The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

tommy2bad wrote: »

No point derailing this thread, we would miss JC's science lessons.

A very fair and good point Tommy.:cool:

Safehands wrote: »

If you believe that Everest and other such monoliths were created after the flood or by the flood, then there is no point in arguing with you. We may as well speculate that the world was level and that all the mountains were created by the flood. That is ridiculous of course.
I believe, no wait a minute, I know that that great mountain is millions of years old. So ten thousand years BC it was still over five miles high. That means that in order for the story of the flood to be true, the water would need to have risen to over five miles above current sea levels, to cover Everest. If that depth of water came from forty days and nights of rain, the amount of water in the atmosphere would have blocked out the sun. Ireland would have been under several miles of water. There is no evidence anywhere, that Ireland, Nepal or India were once almost as far under the sea as the Marianas Trench, in the Pacific. I suspect that there probably was a local flood, but not one that covered the whole planet, an area in excess of five billion square kilometres, which would have required over forty billion cubic kilometres of water. That is a lot of water!

Here is the answer to your question ... catastrophic plate tectonics ... I give you Dr John Baumgardner, Geophysicist and Creation Scientist:-

ryan101 wrote: »

JC, can you summarise your main reasons for not accepting theistic evolution ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

It doesn't have to be science vs religion, true spirituality does not contradict true science, the truth is the truth.

It isn't science versus religion. There is no conflict between Science and the Christian Faith.

I used be a (Pondkind to Mankind) Evolutionist until I saw that there wasn't any unequivical evidence for it ... and it defies all logic.

I then became a Creationist and subsequently a Creation Scientist, applying modern conventional science to evaluating the evidence for Direct Creation.

I agree, that there is only one truth ... and that is that a Being of infinite intelligence and capacity Created life.

Safehands wrote: »

Not JC's truth. JC's truth is personal, very few understand it.

Narrow is the way that leads to Salvation and few find it also.

Safehands wrote: »

And the evidence for creation JC????

You would need to read both threads for that ... but here is a summary of some of my thoughts on the ‘Origins Question’, as well as the evidence for validity of Direct Creation and the invalidity of other explanations:-

1. On the theology of Theistic Evolution.

Theistic Evolutionists interpret the Bible as supporting the gradual evolution of life on Earth as described by the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence. Theistic Evolutionists accept that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence starts with simple life and ends with Mankind in a process that extended over millions of years. They apparently only differ with Materialistic Evolutionists on the mechanism of this Evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists believe that God directed the ‘evolution of life’ while Materialists deny any involvement of an “outside intelligence” in the process.

However, the Bible clearly supports a Young Earth and a recent rapid Creation.

So let us look at the THEOLOGICAL basis for Theistic Evolution.

Firstly let us consider the charge against Creationists by Theistic Evolutionists, that Creationists are “Bible Literalists” i.e. people who believe that there are no metaphors, poetry or allegories in the Bible and that EVERY word in the Bible means literally what it says.
I can confirm that Creationists, in general, DO accept that metaphors, poetry and allegories ARE employed in the Bible – but they also believe that there are many passages that describe LITERAL EVENTS and they believe that these accounts SHOULD be taken literally.

I think that BOTH Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would accept that the parables of Jesus Christ were ALLEGORICAL.
Equally, within Genesis, Creationists accept that the ‘Tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ is clearly a metaphor for some deeply sinful occult system of Satan and it certainly isn’t a literal tree. The “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but Creationists do not expect to find it growing at the bottom of their gardens!!!

I also think that both Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would agree that the words of Jn 19:30 LITERALLY mean that Jesus said “It is finished” and equally, that He LITERALLY “bowed His head and gave up his spirit”. Similarly, all Christians believe that the scriptural accounts of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension are LITERAL accounts of these events.

In summary, Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed.

The only aspect of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is the Genesis accounts of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 is a largely ALLEGORICAL account of the Evolution of life – while Creationists believe it to be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL account of Special Divine Creation and the early history of the Earth. This difference in interpretation is actually the main reason for the debate among Christians on the ‘origins issue’.
Science, in so far as it can be applied to the study of Evolution and Creation, is actually quite clear and in favour of Special Direct Creation – and I will prove this later on in this article.

I think that BOTH Genesis and the Gospels ARE written as SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL HISTORY.
Something like Genesis 1:1, which starts with the words “In the beginning God…..” certainly gives the impression that what will follow will be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL ACCOUNT of what God actually did – and NOT something veiled in allegory, as Theistic Evolutionists maintain.

