A lot of people might wonder why we're trying to disprove evolution when most believe it as fact. Let us just remind you that the full title is "The Theory of Evolution". Any theory in science should be supported by facts to be proven correct. Unfortunately for evoltuionists, there is no empirical evidence for their religion.
The theory began with Charles Darwin when he noticed the unique similarities between different types of finches. He came to the conclusion that the birds must've had a common ancestor. (We agree with that Darwin...hmmm... the ancestor was a bird.) He then concluded that all living things must be related to eachother, given enough time. This basically sums up evolution: Over billions and billions of years, animals evolved from lower life forms to what we have today. All plants, animals, people, unicellular organisms, and even rocks are related! Though there is no factual evidence for this claim, it is being taught in every public school in the United States and throughout the world.
"The Theory of Evolution" starts 20 billion years ago when "nothing"* exploded after violently spinning out of control. It shot particles and gas into the universe that then somehow evolved into stars (though no star has ever been seen evolving), planets, moons, galaxies, different gases and elements and then the earth appeared. In the 1800's, evolutionists believed the earth to be 76,000 years old. When America landed on the moon, it was 3.5 billion years old. Today, evolutionists nod their head in agreement that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. And so, in the beginning (4.6 billion years ago) the Earth's first formation was a hot molten mass of rock with no signs of life. Approximately 3 billion years ago, it began to rain on the rocks for millions of years. This rain cooled the rocks down and created "primordial soup" or pre-biotic soup. The soup then came alive with the first unicellular orginisms and over the next few billion years, more complicated life evolved.
Sounds like a pretty theory for evolutionists but where's the evidence? Wouldn't there be thousands upon thousands, even millions, of "intermediate species" showing the gradual change from less evolved species into more evolved species? If the theory is correct, there would be. But there isn't. All the evidence for evolution that is shown is based upon invalid inferences and bad judgment. Most of the "ape-men" have been proven false and are artist's depictions of what bones looked like!
We'd like to sum up with a few more questions. A termite eats wood but it cannot digest it. Little critters inside the termite digest the cellulose for it. One cannot live without the other. Which evolved first? Actually, millions of symbiotic relationships exist in nature. Which one of the two evolved first? Also, if evolution is correct, how do we get males/females and non-material things such as emotions, i.e. love, care, affection? The only possible answer to these questions would be that a Designer made them all within a few days of eachother.
We here at E.L.I.E believe that Designer is the God of the Bible. He made it all in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago. Got questions? Shoot.
* Sinse the begining of the Theory of Big Bang, the concept of its size has changed dramatically. Originally it was thought to be light years wide, but then coaxed down to "the size of the period at the end of this sentence" like many science books will state. Today, however, many scientist agree that the Big Bang began as a ball of "nothing". Taking up no space, or mass. Funny theory, no?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
What does the Law say?
It has never been illegal to teach Creation Science in public schools. All through the 1800's and even into the 1900's the Bible was used in public schools for various reasons. The evolution religion is what crept in later but Creation Science has never been made illegal. It's only illegal to forcefully try and convert one's religious beliefs on students but it is perfectly fine to teach about creation.
The evolutionist Steven Jay Gould said,
"no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now"
---The Verdict on Creation Science, New York Times July 19, 1987, p.34
Evolutionary biologist Micheal Zimmerman said,
"The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact, 'creation science' is being taught in science courses throughout the country."
---"Keep Guard Up After Evolution Victory." BioScience 37 (9, October 1987):636
President of NCSE, Eugenie Scott said,
"The Supreme Court says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional seperation of church and state: It does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individuals do. Some school districts even require 'equal time' for creation and evolution."
--National Center for Science Education, Nature 329 (1987):282.
Evolutionist William B. Provine said,
"Teachers and school boards in public schools are already FREE under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes. Laws can be passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements. And i have a suggestion for evolutionists. INCLUDE discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide? Shouldn't students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class discussing origins by evolution?"
