Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[nChrist]

I HAVE WAITED . . . --- Genesis 49:18.

"I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord." --- Genesis 49:18.

Many have received comfort from these words in death, and waited in faith for their salvation. The thoughtless and impenitent wait only for temporal prosperity in their lives, and therefore cannot expect eternal bliss: but on the contrary, a dreadful judgment after death.

Oh, that they would enter into themselves this very day, that at the eve of life they might, like Jacob and Simeon, depart in peace! We will not, therefore, look for any earthly things, but for the Saviour, who is already come, who will grant us his salvation, his aid and deliverance in life and death, and will conduct us safely at last, though we should wait some time for his help.

Yes, my Redeemer, they who wait, depend upon, and hope in thee shall not be ashamed. Grant us only faith and patience, that we may wait on thee from one morning watch to another; and, enduring all things, make the whole course of our lives one perpetual expectation of thy aid; and may we ever abundantly experience thy help and salvation, especially at our latter end.

Christ's own soft hands shall wipe the tears
From every weeping eye;
And pains and groans, and griefs and fears
And death itself shall die.

How long, dear Saviour, oh how long
Shall this bright hour delay?
Fly swiftly round, ye wheels of time,
And bring the welcome day.

AMEN!

I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be dying without CHRIST as LORD and SAVIOUR. Thanks Brother! - this is beautiful!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 31:3 NASB  For You are my rock and my fortress; For Your name's sake You will lead me and guide me.

[Soldier4Christ]

It seems I put that post in a different thread than I first intended it to go in. All praises to God it is a fitting post for any thread it is in.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

I thought it was on purpose and quite appropriate. Nearly all of the hardcore evolutionists I've met were either atheists or agnostics. I also remember many of them having hard second thoughts when they became seriously ill. They wanted someone to tell them all about GOD one more time, and many of them panicked - knowing they had spent their lives in calling GOD a liar and rejecting HIM. SO, I really did think this was a wonderful post for this area. Regardless, I know that GOD will use it for HIS Purpose.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 11:32-36 NLT  For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.  33  Oh, what a wonderful God we have! How great are his riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his methods!  34  For who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who knows enough to be his counselor?  35  And who could ever give him so much that he would have to pay it back?  36  For everything comes from him; everything exists by his power and is intended for his glory. To him be glory evermore. Amen.

[nChrist]

Creation

By Paul M. Sadler

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:3-5).

I am a creationist. I personally believe that God created all things in heaven and earth in six literal 24-hour days. A proper understanding of creation is essential, since it is the foundation upon which all the doctrines of God rest. Sadly, some in Christendom have sought to erect an elaborate system known as the day-age theory to accommodate the geologic timetable of billions of years. But does this position pass the Berean test?

Those who subscribe to the day-age theory believe that the Hebrew word "day" (yom) can refer to a 24-hour day or a long period of time. This is true! For example, the day of the Lord is an extended period of time which covers well over one thousand years. Consequently, the context must always be consulted to ascertain the duration of time under consideration. Of course, those who defend this position teach that the days of the Genesis record quite literally cover millions and millions of years, which conveniently accommodates evolution.

Interestingly, when the Hebrew word yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day, without exception. In regard to the Passover God instructed Moses, "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel" (Exodus 12:15). Would we conclude otherwise that the "first day" here is anything other than a normal day? Furthermore, when perimeters are set on the term yom, such as "the evening and the morning," as found in Genesis 1:4, this limits the day to 24 hours.

But perhaps the most conclusive evidence of all that each day was 24 hours is found in Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Here Moses uses the term yamin, the Hebrew plural for "days," which exclusively speaks of 24-hour cycles.

If the Holy Spirit had intended to convey that the days of creation were "eras," He would have used the used the Hebrew olam, which is defined as "indefinite time." We accept by faith that God is sovereign and all-powerful; therefore, it was a small matter for Him to speak all things into existence in six days (Psalms 33:6-9).

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, brother. It is a simple thing of taking God at His word instead of trying to make it fit the ideologies of those that deny God's very existence.

