In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Soldier4Christ]

where 5.1 x 1021 grams is the mass of the atmosphere, and 0.242 and 1.0 are the calories needed to raise one gram of air and one gram of liquid water (respectively) 1°C. Unbearable temperatures remain even after we expand this analysis to include every scientifically conceivable way to remove this heat.11 Also, 40 feet of rain would not produce a global flood.

A Liquid or Ice Canopy.  For liquid or ice particles to remain in space above the earth’s atmosphere, they must be in orbit. For anything to orbit the earth, its velocity must exceed 17,000 miles per hour (760,000 cm/sec). (As stated earlier, a layer of water only 40 feet thick contains 6.22 x 1021 grams of water.) Just as a spacecraft generates great heat as it reenters the atmosphere, orbiting liquid or ice particles release vast amounts of heat as they fall from orbit. That heat energy equals the kinetic energy of the particles in orbit, which is where 2.39 x 10-8 converts the units to calories. This heat would raise the atmosphere’s temperature.


Even if a canopy began with the coldest ice possible (absolute zero) or if some heat were transferred elsewhere, insufferable heat would remain.12

A similar problem exists if this ice were part of a spinning shell surrounding the earth. A rapidly-spinning shell, providing enough centrifugal force to balance the gravitational force as much as possible, would still have too much kinetic energy. Once the shell collapsed, that energy would become scalding heat, enough to “roast” all life on earth.

The Light Problem.  A canopy having only 40 feet of water—in any form—would reflect, refract, absorb, or scatter most light trying to pass through it.

Starlight.  People living under a 40-foot-thick canopy could see stars only if they were directly overhead, so their light would have the shortest path through a canopy. Before the flood, people presumably could see stars, because stars were created for a purpose: “for signs, and for seasons, for days and years ” (Genesis 1:14). Stars would achieve their purpose only if enough stars could be seen to identify seasonal variations. Therefore, one needs to see large star patterns, such as constellations—not just a few stars directly overhead. By looking through a “keyhole” into the night sky, it is questionable whether one could have seen, recalled, and distinguished seasonally shifting star patterns through the filter of a 40-foot-thick canopy, even on a moonless night.

Sunlight.  A canopy would also reflect and absorb considerable sunlight. How then could many tropical plants, which require much sunlight today, have survived for centuries under a preflood canopy?

The Nucleation Problem.  To form raindrops, microscopic particles, called “condensation nuclei,” must be present to initiate condensation. However, falling rain sweeps away these nuclei and cleans the atmosphere. This reduces further condensation. Rain from a vapor canopy would actually “choke off” rain production.

Some claim volcanic eruptions, beginning suddenly at the time of the flood, continuously ejected condensation nuclei into the upper atmosphere. Never explained is why volcanic eruptions suddenly began globally, then quickly and continuously distributed nuclei throughout the atmosphere for up to 40 days. Volcanic eruptions, rather than contributing to the flood, require special conditions that seem to be a consequence of the flood.  [For an explanation, see pages 106 and 117.]

The nucleation and heat problems limit the rain formed by condensation to that of a local flood. It seems more likely that “geshem rain” was produced by the powerful jetting of the “fountains of the great deep” which caused torrential rain for “40 days and 40 nights.”13

The Greenhouse Problem.  While sunlight can pass through glass into a greenhouse, heat in a greenhouse has more difficulty radiating back out through the glass. This greenhouse effect traps heat inside the greenhouse, raising its temperature. All canopy theories have a greenhouse problem.

Also, as temperatures under a canopy rose, more water would evaporate from the earth’s surface, especially its oceans. More water vapor in the air means a greater greenhouse effect, a warmer atmosphere, and even more evaporation. This cycle would feed on itself, producing what is called “a runaway greenhouse effect.” For example, Venus’ atmosphere has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus is about 700°F hotter than one would expect based on its distance from the Sun. The greenhouse effect increases Earth’s temperature by about 60°F.

[Soldier4Christ]

During the last thirty years, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has been the best-known advocate of a vapor canopy. In 1998, ICR wrote that a strong greenhouse effect would exist under a vapor canopy, raising “surface temperatures as high as 400°F.” However, if many variables were chosen in the most favorable manner for a vapor canopy, “the water content of a canopy could be as much as [no more than] three feet of liquid water without the surface temperature reaching temperatures which would destroy life on the earth.”14  So if many variables are favorably selected, the greenhouse effect, alone, limits a canopy to a thickness of only 3 feet.

