like comets sticking together
(they have already alluded to this).
Creationists will likely conclude Dr. Brown was right — comets
originated on earth at the onset of the flood.
Here is just one example of the same evidence but a different
conclusion.
Here’s
an interesting fact: Hyperbolic comets
(comets whose orbit will not return them to the solar system) are never seen
entering the solar system. Now, both
sides of the debate can use this observation, but Evolutionists must resort to
imaginary entities (The Oort Cloud) for which no evidence exists. Even so, if comets come from the Oort Cloud, one
should expect at least a small percentage of comets to be on a hyperbolic
trajectory. None have ever been.
Creationists
simply acknowledge this as a clear indication that comets originated on earth.
“...[A] great disappointment in astrophysics has been that
we still do not have a clear understanding of how these structures were
formed. We do not even know whether the
smaller structures were formed first and then coalesced into the larger ones,
or whether the larger structures formed first and then broke up into smaller
ones.... It is also a bit disturbing that all these estimates of the ages and
compositions of the stars rest on elaborate calculations of what is going on
inside them, but all that we observe is the light emitted from their surfaces.”
-Steven Weinberg, “Origins,”
Science 230 (Oct. 4, 1985):16; as
quoted in The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris
(Also Brown 7th edition #64 & #96)
A more recent discovery
reveals that the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) thought to be the “outer
reaches” of the big bang lies in front of many distant galaxies. If this is true, either those galaxies were
not part of the big bang, or CBR does not indicate there was a big bang.
Regarding
the "Big Bang," most people (even most scientists) do not understand
it. They envision a dense ball of hot
matter exploding into an empty space.
What they don't realize is that the dimension of space must be included
in the expansion. The dimensions of
space itself were part of the exploding ball.
Space itself expanded.
(Humphries, also Brown 7th edition #55, #56, & #57)
Astronomer
and Mathematician Sir Fredrick Hoyle, who was by no means a Creationist said,
“Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of
astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single
successful prediction.”
-Hoyle, F., Home is
where the wind Blows, 1994, as reported in The Skeptic, 16(1):52
“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large
intellectual edifice based on very few facts.
The strong tendency is to replace a need for more facts by conformity.”
-Hoyle, et al., Nature 346:807-812, Aug.30, 1990
In other
words, Big Bang is a desolate theory, and in the absence of facts about stellar
evolution, the orthodoxy imposes its beliefs on researchers.
If
evolutionary assumptions about starlight and distances are correct, the
farthest galaxies should show us what the early universe looked like. Because the light
would have taken 11 billion years to get here, these distant galaxies should
look young. They say that the universe
is only 13 billion years old. Many of
the farthest galaxies, 11 billion light years away, still look old.[9] That is, they appear much older than the 2
billion years available under the current theory of stellar evolution. They have the form of mature galaxies:
long-arm twisted spirals and etc. How did these galaxies become so “old” at a
time when the universe itself was only 2 billion years old?
According
to estimates prior to the first lunar landing, 4.6 billion years should have
resulted in the accumulation of between 50 and 590 feet of dust. However, it’s only 3/4” deep, indicating a maximum age for the moon to be only 7000
years. Evolutionists have done some
serious back peddling on this by revising their hypothesis on space dust to
greatly reduce the expected accumulation.
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #87)
The moon
is moving away from the earth (because of conservation of angular momentum) at
such a rate that it would have to be billions of years younger than evolution
requires for it to still be in orbit around the earth.
(Brown Technical notes)
Evolutionists
claim that the ancient sun was fainter than the sun is today. However, even 25% less heat would put the
Earth in a permanent deep-freeze.
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #50)
There is
no indication the sun evolved or has ever been significantly different from
what we see today.
Meteoritic
dust—based on current accumulation rates, there should be much more than there
actually is on the earth today. (In
the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt
Brown, 7th edition #83)
The decay
of the earth's magnetic field is 50% every 1400 years. At that decay rate, the magnetic field would
be overwhelming if you estimated back only 100,000 years, let alone millions,
or even billions. (In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #84)
Planetary
rotations are inconsistent with the spinning matter and accretion hypothesis
for their origins. Rotations of the
planets are radically different from each other, some
are off plane and some are retrograde (spinning backwards).