The creation of all things, a world wide flood, and the division of land masses all attest to God's magnificent power and glory.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, I've thought about this topic many times over my life. I've seen many folks go to extraordinary lengths to make the theory of evolution possible. Many of the methods were illogical and outrageous, and the methods have gotten more desperate in recent years. GOD'S Account of HIS CREATION is the ONLY One that makes sense! WHY? - It's TRUE, simple, and told by the CREATOR HIMSELF. It can't be challenged, and the so-called evidence that has been used to challenge GOD'S Account has fallen apart as junk. What we have watched is scientists and other men trying to either become gods or wiser than GOD. Those men made themselves FOOLS and they deceived many. Sadly, many of those men were self-proclaimed Christians who chose to believe Darwin over GOD. GOD told us what HE wanted us to know about HIS CREATION, and that was more than enough. GOD will reveal more at HIS Appointed Time, but HE really doesn't owe an explanation to anyone. ALL of GOD'S Ways are beyond our imagination. We can't even dream of GOD'S MAJESTY AND POWER! Mankind should be concentrating on the GIFT of GOD to us - not trying to prove GOD wrong. The GRACE and LOVE of ALMIGHTY GOD to HIS disobedient CREATION should also be beyond our imagination. HE Gave us PROOF and EVIDENCE on this also. WE SHOULD SIMPLY BELIEVE GOD AND GIVE THANKS!

Romans 1:28-32 NLT  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  29  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  30  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  31  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  32  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

[Soldier4Christ]

Is the Bible to blame for trashing Earth?
TV wildlife star says creationism leads to 'devastating' environment

In promoting a new special that commemorates the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, one of television's most popular and enduring naturalists has declared that the Bible is to blame for humanity's destruction of the environment.

Sir David Attenborough, who for 50 years has been the face and voice of the BBC's natural history programs popular in both the U.S. and U.K., says that the Book of Genesis has taught generations that people can "dominate" and "devastate" the environment under the excuse that God gave humanity dominion over the earth.

Genesis 1:28 reads, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'"

Attenborough insists that Genesis has allowed people to justify destroying the environment and that embracing Darwinist evolution frees people from their biblical excuse.

"The influence of the Book of Genesis," says Attenborough, "which says the Lord God said 'go forth and multiply' to Adam and Eve and 'the natural world is there for you to dominate,' [is that] you have dominion over the animals and plants of the world.

"That basic notion," Attenborough continues, "that the world is there for us and if it doesn't actually serve our purposes, it's dispensable, that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the land's surface."

Attenborough further explained to the science journal Nature, "That's why Darwinism, and the fact of evolution, is of great importance, because it is that attitude which has led to the devastation of so much, and we are in the situation that we are in."

In the promotional video, Attenborough further insists that Darwin's theory of evolution has been conclusively proven beyond doubt.

"Evolution is not just a theory, as many a correspondent writes to me and says," Attenborough claims. "It is a historical fact like any other historical fact and as certain as the fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066, except it's more certain because the evidence for it is from a much wider range of fact."

In a 2003 interview with Australia's Syndey Morning Herald, Attenborough gave some background into his lifelong advocacy of Darwinist evolution, his self-described "agnostic" worldview and his criticism of the Bible's account of Creation.

"It is something I get frequent letters about," he told the Herald. "They always start with sweet reasonableness; you know, 'We love your programs, isn't nature marvelous,' and so on. But they always go on to say, 'We do wonder why it is that you don't give credit to the almighty God who created each one of these species individually.'

"My response," he said, "is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.'"

Despite Attenborough's critical views of Creationism and the Book of Genesis, the Independent, a U.K. newspaper, reports that the Darwin program itself will refrain from mentioning the Bible … with the exception of one, pointed allusion.

"Darwin's great insight revolutionized the way in which we see the world," the program reportedly states. "But above all Darwin has shown us that we are not apart from the natural world – we do not have dominion over it."

The Independent also reports the perspective of Catherine Pepinster, editor of The Tablet, a British Catholic weekly newspaper, who says Attenborough has completely misinterpreted God's intent in the Book of Genesis and misrepresented the position of Creationists toward Creation.

