Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 06, 2021, 10:17:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
283538 Posts in 27532 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  Bible Study (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  Biblical Creation vs. Evolution
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 85 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Biblical Creation vs. Evolution  (Read 254000 times)
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2005, 01:54:02 AM »

Yes Pastor Roger, I believe there were several devestating catastrophies which culminated to cause all the geological damage, such as canyons, deep ocean trenches, and the continental drift, which resulted in a massive flood which reached above the tallest mountain tops.
Offline Offline

Posts: 1

I'm a llama!

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2005, 06:37:35 PM »

There is no missing link or proof of evolution, it is a myth unfortunatly taught to our kids in school. If there is proof, show it to me.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 06:38:28 PM by Baddog » Logged
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2005, 09:41:23 PM »

There is no missing link or proof of evolution, it is a myth unfortunatly taught to our kids in school. If there is proof, show it to me.

Hello Baddog,

I see this is your first post, so WELCOME!!

I agree with you completely. Evolution is literally falling apart now, and it will be viewed for what it is, a complete fraud. Take a look at the "In The Beginning Thread" in this same area for some really interesting information on this topic.

I sincerely hope that you enjoy Christians Unite.

Love In Christ,

Proverbs 2:6 NASB  For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2005, 10:47:53 PM »

Intelligent Design Proponent Optimistic About Current Worldview Shift

by Jim Brown
August 23, 2005

(AgapePress) - The head of a biblical creationism museum sees a major worldview shift on the academic level from neo-Darwinism to intelligent design.

The debate over evolution vs. intelligent design is as hot as it has ever been, and one creation scientist believes now is the perfect time for Christians to enlighten the culture about their belief in God's creative work recorded in the Book of Genesis. Dr. Thomas Sharp, founder of both the Oklahoma-based Creation Truth Foundation and the Arkansas-based Museum of Earth History, cautions that all intelligent design theorists are not biblical.

"The biblical view is that we don't hesitate to identify who the intelligence is," he explains. "[But] the unfortunate problem with intelligent design across the board is that it's not all biblical."

Still, intelligent design provides an "incredible support base for the biblical view," he explains, "because obviously the wisdom and super-intelligence of the Almighty God was the logos, or the concept, behind the creation of life and everything in the universe."

Sharp contends that if Christians in America are able to "step up" and answer the questions about the hope that is within them, a spiritual awakening could occur in the United States.

"We have the possibility in the near future, if the church in America can prepare herself and will engage the culture with biblical reality, that we can have an awakening in this country," he asserts, "because we're seeing a transition in worldview at the academic level. There's a great shift taking place from Darwinism to intelligent design."

A young Earth creationist, Sharp is at odds with intelligent design theorists who believe the Earth is millions of years old. Despite that, he says intelligent design is a prediction from the biblical creation model that life, universe, and man are products of intelligent design.
Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.


Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

(My Note:  I realize this is not ideal, but we are seeing the theory of evolution fall apart before our very eyes. YES!!! - this is a great opportunity for every Christian to talk about the real truth. The teachers might not be able to tell the whole truth for some time, but we can.)

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2005, 07:08:54 PM »

Alternative Views to Evolution Gaining Public Support

by Jim Brown
September 6, 2005

(AgapePress) - The head of a creation apologetics ministry is reacting to a new public opinion poll regarding the origin of life.

A poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found about half the public says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42 percent say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham believes the survey question was probably not detailed enough because creationists like himself do believe that living things have changed over time.

Regardless, Ham says he is not surprised that such a large number of people believe in creationist views. "The creation movement has over the years put out a lot of information," Ham offers. "I think a lot more people are becoming aware of the arguments and the information in books and DVDs and through websites like Answers In Genesis and so on -- and I believe a lot more people are educated on this issue."

The poll also found that just 6 percent of parents with children in school say their child has mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of evolution comes up at school. "There's a lot more people out there who hold to creationist views than what the elite secular humanists have been really letting on," Ham points out.

