At ELIE, we are dedicated to spreading the truth of Creation and exposing the lies that are used to uphold the Theory of Evolution.

We are a branch off a bigger ministry called "Exposing Lies", which tackles (in offshoots like us) many other topics!

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Darwinism Discredited By Real Scientists
Phyllis Spivey January 27, 2006 NewsWithViews.com

"All major scientists support evolution." This is the Darwinist's response of choice to anyone who dares question the notion that matter, time, and chance – not God – have brought all things into existence. Darwinists assert there is neither scientific support nor intellectual basis for the Biblical account of creation.

That Darwin diehards continue to promulgate this deception characterizes the dishonesty of their entire debate. Scott M. Huse exposes this and other evolutionary fallacies in his fine book, The Collapse of Evolution, in which he presents scientific evidence for biblical creationism and shows why the theory of evolution and the scriptures are irreconcilable. Written in plain language, documented with 39 pages of endnotes, appendices, and bibliography, the book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking the truth – including Christians.

Too many Christians, when confronted with the argument that real scientists support Darwin's conclusions, throw in the towel for lack of knowledge. Huse's list of pioneering, Bible-believing scientists comes to their aid. It's comprehensive, historically reliable, and demands wide distribution.

Joseph Lister, Antiseptic Surgery
Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology
Sir Isaac Newton, Dynamics (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus)
Johann Kepler, Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Chemistry
Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Palentology
Charles Babbage, Computer Science
James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics
Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics, Field Theory
Ambrose Fleming, Electronics
Lord William Kelvin, Energetics, Thermodynamics
Henri Fabre, Entomology
George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics
William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Gas Dynamics
Gregor Mendel, Genetics
Louis Agassiz, Glacial Geology, Ichthyology
James Simpson, Gynecology
Leonardo da Vinci, Hydraulics
Blaise Pascal, Hydrostatics
William Ramsay, Isotopic Chemistry
Matthew Maury, Oceanography
David Brewster, Optical Mineralogy
John Woodward, Paleontology
Rudolph Virchow, Pathology
James Joule, Reversible Thermodynamics
Sir Francis Bacon, Scientific Method
Nicholas Steno, Stratigraphy
Carolus Linnaeus, Systematic Biology
Humphrey Davy, Thermokinetics

These masters are not scientists Darwinists can dismiss. Many were contemporaries of Charles Darwin, their contributions made during Darwin's lifetime or later. As for modern scientists, Huse points out that today there are literally thousands of highly reputable scientists representing every scientific discipline who completely dismiss the concept of organic evolution in favor of biblical creationism.

Listing 100 creation-science organizations operating worldwide, 71 of which are in the United States, Huse provides impressive examples of scientists who have outspokenly rejected evolution, including John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Company, who offered $1,000 to anyone who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Holder of over 100 patents, Dr. Grebe developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber, and Saran Wrap.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris concluded:

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America's space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.

"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the 'Case for DESIGN' as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
. . . Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."

Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as described by Scott Huse.

"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."

In a Darwinist's perfect world, opponents would shut up: Christians, creationists, and intelligent design advocates would cower in silence; schools would indoctrinate without objection, and scientists would speak with one voice. Evolutionary theory would not only reign, it would be preached without challenge.

Standing in the way of that "perfect world" are authors such as James Perloff who has compiled a wealth of creation facts and evolutionary fables in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, The Relentless Myth of Darwinism. Perloff's presentation of what the world's best known scientists have said and thought about the origins of man and earth makes clear that Christians needn't apologize for a lack of real scientists in their ranks.

The Missouri-based Creation Research Society, for example, has over 600 voting members with post-graduate science degrees. The entire faculty of California's Institute for Creation Research holds advanced scientific degrees and, in 1997, Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the medical diagnostic device known as the MRI joined the Institute's Technical Advisory Board

Perloff observes that even Newsweek magazine in a 1998 cover story entitled "Science Finds God" noted:

"According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God – not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

Among the many modern-day scientists quoted by Perloff is rocket scientist Werner von Braun, who oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space and masterminded the moon landing. An active Christian who prayed for the safety of those on the missions he planned, Braun's declarations left no doubt about his beliefs.

In a letter to the California State Board of Education, von Braun stated:

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself."

