In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Soldier4Christ]

An interesting parallel between Genesis and the New Testament involves the flood and water baptism. What was the original significance of water baptism? Of course, John baptized as a symbol of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but where did he get the idea? The practice was a very ancient Jewish ritual called miqveh. As you look at the following table, consider whether water baptism, in addition to its Christian meaning and Christ’s command to baptize (Matthew 28:19–20), should also remind us of the flood.  I Peter 3:20–21 also makes the connection.

Another remarkable parallel exists between the Ark and Jesus Christ. Both provided the only refuge from a horrible judgment. Both were perfect provisions, designed by God and freely available to sinful people. Conventional “wisdom” has doubted, even mocked, the sufficiency of each. To save others, both took a unique and terrible beating. People scoffed at the thought of water falling from the sky and needing to be saved; today, many scoff at the cross and the need to be saved. The Ark had many rooms; Christ has prepared a place with many rooms (John 14:2–3). The Ark had one door which God closed; Christ said, “I am the door” (John 10:9); God will close it as well. Genesis 8:4 says the Ark landed on the 17th day of the 7th month (in the ancient Hebrew calendar)—today’s 17th day of Nisan. Christ rose from the dead on the 17th day of Nisan—3 days after the Passover, which falls on the 14th day of Nisan. The Ark was made leak-proof by pitch (Hebrew: kopher); Christ’s blood is a “watertight” ransom (Hebrew: kopher) that perfectly shields us. (Kopher is closely related to the Hebrew word, kaphar, which means “to atone” or “to cover.”)

[Soldier4Christ]

How Can Origins Be Taught in High School or College?

Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools.1 Nevertheless, many teachers wonder how to do this. Schools should be places of inquiry, where students are taught to analyze all sides of an issue. Few academic subjects have greater inherent interest for high school or college students than the origins question. The fact that it is controversial is, therefore, not a liability but an asset.2 The origins question, then, is an ideal vehicle for developing analytical skills.3 An excellent way to develop these skills is “The Origins Research Project.”

The Origins Research Project

Introduction. The Origins Research Project may be one of the most interesting and exciting projects students ever experience—one they will remember the rest of their lives. It will demonstrate how scientific inquiry works while building upon one of the most basic and natural questions a person ever asks: “How did everything begin?” Each student is (1) to decide which theory of origins best fits the scientific evidence, and (2) to write a paper explaining why. Religious beliefs, while possibly important to the student’s overall conclusion, are not to be a part of this paper. There is no right or wrong answer. Instead, the student’s work should be evaluated on its breadth of research, critical thinking, sound logic, and detailed comparisons of the data with the various theories.

The following description of the Origins Research Project is written in a generalized form, so it can be used at the high school or college level in either secular or religious schools. Teachers can tailor this project to the time available, the student’s needs, and the teacher’s objectives.

Purpose. This project will (1) help each student develop analytical skills in science, (2) integrate many seemingly diverse topics and fields of science into a meaningful, maturing, and exciting investigation, and (3) permit academic study in an important area of science without infringing on diverse religious views that are the prerogative of the individual and the home. Because strongly held views will be presented on both sides of this question of origins, the student will develop, probably for the first time, strong, reasoned, and confident disagreement with some scientific authorities and textbook authors. This experience, which even most scientists and engineers do not have until they are well into their first major research effort, is one of the most maturing that an education can provide. Unfortunately, the typical classroom experience, especially in the sciences, involves learning or absorbing information, not evaluating the evidence and deciding which of several scientific explanations is most plausible.

The Project. Each student is to write a paper stating which theory of origins he or she feels is best supported by the scientific evidence and why. The first sentence of the paper will be, “I believe the scientific evidence best supports ______________________.” The blank space, for example, might contain one of the following:

    * the theory of evolution
    * the theory of creation
    * a modified theory of evolution
    * a modified theory of creation

(Possible definitions of “evolution” and “creation” are on page 334.) Any student who feels the evidence supports a theory other than evolution or creation should define that theory. Students should understand that their conclusions, based upon an examination of only some scientific evidence, may differ from their religious views (theism, atheism, or their many variants).

The scope of this project is not to resolve such differences but to learn to examine scientific evidence. Limitations and uncertainties in science, especially when dealing with ancient, unrepeatable events having no observers, will become apparent before the project is completed.

The Role of the Teacher. The teacher’s role is (1) to develop each student’s analytical skills in science, (2) to prevent religious aspects from entering any classroom discussions, (3) to prevent censorship of any scientific evidence,(4) to facilitate discussion, and (5) to challenge and stimulate the student’s thinking. Teachers should frequently ask thought-provoking questions such as:

    * What assumptions are being made?
    * Can those assumptions be tested?
    * Why do other scientists disagree?
    * What are other explanations?
    * What evidence is there for other conclusions?