The Support Problem.  What supported the canopy?

A Vapor or Liquid Canopy.  A vapor canopy would rapidly mix with the atmosphere, just as steam above a kitchen stove quickly mixes with air. Once the vapor contacted the earth’s surface, it would condense. A liquid canopy would quickly evaporate and then diffuse through the atmosphere. Neither type of canopy could have survived for the many centuries before the flood.

An Ice Canopy.  A pure ice canopy would vaporize into the vacuum of space, just as dry ice vaporizes at atmospheric temperature and pressure. Furthermore, ice is structurally weak. An ice shell could not withstand tidal stresses or meteoritic, cometary, or asteroidal impacts. A spinning ice shell could not withstand the powerful centrifugal forces at its equator and the crushing gravitational forces along its spin axis.

The Ultraviolet Problem.  Ozone in the earth’s upper atmosphere blocks the Sun’s destructive ultraviolet light, but a canopy surrounding the atmosphere would be exposed to ultraviolet light. Therefore, water in the canopy would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen, effectively destroying that canopy.

Final Thoughts.  Could there have been a canopy? Perhaps, in one of two ways. First, one could minimize most of these scientific problems by assuming the canopy was thin, maybe inches thick. The thinner the canopy, the less severe most problems become. (Notice, the support and ultraviolet problems remain.) But what function would the canopy perform, and what hard, scientific evidence—not speculation—is there for claiming that a thin canopy could perform that function? Certainly, a thin canopy would not contribute to a global flood—the reason most people accepted the canopy in the first place.

Second, one could also dismiss each of these scientific problems by saying that God performed a miracle. That may be true. Certainly, He can; He has; and He sometimes does. However, miracles should not be proposed to “prop up” a scientific theory. (Some evolutionists mistakenly believe this is how creation science works.) As one sees more and more “miracles” required by canopy theories, their plausibility decreases, and the need for an alternate explanation increases.

[Soldier4Christ]

An Alternate Interpretation

Let us now consider another interpretation of Genesis 1:6–8a and related verses.

The phrase “expanse of the heavens,” used four times in Genesis 1:14–20, means sky, atmosphere, outer space, or heaven— whichever is implied by the context. In Genesis 1:6–7, the term “expanse” (without “of the heavens” added) was the earth’s crust. Surface waters (oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers) were above this crust, and subterranean waters were below. The subterranean waters burst forth, producing the “fountains of the great deep” and the global flood.

[Pages 293–295 and 300–302 contain other support for this interpretation.] Psalm 136:5–9, a song of thanks to God, deserves a special comment. It describes three sequential events: (1) the heavens are made, (2) the earth is spread out above the waters, and (3) the Sun, Moon, and stars were made. This sequence is similar to the creation events of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 4.  If the proposed interpretation is correct, then Psalm 136:5–9 precisely parallels the creation events of Days 1, 2, and 4.

Several ancient extrabiblical writings also state that the earth’s crust, when first created, divided liquid waters above from liquid waters below.15

If this picture of the newly created earth is correct, then it seems worthy of inclusion in the brief creation chapter of Genesis 1. However, if “the waters above” refers to a canopy containing less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water, then why would one creation day and almost 10% of the creation chapter be devoted to it?

[Soldier4Christ]

A Study of Some Key Hebrew Words


To understand Genesis 1:6–8a better, we will study the key words in bold below.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate waters from waters.” And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven.

Waters (mayim).  This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.16 Had the water in Genesis 1:6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.”

II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word (canopy5.jpg Image) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the earth and the water out of which the earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1:6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.

Separate (badal).  This word implies a sharp division. Furthermore, the generally untranslated preposition “ben,” associated with “badal,” means “between.” It suggests an ordering (water, expanse, water) with no overlapping or gaps. Interfaces are also implied on each side of the expanse.17 These meanings oppose a vapor, liquid, or ice particle canopy lying above the atmosphere, because atmospheric gases would mix with the canopy.