In fact, the poll found that 64 percent of Americans say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools. And 38 percent favor replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. Ham contends that most people realize education involves looking at alternative views.

"If the evolutionists are so convinced that evolution is true, why would they even be worried about including creationist views?" the apologist wonders -- then answers his own question: "Because then they could be looked at carefully; and if they're obviously not true from their perspective, then science should show that -- which, of course, it doesn't."

Ham offers this observation. "I think what's really happened is, a lot of the elite secular humanists who really have an atheistic agenda have really taken over the education system," he says. "But the majority of people are quite willing to consider all views -- and that includes the secularists as well as the Christians."

Ham notes that many secularists approve the teaching of creationism in public school social science classes, but not in science class.
Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.


Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2005, 10:34:53 PM »

‘Instant’ stalagmites!

by Don Batten

The photo records a large stalagmite shawl. A shawl is a limestone formation which has formed by running down the rock, rather than being free-standing like stalactites (which ‘stick tight’ because they hang from the roof) or stalagmites (which grow up from the ground).

Guides to limestone caves usually say that such large lumps of limestone take many thousands—even millions—of years to grow. However, this specimen was found in an abandoned gold mine tunnel near Burrendong Dam in central New South Wales, Australia. This is not far from Stuart Town, the town of ‘The Man from Iron Bark’ in A.B. (‘Banjo’) Paterson’s poem by the same name.

The Australian gold rushes began not far from here at Ophir in 1851, so the tunnel dates after that. Since the tunnel cuts through solid basalt rock, it was probably blasted out with a considerable amount of explosives. Such engineering feats were not undertaken by the average gold rush fossicker and so this tunnel almost certainly dates from considerably later than 1851. In any case, the tunnel and the shawl can be no older than about 140 years.

The horizontal tunnel is about 1.6 metres (about 5 feet) high and runs 50 metres (160 feet) straight into a hill. There are no side-tunnels, so the exploratory tunnel apparently failed to reveal any worthwhile gold-bearing veins. The shawl in the photo is near the inside end of the tunnel—in the middle of the hill.

The lesson? Stalactites and stalagmites do not need a long time to form!


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2005, 06:26:04 PM »

Scientific proof that the birds from dinosaur theory is false.


Local Scientist Disputes Dinosaur-Bird Link

Sunday Times (Johannesburg)
November 20, 2005
Posted to the web November 21, 2005

By Brett Horner

A DURBAN scientist who buried a dolphin and exhumed it a year later to experiment with its carcass has used the exercise to challenge the theory that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Professor Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, a palaeontologist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and two other scientists -- Professor Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina and Dr J Richard Hinchliffe from the University of Wales -- dismissed the long-held theories of a direct evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs in a paper published in the US Journal of Morphology last month.

Lingham-Soliar examined the fossils of two dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus, that were discovered in China in 1996 and 2001.

The chicken-sized specimens, which appeared to contain traces of "feathers", were immediately latched onto by scientists as the ultimate proof that birds came from dinosaurs.

But this week Lingham-Soliar labelled the original studies of the Chinese fossils as "shabby" and "distorted".

He said the skin decomposition of the dolphin he had buried and later exhumed was strikingly similar to the "feather" patterns of the fossils and other reptiles he studied.

"The object was to see what happened to collagen upon decomposition. I didn't know what to expect," he said.

His conclusions that the "feathers" identified on the Chinese fossils were instead meshworks of collagen, have deeply divided the palaeontological community.

Avian palaeontology has split into two factions: the Birds Are Dinosaurs (BAD) camp and the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs (BAND) brigade.

Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar's co-author, said their research had created a "buzz" among biologists in the US, particularly due to the contribution made by Lingham-Soliar.

Dr Mark Norell, curator of palaeontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, is one of the biggest critics of BAND and has dismissed Lingham-Soliar's work on collagen fibres in his most recent book on the Chinese fossils.


