Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Still another article by Dr D. Batten


Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?

by Don Batten

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

    * Similarity (homology) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen Beetle car. They both have air cooled, flat, horizontally opposed, 4 cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (homologies). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
    * If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18-23).
    * If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
    * We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans,1 so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
    * Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
    * What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are read by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it, imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

      Where did the 97% similarity come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.2 However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology).3 Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the melting curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

      Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data on faith. Sarich et al.4 obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.5 Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist�s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

      What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size.6 If humans were only 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.7
    * Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

          There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

          There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

      These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don't quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

      Ed. note: the point of this article was to refute one widely parroted proof that humans evolved from apes, as should be clear from the title. It was simply beyond the scope of a single Creation magazine article to deal with all other proofs of human evolution, although, amazingly, some atheistic sceptics have attacked this article for this alleged failing!

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

References and notes

   1. However, Jeffrey Swartz, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Pittsburg, maintains that man is closer to orangutans in gross morphology. Acts and Facts, 16(5):5, 1987.
   2. Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121). The resulting hybrid duplex material is then separated from single–strand DNA remaining and heated in 2 to 3 degree increments from 55o to 95o C, and the amount of DNA separating at each temperature is measured and totalled, comparing it to human–human DNA re–formed as duplex. If 90% of the human DNA is recovered with heating from the human–chimp hybrid, compared to the human-human DNA, then there is said to be 90% normalised percentage hybridisation.
   3. Sarich et al. 1989. Cladistics 5:3–32. Return to text.
   4. Ibid.
   5. Molecular homology studies could be quite useful to creationists in determining what were the original created ‘kinds’ and what has happened since to generate new species within each kind. For example, the varieties / species of finch on the Galápagos Islands obviously derived from an original small number that made it to the islands. Recombination of the genes in the original migrants and natural selection could account for the varieties of finch on the islands today—just as all the breeds of dogs in the world today were artificially bred from an original wild dog/wolf kind not long ago. It is interesting that molecular homology studies have been most consistent when applied within what are probably biblical kinds and contradict the major predictions of evolution regarding the relationships between the major groups such as phyla and classes (see ref. 6 regarding the latter).
   6. Michael Denton, 1985. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. (Burnett Books, London).
   7. Haldane’s Dilemma recognises the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x1011 years of human–like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape–like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic)—most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215–217.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ligers and wholphins and zorses, oh my!

______________________________

Ligers and wholphins? What next?
Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems — but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?

by Don Batten

If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a (false) killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?

The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.

But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below.)
Finding the created kinds

From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this, but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.3,4

Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!

In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind — whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological ‘species’. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new ‘species’ was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.

Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.

Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.

Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.

A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just don’t mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12 feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).

Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram at right).

The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).

cont'd page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Kekaimalu the wholphin

In 1985, Hawaii's Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.
Rama the cama

Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The 'cama', named 'Rama', has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal - the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.

Genae the hybrid snake

Genae  resulted from a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in California.9 Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4 ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family, Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have all originally come from the same created kind.

Other hybrids

With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a cattalo. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original created cattle kind which was on the Ark.10

Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and barley (Secale), another fertile hybrid between genera.

During my years as a research scientist for the government in Australia, I helped create a hybrid of the delicious fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), which both belong to the same family.11 I also studied the hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists today, probably represents the original created kinds.

God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galapagos Islands).

The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and fill the earth, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many daughter species, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates evolution happening, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about.

References and notes

   1. The study of the naming and classification of organisms.
   2. Biological species is often used today to refer to a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. It does not always correlate with the taxonomic species. Note that the kinds would originally have met the criterion for each being a separate biological species, since they did not interbreed with any other kind.
   3. In Latin, genus conveys the meaning of origin, or kind, whereas species means outward appearance (The Oxford Latin Minidictionary, 1995).
   4. Creationist biologists today often combine the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind) to call the created kind a baramin.
   5. Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, CA, USA, p. 75, 1976.
   6. Encyclopaedia Britannica 98 CD. Other authorities call the Panthera genus Leo, so that the lion is then Leo leo.
   7. Keene Rees, Waimanalo Hapa Girl Makes 10! Waimanalo News, May 1995, <http://www.hotspots.hawaii.com/Wolphin.html>, March 1, 2000.
   8. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 23:434, 1992.
   9. Genae belongs to David Jolly, Manager of the Information Department, AiG (USA). She was bred at a reptile park at Bakersfield. Corn snakes are one of the most popular pet snakes in North America, and snake fanciers have bred all sorts of colour variations, which are catalogued at <http://members.aol.com/guttata319/Hawkherp/morfs.html>, March 22, 2000.
  10. See Wieland, C., Recreating the extinct Aurochs? Creation 14(2):25-28, 1992.
  11. McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V., Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.) Annals of Botany 74:111-118, 1994.

