Archive for NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
  Forum Index -> CHAPEL

Creation, Evolution, Young Earth, gap theory

Evolution or Creation

Young Earth debate

Young Earth - Evolution-Creation Debate
Feb 8, 2014   Ken Ham
Fires Back at Pat Robertson Over Young Earth Creationism.
Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham fired back at "The 700 Club" host Pat Robertson who blasted Ham's young earth views, calling Robertson misinformed and deceived.

Sad that so many will believe Robertson who is neither a scientist, nor a Bible scholar rather than open their Bibles and see that evolution and millions of years are totally incompatible with the first 11 chapters of Genesis and rather than think for themselves and check out creationist web sites like Answers in Genesis, Ham wrote.

On Wednesday Feb 6, 2014, Pat Robertson talked about the debate that took place Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky between Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye "The Science Guy," and accused the creationist of making a mockery of Christians with his young earth views.

"Anyone who is in the oil business knows he's drilling down, 2 miles, 3 miles underground, you're coming into all these layers that were laid down by the dinosaurs," Robertson said. "And we have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back like 65 million years. And to say that it all came around 6,000 years ago is nonsense."

Young Earth
Pat Robertson (700 Club) insists the Bible does not claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.  Sad
Ham said essentially that Christian leaders and Christian college and seminary professors are uninformed and deceived.
Protestant pastors are split on the age of the earth.  Nearly half dont believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

I used to watch 700 Club and I am sad to see Pat Robertson part of the 666 Beast.

Scopes II
Did the debate change anyone's mind?

3 Million Watched Evolution-Creation Debate, but How Many Minds Changed?
The topic for the debate was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, which owns the Creation Museum, presented the argument for creation. Ham based his arguments on what he said was a misrepresentation of the definition of the word science, particularly in the differences between observational and historical science.

3 million viewers watched last night's evolution/creation debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum, which was the location of the much-discussed event.

In what some observers have dubbed "Scopes II," Nye and Ham sparred in a cordial yet spirited debate in front of a live audience that braved a winter storm. At least 10,000 groups watched a live stream of the debate in a public venue, and about 750,000 computers logged on to the debate.

With the thousands of groups viewing the debate in churches, schools and other places, and with families watching at home, it is reasonable to estimate that a minimum of four people were watching per single log in via One location, Liberty University, reported 1,500 debate viewers on its campus.

Facebook reported the debate was the No. 1 trending topic for many hours before the event began. On Twitter, #creationdebate and Ken Ham occupied the worldwide Twitter trending topic during and after the debate. For a time, the event was half of Twitter's trending topics.

The debate was moderated by the capable Tom Foreman of CNN. Right after the debate, Nye and Ham were interviewed on CNN's Piers Morgan Live and then by Dan Harris, a correspondent with ABC's Nightline program. Also last night, MSNBC's The Last Word interviewed Mr. Nye by himself inside the Creation Museum. About 70 media representatives were able to beat the incoming storm to attend.

The topic for the debate was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, which owns the Creation Museum, presented the argument for creation. Ham based his arguments on what he said was a misrepresentation of the definition of the word science, particularly in the differences between observational and historical science.

"There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past," Ham said. "Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can't prove either way observationally, because all we've got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews."

Abusing Creation and the Decline of the Church
Jan 4, 2014
 Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church.
Ken Ham asserts that the church is in decline because it is distorting and abusing the Bible account of creation.
Christianity? Today magazine doubts a literal Adam. Where does this lead?
To the compromise of the authority of Scripture.
Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis - an EXCELLENT book.

Being Salt and Light as a Nation Decays
Feb 8, 2014
Jan and co-host Eric Barger talk to Moody Church (Chicago) Pastor Erwin Lutzer. How can we be salt and light as the nation and culture decay? This is not a downbeat hour although Lutzer does compare the dilemma of ancient Israel and the prophet Jeremiah's warnings to them to America. How to live above the calamity of our times.

Understanding The Times Prophecy in news

This thread includes the age of earth among other popular heresies today.
Young Earth Creationist Ministry's Biggest Critics: Christians
For 30 years, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has advocated a literal, straightforward reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Interestingly, his staunchest critics have been fellow Christians.
Ham believes that God is the Creator of the universe and that it took six literal days for God to create everything. That view, he says, is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as infallible. To reject that belief is to undermine that authority.
Yet many Christians not only dismiss the literal reading of the Creation account but also feel embarrassed by it.

GOD is calling the Church to prepare to stand

HARBINGER  WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy
When GOD destroys USA, you cant say He didnt WARN us!


DAILY NEWS with prophetic analysis


New Evolution Documentary Aims to Keep Science In, and Religion Out, of Classrooms
Oct 2011
A new documentary about evolution, "No Dinosaurs in Heaven," is looking to push creationist teachers out of American classrooms to prevent the "hijacking of science education by religious fundamentalists." The film accuses such teachers of "dangerously undermining scientific literacy."

The tone of the movie, which is directed by Greta Schiller and produced by Jezebel Productions Shocked , is averse to the "anti-evolution activities" that allegedly threaten free scientific development in American schools. According to the website for "No Dinosaurs in Heaven," the documentary takes a stand that is very critical of those with creationist beliefs. The goal of the movie, according to the press release, is to "keep science in, religion out of our public school science classrooms."

"As a filmmaker, I felt it was imperative that I weave together, in a comprehensive, thought provoking visual essay, ideas about what science is, how it is taught, why it can be celebrated as a creative human endeavor and why it is crucial that evolution is put front and center of science education," Schiller said in a statement.

"Our film addresses the urgent need for us to make science education a priority or risk continuing to make wrong decisions concerning the survival of the planet," the statement on the documentary's Facebook page reads. "We aim to raise awareness of the euphemisms and strategies used by the anti-evolution activities, and to empower parents, teachers, administrators, students and policy makers in their struggles to ensure public schools teach real science.”

The film follows the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Eugenie Scott, down the Colorado River. Throughout the trip, the scientist attempts to disprove creationist theories about the Grand Canyon being only a few thousand years old and holding evidence of the biblical flood, according to the Religion News Service.

Teaching evolution remains a controversial issue. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., writing as a columnist for The Christian Post, called naturalistic evolution "the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world."
"It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate," he wrote.

A 2010 Gallup poll revealed that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism – that is, that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

New Giant Skulls Found
Many cone shaped skulls have been found worldwide, Evidence of the Nephilim,
the offspring of the Giants, the Fallen Angeles, Anunnaki,  Pharoahs of Egypt, Sumerians, Maya, Inca.  Genesis 6:4

Sons of GOD - NEPHILIM - demon seed

Advice for Ken Ham in the Creation-Evolution Debate
January 27, 2014
 Posted by Don Boys before the debate
The creation/evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham may not become a clash between a table-banging atheist and a Bible-thumping creationist, but it will come close. New Atheists have their knickers in a knot because the Feb. 4 debate may expose evolutionists/atheists for the fools they are. (God said it first!) An evolutionist who is dumb enough to go head to head with an informed creationist usually gets his head handed to him on a platter.

Richard Dawkins and his rabble are fearful of this coming encounter. Some evolutionists are even preparing excuses for Nye’s defeat: “He only has a bachelor’s degree.” “He’s an engineer, not a biologist.” Others have said that Nye will treat the debate as a joke, but if so, the joke will be on him.

Dawkins has interjected himself into this debate by pontificating: “They [creationists] want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists.” Only a fool, a falsifier, or fanatic declares that all scientists are in agreement on the issue of origins! One major, obvious disagreement is between Neo-Darwinists and punctuated equilibrium devotees. Of course, the huge difference is between those scientists who believe in evolution and those scientists who believe in creationism–there are thousands of them!

Dawkins has said that “Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.” In that, Dawkins is right, at least from their perspective because they almost always lose the debates!

Dawkins added incorrectly, “They [creationists] may not win the argument–in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.” Sorry, Dick, you are in a dream world. Dawkins got wounded when an Australian film producer asked him a question about the origin of information and Dick was silent for 19 minutes (not 11 as reported) before he came up with an answer that did not relate to the question! Now, he is denying it happened! And Dawkins has the audacity to say of creationists, “Their dishonesty stops nowhere.” I think Dawkins’ honesty has never started.

Concerning evolution/creation debates, famous evolutionist Niles Eldredge confessed in his book, Monkey Business, “The creationists nearly always win….Creationists today–at least the majority of their spokesmen–are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence.” So, it’s no surprise that evolutionists are concerned about the “Shoot-out at the O.K. Corral” in Kentucky.

Since Ken and I are on the same team, I will provide him some unsolicited advice (although I’m sure he is “loaded for bear”) on how to handle “the science guy.” Scientific creationism has been discussed, debated, denigrated, denied but never disproved; and the “science guy” will discover that when he visits Kentucky. My advice to Nye is to run away from this debate as if his hair was on fire!

Ham should challenge Nye to declare that he does or does not believe the unsupportable, even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. Ham should promise not to laugh out loud, maybe only a snicker or two. If Nye follows the path taken by others, he will try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, psycho-babble, and gibberish. He should be pressed to make his points in clear, concise, and common English. He may try to laugh it away but Ham should not permit him to get away with that.

Ham should demand an explanation as to how all the scientific laws such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, and others came into existence. After all, “laws” cannot evolve. Were those laws operating before or after the Big Bang?

I would then ask Nye to produce evidence that an explosion has ever resulted in order. Nye may then try to declare that evolutionists don’t believe the Big Bang was an explosion but Nye is lying or is uninformed if he defends that myth. Press him, kindly, of course.

I would then ask how life first formed on a planet made entirely of rock! Then force him to admit that he believes in spontaneous generation that no sane person believes! Press harder.

I would then ask why, if the earth is billions of years old, no meteorites are found in “ancient” strata. That was zero, nil, zip, nothing! Everyone admits that meteorites have always fallen so where is the evidence if the earth is ancient?

I then would ask which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system. After all, what good is a mouth if you don’t have a stomach? No sensible person says they all evolved together. Yes, evolution requires miracles but only one every few million years. Not four miracles happening at the same time!

I would then ask about DNA. Since everyone admits that DNA is a code, ask who wrote the code. Books, codes, messages, letters, notes, emails, etc., do not self-compose, well except in the fairytale world of the evolutionists. Who wrote the DNA code? Press real hard!

I would then demand to know how blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality. The “science guy” will probably sweat, squirm, stutter, and stammer about here.

I would then ask him to explain the symbiotic relationship between wild creatures such as the Nile crock and the Egyptian plover that walks into the crock’s mouth to clean out parasites then walks out without any harm. How does such evolution happen without the crock getting an easy, tasty meal and the plover getting dead?
I would ask how it is possible for fresh (not fossilized) blood cells to be discovered in dinosaurs that are alleged to be more than 60 million years old. That doesn’t happen in the real world.

Evolution is simply a humanist, materialistic religion that seeks to explain man’s origins. It’s not a very good religion. It doesn’t even have any holidays except April 1, although most evolutionists get rather pious on the anniversary of the founding of the ACLU.

Every evolutionist I have met and observed and read after brings up the “creation is religion and evolution is science” axiom as if that settles the matter. But how can evolution be science when it can’t be observed, tested, or demonstrated? The fact is, evolution is as scientific as a voodoo-rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!
Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat–that isn’t there.
Press on, Ken, press on.

Bill Nye couldnt dance either - on Dancing with the Stars  

Twisted Evil   Emergent Church Leaders Promote Evolution
Emergent Church leaders Sally Morgenthaler, Spencer Burke, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren are joining “Evolutionary Evangelist” * Michael Dowd in the promotion of evolutionary spirituality, long taught by leading New Age gurus like Barbara Marx Hubbard. Dowd sent out this press release yesterday about the new project.

Evolutionary evangelist Michael Dowd (wolf) is pitching evolution and honor science.
Dowd has a living library of pseudochristians on the leading edge of science and religion, where mythic beliefs and reality collide.

His guests also include Brian McLaren, named by Time magazine as one of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals; Catholic theologian John Haught and Brown University biologist Ken Miller, both key witnesses for the plaintiff at the 2005 Dover ‘intelligent design’ trial; Wired magazine co-founder Kevin Kelly; Ian Lawton, pastor of the Michigan church that recently made national news for removing its cross; Sister Joan Chittister, co-chair of the U.N. Global Peace Initiative of Women; and Sister Gail Worcelo, co-founder of Green Mountain Monastery with Thomas Berry; Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose books on evolving faith have sold more than a million copies; Matthew Fox, defrocked by now Pope Benedict XVI for embracing Creation Spirituality; Paul Smith, a veteran pastor who was kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention for blessing gay unions; and 30 other evolutionary Christians.

* Michael Dowd is false. This wickedness will draw the wrath of GOD.
A Gallup poll reveals that 4 in ten Americans still believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form.
This Evil 'New Spirituality' will face judgment day.   It is the religion of the Beast - 666 - worship of Lucifer aka Satan.

* This was on topic elsewhere - I added it here

Didn't watch the debate, but pretty much this Bill Nye guy, like all evolutionist "experts", made a complete fool out of himself. No surprise, as they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their claims, while these creationist bible believers like Ham have the WHOLE council of God to guide them. Very Happy

As for these "Christian evolutionists" - they're more or less walking after their own lusts and following after earthly riches.

1Timothy 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness
: from such withdraw thyself.

(Friday Church News Notes, February 14, 2014,, 866-295-4143)

- The following is excerpted from "Answering Bill Nye," Around the World with Ken Ham, Feb. 8, 2014:

"During my recent debate with Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' at the Creation Museum, Mr. Nye ... made a false claim about our state of Kentucky and its medical technology. It caught the eye of a diagnostic radiologist, who wrote a letter to Bill Nye to correct him [about the] false charge that the state of Kentucky does not have a nuclear medicine program within its borders. Apparently it was Nye's attempt to show that the Creation Museum's home state is backward technologically, and that the museum has supposedly been contributing to scientific illiteracy in Kentucky. ... 'Bill, I thank you for your time and effort in participating in the debate with Ken Ham. I am a Bible-believing Christian and a physician--a diagnostic radiologist, in fact. I graduated from MIT with a degree of biology, and went on to New York University for my medical school. I was not a believer of Christ then, but I am a believer now. ... You state: "Right now, there is no place in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine." ... You could have used the website of the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the governing body for certifying individuals to be a nuclear medicine technologist. In their list of accredited schools for nuclear medicine technologists, Kentucky has two: one in Louisville at Jefferson Community College, and the other in Lexington at Bluegrass Community & Technical College. ... If you go further down the list for the State of Washington (where Nye Labs LLC is located, as per your Contact Bill Nye webpage), there is only one, at Bellevue College in Bellevue, WA. So, by your argument (of using the number of nuclear medicine technology schools as a reflection of that state's scientific sophistication), perhaps you should be worried that your state of Washington is a bit behind Kentucky in technological and scientific sophistication, and I hope that you find that "troubling" and hope you're "concerned" about that. By your argument, Kentucky is twice as scientifically literate as Washington. ... Perhaps you owe an apology to the citizens of Kentucky in the live and Internet audience regarding your comment about their state.'"


What is the Gap Theory?
Did anything happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

Answer: Genesis 1:1-2 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” The Gap Theory is the view that God created a fully functional earth with all animals, including the dinosaurs and other creatures we know only from the fossil record. Then, the theory goes, something happened to destroy the earth completely—some speculate it was the fall of Satan to earth—so that the earth became without form and void. At this point, God started all over again, recreating the earth in its paradise form as further described in Genesis.

There are too many problems with this theory to describe adequately in a brief response, not the least of which is that if something important had occurred between the two verses, God would have told us so. God would not have left us to speculate in ignorance about such important events. Second, Genesis 1:31 says God declared His creation to be “very good,” which He certainly could not say if evil had already entered the world via Satan’s fall in the “gap.” Along the same line, if the fossil record is to be explained by the millions of years in the gap, that means death, disease, and suffering were common many ages before Adam fell. But the Bible tells us that it was Adam’s sin that introduced death, disease, and suffering to all life: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12)

Those who hold to the Gap Theory do so in order to reconcile the theories of modern scientists who hold to the old-earth theory—the belief that the earth is billions of years older than can be accounted for by adding up the genealogies of man found in the Bible. Even well-meaning evangelicals have bought into the old-earth theory, handling much of Genesis 1 allegorically, while attempting to hold to a literal interpretation of the rest of Scripture. The danger in this is in determining at what point to stop allegorizing and begin interpreting literally. Was Adam a literal person? How do we know? If he was not, then did he really bring sin into the human race, or can we allegorize that as well? And if there was no literal Adam to introduce the sin which we all inherit, then there was no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. A non-literal original sin denies the reason for Christ’s coming in the first place, as explained in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” At that point, Christianity itself becomes a hoax and the Bible just a nice book of stories and fables. Can we not see where this type of “reasoning” gets us?

Genesis 1 simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that creation occurred over long periods of time, nor that these periods occurred in the space between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. What took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? Absolutely nothing! Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 informs us that when He first created the earth, it was formless, empty, and dark; it was not finished and not yet inhabited by creatures. The rest of Genesis chapter 1 tells us how God completed the formless, empty, and dark earth by filling it with life, beauty, and goodness. The Bible is true, literal, and perfect (Psalm 19:7-9). Science has never disproved anything in the Bible and it never will. The Bible is supreme truth and therefore is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not the other way around.

Gap creationism - Excerpt:
Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.[4]

Gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers,[5] a professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises, who attributed it to 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitch****.[4]

It gained widespread attention when a "second creative act"[6] was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.[4]


Free Church of Scotland (1843–1900)

Great importance was attached to maintaining an educated ministry within the Free Church. Because the established Church of Scotland controlled the divinity faculties of the universities, the FC set up its own colleges. New College was opened in 1850 with five chairs; Christ's College and Trinity College (1856) followed later. The first generation of teachers were enthusiastic proponents of Westminster Calvinism. This position was soon abandoned, as theologians such as Dr A. B. Bruce, Marcus Dods and George Adam Smith began to teach a more liberal understanding of the faith. 'Believing criticism' of the Bible was a central approach taught by such as William Robertson Smith. Attempts were made between 1890 and 1895 to bring many of these professors to the bar of the Assembly on charges of heresy, but these moves failed, with only minor warnings being issued.

This is an EXCELLENT sermon EXPOSING this heretical Genesis 1:1/1:2 gap theory nonsense!

The Gap Theory

The Gap Theory Part 2

The Gap Theory Part 3

The Gap Theory Part 4

posted by BornAgain2 on another thread, I combined these two

Thank you!
Pretty much - the gap theory has been a VERY crafty deception - it wasn't so much that evolution was brought to the table by devils, but their ultimate end game was to compromise the bible with modern-day science(and not just put out "modern-science" alone). Ultimately, the whole evolution debate was part of their "higher criticism" of scripture.

I don't know how people like Clarence Larken got well respected - sure, he preached a lot of rock solid dispensational truth, but nonetheless he is COMPLETELY wrong supporting the gap theory(and how there was a "gap" of a billion of years old b/w Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). If the gap theory is true, then it means death came *before* sin.(ie-this theory teaches that there was some pre-Adamic civilization BEFORE the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden)

Ultimately, read the scriptures - it clearly shows there was no pre-Adamic (or whatever) civilization in the beginning.

Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers’ Perspective on Genesis

Ephesians 4:14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16  From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Fight between science and creationism continues at ESPN

Technically Incorrect: After an ESPN baseball writer tweets his creationist views, he is suspended. This week, basketball color commentator Bill Walton tries to persuade play-by-plan man Dave Pasch about science. Pasch is unimpressed.