"The idea that you survive by treating the world as if it is dispensable and only there for our purposes is to misunderstand was is meant in Scripture by 'dominion,'" Pepinster writes. "If you go back to the roots of that term, you find that it means a kingly rule of the kind bestowed by the shepherd-king David. It means rule in God's image, a pastoral rule of great care. In other words, stewardship.

"Stewardship means responsibility," Pepinster continues. "It means acting like Noah to preserve the animals threatened with flood. Increasing numbers of Christians today are rethinking their relationship with the environment, with God's creation. This planet is not ours to use and abuse."

[Soldier4Christ]

Commentary on the above article:

Although Catherine Pepinster is correct in her statements there is much more that can be said about the misconceptions of this video presentation.

The Bible is not the reason that mankind finds itself in the predicament that we are in. Nor does Darwinism have the answer to this problem. In fact the false teachings of Darwinism only furthers the problem. Mankind is in the predicament it is in because of disobedience of and the rejection of God.

Rom 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The influence of people such as Attenborough simply adds to this.

Attenborough further insists that Darwin's theory of evolution has been conclusively proven beyond doubt.

In other words "The science is in" just like Al Gore said about global warming. As in the false teachings of global warming the theory of evolution is falling apart before their very eyes. The many articles posted in this thread have proved that evolution does not have a leg to stand on, that there is no "proof" for it to begin with but rather just a man's opinion that cannot be replicated, was not witnessed and cannot be witnessed. The Bible tells us that all that was created, all that is around us, is witness to God and His awesome power.

The more that mankind looks at it in this manner the more that it is seen that the Biblical account is a fact of the creation of all.

[nChrist]

The only thing left of the theory of evolution is the vanity and greed of the people who try to sell it. This is just like GLOBAL WARMING. Those who sold it and those making money from it would look like fools and criminals if GLOBAL WARMING COLLAPSES. Well, they are fools and criminals. Most scientists have said that global warming is BALONEY, but the BIG MONEY FOLKS are trying to make sure they aren't heard. After all, the TRUTH would shine a light on the CON GAMES of folks like Al Gore who are making fortunes on this BALONEY. The same is true for the theory of evolution. MUCH FACE AND MONEY WILL BE LOST WHEN IT'S DECLARED TO BE NOTHING BUT A CON GAME.

[Soldier4Christ]

Solar System Secrets Solved
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

A recent issue of New Scientist contained a series of articles that explored “The Six Biggest Mysteries of Our Solar System.” One article posed the question, “How was the solar system built?”1 “Built” is a good word, considering the solar system contains an array of features that appear precisely orchestrated.

For example, if all the planets, as well as the sun, came from the same dust cloud—as the Nebular Hypothesis claims—then why does each planet have an entirely unique composition? Why do the planets’ collective orbital velocities, trajectories, and distances combine to precisely balance the earth within a “habitable zone,” where just the right exposure to the sun’s rays ensures the presence of liquid water, which is vital for life?2

And why does the solar system contain features that point to a relatively recent origin? For example, why does Saturn have decaying rings instead of a disk?3 Why is Mercury so unexpectedly dense, and why does it have a magnetic field when it is so small?4

Regardless, the writers assert in New Scientist that the “delicate architecture” of the solar system came from a collapsed “molecular cloud.”1 A related hypothesis offered local patches of turbulence that enabled boulders to coalesce into planets without falling into the sun.5 But this ad hoc speculation does not explain why the boulders, which must be at least one kilometer in diameter to have enough gravity to attract one another, did not just grind themselves to dust in the effort.6

Another explanation reviewed in New Scientist was one astronomer’s elaborate scheme of fortuitous gravitational events whereby several massive planets threw Uranus and Neptune into their oblong orbits, and then created the never-before-seen Oort cloud. Astronomers proposed that such a cloud “must exist” to explain the presence of young comets in the supposedly “ancient” solar system.7 One technical model of the Oort cloud predicts that ~100 times more comets should be produced, but this discrepancy is arbitrarily dismissed by asserting that “the majority of them must physically disrupt” and are therefore destroyed.8

These various conjectures are tantamount to “explaining” that a student’s model of the solar system could be formed by random rushes of wind acting on piles of dirt. Each mystery cited by New Scientist is only mysterious in terms of a philosophically naturalistic worldview, but it makes perfect sense in light of the Bible

When a Creator is considered as the originating Source—a possibility that a host of features of the solar system clearly demands—then these mysteries aren’t so mysterious anymore. Genesis 1:16 states that “He made the stars.” How? Psalm 33:9 answers, “He commanded, and it was done.”