[Soldier4Christ]

I have been posting a lot of articles on the scientific proof that supports the Bible but so far I haven't given a whole lot of information on exactly what the Bible tells us of Creation. So I want to break here for a while and specifically cover the Bible side of this subject which is still good science (1Ti 6:20). Naturally the place to start is in Genesis. Genesis is not the only book though that covers this subject. Even Jesus had some things to say about this in the New Testament and I hope to cover that also.

[Soldier4Christ]

One of the ways that God speaks to people (both believers and non-believers) is through the Bible. Many non-believers have come to know Jesus through the teachings of the Bible and believers have come to know Him better. One of the purposes of Genesis is to let us know about Him, what He did, how He did it. It is to teach us also about sin. How it came into the world and how all men and and the world is affected by it. Yes, there is much more to it but this is the points that I want to stay with in the study of this thread.

We start out in Genesis with the record of God making the world. Why is He telling us of these things? Because He wants us to know that He is the one that is all powerful. What power that is! No one else has this power to create so much so perfectly. Man is just the opposite, we are nothing in comparison.

When God speaks to us He does so in a means that we can understand. He does not want us to be confused when it comes to understanding that He is all powerful. He tells us that He created the earth, sky (universe) and all that is in it within six days. There are those that use the verse 2 Pet 3:8 to say that these "days" may be a longer timeframe. This verse is talking about the coming of the Lord not in His creation of the world. It is explaining why the Day of the Lord has not yet come. We see a reference in Heb 4;4 of the day of rest. It also mentions here the day the Lord rested yet it makes no difference in this verse between the meanings of the word day. This tells us that a day is just that .... a day. As I said previously the days mentioned in Genesis is to explain the almighty power of God. What better way is there than for Him to have created everything in six literal days.

All through Genesis 1 we see "And God said" so we know that through the power of His voice that He created all things. It does not say that He created something and then let it form slowly into something else but that it was formed immediately, perfect and complete.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." We see reference to this in other portions of the Bible also, not just in Genesis. Mar 13:19, Joh 1:1-2, Eph 3:9, Heb 1:10.

Some thesists say that the Bible is not in contradiction with the teachings of the Bible. If we truly read what we are told in Genesis we will see that this is false. We are told that God created all things not created some things and then changed them.

 

[Soldier4Christ]

What difference does it make whether one believes the world was created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution? An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American Atheist magazine with the following reply:

      "Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And here is why.

      In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)

      ...the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

      Even a high school student knows enough about evolution to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of sublime perfection.

      Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"

Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as Christians be consistent in our thinking. We must accept all of the Bible as God's Word. In it God says what He means and He means what He says.

We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, "The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right planet. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

[Soldier4Christ]

The narrow road

by Ken Ham

A pastor’s wife called me to plead with us not to, as she put it, ‘alienate people in the church’ with our stand on the ‘non-essentials in Genesis.’ She explained that her husband would love to bring his people to our seminar to hear the message of creation. However, because we insisted on six literal days, a young Earth and so on, even though they agreed with our stand against evolution, they could not support our seminar.

‘Why can’t we just agree on the essentials so we can work together without this division?’ she exclaimed!

‘What do you mean by the essentials?’ I asked.

‘Well, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sin, and was raised from the dead.’ She went on, ‘Do you believe that if a person is born again as the Bible describes, then they will go to heaven even if they don’t believe in Genesis as you do?’

I told her that if someone was truly born again, even if they didn’t believe as I did concerning Genesis, then they certainly would spend eternity with the Lord. She then blurted out, ‘See, what you believe about Genesis is not essential—the essential thing to believe is the message of Jesus and the Resurrection.’