In the Midst of (tavek). This word means between, within, among, inside, etc. Sometimes it means “to bisect” or “in the center of.” Regarding Genesis 1:6–7, the respected Jewish commentator Cassuto stated, “It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, ...”18 [See also Genesis 15:10.] Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, in his famous eleventh century Rashi Commentary, stated that the expanse was “in the exact center of the waters.”19 As we have seen, canopy theories place less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water above the expanse and the rest below. (This is necessary to reduce the problems associated with heat, light, and pressure mentioned earlier.) Would it not seem strange to say that your scalp is “in the midst of” your body? According to the hydroplate theory, the crust of the preflood earth divided more equally the earth’s liquid waters.

Heaven (shamayim).  “Heaven” had a variety of meanings in ancient Hebrew, as it does in modern languages.  Moses used shamayim to describe outer space (Genesis 26:4), the atmosphere (Genesis 27:28), where God dwells (Deuteronomy 26:15), where angels dwell (Genesis 28:12), and the source of blessings (Genesis 49:25). Other examples could be given. The context in which shamayim is used is important to understanding its specific meaning.

Expanse or Firmament (raqia).  The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1:6–8a is raqia raqia.jpg Image. It is translated “firmament” in the King James translation and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa raqa.jpg Image, means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma canopy4.jpg Image, which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out.

Finally, if raqia were related to a canopy, it seems strange that other Hebrew words, often translated as “canopy,” were not used in Genesis: sukkah (Ps 18:11 and II Sam 22:12), chuppah (Is 4:5), and shaphrur (Jer 43:10).

[Soldier4Christ]

Questions Raised by Genesis 1: 8a

Why then, does Genesis 1:8a state, “And God called the expanse heaven”? Perhaps “heaven” (thought of today as atmosphere or outer space) is always the proper translation for raqia, and the Septuagint and Vulgate translators incorrectly associated solidness with it. However, the similarities of raqia raqia.jpg Image with baqia baqia.jpg Image and raqa raqa.jpg Image argue against this. [See page 312.] If raqia always means “heaven,” five questions, or apparent textual contradictions, arise.

Question 1: Why was it necessary to follow the word raqia with the phrase “of the heavens” in Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, and 20?  That would be redundant.

Question 2:  If raqia implies a canopy, why wasn’t one of the three Hebrew words that clearly means “canopy” used?

Question 3:  Genesis 1:8a defines heaven after the word “heavens” was first used in Genesis 1:1. Normally a word’s meaning is understood from the context of its first usage. Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 says the heavens were created on the first day.20 However, if raqia always means “heaven,” then Genesis 1:8a says heaven was created on the second day.

Question 4:  Genesis 1:9 states, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear.” Obviously, these are earth’s surface waters. If “heaven” and “raqia” are identical, as canopy theorists believe, why did Genesis 1:9 not read, “Let the waters below be gathered into one place”? That would have been sufficient, clear, and consistent with the phrasing of Genesis 1:7. It would also make clear that the raqia is above—not below—the surface waters. Instead, the text reads, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place.” The words “the heavens” had to be added to specify that surface waters were gathered into one place. To refer to “the waters below” (without “of the heavens” added) would point to subterranean waters.

Question 5:  If raqia means “heaven,” was liquid water placed above “heaven,” as Genesis 1:7 states? Because the Sun, Moon, and stars were placed in the raqia (of the heavens) and liquid water was placed above the raqia, were all heavenly bodies inside the canopy?21

Genesis 1:8a, as typically translated and understood, seems inconsistent with many verses. Either we do not understand the true meaning of raqia and shamayim, or something is mistranslated or inserted.

For centuries, Bible scholars have noted some of these contradictions and have proposed other translations or meanings. Four will be briefly described; two involve textual details, one is theological, and one is historical.

Robert Hooke (1635–1703), one of the greatest scientists of all time,22 gave a lecture before the famous Royal Society of London. There he proposed that Genesis 1:8a should read: “Also, God called the heaven the firmament” rather than the normal “And God called the firmament heaven.” Hooke said there were two firmaments. The first, described in Genesis 1:6, was a solid expanse in the midst of the liquid waters that covered the earth. It was a spherical shell that divided equally, above and below, the earth’s liquid waters. The second firmament was the heavens (sky, atmosphere, or outer space). According to Hooke, whenever raqia was followed by “of the heavens,” as in the next four uses of raqia (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, and 20), the second firmament is implied.23 

[Soldier4Christ]

What Does “Raqia”  Mean?

