Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

In addition to those currently, there are many scientists of the past that have done a lot of research into and support the Biblical account of Creation.

Early

    * Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
      Culture Wars:
         1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
         2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
    * Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and
           The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
    * Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
    * Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
    * John Wilkins (1614–1672)
    * Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
    * Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662)
           Hydrostatics; Barometer
    * Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
    * Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
    * John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
    * Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
    * Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
    * Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
    * Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
    * Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

    * Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
    * Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
    * John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
    * William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
    * Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
    * John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
    * John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
    * William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
    * John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
    * Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
    * Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
    * Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
    * Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
    * William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an
           old-earth)
    * James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
    * John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
    * John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

    * The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
    * Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
    * William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
    * Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
    * Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
    * John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
    * Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth
            compromiser*)
    * Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
    * Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
    * John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
    * Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
    * Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
    * Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
    * David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an
           old-earth)
    * William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
    * William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
    * Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
    * Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
    * John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    * William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

    * Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an
           old-earth*)
    * Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
    * Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
    * James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
    * Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
    * Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
    * James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
    * James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    * Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
    * James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
    * Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
    * Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
    * George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
    * John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
    * Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
    * Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
    * Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
    * Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
    * William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic
         cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the
         evolutionists wanted*)
    * William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
    * Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
    * Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
    * Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
    * James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
    * P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
    * John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
    * John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
    * Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
    * Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
    * A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
    * John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

    * Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
    * George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
    * L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
    * Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
    * Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
    * Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
    * Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
    * Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
    * Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
    * William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
    * William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
    * Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
    * Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
    * Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    * Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
    * Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    * Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

Note: The scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because they should know better.

[Soldier4Christ]

Christian Persecution in America

Although Christians in America are not persecuted to the extent that they are many other countries such as India and China there are definite persecutions and prejudices against Christians in America. Especially in the public schools, colleges and universities. This persecution runs over into the business world also making it difficult for the Christian in many work places.

Seeing as this thread is about Creation vs Evolution I am concentrating on the persecution of Scientists and those that want to get into this field. This is a very long article. I was going to link to it but cannot do that due to the site promoting the sale of books and magazines. So Instead I am just posting excerpts from this article that I deem most important to fully understand the situation.



There was an article written in the "Technical Journal" or "TJ" as it is commonly referred to about this subject. The author had interviewed over 100 people who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

It is now well documented that discrimination against creationists is serious and widespread. In the words of Hull:

    ‘Most scientists are only dimly aware of the various “anti-science” systems of belief now widespread [including] … politically dangerous movements such as creationism … . We protect ourselves by never letting these mutually exclusive beliefs surface at the same time. For example, the constellation of religious fundamentalism and creationism is often combined with a high regard for high tech. Many creationists’ tracts are tapped out on extremely expensive personal computers. Creationists are able to accept and reject the physics that makes these machines possible as the occasion demands. There is no God, and Mary is His mother.

Braun summarised the problem as follows:

    ‘… hardy believers in creation … have been heaped with scorn and ridicule. Evolutionists dominated the field so securely that creationists were fired, denied tenure and denied advanced degrees with impunity in public schools and universities.

A 1979 Civil Rights Commission report concluded that, although religious discrimination is serious and widespread, little is presently being done to ameliorate this problem. Aside from this report, most civil rights and governmental agencies have done little or nothing to remedy what has developed into a nationwide problem. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has not until recently even published guidelines for dealing with religious discrimination. The current guidelines deal primarily with reasonable accommodation. This agency, set up to deal with concerns of racial, religious, and other minorities, has done little to help creationists facing discrimination, even declining to hold public hearings on the problem. Creationists and conservative Christian educators are now a persecuted minority, often with little recourse but to endure the discrimination. Admittedly, though, some of their problems stem from conflicts over specific issues, such as concerns over their proselytizing or the teaching of creationism in the public school classroom.

In addition, little if any effort has been expended by most other American institutions to enforce the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlaws discrimination based on religion (page 29, Section 703). It is a law which currently exists largely on paper only. As Roberts concludes:

    ‘America has a new bigotry. Traces of it have been around for a long time, glimpsed only fleetingly and in widely-scattered places. But in 1983, it assumed nationwide proportions. This is bigotry against evangelicals. Two things are particularly frightening about this bigotry. Few recognized it, and nobody … [has so far done] anything about it. It is difficult to say which is more disturbing. Any religious group that defies public opinion and practices nonconformity runs the risk of ridicule and rejection. This can quickly turn to persecution in time of crisis, particularly if such persecution is advantageous of those in power.’

Novak, in a study of this problem, called ‘antievangelical bigotry’ the least understood and ‘most painful’ hate in America today. He concluded that the 1980s

    ‘revealed more bigotry against evangelicals, without anybody leaping to denounce it, than against any other group … . The attacks have been public, without introducing evidence, often by association.’

Scientific creationists are facing the most serious attack, especially in academia. Haney reports that:

    ‘It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].’

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Extensive legal research by the author has revealed that, as of yet, not a single court case of employment discrimination has been decided in favour of a creationist. Nor has the writer been able to find even a single case of non-�reasonable accommodation� religious discrimination in employment successfully litigated by a religious believer in an American court. Surveys indicate that thousands of cases of employment termination occur each year in which the plaintiff feels clear evidence of religious discrimination exists. As Bergman found, the judicial system has also done virtually nothing to remedy this problem:

    �The only conclusion that can be reached � is that the American courts are not serious about enforcing the rights of religious minorities. Although many of the better cases are likely settled out of court, nonetheless the situation is such that employers are generally aware that they can exercise even blatant religious discrimination with little or no fear or reprisal. This conclusion was supported by a recent report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.�

The extent of the discrimination

The writer, as part of an ongoing research project, has interviewed over 100 active self-labelled creationists who are, or were, employed in academia. He specifically asked if they had faced religious discrimination and, if so, to delineate their experience. Almost all believed that their creationist beliefs caused at least some career problems. These ranged from open derision to outright firings, and even attempts to rescind earned degrees. Some cases were tragic in their extent, blatancy and consequences. The discrimination experiences discovered were grouped in the following general categories:

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments

Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers� mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz noted that evolutionists often assume that

    �anyone holding the creationist viewpoint must be illogical, backward, subversive, uneducated, and stubborn.�

Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature. A typical example is Isaac Asimov�s statement that all

    �creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.� And that all of their �points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.�

(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs

It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate�s creationist worldview.
(3) Refusal to award degree

Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.
(4) Denial of promotion

Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.