There's one thing missing on ESPN: a show about the philosophy of creation.

There'd have to be a referee, of course. Six points for a compelling argument. An extra point for a conversion.

I have come up with this necessary idea because it seems that the root of all life has become a salient topic among ESPN's employees.

Just a few weeks ago, ESPN baseball writer Keith Law was suspended from Twitter after offering his science-based views to former Red Sox pitcher (and devout believer) Curt Schilling.

This week, the science versus creationism debate crept onto ESPN's live television.

Here we were during a college basketball game. Famed free thinking west-coaster and former basketball great Bill Walton was toasting play-by-play man Dave Pasch.

Pasch had been named Arizona's sportscaster of the year. So Walton bought him a cake. He also bought him a gift. It happened to be Charles Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species."

Clearly, there must have been some debate between the two about where we all came from. So here we were, live on air, with Walton attempting to offer Pasch a little scientific edification and education.

"We want to make sure you believe in evolution," said Walton.

"I don't," replied Pasch, less than impressed.

As the slight awkwardness continued, Pasch revealed he had a book to counter Darwin.

"I believe in science and evolution," insisted Walton. He added: "I've been to the Grand Canyon."

Pasch meanwhile revealed that what Walton needed was a little "irreducible complexity" to straighten him out.

Should you be unfamiliar with this concept, this is the notion that some biological systems are just too complicated to have evolved from the simple elements that existed before them. The eye is one example used by proponents of this idea.

Scientists such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson look upon irreducible complexity with a jaundiced orb. But there are still many who look upon science's claims as the mere self-supporting proclamations of shamans.

It seems clear, therefore, that ESPN must step in to the fray and offer must-see late-night television.

Who wouldn't tune in to see Chris Berman, John Gruden, Schilling and the like debate issues far grander than quarterback rating and ERA?

Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution
September 2011
 A startling mix of human and primitive traits found in the brains, hips, feet and hands of an extinct species identified last year make a strong case for it being the immediate ancestor to the human lineage, scientists have announced.

These new findings could rewrite long-standing theories about the precise steps human evolution took, they added, including the notion that early human female hips changed shape to accommodate larger-brained offspring. There is also new evidence suggesting that this species had the hands of a toolmaker.

Fossils of the extinct hominid known as Australopithecus sediba were accidentally discovered by the 9-year-old son of a scientist in the remains of a cave in South Africa in 2008, findings detailed by researchers last year. Australopithecus means "southern ape," and is a group that includes the iconic fossil Lucy, while sediba means "wellspring" in the South African language Sotho. [See images of human ancestor]

Two key specimens were discovered — a juvenile male as developed as a 10- to 13-year-old human and an adult female maybe in her late 20s or early 30s. The species is both a hominid and a hominin — hominids include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and their extinct ancestors, while hominins include those species after Homo, the human lineage, split from that of chimpanzees.

To begin to see where Au. sediba might fit on the family tree, researchers pinned down the age of the fossils by dating the calcified sediments surrounding them with advanced uranium-lead dating techniques and a method called paleomagnetic dating, which measures how many times the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. They discovered the fossils were approximately 1.977 million years old, which predates the earliest appearances of traits specific to the human lineage Homo in the fossil record. This places Au. sediba in roughly the same age category as hominids such as Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, which were thought to be potential ancestors to Homo erectus, the earliest undisputed predecessor of modern humans. [10 Things That Make Humans Special]

"As the fossil record for early human ancestors increases, the need for more accurate dates is becoming paramount," said researcher Robyn Pickering at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Small but humanlike brain
Most aspects of Au. sediba display an intriguing mix of both human and more primitive features that hint it might be an intermediary form between Australopithecus and Homo.

"The fossils demonstrate a surprisingly advanced but small brain, a very evolved hand with a long thumb like a human's, a very modern pelvis, but a foot and ankle shape never seen in any hominin species that combines features of both apes and humans in one anatomical package," said researcher Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. "The many very advanced features found in the brain and body and the earlier date make it possibly the best candidate ancestor for our genus, the genus Homo, more so than previous discoveries such as Homo habilis."

The brain is often thought of as what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom, and the juvenile specimen of Au. sediba had an exceptionally well-preserved skull that could shed light on the pace of brain evolution in early hominins. To find out more, the researchers scanned the space in the skull where its brain would have been using the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France; the result is the most accurate scan ever produced for an early human ancestor, with a level of detail of up to 90 microns, or just below the size of a human hair.

The scan revealed Au. sediba had a much smaller brain than seen in human species, with an adult version maybe only as large as a medium-size grapefruit. However, it was humanlike in several ways — for instance, its orbitofrontal region directly behind the eyes apparently expanded in ways that make it more like a human's frontal lobe in shape. This area is linked in humans with higher mental functions such as multitasking, an ability that may contribute to human capacities for long-term planning and innovative behavior.

"We could be seeing the beginnings of those capabilities," researcher Kristian Carlson at the University of Witwatersrand told LiveScience.

These new findings cast doubt on the long-standing theory that brains gradually increased in size and complexity from Australopithecus to Homo. Instead, their findings corroborate an alternative idea — that Australopithecus brains did increase in complexity gradually, becoming more like Homo, and later increased in size relatively quickly.

Modern hips
This mosaic of modern and primitive traits held true with its hips as well. An analysis of the partial pelvis of the female Au. sediba revealed that it had modern, humanlike features.

"It is surprising to discover such an advanced pelvis in such a small-brained creature," said researcher Job Kibii at the University of the Witwatersrand.  "It is short and broad like a human pelvis ... parts of the pelvis are indistinguishable from that of humans."

Scientists had thought the human-like pelvis evolved to accommodate larger-brained offspring. The new findings of humanlike hips in Au. sediba despite small-brained offspring suggests these pelvises may have instead initially evolved to help this hominin better wander across the landscape, perhaps as grasslands began to expand across its habitat.

When it came to walking, investigating the feet and ankles of the fossils revealed surprises about how Au. sediba might have strode across the world. No hominin ankle has ever been described with so many primitive and advanced features.

"If the bones had not been found stuck together, the team may have described them as belonging to different species," said researcher Bernhard Zipfel at the University of the Witwatersrand.

The  researchers discovered that its ankle joint is mostly like a human's, with some evidence for a humanlike arch and a well--efined Achilles tendon, but its heel and shin bones appear to be mostly ape-like. This suggested the hominid probably climbed trees yet also halkid in a unique way not exactly like that of humans.

Altogether, such anatomical traits would have allowed Au. sediba to walk in perhaps a more energy-efficient way, with tendons storing energy and returning that energy to the next step, said researcher Steve Churchill from Duke University in Durham, N.C. "These are the kinds of things that we see with the genus Homo," he explained.

What nice hands …
Finally, an analysis of Au. sediba's hands suggests it might have been a toolmaker. The fossils — including the most complete hand known in an early hominin, which is missing only a few bones and belonged to the mature female specimen — showed its hand was capable of the strong grasping needed for tree-climbing, but that it also had a long thumb and short fingers. These would have allowed it a precision grip useful for tools, one involving just the thumb and fingers, where the palm does not play an active part.

Altogether, the hand of Au. sediba has more features related to tool-making than that of the first human species thought of as a tool user, the "handy man" Homo habilis, said researcher Tracy Kivell at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany. "This suggests to us that sediba may also have been a toolmaker."

Though the scientists haven't excavated the site in search of stone tools, "the hand and brain morphology suggest that Au. sediba may have had the capacity to manufacture and use complex tools," Kivell added.

The researchers do caution that although they suggest that Au. sediba was ancestral to the human lineage, all these apparent resemblances between it and us could just be coincidences, with this extinct species evolving similar traits to our lineages due, perhaps, to similar circumstances. [Top 10 Missing Links]

In fact, it might be just as interesting to imagine that Au. sediba was not directly ancestral to Homo, because it opens up the possibility "of independent evolution of the same sorts of features," Carlson said. "Whether or not it's on the same lineage as leading to Homo, I think there are interesting questions and implications."

2 Thess 2
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

Evolution theory co-founder a 'heretic'
January 2012
A documentary that premiers online this Saturday tells why Alfred Russel Wallace, the man who shares credit with Charles Darwin for the theory of natural selection, later became known as Darwin's heretic.

"Alfred Russel Wallace was one of the leading naturalists of the 19th Century. He shares credit with Charles Darwin for discovering the theory of evolution by natural selection," the Darwin's Heretic narrator explains. "But if Alfred Russel Wallace tried to talk about his views in a science class today, he would likely be banned because Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of the modern theory of evolution, also believed in intelligent design."

Michael Flannery (Discovery Institute)The 21-minute film is based on Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, the biography written by Discovery Institute fellow and University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Michael Flannery. He tells OneNewsNow this film can be a valuable tool in the classroom "because people are not familiar with Wallace."

"This film will be an excellent way for them to appreciate, shall we say, the new perspective in evolutionary theory that Wallace brought to the table," Flannery asserts.

2 posts added from 2 other old threads

How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?
January 19, 2015  Darwin Debate

Student follows the debate over intelligent design (ID aka GOD) and is aware that the Darwin lobby's rhetoric typically fails to address ID's actual arguments (which are scientific in nature), instead focusing on personal attacks or trying to claim ID is religion. This student feels it is obvious that ID has the upper hand in the argument, but wonders when the majority opinion will also recognize this.

I agree that in the long-term, the position of the anti-ID lobby is simply not sustainable. You can't keep claiming forever that ID is just "religion" or "politics" when the ID camp is producing legitimate science, and even non-ID scientists keep making discoveries that confirm the predictions of ID. Or I suppose you can keep claiming whatever you want, but it will become increasingly difficult to get people to believe you.
ID proponent generally wins hands down.

Genesis 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I see these gap theory pushers point to the word "replenish" and insist how God is commanding the earth to be re-filled. However, that's NOT what it means. Here's an example...

Acts 1:6  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

This passage talks about the future 1000 year mil reign on earth by Jesus Christ - look at the word restore - no, it does NOT mean it will "re"-do something, per se. Has there been any kind of 1000 year mil reign on earth by Jesus, EVER? No! Again - look at the CONTEXT of the meanings of these verses via what the BIBLE says, and NOT what the world says!

At the 02:33:48 mark, Pastor Cooley and bro Nate briefly expose the gap theory.

A brother over at another message forum I'm at posted this(in response to what I said above)...


The word replenish is one of the gap theory's main foundation. The only problem is it si so easily kicked out of the way toppling the whole idea of gap theory. They use it as we use the word today. Today in 2015 the word pretty much means to fill again. Which would make a case for gap theory. Why would we have to fill again the world? The only problem is... is that this word has changed meanings over the years.

Many words today do not mean what they meant years ago. Take the queer, it originally and still does mean something that is strange or mysterious. But in today's context it means a homosexual. Now the word replenish originally meant just "to fill", not to fill again.

Noah 1828
46136    replenish    REPLEN'ISH, v. t. [L. re and plenus, full. ]1. To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are

Its that simple. In 1611 and even 1828 the word replenish simply meant "to fill", not fill again.

AHHHH the gap theory has fallen!!! Laughing

Why the Gap Theory Won't Work
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

What is the Gap Theory?

One of the popular devices for trying to accommodate the evolutionary ages of the geologists and astronomers in the creation record of the Bible has been the "gap theory"—also called the "ruin-and-reconstruction" theory.

According to this concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe. Following this, the standard events of cosmic evolution took place, which eventually produced our solar system about five billion years ago. Then, on the earth, the various geologic ages followed, as identified by their respective assemblages of fossils (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.).

But then occurred a devastating global cataclysm, destroying all life on Earth and leaving a vast fossil graveyard everywhere. This situation is then said to be what is described in Genesis 1:2. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The cataclysm is thought to have occurred as a result of the rebellion of Satan and his angels against their Creator in Heaven, with God then casting them out of Heaven to the earth.

Those who advocate the gap theory agree that the six days of the creation week were literal days, but they interpret them only as days of recreation, with God creating again many of the kinds of animals and plants destroyed in the cataclysm.

What is the Purpose of the Gap Theory?

The gap theory was developed mainly for the purpose of accommodating the great ages demanded by evolutionary geologists. This idea was first popularized by a Scottish theologian, Thomas Chalmers, early in the 19th century. In this country, the famous Scofield Study Bible made it an almost universally accepted teaching among fundamentalists.

The Scofield Bible notes on Genesis I include the following:

   The first act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages. . . . The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. . . . Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.

However, serious conflicts do remain. In fact, there are few, if any, professionally trained geologists and astronomers (to my knowledge there are none) who accept the gap theory. The promoters of this theory have mostly been Bible teachers who hoped they could place these great ages in a gap between the first two verses of Genesis, and thus not have to deal with them at all.

With the modem revival of scientific Biblical creationism, many of these teachers have abandoned the gap theory in favor of strict creationism. Most advocates of the gap idea were men of strong Biblical faith, and when they were shown its Biblical fallacies, plus its scientific inadequacies, they were quite willing to reject the evolutionary ages scheme altogether.

Many of us had naively assumed that the gap theory was moribund, and so had concentrated most of our critiques on the other compromise theories (day-age theory, framework theory, etc.). But it now appears that the gap theory is still being advocated by a number of evangelical theologians.

For example, the Nelson Study Bible, published this year (1997), in its footnotes on Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, says:

   Here it means that God renewed what was in a chaotic state. God changed chaos into cosmos, disorder into order, emptiness into fullness. . . . The two words, without form and void, express one concept—chaos. The earth had been reduced to this state—it was not the way God had first created it.

The editors and contributors to this volume—43 in all—include many well-known evangelical leaders. Yet they feel they must allow for the geological ages, and so they opt for what amounts to the old gap theory again with its pre-Adamic cataclysm. The notes in this study Bible do allow a worldwide Flood, but there are no relevant comments on the effects of sin and the curse on the animal kingdom, and no mention of the billions of fossils now preserved in the earth's sedimentary rock beds.

Is the Gap Theory Scientific?

The reason why geologists will not accept the gap theory is that it contradicts their assumption that the past is CONTINUOUS with the present. There is no room in their naturalistic approach to science for a global cataclysm that would destroy all life and then require a new creation of plants, animals, and people such as the gap theory proposes.

Any cataclysm that would leave the earth "without form and void" (or "a shapeless chaotic mass" as The Living Bible expresses it), with "darkness on the face of the deep" everywhere, would require a worldwide nuclear or volcanic explosion that would effectively disintegrate the whole crust of the earth. All pre-cataclysm mountains would be blown into the sea and billions of tons of rocks and dust blown into the atmosphere, leaving the earth covered with "the deep" everywhere and "darkness" covering the deep everywhere.

Such a cataclysm would disintegrate any previously deposited sedimentary deposits with their fossils and thus obliterate all evidence of any previous "geological ages." Thus the gap theory, which is supposed to accommodate the geological ages, requires a cataclysm which would destroy all evidence for the geological ages.

Is it Theologically Sound?

The gap theory is also unsound theologically. The God of Creation is an omnipotent and omniscient God, and is also a God of grace, mercy, and love. The very concept of the geological ages, on the other hand, implies a wasteful and cruel "god," and therefore probably no god at all.

The supposed geologic ages are identified in terms of the fossils found in the earth's sedimentary rocks, and there are multiplied billions of them there. But fossils speak of death—even violent death. The preservation of dead animals requires rapid burial if they are to last very long. There are many regions, for example, where there are millions of fossil fish preserved in the rocks. There are dinosaur fossil beds on every continent, as well as great beds of fossil marine invertebrates practically everywhere. These may indeed speak of cataclysmic death and burial, but not a cataclysm operating slowly over billions of years, as the geological ages imply. If the gap theory were valid, it would mean that God had instituted an ages-long system of suffering and death over the world, before there were ever any men and women to place in dominion over that world, and then suddenly destroy it in a violent cataclysm. Why would an omnipotent, merciful God do such a wasteful and cruel thing as that?

They cannot blame Satan, either. According to the gap theory, Satan's fall took place at the end of the geological ages, followed by the great pre-Adamic cataclysm on the earth. Thus the geological ages, with their eons of cruelty and waste, took place even before Satan's sin. God Himself would be solely responsible for the whole debacle, if it really happened.

But is the Gap Theory Biblical?

If the Bible actually teaches the gap theory' however, then there might be some reason to try to accommodate it in our theology. But the Bible does not teach it! If there really had been billions of years of animals suffering and dying before Genesis 1:2, why would God say nothing about it? The best they can offer in support of such a notion are some out-of-context QUOTES from Isaiah and Jeremiah, along with an ad hoc translation of Genesis 1:1,2.

And why would God send such a devastating cataclysm at all? Satan's fall did not occur until after the creation week of Genesis 1, for at that time God had pronounced the whole creation "very good" (Genesis 1: 31). At present, however, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together" (Romans 8:22) because of the great curse pronounced by God on man's dominion (Genesis 3:17-19), as a result of sin.

This groaning creation has indeed experienced one global cataclysm—one not inferred from vague hints in out-of-context QUOTES, but rather one described in great detail in Genesis 6-9 and referred to often and unambiguously in later passages—namely, the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah. Most of the vast fossil graveyards in the earth's crust can best be explained as one of the results of the Flood.

This awesome spectacle of destruction and death was not part of God's "very good" creation. There was no death in the world until sin was in the world (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21; etc.). In fact, death itself is "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23). Our future deliverance from sin and death has been purchased by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, who is "the propitiation for our sins and ... also for the sins of the whole world" (John 2:2).

But if "death reigned" not "from Adam to Moses," as the Bible says (Romans 5:14), but had already reigned for billions of years before Adam, then death is not the wages of sin but instead was part of God's creative purpose. How then could the death of Christ put away sin? The gap theory thus undermines the very gospel of our salvation, as well as the holy character of God.

The fact is that no such gap exists between the first two verses of Genesis at all. The second verse merely describes the initial aspect of the creation as "without form and void"—that is, with neither structure nor inhabitants. The rest of the chapter tells how God produced a marvelous structure for His created universe, with multitudes of plant and animal inhabitants for the earth, all to be under the dominion of its human inhabitants created in the image of God. It was only then that God pronounced the creation "finished" (Genesis 2:1).

It is time for those who believe the Bible and in the goodness and wisdom of God to abandon the gap theory once and for all (as well as the day-age theory, which is even worse) and simply believe what God has said. The gap theory has no scientific merit, requires a very forced Biblical exegesis, and leads to a God-dishonoring theology. It does not work, either Biblically or scientifically.

   * Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

Ephesians 4:14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16  From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

FYI - I'm also seeing a departing from other very important doctrines recently, b/c people on the YT community(in particular) have bought into this gap theory heresy. For example, they are attacking the doctrine of repentance(as part of salvation), and calling it "lordship salvation".

Notice the words "grow up"(in the verse after where it warns to stand strong in doctrine). How are we going to grow in our Christian walk, if we buy into these doctrines of devils?

Hebrews 5:12  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Possible Proof for Noah’s Flood Found at Bottom of Atlantic Ocean

Scientists exploring the Atlantic Ocean have discovered mysterious metallic nodules on the ocean floor that may provide telltale evidence of the Great Flood.

Last month, a German research team announced the discovery of dense clusters of manganese nodules on the ocean floor. Using a mesh net intended to scoop up marine life, the researchers accidentally brought up balls of manganese ore from over three miles below the water’s surface.