The teacher’s role is not to compel belief in any theory of origins; nor is it to teach the material. The subject matter is so broad that it would be unreasonable to expect teachers to master it quickly enough to teach it. Furthermore, most teachers probably have presuppositions that could easily bias the student’s decision-making process. Students will frequently ask, sometimes subtly, what the teacher believes.  A suggested response is:

Don’t be concerned with what I believe. What matters in this class is how thoroughly you examine the scientific evidence on both sides of this issue. I am not interested in your specific conclusion; I am interested in only the thoroughness and logic you use to reach your conclusion.  You are on your own.

[Soldier4Christ]

Teacher Options.

1. Decide the length of the written paper. This decision should be based upon the student’s academic level, the scientific fields the student should explore, and the teacher’s objectives. For a high school physics, biology, or general science course, 1,000 words might be a minimum. For a college student majoring in science education or geology, 40 typewritten pages might not be sufficient.

2. Determine the beginning and ending dates for the Origins Research Project. The project should be long enough to allow the student to reflect on the subject, to do the depth of reading and library research the teacher desires, and to write the paper. It is suggested that the Origins Research Project span 1–4 months and be finished in time to allow one week for grading. This project can be completed using a minimum of three classroom periods.

3. Specify the writing and grading standards. The required quality of the written paper and its adherence to the school’s style manual should be established. Schools that have a well-integrated curriculum may want English teachers to grade the papers from a writing standpoint and science teachers to grade the papers from a scientific standpoint. If, among the teachers available for grading, at least one is an evolutionist and one is a creationist, students could have their papers graded by a teacher who holds their basic view of origins (creation or evolution).

4. Establish the weight that will be assigned to this graded project. It should be commensurate with the research effort the teacher desires and the student motivation that will be needed, possibly one-third to one-sixth of the course grade. Some students have been allowed to complete the Origins Research Project in lieu of taking the final exam.

[Soldier4Christ]

Resource Materials

Many resources are available to help students form conclusions. Teachers and school officials are encouraged to examine the following list of resources and select those they feel are appropriate for their learning situations. Regardless of which specific resources or activities the teacher selects, every effort should be made to provide a balance between at least the two basic scientific models of origins—evolution and creation.

Video Tape

The Great Debate: Evolution vs. Creation (50 minutes). This excellent video features a debate between Professor Evolution and Dr. Creation, each played by Terrence R. Mondy, who was selected as the outstanding high school biology teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000. Entertaining, informative, interesting, and accurate. Appropriate for high school through college audiences. Available from Creative Media, 6305 Ojibwa Lane, McHenry, IL 60050 for $15.00, which includes mailing and handling.

Books for Student Reference:

          From the evolution perspective:4

    * Charles Darwin, The Illustrated Origins of Species by Charles Darwin, abridged and introduced by Richard E. Leakey, Hill & Wang, 1979.
    * Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, Warner Books, 1977.

          From the creation perspective:

    * Any portion of this book may be copied.
    * Duane T. Gish, Challenge of the Fossil Record, Master Books, 1985.
    * Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?  Master Books, 1982.

          Contrasting the creation and evolution perspectives:

    * Richard Bliss and Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, Evolution/Creation, Master Books, 1979.
    * Richard Bliss, Gary E. Parker, and Duane T. Gish, Fossils: Key to the Present, Evolution/Creation, Master Books, 1980.
    * Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, Ticknor & Fields: New Haven and New York, 1982.
    * Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Limited (London), 1985.
    * William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984.
    * Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon and Schuster, 1981.
    * Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper and Row, 1983.

Outside Speakers

Invite outside experts to answer students’ questions. These experts would usually be an evolutionist and a creation scientist. Teachers should not assume this role and defend one point of view. Teachers are encouraged to create an atmosphere of inquiry by stimulating and motivating students to arrive at their own conclusions independently. Having expert witnesses just before the students begin writing their papers will help the students concentrate on unresolved questions. It might be instructive, especially at the high school level, to formulate questions beforehand in class. Students who favor evolution should question the creationist witness, and students who favor creation should question the evolutionist witness. This will increase the level of interest and the desire to prepare adequately.

Student Debates

Brief student debates are an excellent way to increase student interest and involvement in this project. Student could be given five minutes to state their cases regarding some evidence, followed by two-minute rebuttals.  A sign up sheet could be posted for students to seek an opponent to debate selected topics. One such debate each week, lasting possibly 15–20 minutes, could provide an important stimulus for all students. Care must be taken at the high school level to keep debates orderly. At all levels, videotaping during nonclassroom time can be effectively used. This would let teachers select only the best debates for classroom viewing.