(5) Denial of tenure

Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception. This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.

In many cases of religious discrimination, the university was open and blatant about such, either claiming immunity or citing various laws or precedents which they felt either rendered them unaccountable, or the law ineffective in rectifying their illegal behaviour. In one case the university did:

    �not deny either religious discrimination or [lack of] university specified due process. Its entire case rests on immunity (as a State institution, immune from lawsuits unless plaintiff is given permission by the State to sue itself).�

In this case, the university claimed that:

    �as a whole, whatever wrongdoing occurred, it is not liable to damages�.

Discrimination against students

In discussing whether creationist students should be discriminated against, one well-known science educator approvingly quotes those who conclude that a professor should have the right

    �to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates�,

and even advocates,

    �retracting grades and possibly even degrees, if [a person espouses creationism] � after passing the course or after graduating.�

He also stresses that it is the university�s responsibility to terminate creationists and rescind their degrees, advocating that even students with excellent grades who produce highly regarded work should be denied their degree and expelled from the university if it is discovered that they are a creationist! He argues that grades do not necessarily measure competency, and a student can memorise material and be able to discern the �correct� answers on tests yet still hold views which in Frazier�s mind at least are incorrect. They thus should be failed or denied a rightfully earned degree, or if previously awarded, it should be retracted. Zuidema reports that some professors have proposed that

    �� grades or degrees of university students who hold special creation concepts after having taken science courses [should be retracted]. In other words, flunk them�retroactively, if necessary!�

This proposal, Wirth responded,

    �� is nothing less than gross religious discrimination. A student�s command of a subject in science can be disassociated from his religious beliefs. In other words, someone with religious beliefs can function as a scientist.�

Further, many educators have stated in print that they feel that it is irresponsible for a university to grant a creationist a Ph.D. degree. Flacks, openly concludes that:

    �It is a pathetic commentary on our universities that grant doctorate degrees � without fully determining a candidate�s true understanding of universal knowledge and logic � The alleged concept of �scientific� creationism is not only an illogical contradiction in terminology but an absurd fiction.�

Thus, he concludes, creationists should not be awarded advanced degrees. The reason for this discrimination, many of its proponents claim, is not concern over religion, but competency. An anonymous reviewer of an earlier draft of this paper (which was rejected by the journal on the grounds that creationists should be discriminated against) said:

    �� the opposition [to creationists] rests instead on a conviction that �creationism� � precludes neutrality/objectivity, adequate methodology, and the integral nature of science (physics, astronomy, geology, biology). There is a perceived way to best do science and see one discipline in the context of others � Must a department accept someone whose �creationist� case seems erroneous methodologically and factually simply because one pleads �religious or academic� freedom? � Departments evaluate people not only on knowledge and expertise but on their research and on its likely fruitfulness. They see creationists of the �young earth� or �anti-evolution� sort as incapable of sustaining a research program on these bases. Religious freedom is not a ground for academic incompetence in research (and creationist research has, I think, very little to show for its labors). Freedom carries responsibility to one�s colleagues, profession, and research.�

cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

G. Merle Bergman is more specific about the problem of firing creationists:

    ‘I am aghast at the suggestion that … [a creationist was fired] because of his religious views, as expressed in his writings on the subject. Obviously nothing could be further from American tradition and constitutional principles than that a man be denied opportunity on the basis of his religious thought. On the other hand, I have to ask myself how practical it is for a creationist to impress scientifically minded men and women with his objective—which is certainly a prime virtue for any teacher. I could not myself consider that a teacher had much of a grasp on reality if he or she believed that the creationist view of the universe was a realistic one. There is no point in reviewing the reasoning on both sides … . Suffice it to say … that from the point of view of science, evolution is proven many times over, whereas creationism is … a leftover from very primitive folklore.’

Whether or not the creationist worldview and belief structure is correct is irrelevant in this discussion. Our primary concern here is freedom of religion and belief, and the right to work and pursue one’s education regardless of one’s religious views, as the law and the American Constitution guarantee. And this includes the right to do research and go where the results of one’s research leads. Powerful persons in the academic community concluded that Galileo was incorrect and thus incompetent. And for this reason, to the embarrassment of scientists today, some endeavored to ruin his scientific career.

When we permit fallible value judgments as to the correctness of a person’s view on controversial topics (as surely is the case with creationism) to terminate a person’s career, the door to discrimination is opened against any person who disagrees with the beliefs of the administrative or power structure. Yet, G. Merle Bergman concludes:

    ‘I think … faculty [firing a creationist is] a reflection of their view that [these people are] too far removed from reality to be able to direct young people along objective paths. The issue is whether this view is a reflection of religious prejudice. They are not judging the man’s right to hold and to express religious views different from their own, but his ability to define reality. That that ability is colored by his religious outlook merely muddies the waters.

He thus actually concludes that creationists are not able to ‘define reality’ or, in psychiatric terms, are insane! This is the same ploy used in the old Soviet Union to confine those who objected to communism in psychiatric hospitals. Although Zuidema stresses it is not religion, but competency, that is of concern, the veracity of the Scriptures has historically been of central concern to most Christians. As the above anonymous reviewer concluded:

    ‘The crux of the matter, obviously, is the question of competency to teach science [and] evolution concepts, being essential to an understanding of the life sciences, might arise. One critic … has even questioned whether faculty … who accept Scripture literally are qualified for faculty or administrative positions. Isn’t the integrity of scholars at the heart of this [controversy]?’