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: December 24, 2005, 11:50:01 AM »

Three Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution

Worldview with Sean McDowell


          High school biology textbooks are riddled with errors, misstatements, and exaggerations about evolution.  This may come as a surprise to you, especially since evolution is taught a fact in most public schools.  But, believe it or not, there is much more to the issue of evolution than is included in the pages of most high school biology textbooks.  In fact, when all the facts are considered, and despite all appearances to the contrary, evolution is a theory in crisis.  Let me explain.

            As a high school student in the late 1950’s Jonathan Wells was steeped in the theory of evolution.  Even though he had grown up in a Christian home Jonathan abandoned his faith when he went off to college.  He credits the theory of evolution as playing a major role in his decision to become an atheist.  According to Jonathan, “The evolutionary story simply replaced the religious imagery I had grown up with.”[1]   Jonathan continued his education by earning two college degrees and two doctorate degrees, but all the while he continued to assume evolution was true.  After all, that’s what everybody was teaching him.  But when he began to look at evolution critically, he came to an entirely different conclusion.

            In 2000 Jonathan Wells recorded his findings on evolution in a book called Icons of Evolution[2].  In Icons, Wells demolishes the most common examples used as support for the theory of evolution.  When I picked up a copy of his book, it was his subtitle that most piqued my interest: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong.  In his book, Wells lists 10 examples of why evolution is wrong.  Let’s briefly consider three of his examples.  There is a good chance you will find one of the following examples in your current biology textbook.


            In 1953 Stanley Miller used a laboratory apparatus to artificially produce amino acids—the building blocks of life.  In his experiment Miller simulated the early conditions of life on earth, shot an electric current through it, and “bam” out came amino acids.  If this was true, then God was out of a job. For if man can create life from non-life, then why would we need God?  Although his experiment was heralded as a significant breakthrough (and still appears in most biology textbooks today), it has major flaws.

First, there is no existence that the pre-biotic soup (warm little ponds) ever even existed!  Second, geological evidence indicates that the early atmosphere would have been very hostile, not friendly, to the production of life.  Even if an amino acid was produced it could not have survived.  Third, the amino acids produced by Miller were not even the types of amino acids that have any relevance to living cells. Even Miller, forty years after his famous experiment conceded in Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.”[3] When the rubber hits the road, evolutionists simply have no idea how life could have emerged from non-life.


            Probably the most well known example used to teach evolution is Darwin’s tree of life.  Textbooks are full of the illustration of how all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.  The simple tree-like structure is meant to illustrate how creatures “evolve” over time and eventually account for all the complexity and diversity in the circle of life.  But does the evidence of geology support such a claim?

Interestingly, even Darwin was aware of how his own theory was at odds with the facts.  He observed in The Origin of Species, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”[4]  Since the time of Darwin, the evidence has been even more disparaging for his theory.

According to Darwin’s theory, the geological record should be full of species that are slowly increasing in complexity over time.  Since evolution relies on time, chance, and incremental steps, sudden leaps are not possible.  But this is exactly what the fossil record shows, which directly contradicts the theory of evolution! (Note: I assume old-earth dating for the sake of argument—even if we accept an old earth evolution is still false!)

In the Cambrian Explosion (which is dated by scientists to 530 million years ago), all the major body plans for animals show up in a geological instant without any trace of less complex ancestors.  Rather than emerging in a step-by-step fashion, as predicted by evolutionary theory, the most complex animals show up virtually overnight (which is why the Cambrian Explosion is also called “The Biological Big Bang”).  The Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years.  Compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period of the explosion is less than one minute in a 24-hour-day.  In comparison, this is less than one stride across an entire football field.  Rather than life evolving over a long period of life on earth as Darwin surmised, it actually appeared in a very short time span.  Darwins’ tree of life is a myth.

FROM APE TO HUMAN                    

            Probably the most common example used to support evolution is the idea that humans evolved from apes.  The pictures of a knuckle-walking ape evolving through a series of stages into an upright human being are included in virtually all biology textbooks.  And the fossils fill the halls of museums.  Yet the evidence, as in the case of the other supposed evidences for evolution, is not as straightforward as it appears.