--Biology and Philosophy 8(1993):124
Now let's see what some of the cases say!
In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Towship v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225,(1963)the court held that,
"it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
In 1980 The Supreme Court said,
"the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."
--Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42(1980)
In 1987,
"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. Teachers already possess the flexibility to present a 'VARIETY of scientific theories about the origins of humankind'...and are 'FREE TO TEACH ANY AND ALL FACETS OF THIS SUBJECT."
--Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96(1987) p.14
As for Kitzmiller v. Dover,
"to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … , we will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
Simply put, in that case the court ruled against requiring teachers to teach the faults in evolution. It also ruled against REQUIRING the teaching of Creation. That DOES NOT mean it cannot be taught.
I hope this clears up any confusion people may have about the law and the Bible. Our aim is get the lies out of the textbooks that support the Religion of Evolution. Truly, a class on origins should either discuss all the theories or none.
The evolutionist Steven Jay Gould said,
"no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now"
---The Verdict on Creation Science, New York Times July 19, 1987, p.34
Evolutionary biologist Micheal Zimmerman said,
"The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact, 'creation science' is being taught in science courses throughout the country."
---"Keep Guard Up After Evolution Victory." BioScience 37 (9, October 1987):636
President of NCSE, Eugenie Scott said,
"The Supreme Court says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional seperation of church and state: It does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individuals do. Some school districts even require 'equal time' for creation and evolution."
--National Center for Science Education, Nature 329 (1987):282.
Evolutionist William B. Provine said,
"Teachers and school boards in public schools are already FREE under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes. Laws can be passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements. And i have a suggestion for evolutionists. INCLUDE discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide? Shouldn't students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class discussing origins by evolution?"
--Biology and Philosophy 8(1993):124
Now let's see what some of the cases say!
In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Towship v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225,(1963)the court held that,
"it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
In 1980 The Supreme Court said,
"the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."
--Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42(1980)
In 1987,
"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. Teachers already possess the flexibility to present a 'VARIETY of scientific theories about the origins of humankind'...and are 'FREE TO TEACH ANY AND ALL FACETS OF THIS SUBJECT."
--Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96(1987) p.14
As for Kitzmiller v. Dover,
"to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … , we will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
Simply put, in that case the court ruled against requiring teachers to teach the faults in evolution. It also ruled against REQUIRING the teaching of Creation. That DOES NOT mean it cannot be taught.
I hope this clears up any confusion people may have about the law and the Bible. Our aim is get the lies out of the textbooks that support the Religion of Evolution. Truly, a class on origins should either discuss all the theories or none.
The Miracles of Evolution
In a debate I watched on Creation vs. Evolution, the evolutionist Micheal Shermer, used the argument that Creationism is a "God of the Gaps" argument: wherever we can't explain something, we throw God in there and He must've done a miracle. I disagree strongly and believe Kent Hovind, the Creatonist, did a great job proving the Biblical account. The naturalistic explanation for how the world came to be is just another religion whose god is nothing. It eliminates the obvious answer for the incredible design of the universe: a Designer must've done it all! Dr. Hovind put it nicely when he gave the example of a computer. He asks us to explain how computers were invented without allowing the answer to be Man. The answer would be a step-by-step, naturalistic explanation for computers existing. Not only is that silly but impossible. Anyway, I strongly believe Evolution is a "God of the Gaps" argument concealed under a veil of science. Before I list the miracles involved in Evolution, let me first define a few terms.
The Six Meanings of Evolution:
(1) Cosmic evolution (The Big Bang)
(2) Chemical evolution (Hydrogen evolving into other elements)
(3) Stellar and planetary evolution (Self-explanitory)
(4) Organic evolution (Life from non-life)
(5) Macro evolution (Change from one kind of animal to another, such as the change from reptiles to birds)
(6) Micro evolution (Change within a kind of animal, such as Pitbull, German Shepard, and Golden Retriever)
The only scientific definition is the 6th one. It is the only one that has ever been seen, observed and tested. The first five are purely religious and based on huge amounts of faith. Now, let's list the miracles involved:
1- The matter from the Big Bang was always there or created itself from literally nothing (no protons, no neutrons, no atoms, nothing)
2- All the matter in the Universe was squeezed into something smaller than a period.
