Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[phillip]

Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

"The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God."

Contrast the fool who denies the creation account of God and believes the stupidity of evolution with the godly who accept God's account of creation by faith.  Faith pleases God because we take Him at His word.

Amen!

[sterlingpless]

 Anybody who believes in evolution is a fool.  They will get punishment on judgment day.  But, we should try to reach them and help them turn their life over to the Lord.  Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  For Christ is God, Creator and our Savior!

[sterlingpless]

For God created the heavens and the earth!  For Christ is God, Savior and Creator!

[nChrist]

Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

"The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God."

Contrast the fool who denies the creation account of God and believes the stupidity of evolution with the godly who accept God's account of creation by faith.  Faith pleases God because we take Him at His word.

Amen!

AMEN!

AND this is the ONLY TRUTH of what happened, regardless of what mankind chooses to believe. GOD told us what HE wants us to know about HIS Creation, and HE will tell us more at HIS Appointed time.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Peter 3:3-13 NASB
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

[Soldier4Christ]

Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.*

The presence of measurable radiocarbon in fossil wood supposedly tens and hundreds of millions of years old has been well-documented.1-5 Baumgardner6 has similarly reported measurable radiocarbon in ancient organic materials, well above the threshold of the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) analytical technology used, including ten samples of US coals spanning 45-300 million years of the conventional timescale for the geologic record. Meticulous laboratory procedures rule out the possibility that this measured radiocarbon is due to contamination, so it must instead be intrinsic to these ancient organic materials. However, such is the rapid decay of radiocarbon (14C), with a half-life of 5,730 years, that even after only 250,000 years there should be no detectable radiocarbon left. Thus, organic materials supposedly millions of years old should not contain any radiocarbon whatsoever.

Cripple Creek, Colorado

Cripple Creek is the premier gold mining district of Colorado, having produced more than 23 million ounces of gold since 1891. The gold is found in veins and surrounding rocks associated with a small (six square mile) volcanic complex that is supposedly 32 million years old (Oligocene), as determined by Ar-Ar radioisotope dating.7 The complex was formed by explosive volcanism from multiple coalescing eruptive centers, episodic intrusion of alkaline igneous rocks (ranging from phonolite to lamprophyre), development of funnel-shaped breccia pipes, and repeated eruption and subsidence cycles.8 A two-phased mineralizing event closely followed emplacement of the volcanic complex. First, a high-temperature fluid flow phase caused alteration of the host volcanic rocks and increased their permeability. Then a subsequent low-temperature fluid flow phase deposited in steeply dipping veins and disseminated gold into the porous wall rocks.9

The Cresson Mine (Figure 1) exploits the most valuable deposit in the district, having produced more than 3 million ounces of gold. Its gold mineralization is associated with an ultramafic lamprophyre pipe, which at supposedly 27 million years old was one of the last volcanic events to occur in the district.10 The gold in the Cresson deposit is generally less than 20 microns in size and occurs in three principal forms: native gold as embayments or replacements along the margins of pyrite grains, or even intergrown with pyrite; as native gold associated with hydrous iron and manganese oxides after tellurides; and as gold-silver tellurides primarily in quartz-fluorite veins. Oxidation of the deposit is strongest and deepest along major structural zones, but generally has a nominal depth of 400 feet.

Ancient Fossil Wood

Historic reports are common of early miners encountering pieces of petrified and coalified wood in the deep workings of the mines.11-13 Many tree parts, ranging from small pieces of wood up to logs, trunks and a whole stump, have been found mixed in with the Cripple Creek Breccia that hosts the gold mineralization. Coalification of the fossil wood was common, and growth rings and other woody structures such as knots and bark had been retained. The original trees were undoubtedly conifers, probably belonging to a species of Pinus.