The Hebrew word raqia is usually translated “expanse” or “firmament.” When it is immediately followed by “of the heavens” it means atmosphere, sky, outer space, or heaven. However, what does raqia standing alone mean? The Hebrew words most similar to raqia raqialightyellow.jpg Image are raqa raqayellow.jpg Image (its root), baqia baqiayellow.jpg Image, and baqa baqayellow.jpg Image. Each describes a deformed solid.

In 1890, James Strong catalogued all usages of every word in the Old and New Testaments. He counted the frequency of each Hebrew and Greek word’s specific English translation. For example, the Hebrew word baqa, the 1234th word in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary, is translated in the New American Standard Bible as “breached” three times, “split” seven times, etc. By studying all usages and contexts of a word and similar words, a difficult-to-translate word can be better understood.

The King James translators translated raqia as  firmament, because they thought it involved something firm. However, its specific meaning when Genesis was written is unknown. Raqia is obviously important, because the second creation day centered around it, just as the third day dealt with plants, and the fourth day with heavenly bodies. What was the raqia? Certainly, raqia is one of the most mysterious and important words in the Bible.

By carefully studying English meanings of raqa, baqa, and baqia in Table 21, one can see that atmosphere, sky, outer space, and heaven do not relate to what we might guess raqia means. Instead, we get a picture of a breakable solid being pressed out. How can a solid be breakable but malleable or moldable?  Answer: extreme compression.

Few realize that all rock 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface is “pressed out.” Imagine a perfectly vertical column of a typical rock 5 miles high. If the rock were “somewhat confined,” as explained in the next paragraph, the pressure at the column’s base would be so great that it would slowly flow—like tar. Stacking more rock on top would cause even more flow at the bottom. If the column were 10 miles high, all the rock in the bottom half would try to flow. The rock at the bottom would be squeezed like a tall stick of butter trying to support a 10-ton truck.

If our column were pressed in from all sides by similar columns, the flow in the central column could go nowhere. The central column would have lateral support. Furthermore, if all columns were given lateral support by other columns, we would have the situation that actually exists in the top 10 miles of the earth’s crust. At depths of 5 miles or greater, the rock wants to flow but can’t, because the forces on all particles are balanced in all directions. So below 5 miles, the rock is sealed like highly compressed putty. Cracks could not normally open up immediately above the subterranean water chamber, which I estimate was almost 10 miles below the earth’s surface.  [See pages 102–131.]

This 10-mile-thick crust above the subterranean chamber would be a potentially breakable, pressed out solid—a raqia. How could it break? A crack could not begin in the sealed, extremely compressed lower half. However, if a vertical crack formed at the earth’s surface, steadily increasing pressure in the subterranean water would cause the crack to grow downward. Once the crack penetrated halfway down, it would then become unstable and, in a few seconds, rip catastrophically to the bottom of the crust. What would follow is the subject of Part II of this book, pages 100–254.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hooke’s proposal would answer questions 1–5 and harmoniously unite all related Bible verses and key Hebrew words. However, the most natural rendering of the Hebrew in Genesis 1:8a, as presently understood, does not support Hooke’s proposal. Because the oldest manuscript containing Genesis 1:8a dates back only about 1075 years (Aleppo Codex, copied by Aaron ben Asher in A.D. 930), finding an even older manuscript might clarify this matter.

As a second possibility, the word in Genesis 1:8a normally translated “heaven” (shamayim) may not have originally meant heaven. Prior to about A.D. 700, the written Hebrew language contained only consonants. Vowel points were then inserted in written Hebrew to standardize its pronunciation.  For example, the meaning of

n th bgnng Gd crtd th hvns nd th rth

may be clear, but the phrase is difficult to pronounce (and, therefore, to remember). If other vowels had been inserted long ago in “hvn,” the original word might have a different meaning today.

Rabbi Yitzchaki (mentioned above) explained in his eleventh century Rashi Commentary that with different vowel points the original Hebrew word we now think of as meaning “heaven” in Genesis 1:8a, would mean “there are waters,” “fire and water,” or “it carries waters.” Each meaning could relate to the earth’s preflood crust.