Von Braun also observed:

"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. "

In 1959, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, was even more blunt:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, then director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, stated in 1984:

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, science writer and teacher at MIT and UCLA, said in 1988:

"And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformation have ever occurred."

Charles Townes, who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on laser principles said:

"As a religious person, I strongly sense . . . the presence and actions of a creative being far beyond myself and yet always personal and close by."

It has ever been so. Considered by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, and constructed the first reflecting telescope. He wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion, including papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible.
Newton believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation and a young earth:

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

"All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer."

Sir John William Dawson, who pioneered Canadian geology and served as president of both Mc Gill University and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, stated in 1887:

"We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled."

Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day, said.

"The undevout astronomer must be mad, " he said.

John Frederick Herschel (son of Sir William) discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declaring:

"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."

John Flamsteed (1646-1719) made the first great map of the stars, founded the famous Greenwich Observatory, was first Astronomer Royal of England – and a clergyman.

John Ray (1627-1705), first to suggest classifying organisms by species and considered the leading authority on zoology and botany in his day, also authored theological books, including The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation.

The verdict is in, just ignored. Scientists have ever deliberated the origins of life and the greatest among them, yesterday and today, have embraced biblical creationism. Yet the myth of Darwinism persists, embraced by atheists and agnostics, enabled by timid, apathetic, or misinformed Christians.

From 1859 -- when Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was published -- to the present; from Marx, Nietzche, and Huxley to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, Darwinism has been used to justify class struggle, racial purity, genocide, and the mass slaughter of innocents. Make no mistake. If today's evolutionists get their perfect world, evil will occupy the throne.

© 2006 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

Anthropic Principle: The Design is in the Details

Extract from "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life- supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (which are called "Anthropic Constants" make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle." "Anthropic" comes from the Greek word that means "human" or "man". The "Anthropic Principal" is just a fancy title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support human life here on earth.

It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 10(22) planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10(138), that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 10(70) atoms in the entire universe.

In effect, there zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.
Here are fifteen of them.

Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level

On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.

Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency

If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in themselves Anthropic constants).

Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction

If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.

Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide level

If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we'd all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we'd all suffocate).

Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity

If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore neither would we. Talk about precision.

Anthropic Constant 6: Centrifugal Force

If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

Anthropic Constant 7: Rate Of Expansion

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.
Anthropic Constant 8: Speed Of Light

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

Anthropic Constant 9: Water Vapor Levels

If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life. If they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold to support human life.

Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter

If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

Anthropic Constant 11: The Earth's Crust

If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

Anthropic Constant 12: The Earth's Rotation

If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be to great.

Anthropic Constant 13: Axis Tilt

The 23-degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

Anthropic Constant 14: Atmospheric Discharge

If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less there would be little nitrogen fixings in the soil.

Anthropic Constant 15: Seismic Activity

If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it).

Summary of Flood Geology

Liquefaction—associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action—played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood. Indeed, the worldwide presence of sorted fossils and sedimentary layers shows that a gigantic global flood occurred. Massive liquefaction also left other diagnostic features such as cross-bedded sandstone, plumes, and mounds.

Sedimentary rocks are distinguished by sharply-defined layers, called strata. Fossils almost always lie within such layers. Fossils and strata, seen globally, have many unusual characteristics. A little-known and poorly-understood phenomenon called liquefaction explains these characteristics. It also explains why we do not see fossils and strata forming on a large scale today.

We will first consider several common situations that cause liquefaction on a small scale. After understanding why liquefaction occurs, we will see that a global flood would produce liquefaction—and these vast, sharply defined layers—worldwide.The flooded earth had enormous, unimpeded waves—not just normal waves, but waves generated by undulating hydroplates.Also, the flooded earth had no coastlines, so friction did not destroy waves at the beach. Instead, waves traveled around the earth, often reinforcing other waves. When a liquefaction lens slowly collapsed for the last time, plants and small animals were trapped, flattened, and preserved between the lens' roof and floor. Even footprints, ripple marks, and worm burrows were preserved at the interface, if no further liquefaction occurred there. A particular lens might stay open through many wave cycles, long after the lens' floor last liquefied.Fossils, sandwiched between thin layers, were often spread over a wide surface which geologists call a horizon. Thousands of years later, these horizons gave some investigators the false impression those animals and plants died long after layers below were deposited and long before layers above were deposited. A layer with many fossils covering a vast area was misinterpreted as an extinction event or a boundary between geologic periods.