Bulletin Board Displays

Students should be encouraged to bring to class any magazine, newspaper, or journal articles on the subject of origins. After they have been posted on a bulletin board for several days, discussions concerning the quality of the articles, the evidence cited, and the identification of hidden assumptions can be very informative. Letters to the editor by students could provide additional interest. Teachers may wish to offer incentives for any student whose letter is published, such as excusing the student from another writing exercise.

[Soldier4Christ]

What Are the Social Consequences of Belief in Evolution?

Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think.  Consider the following italicized perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence.

1. Animal-like Behavior.  If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness.  If evolution happened, why believe life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes? 1

Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil? 2

Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.

4. Survival of the Fittest.  If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

5. Communism.  Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.  In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].”3 Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.

Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school. Stalin urged others to also read it.  During that time, he became an atheist.

6. Personal Responsibility.  If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.

Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.

Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.

7. Relativism.  There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.

Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless, moral absolutes.  And, He has.

8. Social Darwinism.  If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, education, science, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.

Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.

[Soldier4Christ]

 9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.

Response: This philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane sounding term that means atheism with a vague, intellectual flavor). Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement.  If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?

Response: This belief, built on evolution, is growing like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. It’s called the new age movement. It also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.

11. Marriage.  If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?

Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.

12. Racism.  If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.

Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his super, Aryan race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” [See Endnote 3 on page 316.] People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.

[Soldier4Christ]

 13. Abortion.  We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right?  Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem.  We must guide our destiny.

Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, repeat their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact throughout the world, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.  [See “Embryology” on page 11 and page 58.]

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human at one cell. Since then, mutations may have slightly decreased the amount of complex information that physically defines you.

Before birth, your mother acted as your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove one from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolution perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.4

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless, moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen italicized viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[Soldier4Christ]

How Do You Respond to Common Claims of Evolutionists?

1. “The evidence against evolution is bad science.”

Response: Have you studied the evidence? [See Parts I and II of this book.] Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides. Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. [See pages 344–346.] In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution. In what other major science controversy has one side refused to allow all the evidence on the table?

2. “If you are going to teach an alternate view to evolution, why not teach chemistry AND alchemy, heliocentrism AND geocentrism, gynecology AND the stork ‘theory,’ or astronomy AND astrology?”

Response: If anyone has scientific evidence for these fringe beliefs, I would be happy to lay out the counterevidence. (Remember, evidence must be observable and verifiable.) Millions of people know evidence that opposes evolution. Even polls conducted by evolutionist organizations have shown that about 80% of the American public want such evidence taught in the schools their taxes finance.

3. “National standards call for the exclusive teaching of evolution.”

Response: There are no “national science standards.” Three private, nongovernmental, national organizations have a long record of promoting evolution. Each group has proposed a different science curriculum, all with a common theme—evolution.

The organizations with different, so-called “national standards” are The National Science Teachers Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and The National Research Council. Some may think the National Research Council is part of the federal government. No. The National Research Council is a private organization set up to advise elements of the federal government when invited on matters of science and technology. None of these self-appointed groups has any charter for establishing national standards in any academic discipline. There are no “national science standards.”

4. “Almost all scientists accept evolution.”

Response: No, they don’t. The only related survey of scientists I am aware of was of chemists. A slight majority rejected evolution. [See the last paragraph of Endnote 2 on page 340.] Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it. [See page 340.]

Of course, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions. Those who try to establish scientific truth by “counting noses” regress into dark-age thinking. By that criterion, you would believe in a flat earth, because once most scientists believed in a flat earth.

[Soldier4Christ]

5. “People who oppose evolution do so for religious reasons.”

Response: In some cases. In other cases, some people who want to suppress the evidence against evolution do so for their religious reasons. Let’s just agree to stick to the scientific evidence on both sides of the origins issue.

In the first half of my life, throughout all my formal academic work, I was an evolutionist. My basic religious views have not changed, but after learning some convincing evidence, I had to reject evolution. Of course, the origins issue has religious implications for everyone—even those who claim to hold no religious views. But the issue can be addressed from a purely scientific standpoint. An earlier edition of this book (the special edition) demonstrated that. In it, religious matters were excluded, as I believe they should be in public schools.

6. “Speaking of a creator or a global flood is religious, because those ideas are drawn directly from the Bible.”