Carbonized fossil wood was also found in the Cresson Mine, including a log, at depths of 800 feet or more down from the surface.13 In July 1947, a small piece of coalified wood, measuring almost 3 centimeters in length (Figure 2), was found in a "sand bed" within rock, possibly sand-sized volcanic breccia (tuff and rock fragments) intruded by the lamprophyre pipe, on the 17th level of the underground workings, some 1,700 feet below the surface.14 Furthermore, a cored exploration hole drilled in 2003 intersected a small piece of carbonized fossil wood in tuff and rock fragments of the Cripple Creek Breccia at a vertical depth of 3,079 feet beneath the surface under the mine.15

The postulated mechanism responsible for burying this fossil wood so deeply within this volcanic complex is the subsidence that followed many violent volcanic eruptions. When the magmas rose through cracks and conduits they encountered groundwater, resulting in phreatic explosions. Violent jets of volcanic ash and billowing clouds of steam shook the landscape, sweeping away trees and other vegetation, brecciating the surrounding rocks to great depths, and thoroughly mixing all of the shattered materials. As these eruptions finished, the resultant breccias subsided into the deep holes from which the magmas had been blasted into ash and steam, taking with them the wood debris and burying it.

Radiocarbon Analyses

Some very small splinter-like fragments, collectively weighing 128 milligrams, were gently broken off from one end of the piece of car bonized fossil wood that was found in July 1947 in the Cresson Mine. The specimen was kindly provided by geologist David M. Vardiman, who at the time was working for the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company, the current operators of the mine. After being carefully packaged and labeled, this sample was submitted with the required documentation to Professor Roelf Beukens at the IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

At this laboratory, the sample was prepared for analysis with a modified AAAOx pretreatment,16 the standard procedure developed to guarantee the elimination of any contamination. First, though, the sample was demineralized to remove any contaminant inorganic minerals. This involved drenching the samples in hot and strong hydrochloric acid to dissolve away any calcium, barium, or strontium salts (which is done to avoid producing insoluble fluorides in the next step), and then soaking the sample for at least a week in a hot and strong mixture of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids. After this, the acid-soluble humics were removed from what remained of the sample with an extended hot and strong hydrochloric acid. This was followed by an extended cold and fresh alkali extraction. The laboratory reported that the dried residue consisted of needles with a carbon content normal for organic material. A very short chlorite bleach treatment then had to be used because the sample rapidly oxidized. Before subsequent combustion, the sample was degasified under vacuum.

The resultant graphite was then analysed for radiocarbon using the laboratory's state-of-the-art AMS system. Four separate highprecision analyses were averaged and corrected for natural and sputtering isotope fractionation using the measured 13C/12C ratios. The averaged radiocarbon analysis reported by the laboratory, after the laboratory "background correction" of 0.077 percent modern carbon was subtracted, was 0.588 ± 0.069 percent modern carbon. This equates to an apparent uncalibrated radiocarbon age of 41,260 ± 540 years before present (BP), using the Libby meanlife of 8,033 years. The quoted errors represent the 68.3% confidence limits.

Discussion

The volcanic rock materials in which this piece of carbonized fossil wood was found are claimed to be 32 million years old, yet the wood yielded a radiocarbon age of only 41,260 years, well within the measurement limits of this dating method. The usual response to such a glaring and enigmatic discrepancy is to claim that the wood had obviously been contaminated with modern carbon, making it date young when in fact it really is extremely old.

Four sources of potential contamination could be invoked in this instance. First, any contamination in the laboratory can be immediately ruled out, because extreme handling and preparation measures were used in this highly respected academic laboratory, measures that have proved effective in removing any potential contamination. This included extended use of strong acids to guarantee removal of any carbonate and other minerals that might have contributed modern radiocarbon to the wood. Second, any contamination due to handling of the sample--for example, from human hands or plastic storage bags--can also be definitively ruled out, because any such contamination would only have been on the sample's surface and would have been immediately eliminated by the laboratory's extreme sample preparation techniques.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The third potential source of contamination would have been the source area in the ground from which the sample was taken. Here there were definitely many relevant factors. At the time of burial of this wood in this volcanic complex, there were the hot temperatures of the volcanic ash and of the waters in the surface sediments in which the original trees grew and in any sedimentary strata beneath. Once the wood was buried, there would have been circulation of these waters as hydrothermal fluids through the volcanic pile when the gold mineralization was deposited. The resultant hydrothermal alteration is pronounced and complex, but includes carbonate and silicate minerals, and silica (quartz).17 However, no carbonate minerals or silica were in any way visibly evident within or clinging to the wood when the sample was collected, stored, and then sent to the laboratory. In any case, such minerals would have been removed from the wood, even from within it, by the severe demineralizing treatment in the laboratory. Furthermore, the hydrothermal fluids at the time of introducing dissolved minerals to the volcanic pile and altering it, supposedly 32 million years ago, would have only contained old carbon, which if anything would have swamped any radiocarbon in the wood so that it should have yielded an infinite radiocarbon age, consistent with it being supposedly that old.