While in Jerusalem on 28 June 1990, I tried to resolve this confusion in a two-hour meeting with Michael Kline, Dean of Hebrew Union University. My question was, “What did raqia and shamayim mean when Moses wrote Genesis?” To my surprise, he suggested Rabbi Yitzchaki’s three alternate translations, which I had previously studied. After all, shamayim in Genesis 1:8a is a compound of sha + mayim, and while a distinct original meaning for sha is uncertain, mayim does mean liquid water. After I briefly explained the hydroplate theory, Dean Kline said that raqia (as opposed to “raqia of the heavens”) might well have been the earth’s crust, below which was liquid water.

A third possibility was proposed to me in independent letters by two pastors.24 Before Adam’s fall, the earth was a paradise; in a sense, it was “heaven on earth.” Therefore, God “called” the firmament (earth’s crust) heaven. Each pastor provided different biblical reasons for his view, but both maintain that our difficulty in understanding Genesis 1:8a results largely from our inability to imagine the original paradise. If man had not fallen, no one would have difficulty with the fact that God called the earth, “heaven.”

Douglas E. Cox provides a fourth, but radical, explanation for Genesis 1:8a.25 In a detailed historical study, Cox claims that the raqia was the earth’s crust. When the Septuagint was written, Greeks ruled the Middle East, including Israel. Hebrew beliefs clashed with Greek religion and cosmology. In Greek thought, their chief god, Zeus, was the solid dome that held up all stars. By equating “raqia” with “heaven” in Genesis 1:8a, Hebrew religion and cosmology fell more in line with Greek beliefs. The tyrannical Greek ruler, Antiochus IV (referred to by Christ in Mt 24:15), claimed to be Zeus, desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, appointed two high priests, killed anyone possessing Hebrew Scriptures, and destroyed Scriptures he did find.26 Genesis 1:8a, in later copies of the Masoretic, conformed with the Septuagint. Cox believes the prophecy of Daniel 8 was fulfilled by the Greeks altering Genesis 1:8. While Cox may be wrong about raqia, he correctly demonstrates that the ancient Hebrews were falsely blamed for the pagan Greek idea that a solid dome (canopy) surrounded the earth.

Let’s say the strongest possible case was made against each of these four proposals. In that worst case situation, two problematic interpretations, shown in Table 22, would remain.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mythology and Canopies


Vail’s case for a canopy rested largely on the mythology of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other ancient cultures. He argued that a real canopy, millions of years ago, produced these myths. Vail wrote,

I have been told again and again that the canopy idea is weak because it is founded on mythology. I can only protest that it is not founded on mythology, on the contrary mythology is largely founded on the canopy, fossilized in human thot [thought]. The canopy as a watery heaven close to the earth existed for untold millions of years before a myth ever germinated.27

We can all agree with Vail that ancient mythology and today’s canopy theories are linked. But which came first: myth or canopy? If the best canopy theory cannot overcome the scientific problems mentioned earlier, then a canopy did not produce or precede the ancient myths. Myths probably produced canopy theories.

[Soldier4Christ]

Conclusion

Arguments for canopy theories do not stand up when examined closely. These theories also contain many biblical and scientific problems, such as those associated with pressure, heat, sunlight, support, condensation nuclei, the greenhouse effect, and ultraviolet light. Even leading canopy advocates privately acknowledge these problems. Also, canopy theories do not even begin to explain the flood’s global destruction and geological activity.  [Page 102 lists 24 examples.]

Canopy theories have misled many, delaying understanding of the flood, geology, and therefore, earth’s true age. The flood water came from below, not above. Failure to understand this has caused many to doubt the historical accuracy of the flood account, and, therefore, the Bible itself. Without the flood to explain the fossils buried in the earth’s sedimentary layers, the theory of organic evolution fills the vacuum—an explanation that also removes or minimizes need for the Creator.

[Soldier4Christ]

How Did Human “Races” Develop?

