I remember learning the General Theory of Evolution as a schoolboy. I remember that I was taught that the theory was supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. My teachers did mention that there were still people on the planet who did not believe the General Theory. However, they also mentioned that there were still people who believed the earth to be flat. In other words, the implication was that anyone who did not believe in the General Theory was backward and ignorant. At the time, it did not occur to me to question this point; like most school children, I merely accepted it and tried to learn it so as to do well on the tests. As I grew, however, I began to learn to think for myself, and eventually came to realize that the “evidence” for the General Theory is not so overwhelming, after all.
It is important to note that evolutionary processes do take place. Over time, we see new breeds of dogs being developed. We see new types of bees result from the crossing of two or more similar species of bee. I do not know anyone who questions the fact that such changes occur. However, all of these changes occur within the same kind. What we do not see – and what no one has ever seen – is a completely new kind of creature evolving. No one has ever seen, either in nature or in the laboratory, one kind of creature evolve into another kind of creature. In other words, microevolution – evolution within natural boundaries – is a proven fact. The theory under question – and the theory that contradicts the Bible – is the General Theory, or macroevolution. Macroevolution teaches that all forms of life currently on the planet evolved from the same single-celled organism. Moreover, macroevolution teaches that all life is the result of natural processes, and not the design of an omnipotent Creator. Continue reading » Evidences of Faith: What the Fossil Record Shows
There are some who insist that the account of Noah and the Flood is an exaggeration at best, and a downright myth at worst. Unfortunately, there are even some who claim to believe the Bible who insist that the Flood was a local phenomenon. They claim that the Flood was limited to the region of Mesopotamia, a region prone to flooding. In this article, we will examine this claim from two distinct angles. First, we will see what the Bible says about the Flood. Then, we will see whether there is any external evidence to support the Bible’s account.
I. Is It Possible To Interpret The Flood Described In Genesis As A Regional Flood?
Those who support the idea that the Flood was confined to Mesopotamia point out that the word “all” is not always used literally. For example, Mark 1:5 tells us that “all the land of Judea” were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea. So, it is reasoned, the word “all” does not need to be taken literally in Genesis 6-9, either. The claim is made that the word is used in an accommodative sense, and that only the “inhabited portion” of the earth was in view. The assumption is then made that only the region of Mesopotamia was inhabited, and the conclusion is drawn that the Flood of Noah’s time was confined to this region. Continue reading » The Genesis Flood: Regional or Global?
IntroductionAs stated elsewhere in this special issue of Watchman, Hill Roberts believes that God conceived of the plan of creation in six literal days, but then took billions of years implementing that plan. In other words, God spent six days thinking and 4.5 billion years acting. This view is reflected in Hill’s general treatment of the geologic column. When I attended a Lord I Believe Seminar in the spring of 1996 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, it was obvious that Hill accepted the standard geologic column and tried to adapt the Biblical account of creation to it. He believes that the geologic column is a record of God’s progressive creation of life.This approach was not limited to the adult class. Our 4th grade son came home with a “Challenge Page” handout that asked students to correlate the fossil record with the Genesis account of creation. One side of the page shows the standard geologic column that can be found in nearly every evolutionary textbook. The other side of the page contained blank lines. The header says, “Can you match the fossil record with the Genesis Record?” Again, this clearly implies that the geologic column is a record of the progressive creation of life. Continue reading » Interpretation of the Geologic Column
Do They Exist?
I. Evidence of an Old Earth?
Before we embark on this inquiry, we must first note certain things about the nature of this topic. First, let us consider the possibility that the universe was created in the way the Bible describes in Genesis chapter 1. If the Bible is correct, then the first humans were created full-grown, as man and woman, not boy and girl. Therefore, if you or I were able to go back in time to see Adam and Eve on the very day they came into existence, they would not appear the same way a 1-day-old human appears today. Likewise with the animals, and the trees. If we were able to go back to the Garden of Eden, and cut down a tree, it would most likely have rings, just as if it had been there for many years. Likewise, if we were to examine a rock, it would be fully formed, just as any rock we pick up today. But it would not be millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of years old; it would be just a few days old. Continue reading » Scientific Evidences of a Young Earth
Which Clock Sets the Outer Limit?
How many times have you heard it stated as fact that the earth is four to five billion years old? Do you know how the evolutionists arrived at that number? It is obvious that none of the rocks had a date written on them, so how can one make such statements with certainty? Is there any evidence which would suggest that the earth is actually younger than four to five billion years old? When one reads the mainstream newspapers and magazines, it seems to be taken for granted that the earth is at least four to five billion years old.
In a 1992 article in Time entitled “Echoes of the Big Bang,” it was boldly stated as a fact that the so-called “Big Bang” from which our universe is supposed to have been born took place about 15,000,300,000 years ago (4 May 92, p. 62). As I read further in the article looking for the evidence of this rather precise dating, I found that no proof was forthcoming. Instead, I read of unnamed “scientists” and “researchers” who have “interpreted” a unspecified set of “data” to “suggest” that this conclusion is “possibly” in keeping with their “dominant explanation of the cosmos.” That is really some concrete evidence upon which to base such firm statements! When I took a geology course several years ago, I noted the same bold claim made on the same scarcity of facts. This article is not going to be written upon the basis of a personal claim of expertise, but is intended to point to several facts from which the reader can think about the rational conclusion which must be reached about such claims regarding the age of the earth. Continue reading » Dating Methods