This only leaves, finally, the fourth potential source of contamination--namely, the groundwater percolating through the volcanic rocks and the carbonized fossil wood right up until the present. This can be likewise ruled out, because at 1,700 feet below the present land surface, any groundwater within the rocks and wood would have virtually no connection with any modern radiocarbon in the atmosphere, soils, and weathered rocks well above them. Furthermore, as a consequence of the many interconnected mining tunnels, and then the drilling in 1941 of a drainage tunnel some 3,100 feet below the surface under the mines, the whole area has been gradually de-watered by gravity so that water saturation in the rocks is now rarely encountered above 2,460 feet below the surface. In any case, any soluble inorganic carbonate carbon in the groundwater would not have exchanged with the insoluble organic carbon in the wood, because the two forms of carbon are incompatible. Also, any carbonate mineral deposited within or onto the wood by the groundwater would have also been removed by the severe demineralizing treatment in the laboratory.

It can only be concluded, therefore, that the radiocarbon measured by the laboratory must be real in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the original wood, and not contamination of any sort. This does not imply that this radiocarbon is a reliable measure of the wood's true age. In fact, other fossil woods analyzed for radiocarbon have yielded various other "ages." However, it does indicate that the wood is young, and not 32 million years old. Clearly, the long-age radioactive Ar-Ar dating method used to determine that age for the volcanic rocks hosting the carbonized wood is totally unreliable, due to the unproven assumptions on which it is based and the well-documented problems associated with it.18 On the other hand, radiocarbon testing of ten coal beds spanning a significant portion of the fossil-bearing strata record of the Genesis Flood yielded "ages" of 48,000–50,000 years;19 so at 41,260 years this carbonized wood could arguably be dated as late Flood or even post- Flood, and thus only about 4,300 years old.

It should also be noted that this radiocarbon "date" was calculated on the assumption that this carbonized wood had similar radiocarbon content when it was buried to the radiocarbon content of modern trees. However, this assumption can be shown to be false for at least two reasons. First, the Flood removed so much carbon from the biosphere and buried it. Second, the earth's magnetic field was much stronger in the recent past back to the Flood, resulting in a much lower radiocarbon production rate in the atmosphere. These two factors thus would have meant that there was much less radiocarbon in ancient buried organic materials. Therefore, the required recalibration of the radiocarbon "dates" for these supposedly ancient organic materials would significantly reduce their true ages to make them compatible with the biblical timescale of earth history.

Conclusions

Carbonized fossil wood was found in July 1947 in volcanic "sand" within the Cripple Creek Breccia at 1,700 feet underground in the Cresson Mine, Cripple Creek, Colorado. Fragments from a sample of this wood were submitted for radiocarbon analysis to the IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Toronto, Canada. The high-precision AMS analyses of the wood revealed an average radiocarbon content of 0.588 ± 0.069 percent modern carbon (after subtraction of the laboratory's "background correction" of 0.077 percent modern carbon), which equates to an apparent uncalibrated radiocarbon age of 41,260 ± 540 years BP. Because any and all sources of potential contamination were removed by the laboratory's severe chemical pre-treatment and can thus be discounted, this radiocarbon was concluded to be real, in situ, and intrinsic to the original wood. This age conflicts starkly with the Ar-Ar radioisotope date of 32 million years for the volcanic rock in which the wood was buried, rendering that method totally unreliable. On the other hand, comparison with radiocarbon dates for coal beds deposited during the Flood year suggests that this carbonized fossil wood is likely only about 4,300 years old, buried by the late Flood or even post-Flood volcanic activity that also generated the Cripple Creek gold deposits.