According to LiveScience, some of the round manganese nodules were as large as bowling balls. Underwater cameras revealed that the ocean floor was littered with the metallic nodules, many of which resemble pancakes. Though similar nodules have been discovered on many ocean floor locations, experts say this is the largest patch of manganese nodules ever found in the Atlantic.

Where did the ball formations come from? The researchers are not quite sure.

“I was surprised, because this is generally not the place you think of for manganese nodules,” said the German expedition’s chief scientist, Colin Devey.

According to secular models, underwater manganese nodules form very slowly, gradually adding new layers over millions of years. However, scientists admit that THE ORIGIN OF the balls remains a mystery.

Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research, believes the nodules did not form over millions of years. Rather, he says, the formations likely formed very quickly.

   Connect with Christian News

“These metallic pellets provide strong evidence that most seafloor sediments were deposited rapidly, not slowly and gradually over millions of years,” Hebert wrote in an article this month. “Are these nodules evidence of THE GENESIS Flood?”

Hebert points out apparent flaws in the methods secular scientists use to date the nodules.

“Secular scientists claim that nodules grow at the extremely slow rate of just a few millimeters per million years,” he explains. “Yet manganese nodules have consistently been observed growing in lakes and man-made reservoirs, as well as on debris fragments from WORLD WARS I and II, at rates hundreds of thousands of times faster than these calculated rates. This is just one more indication that there are serious problems with radioisotope dating methods!”

Hebert argues that the scientific models of creation scientists provide better explanations for why the nodules form and where they are located.

“In the millennia after the Flood, sediment DEPOSITION would have eventually slowed to today’s ‘slow and gradual’ rates,” he writes. “Hence, nodules are found mainly in the uppermost sediment layers because these upper layers were deposited slowly enough to allow nodules to grow.”

When the Great Flood of the Bible is taken into ACCOUNT, Hebert adds, the nodules are no longer a mystery.

“Batches of manganese nodules are just one of many geological features that are difficult for secular scientists to explain, but they make sense in light of the Genesis Flood,” he asserts.

Kenneth Patrick, a Christian geologist, arrived at a similar conclusion in a December 2010 article for the Journal of Creation.

“According to paleontological and radiometric dating methods, the nodules are supposedly multi-millions of years old, the result of extremely slow growth rates of just millimeters per million years,” Patrick explained. “However, actual observations have revealed that nodules can grow in excess of 20 cm within hundreds of years, a growth rate several orders of magnitude faster.”

“In addition,” he continued, “nodules are found only at the top of the ocean floor, with the greatest density within the first 5 m of sediment and decreasing in size at greater depths. This contradicts the idea that ocean sediment accumulated gradually and CONTINUOUSLY over millions of years. Rather it suggests a period of rapid sedimentation that has subsequently waned, a scenario that is consistent with the events of Noah’s Flood.”

Day-Age and Gap Theory Debunked(Kent Hovind)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Apparently, theologians prior to the 1800's did not support the genesis "gap" theory.

John Gill was a 1700's theologian(read a few of his scripture commentaries, which are quite interesting) - and here's what he had to say(ignore most of the jibber-jabber in random places in the link - posting an excerpt here)...

In Exodus 20:11 we read of a literal six day creation. No gaps, not even for one minute, otherwise these would not be six normal days. Also, in Romans 5:12 we read that death is the result of Adam's sin. Because the rock layers display death on a grand scale, they could not have existed before the fall of Adam. There is no direct evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years. However, we have the direct eyewitness report of God himself that he made everything in six days. Tracing back through the biblical genealogies we can determine the age of the universe to be about six thousand years with an error of not more than two per cent.

Gap Theory Refuted - An Idea With Holes

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th century and first half of the 19th century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and THE BIBLE-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.[4]

Gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers,[5] a professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and AUTHOR of one of the Bridgewater Treatises, who attributed it to 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitch****.[4]

It gained widespread attention when a "second creative act"[6] was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.[4]

In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of Young Earth Flood geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in The Christian View of Science and Scripture:[4]

"THE GAP theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, BIBLE STUDIES, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".

This BOOK BY Ramm was influential in the formation of another alternative to gap creationism, that of progressive creationism, which found favour with more conservative members of the American Scientific Affiliation (a fellowship of scientists who are Christians), with the more modernist wing of that fellowship favouring theistic evolution.[7]

Proponents of this form of creationism have included Oral Roberts, Cyrus I. Scofield, Harry Rimmer, Jimmy Swaggart,[8] G. H. Pember, L. Allen Higley,[4] Arthur Pink, Peter Ruckman, Finis Jennings Dake, Chuck Missler, E. W. Bullinger, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong and Clarence Larkin.[9]

Very Happy

Disproving the Gap Theory in less than 10 seconds!

OK, this may sound a bit off-topic - but the reason why I'm posting this here is b/c from what I've seen, the same people are who pushing this heretical gap theory, are also the same people who are buying into more unbiblical errors and heresies.

One of them being the basic doctrines of salvation. For example - I saw this posted on another message forum. I've seen these same gap theory pushers call(what this pastor says below) "lordship salvation".(and they have no idea what LS is to begin with)

Ultimately - either you believe the bible 100%, or you don't. You are either with Jesus Christ, or against him.

Why Did Jesus Die?  If you say, "To pay for sin," you are only half right.  The Bible is very clear over and over as to why Jesus died.  Please read these verses and see why He died.

2 Corinthians 5:15  And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Romans 14:9  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Galatians 1:4  Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Colossians 1:21  And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22  In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Titus 2:14  Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 3:8  He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

You may easily recognize that Jesus did die for our sins.  That is a fact, but He died that you will live for Him.  When you received Christ, did you receive Him to accomplish the purpose He set out to accomplish?  He died to give you life, not just in heaven, but right now.  Life from the dead of sin.  Over and over the Scriptures tell us that Jesus died so you would not remain the same.  Have you ever understood why Christ died?  He died as a ransom for your soul.  For nothing but the blood of Jesus could wash away your sins.  But He died to wash you clean of them and set your feet on the path of righteousness.  This is what it means when God says that Christ died so you can have life.
Are you alive?

Pastor Troy Dukes
Grace Baptist Church

1 Timothy 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Acts 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Just read this now - this popped out at me, and more than proves this gap theory is just that, a doctrine of devils...

1 Timothy 1:3  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is from a Ken Ham book, Did Eve Really Have An Extra Rib?  

Q. There are still many Christians who believe in some sort of gap between the first two verses of the Book of Genesis. Didn’t Jesus Christ himself rule this out?

A. Absolutely. In fact, if you carefully study the words of Jesus, He made it plain that there can’t be a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

In these words of Jesus, we find that He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in “the beginning of the creation” — NOT after billions of years had passed.

Furthermore, this passage indicates that God had prepared a world for Adam and Eve shortly before — over the five previous days. Also, the expression “beginning of the creation” rules out any second start or “re-creation” as taught by many gap theorists.

The main reason people try to place a gap between the first two verses of Genesis is to accommodate the supposed billions of years for the earth’s age.

Jesus made it plain that such a compromise can’t be done! And we should follow His understanding and His words because, after all, He is the author of creation and the WORD!

Q. Because of publications such as the Scofield Reference Bible, there are many Christians who believe in the idea of the “gap theory.” Does it really matter if Christians accept it?

A. Well, first let me explain the gap theory. This idea was developed in the 1800s by church leaders who didn’t know what to do with what some scientists were saying about millions of years of history. They popularized the idea that there was a gap of time between the first two verses of Genesis 1. Into this gap, they put a PREVIOUS creation that was destroyed, thus explaining the fossil record of millions of years. ACCORDING to this view, God then re-created the world in six days.

There are many major problems with this view, including the fact that the gap theory allows death before Adam’s sin — and this is contrary to Scripture. Even though the “gap theorists” believe in creation, the danger of their view is that they have based their beliefs from OUTSIDE of Scripture — accepting the evolutionary belief in millions of years, and trying to fit this into the Bible. It’s telling people that you can begin outside the Bible and accept man’s fallible theories, and use them to interpret the Words of the infallible Creator.

God created everything in six days. There’s no room for a gap.

CJ wrote:

It's really being pushed in recent years - no, it's not exactly Rick Warren and Rob Bell doing it, but it's been infiltrated in fundamental/Apostasy-watching circles(in particular on YT), and has ultimately caused alot of confusion not only with the Genesis 1 account, but also with other important fundamental doctrines in scripture.

For example - the doctrine of salvation - repentance and sin have gotten watered down, and ideas like sanctification/growth in a born-again believer are nothing more than *optional* are being pushed as well.(ie-if the latter is the case, then that professing Christian in PA who gunned down many at a gym and turned the gun on himself must be in heaven. /sarcasm)

Ultimately, we must all guard our hearts with the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, and meditating on scripture daily.

A Summary of Evidence
for Literal 24-hr Creation Days
in Genesis 1.

The following is a summary of the major BIBLICAL data which clearly shows that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hr days. It is by no means exhaustive, since such a presentation would fill an entire book (I am writing one at the moment!). Since my training is primarily in theology, hermeneutics and Biblical languages the presentation only discusses scripture and not science.

Note that the major scientific evidence for non-literal days (ie. an old earth), is starlight travel, radiometric dating methods and geological features. For scientific discussions of these see the following (which are again just a small sample. Many more discussions can be found in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Creation Research Society Quarterly):

Starlight Travel
D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.
D. R. Humphreys, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal  12.2 (1998), pp. 195-212.

Radiometric Dating
J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, ICR, 1999.
A. Snelling, "Dubious Radiogenic Pb Behavior Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt"  Impact 319, ICR, 2000.
A. Snelling, ""Excess Argon": The "Achilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks" Impact 307, ICR, 1999.
A. Snelling, "Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon" Impact 309, ICR, 1999.
S. Austin, "Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows" Impact 224, ICR.

S. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, 1994.
T. Walker, "Geology and the Young Earth" Creation 21.4 (1999). pp. 16-20.
G. Berthault "Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal  12.2 (1998), pp. 218-221.
P. Julien, Y. Lan, & Y Raslan "Experimental Mechanics of Sand Stratification" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal  12.2 (1998), pp. 213-217.

Philosophy of Science
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions,
(This book is an absolute MUST for those who think that you can't dispute scientific "facts".

1. yom + numerical = 24-hr day

The first argument is that yom + numerical always refers to a normal 24-hr day.

Don Stoner (A New Look at an Old Earth, pp. 46-4Cool however, claims that this is not true. He cites Zech 14:7 as an example.

Zech 14:7 states: "It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime--a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light."

The day mentioned here is obviously the same day mentioned in vv. 1, 4 and 6. Since "a text without a context, is a pretext" we need to examine the immediate context of these verses.

It should be abundantly clear from v. 5 that on "that day" the Lord will come. It describes a time-space _EVENT_ in the future. How can the coming of the Lord take a long period of time? It is an event: at one moment on that day, He is not here - the next moment He has returned!

Don, however, believes it refers to the New Jerusalem, the eternal state. But if the "day" refers to the eternal state - an indefinite period of time - it could hardly be called "unique"!

Therefore, the "unique day" in Zech 14:7 does indeed refer to a literal 24-hr day.

Others have suggested Hosea 6:2 as an exception:
"After two days he will revive us;  on the third day he will restore us,  that we may live in his presence."

However, this verse is set in poetic parallelism - and parallelism of a specific kind. This parallelism is a common Semitic device which takes the form X // X + 1 (see Job 5:19; Proverbs 6:16; 30:15, 18; Amos 1:3, 6, 9 for more examples). Given that these instances are part of a well defined Semitic device, they must be interpreted in ACCORDANCE with that device. In this case, the use
of "two days" and "three days" communicate that the restoration mentioned in the previous verse, will happen quickly and surely (See Cohen/Vandermey, Hosea & Amos, Epositors Bible Commentary). Therefore, these instances must refer to normal days as opposed to long periods, otherwise the device would lose its meaning ie. the restoration would _not_ be quick and sure if the days were long periods of time. There may also be a subtle prophetic allusion to the restoration of humanity after the death and resurrection of Christ - especially since virtually all the content of Hosea serve to prophetically illustrate future events. Again, this demands that the days be taken as 24-hr days.

Bradley and Olsen ("The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Radmacher and Preus, eds. [Zondervan, 1984]) also object to this line of reasoning:
"There is no other place in the Old Testament where the intent is to describe events that involve multiple and/or sequential, indefinite periods of time. If the intent of Genesis 1 is to describe creation as occurring in six, indefinite time periods, it is a unique Old Testament event being recorded. Other descriptions where "yom" refers to an indefinite time period are all for a single time period. Thus, the absence of the use of "yamim" for other than regular days and the use of ordinals only before regular days elsewhere in the Old Testament cannot be given an unequivocal exegetical significance in view of the uniqueness of the events being described in Genesis 1 (i.e, sequential, indefinite time periods)."

The first problem here is that they assume what they are trying to prove ie. that the authors intent was to describe sequential indefinite periods of time. Secondly, "yom" by itself does not refer to an indefinite period of time. It only has this extended meaning when it is modified by a prepsoition such as "be" (eg. Gen 2:4). However, none of the instances in Genesis 1 are modified in this way. In addition, Numbers 29:12-35 also describes a numbered sequence of days which are clearly literal 24-hr days.

Thus the pattern of yom + numerical = 24 day does indeed hold.

2. The use of ereb and boqer (morning and evening)

The next argument is the use of evening and morning (ereb and boqer) as an idiom for a literal 24-hr day.

Don Stoner (pp. 45-46) objects to this by stating that these word are used together many times to refer to longer periods.

First he states that the use of "day and night" often refers to a CONTINUOUS time. A store that is open "day and night" is open all the time. However, this analogy is irrelevant since we are not talking about "day and night" but about "evening and morning". Day and night essentially run into each other so that a store open day and night would be open all the time. However, a store that is open morning and evening would only be open for a short period in the morning and a short period in the evening but closed during the day and closed during the night. Thus Don's analogy fails. In any case, analogies are only illustrative, they don't constitute a proof or argument.

Don then cites Ex 18:13-14: "The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening." When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"

He argues that the context implies that Moses was spending all his time judging, day after day. This may be true but the question is what specifically does "from morning till evening" actually mean? "From morning till evening" clearly means from when the sun comes up to when the sun goes down" ie. "all day". It does not mean day after day. We can of course deduce that this was happening day after day because Jethro advised to appoint other judges, but this comes from the wider context not the phrase
"from morning till evening" itself. Thus "from morning till evening" indicates that Moses was judging "all day" and the appointment of judges implies that this was happening "day after day."

Don also points to Ex 27:21 (and Lev 24:3) which states: "In the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain that is in front of the Testimony, Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come."

As I have pointed out before, this is a bizarre argument. There is simply no way that "from evening till morning" can possibly refer to an indefinite period of time. "From evening till morning" means that the lamps were to be kept burning "all night". They would not have been kept burning all the time, since there would be no need for them during the light of day, and of course whenever the Israelites moved camp they would not be burning either. I find it hard to imagine how such a twisted interpretation can be gleaned from these verses.

In any case, none of the above verses is grammatically parallel to the instances of "evening and morning" in Gen 1. All the above instances are preceded by prepositions, but the instances in Gen 1 are independently conjuncted.

The closest grammatical parallel is Dan 8:14, where ereb and boqer are conjuncted together and refer to a literal 24-hr day: "He said to me, 'It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.'"

Gen 1 has "wayehi ereb wayehi boqer" (and then there was evening and then there was morning). Dan 8:14 however has "ereb boqer" (evening [and] morning). The "and" is elliptical (a common occurrence in Biblical Hebrew) and we would not expect to find the verb "wayehi" used here, since Dan 8:14 is direct speech whereas Gen 1 is narrative.

Don argues that "ereb boqer" in Dan 8:14 refers to a period of 2,300 days. However, this is incorrect. It is true that "ereb boqer alpayim ushlsh meot" refers to a period of 2,300 literal days but we are only interested in what "ereb boqer" means. Therefore, if the modifier "alpayim ushlsh meot" (2,300) is dropped, it is clear that "ereb boqer" refers to a single day.

Don has also argued that the compound clause "wayehi ereb wayehi boqer" terminating each day should be translated as "and there was evenings and there was mornings". Since ereb and boqer have no plural form they could be translated as plurals (as in Dan 8:14). Therefore, each creation "day" represents a long span of "evenings and mornings".

Again, this is very poor exegesis. "ereb" and "boqer" may only be translated as plurals IF the context makes it clear that this is necessary. In the case of Dan 8:14, ereb and boqer are modified by the number "2,300" - an obvious indication that the plural should be used. However, there is no such modication in Gen 1, or any other contextual data to suggest that these words should be translated as plurals. In fact the context demands a singular translation, since the verb "wayehi" is singular so "ereb" and "boqer" must also be singular.

In any case, both ereb and boqer are preceded by a waw-consecutive. Therefore, if they were translated as plurals, it would imply that there was a long span of evenings and then a long span of mornings, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

3. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17

The 3rd argument for literal 24-hr creation days are the references to the creation days in Ex 20:11 and 31:17. These verses clearly state that the creation was completed in 6 literal ordinary work days.

Don Stoner objects (pp. 48-50) by arguing that sabbath days are merely a shadow of the eternal state, and that it is unsafe to come to conclusions about the length of an object by looking at its "shadow". He QUOTES Col 2:16-17 and Heb 8:5.

The above is certainly true, but it is completely irrelevant to the present discussion. Don is either completely confused about the whole concept of "types" or "shadows", or is trying to netralise this argument by "bait and switch".

The sabbath is a type of the eternal state, but, as Don pointed out, you can't come to conclusions about the length of this eternal state based on its shadow, which is the sabbath. Now it should be obvious that this has absolutely no bearing at all on the length of the days of creation since they are not even mentioned in the verses Don cites. The discussion is about the length of the days of creation, not the length of the eternal state.

Don goes on to cite Lev 25:3-4 as proof that such shadows apply directly to the working week: "For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards."

However, this verse does not even mention the working week! Rather, it talks about years NOT days! Neither does it have the causal explanation "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day" found in Ex 20:11 and 31:17. In these verses, the use of "ki" ("for, because") at the beginning of v. 11 indicates the creation week is the very basis of the working week.

Similarly, Gleason Archer argues that Exodus 20:11 does not demonstrate the creation days were 24 hours, any more than the eight day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves the wilderness wonderings, under Moses, lasted for eight days. But again, this is an invalid comparison. Although, the Feast of Tabernacles is prescribed to last for eight days (Leviticus 23:34-36), it does not contain the causal explanation "For in six days�" found in Exodus 20:11.

Don further states (p. 49) "...we really ought to reflect that God's week is not a shadow of ours but that ours is a shadow of His." Presumably, his reference to "God's week" means the creation week. However, this statement is again false. Firstly, types and shadows always precede the real thing - yet Don has it the other way around. Secondly, Ex 20:11 explicitly states that the creation week is the very basis of, and the reason for, our working week!

Next, Don appeals to the mention of the sabbath rest in Hebrews 4 in order to argue that the Sabbath is still CONTINUING, and therefore that at least the 7th day is longer than 24-hrs. However, Don does not even bother to exegete the passage - he just asserts that what he has said is true, but a closer look at the passage clearly shows that this assertion is completely wrong.

A detailed exegesis of Hebrews 4:1-11 may be found here.

4. Use of yom instead of 'olam

The next argument is the use of "yom" instead of the use of "olam".