3- Nothing caused it to spin and then explode.
4- All of the elements evolved from helium.
5- The stars formed from the elements but wait, what came first? The stars or the elements? (We've never seen one single star form.)
6- Our own Milky Way gracefully allowed Earth to form safely within a safe zone of its spiral arms.
7- Laws of physics evolved and then stopped. They were finetuned by nothing and allowed for life to be suitable on earth.
8- Earth was amazingly set the exact distance from the sun it needed to be in order for life.
9- The moon formed at a friendly distance and at the same time as earth by itself.
10- The earth's hot molten mass cooled down and formed a rocky crust. Well, how? Theres evidence that it wasn't hot but cool. Check out Dr. Gentry's radium palonium halos in granite rocks. www.halos.com
11- The clouds, however they were formed, became so full and millions of years of rain created great oceans.
12- This pre-biotic soup had the necessary ingredients for life, somehow. Something non-living coming to life is called spontaneous generation and was scientifically disproven over a hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
13- Once the single celled orginisms came alive, they found food and shelter and flourished for the next 2 billion years. "Suddenly those single celled organisms began to evolve into multicellular organisms (What kept the cells together and safe? Who did they marry? What did they eat? Why not stay asexual creatures and evolve the ability to live forever). Then an unprecedented profusion (Big words to confuse the student) of life in incredibly complex forms began to fill the oceans (MIRACLE). Some crawled from the seas and took residence on land (Who'd they marry? How'd they reproduce?), perhaps to escape predators in the ocean. (Miracle)
14- Macro-evolution has never been observed but given time (Miracle) it can happen with mutations and natural selection.
15- For some reason, the past yielded all the beneficial mutations needed for... (at the same time, for the same creatures, both male and female in the same part of the planet so they were able to reproduce. Miracle) ...macro-evolution even though what we can see and test today shows no evidence of any beneficial mutations. All are harmful and are a loss or misplacement of existing genetic information.
16- Somehow, natural selection had creative properties in the past.(Miracle) Nature can only select from what is already is in an animals gene pool.
I grew up in public education and the theory of evolution was always a hindrance to my faith. It caused me to doubt God and His majesty. As I delved deeper into studying the theory, I now find it increasing my faith in Jesus Christ. Either the world created itself or God did it. I know God did it and I know He has a plan for my life and yours. If you're reading this please know that you're not some mishap mistakenly developed over billions of years of accidents and death. You are a person. A member of the human race which has all fallen from God's grace because of sin. We all, even ELIEM deserve hell because of our sin but Jesus took our place when He died on the cross. He bore our sin because He loves His creation. Ask for His forgiveness. Talk to Him today. Walk with Him the rest of your life.
- Joey, co-founder of ELIE
The Six Meanings of Evolution:
(1) Cosmic evolution (The Big Bang)
(2) Chemical evolution (Hydrogen evolving into other elements)
(3) Stellar and planetary evolution (Self-explanitory)
(4) Organic evolution (Life from non-life)
(5) Macro evolution (Change from one kind of animal to another, such as the change from reptiles to birds)
(6) Micro evolution (Change within a kind of animal, such as Pitbull, German Shepard, and Golden Retriever)
The only scientific definition is the 6th one. It is the only one that has ever been seen, observed and tested. The first five are purely religious and based on huge amounts of faith. Now, let's list the miracles involved:
1- The matter from the Big Bang was always there or created itself from literally nothing (no protons, no neutrons, no atoms, nothing)
2- All the matter in the Universe was squeezed into something smaller than a period.