References

   1. Snelling, A.A. 1997. Radioactive “dating” in conflict! Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. Creation Ex Nihilo. 20(1): 24-27.
   2. Snelling, A.A. 1998. Stumping old-age dogma: radiocarbon in an “ancient” fossil tree stump casts doubt on traditional rock/fossil dating. Creation Ex Nihilo. 20(4): 48-51.
   3. Snelling, A.A. 1999. Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ancient sandstone. Creation Ex Nihilo. 21(3): 39-41.
   4. Snelling, A.A. 2000. Geological conflict: young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating. Creation Ex Nihilo. 22(2): 44-47.
   5. Snelling, A.A. 2000. Conflicting “ages” of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilized wood, Crinum, central Queensland, Australia. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 14(2): 99-122.
   6. Baumgardner, J.R. 2005. 14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 587-630.
   7. Kelley, K.D. 1996. Origin and Timing of Magmatism and Associated Gold-Telluride Mineralization of Cripple Creek, Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
   8. Thompson, T.B. et al. 1985. Mineralized Veins and Breccias of the Cripple Creek District, Colorado. Economic Geology. 80: 1669-1688.
   9. Kelley, K.D. et al. 1998. Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Genesis of the Au-Te Deposits at Cripple Creek, Colorado. Economic Geology. 93: 981-1012.
  10. Kelley, 1996, reference 7; Pontius, J.A., and J.A. Head. 1996. Cresson Mine: Case History of a Rapidly Evolving Mining Project. Mining Engineering. January: 26-30.
  11. Rickard, T.A. 1900. The Cripple Creek Volcano. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers. 30: 367-403.
  12. Lindgren, W., and F.L. Ransome. 1906. Geology and Gold Deposits of the Cripple Creek District, Colorado. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 54.
  13. Loughlin, G.F., and A.H. Koschmann. 1935. Geology and Ore of the Cripple Creek District, Colorado. Colorado Scientific Society Proceedings. 13(6): 217-435.
  14. Vardiman, D.M. Personal email communication, July 12, 2006.
  15. Veatch, S.W., and T.R. Brown. 2004. Carbonized Wood from the Oligocene: Trapped in Cripple Creek’s Volcanic Complex. Trilobite Tales. January: 9-12.
  16. Beukens, R.P. Radiocarbon Analysis Report. IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Toronto, February 9, 2007.
  17. Jensen, E.P. 2003. Magmatic and Hydrothermal Evolution of the Cripple Creek Gold Deposit, Colorado, and Comparisons with Regional and Global Magmatic-Hydrothermal Systems Associated with Alkaline Magmatism. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  18. Snelling, A.A. 2000. Geochemical Processes in the Mantle and Crust. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society, 123-304; and Snelling, Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust, in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, 393-524.
  19. Baumgardner, J.R. et al. 2003. Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. In Ivey Jr., R.L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 127-142.

* Dr. Snelling is the Director of Research at Answers in Genesis.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sunlight Before the Sun
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

According to Scripture, God "created the heaven and the earth" on Day One of Creation Week (Genesis 1:1). Initially all was dark, until God said, "Let there be light" (v. 3). Days Two and Three saw the oceans, firmament (or atmosphere), continents, and plants formed, as the earth was being progressively prepared for man's habitation. It was on Day Four that God created the sun, moon, and stars, proclaiming, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven" (v. 14), one purpose of which was "to give light upon the earth" (v. 15).

This light was directional, coming from a particular source. The earth was evidently rotating underneath it, causing alternating periods of light and dark. "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (v. 5).

Skeptics have long ridiculed the science of biblical creation over this point. How could there be light bathing the earth before the sun was created? Obviously the Bible must be in error. But as always, this apparent error drives us to look more closely at the relevant data, both scientific and biblical.

Actually there are many sources of light, not just the sun. There are also many types of light, not just visible light. Short-wave light includes ultraviolet light, X-rays, and others. Long-wave light includes infrared light, radio waves, etc. Light is produced by friction, by fire, by numerous chemical reactions, as well as the nuclear reactions of atomic fission and fusion, which is what we think is occurring in the sun. God had at His fingertips many options to accomplish His purposes. Light does not automatically require the sun.

Furthermore, we have important data given by the Hebrew words used in the creation account. When God created "light" in verse 3, the word used connotes the presence of light only, while the word used for "lights" on Day Four is best translated "light bearers," or permanent light sources. Their purpose was not only to give light, but to serve as timekeepers for man once he was created. According to the best stellar creation theory now available, light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days, and would be useful to Adam on Day Six. (For more information, see Dr. Russell Humphrey's cosmology articles on www.icr.org.)

Keep in mind that the Creation Week was a uniquely miraculous time, and we are justified in speculating that miraculous events may have been taking place outside of today's natural laws. Especially when we realize that "God is light" (1 John 1:5) Himself, thus no outside natural source is necessarily mandated.