Response: Speaking of Noah’s flood would be religious, but explaining geological features caused by a global flood would not be. [See pages 100–255.] Speaking of Adam or Eve would be religious, but describing the evidence related to the mitochondrial Eve or the genetic Adam, from whom scientists have concluded all humans recently descended, is not. [See pages 261–263.] Referring to the God of the Bible or Allah of the Koran as the Creator would be religious, but speaking of a creator is not. As Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote: “to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.” Scalia also wrote, “We will not presume that a law’s purpose is to advance religion merely because it happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” 1

For example, scientists (even some evolutionists) who understand the amazing complexity inside a living cell know it could never have evolved; it had to be created. [See “The Elephant in the Living Room” on page 16.] But science cannot say who the creator was. It might have been several creators or even “little green men” from Mars. Nevertheless, when one understands the evidence, it is clear that this amazing complexity could not have evolved. It is hard to imagine an unbiased person who understands the evidence reaching any other conclusion. Unfortunately, few educators and scientists have heard this evidence. (Unintended ignorance is excusable. Unwillingness to learn is not. Preventing students from learning is reprehensible.)

Because much scientific evidence is being censored from our schools, a small but growing industry has developed. Many, such as myself, spend our time teaching others this evidence. People, including scientists, are excited about what they are learning. Demand for speakers and information exceeds what we can give. If the schools did their job, this rapidly-growing industry would shrink. But today, parental dissatisfaction with public schools in general, and science education in particular, has never been higher—in large part because of the one-sided way origins has been taught.

7. “The courts have stated that teaching evidence for creation would violate the separation of church and state.”

Response: Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court said just the opposite. A few evolutionist organizations, the ACLU, and many media outlets have propagated that myth. The Supreme Court actually said that the scientific evidence for any theory of origins, including creation, has always been legal in the classroom. “Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life.” 2

Of course, our issue is whether the evidence against evolution will be taught along with that for evolution. Besides, the U.S. Constitution only states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Our founding fathers, who acknowledged the Creator in many places, including the Declaration of Independence, did not want a national religion such as the Church of England. (The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. Nor is the word “separation” or the word “church.”)

[Soldier4Christ]

8. “Evolution may have some problems, but they will be solved as science advances.”

Response: Maybe. However, the opposite has been increasingly true for many decades. That is, as more has been learned, evolution appears even weaker. It is a theory in crisis, a theory without a mechanism. Let’s not withhold information. Suppressing evidence is not the way to advance science. Let’s just teach the scientific evidence that is known and undisputed. Insisting that only evolution be taught amounts to indoctrination—telling students what to think, not teaching them how to think. That deprives them of the opportunity to evaluate and think critically.

[Soldier4Christ]

Why Don’t Creationists Publish in Leading Science Journals?

Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (called “peer review”). Researchers, whose work is sound and important, should then have it published. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 102–254, from being published in a journal.)

I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the testing, and does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees? In other words, is there an unbiased judge? Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?  The playing field is not level.

To level the playing field, I have had “on the table,” since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.

Leading evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the well-known anticreation journal, Creation-Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has been willing to participate. (A few initially accepted but quickly dropped out, usually because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science. Instead they wanted to include their religious views.) This debate offer is explained below.  Can you find a taker?

[Soldier4Christ]

How Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position?

Evolutionists believe (1) the Earth and Moon are 4.5 billion years old, and (2) with enough time bacteria will change into people. We have all heard some evolutionists say, “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This simplistic attitude overlooks two things. First, most conceivable events will not happen, because they would violate well-established laws of science.1 Second, if 4.5 billion years have elapsed, many things should have occurred that obviously have not. Rather than “time being the hero of the plot,” as one prominent evolutionist stated,2 immense amounts of time cause problems for evolution, as you will now see.

Most dating techniques, including the majority that indicate young ages, make the three basic assumptions given on page 31. The following dating technique has few, if any, major assumptions. It relies basically on only the law of gravity and one undisputed and frequently repeated measurement. We will look at the forces causing the Moon to spiral farther and farther away from Earth. Then we will see that this spiraling action could not have been happening for the length of time evolutionists say the Earth and Moon have been around.

It will be shown that if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run the clock backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains. Astronomers who are aware of this problem call it “the lunar crisis.”3  Notice that this conclusion does not say that the Earth-Moon system is 1.2 billion years old; it only says that the Earth-Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists’ belief that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old. Most astute people would place their confidence in the law of gravity, which has been verified by tens of thousands of experiments.