            The first problem with the fossil record is that interpretations are greatly influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices.  Scientists often begin with the conviction that human evolution is true and then fit the existing fossils into their preconceived ideas.  This is illustrated in the famous example of the “Piltdown Man.”  In 1912 paleontologist Charles Dawson found some pieces of a human skull and part of an ape-like lower jaw with no teeth in a gravel pit in England.  Since scientists had supposed that an earlier ancestor would have a large brain and an ape-like jaw, it was assumed to be the “missing link.”  Since “Piltdown Man” fit the description so accurately, no one checked to see if the skull and jaw fragments even belonged to the same individual.  Later findings demonstrated that the skull was human and the jaw fragments belonged to an orangutan.  In fact, the jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and the teeth had been deliberately filed down.

            The second problem is that the fossil record is open to many interpretations as individual specimens can be reconstructed in many different ways.  For example, when National Geographic hired four artists to reconstruct a female character from seven fossil bones found in Africa, they came up with radically different interpretations.  The reconstructions varied from a modern African woman to apelike creatures with varied foreheads, jaws and faces.  Even though the artists had the exact same fossils they interpreted them in completely different ways.


            The case for evolution is greatly overstated.  Nevertheless, most biology textbooks have errors, misstatements, and biased data about evolution.  In sum, here are three questions to ask your biology teacher or anyone else who may believe in the theory of evolution:[5]

1.      Origin of Life: Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

2.      Darwin’s Tree of Life Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

3.      Human Origins. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: December 24, 2005, 12:36:26 PM »


Great Post!!

I give thanks that the TRUTH about the garbage theory of evolution can be and is given here.

Biblical Creation, the ONLY TRUTH, is banned in public schools, and the promotion of the garbage theory of evolution is banned here. I also give thanks there are many places where the TRUTH is the ONLY thing permitted and the Darwin garbage is where it belongs - IN THE TRASH!

A host of scientific conclusions are being made by the day now that the theory of evolution is completely false and garbage. The theory of evolution really boils down to one simple thing:  it was garbage used to discount and discredit the ONLY TRUTH given by the Holy Bible.

The CREATOR is ALMIGHTY GOD, and the perfect and undisputed TRUTH of CREATION is in Genesis of the HOLY BIBLE! That's really the end of the story.

Love In Christ,

Psalms 124:8 NASB  Our help is in the name of the LORD, Who made heaven and earth.

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2005, 10:14:01 AM »

rchaeoraptor hoax update—National Geographic recants!

Update to the article: Archaeoraptor—Phony ‘feathered’ fossil

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

    ‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ 1

National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:

    ‘Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.’ 2

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ 3

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’

The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:

    ‘The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery.’

Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx, have been used as ‘proof’ of evolution and thus ‘disproof’ of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We must remember that God’s Word never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the fanciful, ever-changing findings of men.

   1. Xu Xing, Response to ‘Feathers for T. rex?’ National Geographic 197(3), March 2000, Forum Section (pages unnumbered).
   2. Response to Xu Xing, National Geographic 197(3), March 2000, Forum Section (pages unnumbered).
   3. Jeff Hecht, ‘F is for fake’, New Scientist 165(2226):12, Feb. 19, 2000.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 10:14:54 AM by Pastor Roger » Logged

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2005, 10:35:45 AM »

The Grand Canyon in N. Arizona, USA is an awesome spectacle, a classic example of erosion unequaled anywhere on earth.

Carved through sedimentary layers of limestone, sandstone and shale, and into the bedrock of schist and granite, this great chasm stretches 277 miles through the Colorado Plateau. It descends over a mile into the earth and extends as much as 18 miles in width.

The Grand Canyon is also a place to find and explore the wonders of God’s creation. When viewed from a biblical perspective, the Canyon has “God” written all over it, from the splendor and grandeur of the entire area, to the diverse and unique design of the plants and animals that inhabit this “magical” place. They all display the magnificence of the hand of our Creator.