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #46)
No comet
can be more than ten thousand years old.
(In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #90)
(Aurora Community College Astronomy course)
In 1987,
one of the stars a blue dwarf and red giant binary system underwent
supernova. According to the theory of
stellar evolution, the red giant was to have collapsed into a supernova. However, when some of the "dust"
cleared, they determined that the blue dwarf went supernova instead.
Evolutionary
theory had predicted the red giant would collapse into itself and nova, but the
blue dwarf went nova instead. At the
time, I was taking an astronomy class, and it was stated that this completely
refuted the theory of stellar evolution.
The professor said, “This completely contradicts everything we have
believed about stellar evolution.”
“We’ll have to start all over on our paradigm of stellar evolution.” “All existing theories of stellar evolution
are now disproved.”
Of
course, since then, evolutionary astronomers have attempted several new
explanations for why they were so wrong about stellar evolution in the
past.
What
about computer simulations that prove evolution? All computer simulations are created by
intelligent beings. Such programs do
only what the programmer has instructed.
That being the case, they present stronger evidence for creation than
evolution.
Evolutionism
is not new. Pre-Darwinian Evolution was
known as The Great Chain Of Being.
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.38
And long
ages have long been a belief of pagan religions. p.46, ibid.
[Mathematician]
Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of
enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000.
-Evolution from Space,
1981, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe
The
number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at only 10 to the 80. He called the evolution of life on earth
“nonsense of a high order.”
-Hoyle, F., “The Big Bang in Astronomy”, New Scientist, Nov.19, 1981
Sir
Fredrick Hoyle originated the 'Tornado through a junkyard assembling a Boeing
747' example, saying that believing in evolution is like believing a tornado
could sweep through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747.
-Hoyle, Nature, 294(5837):105, Nov.12,1981 www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp#f3
In
“The clear testimony of all present relationships in the
organic world is...one of stability of the basic kinds...with provision for
ample variation within the kinds. There
are...unbridgeable gaps between the kinds, and no amount of variation has made
even a start at crossing these gaps.
“On the other hand, if evolution is the true cosmology, the
gaps should not be there at all. That is
if all organisms have really descended by slow development from a common
ancestor... they ought now to be inter-connected by imperceptible gradations
from one form to another. In fact, it
would be impossible to develop any kind of classification system at all, since
we could never tell where one kind of organism stopped and the next began.”
“...The actual stability of the kinds... give[s] powerful
testimony that the evolutionary assumption is false.”
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, p.264
“Evolutionists believe that the first living organisms were
developed naturally, by innate processes, from non-living chemicals....
“However, ‘spontaneous generation,’ as it used to be called,
is certainly not occurring in the present world, and even evolutionists agree
with creationists on this. In terms of
science, therefore, there is no such thing as the origin of life. Science deals with present processes, and
these do not generate life from non-life....
“The evolutionist, therefore has to
assume that the processes themselves have evolved, and that at some time in the
past they could change inert matter into living matter, even though they cannot
do it now....
“In other words, to explain the origin of life in
naturalistic terms, the evolutionist has to assume an
atmosphere which does not exist, an oceanic composition which does not exist,
and processes which no longer exist, to explain the generation of hypothetical
primitive organisms which no longer exist.
This is no doubt material for interesting conversation, but it is not
science.
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, p.270-271
“‘...In the absence of a fossil record, the credibility of
evolutionists would be severely weakened.
We might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as
anything more than an outrageous hypothesis.’
-Evolutionist Dr. Steven M. Stanley, “Macroevolution: Pattern and Process”,
1979 [-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible
Proofs, p.273-274]
“However, the fossil record turns out to be a very
unconvincing witness for ‘macro-evolution,’ since it is marked by the
ubiquitous absence of any truly transitional forms between different basic
kinds of organisms.
“The only evidence that exists concerning life in earlier
ages is in the fossil record, and, therefore it is...
an actual documented account of the history of organic evolution on earth.
“...The evidence that [evolution] has occurred is the
supposed change in life forms in the fossils with the advance of geologic time.
“...[T]he fossil record does not show evidence of evolution.
...Indeed the clear-cut gaps in the fossil record between...the various basic
kinds of organisms seem to prove exactly the opposite.