3- Nothing caused it to spin and then explode.
4- All of the elements evolved from helium.
5- The stars formed from the elements but wait, what came first? The stars or the elements? (We've never seen one single star form.)
6- Our own Milky Way gracefully allowed Earth to form safely within a safe zone of its spiral arms.
7- Laws of physics evolved and then stopped. They were finetuned by nothing and allowed for life to be suitable on earth.
8- Earth was amazingly set the exact distance from the sun it needed to be in order for life.
9- The moon formed at a friendly distance and at the same time as earth by itself.
10- The earth's hot molten mass cooled down and formed a rocky crust. Well, how? Theres evidence that it wasn't hot but cool. Check out Dr. Gentry's radium palonium halos in granite rocks. www.halos.com
11- The clouds, however they were formed, became so full and millions of years of rain created great oceans.
12- This pre-biotic soup had the necessary ingredients for life, somehow. Something non-living coming to life is called spontaneous generation and was scientifically disproven over a hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
13- Once the single celled orginisms came alive, they found food and shelter and flourished for the next 2 billion years. "Suddenly those single celled organisms began to evolve into multicellular organisms (What kept the cells together and safe? Who did they marry? What did they eat? Why not stay asexual creatures and evolve the ability to live forever). Then an unprecedented profusion (Big words to confuse the student) of life in incredibly complex forms began to fill the oceans (MIRACLE). Some crawled from the seas and took residence on land (Who'd they marry? How'd they reproduce?), perhaps to escape predators in the ocean. (Miracle)
14- Macro-evolution has never been observed but given time (Miracle) it can happen with mutations and natural selection.
15- For some reason, the past yielded all the beneficial mutations needed for... (at the same time, for the same creatures, both male and female in the same part of the planet so they were able to reproduce. Miracle) ...macro-evolution even though what we can see and test today shows no evidence of any beneficial mutations. All are harmful and are a loss or misplacement of existing genetic information.
16- Somehow, natural selection had creative properties in the past.(Miracle) Nature can only select from what is already is in an animals gene pool.
I grew up in public education and the theory of evolution was always a hindrance to my faith. It caused me to doubt God and His majesty. As I delved deeper into studying the theory, I now find it increasing my faith in Jesus Christ. Either the world created itself or God did it. I know God did it and I know He has a plan for my life and yours. If you're reading this please know that you're not some mishap mistakenly developed over billions of years of accidents and death. You are a person. A member of the human race which has all fallen from God's grace because of sin. We all, even ELIEM deserve hell because of our sin but Jesus took our place when He died on the cross. He bore our sin because He loves His creation. Ask for His forgiveness. Talk to Him today. Walk with Him the rest of your life.
- Joey, co-founder of ELIE
Evolutionist's Quotes
1. "Paleontologists seem to have thought it their duty to protect the rest of us from the erroneous conclusions we might have drawn if we had known the actual state of the evidence." ([11], p.59)
2. "We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner ([19], p.91)
3. "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution ([11], p.59)
4. "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4], p.363)
5. "(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all." Solly Zuckerman ([11], p.82)
6. "In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless." Misia Landau, paraphrase ([14], p.32)
7. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22)
8. "We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution
9. "...objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as `proof' for `evolution', and then ignore all the difficulties." ([11], p.84)
10. "It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions." "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist ([14], p.68)
11. "I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([14], p.85)
12. "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([5], p.?)