I then asked her a very important question: ‘Why did Jesus die on the cross?’

’For our sins,’ she answered.

I said, ‘Please explain to me what you mean by the word "sin".’

‘Well, sin is rebellion against God,’ she replied.

‘How do you know this—what is the origin of this rebellion?’ I continued.

She seemed to think for a moment, and then exclaimed, ‘I know what you’re trying to do!’

‘Yes, of course,’ I answered. ‘I’m trying to get you to see that unless there was a historical event in a real garden with a literal man, serpent, and fruit, as recorded in Genesis, then there is no origin for sin.’ I continued, ‘Even though a person will go to heaven if they are born again, ultimately, is it essential to believe in “original sin” or not?’

There is a growing emphasis in the church today for a tolerance of everyone’s beliefs—we are being asked by church leaders and others to bury any areas of disagreement and work together. That sounds attractive on the surface, but in reality it is not just a request to put aside minor doctrinal differences. Rather, it is being used to counter any challenge to the church concerning serious departure from the teaching of Scripture in major, foundational areas.

A look at just a few of the doctrines which are grounded in a literal Genesis should quickly lay to rest the idea that this is some sort of ‘minor issue’ for the Christian.

The Crucifixion and Resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:21–22) The whole reason Jesus (the ‘last Adam’) died for us was because of the sin nature inherited from the (literal) first Adam. Jesus rose from (physical) death to conquer (physical) death, which the Bible calls the ‘last enemy’ (v.26). If long-age theology is right, God has sanctioned billions of years of death and suffering. How then could death be an ‘enemy’? And why would God call His creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) if the ‘last enemy’ was an integral part of it?

Marriage (Mark 10:6–9) Jesus refers to the creation of a literal Adam and Eve—from the beginning of the creation, not millions of years later.

The restoration (Acts 3:21; Revelation 21:4, 22:3) In the long geological ages view, death and suffering were there all along. All things can’t be restored back to a sinless, deathless world if there never was such a world in the first place.

Trustworthiness of the Bible. Topflight Hebrew academics are unanimous that Genesis was written to convey exactly what we creationists claim.1 Are not those who reject this accusing God of misleading His people for thousands of years?

Many Christian leaders today speak out against the creation movement and its stand on six literal days, no death before sin (and thus a young Earth), etc. Diverting attention from the Biblical issues, they label creationists as intolerant and unnecessarily ‘divisive.’

Sadly, some of these attacks come from those professing to be ‘anti-evolution creationists.’ For instance, Dr. Hugh Ross is a progressive creationist who believes such things as the ‘big bang,’ a local Flood for Noah’s day, millions of years of death and bloodshed before sin, and various humanlike ‘soulless’ beings before Adam and Eve who buried their dead and did cave paintings. In his book Creation and Time he stated the following:

    ‘Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-universe creationism.’2

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

The irony is, of course, that one of the main reasons why ministries like Answers in Genesis are growing rapidly is because people can see their evangelistic effectiveness. In my years in creation ministry, I have seen countless letters from people from all walks of life who came to Christ through God’s use of our stand on Genesis. Often, they had already given up on Christianity, because the answers they had been given (by Christians trying to fit the long-ages idea, with death and suffering before sin, into the Bible) were so clearly wishy-washy attempts to distort the Bible to fit the current orthodoxy.

One effective means of discrediting believers in Genesis creation, both inside and outside the church, is through the way the label ‘fundamentalist’ is applied to them today. This was once an honourable term for those who believed in ‘the fundamentals’ of Christianity. Thanks to media associations with ‘Islamic fundamentalists,’ terrorism and fanaticism, it now carries connotations of extremism and bigotry. Because of this change in perceived meaning, I would prefer to be called a ‘revelationist’—one who believes the God of history has told the truth in His Word, the Bible.