Figure 153: Faces. A few members of the human race from the following places: top row, left to right: Japan, Tibet, Borneo, Holland; second row: Ireland, China, Rwanda, Korea; third row: New Zealand, Bali, Okinawa, Israel; fourth row: United States of America, Australia, India, Egypt; bottom row: Molucca Islands, Canada, Greece, Guatemala. Visualize all without variations in dress, hair style, age, and skin color. How different are we? People continents apart laugh alike and cry alike. Our differences are small; our similarities are great.

There is only one race, the human race. Today, the word “race” has come to mean groups of people with distinguishing physical characteristics such as skin color, shape of eyes, and type of hair. This new meaning arose with the growing acceptance of evolutionism in the late 1800s. The word “race,” referring to physical characteristics, hardly ever occurs in the Bible.1 Instead, the word “nation” is used more than 200 times.

Race is a social idea, not a scientific concept. It is recognized that genetic and molecular variations among the so-called “races” are trivial, although a few traits may vary widely. Human variations are relatively minor when compared with many other kinds of life. For example, consider the many traits in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 5.] Most varieties of domestic dogs have been produced during the past 300 years. Dogs may be white, black, red, yellow, spotted, tiny, huge, hairy, almost hairless, cute, or not-so-cute. Temperaments and abilities also vary widely. Because domestic dogs can interbreed with the wolf, coyote, dingo, and jackal, all are part of the dog kind. The vast number of genes in every kind of life permits these variations, allowing successive generations to adjust to environmental changes. Without this design feature, extinctions would be much more common. Besides, wouldn’t life be much less interesting without variations within each kind?

The following three mechanisms2 probably account for most “racial” characteristics, all of which developed since the flood, approximately 5,000 years ago.   

1. Natural Selection.  This well-established phenomenon is not a mechanism for macroevolution, as a century of experimentation has shown, although it is an important mechanism for microevolution. Natural selection filters out certain parental genes in successive generations, producing offspring with slightly different characteristics but less genetic variability. For example, fair-skinned people living near the equator are more susceptible to several health risks, such as skin cancer. Consequently, they have slightly less chance of living to reproductive age and passing on genes for light skin color to their children. Likewise, darker-skinned people absorb less sunlight, depriving them of vitamin D3 which forms in skin exposed to sunlight. In polar latitudes, this could cause rickets. Therefore, over many generations, dark-skinned people tend to live near the equator and light-skinned people tend to live at higher latitudes.

There are exceptions. Eskimos (Inuits) have dark skin, yet live in Arctic latitudes. However, their traditional diet, which includes fish-liver oils containing large amounts of vitamin D3, prevents rickets.

[Soldier4Christ]

2. Cultural Preference.  This takes the form of likes (as in mate selection) or dislikes (as in prejudices).

Likes.  The saying, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” illustrates how a person’s culture may influence mate selection along “racial” lines. This has been demonstrated in geese. Blue snow geese live in one region of the Arctic, and white snow geese live in another. Eggs from each colony were hatched in an incubator. The goslings were then raised by “foster parents” of the opposite color. The young geese later showed a mating preference for geese having the color of their foster parents. In another experiment, the foster parents were painted pink. Again, there was a mating preference for the color the young geese saw as they were growing up, even though that color was artificial. The old song “I Want a Girl Just Like the Girl That Married Dear Old Dad” illustrates the point.

Dislikes.  Humans also have prejudices—some people more than others. Prejudices based on physical appearances have caused wars, genocide, forced segregation, and voluntary isolation. Adolf Hitler had a fanatical hostility toward Jews and many others and a strong preference for the supposedly Aryan characteristics of tall, blond, blue-eyed people. This led to Hitler’s extreme, repugnant steps to exterminate the former and increase the latter. An example of voluntary isolation occurs in Africa. Pygmies, typically 41/2 feet tall, live separately from the Watusi, who are sometimes 7 feet tall. Yet, both may live within several hundred miles of each other. These and hundreds of other prejudicial actions, operating over several thousand years, segregated many people based on physical appearances.

[Soldier4Christ]

3. Small, Isolated Populations.  A population of people, or any other form of life, has a large set of genetic characteristics. If a few members of this population move to an isolated region, such as an island, the new group will have a different and smaller set of genetic characteristics (or a smaller range of genetic potential) than the entire population. As a result, subsequent generations on that island will have traits that differ from the original population.