For semi-creationists who claim that the "days" of Genesis 1 must have been long periods of time, a more serious problem arises. Genesis plainly teaches that plants appeared on Day Three, and the sun on Day Four. But plants need sunlight for photosynthesis and cannot wait in darkness for millions of years. If the days were long epochs, as demanded by critics of a literal Creation Week, plants could not survive.

How much better and more satisfying it is to accept Scripture as it stands. It doesn't need to be fully understood and explained by modern scientific thought; it just needs to be believed and obeyed.

* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mantle Rotation and the Flood


In August 2005, ICR installed a highspeed research computer and gave it the name Epiphany (to reveal or show forth) to reflect its purpose in using computer modeling to explore the natural processes of our world. Since then Dr. John Baumgardner, head of the ICR computer center, has conducted research on a range of topics.

One recent Epiphany project has explored the possibility that during the year of the Genesis Flood, the mantle and crust of the earth became rotationally unstable and rotated a few dozen times about an axis perpendicular to the earth's spin axis. (The earth's dense core, because the liquid outer core is only weakly coupled to the mantle, would not have participated in this auxiliary rotation.) The earth's rotation is described by the same equations that describe the motions of a gyroscope--the so-called Euler equations.

There are two reasons that this possible rotational behavior is important to understanding the Genesis Flood. First, it results in large-amplitude tsunami-like waves that sweep over the continents, which could explain the extensive sediment layers in the portion of the geologic record associated with the Flood. Second, such rotations potentially explain the record of magnetic polarity reversals observed in lava flows on the flanks of continental volcanoes, in the alternating directions of magnetization in basaltic rocks on either side of spreading ridges on the world's seafloors, and also in the orientations of grains of magnetic minerals in sediments extracted from drill cores into the ocean bottom. If such auxiliary rotation occurred during the Flood, the alternating directions of rock magnetization would be a result of the mantle and crust rotating with respect to a magnetic field with a fixed polarity and orientation. This is in contrast to the standard understanding that the alternating directions of magnetization are a consequence of changes in polarity of the field itself via complex dynamo processes within the core. Up to now, creationist scientists have had difficulty understanding how polarity reversals in the core could take place rapidly enough to fit within the time scale of the Flood.

Dr. Baumgardner's research on this issue included writing a computer program to solve the Euler equations for a rotating body like the earth. Using plausible parameter values, this program shows that many dozens of cycles of auxiliary rotation can occur within the time span of a year, and that the temporal pattern of these cycles resembles the observed temporal changes in rock magnetization in a striking way. The computer model also provides an obvious explanation for the observation that during individual polarity reversals, the magnetic poles seemed to have moved along fixed paths, from one geographic pole to the other. These just happen to lie above a ring of cold dense rock in the upper mantle surrounding the pre-Flood supercontinent--the same ring that plays a leading role in the runaway subduction that makes catastrophic plate tectonics possible. In other words, there seems to be a consistent connection with this new phenomenon of rotational instability and previous research on the mechanism behind the Flood catastrophe.

Another computer program was applied to explore the effect that the auxiliary rotation behavior had on the ocean water during the Flood. Preliminary results show tsunami-like waves that repeatedly swept over continents at velocities of several tens of meters per second. Added features such as bottom friction and topography on top of the continents will hopefully yield new insights in the future concerning sediment and erosional patterns on the continents during the cataclysm. With your help, ICR will continue its work to provide the Christian community with a much stronger understanding of and evidence for the Genesis Flood.

[Soldier4Christ]

One Birthday, Two Legacies


On the 12th day of February 1809, two children were born who would each have a profound impact on the world--one that affected not just the people of his time, but continues to have an almost immeasurable effect today. The achievements of both individuals are being recognized this month, but their legacies could not be more different.

On February 18, America will celebrate President's Day. Originally implemented to honor the birthday of George Washington, this holiday is now commonly understood as honoring the February 12th birth of Abraham Lincoln as well. Largely self-educated, Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860. His leadership during the tumultuous years of the Civil War has led him to be recognized as one of the greatest of the American Presidents.