Even the Catholic church is getting in on the act. A 1994 Associated Press report began: ‘A new Vatican document on how to interpret the Bible condemns the fundamentalist approach as distorting, dangerous and possibly leading to racism.’ The document, written by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, says that ‘fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide ... The fundamentalist approach is dangerous for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life.’3

In another ‘hit’ against a literal Genesis, the Bill Moyers program, ‘Genesis: A Living Conversation’ was released on public television in the USA in October, 1996. This show, which contains derogatory judgments on the character and motives of God, features the opinions of Jewish, Islamic, liberal Christian and atheist commentators—but none who believe Genesis to be true history.4

A Newsweek article on the Moyers series made an interesting comment on the Christian world today: ‘Denominational loyalties are disappearing. Seminaries float theories that once would have been blasphemous ... Americans still proclaim their belief in God, but divine authority is hardly absolute.’5

The Biblical creation movement insists on a literal Genesis, standing on the authority of Scripture, without compromise, regardless of the reaction from the church or the secular world, knowing that much is at stake. Once God’s Word in such an overwhelmingly plain area can be re-interpreted on the basis of secular theories (such as the alleged age of the Earth), then the door is open to re-interpreting the rest of Scripture, so ultimately all truth is seen as relative.

Recently, a colleague of mine wrote to a very influential pastor in England, considered to be one of the leading spokesmen for evangelical Christianity in that country, challenging him on his stand against a literal Genesis.

The pastor replied, ‘I am afraid I simply don’t agree with you that the authority of scripture is at stake in the issue of a non-literalist interpretation of Genesis 1–3 ... The issue for me is closely associated with the antiquity of the Earth ... My deliberate ambiguity in Masterplan [his book dealing with Genesis] reflects a desire to maintain evangelical unity across the divided opinions on this vexed issue.’6

The sad thing is that while Christians are prepared to compromise their views in the face of secular opinion, and thus undermine the authority of God’s Word for the sake of ‘unity,’ the non-Christians are not!

For instance, World reported that an Islamic professor who appeared on the Bill Moyers Genesis programs, ‘ refuses to compromise his beliefs—Islam at least retains its doctrinal integrity. Judaism appears mired in endless dialogue and Christianity looks apologetic and confused.’7

There is a chasm widening in our Western culture—not between the church and the world, but between those in the church like literal creationists who stand on the absolute authority of the Word of God, and the rest of the church and the world!

Is division always wrong? Jesus said in Luke 12:51 ‘Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on Earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:’ When you shine the light of God’s Word in a dark world there must of necessity be some division.

Does it really matter that the literal creationists seem to be a minority even within the conservative church today?

In Matthew 7:13–14, in the context of salvation, Jesus presents the picture of a wide gate opening into a broad road leading to destruction, yet favoured by the majority. He instructs his followers to choose the small gate and the narrow road leading to life, a road which few are on. I often think of these words when I see the way in which so many in the church are rushing headlong to destructive compromise with the world on these crucial, foundational issues. Standing for the truth of Scripture is always the ‘narrow road.’

Which road are you really on?

References and notes

   1. Oxford Hebrew professor James Barr has written (in a letter to David C.C. Watson in 1984) that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any world-class university who thinks that Genesis was meant to convey anything other than an actual account of a real, recent creation in six ordinary days and a global Flood. Like Barr, that does not mean they actually believe Genesis to be true, just that they are unanimous about what it means.
   2. Dr. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, Navpress, p. 162, 1994.
   3. Quoted in Foundation, News & Views XV(4), July–August, 1994. On top of this, the Pope’s announcement in October 1996, saying that he saw no conflict between evolution and Christianity (so long as God created the soul of man) provided the media with more ammunition to continue to try to alienate creationists from what it sees as ‘mainstream Christianity.’
   4. Time, p. 72, October 28, 1996, reported: ‘ ... Moyers decided not to include Christian Fundamentalists: ... It would have struck people as the same discourse they’ve been hearing for the last 15 years.’ Earlier, the same article stated: ‘Much of the recent popular controversy around Genesis has focused on the issue of whether the Creation should be understood literally. That debate has tended to obscure a further set of issues hinging on the character of both God and the patriarchs.’ Again, literal creationists are made out to be a stumbling block to people understanding the ‘real truth’ of the Bible.
   5. Newsweek, October 21, 1996, p. 76.
   6. Correspondence from Pastor Roy Clemens, Eden Baptist Church, Cambridge UK September 25, 1996.
   7. World, October 26, 1996, p. 23.

[Soldier4Christ]

Grotesque dinosaur cannibals!

by David Catchpoole

When paleontologists recently announced they had discovered fossil evidence of cannibalistic dinosaurs (see box), I rejoiced. This was just what the church needed to hear.