13. "...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([14], p.127)
14. "Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." ([14], p.307)
15. We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace, decided against the theory.
16. "The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution ([15], p.22)
17. "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson ([22], p.22)
18. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)
19. "...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." ([11], p.28)
20. "This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin. ([19], p.90)
21. "...with human origins, each generations explanation appears to contain expository themes that go well beyond what might be implied by the new scientific information of the time." ([11], p.312) "...ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors." Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312)
22. "...the only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or some such fearful name." ([19], p.92)
23. "The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist. ([24], p.21)
24. "The charge of circular reasoning which has been lodged against the critically important paleontological evidence of evolution is not simply to be laughed off or ignored as evolutionists too commonly attempt to do. It quite plainly involves the presupposition of evolution, with numerous involved deductions based on that premise. It is not, therefore, valid to offer this presupposition and these deductions as proof of evolution, and especially in view of the tremendously important fact that there is no real evidence of present evolution." ([19], p.55)
25. The supposed division of the continents, Africa and South America, cannot be considered as having happened since the earth's land cannot be reconstructed to truly fit together in any orderly way. "Recent investigators have used computers to try to fit the continents. But even one of the reconstructions of how Africa, South America, Europe, and North America once fitted together has areas of overlap between these continents, and Central America is omitted altogether." ([7], p.)
26. One must realize that a resemblance of a near fit does not make two things to have been together once in the past. Such would be a logical fallacy.
27. There were once considered to be 180 vestigial organs (organs of no use that evolutionists use to say we evolved out of). Today, there are medically regarded as being no vestigial organs. For example, the appendix is noted as able to fight infection in early life and tonsils destroy harmful bacteria. ([4], p.112)
28. It was once thought that `...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to be `gill slits' is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. ([22], p.23). The coccyx, once regarded as a literal tail bone, is now known to be a muscle attachment in the embryo and as providing support to the pelvic region in the fully developed bodies.
29. Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)
30. "And when we examine the respective evidences still more closely...we shall find that there are almost insuperable difficulties with the evolutionary explanation of each of the different evidences. They can all be understood much better in terms of special creation than in terms of evolution." ([18], p.19)
31. "If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?" ([11], p.62)
32. "Why not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence? Science would not come to an end, because the task would remain of deciphering the languages in which genetic information is communicated, and in general finding out how the whole system works. What scientists would lose is not an inspiring research program, but the illusion of total mastery of nature. They would have to face the possibility that beyond the natural world there is a further reality which transcends science." ([11], p.110)
PRO-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / ANTI-CREATIONISM
> [2] Falk, Dean. Braindance, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1992.
[5] Growlett, John. Ascent to Civilization, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
[8] Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973.
[9] Johanson, David, and Maitland, Edy. Lucy, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981.
[10] Johanson, David, and Shreeve, James. Lucy's Child, NY: William Morrow and Co., 1989.
[12] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins, NY: E.P. Dutten, 1977.
> [13] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins Reconsidered, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
> [14] Lewin, Roger. Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
> [15] Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988.
[20] Pfieffer, John. The Emergence of Man, NY: Harper and Row, 1969.
[23] Wendt, Herbert. From Ape to Man, NY: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972.
ANTI-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / PRO-CREATIONISM
[1] Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988.
[3] Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990.
[4] Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986.
[7] Ham, ken, et. al. The Answers book, El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
> [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
> [16] McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1981.
[17] Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
> [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988.
[19] Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.
> [22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.
[24] Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
NEUTRAL REFERENCE WORKS
[6] Grzimek, Bernhard, ed. Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.
[21] Pinchot, Roy, ed. The Human Body, "The Skeleton", NY: Torster Books, 1985.
2. "We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner ([19], p.91)
3. "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution ([11], p.59)
4. "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4], p.363)
5. "(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all." Solly Zuckerman ([11], p.82)
6. "In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless." Misia Landau, paraphrase ([14], p.32)
7. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22)
8. "We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution
9. "...objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as `proof' for `evolution', and then ignore all the difficulties." ([11], p.84)
10. "It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions." "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist ([14], p.68)
11. "I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([14], p.85)
12. "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([5], p.?)