One of his foremost achievements was the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed American slaves as of January 1, 1863 (although most slaves in the seceded southern states would not learn of it until after the war). Lincoln firmly espoused the democratic ideals on which America was founded, as reflected in his Gettysburg Address:

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The other child born on February 12, 1809, would grow up to have a far different view on the equality of men.

    I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.1

He ranked certain races as being between "the Caucasian" and the baboon.

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro |sic| or Australian and the gorilla.2

Even the subtitle for Charles Darwin's groundbreaking 1859 book Origin of Species reflects this particular aspect of "natural selection": The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin's views on the origins of life have gradually led to science's enslavement to a godless ideal. Nevertheless, his work and influence will be commemorated this month on Darwin Day, a celebration described as "an international recognition of science and humanity."3

Sadly, the occasion will also be marked in many churches as "Evolution Weekend," thanks to the Clergy Letter Project. Begun in 2004 by Michael Zimmerman (now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University), this project's purpose is to allow clergy a means of indicating their support for the teaching of evolution. Participating pastors are invited to endorse "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science," which states in part:

    We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.4

The letter speciously posits that "religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."4 Thus it neatly excises the possibility that the Bible is, or even should be, factually accurate, paving the way to indoctrinate yet more people with the idea that "evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith."4

This month we celebrate two men of renown. One freed slaves, and the other enslaved minds. Which one is truly worthy of remembrance? Let us use these celebrations as a reminder to honor the Source of true freedom--"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36).

References

   1. Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, 316; cited in Himmelfarb, G. 1959. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus, 343.
   2. Darwin C. 1901. The Descent of Man. London: John Murray, 241-242.
   3. www.darwinday.org.
   4. www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Biblical Origins of Modern Science


One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the widespread notion that biblical Christianity is in conflict with true science and, therefore, that genuine scientists cannot believe the Bible. The scientific method is built on empirical testing of hypotheses, and since creation and other biblical doctrines cannot be tested in the laboratory, they are considered nonscientific, to be taken strictly on faith. Furthermore, it is commonly believed that the Bible contains many scientific errors. At the very most, it is contended, a scientist may be able to accept the spiritual teachings of the Bible if he wishes, but never its scientific and historical teachings.

Such a charge is tragically wrong, however, and has done untold damage. Thousands of scientists of the past and present have been and are Bible-believing Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical basis, and at a time in history marked by a great return to biblical faith.

As a matter of fact, authorization for the development of science and technology was specifically commissioned in God's primeval mandate to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-28), and many early scientists, especially in England and America, viewed it in just this way. The study of the world and its processes is really, as Johann Kepler and other great scientists have maintained, "thinking God's thoughts after Him," and should be approached reverently and humbly.

In the next few months, therefore, we will present a number of brief biographical testimonies of important scientists who professed to be Bible-believing Christians. Many of these names will be names familiar to every science student, but he or she may not know that these men also were Christians (this fact is commonly ignored or slighted in present-day scientific literature). This will by no means be an exhaustive list, but it should at least put to rest the common misconception that no first-class scientist can be a Bible-believing Christian.

Some of these scientists lived before the rise of modern Darwinism, but they were certainly well aware of evolutionary philosophy (which has been around since antiquity) and of scientific skepticism in general (deism, humanism, atheism, pantheism, and other antibiblical philosophies were very real threats to Christian theism long before the modern era). Nevertheless, they were all convinced of the authority of Scripture and the truth of the Christian worldview.

Like people in other professions (even preachers), scientists have held a variety of specific religious beliefs. The inclusion of a particular scientist in this collection will not indicate that we would or would not endorse his personal behavior or particular doctrinal or denominational beliefs. Our only criteria will be that, in addition to being a highly qualified scientist, he believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, accepted Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and believed in the one true God of the Bible as the Creator of all things. They will also be seen to represent many different fields of science. In other words, there have been leading scientists in every field of science who have studied both the Bible and their own scientific disciplines in depth, and who are firmly convinced the two are fully compatible.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Keys to Creation Research


There is no secret method for conducting creation research. It requires the same nose-to-the-grindstone effort that all scientific investigation requires--scholarly study, mathematical rigor, laboratory precision, and careful analysis.

But creation research suffers from the same disadvantage that evolutionary research does in that both examine events that happened in the unobserved past, outside the reach of observational science. Both are historical reconstructions.