‘But that’s horrible’, I can imagine you saying, ‘For something to eat members of its own species is grotesque in the extreme’. And that’s exactly the point. It is grotesque—surely all Christians would be in one mind on that. Which is why I would like to show this to everyone in the church, and ask them if these dinosaurs practised their perverse cannibalism in the ‘very good’ world (Genesis 1:31) before Adam sinned, or afterwards.

Why ask this question? Because, for too long, many Christians have compromised on Genesis. While conceding that there was no human death before Adam disobeyed God, they claim it does not defy Scripture to have animal death before then, that it was ‘natural and God-ordained’ for animals to hunt their prey (citing Psalm 104:21, 27–28, for example). But this contradicts God’s instruction that animals (and man) were originally created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30; cf. 9:3), and overlooks the effect of the Curse on creation (Genesis 3:14–19; Romans 8:19–22)—i.e. the Bible clearly shows that today’s world is very different from the pre-Fall world.

It also means that these Christians struggle to answer (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) when asked, for example, by a distraught young daughter why a God of love allowed the child’s favourite pet budgerigar—the one which used to perch all day on her shoulder, from time-to-time caressing her cheek—to be caught and eaten by the neighbour’s cat.

Too often the answer sounds to the child like ‘Life’s tough, kid. That’s the way God made it.’ Or ‘For some things we have no answers—but God knows.’

So that’s why I think this issue of dinosaur cannibalism can be a wake-up call to compromising Christians to think again. If (as popular wisdom claims) these dinosaurs lived and became extinct millions of years before man walked on the earth, then that means that cannibalism existed before Adam sinned. Was that ‘very good’ in God’s sight? Of course not! Remember He commanded (Genesis 1:21, 24) that animals were to reproduce ‘after their kind’, not to eat their own kind!

In contrast, a biblical view puts the timing of these cannibal dinosaurs after the Fall, most likely being buried (and fossilized) under water-borne sediment during the global Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago.

But why were these dinosaurs eating members of their own species rather than preying upon different species? We see today that in a post-Fall world prone to drought and famine, animals at times become sufficiently desperate to eat anything they can find—including one another, if they can get away with it.

Opportunistic cannibalism has been documented in a number of species (e.g. lions, komodo dragons and grasshopper mice),1 so it’s not surprising that evidence of cannibalism has now been found among dinosaurs as well.

The key point here, though, is that because dinosaurs are so often thought to have died out millions of years ago, Genesis-believing Christians can use this latest discovery to respectfully challenge those in the church who say, ‘I believe in creation’ but who nevertheless put the millions-of-years fossil record before the universe-corrupting actions of Adam and Eve in Eden. If all the saints were ‘one in heart and mind’ (Acts 4:32) in understanding this issue, no longer would the church feel the need to hide from a favourite taunt of sceptics: ‘How could there be a God of love when it is clearly a dog-eat-dog world?’

The post-Fall reality of cannibal dinosaurs is indeed grotesque. But, to me, so is the lion’s ripping apart a gazelle calf while its mother bleats plaintively at a distance; the stray dog’s opportunistic mauling of a child’s favourite pet rabbit; and the wild boar waiting beside cows in advanced labour, ready to tear chunks of flesh from the newborn calf even before it’s fully emerged from the birth canal.

All these things are clearly part of the cursed and hurting post-Fall world, a world that waits to be ‘liberated from its bondage to decay’ (Romans 8:21). This will be a time when ‘there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain’ (Revelation 21:4), because there will be ‘no more curse’ (Revelation 22:3).
Reference

   1. Pilcher, H.R., Dinosaurs ate each other, Nature Science Update,  14 August 2003.

[nChrist]

AMEN PASTOR ROGER!!

Brother, thanks for some really great information. Christians should know there are mile-high stacks of so-called scientific books that are obsolete because they are full of junk that turned out to be false. The Holy Bible is still with us and is still just as TRUE as when it was written. The Holy Bible will never be obsolete BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!! So, if someone wants to be smart and intellectual, they can simply BELIEVE IN THE HOLY BIBLE!