References

   1. Webb, R. Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? New Scientist. 2693. Posted on newscientist.com January 29, 2009, accessed January 30, 2009.
   2. Coppedge, D. F. 2006. Astrobiology: Follow the…. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
   3. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Rescuing Ring Ages. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 15.
   4. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Messenger from Mercury. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 15.
   5. Cuzzi, J. N., R. C. Hogan and K. Shariff. 2008. Toward Planetesimals: Dense Chondrule Clumps in the Protoplanetary Nebula. The Astrophysical Journal. 687 (2): 1432-1447.
   6. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Nebulous Hypothesis. Acts & Facts. 37 (2): 15.
   7. Humphreys, R. D. 2005. Evidence for a Young World. Acts & Facts. 34 (6).
   8. Levison, H. F. et al. 2002. The Mass Disruption of Oort Cloud Comets. Science. 296 (5576): 2212-2215.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg
by Institute for Creation Research

In January 2009, ICR received a copy of a recent ministry letter published by television personality Dr. John Ankerberg. For many years, Dr. Ankerberg has skillfully tackled tough issues related to the church, society, the Middle East, and other topics of interest to believers. Christians everywhere need to be informed, challenged, and also taught sound doctrine—there is no substitute for the Bible.

However, the January letter from Dr. Ankerberg’s television ministry reveals a dangerous trend toward subjugating the accuracy, understandability, and authority of the Bible to the foolish musings of men—namely, scientists who deny that God’s revelation in the book of Genesis is actually true.

    But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1:27-29)

Surely God meant the phrase “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 to be read “millions or billions of years.” Wasn’t God the father of evolutionary processes? Isn’t the so-called Big Bang theory God’s idea in the first place? These issues, and more, are the ideas supported by Dr. Ankerberg in his 10-page appeal letter as he unveils “the latest scientific evidence.”

Of course, the Institute for Creation Research is all for science. As the founder of the modern creation science movement (many decades ago), ICR has led the way in conducting the most comprehensive and professional research within the various disciplines of science, but with one very important component: science never trumps Scripture. God’s Word is the ultimate interpreter of all things, even in the realm of science.

This is not to say that the Bible was written as a science textbook. But it does mean that God does not lie, nor has He communicated in a way that confuses His people. However, the way some are beginning to “interpret” Scripture today suggests they believe that God did not speak plainly and only “qualified” Ph.D.’s know the real secret behind God’s straightforward writing.

Dr. Ankerberg has made his views very public, and we have included a copy of his full 10-page appeal letter in the footnotes of this article.1 Please read it thoroughly. And then read our response here one more time. ICR will have more to say in the March Acts & Facts magazine.2

February 2009 is the worldwide celebration (a.k.a. worship) of the man Charles Darwin, who popularized the notion of evolution, the origins-by-accident “theory” that has given scientists, educators, and even despots numerous excuses to eliminate God from rational thought. Darwin’s ardent followers are by and large unbelievers. You only need to hear the likes of atheists Richard Dawkins, William Provine, Christopher Hitchens, and others to see how they revel in Darwin’s birth and influence. Christians should not be surprised by the world’s rejection of God and His revelation.

What is surprising and sad, however, is the trend within the church—within the evangelical church—to abandon sound biblical doctrine in light of "the latest scientific evidence,” particularly when that evidence is filtered through a naturalistic and atheistic worldview.