The above line of reasoning has horrendous implications. As McGuigan said of one discrimination case a creationist was then fighting in the courts:

    ‘Conservatives, supporters of academic freedom, and friends of liberty in general will be watching this case carefully, more than a little nervous about their own futures if such a miscarriage of justice is not overturned.’

Persons who advocate currently unpopular views in science and other academic disciplines (such as the non-Marxist economic view by sociology, government, and history faculty) have always faced serious problems. In general though, conservative Christians are now facing the most serious problems. Thus Wildman stated:

    ‘… the persecution of practicing Christians has already begun, albeit not in a physical manner … [there are already many] cases in which educators who subscribe to the creation theory have suffered because of that intellectual belief. These cases have not been heavily reported in the national secular media, although … had the individuals been dismissed from a Christian school for teaching evolution they would have made major headlines … . The irony of [these] … cases … is the silencing of academic freedom by those who supposedly support [it] … and the condoning of … the persecution of those who dare to believe in creationism because of intellectual honesty. We do, however, indeed find it odd that the creation theory cannot be taught in schools because it is “religion”, but the evolution theory is openly taught—sometimes not as theory but as fact—despite the fact that it is a basic tenet of the humanist religion. (See Humanist Manifesto I) “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” ’

The justification for religious persecution has always been the presumption that those persecuted deserve it because their view of reality is incorrect or erroneous, often called heresy. If one is able to justify discrimination on the grounds that the victims are not ‘accurately able to assess reality’, or because their view is based on metaphysical presuppositions as opposed to an examination of empirical data, one could use this reasoning to discriminate against any and all religious beliefs. All sacred positions are to some degree based upon a view of reality which is less than fully empirically supportable. Faith, the bridge between empirical reality and belief, is an especially important aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim worldview. For one to categorically state that someone’s view of reality is wrong, and thus this justifies denial of employment and consequently denial of life’s basic necessities, is an horrendous conclusion. Normally the state steps in only if beliefs are translated into illegal criminal actions such as assault.

Mormons believe that all humans have always existed and in the after-life will become gods, that Adam and Eve were literally created in Independence, Missouri, and that, in spite of what many scholars have concluded are its many inaccuracies and errors, The Book of Mormon is inspired by God. They also would have a poor grasp of reality, according to those quoted above. Thus, should not all Mormon teachers also be terminated?

Likewise, Catholics obviously do not have much of a grasp on reality in that they believe, in contradiction to all chemical analysis, that the Eucharist literally changes the bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ. Thus, all Catholic teachers likewise should be terminated. The explanation that transubstantiation causes ‘substantial change’, which scientists today cannot study, or ‘accidental change’ in Aristotelian terminology, one could easily conclude is a rationalisation to cover an irrational conclusion.

Some also may feel that Jews, believing that they are God’s chosen people, and that it is morally wrong to eat pork (a perfectly nutritious food if cooked properly) and that someday a ‘messiah’ will come to earth from heaven, obviously do not have a very accurate grasp of reality. Thus, should they also be terminated from their teaching positions, denied degrees, etc.? One could argue in the same way about all religious faiths, including atheism which Melton defines as a religion in the American liberal tradition.

In the old Soviet Union, this exact reasoning was utilised to justify discrimination against all theistic positions. The signing of a statement swearing that one is an atheist was once required to teach in a Soviet university. It was obvious to them that anyone who held a religious viewpoint, even a ‘liberal’ one, does not have an accurate grasp of reality and thus should ‘not be in a position to influence young people along objective paths’ and therefore should not be allowed to be teachers regardless of their academic record. All religious views, they concluded, are myths impeding an objective grasp of reality. One must obviously first ask, ‘Who is qualified to be the judge of such things as the worldviews of others?’ Bergman tries to answer this as follows:

    ‘Even if one holds controversial views which are directly related to one’s teaching or occupational assignment, it is generally conceded that, if one can accurately articulate the opposing position (such as a young earth creationist who can accurately explain and present the data, reasoning, etc., used to support the old earth position), then one cannot charge incompetence, and discrimination should not take place.’

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

One’s private religious views, whether right or wrong, are usually irrelevant in the work place. A person can be a highly competent mathematician, and yet hold views on astrology or parapsychology not commensurate with the contemporary scientific consensus. Some professors of the author’s acquaintance follow astrology, or give credence to other ideas that many authorities conclude have been clearly refuted. If all of these likewise are terminated, who is going to be left? Our foremost concern should be religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Where genuine differences of opinion exist, concerns relative to one’s teaching qualifications may be discussed, but teachers should be evaluated primarily upon their knowledge and expertise in their speciality area, not their religious views or scientific conclusions.

What must be done

Few persons or organisations have concerned themselves with the rights of religious minorities, and even fewer with those of creationists—and some who have experienced difficulties would more accurately be classified as progressive or liberal creationists. The academic community now seems to be becoming more open and blatant relative to this form of discrimination. Laws are useless unless enforced, and as we have noted the government has so far in most cases refused to enforce existing laws relative to this form of religious discrimination. They often now do not aid creationists or those with a conservative religious orientation in general. As the anonymous reviewer quoted above concluded:

    ‘… governments and universities have not enforced existing laws because religious discrimination is really not the basic issue … Creationism of many sorts has proven to be astoundingly unfruitful as a research program and so distortive of factual material that it is unclear how that material can be competently taught.’

Can we truly call our society free if Meikle’s call, quoted below, is implemented?

    ‘It is the responsibility of professional societies to discriminate against [creationists] … by separating them from teaching through exposure and removal. It is the responsibility of the public school system to do likewise.’