The devil has been attacking the Holy Bible since it was written, but the devil has never been able to stop the TRUTH from the Holy Bible in doing the work that GOD intended to do. Many have tried to destroy the Holy Bible, but it can't be done. Nobody can destroy the Word of God, and nobody can stop the Word of God.

Brother, I'm glad that you posted the simple TRUTH that evolution and the Holy Bible can't both be true and why. Christians need to know and understand that. It really boils down to either believing what GOD said or believing what Darwin said. It's a no-brainer for me - I BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAID 100% FROM COVER TO COVER IN THE HOLY BIBLE! The theory of evolution is long past due in joining the junk science that simply isn't true. It's falling apart as we speak, and most will know it is nothing but junk soon.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Deuteronomy 8:16-18 NASB  "In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. "Otherwise, you may say in your heart, 'My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.' "But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

[Soldier4Christ]

Some little known facts published by "Creation Research"

______________________________

CREATION RESEARCH IS EXCITING
Did you know Christianity is the one religion in the world in which faith depends on facts? If the facts aren�t true, the faith is foolish. As the Apostle Paul said, "If it's not fact that Christ rose from the dead, then your faith is in vain" (I Cor. 15:17). It's just as necessary for the entire Biblical record to be based on fact. Whether it's creation, Noah's flood, or the tower of Babel, did you know the facts show you can have faith in them all? Consider the following discovered during our research programs :-


"YOU COULDN'T FIT DINOSAURS ON THE ARK!"

This claim was made by a science teacher in a front page article of a leading Australian newspaper. After all, Brontosaurus (now Apatosaurus) was so big Noah couldn't have had two on the ark! Recently during a research trip to North America, we photographed these dinosaur eggs. Most people don't know you can hold a dinosaur egg in your hand. A baby dinosaur was not much bigger than a baby crocodile. They are cousins you see! Noah would have had no more trouble fitting two baby Apatosaurs which God sent to the ark, than he would have had fitting two infant crocodiles.

"BUT TYRANNOSAURUS WOULD HAVE EATEN ALL THE ANIMALS ON THE ARK!"

Tyrannosaurus Rex couldn't have been the most savage killer of all. We found that out when we took this photograph. The teeth were too long, too fragile and too poorly attached to his skull for him to have sneaked up behind Triceratops, grabbed it with his metre long mouth and savaged it to death. If he had, his teeth would have snapped off or fallen out. Genesis says God created all animals to be plant eaters at first, and Tyrannosaurus Rex is no exception.


WHAT ABOUT CARNIVORES?

The truth is: animals with sharp teeth rip things, those with flat teeth chew things, but what they chew and what they rip is what they choose (or what they're forced to choose). Consider the Kea Parrot. Only a few decades ago, this animal was vegetarian. But man's greed has reduced its food supply, and it has changed diet to eat meat. Our research in New Zealand has shown its large, sharp beak is well shaped for killing, but until recently it never touched flesh. The beak wasn't designed for killing at all, it was designed for ripping. Now it rips meat. Lions and tigers were all originally vegetarians - that's how they survived in British and European zoos during World War II, when there was no meat for them to eat - they feed them vegatables and straw!
Everybody knows animals with sharp teeth are savage meat eaters except those people who've checked and found animals with sharp teeth mostly eat plants. In Australia there is one animal with a set of razor sharp teeth which are used to kill bananas... we're referring to the Fruit Bat.


AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES?

A cave painting of The Three Brothers is located in an Aboriginal cave site. Eastern Australian Aboriginal stories state the three brothers were the first people to land on the East Coast. Asked �when did this happen?� they replied, �after the flood�. Aborigines have not been in Australia for tens of thousands of years! The evidence from their own myths and legends shows their ancestors, like all other races, left the Tower of Babel only thousands of years ago.


RAPID FOSSILS

 Students are still taught fossils are produced by slowly being buried with sediment and therefore the earth is very old, because rocks represent such a long period of time. But this is simply false. In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don�t represent millions of years after all.


HAVASUIPI LEGEND

We found the Havasuipi Indians living in the Grand Canyon believe it came into existence after a flood covered the world. It wasn't missionaries who told them this, for they already knew the story and told it to the missionaries. They relate how the good God made a safe boat for his one daughter who was going to become the mother of all living; she survived through the flood and gave rise to all the people in the world. The American Indians brought the story of Noah with them from Babel.