If the days are long periods of time then "olam" would be a more suitable word to use in order to communicate that meaning.

Don Stoner, however, contends that "olam" means "forever", in which case this would not be the most appropriate word to use.

But this is an unnecessarily narrow definition of the word "olam." The Princeton-BDB Lexicon give the definitions "long duration, antiquity, futurity". Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) states that the word " not confined to the future", but can be used to describe something that happened long ago "but rarely, if ever, points to a limitless past" and that the word does not in itself contain the idea of endlessness which "is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past and also by the fact that sometimes it is desirable to repeat the world, not merely saying "forever", but "forever and ever."

TWOT goes on to say that "olam" was used to refer to a long age or period of time, although there is no instance of this usage in the OT. In the LXX, "AION" was used to render "olam" and this word certainly contains the idea of a long age or period.

Therefore, if the days of Gen 1 were meant to be understood as long ages, "olam" would have been a far better choice than "yom".


There is also quite a bit of other evidence suggesting the days are literal 24-hr days, but at least 3 of these 4 arguments are pretty much conclusive in showing that the days of Gen 1 MUST be 24-hr days. When all this evidence is taken together it is simply overwhelming! There should be no doubt at all that these days are indeed 24-hr days.

Given that scripture is inspired by God, is authoritive and inerrant then it doesn't matter how convincing scientific arguments sound they simply cannot be a correct interpretation of the data!

Only scripture is inerrant - the natural world is not. Indeed, the natural word is fallen and under a curse.

I suspect that OECs will simply attempt to dismiss these arguments by claiming that God's word is inspired, but my interpretation is not. However, this would only be true if my interpretation does not match what the author intended to communicate. I have offered a solid exegetical basis for my interpretation and at the same time refuted some common objections.

It is simply not good enough to protest "that's just your interpretation". Firstly, this is bordering on existentialism. Such protests also
inadvertantly deny the possibility of knowing truly (a subtle form of agnosticism). If anyone has a problem with my interpretation then I challenge them to show me what is wrong with it.

Hovind Express - 150 empirical reasons to reject Darwinism

by Jason Kelty 7 videos 186 views Last updated on Dec 21, 2014
The first time I watched Kent Hovind's seminar in January of 2001, I was an outspoken Atheist. I ignored all the Bible stuff and only paid attention to the empirical science. These videos edit down Hovind's most recent seminar videos to just that kind of data only. These are the kind of points (150 points in these videos) that destroyed my belief in Atheism and started my search for who the Creator was. Almost 3 years later, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and I'll never look back.

If you are anything like I was, give these videos some attention and you should come to the same logical conclusions I did:

1. Some kind of "God" must have created everything.
2. It happened only thousands of years ago.
3. This planet was completely flooded at some point.

While these videos generally only focus on those 3 points, I assure you that further evidence beyond Hovind's seminar proved to me Biblical Christianity is 100% Truth (see my "Truth" playlist).

Find your Creator. He's calling you. Listen.

FYI, an Arminian scholar put out this heresy...


Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th century and first half of the 19th century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.[4]

Gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers,[5] a professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises, who attributed it to 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitchcock.[4]

It gained widespread attention when a "second creative act"[6] was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.[4]

In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of Young Earth Flood geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in The Christian View of Science and Scripture:[4]

"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".

I was thinking about this recently - the whole gap theory heresy has also caused alot of confusion with other important doctrines in scripture(not just the Genesis 1 creation account). For example, I've seen this same group also bringing in more doctrinal confusions concerning salvation(it's not surprising, b/c they've all but bought into the deception that death comes BEFORE sin). And even worse, it's also lulled them to asleep, like you see with the Apostate Church going on now.(and see a growing coldness, as well as not looking for our LORD's imminent return anymore)

This verse came to mind...

1 Thes 1:9  For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;
1Th 1:10  And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1st Thes 1:9-10 is an interesting passage - I'm not saying we're all sinless, but we have to be very careful over the idols we put in front of our face. But instead should be seeking the LORD with all our hearts, strength, minds, and souls, and looking for his imminent return.

In 1st Corinthians 8:1, (secular)knowledge is referred to as an idol.

1 Corinthians 8:1  Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2  And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Another reason why I bring this up is b/c I TWICE fell for it in a span of a year(and both times a brother exposed the deceptions through and through)

Refuting Theistic Evolution

Most professing Christians believe in theistic evolution. They believe in a Creator God and they believe in salvation through Christ, but they don’t believe the Bible’s account of six-day creation. They accept evolution’s teaching about the ancient age of the earth and the gradual evolution of creatures.

Consider Billy Graham. He says it doesn’t matter what one believes about creation and evolution. “Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and created a man just like that” (United Church Observer, July 1966).

Theistic evolutionists believe that it is possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in reality this is an impossibility.

First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather than poetry or allegory. The days of creation are 24-hour days with “an evening and a morning” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

Second, the Genesis account of creation is cited as history by Jesus. He mentions the first man and woman as historical people (Mat. 19:4-6). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christ always treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour and disregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both “accounts” of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. These are not two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation viewed from different perspectives.

Third, Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the New Testament writers. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in the New Testament, and Genesis is always treated as historical. Adam is named nine times in the New Testament (Lk. 3:38; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 14).

Fourth, Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The gospel says that “Christ died for our sins.” If Adam was not a real man and there was no literal sin, the gospel becomes an empty religious myth.

Fifth, Jesus’ human genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-3Cool. We know that this genealogy contains the names of real historical people, and there is no reason to treat Adam differently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.

Sixth, Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paul considered Adam an actual man and the Genesis account literal history. If Christ is a real man, so is Adam!

Seventh, the teaching of Genesis cannot be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.

a. Genesis says God created the world and everything in it in six days. The days of creation in Genesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with an evening and a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.

b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement “after their kind” is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is exactly what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders, birds reproduce birds, and peanuts reproduce peanuts. Animals can interbreed and adapt within kinds (e.g., dogs can produce different kinds of dogs), but kinds cannot be bridged. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what we can observe everywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fish evolved into the amphibian, and the amphibian into the reptile, and the reptile into the bird, etc.

c. Genesis says the first man was created directly by God (Genesis 2) and was not the product of gradual evolution from the animal kingdom. The Bible says Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).

d. Genesis says man is made in God’s image and is not a part of the animal kingdom (Gen. 1:27). Evolution says man is an evolved animal.

e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin and has been deteriorating ever since. This is consistent with everything we can observe. Everything is moving from order to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes. But evolution says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order.

f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill God’s purposes. Wherever we look in nature, from the living cell to the stars, we see the appearance of design by a great Intelligence. This is contrary to the doctrine of evolution. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the bird’s wing, the atom, light, water. Everywhere you find evidence of purpose and design. Even a “simple” microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNA information units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all of that information works together in perfect harmony and is self-replicating! Purpose and design is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says He did, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos.

Dr. Jason Lisle - Most Attacked Book of the Bible

All roads lead to Rome...



LA PEYRÈRE, ISAAC (1594 or 1596–1676), French theologian, Bible critic, and anthropologist, apparently of Marrano background. He was born in Bordeaux and raised a Calvinist. In 1640 he became the Prince of Condé's secretary. In 1642–43 he wrote Praeadamitae and Du Rappel des Juifs, which constitute one continuous theory of Bible criticism and Messianism. The Rappel des Juifs was published anonymously in 1643, while the more revolutionary Praeadamitae ("Men Before Adam") was banned and circulated privately in manuscript in France, Holland, and Denmark. In 1644 La Peyrère went to Copenhagen with the French ambassador, and there wrote Relation de Groenland (published 1647), and Relation de l'Islande (published 1663; An Account of Iceland, 1732), landmarks in early anthropology. Queen Christina of Sweden saw his manuscript of the Praeadamitae in Brussels, urged its publication, and agreed to pay the costs. It was printed in 1655 in Amsterdam and Basle (five editions in Latin, 1655; English as Men Before Adam, 1656; Dutch as Praeadamiten, 1661). The book was banned and burned everywhere for its heretical claims that Adam was not the first man, that the Bible is not the history of mankind, but only the history of the Jews, that the Flood was a local event, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that no accurate copy of the Bible exists. Many refutations immediately appeared. La Peyrère was arrested and told he would be released if he turned Catholic and recanted to the Pope, which he did in hypocritical fashion, saying that his heresies resulted from his Calvinist upbringing, and that though all Jews and Christians disagreed with him, and though he could still find no Scriptural or reasonable evidence against his theories, he would abjure them because the Church said they were wrong (Lettre de la Peyrère à Philotime, 1658; Apologie de Peyrère, 1663). The Pope offered him a post, but La Peyrère returned to Paris and became Condé's librarian and a lay member of the Oratorians. There he collected more evidence for his pre-Adamite theory, arguing with the great Bible scholar, Father Richard Simon, and trying unsuccessfully to publish a new version of his Messianic Rappel des Juifs. When he died, one of his friends wrote:

Here lies La Peyrère, that good Israelite, Huguenot, Catholic and finally Pre-Adamite. Four religions pleased him at the same time and his indifference was so uncommon that after 80 years when he had to make a choice the Good Man departed and did not choose any of them.

La Peyrère has been interpreted as a heretic, atheist, deist, Socinian, father of Bible criticism, and father of Zionism. His overall theory is a Marrano Messianist view. La Peyrère argued that the Jews are about to be recalled, that the Messiah is coming for them, that they should join the Christians, and with the king of France rebuild Zion. Then the Jews will rule the world from Jerusalem. La Peyrère was a combination of hard-headed scientist and kabbalistic messianist in developing his case. He argued his pre-Adamite theory first on a farfetched interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, then from information about pagan history, and finally from anthropological evidence about the Indians, Eskimos, and Chinese. His analysis of the Bible played a great role in the development of Higher Criticism, influencing Spinoza and Richard Simon. La Peyrère's messianic theories resemble those of some of the Spanish New Christians and Postel's Kabbalism, but seem unrelated to Shabbetai Ẓevi's movement. His separation of Jewish and gentile histories influenced Vico in the developing secular historiography. La Peyrère's pre-Adamite theory was revived in the early 19th century as a basis for polygenesis and modern racism, claiming the American Indians and the blacks were not sons of Adam.


D.C. Allen, The Legend of Noah (1949, 19632), index; D.R. Mc-Kee, in: Publications of the Modern Language Association, 59 (1944), 456–85; R. Pintard, Le libertinage érudit dans la première moitié du xviie siècle, 2 v. (1943), index; H.J. Schoeps, Philosemitismus im Barock (1952), 3–18, 81–87; L. Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion (1965), 64–85.

[Richard H. Popkin]

Creation Seminar #1: Age of the Earth

This is a really good Creation Science 101 Presentation! Really learned alot myself!

Theory of Everything
GOD, Devils, Dimensions, Dragons, Illusion & Reality


Why You Can't Always Trust Science

Here’s a quote for you: “A lot of what is published [in scientific journals] is incorrect.” Care to guess where those words appeared? Not on a website that questions the “consensus of experts on climate change.” Nor do they appear in a publication associated with intelligent design or other critiques of Neo-Darwinism.

They appeared in the April 11, 2015, issue of the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal.

The writer, Richard Horton, was quoting a participant at a recent symposium on the “reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research.” Specifically, the symposium discussed one of the “most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.”

And he’s referring to scientific research—the research that not only purports to tell us how the world works, but, increasingly, how people should order their lives and societies.

As Horton told Lancet readers, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

He continues, “In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”

We recently saw an example of this in a story about a much-publicized study purporting to show that voters were likely to change their minds about same-sex marriage if they were visited by gay pollsters who shared their stories with them.

Researchers seeking to reproduce the findings found discrepancies in the data and asked the original researcher for the original data. The researcher was unable to produce the original data. This led the lead researcher to request that the study be withdrawn. Even supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledged that the study and the conclusions drawn from it were fraudulent.

While this was the most-publicized example of a study that turned out to be untrue, it’s far from the only one. In late April, researchers published the results of their efforts to replicate 100 of “psychology’s biggest experiments.” They were only able get the same results in 39 of them.

Commenting on the failure, Daniele Fanelli of Stanford told the prestigious journal “Nature” that “reproducibility rates in cancer biology and drug discovery could be even lower.” She added, “From my expectations, these are not bad at all.”

Not bad at all?

It’s true that to err is human, but insisting that science is the best and most reliable guide to life despite its checkered track record is more than error. It’s chutzpah.

According to Horton, the participants at the symposium he attended agreed that “something needed to be done” about the “bad scientific practices” he describes, but none of them were sure about what that “something” might be.

Well, I have a suggestion: stop telling everyone else that science is the best, if not only, way to answer life’s big questions. While this advice may not fix the problems in the lab, it keeps the “turn toward darkness” from spreading misinformation to the rest of society.

One more suggestion: if a lot of the stuff being published is “incorrect” or “untrue,” please refrain from comparing people who question the scientific consensus to Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers.

A little bit of humility would not be bad at all.

CJ wrote:
Theory of Everything
GOD, Devils, Dimensions, Dragons, Illusion & Reality


It has over 1m views, seems very popular among the mainstream.

Honestly, I wouldn't even watch 1 second of it - if anything is "mainstream", yeah, FLEE.

Acts 4:24  And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Read this this afternoon(when waiting in line at the SSA office) - it's very obvious that it's talking about ONE EARTH, ONE SEA, and ONE HEAVEN.(the same earth we are currently living in now, that is)

No, there is NO "gap" where a supposedly "older earth" happened.

Blunders in Reasoning by Evolutionists - Dr. Jason Lisle - Origins

Support for a Young Earth? Scientists Baffled by Preserved Dinosaur Blood Cells

The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in a supposedly 75-million-year-old dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led one Christian apologist to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.

A team of scientists at the U.K.’s Imperial College London carefully examined eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones discovered in North America, scrutinizing the bones’ interiors with an electron microscope. The researchers were stunned when they discovered what appeared to be red blood cells in one of the specimens.

Upon closer examination, the British scientists identified an internal structure within the dinosaur cells, complete with nuclei and amino acids. Then, in addition to the blood cells, the scientists discovered excellently-preserved collagen, which is a common soft tissue.

The scientists published their findings last week in “Nature Communications,” emphasizing that the dinosaur bones they studied were “not exceptionally preserved.”

“It has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years,” the researchers noted. They described the discovery of preserved blood cells and soft tissue as unprecedented and “very exciting.”

A number of similar discoveries have recently cast doubt on secular scientists’ claims that most fossils are millions of years old. As previously reported, scientists recently found protein-rich materials somehow preserved within ancient shells. Last year, a California university fired a biologist for discovering soft tissue on a Triceratops fossil and questioning evolutionary assumptions.

A report last week from “Discover” magazine explains the controversial nature of these finds.

“Many of these discoveries … have been contentious within the paleontological community, and the presence of molecular-level preservation in the fossil record remains controversial,” the magazine explained. “This is because proteins and other molecular components are thought to break down within about four million years.”

Ken Ham, a well-known Christian apologist and president of Answers in Genesis, believes the dinosaur fossils analyzed by the British scientists are not millions of years old after all. Rather, Ham says the discovery of preserved blood cells and tissues undermine secular assumptions and create a problem for evolutionists.

“How could soft tissue survive for 75 million years? Are evolutionists questioning their assumptions that the fossil is 75 million years old? Of course not!” Ham wrote in a blog post. “Instead, they simply assume the materials somehow survived for 75 million years because they believe on the basis of their evolutionary presuppositions that the fossil is that old.”

However, the existence of preserved blood cells and tissues in dinosaur fossils makes sense in the young earth Biblical worldview, Ham argues.

“This new find is consistent with the young age of the Earth as described in God’s Word and in no way confirms evolutionary ideas about the past,” he wrote. “Of course evolutionists can’t even consider the possibility that these bones are not millions of years old, as they have to have their supposed millions of years to propose their ideas of molecules-to-man evolution. Actually, believing in millions of years is a necessary part of the religion of naturalism (atheism).”

“But finds like the one the researchers in the London museum discovered affirm biblical—not evolutionary—ideas about the not-so-distant past,” Ham concluded. “We can trust God’s Word to provide us with an accurate history of Earth.”
‘Jurassic World' Tops Box Office as ‘Inside Out' Sets Record

“Jurassic World,” the record-setting dinosaur hit from Universal Pictures, returned for a second big weekend and “Inside Out” set a new high for an original Pixar film, as fans were treated to two blockbusters at the same time.

“Jurassic World,” the sequel of the 1990s series about genetics-for-profit gone astray, took in $102 million to lead the U.S. and Canadian box office, Rentrak Corp. said Sunday. It was only the second time a movie posted more than $100 million in sales in its second weekend, Rentrak said. Not far behind was “Inside Out,” the latest film from Walt Disney Co.’s Pixar Animation unit, smashing expectations with $91.1 million in its debut.

The results extend winning streaks for both studios, which came into the summer movie season sporting the strongest lineups and have largely delivered on expectations. Universal, breathing life into an old franchise, has likely the biggest hit of the summer and has another big film, “Minions,” coming out in a few weeks. Disney accomplished something perhaps more meaningful, establishing an entirely new set of characters in a film well received by critics and now fans.

“Momentum at the box office is really powerful,” said Dave Hollis, executive vice president of theatrical distribution for Walt Disney Studios. “People coming into the theater makes them that much more interested in coming back.”

More from Weekend of Fear in Greece as Banks, People Live Day To Day

“Jurassic World” set records last weekend with its $208.8 million domestic and $524.1 million worldwide debut. With this weekend’s haul, the film narrowly missed the $103.1 million record for a second weekend set by “Marvel’s The Avengers” in 2012. Analysts at had projected a $105 million return weekend for “Jurassic World.”

$1 Billion
“I’m expecting it to cross the $1 billion mark globally on Monday
,” said Paul Dergarabedian, an analyst with Rentrak. “It’s the perfect summertime movie. The entire family, from ages 8 to 80, can see it and have a great time. Its pure escapist, popcorn entertainment.”

I've been studying the book of Psalms for the last month or so - and there are verses after verses which MORE THAN PROVE that there's a Biblical Young Earth Creation, and most importantly NO gap theory. Here's one example...

Psalm 143:5  I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

If there was really a gap "older" earth, why in the world would any born-again believer meditate and muse on THAT? None of us sure wouldn't want to dwell on satan, his fallen angelic demonic angels, and some pre-adamic race of people that supposedly God had no control over the earth with.

Jeremiah 32:17  Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Jer 32:18  Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,
Jer 32:19  Great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings:

And speaking of this passage from Jeremiah - did God really show his "lovingkindness" to some pre-adamic race of people in some "older" earth? or satan and his fallen angelic devils for that matter too?
Biblical Creation: Strengthening Your Defenses

This is a 4 Part Video Presentation in link

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

For 200 years, Western Christians have been told that the Bible is not clear about how long God took to create, or how old the earth is. But is that true? This important presentation looks at biased objections that have been voiced against the young-earth view. These objections include:

Genesis 1 is not a historical narrative to be taken literally
Too much happened on day 6 for it to be 24 hours
Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory creation accounts
The Bible is not a science textbook
Genesis 1 was written as a polemic against pagan ancient Near-Eastern creation myths
You will see that, under careful scrutiny with an open Bible, these objections crumble.
Did Jesus Teach Recent Creation?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Most everyone has been taught all through their school years that the earth, life, animals, and man have all been developing from primordial beginnings over billions of years of natural evolution. Many have tried to "baptize" this process, so to speak, by calling it "theistic" evolution or "progressive" creation saying that God may have used evolution as His process of creation.