Gen 1:27 confirms that the sequence of the creation of Mankind was firstly a single man Adam “in the image of God He created HIM” and subsequently Eve “male and female He created THEM. This sequence is also confirmed in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22.
Genesis 2:7 says “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – and NOT many men from a population of Ape-like ancestors – as Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe.

Jesus is referred to as “The Last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45 – and without a LITERAL First Adam this would be meaningless. In fact, without the Fall of Adam and Eve from grace, there would not be any reason for God to send his only begotten son Jesus Christ to save humanity from their sin, which according to Rom 5:12, “entered the world through ONE MAN and death through sin”.
Any form of Evolution, either “theistic” or “secular”, requires death millions of years before the emergence of Mankind – which is in straight contradiction of Rom 5:12 – which confirms that Man came first followed by sin and then death.

Anyway, why would God take “the long way around” to create Humans, using death and cut-throat competition as indispensable ingredients of so-called “evolutionary progress” on the way?
If He did so, why didn’t He say so?

The Bible makes it clear that death is a direct result of the FIRST Man and a Woman’s DECISION to misuse God’s gift of free-will to defy God – and not because God deliberately decided to use death and competition to perfect his original creation (as implied by Evolution).
Death is destructive and it is confirmed by Genesis to be the result of Man’s folly and NOT God’s instigation.

Theistic Evolution also implies a ‘meddling God’ who continues to DIRECTLY intervene in the World via some (unobserved) evolutionary ‘tweaking’ mechanism to perfect His Creation. This idea is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his Creation activity.


2. On the interpretation of the DAYS of Creation in Genesis 1.

Theistic Evolutionists argue that the DAYS of Creation in Genesis 1 are not LITERAL 24 hour days – but instead they are ALLEGORIES for “Eons” of Evolutionary Time.

Creationists argue that the Hebrew word for Day “Yom” (when it is accompanied by a number, as in first, second, etc.) is ALWAYS a literal day EVERYWHERE else in the Bible and so there is no reason to believe that it is not a 24 HOUR day in Genesis 1 as well.
Equally, they argue, that Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of Creation – again indicating that these were real 24 HOUR days because an ‘evening’ or a ‘morning’ is completely meaningless if the DAYS of Creation were actually EONS of Evolutionary Time.

Exodus 20:11 re-emphasises that the basis for the 7 day working week is the 7 day Creation Week – just in case anybody missed the point in Genesis 1 that the Days of Creation were 24 hour days.
The “Theistic Evolutionary” concept of a “Creation Week” lasting 7,000 million year is certainly quite a novelty!!! I would hate to be waiting for the weekend to come around if an Evolutionary time-frame applied to our working week!!


Of course, God COULD create the Universe and all living organisms in 6 seconds, in 6 days or over 6 billion years. He has told us that it was 6 days – and all observed phenomena support a rapid Creation and a young Earth. That is good enough for me – until somebody shows me repeatably observable evidence i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.

BTW, for a DAY to exist the Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a discrete source of light (confirmed by Gen 1:3 as provided by God Himself for the first three Days of Creation).
From the Fourth Day of Creation onwards the Sun did mark times and seasons including DAYS on Earth!!!

God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – even BEFORE the Sun was created – a good example of God’s DIVINE MAJESTY in action.
It is also a statement by God that HE is more important than any astronomical object, including the Sun.
The ability and willingness of God to provide physical light is also confirmed in the prophecy of Rev 22:5 about the future New Heaven and New Earth where “there will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.”


3. On the idea that the DAYS of Creation in Genesis 1 were EONS of Evolutionary Time.

Let’s examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation as being EONS of Evolutionary Time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis 1 account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.

If the FIRST DAY of Creation was actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!

The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while Evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust – with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process).

The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and life started with MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants – while Evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.

The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and the Stars were created, i.e. AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while Evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.

The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic life (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while Evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because Evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’ and land mammals weren’t created until the SIXTH DAY according to Genesis 1.

The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates that INVERTEBRATES were amongst the earliest multi-cellular creatures to evolve and reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the SAME day as all of the other land-based animals.

I hasten to add, as a scientist, that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF Evolution is TRUE
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

IF God WAS the guiding force behind the postulated Conventional Evolutionary Sequence then when He came to provide an account of His activities in Genesis 1, He didn’t just merely become ‘metaphorical or allegorical’ – He completely ‘lost the plot’ and gave such a ‘mixed up’ account that even a 10 year old Evolutionist would reject it.