“For if evolution is really true,
there ought to be no such gaps. The
fossils ought to show continuous intergradations from one kind into another —
at least on a statistical basis in relation to the abundance of fossils
recovered. But this is not the case.
[See also In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,
by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th edition #10]
“Furthermore, if evolution is a universal process of nature,
and organisms are in a perpetual process of transformation, one would suppose
the forms of life in one age would be completely different from those in
another. But this is so much not the
case that animals and plants in the present world usually have easily
identifiable relatives in the fossil world...
“...[T]he earliest and most primitive form of life yet discovered...
found in the Precambrian rocks of southern
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, p.273-274
There is
a profound absence of transitional forms at every point of evidence.
There
are none. Not knowing the purpose of a
structure does not mean it has no function or that it has lost its
function. All organs once identified as
vestigial are now known to have a function.
Steven
J. Gould – Resorted to the line of reasoning that the imperfections in the
panda's thumb “prove” evolution. This is
contrary to the normal argument used by evolutionists that evolved are
perfectly suited to their natural use.
It’s
irrelevant. “The fact that an originally
perfect structure deteriorates with time says nothing at all about how it was
produced in the first place.”
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.25
What
about similarity of features?
Evolution
says, “Living entities that look alike came from common ancestors.”
Creation
says, “Living entities that look alike came from a common design.”
Ape to
man or man to ape? Some evolutionists
today are speculating that the apes we see today descended from man, instead of
man descending from these apes.
God
created “kinds.” Man[10]
came up with the designation of “species.” Variation within “kinds” was always
part of God’s design. One “kind” turning
into another “kind” simply does not occur.
“Evolution
fails to fit the facts.”
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible
Proofs, p.279
Languages
are more complex the father back you go — exactly the opposite of what
evolution would predict.
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.253
[See also In the
Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt
Brown, 7th edition #13]
Religions
all stem from monotheism, belief in a creator, and an eternal afterlife. Then they degenerated into polytheism,
pantheism, and animism. Evolution
predicted just the opposite. Researchers
are baffled.
-The Long War Against
God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.292
Self-awareness
— Evolution cannot explain this.
Taking action on the
behalf of and to the benefit of another, often at the risk of one's own life.
—
Evolution cannot explain this.
[In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown, 7th
edition #11]
The
Creation/flood theory explains almost every facet of the world and the universe
— even the things Evolutionary hypotheses cannot even address.
“The simplest, most logical and most scientific model of
origins is still that of special creation.
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs.
p.279
“...[A]ll the direct and obvious
‘predictions’ of the creation model will be found to correspond directly and
simply to all the observed facts in the real world.
“The evolution model, on the other hand, continually
encounters contradictions which require a multitude of auxiliary assumptions to
be imposed upon its basic formulation. For
example... its assumption that life has evolved from non-life encounters the
stubborn fact that life is not evolving from non-life at present; therefore a
secondary assumption is made that environmental conditions in the past were
drastically different than at present, despite the utter lack of evidence
supporting such an assumption and despite the contradiction of this assumption
with the evolutionist’s first assumption of uniformitarianism. The fact that life is not evolving from
non-life at present, however, is exactly and directly what the creation model
predicts.
-H. M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, p.282
New
discoveries?
What
will we do if new discoveries indicate evolution is true?
The
facts of science will never be in opposition to God — only man’s opinions. Your starting premise will determine your
conclusion regarding facts of science.
[1] Gleaned
from Games Some People play by Henry
Morris, Creation, 23(4) Sep-Nov 2001, p.35
[2] Gleaned
from Games Some People play by Henry
Morris, Creation, 23(4) Sep-Nov 2001, p.35
[3] The
Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, pp.256-257
[4] Keith S. Thompson (Biology professor @
Yale), “The Meanings of Evolution,” American Scientist 70, 1982 p.529, as
quoted by The Long War Against God,
Dr. Henry Morris, p.24
[5] The
Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24
[7] http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/behemoth/behemoth.htm
Behemoth or Bust: an expedition into
[8] After the Flood, Bill Cooper, 1995, New Wine Press, online at
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/
Available in book form from www.answersInGenesis.org and www.icr.org
[9] Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly
Mature Galaxies http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
[10] Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, believed the Genesis creation account. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/can-creationists-be-real-scientists