Because of this ubiquitous indoctrination, even many evangelical Christians have felt they must conform to this evolutionary worldview, especially in relation to the so-called "deep time" that is so essential to evolutionism. One respected leader of the "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, recently wrote to me that he would prefer to believe in a "young earth," but that science had proved that the earth was very old, so he had to go with science. Two other leaders of this I.D. movement told me personally on two separate occasions that they could not even afford to listen to my arguments for a young earth because they were afraid they would be convinced and that this would halt their opportunities to speak to college groups and others about Intelligent Design.

So I have written this brief article to show once again that the Lord Jesus Himself believes in recent creation and the young earth. Assuming that a Christian is a person who believes in the deity and inerrant authority of Christ, it would seem that this fact should be sufficient to convince him.

What I will do here, therefore, is to list three key reasons for concluding that our Lord Jesus Christ believed and taught literal recent creation of all things essentially instantaneously by the omnipotent command of God, who "spake, and it was done" (Psalm 33:9).

The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages. To Jesus, every "jot or one tittle" of Scripture was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:1Cool and He warned us severely against adding any other words to it (Revelation 22:1Cool. The Bible, therefore, would certainly not leave the vital doctrine of creation open to human speculation.

The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
Although many evangelicals have long equivocated as to the meaning of the "days" of creation, this type of ad hoc handling of Scripture is never justified in the context, and Christ Himself would never have interpreted them as indefinite ages of some kind. Not only is "day" (Hebrew, yom) defined in this context the first time it is used (Genesis 1:5), but the writer conclusively restricted its interpretation to the literal meaning by numbering the days ("first day," "second day," etc.) and by indicating their boundaries ("evening and morning"), both of which restrictions elsewhere in the Old Testament limit the meaning to literal days. The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week. Jesus referred to this divine example when He said that "The sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) to meet our weekly need of rest from work.

The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.
On another occasion, speaking especially of Adam's son Abel, He referred to "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50-51), thereby acknowledging that Abel was the first prophet, martyred in the very first generation—not 4.6 billion years after the formation of the earth. Jesus also said that Satan, using Cain to slay Abel, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

Note also that the father of John the Baptist, prophesying when filled with the Holy Spirit, said that God's holy prophets had been predicting a coming Savior "since the world began" (Luke 1:70). Then the apostle Peter later preached that the second coming of Christ and the ultimate removal of the great Curse on the earth had even been events that "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). The apostle Paul wrote that evidence of God as Creator should have been "clearly seen" (by men, of course) ever since "the creation of the world."

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus was what evolutionists today (both theistic and atheistic) would call a "young-earth creationist." It would seem that this should settle the question for all true Christians, who should certainly—on the authority of Christ Himself—completely reject the notion of geologic ages.

But they don't! For one thing, not all who consider themselves Christians really believe the Bible, especially its unpopular teachings. Unfortunately, many who think they are Bible-believing Christians have become adept at "wresting" the Scriptures (note II Peter 3:17), even the recorded words of Jesus and the apostles, to make them conform to the scientism of evolutionary speculation. As noted above, there is not the slightest suggestion of millions and billions of years anywhere in the Bible when it is taken simply to mean what it says. That is why we "young-earth creationists" have to keep on reemphasizing the pervasive Bible teaching of just thousands of years of earth and cosmic history.

But what are we supposed to do when the Bible disagrees with the majority of scientists on such matters?

We are to believe the Bible—that's what! When the teachings of men conflict with the Word of God, it would be wise to go with God.

Furthermore, there are now thousands of scientists (fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities) who have become convinced believers in recent creation. No doubt we are still a minority, but it is a growing minority. There are several hundred such scientists in the Creation Research Society, not to mention those on our ICR faculty as well as those associated with numerous other creationist organizations around the world.

There is also a rapidly growing body of scientific data that not only shows the impossibility of macroevolution but also much that repudiates the so-called evidences of "billions of years." Creationist geologists have been developing an abundance of evidence of global catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism in earth history—thus confirming the Biblical record of the great Flood as the major explanation for the fossil-bearing rocks in the earth's crust, instead of having to invent imaginary long ages of evolution to account for them.

It is possible now even to amass a list of dozens of worldwide natural processes (e.g., accumulation of salt in the sea) which, even on uniformist assumptions, will yield ages much too brief for evolution. Thus, even without referring to the Bible at all, it is possible to make an impressive case for recent creation. One cannot determine the exact age of the earth by science, of course, and these various processes may yield various values, but all prove too small for evolutionism to be possible.

With the supposed exception of radiometric dating, that is. The decay of uranium into lead, rubidium into strontium, and a few other such processes can be made to show extremely long ages, so radioactive decay processes have been considered by evolutionists to be firm proof of the billions of years.

But Christians need to remember that such calculations, like all the others, are based on the arbitrary assumption of uniformitarianism, which not only is unprovable but contrary to the Bible. The apostle Peter calls it "willing ignorance" (note 2 Peter 3:3-6) when this assumption ignores the world-changing impact of special creation of all things in the beginning and the worldwide geologic impact of the global Deluge in the days of Noah.

Furthermore, the forthcoming publications of the ICR/CRS RATE Initiative will show strong scientific evidence that even these radioactive decay processes really provide convincing arguments that the earth is thousands of years old—not billions!

Therefore, we plead once again with our Christian theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, gap creationists, and intelligent design minimalists to come back to the Bible for their view of the world and its history. We should most certainly believe the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on this vital subject. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," He might well say, "and [believe] not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

I really like this Creation Science ministry - just subscribed to their YT channel.

Will the REAL creationists please stand up?

Gap theory proponents will try to spin how Psalm 104:5-9 was referring to some "previous" earth prior to Genesis 1:2...

Psalm 104:5  Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Psa 104:6  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Psa 104:7  At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
Psa 104:8  They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
Psa 104:9  Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Not true AT ALL! Not only is this talking about the global flood during Noah, but the foundations of the earth remained(ie-the land REMAINED). And in addition, look at the end of this passage where it says "that they turn not again to cover the earth"(which God promised not to do again after the global flood during Noah) - but en yet the gap theorists will also say how God RE-created the earth in Genesis 1. Pt being that do you see all of the confusion they've put out?

Was Noah's Flood global?

Excellent gospel tract exposing the gap theory!

The Trojan horse of 'deep time'

What did the Son of God believe about Creation?

What did the church fathers believe about Genesis?
The Framework Hypothesis and Genesis 1

    The need to speak on the Framework Hypothesis bodes ill for the church. It is not an error that is placed on church’s agenda by the world. It originated and has its greatest influence in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations and seminaries.

    Though of relatively recent origin, in another sense it is not new. Fifty years ago, when I was attending college, the so-called Period Theory was just being introduced into the science department. This explanation of Genesis 1 was replaced, after ten or fifteen years, by what became known as the Gap Theory. That particular view has very few, if any, defenders today. The Gap Theory was quickly followed by other views which explained Genesis 1 as myth, or saga, or a doxology.

    Now we are confronted with the Framework Hypothesis. Yet, all these views have one thing in common. They deny the literal meaning of Genesis 1 and are, therefore, an assault, a fierce assault, on Genesis 1 and the creation narrative, and thus, on the sacred Scriptures. It is particularly disconcerting that, when these heresies arise and the church is called to give a clear sound on the trumpet to summon the church to battle and to condemn unequivocally these false views, one finds to his dismay that there is scarcely one anywhere that dares to stand up in the ecclesiastical assemblies and defend vigorously on behalf of God and His truth the doctrine of creation. We get instead whimpers and stutterings, and perhaps a trumpet sounding retreat. That is disconcerting.

    I consider this Framework Hypothesis, recently made popular, to be an assault on the Scriptures. It is an assault on the Scriptures in three distinct ways. It is an assault on the divine inspiration of Scripture. It is an assault on the doctrine of Scripture’s authority. It is an assault on the Biblical truth which forms the foundation of the Christian faith.

What the Framework Hypothesis Teaches.

    The Framework Hypothesis was first proposed by Dr. Noordzij of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950’s. His defense of the Framework Hypothesis never became very popular. The later popularity of the view could be explained by the fact that the idea was picked up by Dr. N. H. Ridderbos, a prominent figure in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands. He wrote a book in which he spelled out his view of the Framework Hypothesis and defended it. The title of the book is, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? That book has been translated and is available in this country, though only as a used book. But even that book did not really make much progress within Reformed and Presbyterian circles until this same view was picked up by theologian and Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline. He has popularized the theory. He has had remarkable success in promoting it and has succeeded in gaining many to his views, especially in more conservative circles. He has put it on the agenda of the church. Collaborating with Dr. Lee Irons, he has set down his views in a book called The Genesis Debate.

    The Framework Hypothesis has two parts to it. The first part proceeds from the assumption that the narrative of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is not to be taken literally, but makes use of a literary device. It is a device which imposes a literary framework on the creation narrative which requires that the narrative be explained in a way quite different from the traditional interpretation that the church has given to it for two thousand years.

    The theory goes something like this. The literary framework, by means of which the work of creation is described, is merely a device to give some rather general ideas about the origin of this world without in any way giving us information on the length of time in which God’s work of creation was done, in what order God created the creatures belonging to creation, and the manner in which God created them. The days are not literal days, but are a device used which points us to two groups of three, two triads set over against each other. There is a relationship between the two triads and a correlation can be found between day one and day four, day two and day five, day three and day six. What Genesis 1 is trying to teach us is not how God created the world, not in how much time he created the world, but only that the creation is divided into three separate spheres each with its own rulers. There is the sphere of space, which is ruled by the sun, moon, stars, and planets. There is the sphere of the sea, which is ruled by fish and birds. There is the sphere of dry land which is ruled by animals and man. That is about as much as the creation narrative tells us. We must not look to Genesis 1 to learn how God created things or in how much time He created things.

    If one would ask how God created all things, the answer of the Framework Hypothesis is: God created all things by “natural providence.” Although, in the book mentioned above, little more is said about what is meant by natural providence, it becomes clear that the authors mean God’s ordinary way of working in His creation, that is, according to so-called natural laws. Hence, the creation came into being through evolutionary processes, which processes are still in operation today in the creation. Natural development over billions of years explains the origin of the creation.

    The second aspect of his theory is called two-register cosmogony. Now I have to admit that I read this material a number of times, but was unable to figure out exactly what is meant. It is very complicated. It is very abstract. It is very far remove from the simple statements of Genesis 1. That in itself ought to send up warning signals to anyone who loves God’s Word. What is meant, apparently is this. Genesis 1 is not telling us what happened here upon earth during the creation week, but this chapter in the Bible is telling us what happened in heaven. There is a heavenly register and an earthly register. All Genesis 1 is telling us is that there is some reality of which we know very little, which takes place in heaven where God dwells, but which somehow has some kind of an effect here below which we are able to see and to observe only through the metaphorical language of Genesis 1.

     Now, that is too complicated for me to understand. But let me quote.

    “The evidence that the Genesis cosmogony has been shaped by the employment of the Bible’s two-register cosmology thus demonstrating that the picture of the week of days is one element of a broader pattern in which upper-register realties are described through the metaphorical use of lower-register terminology” (The Great Debate, 185).

     I must admit that I do not know what that means. I would find it extraordinarily difficult if I were teaching the doctrine of creation to five and six year old covenant children, which once I did, to have to say to them, “God did not really create things in six days of twenty-four hours, but what we have here in Genesis 1 is a metaphorical use of lower-register terminology to give us some kind of an idea of upper-register cosmogony.” I would find myself extraordinarily uncomfortable. I would probably skip the lesson on creation, if I had to teach that. But the point is that the language of Genesis 1 is metaphorical and is in no sense of the word to be taken literally.

   If you think that to accuse the Framework Hypothesis of denying the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is too harsh a judgment, other quotes from the book will prove this contention. It is necessary to prove this because, strangely, the authors claim to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Nevertheless, they write:

“The creation narrative is not to be taken literally but is kerygma-theological, and redemptive” (TGB, 218).

If this is set against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, I do not know what “kerygma-theological, and redemptive” mean. But the point is clear. The narrative is not literal.

“The Framework Hypothesis regards the seven day scheme as a figurative framework” (JGD, 219). “While the six days of creation are presented as normal solar days, according to the Framework interpretation, the total picture of God completing his creative work in a week of days is not to be taken literally” JGD, 219).

The men who defend the Framework Hypothesis do not want Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 to be taken literally. I consider that idea, apart from the difficulty in understanding the Framework Hypothesis, to be a deliberate and calculated assault on the sacred Scriptures.

An Assault on Scripture’s Inspiration
    The literal meaning of the sacred Scriptures has been the foundation of the Reformed faith since the time of the Lutheran Reformation. It is a profound truth rescued from Roman Catholic bondage. The Roman Catholic Church had given to the Scriptures a four-level interpretation. The literal meaning of the Scriptures was not the real meaning, according to Rome. If one wanted to find the real meaning, one had to go deeper and deeper through these additional three levels of interpretation until finally, when one reached the bottom, he would find the true meaning of the Scriptures in the various levels. The result of that position of Rome was that the ordinary people of God were judged unable to understand the Scriptures, and the Scriptures were denied them.

    I do not have to remind you of how vicious Rome became when the Scriptures were translated into the language of the common people. Rome did not want the Bible in the hands of the people of God.

    Luther said, “There’s deviltry in that.” He translated the Bible into German and gave it to the people of God. He freed the Scriptures from the shackles and chains of Rome. In addition to translating the Bible into German, and as a reason for translating it into the language of the common people, Luther insisted on the truth of the office of all believers. All God’s people are given the Spirit. With the Spirit, they are able to understand the sacred Scriptures. The cornerstone of that doctrine was that the Scriptures are to be taken literally; [b]that the Scriptures mean exactly what they say; that they have no hidden meanings, no meaning below the surface, no deeper levels of meaning. They say exactly what they mean and mean what they say. The literal meaning is the only meaning and the correct meaning.[/b]

    This truth lies in the very nature of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are, after all, the infallibly inspired written record of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. But they are the record of God’s revelation in Christ to God’s people. God wants to tell His people about the great salvation He has prepared for them in Christ. All things recorded on the pages of Holy Writ belong to that salvation.

    The conclusion is that Genesis 1 speaks of Christ as well as Revelation 22, and as well as all intervening books and chapters. God gave the revelation of Himself so that His people might have this revelation of Himself to know Him as their God and to live with Him in covenant fellowship. To use the words of Psalm 25, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant” (vs. 15). He tells them who He is. He tells them of all of His wonderful attributes and glorious works. He tells them of what He does in order to save them and make them his people. He tells them of all the glorious things He is going to do for them and will do for them forever and ever. But, because they are all part of the salvation which God gives His people, they are all revealed through Christ, through whom alone is salvation ours.

    He makes known His secrets to His people in such a way that they are able to understand. Why else would He reveal these secrets? John Calvin in a certain place speaks of the fact that God in the Scriptures talks “baby talk,” because that is all we as creatures are able to understand. God lisps in a language that is understandable to us. To all God’s people, the educated and the uneducated, the farmer and the doctor of philosophy, the old saint and the little child, He speaks. How many times in the Scriptures are not children directly addressed? God does not talk in a mysterious language that only professors with with their Ph.D’s are able to understand. He does not talk in the Scriptures about two-register cosmogonies and cosmologies. God wants His people to understand how He made all things. Hence, what God says is literally true. Is that so hard to believe? “God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” That is how God talks because He wants us to know who He is and what He does so that we come to know Him as the God of our salvation.

    The simplicity of the Scriptures can not be true if we can no longer trust their literal meaning. There is not any one that reads this pamphlet who can discover what the Scriptures mean, if we are dealing with writings which cannot be taken literally. In that case, the church needs learned scholars to tell us what the Scriptures mean. It is obvious to anyone who reads the first two chapters of Genesis that they teach one simple truth. God, by the Word of His power, called everything into existence in six days exactly like the days we have. Let us conduct an imaginary conversation.

    “But,” say today’s scholars, “You are all wrong. Genesis 1 does not mean that at all.”

    “Well,” we respond, “What does it mean?” The response comes quickly. “We have here a two-register cosmogony given in a literary framework.”

    “But is not this so vague and hard to understand that it leaves room for unbelieving theories of origins, that is, evolutionism?  How can the ordinary child of God understand that?”

    “We have gifted Old Testament scholars here in the Seminary who will explain how these things are to be understood.”

    “But what has happened, then, to Scripture’s perspicuity? To the office of believers?”

    To that there is no answer. The silence is palpable.

    Was the church of the martyrs, the church that was persecuted by the **** of Rome, the church of past centuries, in need of today’s scholars to know the faith that she was called upon to defend? They were poor people who, lacking today’s scholars, could not possibly know what Genesis 1 and 2 were talking about, if we are to believe today’s exegetes of Scripture.

    Theories which deny the literal meaning of the creation narrative are leading the church back to Rome! Is that where we want to go? Back to Rome where a new priesthood, now of scholars, will explain to us what we are unable to understand by ourselves?

Facing this very problem in his time, Calvin writes in his preface to his commentary on Romans: “We ought to have such respect for the Word of God that any difference of interpretation on our part should alter it as little as possible.  It is therefore presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care as though it were some game that we were playing.” He writes in the commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan: “We ought to have a deeper reverence for scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning.” In other words, to disguise Scripture’s natural meaning with theories such as the Framework Hypothesis is to show irreverence to the sacred Scriptures.

    The church always has maintained this position. Walter J. Kaiser, professor of Old Testament in Gordon-Conwell Seminary writes: “Scripture has only one meaning, the one obvious from the thought and words. It is a meaning which anyone who reads the text can ascertain. The obvious surface meaning, the ‘prosaic’ meaning is the right one, and looking for other meaning reduces exegesis to a shambles” (Rightly Divided. Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics, Roy B. Zuck, General Editor, Kregel Publications. Pp167-170).

    Even Herman Ridderbos, who promoted the Framework Hypothesis, wrote concerning the creation narrative in his book on the subject,:
One who reads Genesis 1 without prepossession or suspicion is almost bound to receive the impression that the author’s intent is to say that creation took place in six ordinary days.”

    The Framework Hypothesis has to do with what is called literary criticism of Scripture. In an essay (originally given as a speech), C. S. Lewis writes: “Whatever these men may be as Bible critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the text they are reading.... These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight” (Christian Reflections, 154, 157). That strikes me as appropriate. The defenders of the Framework Hypothesis claim to see the fern seed of two-register cosmogony and they can not see the elephant of six days of creation in broad daylight at ten paces. That is an assault on the sacred scriptures and God’s Word. We must view it as such and consider our calling.

An Assault on Scripture’s Authority

    The Framework Hypothesis is an assault on Scripture’s authority. The Framework Hypothesis, as well as any other view that refuses to take Genesis 1 literally, is an assault on Scripture’s authority because it is a sell-out to modern unbelieving science. Now I happen to like science and I am not going to use this point to carry out some vendetta against science. I read all the science I have time for. I like astronomy particularly. Science is wonderful. But not unbelieving science. Yet the church sells its soul to unbelieving science. Unbelieving science is summoned to serve as the shock troops in an assault on the citadel of the Scriptures.