The solution to this problem is best summarised by Wildman who, in his public presentations,

    ‘… has been telling his audiences that unless the Christian community becomes involved in the struggle for [religious freedom] and does so quickly, that those being born today will be physically persecuted if they desire to practice their Christian faith. “I fully understand how radical this statement sounds, but it is an intellectually honest statement—not one to shock”.’

The only thing preventing termination of employment for many creationists, tenure, may not be as safe as assumed in the past. As Zuidema found:

    ‘“Academic freedom” and “tenure”, those twin holies of academia, have been restraining factors by keeping state university faculties from openly challenging … their creationist colleagues. Yet some brave souls have sought confrontations.’

The appropriate response to this problem is to bring to the attention of the authorities the commonality and seriousness of this problem. Religious discrimination is illegal, and thus vigorous efforts need to be made by those discriminated against and the various law and policy enforcement officials to fight it. This will help to ensure that the law is taken seriously and enforced. Increased public awareness is immensely important in dealing with this problem. In addition, several precedent court cases would reduce the likelihood that employers in the future discriminate against creationists. If the likelihood of losing a case is high, forcing payment of wages, damages, lawyer’s and other costs, most employers would probably not discriminate. They now clearly perceive, and presently correctly so, that the likelihood of a conviction in a religious discrimination case is extremely low. They are now for this reason often not hesitant to discriminate. They can now often cover their tracks, generally have available highly paid attorneys, and are often able to win cases by skirting around the law or dragging it out for years.

To their credit, many individuals are concerned about the civil liberties and rights of individuals, even those that they personally disagree with. In reviewing several religious discrimination cases, the author found that it is not uncommon to find some persons active in defending the rights of those religious minorities that they clearly disagreed with. Their support comes from their conviction that all persons have the right to hold a set of beliefs, however unpopular, if they are sincerely held and are not openly detrimental to the welfare of the local community or the population as a whole. The belief that we are created beings, deliberately designed by God, is hardly detrimental to the community’s welfare, and it could be argued that it is useful in facilitating behaviour which is supportive of community order and functional morality.

[Soldier4Christ]

We can see from the prior posts the difficulties that these scientists have had getting into their careers, getting work in these fields and in publishing their findings.

Following this I will be posting excerpts of those that have succeeded in getting their findings out.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Since these people are much more of an expert than I am I will be posting articles written by these scientists and scientific 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.

Amen Pastor Roger!

Many of us pray for Brother John several times per day, and I know that he spent years on this topic. I would also love to see Brother John recover and finish this series. In my heart, I know that it's very important for people to have a place to learn the real and undiluted truth about Creation. I'm very sad to know that the public schools get to brain-wash our children with evolution garbage, and the school is not permitted to teach Creation from the Holy Bible.

History is this area is very interesting. The theory of evolution is still relatively new in terms of human history, but it's important to note that it's still JUST a theory and nothing more. Reading the many articles about the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in 1925 is very interesting. If you were to guess that the ACLU put forth tremendous resources in defense of evolution, you would be right. It really wasn't about evolution for the ACLU, rather it was another anti-God exercise that the ACLU is famous for.

Some might ask why I characterize the defense or promotion of evolution as anti-God. Evolution denies the Holy Bible and calls God a liar. Here's what it really boils down to:  evolution is an intellectual exercise into a theory that says man has a better understanding and explanation for Creation than the Holy Bible and God. It's really just as simple as that. Here we are all these years later with massive resources in science, and evolution is still JUST A THEORY. In fact, evolution is falling apart, and it is really making many of the so-called intellectuals who believe it look silly. However, they must hold on to the last since they will be nothing but fools when evolution completely falls into the garbage can where it belongs. The case for evolution is weakening by the minute.

HERE'S A NEWS FLASH!!! - the complete TRUTH and only FACTS about CREATION are in Genesis of the HOLY BIBLE! Any man who calls GOD a liar is a fool!!  Those who don't believe in GOD must come up with an alternate story of Creation if they are to maintain their rejection of GOD and JESUS. So, we have the pitiful theory of evolution that many are clinging to with their last fingernails. After all, what would happen if the so-called intellectuals had nothing left to counter the REAL TRUTH OF CREATION BY ALMIGHTY GOD? It should be and is pretty pitiful when men try to put their little pea-brained intellect up against the Word of God. Some of them will have to look for something else when evolution falls into the garbage can. After all, many of those so-called intellectuals are too smart to believe the simple TRUTH OF ALMIGHTY GOD AND THE HOLY BIBLE.

Brother Roger, thank you sincerely for sharing some fascinating information with us. Brother, please labor on. We need a place where nothing but the TRUTH will be taught. Parents need a place to get the TRUTH so they can properly teach their children and undo the lies that are taught in public schools. Young people and young adults also need a place to come and study the TRUTH. Really intellectual people believe GOD, and there is tons of evidence, especially now, to prove Darwin was little more than a scientific fool, but there's still a problem with this statement. We really shouldn't use the term "science" since science deals with facts. Hoax and con-game are better terms to describe the theory of evolution.

Brother, thanks again for your work and sharing with us.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 John 5:4-5 NASB  For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Psalms 139:13-14 NASB  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

[nChrist]

Legislator Leads Effort to Counter Darwinism in South Carolina Schools

by Jim Brown
December 29, 2005

(AgapePress) - - An education panel in South Carolina is mulling changes to a biological evolution teaching standard for the state's schools. The state's Education Oversight Committee recently moved to modify four biology teaching guidelines in an effort to balance schools' teaching of evolution by introducing a broader range of scientific viewpoints.

Republican Senator Mike Fair says the Oversight Committee is trying to, at the very least, get public policy to embrace neutrality as it relates to scientific philosophies. The South Carolina lawmaker, who is spearheading an effort to incorporate critical analysis of evolution into the state's public school science curriculum, believes criticism and analytical questioning of Darwinism should be permitted in the classroom.