Keep in mind that both sides study the same data. The big difference between them exists in the interpretation process. Evolutionary scientists start with the assumption of past uniformity, characterized by the slogan "the present is the key to the past." This means a uniformity of natural law, with no interruption of natural processes. Perhaps rates of processes have changed somewhat, but the laws have not.

Creation scientists agree that natural law governs processes today and throughout recent history, but hold that origins events were different in kind. The natural laws that operate today cannot account for them; supernatural processes were required, along with natural processes operating at rates, scales, and intensities far outside modern limits. Based on the clear teaching of Scripture, we know that God used such supernatural processes, and while we don't invoke them to explain events in the present, we are justified in calling on them for one-time origins events in the past.

Three great worldwide events happened in early earth history that affected all of reality, and without including them in our thinking and explanatory models we have no chance of properly interpreting the data. These events are:

    * The creation of all things in the beginning
    * The curse on all creation because of Adam's sin
    * The great Flood of Noah's day

Scripture claims that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11). What can be observed today that was not originally created during this supernatural event? Humans did not witness creation, but we were told of it by One who was there, and today we see the things that were created.

Likewise, we are told of a subsequent event that altered all of creation. Indeed, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22) because of the presence of sin and its penalty, death. Plants, animals, mankind, even the very earth came under this penalty. What possible system was exempt from its scope? Today we see its effects all around us.

Later, the great Flood restructured the entire earth, as "the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Genesis 7:11). Today we stand on flooded terrain. Nowhere on earth can we view results of uniformitarian processes except for those that have occurred since the Flood. As with the other early earth-shaping events, we did not see the Flood itself; but we can see its aftereffects.

A fourth event followed the Flood that impacted only mankind--that of the dispersion at Babel. But in a similar fashion, we will never fully understand human origins, migrations, genetics, or languages without considering Babel. "From thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:9). All modern nations and peoples are descended from those scattered at Babel.

As you can see, these events are essential in making sense of the present scientific data. We can be assured they did happen, for they are all clearly taught in the Creator's account of earth history. Thus we can be confident that they provide a sure foundation for scientific research.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Regularity of Nature


    One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 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....Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7, 10)

The writer of Ecclesiastes placed much confidence in the regularity of natural processes. The continual passage of generations of people, the repetitive sequence of sunrise-sunset, the circular paths of the winds, and the continuity of the hydrologic cycle led him to projections of an eternal earth, and to despair, among other things. Aristotle and Charles Hutton, later "uniformitarianists," took the same approach; and they too arrived at an eternal earth (and arguably, despair). Mankind's mad rush to explain all of nature without reference to God in an effort to be "scientific" is no surprise. But how much is too much when it comes to the confidence we place in the regularities of nature?

Two radically different endeavors vie for authority as "science" today; both have a high regard for the regularity we see in nature, but for different reasons. The experimental scientist, such as a chemist, mixes his reagents under tightly-controlled conditions (the laboratory), and when he can repeat his results, he has then discovered something about the here-and-now world. There is no problem with this approach. Such scientific endeavors must rule out the possibility of any outside meddling in the lab (God or otherwise) if the results are to have legitimacy.

Now consider a forensic (or historical) scientist. The archaeologist examining a ring of stones, the detective investigating a murder scene, the geologist surveying a rocky outcrop--all are engaged in a far different game. Their goal is to understand the past, based upon what can be observed in the present. Having a high confidence in the regularity of ordinary nature is essential to recognizing the extraordinary, as Paley's watch in the heath illustrates.1 Unlike experimental science, to deny at the outset the possible "meddling" of an intelligent agent in the observed phenomena would be to invalidate the entire endeavor!

For the creation scientist, it is his confidence in the regularity of nature that makes his case so strong. Despite the numerous paradoxes and mysteries we face as creationists, our worldview is far more secure than that of the evolutionist, in spite of boastings to the contrary. We do not fear that some new discovery will topple our worldview; nor do we accept the unbridled extrapolation of uniform processes and rates into the infinite past as "science." The debate is not one of science versus religion, but of genuine versus fraudulent science. Those who worship the Father must worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24, emphasis added).

1. William Paley (1743-1805) wrote in the book Natural Theology his famous analogy of finding a watch in a field and concluding that its evident design required a watchmaker.