13. "...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([14], p.127)
14. "Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." ([14], p.307)
15. We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace, decided against the theory.
16. "The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution ([15], p.22)
17. "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson ([22], p.22)
18. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)
19. "...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." ([11], p.28)
20. "This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin. ([19], p.90)
21. "...with human origins, each generations explanation appears to contain expository themes that go well beyond what might be implied by the new scientific information of the time." ([11], p.312) "...ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors." Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312)
22. "...the only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or some such fearful name." ([19], p.92)
23. "The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist. ([24], p.21)
24. "The charge of circular reasoning which has been lodged against the critically important paleontological evidence of evolution is not simply to be laughed off or ignored as evolutionists too commonly attempt to do. It quite plainly involves the presupposition of evolution, with numerous involved deductions based on that premise. It is not, therefore, valid to offer this presupposition and these deductions as proof of evolution, and especially in view of the tremendously important fact that there is no real evidence of present evolution." ([19], p.55)
25. The supposed division of the continents, Africa and South America, cannot be considered as having happened since the earth's land cannot be reconstructed to truly fit together in any orderly way. "Recent investigators have used computers to try to fit the continents. But even one of the reconstructions of how Africa, South America, Europe, and North America once fitted together has areas of overlap between these continents, and Central America is omitted altogether." ([7], p.)
26. One must realize that a resemblance of a near fit does not make two things to have been together once in the past. Such would be a logical fallacy.
27. There were once considered to be 180 vestigial organs (organs of no use that evolutionists use to say we evolved out of). Today, there are medically regarded as being no vestigial organs. For example, the appendix is noted as able to fight infection in early life and tonsils destroy harmful bacteria. ([4], p.112)
28. It was once thought that `...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to be `gill slits' is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. ([22], p.23). The coccyx, once regarded as a literal tail bone, is now known to be a muscle attachment in the embryo and as providing support to the pelvic region in the fully developed bodies.
29. Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)
30. "And when we examine the respective evidences still more closely...we shall find that there are almost insuperable difficulties with the evolutionary explanation of each of the different evidences. They can all be understood much better in terms of special creation than in terms of evolution." ([18], p.19)
31. "If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?" ([11], p.62)
32. "Why not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence? Science would not come to an end, because the task would remain of deciphering the languages in which genetic information is communicated, and in general finding out how the whole system works. What scientists would lose is not an inspiring research program, but the illusion of total mastery of nature. They would have to face the possibility that beyond the natural world there is a further reality which transcends science." ([11], p.110)
PRO-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / ANTI-CREATIONISM
> [2] Falk, Dean. Braindance, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1992.
[5] Growlett, John. Ascent to Civilization, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
[8] Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973.
[9] Johanson, David, and Maitland, Edy. Lucy, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981.
[10] Johanson, David, and Shreeve, James. Lucy's Child, NY: William Morrow and Co., 1989.
[12] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins, NY: E.P. Dutten, 1977.
> [13] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins Reconsidered, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
> [14] Lewin, Roger. Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
> [15] Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988.
[20] Pfieffer, John. The Emergence of Man, NY: Harper and Row, 1969.
[23] Wendt, Herbert. From Ape to Man, NY: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972.
ANTI-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / PRO-CREATIONISM
[1] Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988.
[3] Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990.
[4] Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986.
[7] Ham, ken, et. al. The Answers book, El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
> [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
> [16] McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1981.
[17] Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
> [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988.
[19] Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.
> [22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.
[24] Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
NEUTRAL REFERENCE WORKS
[6] Grzimek, Bernhard, ed. Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.
[21] Pinchot, Roy, ed. The Human Body, "The Skeleton", NY: Torster Books, 1985.
Scientific Facts in the Bible?
Compiled from:
Scientific Facts In The Bible
(By Living Water Publications)
and
Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible
(By David Pyles)
"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.
Scientific Facts In The Bible
(By Living Water Publications)
and
Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible
(By David Pyles)
"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.
But Is This True?
Does modern-day science prove the Bible is false? Many today seem to think so. But an even a more pertinent question is, "CAN science prove the Bible is false?" A study of the history and nature of science is needed to answer these questions.