The problem with the state's current treatment of biological evolution in the classroom, Fair contends, is that South Carolina science teachers "are delivering axioms rather than an encouragement or even framework for students to critically analyze the subject matter. It isn't that there's a huge outcry to kick Darwin or Darwinism out of the public schools."

In fact, the senator says he hopes the revisions in the state biology education guidelines will stimulate more discussion and debate about evolution and other origin theories in the classroom. However, he acknowledges that the changes have angered some philosophical materialists in higher education.

"Those professors are just falling out of the trees, as it were, complaining," Fair says, "because we're trying through the public schools to encourage the classroom teacher, through the curriculum, to be more rigorous and more relevant and to critically analyze information to determine what is fact and what is fiction on this subject of Darwinism."

It was for that purpose that Fair, a creationist, introduced a bill in the South Carolina legislature last summer requiring state schools to expose students to the "full ranger of scientific views that exist" on biological evolution. Nevertheless, the conservative lawmaker has found many proponents of Darwinian evolution uncomfortable with and resistant to the introduction of competing theories.

Fair says although intelligent design is a secular scientific perspective that he considers appropriate for public schools, the idea of teaching the theory in South Carolina schools has yet to gain much political support across the state.
Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion03795.shtml

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Austin, Steven A., Ph.D.
Creationist Geology Professor
(USA)

B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970

M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971

Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979


In August of 1993 Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research climbed into the crater of Mount St. Helens to view the lava dome. The dome sits like a small mountain (roughly 3/4 mile in length and 1000 feet high) directly over the volcanic vent, which is at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater blasted out of the mountain by the May 18, 1980 eruption. It is composed of a volcanic rock called dacite and appears to an observer in the crater as a huge steaming mound of dark, blocky rubble.

Actually the present lava dome at Mount St. Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the first two having been blasted away by subsequent eruptions. The current dome started to form after the volcano's last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent much like toothpaste from a tube. Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome, which now sits as a plug over the volcanic orifice.

Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.) Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.

Radioisotope dating is used by evolutionists to "prove" that the earth is millions and even billions of years old. Radioisotope dating is the dating of rocks. The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.

In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, (below), were recently published.

        Sample:                     "Age" :
(Mt.St.Helens' new dome)   (in millions of years)
    1.  "Whole Rock"        0.35  ±  0.05
    2.  Feldspar, etc.        0.34  ±  0.06
    3.  Amphibole, etc.        0.9   ±   0.2
    4.  Pyroxene, etc.        1.7   ±   0.3
    5.  Pyroxene                    2.8   ±   0.6


What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.

Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows:

Historic Lava Flow                                    Potassium-Argon "age"
                                                              (in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hi, AD 1800-1801)              1.6  ±  0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792)                1.41  ±  0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (Ca, AD 1915)         0.11  ±  0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Az, AD 1064-1065)     0.27  ±  0.09
                                                                0.25  ±  0.15


Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.

However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years. This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. (Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)

Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably. (The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating.

This is absolute proof theat the solid "proof" that the evolunists use for old earth age is not valid.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dr Donald James Batten
Creationist Agricultural Scientist
(Australia)

1969�72: B.Sc.Agr.(First Class Honours)�University of Sydney

1973�76: Ph.D.�University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

Dr. Batton has many published books and journal articles. I will be posting just a few of them here.


Are look-alikes related?

by Don Batten

My childhood best friend looked so much like me that our teachers, and even our friends, had a lot of trouble telling us apart. 'Are you twins?', we were often asked. However, there was no family connection as far back as anyone could trace. The similarity in our appearance was not due to being closely related - or, putting it another way - due to us having a recent common ancestor, like a common father, grandmother, or even great grandparent. It was just a 'fluke'.

The main (only?) argument for evolution is that similarities between living things are due to relatedness, or common ancestry. If two kinds of animals share a lot of common features, then they are 'obviously' closely related and so must have had a recent common ancestor - or so the evolutionary reasoning goes. Birds, for example, all lay eggs, have feathers and a specialized lung comprised of interconnected air sacs, so the evolutionist would say all birds had a common ancestor which had these features. Creationists would say that birds have these similarities because they were created with a common basic plan. People would assume that because my friend and I were so similar we must have shared a very recent common ancestor�like the same parents. They were wrong. In like manner, the evolutionists are often - not always - wrong in assuming similarity is due to common ancestry.

Of course my friend and I are members of the same human kind and so we know that we had a common ancestor - who was a descendant of Japheth, in this case. However, the analogy is accurate - that the degree of similarity in appearance does not necessarily indicate the degree of genetic relatedness. As we shall see, evolutionists are forced to recognise this at times, but they (illogically) do not admit that such recognition undermines the main argument for evolution (if similarities occur that clearly are not due to common ancestry, how does the evolutionist know that any similarities are due to evolution?).

If living things had a common creator/designer, we would expect there to be many similarities - just like the early Porsche and VW 'beetle' have many similarities because they shared the same designer. If there were not these similarities in living things we might be inclined to believe in many creators, not just one. The Bible tells us that God's very nature is revealed to us in what He has created (Romans 1:18-23). I believe that God created things in such a way that the patterns we see defy a natural explanation - such as evolution - but support a supernatural explanation. In other words, the patterns of similarity cannot be consistently explained by any naturalistic (everything-made-itself) theory.

The more similar creatures are, according to the evolutionary argument, the more closely they should be related - that is, the more recent it is since they had the same ancestor. Take, as an example, the usual textbook illustration of the similarities between the limbs of animals with backbones (vertebrates) and people. Human beings have a five - finger/toe hand/foot pattern, and limbs with two bones attached to the hand/foot joined to a single other major limb bone. We share this pattern with bats and frogs and therefore, the evolutionist argues, we must share common ancestors with these animals. That explains the similarities, we are told.