Not only is the Canyon a testimony to the Creator, but it also presents evidence of God’s judgment of the world. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by sin. The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects and scale of a catastrophic global flood, the biblical Flood of Noah’s day.

Visitors to the Grand Canyon generally find it to be awe-inspiring, but at the same time, too strange and overwhelming to be fully understood on its own—for the Canyon can’t tell us about itself.

As humans, we tend to ask two questions as we view this vast, grand, mysterious hole in the ground: how and why?

We do have the one and only true history book, the Bible, that can help answer these questions. Even though Scripture does not mention the Grand Canyon, we can do some theorizing based on the evidence that we see and examine in light of the Bible.
The “how”

As we consider the “how,” we find that virtually all geologists agree that the Grand Canyon was carved by water. The question is how quickly and when. If we examine the prevailing interpretive literature about the Canyon, we find that the views presented are predominantly based on evolutionary theories. For the Canyon, this means that the rock layers were laid down over literally hundreds of millions of years, and that the Canyon was later carved slowly by the Colorado River. These theories tend to deny God’s involvement.

But, if we look at the Canyon through the eyes of a biblical, or scriptural, geologist (those who believe in the Bible’s timeline of a young earth), we will see a very different Canyon. These geologists see a young canyon carved with a massive amount of water, likely in a matter of just days, shortly after the global flood of Noah’s day about 4,300 years ago.

So is there evidence to support a biblical model? Yes. Let’s briefly examine a couple of the areas which do just that.

According to the biblical model, the vast majority of the sedimentary layers we see in the Grand Canyon (and in the rest of the world for that matter) were deposited as the result of a global flood that occurred after, and ultimately as a result of, the initial sin that took place in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.

Let’s look at the folding that is found in the sedimentary rock layers of the Canyon.  The picture to the left is a fold in the Tapeats Sandstone in Carbon Creek, one of the side canyons within Grand Canyon. You can plainly see here that the rock was bent, or as the geologist would say, “folded,” while still soft or pliable. Notice that this folding has taken place without cracking the rock. Folds like this indicate that the folding had to happen soon after deposition, and that the deposition and the upheaval responsible for the folding were in fact one event.

Another area that supports the biblical model is the contact lines between the layers themselves. When evolutionists look at this contact point between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale, as seen to the right, they see 10 million years of “missing” time and material.

But the creationists, using the biblical model, don’t see “missing” material at all. They see classic flood geology, only on a scale so large that it boggles the mind of the evolutionist.

Note the knife-edge line of the contact point; this contact is the same throughout the length of the Canyon. If this represents 10 million years of missing material, why don’t we see any sign of either physical or chemical erosion between the layers?

So does this “prove” the Grand Canyon is the result of a global Flood or how it was formed? No. It does show, however, that there is a legitimate, scientific alternative to the evolutionary dogma that has permeated our society.
The “why”

As to the “why” of the Grand Canyon, that is somewhat more speculative. The Canyon is often called “Exhibit A” in support of a young earth, and with the wonderful design of its animals and plants, it also confirms the Master Designer, the Creator God of the Bible. The Bible says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). What we see in the Canyon only supports and upholds what we read in the Word of God. And only from down in the Canyon can so much of it be seen.

So is the Grand Canyon there to provide the skeptics with evidence that may be “clearly seen” if only they were willing to see? The heart of the issue is clearly addressed in Colossians 2:8 which reads, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” It is the elementary principles of the world (or those of man) that have developed the evolutionary theories that reject the Word of God and God Himself.

As you view the Grand Canyon, remember that it is the result of God’s judgment of the world, not just His creative design. As with everything around us, a simplistic “God made this” is really inadequate, as what we see today is not the world He originally made, since it has all been corrupted by the global judgment of sin—Noah’s Flood.