I fear that many “10 year old Evolutionists” and indeed some considerably older ones, no longer trust the veracity of the Bible for this very reason.
Indeed, if a plain reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?

The idea that Genesis was a ‘simple account of Creation for a simple people’ is also patently preposterous – the people who built the Pyramids in Egypt were certainly NOT ‘a simple people’.
The fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of Evolution but cannot identify the location of Iraq on a map of the World, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been well within the abilities of even a so-called ‘simple people’ to understand.
Equally, the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any difficulties understanding the concept of Evolution – so why would the Israelites have any difficulties comprehending it either – if it was TRUE?

If we conclude that Genesis is based on the erroneous personal opinions of Moses, then because Jesus Christ gave Moses His wholehearted endorsement in Mt 5:17-18 and Lk 16:16-17 this means that the entire basis of Christianity i.e. the Infallible Divinity of Jesus Christ is ‘on the line’ here. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV) The fact that ALL SCRIPTURE (i.e. the entire Bible, including Genesis) is “God breathed” is also confirmed in II Tim 3:16.

IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE – IT IS AS STARK AND AS SERIOUS AS THAT and no amount of ‘allegorising’ will solve the problem!!!!.

On the other hand, Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.

In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a rational, coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and of Mankind.

As Christians we have a choice – to believe in the unfounded idea that ‘pond scum evolved into Man’ – or to accept the fact that the Sovereign Creator God DID create the Universe and all life in SIX DAYS just like He said He did in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1.


4. On the supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

I recall reading two History’s of World War One.
One History gave an account of what happened on each day during the War taken from the coverage of various newspapers of the time. This book started on the first day of the war and gave a day by day account of events right up to the last day of the War. In other words, this History gave an account of the War in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.

The second History gave an account of the people, the battles, the ships, guns, etc – in other words this book was in SUBJECT ORDER i.e. in no particular chronological order. When I turned from one page about a battle in 1916, the next page was talking about the uniforms that the soldiers wore and some pages LATER the key political events that lead up to the outbreak of the war in 1914 were discussed.

Both History’s were valid LITERAL accounts of the First World War and they both gave different and equally valuable insights into the same event – The First World War.

Similarly Genesis 1 gives an account of Creation in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER – starting with the creation of the Earth on the First Day and finishing with the creation of Mankind on the Sixth Day.

Genesis 2 gives an account of Creation in SUBJECT ORDER, starting with the basis for the Seven Day Week and ending with the divinely ordained basis for marriage. In between, some of the details of Creation are expanded upon including the Creation of Adam and Eve as well as the naming of the common animals and birds. It also describes the idyllic lifestyle that our first parents had in the Garden of Eden. The fact that ‘timing’ isn’t an issue in Genesis 2 is further confirmed by the fact that it STARTS with the LAST Day of Creation in Gen 2:1-3.

It is the ONE Act of Creation described in literal style using two different methodologies – Genesis 1 in Chronological Order and Genesis 2 in Subject Order.

5. Some questions for Theistic Evolutionists.


1. If Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis is truth – how do they explain the fact that the Genesis 1 account of creation bears NO resemblance to the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence.

2. What meaning do they ascribe to the words ‘evening and morning’, which are used six times (after the description of each DAY) in Genesis 1.

3. Outside of Genesis 1 and 2 the word ‘Yom’ is used 410 times and each time it means an ordinary DAY. Why do Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are an exception?

4. Outside of Genesis 1 ‘Yom’ is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear without ‘Yom’ 38 times. In all 61 times the text refers to an ordinary DAY. Why should Genesis 1 be an exception?

5. In Gen 1:5 ‘Yom’ occurs in context with the word ‘night’. Outside of Genesis 1:5 the word ‘night’ is used with ‘Yom’ 53 times – and each time it means an ordinary DAY. Why should Genesis 1:5 be an exception?


6. The plural of ‘Yom’ which DOES NOT appear in Genesis 1 or 2 can be used to communicate a longer period of time e.g. “in those days”. There are also words in Biblical Hebrew (such as OLAM or QEDEM) that mean long periods of time – but NONE of these words are used in Genesis 1 or 2 either.

Prof James Barr (Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University), has said
“so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer of Gen 1-11 intended to convey to his readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story.
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

If people won’t take Professor Barr’s word for it, perhaps they can explain what God meant in
Ex 20:11 when He said “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

And if they don’t believe the Old Testament on the matter then perhaps they can explain what Jesus Christ Himself meant when He said (as He endorsed the LITERAL veracity of Gen 1:27 and placed it in the context of Gen 1:1) in Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).