GIANT ANIMALS AND PLANTS?

We've added this supposedly 140 million year old fossil dragonfly to our collection. It is so like living dragonflies one can conclude (if he was 140 million years old) you�ve got proof that "animals reproduce after their kinds" - no matter how long you give them. After all, if insects show so little change in 140 million years, they are never going to evolve at all. We've also had the privilege of seeing a fossil of the world's largest dragonfly. Its wing span was approximately 1 metre.

"What made animals and plants grow so big?" The answer is the world before Noah's Flood was a much better place. Recently scientists have been experimenting on maintaining plants in glasshouses at their optimum conditions, supplying them with all the moisture they needed daily. The results: one tomato plant up to 12 metres tall, with some 26,000 tomatoes on it and each tomato up to a kilogram. Now you know how dinosaurs started from hand-size eggs and ended up monsters.


ORCHIDS by design

We grow and research orchids because they are so big you can get inside to see what's happening. The design mechanisms are fantastic! Chance is a silly explanation for some of the world's best insect traps, which many orchids are. Consider the Flying Duck orchid: when a Saw Fly lands on the base, the head of the Duck ducks down, boots the Saw Fly inside the flower, beats it against the back of the flower, and holds it until the glue on the pollen is dry enough to stick to the Fly. Then it lets the Fly go to take the pollen to another Flying Duck orchid. What attracts the fly to such sadistic treatment, no one is quite sure.

Even more interesting is if the Saw Fly jumps out of the way, then the flower knows it hasn't caught an insect and opens again straightaway.

When was the last time you came across a rat trap made by man that could tell it had missed the rat, load the cheese again and reset itself? Not one rat trap got here by chance did it? They were all created!

This is why Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse."


IN THE IMAGE OF GOD


Genesis tells us God made man in His image, and John's gospel says "In the beginning was the Word." Man is made in the image of the Word. That difference alone separates us from other creatures, such as apes, gorillas and monkeys. We have abandoned trying to teach such creatures to talk. We now know they cannot. Their brains are not even equipped to enable them to talk. Yet human beings are programmed to talk. It's built in to them. When baby twins are isolated, they can invent a language. They are programmed to speak. Man is indeed made in the image of the Word.

All the facts you need to support the Biblical record of creation, the flood, the tower of Babel are there, so you can have faith in it, and more importantly you can joyfully believe in God as Creator, Who brought all things into being from nothing through His Word, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 11:3).

Throughout society, people are being immunized against the Gospel of Christ. They are taught at school and told by the media there are no facts to support the Christian faith. They are indoctrinated with evolutionary humanism, with ape-men, and billions of years of change which denies creation, the Bible and Christ. The resultant rejection of Christianity ought not to surprise you. As Christ said, "if they do not believe what Moses wrote (creation, flood, Babel, law, etc.), they will not be convinced even by the resurrection'' (Luke 16:31).

 

[Soldier4Christ]

A group called Creation Research Society has done some wondrous research that supports Biblical Creation and a complete global flood. Evolutionists claim that there is no evidence to prove a global wide flood. When pointed out that there was a tree that became fossilized in many, many layers of coal in an upright position and with leaves intact, the evolutionists will discount this and say it is a rare event and not the norm. However Creation Research has found eveidence in many places around the world to show that this is a very widespread event.Creation Research has the largest research file in the world on vertical fossil trees (polystrate).

Many coal beds throughout the U.S. have already been dug up by coal companies without any research done on them prior to this thereby destroying any evidence that may have been in them. Creation Research has found those that are yet untouched that do have this information still intact.

Coal beds supposedly took millions of years to form, layer by layer, one strata at a time. If this were the case any tree found in them would have pushed and distorted these layers as it grew and expanded. These trees that have been found in the coal beds do not display this charateristic there fore we know that the trees were there before and as the coal beds formed. These trees would not have the leaves intact either as soft substances such as leaves and bark would have decayed and disintegrated prior to being covered enough to solidify into a fossil. By this evidence we know that a catastrophic event covered these plants very quickly.