Evangelism vs. Doctrine

At the very start of the Ankerberg letter is his connection between “the latest scientific evidence” and the ministry of evangelism, with the statement that believers can now “use this evidence to lead your non-Christian friends to believe God exists and is the Creator of everything.” What you are not told in the first two pages of his appeal is that Dr. Ankerberg has publicly changed his view about how God’s creatorship can be proven.

While admitting he still holds to his belief that God is Creator—and there is no reason to believe that he denies this fact—he is now saying that “science” has finally proven how God created the heavens and the earth. In fact, he states that one man has not only discovered this, but also has made 90 startling scientific predictions that will be revealed in the new Ankerberg television series. Ankerberg concludes, “Unfortunately, many Christians do not know this evidence and can’t share the good news about God and creation with their friends.”

So just how did Christians evangelize for the previous 2,000 years without this “new” evidence? Did Christians really not know how to properly share the Good News without these startling new scientific discoveries?

Dr. Ankerberg rightly laments that “more students at our universities” don’t believe in God. But he claims science is the key to correcting this travesty. And the proper understanding of science in his view—which is the hybrid creation theory called day-age creation—will solve this dilemma in Christian ministry.

However, Romans 1 clearly states that mankind possesses a sinful predisposition to reject God’s many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Rejecting these proofs leaves man “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is not because the evidence has not been communicated well to unbelieving minds. Jesus states that many would not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31).

However, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that evangelism is actually hindered by those who believe and teach that God created the world in six 24-hour days and that the earth is around 6,000 years old. He attacks the many-decades ministry of ICR leaders Dr. John Morris and Dr. Duane Gish because of their uncompromising stance on the 24-hour days God used to create the world. He states, “At the time I thought, it’s going to be difficult to defend the young earth position if no scientist has been persuaded by the scientific evidence to accept it.”

Is Dr. Ankerberg unaware of the thousands of Christian scientists who subscribe to recent creation? Has he not studied, for instance, the dramatic evidence for recent creation discovered at Mount St. Helens or through ICR’s eight-year research project on radioisotopes and the age of the earth (RATE)?

Which is easier for a scientist to believe:

    * Moses parting the Red Sea, or recent creation?

    * The walls of Jericho falling down due to marching and shouting, or recent creation?

    * The virgin birth of Christ, or recent creation?

    * Jesus feeding the 5,000 with just a few pieces of bread and fish, or recent creation?

    * Jesus rising from the dead, or recent creation?

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

If our goal is ultimately to please or placate modern scientists or theologians, what divine miracle will Dr. Ankerberg suggest we do away with next?

The bottom line is that anyone—be it scientist, scholar, or TV personality—must come to Christ by faith, not by sight.

Science is not God’s means to salvation; the cross is. Science, if used in a manner that does not disparage the Word of God, can be used to help some people take notice of God, the Creator. But science is only one of a myriad methods God uses to attract men and women and children to Himself.

A New Science?

Dr. Ankerberg evidently has been persuaded by the science of one man—Dr. Hugh Ross, whom he is featuring on television. In an amazing declaration, he states that Dr. Ross has developed the “first testable creation model Christians have ever produced.” Dr. Ankerberg also writes that before this he “couldn’t show how the Genesis account corresponded with science,” and follows that with the statement “I think young earth leaders are in the same situation today.”

However, with all his credentials as an astronomer, Dr. Ross was still an infant in the 1940s when Dr. Henry Morris began publishing creation science evidence, which eventually led to The Genesis Flood in 1961, the founding of the Institute for Creation Research in 1970, and the many research projects that ICR has conducted over the past 40 years.

Apart from Dr. Ross’ relative newcomer status in creation studies, he is most well known for systematically altering the clear meaning of the biblical text in order to fit the Bible into his view of cosmic history. Examples of this would include his interpreting long ages of time (millions and billions of years) for each “evening and morning,” his assertion that the Flood of Noah’s time was just a local Mesopotamian flood rather than a worldwide judgment for sin that covered the entire earth, his claim that God instigated the so-called Big Bang, and his surrender to secular geology in determining the age of the earth. His bizarre idea that the 67th book of the Bible is “nature” confuses sincere believers and ultimately places the study of science in authority over the text of Scripture.