How do Theistic Evolutionists interpret Jesus Christ’s statements that Adam and Eve were created “at the beginning of Creation” – if Evolution is true?
Equally what do Theistic Evolutionists make of the fact that Jesus Christ confirmed the literal veracity of Noah’s Flood and its worldwide scale in Mt 24:38-39 and Lk 17:27.

6. On God’s Written and Spoken Word.

God’s Infallible Word resides in two locations – in the pages of the Holy Bible AND in the physical Universe and all life therein.
Before you start accusing me of Polytheism or some other New Age Heresy, could I clarify that I am NOT saying that God is IN physical matter or living organisms (other that the holy Spirit indwelling Christians).
I am saying that God called these material entities forth in a Sovereign Fiat Act of His Divine Will during Creation Week about 7,000 years age.
God actually SPOKE the Universe and all life into existence and so in a very real and profound sense it IS his Word and a glorious statement of His transcendent power.
If you doubt me read Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26 where each Act of Creation starts with the phrase “And God said ……”.
Yes, our amazing and all-powerful God didn’t even have “to lift a finger” during Creation Week, He just SAID it and it was done!!!

God’s Word is found in the pages of the Bible AND in all of Creation, which was SPOKEN into existence by God. As Christians we are mandated by God to study His Written Word in the Bible AND His Spoken Word as expressed by Him during Creation Week.
Sadly ‘The Fall’ has corrupted the original perfection of Creation, but God’s sovereign stamp is still very clearly visible on all of Creation – and this is what is now scientifically classified as Intelligent Design – which is God’s Word ”writ large” in all of His Creation.

Ps 19:1-2 neatly summarises The Word of God proclaimed in The Universe.
“The Heavens DECLARE the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”
The written Word of God in the Bible can only be believed in through Faith – but the spoken Word of God in all of Creation is tangible and observable, thereby placing it firmly within the realm of Science.

The Bible may provide useful ideas to be tested scientifically against tangible evidence – but obviously it is not itself a part of the Scientific Method – and Creationists do not claim that it is.

The Holy Spirit of God indwells all Christians. Therefore, if a Theologian makes a statement that is not in accordance with God’s infallible written Word in the Bible, it will be quite clear that such an error has been made due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and a plain reading of Scripture – and it should be rejected forthwith.
Equally, if a scientist makes a claim that is not supported by observed reality, then such a claim should also be summarily rejected.

Materialistic Evolutionists are unable to provide observable proof for ‘Evolution in action’. They are also unable to coherently answer many basic scientific questions that actually invalidate Evolution.

Evolutionists try to overcome this problem by the simple expedient of labelling Creation Scientists as “non-scientists” and then refusing to answer any questions posed by the Creation Scientists thus labelled. Evolutionists routinely make this “non-scientist” claim against Creation Scientists even though many of the Creation Scientists thus labelled have SUPERIOR scientific qualifications from the SAME universities as the Evolutionists who have labelled them.
Theistic Evolutionists generally dismiss all discussion of Creationism as divisive and/or embarrassing to Christianity, and if that doesn’t work, they set up some kind of artificial division between ‘science and religion’ and promote the notion that neither discipline should question the other parties competence or conclusions. To unreservedly assign the explanation of the origin of life to an avowedly atheistic scientific system, without even questioning its conclusions, is an incredible concession on the part of Professing Christians.

Evolutionists seem to think that they hold a monopoly on Science and they claim that they alone are able to scientifically study Creation. However, hundreds of published peer-reviewed Creation Science papers proves this arrogant notion to be completely wrong – as do the writings of practically all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal – who were all Creationists.

Science and Theology are mutually synergistic – Science examines the Word of God SPOKEN in Creation while Theology examines the Word of God WRITTEN in the Bible. Christians move with ease over and back between Science and Theology – as both of these disciplines are focussed on examining the reality of God’s Creation from different perspectives.


7. On the confusion of the parameters of Science and Faith.

As scientists we must always base our conclusions strictly on the repeated observation of tangible phenomena.

It is therefore important to differentiate between what we can only BELIEVE IN through FAITH and what we can SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFY by studying OBSERVABLE phenomena.

Could I point out that unless and until Science establishes a valid scientific theory about any phenomenon, the current popular explanation IS ALWAYS in the realm of faith.
For example, the atheistic BELIEF that God doesn’t exist and that life originated through spontaneous and exclusively natural processes is just that – a BELIEF, that is still in the realm of FAITH. However, this fact hasn’t stopped Evolutionists utilising the Scientific Method to investigate their BELIEF in Materialistic Evolution – and I have no problem with them doing so.