Does modern-day science prove the Bible is false? Many today seem to think so. But an even a more pertinent question is, "CAN science prove the Bible is false?" A study of the history and nature of science is needed to answer these questions.
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 (Anthropic Principles).
Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured."
The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.
(The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.
(The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."
Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.
Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."
The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.
Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"
The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12).<>
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").
(Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles )
Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"
Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."
What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.
Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.
The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts:
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7
For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28
It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6 (Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.
(The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.
(The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."
Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.
Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."
The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.
Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"
The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12).<>
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").
(Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles )
Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"
Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."
What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.
Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.
The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts:
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7
For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28
It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6 (Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."
When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.
(Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called Pangaea. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges. {Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles})
Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name."
The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.
Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."
Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.
Psalm 19:4-6: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."
Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.
Job 38:22 (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"
It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."
Genesis 2:1 (after creation): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" -- once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.
Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment."
The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently.
Genesis 17:12: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.
Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.
Isaiah 40:12 (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ."
We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place . . ."
Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north.
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."
Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain.
We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place . . ."
Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north.
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."
Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain.
The Dinosaur (There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible.
First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating whales on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as whales is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times.
Second, Job's statements concerning the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree. Its strength, and apparently its bulk, is in its loins. It is said to be the chief of the ways of God, and is described as having the ability to drink up a river. No modern animal meets this description in all points.
Third, Job's description of the leviathin (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. The creature would merely need glands to produce a chemical which would combust when exposed to air. The bombardier beetle does in fact have this ability. The fact that nearly every major culture of the world has traditions about such dragons lends yet further credibility to the possibility of their existence in the past. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking):
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).
This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares.
Radioactive Dating
Radioactive dating
The idea that the Earth is millions of years old hinges on the geologic column(layers in the Earth emcompassing our "evolutionary past".) They assume that the layers are different ages and the fossils show a gradual progression. The column, which can only be found only in textbooks, is the bible for evolutionists. The fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils.
Specimens that are dated because of the presence of certain radioactive elements are based on illogical assumptions and have given many insane dates. If the dates do not fit the geologic column, they are dropped. Assumptions: 1- Rate of decay was always the same and it was a closed system. Thats not provable nor is it logical.2- The intake of a certain element in our atmosphere has always been the same. This is not logical either. The Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker, more of the elements are coming into our atmosphere as this happens.
Here's some quotes from the experts:
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date, we just drop it." T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.
"Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. ... Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." Derek V. Ager, "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.' " William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
"For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles." Stansfield, p. 82.
"Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. ... Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." Derek V. Ager, "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." R. H. Rastall, "Geology," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714.
"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? "... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model." Thomas S. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, Vol. 108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.
"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." Kitts, p. 466.
"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology." Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p. 98.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity." David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21.
In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, "Of course; how else are you going to do it?" "The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It," Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p. 6.
The idea that the Earth is millions of years old hinges on the geologic column(layers in the Earth emcompassing our "evolutionary past".) They assume that the layers are different ages and the fossils show a gradual progression. The column, which can only be found only in textbooks, is the bible for evolutionists. The fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils.
Specimens that are dated because of the presence of certain radioactive elements are based on illogical assumptions and have given many insane dates. If the dates do not fit the geologic column, they are dropped. Assumptions: 1- Rate of decay was always the same and it was a closed system. Thats not provable nor is it logical.2- The intake of a certain element in our atmosphere has always been the same. This is not logical either. The Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker, more of the elements are coming into our atmosphere as this happens.
Here's some quotes from the experts:
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date, we just drop it." T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.
"Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. ... Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." Derek V. Ager, "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.' " William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
"For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles." Stansfield, p. 82.
"Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. ... Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." Derek V. Ager, "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." R. H. Rastall, "Geology," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714.
"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? "... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model." Thomas S. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, Vol. 108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.
"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." Kitts, p. 466.
"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology." Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p. 98.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity." David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21.
In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, "Of course; how else are you going to do it?" "The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It," Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p. 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)