How can we compare and test the two conflicting explanations: liquefaction versus uniformitarianism and the principle of superposition over billions of years?

1. Many sedimentary layers span hundreds of thousands of square miles. (River deltas, where sediment buildups are greatest today, are only a tiny fraction of that area.) Liquefaction during a global flood would account for the vast expanse of these thick layers. Current processes and eons of time do not.

2. One thick, extensive sedimentary layer has remarkable purity. The St. Peter sandstone, spanning about 500,000 square miles in the central United States, is composed of almost pure quartz, similar to sand on a white beach. It is hard to imagine how any geologic process, other than global liquefaction, could achieve this degree of purity over such a wide area. Almost all other processes involve mixing, which destroys purity.

3. Today, sediments are usually deposited in and by rivers—along a narrow line. However, individual sedimentary rock layers are spread over large geographical areas, not along narrow, streamlike paths. Liquefaction during the flood acted on all sediments and sorted them over wide areas in weeks or months.

4. Sedimentary layers are usually sharply defined, parallel, and horizontal. They are often stacked vertically for thousands of feet. If layers had been laid down thousands of years apart, surface erosion would have destroyed this parallelism. Liquefaction, especially liquefaction lenses, explain this common observation.

5. Sometimes adjacent, parallel layers contain such different fossils that evolutionists conclude those layers were deposited millions of years apart, but the lack of erosion shows the layers were deposited rapidly. Liquefaction resolves this paradox.

6. Many communities around the world get their water from deep, permeable, water-filled, sedimentary layers called aquifers. When water drains from an aquifer, the layer collapses, unable to support the overlying rock layers. A collapsed aquifer cannot be replenished, so how were aquifers filled with water in the first place?

Almost all sorted sediments were deposited within water, so aquifers contained water when they first formed. Today, with aquifers steadily collapsing globally, one must question claims that they formed millions of year ago. As described in this chapter, liquefaction sorted sediments relatively recently.

7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, a classic varve region, contains billions of flattened, paper-thin, fossilized fish, hundreds fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish. Obviously, burial was sudden. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake for years, would decay or disintegrate long before enough varves could bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, deteriorate, and then sink.) Most fish fossilized in varves show exquisite detail and are pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as if they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.

Also, varves are too uniform, show almost no erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakes—where most deposits occur in lakes. Liquefaction best explains these varves.

8. In almost all cases, dead animals and plants quickly decay, are eaten, or are destroyed by the elements. Preservation as fossils requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve bodily forms. This rarely happens today. When it does, as in an avalanche or a volcanic eruption, the blanketing layers are not uniform in thickness, do not span tens of thousands of square miles, and rarely are water-deposited. (Water is needed if cementing is to occur.) Liquefaction provides a mechanism for rapid, but gentle, burial and preservation of trillions of fossils in water-saturated sedimentary layers—including fossilized footprints, worm burrows, ripple marks, and jellyfish.

Thousands of fossilized jellyfish have been found in central Wisconsin, sorted to some degree by size into at least seven layers (spanning 10 vertical feet) of coarse-grained sediments.Evolutionists admit that a fossilized jellyfish is exceptionally rare, so finding thousands of them in what was coarse, abrasive sand is almost unbelievable. Claiming that it occurred during storms at the same location on seven different occasions, but over a million years, is ridiculous.

What happened? Multiple liquefaction lenses, vertically aligned during the last liquefaction cycle, trapped delicate animals such as jellyfish and gently preserved them as the roof of each water lens settled onto its floor.

9. Many fossilized fish are flattened between extremely thin sedimentary layers. This requires squeezing the fish to the thinness of a sheet of paper without damaging the thin sedimentary layers immediately above and below. How could this happen?
Because dead fish usually float, something must have pressed the fish onto the seafloor. Even if tons of sediments were dumped through the water and on top of the fish, thin layers would not lie above and below the fish. Besides, it would take many thin layers, not one, to complete the burial. Today's processes seem inadequate.

However, liquefaction would sort sediments into thousands of thin layers. During each wave cycle, liquefaction lenses would simultaneously form at various depths in the sedimentary column. If a fish floated up into a water lens, it would soon be flattened when the lens finally drained.