[Soldier4Christ]

Nebulous Hypotheses


"Glittering generalities"--a phrase describing grand, panoramic scenarios that sweep difficulties under the rug--appropriately describes theories of planetary evolution. They're not as simple as "add dust, stir, and wait." I remember a planetary science professor years ago admitting that planetary evolution models usually hit a snag where a miracle is needed to continue. Not much has changed, despite a wealth of new data--including the discovery of hundreds of extrasolar planets.

One would think such a discovery would bolster confidence in naturalistic theories. Planet-building, however, has become a theory in crisis. Most extrasolar systems look nothing like ours. Many have gas giants very close to the star. Some of these so-called "hot Jupiters" have smaller orbits than Mercury. They would likely eject any earthlike planets in the habitable zone.1 Scientists realize now that stellar dust disks are not planetary maternity wards, but conveyor belts of doom. Models show that a planet embedded in a dust disk at the orbit of Jupiter would spiral into its host star in mere thousands of years. Some disks appear to be dissipating rapidly.

A consequence is that planets need to form quickly to survive. Sure enough, theorists have found ways to make planets in less time. They now believe a gas giant can form in just hundreds of years, not millions. Indeed it must, if it is to avoid the giant sucking sound from the star at the center of the disk. Then, it needs to clear its orbit of debris quickly, so that inward migration will stop before the planet is devoured.2 A cleared orbit, however, has the downside of bringing accretion to a standstill.

Speaking of accretion, a planetesimal must grow to at least a kilometer in diameter for gravitational attraction to take over.3 Smaller clumps do not stick--they bounce. Rather than grow into boulders, they are more likely to collide and fragment.4 Even then, unless protected, boulders would be drawn rapidly into the star. A recent article on Space.com said the realization that "boulders tend to fall into the star in a celestial blink of an eye" has been "a stumbling block for 30 years."5 One recent model proposed that boulders might join forces against the viscosity of the disk, forming a protective pocket--like that behind a semi truck--giving embryonic planetesimals time to grow. The authors of this ad hoc speculation, however, worried that such clumped boulders would actually be more likely to grind to dust.6

In recent years, planetary scientists have been undergoing a kind of "religious conversion" from the nebular hypothesis to a completely new "disk-instability hypothesis."7 Championed by Alan Boss, it postulates that knots in the swirling cloud contract catastrophically to form gas giant planets almost instantly. This idea should raise the eyebrows of many who were taught to think planet formation requires millions of years. The new model was proposed less on evidence than on attempts to get around the difficulties.

This is only the beginning of a long list of "miracles" needed to build planets naturally. The extent to which God used natural forces to create is an interesting question, but it is important to know what materialists are up against lest we be mesmerized by the glitter of their generalities.

References

   1. Than, K. How Solar Systems Are Organized. Space.com, July 17, 2007; and The locked migration of giant protoplanets, Astronomy and Astrophysics press release, March 21, 2006.
   2. Mayer, L. et al. 2002. Formation of Giant Planets by Fragmentation of Protoplanetary Disks. Science 298 (5599): 1756- 1759.
   3. Paraskov, G. et al. 2007. Impacts into weak dust targets under microgravity and the formation of planetesimals. Icarus 191 (2): 779-789.
   4. Ibid.
   5. Mosher, D. Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved. Space.com, August 29, 2007.
   6. Ibid.
   7. Irion, R. 2003. When Do Planets Form? Inquiring Astronomers Want to Know. Science 300 (5625): 1498.

[curious]

I am glad that most of you know that you have to get through to them(sad to say) mainly through science,but also through the Bible. To use science to prove the Bible,as if it needed it.
I started getting into Creation Science because of a Dream I had.Most people who are asked that question(Why don't you believe in Evolution ?) answer "because the Bible says...)That's not a bad answer,but with most(if not all)of the Hardcore Evolutonists,the ONLY language they speak is science.So you have to learn to answer their question through science,then through the Bible.


                                 Yours in Yeshua,
                                 Curious

[Soldier4Christ]

Unfortunately those who are hardcore evolutionists still will not believe anyt differently even when science is used to disprove their beliefs. There are many supposed facts of evolution today that have been disproved by science and yet these hardcore evolutionist still continue to hold on to those same "facts". It is sad indeed.

To use science to prove the Bible,as if it needed it.

I understand that completely. Especially when it is actually the Bible that proves the science.