Could God have started a process (evolutionary uniformitarianism) that would have carved the Canyon over millions of years? Perhaps some would say yes, but the issue isn’t what God “could have done.” He could have done it any of a million ways. The issue is what God said He did in His Word.

You can trust God’s Word, right from the very first verse, and the Grand Canyon is one of His most magnificent examples of that.


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2005, 03:07:04 PM »


Everything in God's majestic creation speaks of and is a testimony to the MASTER, THE CREATOR, ALMIGHTY GOD! Everything we see is simply the handiwork of the MASTER. Men can't make anything at all unless they use materials or ingredients that the MASTER has already CREATED and provided.

I was just thinking about the wonders of nature. Specifically, I was thinking about medicine and many other good things that are still being discovered in nature. I'm thinking that I know many other secrets are still locked away in the secrets of nature. ALMIGHTY GOD put them there for the benefit of man, and it's just something else to give thanks for. We serve an AWESOME GOD, and HE is the CREATOR of all.

Love In Christ,

Colossians 1:9-12 NASB  For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2005, 10:02:33 PM »

The following paragraphs are excerpts from various different web pages on some recent finds that support the Biblical account of creation and Noahs flood.

FABULOUS NEW FOSSIL TREE FOUND, WITH LEAVES still attached as John Mackay excavates giant polystrate tassel fern in Cumberland Plateau rocks Tennessee USA. Nothing could be a better example of rapid fossilization.

 We have the biggest  research file in the world on vertical fossil trees (polystrate). These have made a remarkable impact, in universities around the world where we use them to show that millions of years of evolution is not in the rocks. The tree which we exposed on our 2002 Blue Mountains coal field trip is just one more nail in the coffin of those who insist the evidence points to evolution and millions of years, therefore the Bible must be reinterpreted or thrown out.

Helps in a project to compare flood deposited plant fossils in Pennsylvanian rocks with our discoveries in Tennessee. Rod is a graduate of Masters College and is now associate pastor at a church in Pennsylvania. So far results show the fossil plants in Pennysylvania and those in Tennessee have been laid by flood currents going in the same direction, SW - NE. This is not something that would result from the plants falling into swamps over millions of years.

 Geologist Bob Powell, USA, (February 2003) reports new finds of FOSSIL LAND PLANTS in "Marine" Limestone west of Nashville. The plants were found in the St Louis formation (Mississippian) which is lower down the geologic column than the plants which we discovered in the Hartselle Shales and the Bangor limestone (Pennsylvanian) , near the Cumberland Plateau. No land plants are registered in the TN geological archives from either "marine" location.  

The St. Louise discovery was made by Bob's youngest daughter, Marilyn, and a friend as they were out biking. The new plants (right) are long strap-like structures up to1.5cm (¾ inch) wide and have been found in crystalline limestone which seems devoid of any other fossils.

 On a Field trip in Kentucky, Vance Nelson unearthed a spectacular fossil specimen (photo below) in Devonian Chatanooga Shale. On one side was a plant fossil that today grows in the mountains of Tennessee and Kentucky. This plant belongs to the same family as those we have previously discovered in the ST. Louise limestone, the Hartselle shales and the Bangor limestone. In the same Kentucky layer, Vance found fossil shells that John Mackay readily identified as belonging to the Lingula group. They are found living today in mud off the  Australian coast.

Field trippers were asked: “How would you mix highland plants with Australian sea shells and bury them in the same rock?” The field trippers quickly answered, “The water on the land which had to be higher than the plants, ripped them up, then took them to wherever the sea shells were.” All agreed that calling this a flood deposit seemed the only logical thing to do. Since these plant and shells are still present in the world, the fossils also were no help to the theory of evolution.

From the St Louis Limestone (USA), which is officially listed as Lower Mississippian, (around 300 million evolutionary years old). It is regarded as being produced by an ancient sea. One exposure north west of Nashville has now yielded a wealth of land plant fossils mixed with sea shells to Creation Researchers, Bob Powell, Marilyn Powell and John Mackay. The photos below and beside show giant plants (Tassel fern variety), side by side with Brachiopod shells. Present day Tassel ferns are miniature by comparison and the Brachiopod family has today been reduced to a mere handful of species.