However, ‘what is sauce for the Goose should be sauce for the Gander’ – Science is also capable of investigating the evidence for Creation – it is just the willingness to do so that is often lacking.

There ARE scientifically valid means of investigating whether ‘an external intelligence’ has been the cause of a particular effect. For example, Forensic Science is largely based upon assessing the evidence for the involvement of ‘external intelligent agents’ in crimes.

The ‘origins question’ is a classic “who done it?” type question – I suppose if you are an atheist, it is a “what done it?” question.
Either way, the appliance of Forensic Science to answering the question is possible. The massive research effort by Evolutionists and the current, very fruitful, research effort by Intelligent Design Proponents and Creation Scientists amply demonstrates that science HAS a definite role to play in answering the ‘origins question‘.

In fact, the major new insights provided by ‘cutting edge’ Molecular Biology have given Creation Science a great boost in recent years. This explains why Creation Science is currently enjoying such a resurgence in America, which is one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth – and it also explains why the Japanese are also beginning to take an active interest in Intelligent Design.

Practically every discovery from Critical Amino Acid Sequences to ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ to the amazing density and tight specificity of the information present in DNA has been absolutely devastating for Evolution and fully supportive of the Creation Hypothesis.

It is now known that there are sections of the Amino Acid chain that are ‘critical’. These are sections of the Amino Acid chain where even one ‘incorrect’ Amino Acid will fundamentally change the three dimensional shape and/or chemical functionality of the protein thereby rendering it biologically useless. Because only the exact Amino Acid sequence works and all other sequences don’t work at all, you cannot ‘work up’ to the correct sequence using Natural Selection – it either hits the ‘jackpot’ or the bio-molecule is functionally useless.

The latest research into how DNA actually works shows massively complex and little understood interactions between different DNA strands as well as frame shifting abilities of mind numbing complexity. In addition, the exact same DNA sequence can specify completely different structures in different organisms.

There are also sophisticated DNA ‘auto-repair’ systems and the entire cellular replication process is physically assisted and chemically catalysed by a whole host of other ‘molecular machines’.
It is as if we ‘climbed Mount Everest’ when we decoded the Human Genome only to find an even higher ‘mountain’ of complex DNA interactions awaiting us when we got there.

All of these information-packed systems are objective proof of the appliance of enormous levels ‘external intelligence’ and they certainly couldn’t possibly have arisen from undirected ‘natural’ processes such as those postulated by Evolution.

8. On the scientific validity of Evolution.

ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.

Evolution is a “unique and very strange beast” indeed. On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “Religious World View” for these people. On another level it is awarded the (undeserved) status of a Scientific Theory.
The people who hold it as a “World View” are entitled to do so if they so wish – I don’t believe in it – but I also don’t believe in several other faiths/philosophies either!!

Awarding it the status of a Scientific Theory is another matter entirely. All proper Scientific Theories are tentative – a single repeatable observation or experiment may invalidate them at any time – and that is how it should be.
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY therefore:-
1. Must be PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about. Evolution is very loosely defined with almost as many definitions as there are evolutionists!!!
2. Must lend itself to repeated testing by observation and/or experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to observation and/or experimentation. A Scientific Theory cannot be validated in the first place without being repeatedly tested – and because core aspects of Evolution cannot be tested by observation or experimentation, it has therefore never been a valid Scientific Theory.
3. Must IMMEDIATELY be declared invalid or amended if ANY repeatable observation and/or experimentation detects any phenomenon, which is not in accord with the theory. A new hypothesis may then be proposed – but if no adequate hypothesis is available to “fill the gap” the theory must fall anyway. This is actually implemented with every other Scientific Theory – and should also apply to Evolution as well.

The evidence against Evolution is overwhelming – but there is no precisely defined scientific theory to disprove – and so it remains unassailable in it’s very own scientific “Twilight Zone” !!.

I read somewhere that Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest – but it doesn’t explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Evolution “from GOO to YOU via the ZOO” requires a massive INCREASE in genetic information – and Information Theory shows that new information INVARIABLY originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction, their degeneration by mutation or their isolation/recombination through natural selection/speciation. The real challenge is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this purposeful genetic information arose in the first place.

Evolution is AT BEST a working scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different (often contradictory) working hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word theory in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and it is subject to continuous (often contradictory) revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation – and so they can only be believed in through FAITH.
3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Equilibrium” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis. Equally, there is no objective evidence for scientific validity of “Punctuated Equilibrium” itself either – and indeed many leading Evolutionists now also reject this concept as well.