Dr. Ankerberg urges his followers—with some trepidation—to abandon their traditional heartfelt beliefs in Genesis in order to adopt his new understanding of science and the Bible:

    I realize that some of you reading this letter believe with all of your heart that the Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth approximately 6,000 years ago. You believe the only correct literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 teaches God created in six 24-hour days. Therefore, if anyone suggests otherwise, they are speaking against the clear meaning of the Bible, and this is unacceptable.

In essence, Dr. Ankerberg believes he has discovered new revelation from Hugh Ross—revelation that casts aside the belief of most Christians for over two millennia. So, when God wrote “evening and morning,” He apparently did not mean “evening and morning.” Do the peoples of the world now also need naturalistic training in order to understand God?

From this point on, Dr. Ankerberg shifts between his statements of disbelief in the normal six days of creation to his repeated attempts to use the words “literal,” “inerrant,” and “infallible” in describing his own heartfelt beliefs in the Bible. In true Clintonesque style, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that the “literal” meaning of the word “day” can sometimes have a different “literal” meaning (i.e., “seven long periods of time”).

Dr. Ankerberg is naturally banking on the goodwill of his loyal viewers, his “friends for close to 30 years.” Many have come to trust him to present biblical truth that is relevant to many sticky issues facing believers.

But now he is begging his constituents (“please hear me out”) to let him explain about this one man, Dr. Hugh Ross, who has revealed to him this “new” theory, day-age creation (no matter what he labels it), that makes Scripture conform to modern science.

And that’s where the rub comes: attempting to force Scripture to fit “the latest scientific evidence.”

Marketing Hugh Ross

In his lengthy appeal letter, Dr. Ankerberg lays out a frontal assault on Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, and all those Christians who take God at His Word, by claiming:

    * That “the majority of scientists who are evangelical Christians believe the old earth view.” Of course, the appeal to the majority is a dangerous fallacy. Consider the “majority” wandering in the wilderness after the Exodus. And what about the “majority” who stood before Pilate when Jesus was on trial (Luke 23:22-24)?

    * That “the Bible talked about the Big Bang before any astronomer did.” A normal reading of the biblical data would not lead anyone to conclude that God began the world with a big bang of any kind. This claim also ignores the many weaknesses of the Big Bang that evolutionists themselves have pointed out.

    * That the animals coming off the Ark could not have possibly produced all the “species” alive today. But Dr. Ankerberg confuses the modern word “species” with the biblical word “kind.” He opines that it could not possibly happen. What happened to the God for whom “nothing is impossible”?

    * That the “seventh day” (when God rested from His creative work)—as bizarre as this sounds—has never ended. Dr. Ankerberg’s misinterpretation of the Sabbath rest is used to "prove" that because the seventh day is supposedly still going on, the other six days in creation must be long ages, too.

    * That the third day of creation—when God created vegetation—must be long ages of time in order for all the plant communities of the world to have grown to maturity. Yet Genesis states that the sun—which is needed for plant growth—was not created until Day 4. How does this claim by Ankerberg affect our understanding of photosynthesis? And why limit God’s ability to create fully-mature, seed-bearing plants in just one day?

    * That God did not do all He said He did on Day 6 of creation. In Dr. Ankerberg’s opinion, it was “highly unlikely” that God accomplished this in 24 hours. If not God, then who could ever have accomplished this or any other divine miracle described in the Bible?

Dr. Ankerberg’s insistence on page 10 of his letter that he remains faithful to the “literal” interpretation of Genesis has lost all its meaning by now because it is clear that this Christian celebrity has made his choice to disparage the plain reading of the Bible.

In the March issue of the Acts & Facts magazine, ICR will give an expanded response to this drift from sound doctrine; the evangelical church is losing its scriptural moorings. And Dr. Ankerberg is just one of a number of Christian personalities who have abandoned the plain sense of the Bible in light of the “latest scientific evidence.”

Can we “prove”—using empirical science alone—exactly how God created the heavens and the earth? Not a chance. We can only rejoice when God allows us to uncover evidence that demonstrates that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy—something that we must hold on to no matter what.