What causes tides?  If the Moon’s gravity attracted equally every particle in and on Earth, there would be no tides. Tides are caused by slight differences in the Moon’s gravitational forces throughout Earth.4 As shown in Figure 156, the Moon pulls more on ocean particle A, directly under the Moon, than it does the center of Earth, C, because A is closer to the Moon. Therefore, A, pulled with slightly more force, moves proportionally farther toward the Moon than C, creating a tidal bulge. Likewise, water particle B, on the far side of Earth, is pulled with slightly less force than C. This difference pulls Earth away from B, creating the far tidal bulge.

[Soldier4Christ]

How does the height of ocean tides relate to the Earth-Moon separation distance (R)?  According to Newton’s law of gravitation, the Moon’s gravitational force pulls on Earth’s center of mass (C) with a force proportional to 1/R2. Water particle A directly under the Moon is one Earth radius (r) closer, so it is pulled by a force proportional to 1/(R-r)2.

Because r is much less than R, the numerator on the right is almost 2rR and its denominator is almost R4.

Because Earth’s radius (r) is constant, we can conclude that the height of the tides is proportional to 1/R3. For example, if the Earth-Moon distance suddenly doubled, the tides caused by the Moon would be only 1/8th as high.5

How do tides affect the Moon’s orbit and the Earth’s spin rate?  Surprisingly, the tidal bulges do not line up directly under the Moon as shown in Figure 156. This is because the spinning Earth carries the bulges out of alignment as shown in Figure 157. If Earth spun faster in the past, as we will see, the misalignment would have been even greater.

Let’s think of Earth as composed of two parts: a spherical portion (gray in Figure 157) and the tidal bulges—both water and solid tides.6  Gs is the gravitational force the Moon feels from the spherical portion of Earth. Because Gs is aligned with the centers of Earth and Moon, it does not alter the Moon’s orbit. However, the near tidal bulge, because it is offset, pulls the Moon in a direction shown by Gn, with a tangential component, Fn, in the direction of the Moon’s orbital motion. Fn accelerates the Moon in the direction it is moving, flinging it into an increasingly larger orbit. The far tidal bulge has an opposite but slightly weaker effect—weaker because it is farther from the Moon. The far bulge produces a gravitational force, Gf, and a retarding force on the Moon, Ff. The net strength of this accelerating force is (Fn - Ff). It can also be thought of as a thrust pushing the Moon tangential to its orbit, moving the Moon farther from Earth. This accelerating force allows us to calculate an upper limit on the age of the Moon. Today’s recession rate has been precisely measured at 3.82 cm/yr,7 but as you will see, it was faster in the past.

Conversely, the Moon’s net gravitational pull applies an equal and opposite force on Earth’s tidal bulges, slowing Earth’s spin. In other words, the Earth spun slightly faster in the past.

[Soldier4Christ]

How Much Dust and Meteoritic Debris Should the Moon Have If It Is 4,600,000,000 Years Old?

In 1981, I had a conversation with Dr. Herbert A. Zook of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He had been intimately involved in estimating the thickness of the dust layer on the Moon before the first Apollo Moon landing. He also helped analyze the lunar material brought back from the Moon. Of the many interesting things he told me and gave me, one is critical in answering the above question.

NASA did not realize until the Moon dust and rocks were analyzed that only one part in 67 (or 1.5%) of the debris on the Moon came from outer space. The rest was pulverized Moon rock. In hindsight, this makes perfect sense. Meteorites that strike the Moon travel about 10 times faster than a bullet—averaging 20 km/sec. When they strike the Moon, they are not slowed down by an atmosphere (as on Earth), because the Moon has no atmosphere. Therefore, each projectile, regardless of size, instantaneously fragments and vaporizes upon impact, kicking up a cloud of pulverized Moon rocks.1 Vaporized portions of the meteorite then condense on the pulverized Moon rocks. This was discovered by slicing Moon rocks and finding them coated by meteoritic material—material rich in nickel. Pure Moon rocks have little nickel.  In this way, NASA arrived at the factor of 67.2

[Soldier4Christ]

The Data

How much meteoritic material is striking the Moon? More specifically, how many particles (N) greater than a certain mass (m) pass through a square meter on the Moon’s surface each second? This is called the cumulative flux. The data are usually reported on a coordinate system as shown in Figure 158. Logarithmic scales are used, because so many more smaller particles strike the Moon than larger particles.

Particle sizes vary widely. Solar wind blows most particles smaller than 10-13 gram out of the solar system. At the other extreme are large crater-forming meteorites. Measurements exist for the influx of meteoritic material in three regions across this broad range. The first will be called Region A; the second will be called Region C; and the last will be called Point E. Regions B and D are interpolated between these known regions and are shown as the blue dashed lines in Figure 158.

Region A is based on impacts registered on a satellite 0.98–1.02 astronomical units from the Sun.3