9. On the confusion of the parameters of Natural Selection and Evolution.

The Theory of Natural Selection IS a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t PRODUCE variation – and it tends to produce stability / mediocrity rather than novel / improved types of creatures. For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in environmentally-stable wild populations of animals - and that is why ‘improved’ populations of domesticated animals or plants rapidly become feral if returned to the wild.
The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population and in extremis a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any further environmental changes due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial selection process.

The basic sexual reproduction processes of meiosis and fertilization are observed to be precise ordered phenomena – as one would expect from systems handling enormous quantities of tightly specified critical information at ‘microdot’ levels of resolution.

When these precision processes actually DO get messed up (by critical mutations, for example) severe deformities or embryonic death normally results.

Sexual reproduction does allow RECOMBINATION of genetic material – but such recombination is observed to be tightly constrained within very defined limits – you may get a black-haired cat or a white-haired cat – but it is ALWAYS a cat.
These constraints also cause the so-called ‘genetic selection wall’ that animal and plant breeders rapidly come up against when intensively selecting for single traits. This ‘selection wall’ ALSO constrains how much change Natural Selection can ultimately achieve within any particular ‘kind’.

Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Artificial Selection – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.

Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!

The Evolution Hypothesis is actually defunct, because it lacks any plausible mechanism for creating the genetic diversity that it claims to supposedly produce. The only ‘genetic modification’ mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in useful, ordered genetic information evident at all points on the spectrum between “primordial chemicals and man”.

The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST by Natural Selection. Irreducible complexity also means that it is logically impossible to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.
Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability. The belief that an “intermediate eye” would have partial sight or indeed partial light sensing ability is not founded on reality. Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron. This is where Punctuated Evolution tries to come in - but also fails the tests for a valid Scientific Theory. If one component is missing or any component is incapable of functionality that individual will be totally blind – and NOT partially sighted.

Molecular Biology also confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence. Even if it could blindly 'search around' in it’s immediate Amino Acid ‘combinatorial space’ it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequences for useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes cannot follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next biologically useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally USELESS, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypeptide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select.
It is analogous to a useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides, trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is literally like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack’ the size of the Earth while blindfolded.

It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' open a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and would never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e. biologically useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help, when faced with quadrillions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.

Because Evolution does not have any observable evidence for it’s existence it is scientifically invalid. Evidence for Natural Selection is often introduced in support of Evolution – and indeed both terms are often (incorrectly) interchangeably used by Evolutionists.
The two concepts ARE actually completely separate phenomena and should not be interchangeably deployed. Evolution is a decidedly ‘uphill’ postulate while Natural Selection is a ‘downhill or ‘sideways’ process.

Evolution attempts (but fails) to explain how primordial chemicals evolved into advanced life forms such as Man. It has NO repeatably observable evidence for the sketchy mechanisms it advances to explain how this supposedly occurred – and so it is stuck at the speculation stage in the scientific process.
The ‘big need’ of Evolution is for mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.


10. On the fact that Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
For example:-
There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.
There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. Even using evolutionary timescales, there is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to randomly produce the SEQUENCE for a SIMPLE protein.

What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.

What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!

There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in living systems:-

The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 20 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.

The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.

The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.

There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.

There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. using pre-existing genetic diversity WITHIN Kinds). The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.

The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.


11. On the various scientific dating methods.

All indirect dating methods have deficiencies and inaccuracies. As a scientist I am happy with any date produced using such methods PROVIDED the person producing the date also adds a ‘health warning’, stating the underlying assumptions and why the date may be unreliable.
The reality is that, due to radioactive releases during the Flood, nothing can be RELIABLY dated before Noah’s Flood.
Radiocarbon and Dendrochronology are amongst the most accurate Post-Diluvian dating methods.

Radiocarbon dating is only capable of accurately dating organic materials that are thousands of years old – and it is incapable of even theoretically measuring the ‘millions of years’ time-frame hypotheses of Evolution. Because Radiocarbon dating is necessarily confined to Carbon compounds it cannot be used to ‘age’ rocks or fossils.

Other radiometric dating methods are used to date rocks. However, these methods are based upon unproven assumptions about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant. These unproven assumptions prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being dated at millions of years old.
For example, rock samples taken from submarine lava flows from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.
One of the reasons why nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘apparently altered’ dramatically is because the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example, the leaching of water soluble Potassium salts within a rock can confound the Potassium/Argon test.