References

   1. The John Ankerberg Show constituent letter, January 2009.
   2. Because of the many inaccuracies in Dr. Ankerberg’s letter, ICR feels compelled to address these errors.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I think it's fine for Christians to pay attention to so-called science, but only under ONE CONDITION:  GOD'S WORD comes first and is absolutely UNQUESTIONED!

Some people like to talk about medical science and other so-called sciences when they try to discredit the Holy Bible or portions of the Holy Bible. This makes for a bad example, just like all of the other so-called sciences. How many of you would submit to the medical treatments they practiced 200 years ago? I hope that everyone gets the point easily - GOD'S WORD was perfect from the start - it remains PERFECT - and it will ENDURE FOREVER! GOD'S WORD can't be compared to anything man learns on his own because there is NO COMPARISON, NOT NOW AND NOT EVER!

A smart so-called scientist would be wise to look at GOD'S WORD first and know that it contains the ONLY TRUTH and the ONLY MEASUREMENT FOR ALL OTHER TRUTHS! Simply, anything that contradicts the HOLY BIBLE is FALSE. That's really the end of the story, and there is no debate. ALMIGHTY GOD is THE CREATOR, and HE DOESN'T DEBATE! GOD is the same yesterday, today, and forever - HIS WORD is FINAL! Another analogy could involve a really good doctor who asks his patients if he can pray with them before surgery. This same really good doctor might ask his patients with terminal illnesses if he can pray for them - knowing that GOD THE GREAT PHYSICIAN can do anything that HE pleases. GOD isn't limited to the medications on the shelf or the equipment in the hospital. GOD GRANTS prayer requests when it's within HIS WILL and PURPOSE.

Bluntly, believing man over GOD is a very foolish thing to do. So-called scientists contradicting GOD are absolute FOOLS!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 2:1-5 ASV  Why do the nations rage, And the peoples meditate a vain thing?  2  The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying,  3  Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us.  4  He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision.  5  Then will he speak unto them in his wrath, And vex them in his sore displeasure:


Psalms 37:12-17 ASV  The wicked plotteth against the just, And gnasheth upon him with his teeth.  13  The Lord will laugh at him; For he seeth that his day is coming.  14  The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, To cast down the poor and needy, To slay such as are upright in the way.  15  Their sword shall enter into their own heart, And their bows shall be broken.  16  Better is a little that the righteous hath Than the abundance of many wicked.  17  For the arms of the wicked shall be broken; But Jehovah upholdeth the righteous.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dinosaur blood extracted from bone
Scientists insist fossil is 80 million years old

Collagen, hemoglobin, elastin, laminin and cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells have been found in a dinosaur bone scientists still claim is 80 million years old, according to a report in Science magazine today.

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University first claimed to have isolated soft tissues and collagen from a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone several years ago.

But because the leg was broken during excavation, the evidence was damaged and could never be independently confirmed.

Schweitzer then examined a more pristine leg of a plant-eating hadrosaur excavated from sandstone and found even better samples of soft tissue, according to the report.

(Story continues below)

          

"Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix," said Lewis Cantley, chief of the division of signal transduction at Beth Israel Deaconess, and a co-author on the Science study. Basement membranes, which degrade and regenerate during development and wound repair, comprise a continuous extracellular matrix that links endothelial, epithelial, muscle, or neuronal cells and their adjacent stroma.

In situ mass spectrometery independently verified amino acids in dinosaur tissues, including the collagen signature amino acid, hydroxylated proline.

While scientists previously questioned the possibility that soft tissue could survive tens of millions of years of fossilization, few seem to be questioning their assumptions that dinosaurs actually went extinct 65 million years ago.

Young earth proponents see something entirely different in the findings. As one creationist noted: "There’s no way this blood could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying so because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead."

Yep Darwinism is DEAD.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Young earth proponents see something entirely different in the findings. As one creationist noted: "There’s no way this blood could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying so because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead."

Yep Darwinism is DEAD.

Yep, Darwinism is DEAD! It's so dead that it's a fake fossil.