    The authors of the Framework Hypothesis would deny this. They are at great pains to claim for themselves two things. They claim to believe in the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures, and they claim that they are not imposing their Framework Hypothesis upon Scripture under the pressure of scientific discovery. Many times in the course of their argument they remind the reader of their commitment to the Reformed doctrine of Scripture. One is reminded of Shakespeare’s memorable line: “Me thinketh thou protesteth too much.” But so it is. They want us to be convinced that they are not adopting their view under the pressure of modern science. Their Framework Hypothesis, so they claim, was developed simply because of the fact that they were engaged in honest and objective exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and were compelled by the exegesis itself to adopt this position.

But what they claim is not true. This can be shown from their own writings. The defenders of the Framework Hypothesis tip their hand, whether purposely or inadvertently They write:

    “We must regard any creation account or narrative of human events that clearly contradicts scientific and or historical data as erroneous, mythical, or fictional.”

    One can not say it any clearer than that! Any exegesis which contradicts science is erroneous, mythical, or fictional.

    “Our position is that natural revelation and scripture cannot contradict one another. If there is an apparent conflict between our interpretation of natural revelation and our interpretation of Scripture, the only role of natural revelation in the exegetical task is to serve as a warning that we may need to re-examine our exegesis.” That settles the matter of their view of the relation between natural revelation and Scripture. When natural revelation and Scripture come into conflict with each other we are not warned, as we should be, to reinterpret our science! No, when the two come into conflict with each other we are told that we may need to re­examine our exegesis. Science is right. Our understanding of Scripture is wrong. That means that the authority of science stands above the authority of Scripture.

    Another quote will further substantiate this.

“As far as the time frame is concerned [that is, how long it took God to create all things, HH], with respect to both the duration and the sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins” (Quoted from Kline in The Reformed Herald, 7).

    We are flatly told that the scientist, whether believer or unbeliever, is perfectly free, when it comes to the question of the origin of the creation and the sequence of events in creation, to do his own work apart from any constraints of the Scriptures.

    So, after all, their claim to be objective in their exegesis is a false claim. They want to make room for science, which teaches an old earth. We are to take the word of an unbelieving scientist rather than the Word of the God of heaven and earth. Especially when it comes to how the world came into existence. Is that what the believer is supposed to do? That is what these men are asking us to do.

    The argument is that natural or general revelation and special revelation are both the Word of God; that both, therefore, say the same thing and cannot contradict each other. We must be reminded of a truth upon which Calvin insisted. He reminded us that our sin makes us so spiritually blind that we can not see the revelation of God in creation unless we put on the spectacles of Scripture. Hence, science must be interpreted in the light of Scripture, not Scripture in the light of science.

    Two points must be emphasized in this connection. The first is that the Framework Hypothesis, as well as all other theories that try to bring evolutionism into the creation narrative, is based on the Principle of Uniformitarianism. We are able to determine, so this principle states, how the world was ten, fifteen, or twenty billion years ago by how the world is today, because all the forces operating in the creation today were operating throughout the entire history of the world, and were operating in the same way. Kline concedes the principle when he insists that creation took place by ordinary or natural providence.

    This theory of uniformitarianism is, however, demolished by the Holy Spirit in Peter’s second epistle, chapter three, where Peter puts the very words of the Uniformitarians in the mouth of the scoffers who deny Christ and the power of His coming: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (vss. 1-4). But, as Peter goes on to say, all things do not continue as they were from the beginning of creation. The Flood came and the Flood was a universal catastrophe. As Peter makes clear, the entire structure of the creation was changed by the flood. Whereas once the creation was surrounded by water and stood in the water and out of the water, now it is surrounded by fire being reserved unto the day of judgment.

    Another event which is not taken into account is the fall of man into sin.

    In his book, The Green Eye of the Storm, John Rendle Short tells us that one of his reasons for abandoning theistic evolutionism and adopting the traditional view of creation in six days of twenty-four hours was his inability to get past the fact of the fall and the curse that came because of it. It is in the nature of the case that anyone who wants an old universe, as is true of all the defenders of the Framework Hypothesis, must have a creation in which there always was death. Kline says that the idea of death coming with the fall cannot be supported by the Scriptures. He realizes, however that Romans 5:12 is a key text, and so he tries to explain away the clear meaning. The text reads, “Wherefore, as by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men for that all have sinned.”

    But it cannot be explained away. After the fall, God pronounced the curse upon the creation. The curse means that God in His fury against sin, brings death into the creation.

    The difficulty is that one cannot have fossils that are one hundred and fifty million years old if there was no death before the Fall. That is impossible. So, death was characteristic of creation for all the billions of years of its development, contrary to the literal statements of the Scriptures. Reformed believers must maintain that through the fall of Adam death came upon all things, and that only through the atoning death of Christ Himself, who bore the curse, can man and the creation be delivered from the bondage of corruption. Before the fall death was impossible. The whole creation, through Adam lived in fellowship with God the source and fountain of all life.

    Not only is it true that the tremendous catastrophes of the Fall and the Flood came upon this creation, so that all things do not continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, but man, as the punishment of God against sin, is made totally depraved. Part of that total depravity is his spiritual blindness. In his spiritual blindness he is unable to understand spiritual things. In his blindness he is an enemy of God. He hates God and attempts by one means or another to destroy God’s name, and truth from the earth.

    Evolutionism, in whatever form it may come, is an attempt to do that very thing. Are we then going to permit these unbelieving scientists to tell us how the creation came into existence? God has given us the Scriptures to tell us, and He has put those Scriptures as eyeglasses on our nose so that we can see the creation as God made it and as it truly is. Apart from these spectacles, we can not understand the creation. But if we have the spectacles on, we can understand it. Then we can do our scientific work and see God in all of His mighty works, all His power, all His majesty, and all His purposes which He has for the whole of creation and for us. What a marvelous gift God has given to us.

    We can perhaps show the foolishness of evolutionism with an illustration. Supposing that a group of scientists, interested in architecture, came to a large and old castle to learn how it was constructed. In the entryway a book was found on the table in which the builder of the castle explained in detail how he had built it. But these learned scientists, glancing briefly at the book, reject it as an authoritative account, throw it into the moat filled with water, and proceed to examine a few stones in the walls, a few steps from the steep staircases, and a few tiles from the roof. After studying them, these learned men give us a detailed explanation in which they maintain that the castle came from some very old material, but gradually evolved into the mighty fortress which it is now. Who would ever believe such nonsense?

    And now there are those in the church, conservative churches, who take their spectacles off, throw them on the ground, jump on them a few times, and then go prowling around in the earth’s crust, blind as bats, to tell us how the creation came into existence. How can anyone believe these things?

An Assault on the Foundation of the Gospel

    Finally, this view is an assault on the foundation of the gospel. I word it that way deliberately.

    When I was going to college, I was introduced to the Period Theory. The days of Genesis 1 were said to be long periods of time, not normal days of twenty-four hours. The professor, knowing that some of us in the class were believers in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, said to us in words of this effect, “I hope by the end of the year, I will have you all persuaded of the correctness of the Period Theory. If there are one or two of you that are not persuaded, I will consider that to be a failure on my part. But I want you to understand that it really does not make any difference what you believe. Whether you believe a literal account of Genesis 1, or whether you believe in the Period Theory does not make any difference for salvation, because Genesis 1 and its interpretation does not belong to the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. So you can believe what you wish on these matters. All these views are acceptable in the church.”

    Howard Van Til, in his book The Fourth Day, also insisted that it makes no difference what one believes on this question. Whether one believe what his book teaches, or whether one believes in creation in six days of twenty-four hours, or any other theory, the question of what is right and
wrong is irrelevant, because the creation narrative is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The same is being said today by the defenders of the Framework Hypothesis. We have to listen to the old song: “It doesn’t matter what you believe.” Even in the book, The Genesis Debate, the defenders of creation in six normal days state emphatically that they do not consider the issue a divisive one, and that different views ought to be acceptable in the church.

    From such a position matters can only get worse. The question of creation becomes an open question in the church. To make matters worse, it is then added that the question of the creation is a non-confessional question, and that any effort on the part of radicals to define the way in which God created all things and the time in which He did so is an effort to add to the confessions. Because all this is said to be true, we are asked to tolerate these views. The plea is made: “Just tolerate us. That is all we are asking. Declare the whole matter of origins to be non-confessional. Give us room in the church for our view. You may hold to your view. You may maintain your position. We are not going to try to shove our views down your throat. It just doesn’t make any difference to salvation. It doesn’t touch on the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    It is striking and significant that the Arminians asked for the same toleration in the years prior to the Synod of Dordt —and they came close to taking over the whole church. It does make a difference what people believe concerning Genesis 1 & 2, because it makes a difference on what they believe concerning their Bibles. Who are these people that claim to have the right to take part of the Bible and say this does not belong to the gospel of Jesus Christ? The whole of Scriptures has to do with Jesus Christ. The whole of Scriptures is gospel. The whole of the Scriptures has to do with our salvation. When God made the worlds and created man as the king, His purpose in that creation never was to glorify Himself through the first Paradise and the first Adam. His purpose right from the start was to glorify Himself through the second Adam in the redeemed heavens and earth which are made one through the power of the cross of Jesus Christ.

    Do you think that Satan, that foul spirit from hell, could frustrate the purpose of Almighty God? Do you think that when he introduced sin into the world God stood wringing His hands in despair while saying, “Oh my, everything is spoiled. We shall have to fall back on Plan B. Plan A came to nothing. The devil made it impossible. Now I will try to salvage something out of this mess that the devil and man made.” Is that the God of Scripture? The Scriptures reveal God as the absolutely sovereign One who does all His good pleasure.

    When God formed the heavens and the earth, He, as it were, created the stage in splendid detail, on which stage would be enacted the drama of sin and salvation in Christ. Christ’s salvation is cosmic. The salvation of the catholic church and the salvation of the whole cosmos in Christ. Even the salvation of heaven is through Christ (Col. 1:20), so that all things may be united in Him who is exalted to be Lord of all. Right from the beginning of the works of God that was God’s purpose.

    God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. Why was it good? It was good, because God saw that it was perfectly adapted to serve the purpose which He had determined for it in Jesus Christ. There is gospel here in Genesis 1.

There was even evidence of this given by God in the creation of the heavenly bodies. These heavenly bodies, we are told, were created for various purposes, among which was to serve as “signs” (Gen. 1:15). But what is a sign? A sign is an earthly reality that points to a heavenly truth. We are given a sign of the sacrifice of Christ in the broken bread and the poured out wine served in the Lord’s Supper. The sun was created to be a sign of the Sun of Righteousness who rises with healing in his wings (Mal. 4:2). It is a sign of  as the bridegroom of His bride, the church, who comes forth from His chambers (Psalm 19:5, 6). The gospel of Christ. God created the lily of the valley and the bright morning star so that we may see Christ (Colossians 2:2, II Pet. 1:19). There is gospel in God’s work of creation. To deny creation is to deny the gospel. Indeed, creation is the foundation of the gospel. Genesis is the book of beginnings, the beginnings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Proverbs 8, where Christ is personified as the Wisdom of God, Christ Himself says, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.... While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there... (vss. 22-31). This is gospel, glorious gospel. Because Christ is the One in whom all the cosmos and all the elect are saved, He was, as it were, present when the cosmos was formed that He might supervise it and see to it that it served His own glorious work of salvation. Even more, He was revealed as the Wisdom of God in all the works of God’s hands. The creation is the foundation of the gospel. Are we going to destroy the foundation? What will happen to the house?

The advocates of the Framework Hypothesis are reluctant to include man in creation by “ordinary providence.” Perhaps it is too great a concession to evolutionism even for them. The result is that the proponents of the Framework Hypothesis draw a line through the events of the sixth day. The line must be drawn between the creation of the land animals and the creation of man. What belongs on the side of the line which includes the creation of animals belongs to science, we are told. But this is not true of the creation of man. The creation of man must be taken literally. But why? There are no exegetical reasons for drawing such a line. And indeed, with more logical consistency, many refuse to do this, but claim that man also belongs to the evolutionary process — although he may have had a soul injected at some point along the way. But, let it be noticed, this evolutionary description of man’s origin is the inevitable results.

    Finally, it is repeatedly argued that the church must allow freedom for its scholars to believe and teach what they will concerning the truth of creation because the whole doctrine is a non-confessional doctrine. That is, while the Confessions teach that God created all things, they do not teach how and in how long a time God performed the work of creation.

    This line of reasoning is sheer sophistry, and an open attempt to bypass the Confessions. The Confessions, taken in their entirety, simply assume the doctrine of creation as taking place in six ordinary days, such as we know today. But they also teach this doctrine explicitly The Heidelberg Catechism states that “The eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them). . . “(Lord’s Day 9, q. & a 26).

    The Framework Hypothesis contradicts this statement of the Catechism in two ways. First of all, it contradicts this statement by teaching that the creation took place by ordinary or “natural” providence, and was not, therefore, a miracle. If creation out of nothing is not a miracle, then there are no miracles at all in Scripture. Secondly, the advocates of the Framework Hypothesis contradict this teaching of Scripture because they teach that the various creatures came forth from something. Higher forms of creatures came forth from lower forms of creatures. All developed. This is a denial of our Confessions, which are squarely based on Scripture’s own repudiation of evolutionism. Heb. 11:3 teaches that God created in such a way “that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” These men, bent on introducing evolution into the church, say, “Things which are seen were made of things which do appear.”

    The Confession of Faith, Article 14, teaches that death came into the world with the fall of man. The Framework Hypothesis denies this when it insists, as it must, that death was always present in the world. Article 14 says:

“Man willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death and the curse.... [Man] by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life; having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death....”

    This article identifies death and the curse as being the same. Genesis 3 tells us that the curse upon the creation (“Cursed be the ground for thy sake”) as the punishment for Adam’s sin. It came with the Fall.

    In Article 12 of the Confession of Faith, such a work of creation as Genesis teaches is specifically taught. “We believe that the Father, by the Word, that is, by His Son, hath created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him, giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator....” How it is possible for anyone to deny that this article teaches creation in six ordinary days is hard to imagine. If this article does not teach creation by God’s almighty Word in a moment and by His power, then all language has lost its meaning. Notice, first of all, the article insists that God created all things “by His Son,” not by evolutionary processes. Not natural providence was the method; God’s Son was the direct Agent of creation. Secondly, creation was “of nothing.” And, finally, creation was such a work of God that by means of creation God gave to every creature its being, shape, form and several offices. The being, shape, and form of every creature was given directly from God and was not acquired by the creature through genetic aberrations, the survival of those most able to adapt to their environment, and evolutionary processes, called by the advocates of the Framework Hypothesis, “natural providence.”

    Finally, the Canons of Dordt, (III & IV, Art. 12) compares creation to regeneration. Regeneration is said to be performed by God in a way “not inferior in efficacy to creation.” It is called in fact “a new creation.” If the creation of the worlds took place by “natural providence,” the same must be true of regeneration. Somehow, by natural providence the totally depraved sinner is transformed to become a saint, glorified and holy. It is merely a matter of development. Rather, even the Canons, singularly uninterested in the doctrine of creation in their fierce battle with Arminianism, insist that regeneration is comparable in many respects to the creation of all things.

    Let it never be said that the “how” and the “manner” of creation is a non-confessional matter. That is a travesty on our Confessions and will inevitably lead to denials of other confessional doctrines.

Creation is a Matter of Faith

    That all brings up one final point.

    We do not attempt to prove creationism from science. We must not attempt to do this. I am not saying that true science contradicts the creation narrative. It does not. But the battle lines are not drawn between competing and contradictory interpretations of creation, It is not a question of who does the best science. The issue is far more profound than that. The question is simply this: Do you believe the word of God or don’t you? The battle is between faith and unbelief. It is unbelief to construct a view of the origin of the creation which conflicts with the literal meaning of Genesis 1. It is unbelief to take Christ’s book and say to Christ, “There are some things that didn’t happen the way you said they happened, because science says that it is impossible for creation to happen that way.

    Hebrews 11:3 puts the entire battle where it must be fought. How is it possible to confess the truths of creation as given in Scripture? The only way is the way of faith. Unbelief will always seek to destroy the truth of God — also the truth of creation. But faith alone is able to confess the doctrine of creation, namely, that God formed all things in six days of twenty-four hours. How do we know that by the Word of the Lord the heavens were framed and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6)? How do we know that God is the One who calls the things that were not as though they were (Rom. 4:17)? How do we know that any form of evolutionism, which teaches that things which are seen came from things which do appear, is heresy? How do we know that God formed all things in six days of 24 hours, limited by morning and evening? The only way is faith. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Faith is the only way. Saving faith. Faith which confesses that salvation is in Christ alone. Faith which, laying hold on Christ, receives Scripture as Christ’s Word.

If the whole world believes in evolutionism, and the church meekly follows the world, the believer who clings to Christ by faith and finds in Christ the fullness of his salvation, who glories in the hope of being with Christ forever and ever world without end, maintains, even in the fires of persecution, the simple yet profoundly glorious truth of the doctrine of creation.

Preserved dinosaur blood cells prove young earth
The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led Christian apologist Ken Ham to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.

8 dinosaur bones discovered in North America had red blood cells in one of the specimens, complete with nuclei and amino acids and collagen, a common soft tissue.
Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, says the discovery of preserved blood cells and tissues undermine secular assumptions and create a problem for evolutionists.

Ken Ham

BA check this out
Dinosaur discoveries

CJ wrote:
Preserved dinosaur blood cells prove young earth
The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led Christian apologist Ken Ham to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.

8 dinosaur bones discovered in North America had red blood cells in one of the specimens, complete with nuclei and amino acids and collagen, a common soft tissue.
Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, says the discovery of preserved blood cells and tissues undermine secular assumptions and create a problem for evolutionists.

Ken Ham

BA check this out
Dinosaur discoveries

The Genesis account is THE backbone of the gospel of Jesus Christ, no ifs ands or buts. If it's true the earth is millions of years old, then the fall of Adam(man) is nil(and we might as well disregard Noah's global flood). If the fall of man is mitigated, then there was no point in Jesus Christ coming to earth to die on that cross, and shed his blood for our sins(and resurrected 3 days later).

Sadly, even a growing number of contending-for-the-faith ministries(ie-Michael Pearle) have fell for lies like the gap theory b/c they likely let their guard down(and got complacent) in terms of defending and taking a stand for the Genesis account.

IOW, it's not exactly Rick Warren and Rob Bell pushing these crafty evolution lies presently.

What would we know about creation if we only had the New Testament?

Fossils: Evidence for Biblical creation

What the Reformers believed about Genesis

I was in a "christian" bookstore today - while their Creation Science section is TINY, was able to catch a Ken Ham book and read a few pages of it only.

The little I read of his book was actually quite good - learned about geologic columns and how fast they form when floods et al happen. The big problem the gap proponents run into is that they try to pin "Lucifer's flood" prior to Genesis 1:2 - but they fail to see that floods LEAVE BEHIND geologic columns rather quickly(but Genesis 1:2 shows there was NOTHING on the earth but water).

So ultimately, gap proponents end up having a hard time explaining how the geologic columns formed after Noah's flood.

Also - Pemper in the 1800's was a very strong contender for the faith. Stressed that it should be studied daily, applied to our lives, try the spirits, and ultimately our lone authority. However, HE fell for the gap theory heresy thinking there was some "previous" earth that was around billions of years prior to our present earth(and paid heed to alot of the secular geologists nonsense).

BornAgain2 wrote:
I was in a "christian" bookstore today - while their Creation Science section is TINY, was able to catch a Ken Ham book and read a few pages of it only.