Equally, Dendrochronology can only definitively age individual trees – any apparent overlap in the ring pattern between timber samples from different trees may be due to a coincidence of localised conditions in the growth patterns at two separate times rather than proof of similar age.
The oldest tree to be aged using Dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology. However, even this age comes with a ‘health warning’ because multiple growth rings have been observed within the one year in some Pine species and this Bristlecone Pine is likely to be somewhat younger than it’s number of rings suggests.
The age of this tree is also interesting in that it coincides with the approximate aftermath of Noah’s Flood, i.e 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.
The ‘interruption’ caused by Noah’s Flood is also one of the reasons why all History Books refer to the time before c. 5,000 years ago as “pre-historic”.
“Ante-diluvian” would be technically better – but I’m not quibbling!!!!

Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.
Extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates

Research work on the re-growth of damaged areas of the Great Barrier Reef indicates that reef-making processes are much more rapid than was originally thought to be the case – and this would explain fossilised deep coral – and of course the fossilisation process of such deep coral would have required such enormous quantities of sediment to be deposited rapidly over it, that only a large-scale water based catastrophe (like Noah’s flood) could account for the large-scale fossilisation of deep coral, in the first place.

Creation Science has found that varve micro-layers can be laid down very rapidly during the formation of sedimentary rocks. Thousands of micro layers were observed to be laid down in a matter of hours during the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980. These micro-layers were produced by the action of the waters in Spirit Lake on the ash deposited by the volcanic explosion.
This invalidates the geological theory, which postulated that every micro layer in a sedimentary rock deposit represents an annual cycle of silt deposition or varve – thereby attributing great ages to the deep sedimentary rock layers in, for example, the Grand Canyon.

Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that Evolutionists claim took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. The deep sedimentary rock layers that are found worldwide therefore DO NOT indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic water-based disaster of worldwide proportions!!!!


12. On the fossil record.

Part of the problem in INTERPRETING the fossil record is that the particular ‘stretch’ of the fossil record in a rock is used to ‘date’ that particular rock from an evolutionary point of view. There is a form of circular reasoning operating here – the ‘index fossil’ found is used to ‘date’ the rock and then the rock's apparent ‘age’ is used to ‘date’ the other fossils found in it. Please note that it is more likely that the index fossil may be an indicator of the position of itself and the surrounding fossils in the order of 'Flood Burial' rather that indicating the ‘age’ of the rock at all.

The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) Dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely disintegrated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.

Dinosaurs are also found alongside LARGE mammals in the fossil record. The fossilised remains of a small dinosaur (psittacosaur) have been found IN THE STOMACH OF a fossil mammal named Repenomamus robustus. This specimen and another newly-discovered LARGE Repenomamus fossil are a real surprise for Evolutionists because evolutionary assumptions say that mammals living during the so-called ‘age of the dinosaurs‘ weren’t that BIG. (Nature 13/01/2005.)
Another prediction of Evolution ‘bites the dust’.

In a further dramatic breakthrough, it now seems that some of the biggest Dinosaurs THEMSELVES were actually LARGE MAMMALS. Evidence has been uncovered using Comparative Anatomy, which shows that some Dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
Candidates for warm-blooded mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a longer tail and neck).

A creature that IS warm blooded, with the same physiognomy and footprints as an Elephant or a Rhinoceros IS VERY LIKELY to be MAMMAL – in fact what else could it be?

We are now pretty certain that the LARGEST land MAMMALS that EVER lived were in fact, “Dinosaurs”!!!!!

The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded creatures. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!

We see representative species of all of the types of creatures found at all levels in the Geological Column ALIVE today – and there is obviously NO ‘age’ differences between them.
The idea that when you find the fossil of a ‘primitive’ creature you can assume that the rock in which it is found is very old is obviously invalid – it might only have been fossilised one thousand years ago, in a localised catastrophe, for all you know.

For example, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.

Evolutionists now postulate that during the 300 million years during which they claim that Mankind was evolving from something that looked like a rat – the Coelacanth fish remained TOTALLY UNCHANGED!!!!!

The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.

The so-called ‘Geological Column’ is patently not a record of the evolution of life but it does show the expected order of burial in a flood catastrophe i.e. smaller sea floor creatures and flocculated micro-plankton on the bottom ranging up to larger land-based animals (who were able to flee to higher ground) on the top.

The “Cambrian Explosion” in which most of the major animal groups appear ‘suddenly’ in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - DOES fundamentally contradict the idea of a gradually evolving ‘evolutionary tree of life’.
The “Cambrian Explosion” however, IS consistent with the rapid burial under perturbed sediment of billions of different marine organisms at the bottom of the World’s oceans at the start of Noah’s Flood.