This can be illustrated by a barrel filled with marbles—half white and half black. Let’s say that each marble represents a person, and the marble’s color represents a gene for that person’s skin color. If pairs of marbles, representing a husband and wife, are drawn at random and placed on separate islands, about half the islands will have marbles of just one color—white or black. This would be somewhat analogous to the dispersion and isolation of peoples after the flood and after Babel. Each person carries several genes for skin color. If a husband and wife had the same genes for skin color (dark or light), then their descendants would tend to have the same skin color. The color of the marbles could just as well represent other genetic characteristics.

Actually, the genetics of this process are more complicated than this simple illustration. For example, at least three genes determine skin color, not one. Also, there are thousands of traits, each of which might cluster in an isolated geographic region if small groups broke off from the larger population. So specific characteristics can easily arise, as they did when the eight survivors of the flood and their descendants eventually obeyed God’s command to spread out and repopulate the earth. From the listing of Noah’s descendants given in Genesis 10–11, we can see how early migration patterns began. Shem’s immediate descendants stayed generally near Ararat (what is now eastern Turkey) or migrated eastward. Ham’s descendants migrated southward, while Japheth’s descendants migrated northward. Undoubtedly, many other small groups colonized isolated regions, allowing their unique genetic characteristics to be expressed in subsequent generations.

Understanding these three mechanisms—natural selection, cultural preferences, and isolated populations—we can now ask some interesting questions. What did Adam and Eve look like? Obviously, their genes carried all traits humans have today—and probably other traits that have since disappeared. Many of their genes, of course, were not visible (or expressed) because other genes dominated. We usually imagine Adam and Eve as looking like ourselves. However, for genetic reasons, Adam and Eve were not “white” or “black” but something in between. The Hebrew word for Adam suggests redness, because an almost identical Hebrew word means “red” or “to show blood.” Adam’s skin coloring may have been similar to that of Native Americans.

For the past 140 years, evolution has painted a very different picture. Man supposedly ascended from some apelike ancestor. According to the theory, because some early humans branched off sooner than others, they had different physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics. This is racism, a highly prejudicial school of thought that dehumanizes fellow human beings. One cannot say that evolutionists today are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers were. Racism is unpopular today, at least openly, so public acknowledgment of it is rare. However, the theory of evolution provides a rationale to justify racism.3

Genesis provides quite a different historical perspective. We are all descended from Adam and Eve and from Noah and his wife. Consequently, we are all cousins. Think what the world would be like if everyone realized that and acted accordingly!

[Soldier4Christ]

According to the Bible, When Was Adam Created?

(For a better view of this figure be sure to right click on it and then click on view image.)





Figure 154: Genealogy Chart .  A frequent question concerning Genesis genealogies is Terah’s age when Abraham was born. For an explanation, see Endnote 1 on page 318.


The ages and relationships of the patriarchs, given in Genesis and shown on the opposite page, allow one to estimate the time of Adam’s creation at slightly more than 6,000 years ago.  What uncertainties are involved?

a. These ages are based on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. The corresponding numbers in the Samaritan and Greek (Septuagint) texts place Adam’s creation about 6,200 and 7,300 years ago, respectively. Which text is closest to the original is an open question. As one issue, consider that Methuselah died 14 years after the flood, if one uses the Septuagint—a logical impossibility, considering that he was not on the Ark. (Some sources say the name Methuselah means, “When he is dead, it shall be sent.” According to the numbers in this chart, the flood began in the year Methuselah died.)

b. Some ages in all three texts have evidently been rounded, because too many numbers end in zero or five. Rounding 15 or so ages in Genesis probably would not inject more than 20 years of total error. A possible problem with the Masoretic and Samaritan texts is that Methuselah died exactly in the year of the flood, despite this rounding.

c. Disagreements exist concerning Terah’s age when Abraham was born. Some argue that Terah was 70 years, not the favored 130 years shown in this chart.1

[Soldier4Christ]

 d. Luke 3:36 lists Cainan as the son of Arpachshad and the father of Shelah. In Genesis, Cainan’s name occurs only in recent copies of the Septuagint—not the oldest. Nor is Cainan in the oldest known copy of Luke. Therefore, a copyist probably added Cainan’s name inadvertently, perhaps taking it from Luke 3:37.

e. Most students of the subject place the death of Joseph (Jacob’s son) between 1606 B.C. and 1690 B.C. An error in this date will add a corresponding error to the year of Adam’s creation.