In these coal beds other plants have been found also that are in an upright position with leaves still intact. One such plant is unmistakeably a horestail rush. Found mixed in this same strata levels with these various land plants are many ocean creatures. Not fresh water creatures that might be expected if there were a local generalized flood but ocean creatures that are many hundreds of miles away from where known ocean levels would be found. Also mixed into these same strata levels were found fossilized land mammals. All this shows that they were covered quite quickly with mud, silt and ocean water.

Another thing that was noticed was that these plants were all gigantic in comparison to the same plants that we have today. One such example was the horsetail rush I mentioned above. It was quite obviously much larger than the largest known horsetail rush found today. This same was true of many of the trees and trees were found in areas that do not support trees today such as in Alaska. What few trees are found in Alaska today are nothing more than scrub bush trees.

Some scientists account this to the conditions prior to the flood being much better for things to grow larger and live longer. Again this goes in accordance to what is taught in the Bible.

 CONCLUSION: Fossil trees, leaves, etc. buried vertically in multiple layers,
are provably not rare. None of these fossils provide any help to evolution, as in
every case the so-called first known representatives of magnolia, tassel fern,
etc., appear suddenly in the fossil record,and show little evidence of change
except in size, usually from larger to smaller. The immense size of many beds
containing well preserved polystrate fossils, also points to rapid catastrophic
deposition on a huge scale which does not support millions of years of
sedimentary processes. There are many theories and opinions that
contradict Biblical Creation and Noah's Flood - but the facts do not!


I was going to post verifying pictures but due to copyright laws I cannot do that and I cannot link to their site due to soliciting for funds on that site. If you are interested in seeing these things I suggest doing an internet search on Creation Research Society and I am sure that you will be able to find them.

[Soldier4Christ]

Creationist Says Darwinists' Recent Claims Suggest Desperation

By Allie Martin
January 5, 2006

(AgapePress) - The founder of the creationist group Answers in Genesis (AIG) says a recent announcement by the journal Science claiming evolution was the top scientific breakthrough of 2005 shows how desperate the proponents of the theory of evolution are becoming.

Editors of Science cited wide ranging research, including a study showing a four percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, as major factors contributing to its decision to make its bold proclamation regarding 2005 and scientific discoveries supposedly offering support for Darwin's theory. However, Ken Ham, the president and founder of AIG, says the journal's announcement shows that secular humanists are worried about the increasing availability of information that contradicts their ideas about evolution.

"Why are they proclaiming 2005 the 'Year of Evolution' and all these big breakthroughs in evolution?" Ham asks. "Well, I believe it's because a creationist ministry like Answers in Genesis has put so much information out there, and we've got the Creation Museum under construction. I think what's happened is that it's made such an impact on the culture, the humanists are running scared."

The creation science advocate believes evolutionists are trying to declare 2005 as a year of breakthroughs for evolution in order to push the evolution on an increasingly disabused public with unprecedented access to scientific data supporting creationism. "We're getting information out there, and once people get this information, they can see that evolution is totally bankrupt," he asserts.

As for the scientific establishment's claims about the similarities between the genetic code of apes and humans, the AIG spokesman points out, "When you look at DNA, it consists of what are called base pairs, and there's three billion of them in human DNA. Do you realize a four percent difference means 120 million differences? That's an enormous difference. That, in itself, is very, very significant, even if the 'four percent' was real. but the four percent, as I've said, is a very arbitrary figure."

Given the opportunity, Ham contends he can debunk nearly all of Darwinists' arguments for evolution in a 40-minute lecture. He says secular humanists are aware of the many challenges posed to their pet theory by creationists -- and he believes they are increasingly alarmed and desperate to fight back, even with empty declarations and false assertions about "the year of evolution."

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

It's really humorous how silly and unfounded evolution really is. It does appear to be only a short period of time now before evolution will be completely exposed, debunked, and discarded. I'm wondering how many living scientists will look like total buffoons. I honestly believe that many scientists who continue to push evolution already know it's garbage. Maybe some of them have been so outspoken that their reputation is at stake regardless of what they do. I simply hope they live long enough to get the reward they so richly deserve for leading so many astray with lies. It's also true that untold hosts rejected Christ and the Holy Bible because of junk science. PRETTY SAD!![b/]

Love In Christ,
Tom

3 John 1:2-4 NASB  Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.