10. Sediments, such as sand and clay, are produced by eroding crystalline rock, such as granite or basalt. Sedimentary rocks are cemented sediments. On the continents, they average more than a mile in thickness. Today, two-thirds of continental surface rocks are sedimentary; one-third is crystalline.

Was crystalline rock, eroded at the earth's surface, the source of the original sediments? If it was, the first eroded sediments would blanket crystalline rock and prevent that rock from producing additional sediments. The more sediments produced, the fewer the sediments that could be produced. Eventually, there would not be enough exposed crystalline rock at the earth's surface to produce all the earth's sediments and sedimentary rock. Transporting those new sediments, often great distances, is another difficulty. Clearly, most sediments did not come from the earth's surface. They must have come from powerful subsurface erosion, as explained by the hydroplate theory, when high-velocity waters escaped from the subterranean chamber.

11. Some limestone layers are hundreds of feet thick. The standard geological explanation is that those regions were covered by incredibly limy (alkaline) water for millions of years—a toxic condition not found anywhere on earth today. Liquefaction, on the other hand, would have quickly sorted limestone particles into vast sheets.

12. Conventional geology claims that coal layers, sometimes more than a 100 feet thick, formed from 1,000-foot-thick layers of undecayed vegetation. Nowhere do we see that happening today. However, liquefaction would have quickly gathered vegetation buried during the early stages of the flood into thick layers, which would become coal after the confined, oxygen-free heating of the compression event.

13. Coal layers lie above and below a specific sequence of sedimentary layers, called cyclothems. Some cyclothems extend over 100,000 square miles. If coal accumulated in peat bogs over millions of years (the standard explanation), why don't we see such vast swamps today? Why would a peat bog form a coal layer that was later buried by layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, and clay (generally in that ascending order)? Why would this sequence be found worldwide and sometimes be repeated vertically 50 or more times? To deposit a different sedimentary layer would require a change in environment and/or elevation—and, of course, millions of years. Liquefaction provides a simple, complete explanation.

14. Fossils are sorted vertically to some degree. Evolutionists attribute this to macroevolution. No known mechanism will cause macroevolution, and many evidences refute macroevolution. Liquefaction, an understood mechanism, would tend to sort animals and plants. If liquefaction occurred, one would expect some exceptions to this sorting order, but if macroevolution happened, no exceptions to the evolutionary order should be found. Many exceptions exist.

15. Animals are directly or indirectly dependent on plants for food. However, geological formations frequently contain fossilized animals without fossilized plants.How could the animals have survived? Evidently, liquefaction sorted and separated these animals and plants before fossilization occurred.

16. Meteorites are rarely found in deep sedimentary rock. This is consistent only with rapidly deposited sediments.


Learn more about the flood and its implications at www.creationscience.com

It's run by Dr. Walt Brown.

Learn more about the succesion of the animals during the flood, which had to do with the mobility of the animal, the position, density, etc:

Dr. John Woodmorappe: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

Biblical History from Outside the Bible

Ancient Sources Outside the Bible

Here's ancient literature from outside the bible that comfirm the biblical account.
"When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave everyone his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon....After this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies everywhere; and each colony took possession of that land which they lighted upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and maritime countries. There were some also who passed over the sea in ships, and inhabited the islands; and some of these nations do still retain the names which were given to them by their first founders; but some also have lost them"
- The Sybil (Josephus. Antiq. i. 5.)
Sounds like The Tower of Babel account ey?

Here's the geneologies of different nations traced back to Noah

From Historia Brittonum--the History of the Britons, Nennius recorded this nations history. http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch3.html

The Descent of the Anglo-Saxon Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html

The Descent of the Danish and Norwegian Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch7.html
The Descent of the Irish Celtic Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch8.html
The Genealogy of the early British Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch8.html
The Descent of the East Saxon Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

The Descent of the Miatsu people of China traced back to Adam!http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen12.html

Noah's sons seemed to be quite popular as well.

Over 250 flood legends exist and the numbers are climbing. Many of the sources are very similar to the Biblical account http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

If you would like to learn more about Flood Geology and how is stratified the layers in the earth, reshaped the entire world, and left evidence such as clams on mountains and petrified trees all over the world, check out this website.


2 Peter 3:5-6
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..."


Ignorance to the evidence of a worldwide flood and to the Biblical account is the dumbest thing anyone can do.
-ELIEM