 OUR KIWI CREATION RESEARCH GEOLOGIST, Mark Simpson continues to keep his eyes open for great evidence of creation and rapid deposition. He is pictured here after discovering a sedimentary sandstone dyke south of Auckland in the old coal field near Huntly. The sandstone under the coal has pushed its way through the overlaying coal seam and layers. This meant the sandstone under the coal was still soft and fluid while the coal formed on top. It pushed up through the coal without breaking it, so the coal was also still soft and fluid. It then proceeded through the rock layers many metres above the coal seam. All of which tells us the sediments and the coal were not laid down slowly one after the other over millions of years.


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2006, 11:33:14 PM »

I am far from being as educated in this subject as Brother John is even though I have been studying it for about the past five years. I do know though that the Bible is Gods word and that God does not lie. I also know that there are many excellant scientists that have studied hard on this subject and given accounts that support the Biblical account of Creation. Some of these scientists have even come to know the Lord because of their discoveries.

There are many magazines or journals that are put out that support Evolution. I am sure that most of you have heard of National Geographic and the recent bumbles it has made. There are also a few magazines that actually report such news in the Creationists viewpoint. Two of these that I have found are known as "Creation" and "TJ: The in-depth journal of Creation". Both of these magazines put out articles from a scientific point of view, with scientific proof that supports the Biblical account of Creation.

Since these people are much more of an expert than I am I will be posting articles written by these scientists and scientfic reporters on Creation and how good science actually supports the Bible. It is my hope and prayers that Brother John will recover from is illness and be able to rejoin me here with his expertise on this subject. Until then I will struggle on with the Lords guidance.


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 60067

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2006, 11:44:21 PM »

To start with I would like to point out that some people claim that the only true scientists of today support evolution. These people are totally wrong. The following list are individuals that possess a doctorate in a science-related field that do support the account of Creation and have done a lot of research to support these beliefs.

    * Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    * Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    * Dr James Allan, Geneticist
    * Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
    * Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    * Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    * Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    * Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
    * Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in
          supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    * Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    * Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    * Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    * Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
    * Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    * Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    * Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    * Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    * Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
    * Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    * Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    * Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    * Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    * Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    * Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    * Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    * Dr Bob Compton, DVM
    * Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
    * Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    * Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    * Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    * Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    * Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    * Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    * Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    * Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    * Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    * Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    * Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    * Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    * Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    * Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
    * Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    * Dr Andr� Eggen, Geneticist
    * Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    * Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    * Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    * Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    * Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
    * Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    * Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
    * Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    * Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    * Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
    * Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
    * Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    * Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
    * Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    * Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
    * Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
    * Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    * Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    * Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    * Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    * Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    * Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    * Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    * Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    * Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    * Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    * Dr George F. Howe, Botany
    * Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    * Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
    * Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    * Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    * George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    * Dr Pierre Jerlstr�m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
    * Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
    * Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    * Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    * Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    * Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    * Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    * Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    * Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    * Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    * Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    * Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    * Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    * Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
    * Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    * Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    * Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    * Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    * Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
    * Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
    * Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    * Dr Alan Love, Chemist
    * Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
    * Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    * Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    * Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    * Dr John McEwan, Chemist
    * Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    * Dr David Menton, Anatomist
    * Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    * Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
    * Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    * Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
    * Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    * Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
    * Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
    * Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
    * Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    * Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    * Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    * Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    * Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
    * Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    * Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    * Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    * Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    * Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    * Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    * Prof. Richard Porter
    * Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    * Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
    * Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
    * Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    * Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    * Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
    * Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    * Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
    * Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
    * Dr Ian Scott, Educator
    * Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    * Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    * Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    * Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    * Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
    * Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
    * Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    * Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    * Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    * Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    * Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    * Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    * Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    * Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
    * Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    * Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    * Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    * Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    * Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    * Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    * Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    * Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    * Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    * Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
    * Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    * Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
    * Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    * Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    * Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    * Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
    * Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
    * Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
    * Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    * Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
    * Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    * Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
    * Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    * Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    * Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    * Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    * Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

I am sure that there may be even more than I have listed here.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2006, 06:08:32 AM by Pastor Roger » Logged

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 85 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media