Theistic evolutionists often raise two objections to the chronological information in Genesis.

a. Some say, pointing to Cainan, that the genealogies contain gaps. However, the possibility of gaps is irrelevant to the year of Adam’s creation. Let us assume that many generations existed between two consecutive patriarchs on this chart. The time between their births is fixed by Genesis, no matter how many generations might be missing. (For example, Enosh was born 105 years after Seth’s birth.) The writer or compiler of this information had a careful, systematic, and mathematical way of linking the chronology into one continuous family record—in contrast to other genealogies in the Bible.

b. Some have said that the long ages of the preflood patriarchs resulted from lunar months being incorrectly counted as years. If so, Mahalaleel and Enoch were 5 years old when they had children.

This chart contains other interesting details.

a. Noah was almost a contemporary of Abraham. Noah’s son Shem, born before the flood, nearly outlived Abraham. Surprisingly, many people think of Noah and Shem as relatively ancient (or imaginary) but accept Abraham as historically recent.

b. Notice the continuous chain of overlapping life spans of Adam, Methuselah, Shem, and Abraham or Isaac.

c. Enoch’s time on earth was cut short, but not by death. [See Hebrews 11:5.]

d. Notice the systematic change in life spans after the flood, as shown in the inset on page 317.

Genesis 5 says that each of the first 9 patriarchs had “other sons and daughters” besides the son in the patriarchal line. In other words, each family had at least 5 children: 3 sons and 2 daughters. Statistically, all 9 families would probably have at least 3 sons and 2 daughters if each family had 10 or more children. (Conversely, all 9 families would probably not have had 3 sons and 2 daughters if each family had 9 children or less.) If 10 or more children per family were typical before the flood, and plagues, famines, and wars were no more common than in the last several thousand years, then the world’s population at the time of the flood would have exceeded today’s population of 6 billion people.

If during the 351 years between the flood and Abraham’s birth, people reached sexual maturity at 30 years and couples averaged only 8 children (who also averaged 8 children), the world’s population would have exceeded 100 million people.

[Soldier4Christ]

Is There Life in Outer Space?

Those who believe life exists on distant planets usually base that belief on the following reasoning:

Life evolved on Earth. Because the universe is so immense and contains so many heavenly bodies, life probably evolved on other planets as well.

This reasoning is flawed. First, it assumes life evolved on Earth. Overwhelming evidence shows life is so complex it could not have evolved—anywhere! [See pages 6–21.] Over the last 140 years, our culture has been so saturated with evolution that many have uncritically believed it. As a result, they concluded that life must also have evolved on at least a few of the many extraterrestrial bodies.

Yes, there are many stars, and a very small fraction have planets. [See page 290.] However, the probability of just one living cell forming by natural processes is so infinitesimal, even considering the vast number of stars, that the likelihood of life spontaneously occurring anywhere in the visible universe is virtually zero!

Despite popular and influential science fiction books and films, such as: Star Wars, E.T., Star Trek, 2001, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, there really is no scientific evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been spent trying to find life in outer space. Conditions outside Earth are more destructive than almost anyone suspected before space exploration began: deadly radiation, poisonous gases, extreme gravitational forces, gigantic explosions, and the absence of the proper atmospheres and chemical elements. Just the temperature extremes in outer space would make almost any form of life either so hot it would vaporize or so cold it would be completely rigid, brittle, and dead. Unfortunately, these physical realities do not excite the public as much as science fiction and evolutionary stories.

“Bioastronomy” and “exobiology” refer to the search for and study of life in outer space. (These are the only fields of science without evidence or subject matter.) People in these fields are searching for signals from outer space that would imply an intelligent source. Radio telescopes, linked with computers, simultaneously search millions of radio frequencies for a nonrandom, nonnatural, extraterrestrial signal—any short sequence of information. Yet the long sequence of information in the DNA of every living thing is a signal from an intelligence—a vast intelligence—a Creator. But if those searching for extraterrestrial life ever accepted the evidence for a Creator, the evolutionary basis for their search would disappear.