However, if we look at the horse limb (right), we see that it is quite different to the human form. Frogs and people have remarkably similar limb structures, but horses, which are supposedly very much more closely related to humans, have a limb with little resemblance to the human limb. Just on the basis of limb structures, it might be reasonable to suppose that frogs and people are more closely related than people and horses.

However, horses, as mammals, share many similarities to humans which frogs, as amphibians, don't share - horses, like us, are warm-blooded, give birth to live young, suckle their young, have hair, etc. The evolutionist claims that horses and humans must be more closely related than frogs and humans.

But what about the remarkable differences in the limbs of horses and humans? The evolutionist 'explains' the profound differences in the horse and human limbs as due to 'adaptation' in the horse. So, when the evolutionist confronts anomalies like the horse limb, a story is invented to 'explain' it. In this case the story is 'adaptation'. The limb was supposedly 'modified' by natural selection to do a different job. However, this is a just-so story to explain away evidence which does not fit the common ancestry idea.
Quolls and cats

Marsupials are mammals which give birth to very immature babies which are suckled in a protective pouch. These include the kangaroos, koalas, wombats and possums of Australasia and the opossums of the Americas. Placental mammals nurture their young in the womb, which develops an elaborate nourishing structure called a placenta. The babies are born in quite a developed state compared to marsupials.

Marsupial               Placental
Tasmanian �Tiger�
or Thylacine           Wolf
Feathertail Glider    Flying squirrel
Dunnart or
Marsupial mouse    Mouse, Shrew
Cuscus                 Monkey
Marsupial mole      Golden mole of Africa
Quoll                    Cat
Bilby                    Hare
Rat kangaroo        Rat
Wombat               Marmot
Numbat                Anteater


Nearly all the mammals in Australia are marsupials. Why is this so? The evolutionist claims to have an answer: the marsupials evolved in Australia from a common ancestor which just happened to be here. Placental mammals - such as dogs, cats, horses, squirrels, mice, etc., evolved on other continents. That's the story.

However, there are many incredible similarities between marsupial and placental animals which defy this naturalistic story. Take the marsupial mouse, or dunnart, and placental mouse, for example. Some types are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart without close inspection to look for the pouch.

The marsupial mole from the Northern Territory of Australia is incredibly similar to the golden mole of Africa. When the cuscus was first discovered in Papua New Guinea it was mistaken for a type of monkey. It has a flat monkey-like face, opposable digits on front and hind limbs, and a prehensile (grasping) tail.

The number of similar marsupial and placental animals is astounding, if they just arose by the evolutionary processes of chance mutations and natural selection.

The list could be extended by including extinct types such as the marsupial diprotodon, a hippopotamus-like creature. So there are many similarities which are not due to common ancestry, or evolution. How does the evolutionist account for these similarities? Here another story comes into play: many of the marsupials and placentals ended up looking like one another because they happened to be in similar ecological niches and so evolved similarly to fill those similar niches. This is another 'just-so' story. Such similarities are said to be due to 'convergence' or 'parallel evolution'. 'Convergence' is really just a grab bag to put similarities which cannot be explained through common ancestry (evolution). This is supposed to account for similarities which do not fit the evolutionary scheme of descent based on other similarities.

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that so many marsupials just happened, without any plan and purpose, to look so similar to their placental counterparts. It's like trying to believe that two artists painted a series of almost identical paintings without reference to one another, or that the similarities between a VW and Porsche were not due to their having a common designer.

Also, if being in a similar ecological niche automatically generates similarities, why is the kangaroo not more like cattle, horses or deer - the kangaroo's ecological counterparts on other continents? The kangaroo throws a spanner into the logic of the 'convergence' story used to explain similarities which do not fit the evolutionary story.

God has indeed created things in such a way as to confound naturalistic (everything made itself) explanations for the origin of organisms. Various ad hoc, or just-so, stories have been invented in an attempt to explain the many things which do not fit the evolutionary scheme, but they are just that - stories. May God receive the glory that is His due for the marvelous things He has created!

[Shammu]

To a Christian, these make sense, to a non-christian this makes no sense. This was posted by my brother in Christ, Bronzesnake.

Behemoth

There is  reference to dinosaurs in the book of Job.

Job, due to his great suffering, criticized the working of God in his life. Accordingly, the Lord, in a devastating examination of the patriarch, illustrated His own power and wisdom (and, by contrast, Job�s pathetic ignorance) with a series of examples from nature Job 38-41. In this connection, reference is made in chapter 40 to a creature known as �behemoth�

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

 Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Job 40:18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

Job 40:19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Job 40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

For lack of a better theory, most scholars have identified this animal with the hippopotamus. A careful analysis of the context, however, will reveal that the hippopotamus does not fit the description of behemoth as given by the Lord. Consider the following factors. It is believed by some scholars that behemoth is related to an Egyptian term, peheme, roughly rendered �ox of the water.� That this did not denote a hippopotamus is evidenced by the fact that the Egyptians had other words for that creature. In Job�s narrative behemoth is described as a grass-eater that is very strong, with great muscles (15-16). He moves his tail like a cedar tree (17). It is hard to see how his tail can be compared to a cedar, the tail of the hippopotamus is small and short Behemoth�s skeleton is like a massive framework of brass and iron (18). He is �chief� (first in size, might) of the works (creatures) of God; so huge, in fact, that only his Maker dare approach him with the sword (19).
Though the hippo weighs about four tons, some dinosaurs weighed thirty tons! Behemoth
is so powerful that no man is able to capture him (24). This descriptive can hardly apply to the hippopotamus for Egyptian monuments frequently picture warriors attacking the hippo single-handed. The vegetation of whole mountains is said to supply this behemoth�s food, yet the hippopotamus eats only about 200 pounds of herbage daily, and he stays near the water.
One is almost forced to conclude that no creature on earth today fits the detailed description of behemoth in Job 40.

Leviathan

 Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?

 Job 41:2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

 Job 41:3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft [words] unto thee?

 Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

 Job 41:5 Wilt thou play with him as [with] a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

 Job 41:6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

 Job 41:7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

 Job 41:8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

 Job 41:9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not [one] be cast down even at the sight of him?

 Job 41:10 None [is so] fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

 Job 41:11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay [him? whatsoever is] under the whole heaven is mine.

 Job 41:12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

 Job 41:13 Who can discover the face of his garment? [or] who can come [to him] with his double bridle?

 Job 41:14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth [are] terrible round about.

 Job 41:15 [His] scales [are his] pride, shut up together [as with] a close seal.

 Job 41:16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

 Job 41:17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

 Job 41:18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes [are] like the eyelids of the morning.

 Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, [and] sparks of fire leap out.

 Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as [out] of a seething pot or caldron.

 Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

 Job 41:22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

 Job 41:23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

 Job 41:24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether [millstone].

 Job 41:25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

 Job 41:26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

 Job 41:27 He esteemeth iron as straw, [and] brass as rotten wood.

 Job 41:28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

 Job 41:29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

 Job 41:30 Sharp stones [are] under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

 Job 41:31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

 Job 41:32 He maketh a path to shine after him; [one] would think the deep [to be] hoary.

 Job 41:33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

 Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high [things]: he [is] a king over all the children of pride.

Bronzesnake

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, full of grace (divine blessing and favor) and power (strength and ability) worked great wonders and signs (miracles) among the people.

[Shammu]

When the discovery of what appeared to be human footprints, along with dinosaur tracks (in the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose, Texas), was reported in the May 1939 issue of Natural History, it created a furor that has not subsided to this very day. For decades it seemed obvious to careful observers that this was clear evidence of human/dinosaur co-habitation.

Then, a few years ago, Glen Kuban, a computer programmer from Cleveland, Ohio, discovered chemical discolorations at the front of some of the human-like prints. This led him and others to suggest that the human-like tracks were not human at all; rather, they were simply portions of the dinosaur tracks that had been altered by mud-fill.

It has even been speculated that someone may have “doctored” some of the dinosaur/human prints to eradicate the impression of “humanness.” Evolutionists, of course, desperately want to discredit the tracks as human, for as some of them have conceded: “Such an occurrence (i.e., human and dinosaur tracks in the same stratum), verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism”.

Those who accept the testimony of the Bible are confident that men and dinosaurs did occupy the ancient earth at the same time. We are not dependent upon modern discoveries to confirm that for us. However, when clear evidence does come to light, we should not hesitate to accept it.

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Romans 1:5 It is through Him that we have received grace (God's unmerited favor) and [our] apostleship to promote obedience to the faith and make disciples for His name's sake among all the nations,

Those who were disposed to believe in the theory of evolution alleged that this destroyed the Paluxy evidence once and for all. Some creationists, e.g., those of the Institute of Creation Research in San Diego, adopted a wait-and-see policy until further research is forthcoming. Others were not so easily swayed. Two authors, Robert F. Helfinstine and Jerry D. Roth, recently produced a study which strongly argues for the validity of comtemporary human/dinosaur tracks (Helfinstine & Roth, Texas Tracks And Artifacts, 1994,

[Soldier4Christ]

This is another article written by Dr D. Batten. It shows us that the population today, with or without catastophic amount of deaths cannot account for todays population.

_____________

Where are all the people?

by Don Batten

Six billion people live on planet Earth. That sounds like a lot of people. Well, I would not want to invite them all to a barbecue at my house! However, they could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each. Many of us live in cities, so we have the impression that the world is bursting with people. However, much of the world is sparsely populated.

Nevertheless, many wonder at how the population could have grown to six billion from Noah’s family who survived the Flood that wiped out everyone else about 4,500 years ago. When you do the figures, it confirms the Biblical truth that everyone on Earth today is a descendant of Noah’s sons and daughters-in-law. Not only that, but if people have been here for much longer, and there was no global Flood of Noah’s day, there should be a lot more people than there are—or there should be a lot more human remains!

Many people have problems understanding growth rates of things. When the population doubles from 16 to 32, it does not seem like much, but when it doubles from three billion to six billion it seems like a lot more. But, it is exactly the same rate of growth. Given enough generations, the number of people being added with each generation becomes astronomical. It’s like compound interest on an investment—eventually the amount being added each year becomes very great.

To illustrate this, think of the story of the inventor of chess. His king offered him a reward, but instead of gold he asked for one grain of rice doubled for each successive square on a chessboard. The number of grains would have been 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 · etc. The 10th square would have 512; the 20th, 524 thousand; the 30th, 537 million. The amount of rice on the last square1 would have been a number so great—vastly in excess of the total world rice harvest at present—that it would have represented wealth far exceeding that of the king. Such is the power of compounding. And population growth is compound growth—that’s why so many people are now being added each year. It’s not necessarily that people are having more children than they once did, or that fewer people are dying.
What causes population growth?

The population grows when more people are born than die. The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.2 In other words, for every 100 million people, 1.7 million are added every year; i.e. births net of deaths.

Many assume that modern medicine accounts for the world’s population growth. However, ‘third world’ countries contribute most of the population growth, suggesting that modern medicine is not as important as many think.

Population growth in a number of South American and African countries exceeds 3% per year. In many industrialized countries with modern medical facilities, the population growth is less than 0.5%. Some relatively wealthy countries are actually declining in population.

The move from agriculture to manufacturing/technology has been a big factor in slowing population growth in industrialized countries. Farmers needed to have sons to help with the farm work. This was particularly necessary before mechanization. My own family records show that in the early- to mid-1800s in Australia, couples commonly had 8–10 surviving children. One couple had 16! And this was before the discovery of the germ basis of disease,3 aseptic surgery,4 vaccines3 and antibiotics. Opportunity to expand, combined with biology, saw growth in population of 4% or more, plus increases due to immigration. High rates of population growth were also seen in Quebec, Canada, from 1760 to 1790, following the British conquest of Canada in 1759,5 and well before the impact of modern medical knowledge.