The Fossil Record is patently a record of the death of billions of organisms in a water-based catastrophe or catastrophes – and NOT a record of the supposed ‘Evolution of Life’.


13. On astrophysical dating using the speed of light.

The Bible states in Ps 19:1 that “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skys proclaim the work of his hands” (NIV).
God is present everywhere in the Universe. He obviously created the light beams linking the stars and galaxies to the Earth AT THE SAME TIME that He created the stars themselves so that He could display His glory to people on Earth by allowing us to observe the light from ALL of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.
The alternative of allowing the light to travel over billions of years to get here, would ensure that we would never see God’s full glory – by the time the light arrived from the most distant galaxies, the nearer stars, including our Sun would have been extinguished, and us with it.
We should remember that God’s time-scale in His dealings with Human Beings is decidedly NOT ‘astronomical’ – we have been here for less than 7,000 years, our lives last less than 120 years and we are told that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. Under these circumstances, it would be imperative to create the light beams at the same time as the stars – otherwise God would have been unable to declare his glory to mankind as stated in Ps 19:1.

Genesis 1:16 neatly summarised what happened on the Fourth Day of Creation – it says that “God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars”(NIV).
Quite obviously merely making the stars without allowing them to show their presence on Earth through creating the light beams down to the Earth from them would be a waste of time, when the objective of creating them, in the first place, was to proclaim God’s glory to Humans.
And don’t say that this is impossible – the God that created the Universe and all life therein, is able to link every star to the Earth by light beams – it would be a mere ‘trifle’ to Him.

Please note that the above are faith-based speculations, not scientific observations – and so too is the evolutionary assumption that it took billions of years for the light from distant stars to reach the Earth - as this is also not repeatably observable either.


14. On other points / issues.

The point about worms and Humans having common protein sequences is evidence of a COMMON DESIGNER and NOT a common ancestor.
The fact that the observed differences in DNA sequence between supposedly ‘evolutionary close’ creatures are often quite large while the differences between supposedly ‘evolutionary distant’ organisms such as worms and Humans are sometimes small is another ‘nail in the coffin of Evolution’ so to speak.
If Evolution were true then the DNA sequences of supposedly ‘evolutionary close’ creatures SHOULD be almost identical – but Molecular Biology has discovered that this ISN’T the case.

Slime Mould contains a protein that has gene sequences that are almost identical with Human Haemoglobin – but obviously this doesn’t mean that we are related to slime moulds.
It is indicative of a common designer – and NOT a common ancestor.

The mutation of Retroviruses and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are examples of the distribution, reduction, or recombination of EXISTING genetic information – but NONE of these processes have ever been observed to INCREASE genetic information.
Bacterial antibiotic resistance is caused by a LOSS of genetic information or the recombination of such defective genetic information into normal bacteria. What actually kills most bacteria is not the antibiotic itself – but the metabolites of the antibiotic – and if the ability to metabolise the antibiotic IS LOST the bacterium usually stays alive and therefore “resistant”. The non-resistant bacteria literally "know" too much for their own good!!!
Antibiotic resistance is an example of DEVOLUTION in action i.e. a LOSS of genetic information – admittedly doing some short term good for the bacterium. However, as soon as the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise “fitter") bacteria tend to take over again and rapidly replace the resistant ones.
All of these agents of disease-and death are the result of the ‘Fall of Man’ and Satan’s Rebellion – and they are not capable of generating life &

bumper234 wrote: »

JC doesn't do.evidence, prepare yourself for an 800 word reply from him full of spin and conjecture. If you ask him.something too difficult he runs off for a few weeks in the hope people have forgotten.

1. Safehands asked a very big question ... and I have given him an appropriately big answer. Please read it before making comments about it being 'full of spin and conjecture' ... and if you find any of it to be so, please quote it.
2. My world doesn't revolve about the Boards or these threads ... I am often necessarily caught up doing other things ... and I've answered all questions - even the supposedly 'difficult' ones ... and if I have missed something, please point it out and I'll be happy to provide an answer.:)

bumper234 wrote: »

LMAO

Good that I have brought a smile to somebody's face.:)

... we all can do with a good laugh sometimes ...
I have a good chuckle every time I hear the mantra of 'millions of years' trotted out ... or various 'just so' stories about 'how' Evolution did this or that ... when its incapable of producing just one specific 100 chain amino acid chain, even using all of the matter and supposed time in the Big Baang Universe!!!:pac: