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.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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.
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:
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.
"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
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.
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
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
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
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 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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)