In industrialized countries, the advent of social security pensions and retirement plans (superannuation) has probably been another major factor in the decline of population growth. These schemes mean that people do not see the need to have children for security in their old age. Furthermore, people can now easily choose how many children they have because of modern birth control methods, such as the contraceptive pill.

What growth rate is needed to get six billion people since the Flood?

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe. However, data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1).

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10–24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.9

If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

A remarkable coincidence?

The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

Hardly. The figures agree because the real history of the world is recorded in the Bible.
What if people had been around for one million years?

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today that's a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given standing room only of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is only 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still only have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
Where are all the bodies?

Evolutionists also claim there was a 'Stone Age' of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts, cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this 'Stone Age' scenario were correct. The number found is more consistent with a 'Stone Age' of a few hundred years, which would have occurred after Babel.13 Many people groups could have used stone tools as they moved out from Babel (Genesis 11), having lost the technologies of metal smelting (Genesis 4:22) due to the Flood and the confusion of languages at Babel.

Immigrant peoples, when they settled in a new area, would have had an initial phase where they would shelter in caves, or have rudimentary housing. They would have made use of stone tools, for example, while they developed agricultural techniques appropriate to the local soils and climate, found sources of ores, and rediscovered how to manufacture tools, etc.

Groups that descended into animism might never emerge from this 'stone age' of their development, because of the stifling effects of such things as taboos, and fear of evil spirits. One tribal group in the Philippines, for example, had a taboo against water, causing rampant disease due to lack of hygiene, before the Gospel of Jesus Christ rescued them from superstition.

Australian Aborigines - how long have they been in Australia?

When Europeans came to settle in Australia in 1788, it was estimated that there were perhaps only 300,000 Aboriginal people.14 And yet today we are told that the people have been here for 60,000 years or more. Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area - hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence.

If 20 people had come to settle some time after the Flood, say 3,500 years ago, it would have needed a population growth of a mere 0.28% per year to produce 300,000 people. Such a minimal rate operating over 60,000 years could produce more people than there are atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy!

The real history of the world is recorded in the Bible, the Word of the Creator-God who was there in the beginning. This record shows that the world was deluged and destroyed (Genesis 6�9, 2 Peter 3) so that all people living today came from those who survived aboard Noah's Ark. A study of population growth clearly supports this Biblical record.

References and notes

   1. For the nth square, the number of rice grains = 2n-1 = 263 for the last square, or about 1019 grains!
   2. Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 2000, Trends in world population.
   3. Proven/developed by the creationist scientist Louis Pasteur (see Lamont, A., 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, 1995).
   4. Pioneered by another great creationist scientist, Joseph Lister (see Lamont's book).
   5. Armstrong, H.L., More on growth of a population, Creation Research Society Quarterly 22(1):47, 1985, citing Lower, A.R.M., Canadians in the Making, Longmans, Green and Co., Toronto, p. 113, 1958. There was little immigration in this period.
   6. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. For a more comprehensive formula that takes into account longevity, number of children born and generation time, see Morris, H.M., World population and Bible chronology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 3(3):7-10, 1966.
   7. It is possible that the births mentioned are not the firstborn; they could just be the sons leading to Abraham. This would shorten the generation times and make the population growth even greater.
   8. This answers a common sceptical objection regarding the population at the time of Babel about 100 years after the Flood. This dating assumes that Peleg was named because of this event (Genesis 10:25) - see In the Days of Peleg. However, his naming could have been prophetic, like Methuselah, who died in the year of the Flood and whose name means 'When he dies, it shall be sent'. If this is true, then Babel could have been some time after Peleg's birth, but during his lifetime.
   9. The 'rule of 72' states that dividing 72 by the annual growth (in %) gives the years to double the population. This is an approximation that makes the calculations easy. A figure of 69.3 is more accurate (100 x ln2 = 69.3).
  10. Even if the population were a million, the low reproductive rate would not be sufficient to eliminate harmful mutations. The mutational load alone would have ensured extinction. For details, see ReMine, W., The Biotic Message, St Paul Science, St Paul, Minnesota, 1993 (see my review and purchasing details).
  11. Some extend the 'Stone Age' to a million years or more.
  12. Such as dinosaur bones in Montana, claimed to be over 65 million years old, but so 'fresh' that blood cells and hemoglobin are still present. See Wieland, C., Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42-3, 1997.
  13. Osgood, A.J.M., A better model of the Stone Age, CEN Tech. J. 2:88-102, 1986 and Part 2, CEN Tech. J. 3:73-95, 1988.
  14. The Australian Encyclopaedia, 5th Edition, 1988, The Australian Geographic Society, Sydney, 1:230, 1988. There has been a tendency to revise this estimate upwards, possibly driven by the obvious inconsistency of the 300,000 figure with the belief in the antiquity of the Aboriginal population.
  15. How long have Aborigines been in Australia? Creation 15(3):48-50, 1993.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supporting addendum to the prior article:



Australian Aborigines — cultural traditions connect to Noah

In addition to population figures, there is much other evidence against the supposed long ages of Aboriginal occupation of Australia—the observed rapid deterioration of supposedly ancient paintings, for example.15

Furthermore, many Aboriginal tribes have stories, long predating their contact with Christian missionaries, of a global Flood, sometimes with startling similarities to the Bible’s account, but with sufficient differences to show that they were not recently incorporated into their folklore following contacts with missionaries.15 It is stretching credulity to suggest that these stories have been maintained by word-of-mouth for 40 to 60 thousand years, or that they were invented and just by chance have these incredible similarities to the Bible account.

The Aboriginal population and their stories are much more in line with their having been a nomadic/‘gypsy’ people who found themselves in Australia relatively recently—certainly after the Biblical Flood.