The little I read of his book was actually quite good - learned about geologic columns and how fast they form when floods et al happen. The big problem the gap proponents run into is that they try to pin "Lucifer's flood" prior to Genesis 1:2 - but they fail to see that floods LEAVE BEHIND geologic columns rather quickly(but Genesis 1:2 shows there was NOTHING on the earth but water).

So ultimately, gap proponents end up having a hard time explaining how the geologic columns formed after Noah's flood.

Also - Pemper in the 1800's was a very strong contender for the faith. Stressed that it should be studied daily, applied to our lives, try the spirits, and ultimately our lone authority. However, HE fell for the gap theory heresy thinking there was some "previous" earth that was around billions of years prior to our present earth(and paid heed to alot of the secular geologists nonsense).

I take that back about what I said about geologic columns - I misunderstood what Ham said in his book. A brother pointed this out to me, and gave me this...

This is from Hovind's book, Are you being brain washed.

Lie #2 - “The Geologic Column is a Fact.”

Textbooks teach
that each of the layers of the earth is a different age. They even
assign names like "Jurassic" and "index fossils" to these layers. This
entire "geologic column" was invented in the early 1800s primarily
by Charles Lyell, a Scottish lawyer. It does not actually exist any
place on planet earth except in the textbook and the imaginations of
some evolutionists. If this column actually existed in one place, it
would be 100 miles thick.

"Eighty to eighty-five percent
of Earth's land surface
does not have even 3 geologic
periods appearing in 'correct'
consecutive order. It
becomes an overall exercise
of gargantuan special pleading
and imagination for the
paradigm to maintain that
there ever were geologic
periods,"3 (Woodmorappe,
J., 1981, p. 47-71).

It is easy to prove the layers are
not different ages. All over the
world thousands of petrified trees
have been found standing up running
through many of these rock layers.

It should be quite obvious to anyone that the layers formed very
rapidly. Trees don't stand up for millions of years after they die,
simply waiting for rock to form around them. A gigantic flood is
the best explanation for this phenomenon. Obviously, the layers
formed within a few weeks or months of each other before the tree
could rot. The layers are not different ages, by millions of years, like
the book says. Someone is trying to teach you erroneous information!


Be sure you buy and fly ONLY Christian flags.
Those are the ONLY flags we should fly
All others are IDOLS


Layered Sedimentary Rocks - Evidence of a Global Flood

The Heavens Declare the Glory of God (6 min video)
The biblical roots of modern science
A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.


Many atheopaths1 and their compromising churchian allies claim that biblical belief and science are mortal enemies. Yet historians of science, even non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia. The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’2

But if atheism or polytheism is true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:28 gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism which teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, rather than to rely on man-made philosophies, as did the ancient Greeks. So no wonder that sociologist and author Rodney Stark affirmed:

Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”3 Furthermore, science requires that we can think rationally, and that results should be reported honestly, more teachings found in the Bible but do not follow from evolutionism.4

Science in the Middle Ages

While this period used to be called the “Dark Ages”, responsible historians recognize that it was far from dark. Rather, it was a period of great scientific advances, stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. Small wonder that this period saw the development of water and wind power, spectacles, magnificent architecture, the blast furnace, and the stirrup.5

“As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists”—Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

An enormous advance in physical understanding was 14th-century logician John Buridan’s development of the concept of impetus, essentially the same as the modern concept of momentum. Previously, Aristotle’s followers argued that a moving object required a force to keep it moving, but Buridan proposed:

“…after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion.”

This is a forerunner of Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion.

So it’s not surprising that James Hannam, who recently earned a Ph.D. on the History of Science from the University of Cambridge, UK, pointed out:

“During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, which it also kept control of when speculation could impinge on theology. Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”

“Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500.”6

Scientific jump after the Reformation

While Europe in the Middle Ages had a Judeo-Christian world view, it took the Reformation to recover specific biblical authority. With this came the recovery of a plain or historical grammatical understanding of the Bible, recovering the understanding of the New Testament authors and most of the early Church Fathers. This turned out to have a huge positive impact on the development of modern science. This is so counter to common (mis)understanding, yet it is well documented by Peter Harrison, then a professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia (and one-time Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford):

“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.”7

As Prof. Harrison explained:

“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, writes in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term “literal interpretation”:

“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”9
And Prof. Snobelen explains the reason why: scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible. I.e. just as they studied what the Bible really said, rather than imposed outside philosophies and traditions upon it, they likewise studied how nature really did work, rather than accept philosophical ideas about how it should work (extending their allegorizing readings of Scripture to the natural world8).

“It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.”9

Belief in the Fall of Adam: how it inspired science

Prof. Harrison has researched another commonly overlooked factor in the development of science: belief in a literal Fall of a literal first man Adam. These founding modern scientists, including Francis Bacon, reasoned that the Fall not only destroyed man’s innocence, but also greatly impaired his knowledge. The first problem was remedied by the innocent Last Adam, Jesus Christ—His sacrifice enabled our sin to be imputed (credited) to Him (Isaiah 53:6), and His perfect life enabled His righteousness to be imputed to believers in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as for recovering what they believed to be Adam’s encyclopedic knowledge, they looked to science. Harrison explains:

“New [sic] literal readings of the creation narratives in Genesis provided 17th century thinkers with powerful motivating images for pursuing the natural sciences.

“Adam was thought to have possessed a perfect knowledge of all sciences, a knowledge lost to posterity when he fell from grace and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The goal of 17th century scientists such as Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society of London was to regain the scientific knowledge of the first man. Indeed, for these individuals, the whole scientific enterprise was an integral part of a redemptive enterprise that, along with the Christian religion, was to help restore the original race to its original perfection. The biblical account of the creation thus provided these scientists with an important source of motivation, and in an age still thoroughly committed to traditional Christianity, the new science was to gain social legitimacy on account of these religious associations.”8

“For many champions of the new learning in the seventeenth century, the encyclopaedic knowledge of Adam was the benchmark against which their own aspirations were gauged. …

“The experimental approach, I shall argue, was deeply indebted to Augustinian views about the limitations of human knowledge in the wake of the Fall, and thus inductive experimentalism can also lay claim to a filial relationship with the tradition of Augustinianism.”10


Some atheopaths admit that science was in effect a child of Christianity, but now claim that it’s time science grew up and cut the apron strings. However, none other than former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher answered that type of claim:

“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:

“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”11


Atheopaths often disparage the Bible, especially its account of creation. Yet …

Science requires certain presuppositions to work at all, and these are found in the Bible.

Europe in the Middle Ages, with its general Christian world view, advanced greatly in science and technology.

The Reformation, with its emphasis on the authority of Scripture and a historical-grammatical understanding, led to a great leap forward in science as such methods were carried over into the study of nature.

Belief in a literal first man Adam and his Fall inspired science as a means to rediscover knowledge Adam had before the Fall.

It is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while undermining the roots in biblical Christianity.

OK, I don't understand this completely, but I'll do my best here to explain...

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Look at the word "and" in these 3 verses - from what I understand, in the Hebrew language, if a conjunction(I believe the word vav or valve) is used, and it's followed by a NOUN - then ultimately, the sentence structures can NOT be sequential. Which is why in verse 2, they use the word WAS, and NOT became(And the earth WAS without form, and void...).

So ultimately, when you look at this passage - the context is NOT sequential at all. And every single Hebrew scholar(conservative, liberal, or whatever), as well as the Hebrew language for that latter, have debunked the whole gap theory through and through.

This is an excellent 4 part sermon expose exposing the gap theory! Found it on sermon audio earlier this week.

Science, Creation and the Gap Theory - Part 1 - James Gallagher

Science, Creation and the Gap Theory - Part 2

Science, Creation and the Gap Theory - Part 3

Science, Creation and the Gap Theory - Part 4

Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › The Global Flood Is the Key to the Past › Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Corinthians 1:20)

One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar. Local geography and cultural aspects may be present but they all seem to be telling the same story.

Over the years I have collected more than 200 of these stories, originally reported by various missionaries, anthropologists, and ethnologists.

While the differences are not always trivial, the common essence of the stories is instructive as compiled below:

   Is there a favored family? 88%
   Were they forewarned? 66%
   Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
   Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
   Was flood global? 95%
   Is survival due to a boat? 70%
   Were animals also saved? 67%
   Did animals play any part? 73%
   Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
   Was the geography local? 82%
   Were birds sent out? 35%
   Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
   Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
   Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this:

Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth.

Of course the story sounds much like the Biblical story of the great flood of Noah's day. The most similar accounts are typically from middle eastern cultures, but surprisingly similar legends are found in South America and the Pacific Islands and elsewhere. None of these stories contains the beauty, clarity, and believable detail given in the Bible, but each is meaningful to their own culture.

Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event. Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.

But, of course, this is not the view of most modern scholars. They prefer to believe that something in our commonly evolved psyche forces each culture to invent the same imaginary flood legend with no basis in real history. Instead of scholarship, this is "willful ignorance" of the fact that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5,6).

BornAgain2 wrote:

Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event. Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.

But, of course, this is not the view of most modern scholars. They prefer to believe that something in our commonly evolved psyche forces each culture to invent the same imaginary flood legend with no basis in real history. Instead of scholarship, this is "willful ignorance" of the fact that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5,6).

Genesis 10:1  Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Gen 10:2  The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
Gen 10:3  And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
Gen 10:4  And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
Gen 10:5  By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Gen 10:6  And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
Gen 10:7  And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Gen 10:8  And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Gen 10:9  He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
Gen 10:10  And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Gen 10:11  Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
Gen 10:12  And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
Gen 10:13  And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
Gen 10:14  And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
Gen 10:15  And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Gen 10:16  And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Gen 10:17  And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
Gen 10:18  And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Gen 10:19  And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
Gen 10:20  These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
Gen 10:21  Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
Gen 10:22  The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
Gen 10:23  And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
Gen 10:24  And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
Gen 10:25  And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Gen 10:26  And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
Gen 10:27  And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,
Gen 10:28  And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
Gen 10:29  And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.
Gen 10:30  And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east.
Gen 10:31  These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
Gen 10:32  These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Evolutionist Professor Resigns from Christian College after School Affirms Genesis Creation Account

A Philosophy professor with ties to an evolution-supporting organization resigned from a Christian college after the school affirmed its commitment to the biblical interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Dr. James Stump began teaching at Bethel College in 1998, working as a Professor of Philosophy for several years. Last month, Bethel College issued a statement to clarify its position on the origin of man. The statement affirmed the school’s belief in the special creation of Adam by God.

“This affirmation is essential to distinguish humanity from animals, as made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; 2:7), to account for the work of Christ to atone for the representative sin of humanity through Adam (I Cor. 15:45), respect the genealogy of Luke 3, account for New Testament references to Adam by Paul (Rom. 5:12-17), and others,” the statement explained, adding that faculty would be expected to agree with this position.

However, Stump announced last month that he would be resigning from Bethel College due to the school’s interpretation of the Bible. Citing “tension” between his beliefs and the college’s statement, Stump wrote in a letter that he would be seeking “alternate work.”

Evidently, Stump doubts the literal interpretation of the Bible’s creation account and instead believes that human evolution is compatible with the Scriptures. He is currently the content manager at BioLogos—an organization that promotes God-guided evolution, rejects young earth creation beliefs, and urges Christians to accept the belief that the earth is billions of years old.

“We humans have been shaped through the death and suffering wrought by eons of evolution—life forms that came from the dust and returned to it,” Stump wrote in a BioLogos blog post in February.

Following Stump’s resignation, BioLogos criticized Bethel College’s decision to uphold the traditional interpretation of Genesis.

“We at BioLogos are disheartened by this decision,” wrote BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma. “It put Jim in the painful situation of having to choose between the scholarship to which he feels called and the academic community to which he has belonged for decades.”

“For many Evangelicals, the evolutionary creation position is unfamiliar and even seems impossible—they see no way that a person could love the Bible without rejecting evolution,” Haarsma wrote. “But at BioLogos, we do not see evolution as inherently atheistic. We love the Bible and we make the case for evolutionary creation: that God used the natural process of evolution to create all of life’s diverse forms, including humans, as supported by abundant genetic and fossil evidence.”

**No, either you believe the word of God 100%, or you don't - if you don't, you just called God a LIAR!

Many other Christians disagree with Haarsma’s analysis, saying the Bible and evolution are incompatible.

“[D]eath plays a prominent part in evolution,” Dr. John Morris with the Institute for Creation Research wrote. “In fact, to an evolutionist, death is normal, death is good, death provides the fuel for evolutionary change.”

“Evolution and the Bible most seriously conflict at this point,” he continued. “If evolution (or even just the concept of an old earth, with death and fossils predating man’s sin) is correct, then death is natural, death is normal, death produced man. Most importantly, in this view, death is not the penalty for sin, for it preceded man and his sin. But if death is not the penalty for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ did not pay that penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide eternal life.”

“While belief in creation and the young earth may not be essential for salvation (many Christians wrongly believe and do many things the Bible teaches against), if evolution is right, if the earth is old, if fossils date from before man’s sin, then Christianity is wrong!” he concluded. “These ideas destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate the work of Christ on the cross. Evolution and salvation are mutually exclusive concepts.”

The holocaust before the holocaust

The holocaust before the holocaust

Is the evidence for deep time really rock solid?

How theistic evolution affects Christian theology

Scientists who believe the bible!

‘Science Supports Genesis’: Geneticist Says Evidence Confirms Biblical Adam and Eve

A respected molecular geneticist explores the historicity of Adam and Eve in a newly-released documentary, explaining that modern findings in the field of genetics confirm the Bible’s teachings that all humans descended from an original couple created by God.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University and has published papers in a number of scientific journals, including the Journal of Neuroscience and the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. Formerly a biology professor, Purdom is now a researcher and speaker for the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG).

Since joining AiG, Purdom has written numerous articles and been featured in several DVDs and presentations. Her latest work, titled “The Genetics of Adam & Eve,” examines the Genesis account of mankind’s origins from the perspective of genetics.
Georgia Purdom profile


“One of the biggest debates in Christianity today concerns the first two people: were Adam and Eve real or are they the product of myths?” Purdom wrote in an article for AiG. “Those who claim we have evolved over millions of years believe that Adam and Eve, as the Bible teaches about them, have no place in human history. They argue that the science of genetics proves we cannot be descended from only two people. Many Christians have accepted this position and propose that their historical existence is irrelevant to Christianity and the gospel.”

In an interview with Christian News Network, Purdom proposed that the historical existence of Adam and Eve is imperative for a proper understanding of the gospel.

“A historical Adam and Eve and original sin are the foundation of the gospel,” she said. “The bad news, sin and death, begins in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve sinned.”

Appreciating that Adam and Eve were real people helps people realize the need for a savior, Purdom explained.

“We need the good news, grace and life, which is found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” she said. “Jesus is the solution to the problem of evil that began in Genesis 3. Paul made this connection very clear in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.”

Purdom then detailed some recent genetic findings that support the Bible’s creation account.

“One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson,” she advised. “He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

These findings, along with other evidence presented in “The Genetics of Adam & Eve,” directly contradict the claims of evolutionists, said Purdom.

“This female ancestor could not have lived 100,000 or more years ago as the evolutionists claim,” she continued. “In addition, genetics clearly shows that human and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago.”

Purdom told Christian News Network that Christians should equip themselves with this scientific information, so that they can defend the reliability of the Bible, starting in Genesis.

“Christians should be aware of the scientific proof for creation because Genesis is the most hotly debated book among evangelical Christians,” she asserted. “We need to show people that science supports and confirms the history presented in Genesis.”

Evolution and pop culture

Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution?

Aliens and UFOs - What are they really?

The Gap Theory Refuted - Part 1

The Gap Theory Refuted - Part 2

The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One


When this work was originally written in 1975 the book Unformed and Unfilled by Weston W. Fields had not yet been published. Had it been, it is doubtful if this work would ever have been started. However, Dr. Fields' work is the result of his doctoral thesis and is written at a high academic level. This presentation is aimed at the understanding level of the average person. The author is gratified that his original thesis has been substantiated by such a scholarly work. Nevertheless it is still true that when most Christians are asked their opinion about the “Gap Theory”, they reply with something like “What theory is that?” This answer indicates that in spite of all that has been written about theistic evolution to date; little has been taught in the Sunday Schools or from the pulpit about this topic. This is even more remarkable since this theory was an integral part of the original Scofield Bible notes. Because the initial verses of the Bible are so foundational to the proper understanding and application of the remainder of the Scriptures, it is incumbent that we have a proper understanding of the issue of origins as recorded there.

My motive for producing a work of this nature is two-fold. On the one hand, my scientific training motivates me, and on the other my commitment to the Bible as the verbally inspired, inerrant word of the living God provided the incentive. As a person trained in the sciences, I have investigated, as thoroughly as I could, the claims of science in the realm of origins and evolution. I have found the evolutionary concept of a natural origin and development of all material in the universe to be destitute of true scientific proof and lacking even as a philosophical answer to man's origin, purpose and destiny. The link between evolution and the gap theory is found in the theory's statements that express a desire to provide for the lengthy time periods, or “ages,” required for evolutionary concepts and to harmonize these ages with the Biblical record of creation. My scientific rejection of the basic premises and reasoning behind the gap theory is one reason for this effort.

In regard to the Word of God, the Bible, I can best sum my feelings by referring the reader to an oft quoted passage of Scripture, II Timothy 2:15. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth” (KJV). This verse points out three very important facets of dealing with the Word of God. First, the Word is to be approached “eagerly” and with “enthusiasm”, which is what the word study implies. The Word should be more than just read, since studying implies learning, and learning comes only from understanding. It is certain that one will have to put forth more effort and dig deeply to arrive at this understanding, but this exertion will provide a sound basis for any resultant action. Second, I am to engage in this study for the purpose of pleasing God and not to satisfy the demands of men, nor to enable a dtente to exist between the absolute declarations of an almighty, omniscient God and the relativism of humanistic, secular philosophies. This purpose of Bible study should ever be recognized not only in personal study but in group study as well. Third, I am admonished to rightly divide the Word. The idea is that I am to use a straight line for my walk through the Scriptures and not a tortuous path that can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It is apparent that the Timothy verse implies that many divide the Word improperly, and this error is to be guarded against. To allow secular theory to dictate the meaning of many important verses and passages of Scripture is not consistent with the above admonition. This verse in II Timothy is my second justification for what I have written.

I trust that what follows will be understandable, useful and meaningful to your study of the Biblical account of God’s creative actions.


The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God.

History and Purpose

The gap theory is not of recent origin but can be traced back to the early 19th century when the new discipline of geology was breaking upon the scientific scene. Theologians were in no intellectual position to argue, from a scientific basis, the claims of the geologists that the processes responsible for the formation of the surface features of the earth were occurring at almost imperceptibly slow rates as they had always done in the past (the principle of uniformity). Rather than accept the accusation that the Biblical record was no longer valid in the light of “scientific” claims, they chose to accommodate the Scriptural presentation to these new geological theories. A place had to be found for the vast ages of the past, well beyond the accounts of the first man and his environment as recorded in the Bible, and the most accommodating place was between the two aforementioned verses of Genesis.

While the gap theory, or ruin-reconstruction theory as it is sometimes called, is not the only effort at this type of accommodation, it is the most popular theory among those who feel the Biblical record of origins merits their attention. Some have even proposed that the gap should be placed prior to Genesis 1:1, but they insist on a “gap” nevertheless.

It is the author’s opinion that while these efforts at reconciling the Bible with geological claims are very enthusiastic and sincere, they are quite unnecessary. The Text, as given, is quite capable of standing alone in the face of all the criticism that can be engendered by so-called “scientific” claims and theological interpretations. One important fact should be kept in mind when considering the gap theory. This interpretation of Genesis and associated passages of Scripture was not developed in an effort to solve apparent problems with the Text. It was not difficulties with the fall of Satan or the condition of the earth during the six days that precipitated the theory. It was, and is, an effort to solve the problem of time. The time of the earth’s formation, according to natural science, is extremely long and drawn-out, while the Biblical record describes a relatively recent, rapid formation. There were, and still are, those who are quite unwilling to make a decisive choice between these two accounts and thus the gap theory.

Geological Ages and Evolution

As has been previously pointed out, the gap theory, along with other accommodation theories, is an attempt to reconcile a great age for the earth, as presented by geologists, with the relatively young age as deduced from the Biblical record. Since many proponents of the gap theory would disclaim a belief in an evolutionary process of earth history, it is instructive to evaluate the “geologic ages” to determine if they can, indeed, be separated from the theory of evolution.

The geologic ages represent the time scale of the standard geologic column. This so-called “column” is composed of animal and plant fossil remains found in layers of sedimentary and igneous rock. These remains are arranged in layers and interpreted by geologists and paleontologists to present a record of gradual developmental sequences that propose to demonstrate the gradual evolutionary change of simple forms of animal or plant life into different, more complex forms. The record of ascendancy is thought to be from simpler forms in very ancient times to the more complex forms in modern times. Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of the geologic column with the postulated life forms and their assumed age eras. It is most important to understand that in the “geologic column” the ages of the various layers are determined by the form of the fossil remains found therein. Older levels in the column are “old” only because they contain what are believed to be simpler, more primitive, less developed or incompletely evolved life forms. The invertebrates are assumed to have evolved first, followed by fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals in that order. It should be obvious that the basis of the structure and arrangement of the geologic column is the concept of slowly evolving life forms which in reality and fact is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.

One can easily disclaim his or her adherence to, or belief in, evolution, but acceptance of the geologic column with its attendant “ages” contradicts this claim. The situation is an either/or one. As the old adage so well expresses it, “one cannot have his cake and eat it too.”

Scientific Dilemmas

Gap theorists hold that the need for a re-creation, as they interpret Genesis chapter one, is based on the loss of plants, animal life and surface features of the alleged prior creation due to a world-wide, complete, catastrophic judgment imposed upon the earth as a result of the fall of one called “Lucifer.” This proposed judgment would appear so complete as to even cause the loss of light upon the earth. This of course implies that the entire solar system, if not the universe, was destroyed. There can be no doubt that such a judgmental act would also have a serious, if not disastrous, effect upon the geological features of the then existent earth. Most gap proponents place this judgmental catastrophe just prior to the re-creative effort. However, its placement in reference to geological time, at the beginning or end, does not remove the following major dilemma.

The gap theory exists for the purpose of allowing the geologic “ages” as proposed by the assemblage of the geologic column. Those geologists who believe in the veracity of this “column” as to its testimony of earth and life development do not believe in or allow for a world-wide catastrophic causation for the formations therein.
These geologists, being Uniformitarians, reject out-of-hand the gap theory as having any validity in describing the early earth. This is the first dilemma. The theory is rejected by the very ones it is meant to appease.

The second dilemma is that the effects of such a catastrophic event in earth history, as proposed by the gap theory, would preclude the survival of the very geologic phenomena the theory purports to support. Such destructive forces as to leave the earth “waste and void” (gap theory terms) in its totality would surely disturb or remove any of the evidence used to adduce the geologic column and the geologic ages in the first place.

If, as some gap theorists claim, the judgment was responsible for the formation of the fossil record, then the geologic column must have been formed rapidly contrary to the opinions of the evolutionary geologists. Thus there were no vast geologic ages in the first place. Regardless of what tack the gap theory sets out on, in regard to the judgmental catastrophe used to punish “Lucifer” prior to or subsequent to the geologic ages, the gap theory is self-negating. That is, the very concept that spawned it is done away by it. This might be referred to as a “suicidal” concept. In spite of this impasse in logic and the presence of such an imposing dilemma, the gap theory is believed to be supported by Scriptural references. This seems contradictory to the very nature and character of the God who says “. . . let us reason together . . . ”

Gap Theory Proofs

Since many of the advocates of the gap theory subscribe to the validity of the Scriptures, an effort is made to substantiate the “gap” claims by appealing to word studies and textual references connected with comments and phrases found in the Genesis narrative. These references are not too numerous, and we can deal with substantially all of them in this paper.

The first “proof” offered is usually an effort at creating an impassable distinction between the words “create” and “made” as found in the first chapter of Genesis. The contention being that only the word “create” (bara in Hebrew) can mean to call forth out of nothing and subsequently the words “make” or “form” (asah in Hebrew) must be interpreted to mean a re-fashioning or making from pre-existing material. It is presumed, by the gap theory, that this pre-existent material is the substance, or debris remaining after the earth underwent the judgmental action we have describe earlier. While it is true that the two words in question are different and can have distinct, separate meanings, they also are used synonymously throughout the Scriptures. In fact “bara” is not always used to describe a calling forth out of nothing. The word is used in Isaiah 65:18 in reference to a restored Jerusalem and not the original creation of that city. The distinction made, in support of the gap, is artificial and strained to say the least. That the two words are used to express the same concept in regard to God’s creative abilities can be seen by comparing Genesis 1:1, which uses “bara” with the following verses (all KJV) which use “asah.”

Genesis 1:31; 2:2-4
Exodus 20:11
II Kings 19:15
II Chronicles 2:12
Nehemiah 9:6
Psalms 33:6; 96:5; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6
Proverbs 8:26
Ecclesiastes 3:11
Isaiah 37:16; 44:24; 45:12, 18
Jeremiah 10:12; 27:5; 32:17; 51:15

The twenty six verses listed above all use the word “asah” (make) not “bara” (create) to describe the same actions of God that are declared in Genesis 1:1, where “bara” is used. As you read these verses you will note that the majority of the cited passages refer explicitly and pointedly to the “making” of the heavens as declared in the Genesis 1:1 account. Clearly the two words are synonymous when used to describe God’s creative acts. The two words in question, “create” and “make,” are also used with the same intent and meaning when animals and man are formed. Compare Genesis 1:21 with 1:25, and then 1:26 with 1:27. One cannot argue that the 1:21 verse only pertains to “conscious life,” inasmuch as the physical bodies of the animals are also included in the stated act. Thus it is impossible to conclude that there is sufficient distinction between “bara” and “asah” so as to interpret the latter in a sense that restricts it to only meaning a “re-forming” in the Genesis narrative. Either word can, and is used to describe God’s creative acts “ex nihilo.”

A second “proof” put forth to substantiate the gap theory is the declaration that the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 should be translated “became.” This, of course, is done so as to allow a change of state to occur from verse one to verse two. That is, the initial, perfect creation of verse one “became” without form and void, indicating a transition to have occurred. It is true that the word used here in the Genesis text can be translated as either “was” or “became,” however it is the context of the passage which dictates the choice of the word. This means that the transition or change of state must first be clearly understood from the overall picture (context) as presented in the passage. Perhaps a few examples will suffice. Passages such as Genesis 3:22; 19:26; 21:20 and Exodus 7:19; 8:17; 9:10 demonstrate “became” properly used in context.

In each case a change of state is observed. Adam becomes as God; Lot’s wife becomes a pillar of salt; Ishmael becomes an archer; the water becomes blood; the dust of the earth becomes lice; the ashes become a boil. “Become” is obviously the correct choice in each of these passages since none of the subjects existed in the stated condition originally. Incidentally, these passages represent the entirety of the use of “became” as a translation of the word in question throughout the entire Pentateuch. An exact grammatical parallel of Genesis 1:2 is found in Jonah 3:3 where we read, “And Jonah arose and went into Nineveh . . . now Nineveh was an exceeding great city” (KJV). It is obvious that Nineveh did not become a great city when Jonah entered it, but its greatness is a description of its existing condition at the time of his entry. This is the case in Genesis 1:2. The earth was, from the creation event of verse one, in a condition described as “without form and void.” This was the presently existing condition and does not represent a change of state or condition. There are no words in the immediate or surrounding text which would lead one to see the condition of the earth in a context that demands the use of the word “became” in place of the word “was.” The translation “was” occurs several hundred times in the Pentateuch, each time in the context of an existing state. The “and” or “now” which introduces verse two appears to have a two-fold purpose. One is to make a smooth, even transition from verse one, to keep the dialogue flowing without interruption, and the other is to turn our attention from the all encompassing creation of God, the heavens and earth, and direct it toward a narrower perspective, the earth itself. The remainder of the discussion, and indeed the majority of the Bible itself, deals with events on or concerning the earth. Thus the assertion that the earth “became” instead of “was” really cannot be used to support the gap theory position. It does, however, as many of these so called “proof” texts do, lend weight to the oft quoted saying that a “text out of context is a pretext.”

Additional support for the gap theory is recruited, or perhaps conscripted is better, from the phrase “without form and void.” An appeal is made to consider other Biblical texts in which these words are found together and it is pointed out that these passages, Isaiah 24:1 and Jeremiah 4:23 are judgmental in character and context. This claim is true only if one limits the context to the verses, for when considered in their complete context the support begins to vanish. In both of the cited passages the judgment which is spoken of is future and is not a statement of a past action of God. The subjects of the judgments are Israel and Edom and not the entire earth. Not only is it a future judgment limited to a specific peoples, but the judgment spoken of is itself limited, not a comprehensive world wide judgment as required by the gap theory. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the context of the subject judgments, show that there will be survivors on the earth (or land) that is to be “without form and void.” This would certainly not be true for the postulated condition following the world-wide catastrophe as claimed.

These two verses are not the only ones containing these words in the Old Testament. They are used in a number of places and translated with a variety of words. Without giving an exhaustive analysis of these verses, it suffices to say that they are all suitably translated by rendering the Hebrew “tohu” and “bohu” (without form, void) as “empty” and “lifeless.” Usually the implication is a place not suitable for habitation such as a desert. This condition could be the result of a judgmental action, but again as before, the context must show that to be the case. A context of divine judgment is difficult, if not impossible, to exegete from Genesis chapter one. It is clear from the text that the necessary and desirable features of an earth suitable for man’s habitation were absent in Genesis 1:2, however, this does not justify the interpretation that “without form and void” means ruined, chaotic or judged.

An additional appeal is made by the gap theorists to Isaiah 45:18 where it is stated that the earth was not created in “vain” (tohu). They claim that since this is so in Isaiah, the “tohu” of Genesis 1:2 precludes the condition of Genesis 1:1 as being contiguous. When one considers the remainder of Isaiah 45:18 the context becomes clear. The verse continues by stating that “He (God) formed (asah) it (the earth) to be inhabited.” The word in opposition to vain is inhabited, thus allowing the rendering of “tohu” as uninhabited. The verse does not then speak of a condition, but of an intention or purpose. It was not God’s purpose to create the earth to be uninhabited and the remainder of the Genesis narrative tells how God achieved His desired end, a complete creation dwelt in by those created in His own image. The concept of empty or lifeless is still suitable. Thus the phrase “without form and void” is not an indication of a chaotic state, but the earth is well ordered and awaiting further commands from God.

Some gap theorists continue on in verse two of the first chapter of Genesis and interpret the word “darkness” to describe an evil or ungodly condition. This, however, is a meaning forced upon the word by the theory and not the meaning of the text. Proceeding on to verse five finds the darkness receiving a name, “night,” and being considered as part of a twenty four hour day as implied by the words evening and morning. There is nothing in the text that would indicate that physical darkness, and that is what is in view here, has any evil connotation whatsoever. In fact the Psalmist declares in Psalm 104:20, “Thou (God) makest darkness . . . ” and then goes on in verse 24, still in context, to declare “O Lord, how manifold are thy works, in wisdom hast thou made then all” (KJV). The reference, of course, is to physical darkness or nighttime, and no evil connotation is implied. To say that an evil condition exists in Genesis 1:2 because of physical darkness is giving a meaning to the word not found elsewhere in the Scriptures. Spiritual darkness is another matter entirely, but there is no warrant for making such an inference in the Genesis verse under consideration.

Attention is often directed to the word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28 in an effort to support the gap theory postulate that this is the second go-around for life on earth. On searching through a rather thorough Hebrew lexicon, I was unable to find a single word for “replenish” or “refill.” Only the word “fill” is listed and again the context of the passage must be used to determine whether an initial or subsequent filling is meant. With the verse in question there is no textual cause to render the word “refill” as there might be in Genesis 9:1 where Noah and his sons have the job of starting all over again. One cannot cease to stress the importance of contextual consideration when investigating the meaning, use or implication of words and phrases in the Scriptures.

Perhaps the most touted “proof” offered for the gap theory resides in the speculation that the “gap” provides an excellent place to chronologically insert the fall and judgment of Lucifer into earth history. Elaborate details are invoked to picture the perfect creation in verse one despoiled by a cataclysmic judgment of sin prior to verse two that resulted as a consequence of Lucifer’s prideful attitude toward God and his (Lucifer’s) subsequent punishment. This argument is probable the most impressive of all inasmuch as Satan (Lucifer) is a viable reality to those who believe the Scriptures and his attitude toward God and God’s attitude toward him is clearly revealed. The “proof” texts offered in this cause are of course, Isaiah 14:12 to 15, and Ezekiel 28:12 to 19. These texts have been quoted to the end mentioned above so many times that we have a tendency to accept them as such. However, it would appear that a very careful study of the entire context and the wording of the above passages reveal a slightly different picture. First consider the Isaiah passage. To set the context begin at least with chapter 13 and read through verse 23 of chapter 14. One will immediately see that the subject of this entire judgmental passage is the kingdom of Babylon. The prophecy is stated to be about Babylon (chapter 13:1) and its judgment, and in chapter 14 a restoration of Israel is first mentioned, then the portion from verse 4 to 23 is called a “proverb” or “taunting speech” (KJV marginal note). This is to be a “saying,” if you will, of Israel in regard to their former enemy and conqueror during the captivity. With Israel, the downtrodden, restored in verses 1 and 2 and Babylon the great one, completely destroyed, Israel can boast to the other nations of their (Israel’s) favor in the eyes of the Lord (perhaps as a warning) and they are to do so with the passage under consideration. Verse 12 of chapter 14 does not begin a new thought on the subject, but is an integral part of a smooth flowing narrative describing the defeated and demolished Babylon. Perhaps it is the word “Lucifer” of verse 12 which causes this verse to be removed from its context and made to describe a totally unrelated event. The Hebrew words translated “Lucifer” are literally nothing more than “day star,” “shining one” or “sun of the dawn,” and are used as a description of the king of Babylon. The Babylonians gave great credence to astrology and perhaps there is some implication of that in this passage. The language used in the text is such as would be used by the king of Babylon to describe himself, and thus becomes even more caustic (the purpose of the saying) when compared to his final end. The language of verses 13 and 14 likewise reflect the extreme egocentric thinking that is usually present in the mind of an absolute, tyrannical monarch. The purpose of such descriptions is to establish a very vivid and marked contrast between the two conditions of the kingdom of Babylon, from the heights of greatness and prosperity to the depths of eternal hell.

The passage goes on to describe some of the king’s actions such as “shaking kingdoms,” and “destroying cities.” This, of course, would require a civilization (human) to be present at that time, and the judgment of such persons, if the gap exists, presents some very difficult theological problems, in relation to their eternal destiny, that will not be dealt with in this paper. The king is also referred to as one “. . . who would not let his captives go home.” This, undoubtedly, refers to the Israel captivity in Babylon, and not an action of Satan himself. The text continues to describe kings who have died prior to the fall of the subject monarch, (verses 18-20) and were not destroyed by a world-wide judgment. One additional fact should be pointed out to help establish the point that a human king and not Satan is the subject. Verse 22 declares that God will keep any relative of the deposed regent from ever regaining the throne of Babylon. God says, in effect, that He is ending the dynasty. Certainly there would have been no need for such action had Satan been the ruler in view. The angels of heaven have no descendants. The conclusion, therefore, is that the passage in question refers rather explicitly to a human ruler who lives, reigns and dies subsequent to the events of Genesis chapter one.

In regard to the Ezekiel passage, there is perhaps more debate on the application of this text than the Isaiah passage due to the language employed. Yet, the text itself again tells us to whom the message is to be applied, “a lamentation upon the king of Tyre.” In fact the context of this portion goes back to the beginning of chapter 26 where prophecies against Tyre begin. It should also be observed that the section of Ezekiel beginning with chapter 19 and continuing through chapter 39 consists of a series of prophecies against various nation and city-states, namely Israel, Jerusalem, Samaria, Babylon, Ammon, Tyre, Egypt, Seir, Gog, Magog and other individuals and places. All of these prophecies are apparently aimed at the future of real, earthly, human kingdoms, and there is no suggestion that Ezekiel has been commanded to utter a prophecy against any heavenly creatures. While it is argued that the language of chapter 28:12-17 cannot be applied to any earthly being, but must refer to one possessing angelic qualities, it can also be said that the same contrast as in the Isaiah passage is being developed. While the language is highly symbolic and figurative, it is an attempt to demonstrate that the elegance of position and possession of authority should not be allowed to go to one’s head. No matter how exalted the person or place is, in man’s eyes, there is always a responsibility to God attendant with the blessed condition. All authority is given by God (Romans 13:1) and the authority is thus responsible to God. When the nation’s leader or any authority sees itself as the origin of that authority and engages in unwarranted self-esteem, it is usually brought down in a humbling fashion.

Similar language to that of Chapter 28:12 to 17 is found in chapter 31:3 through 17 where the already fallen Assyrians are described as being envied by all the “trees of Eden that were in the garden of God." Their downfall, through pride, is described in verse 10 of this passage. Verse 18 indicates that symbology is being used in reference to the trees of Eden since they are said to be “slain” and “cast into the nether parts of the earth.” It is this same type of symbology that is being used throughout the Ezekiel discourse, and it cannot be firmly linked to a description of a previous downfall of Satan and the introduction of sin into the universe. How Satan came to be what he is, is shrouded in mystery, however his judgment and fall from heaven is described and it is a future event, not past history. Satan still has access to heaven as the account in Job 1:6,7 clearly indicates. Satan is also described as standing before the heavenly throne accusing the brethren. Revelation 12:7 to 13 describes this and the fall of Satan to earth. Revelation 20:10 describes the judgment imposed upon Satan. Jesus’ comment in Luke 10:18 can only be interpreted as a prophetic statement in light of the Revelation verses. There are no other verses in the entire Bible that force an historical, as opposed to a prophetic, interpretation of these verses.

The verses of Genesis chapter 1 most certainly describe the beginning of the physical universe (time, energy/matter, and dimension) suitable for occupation by man. Job 39:7 would infer that spiritual beings were present during this event. Of course we know that all things were created (Col. 1:16, John 1:3), but the chronology of the created spiritual beings is not given. It must be noted that even if Satan was already "fallen" before the creation of the physical universe, the physical universe could still be referred to as "very good." One could speculate that when the "morning stars sang" and the "sons of God shouted for joy" that Satan, seeing the creation of the earth and the inhabitants thereon, desired to rule over them. This of course would not support the Gap Theory postulate of a "fall" between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. Finding Satan in his degenerate state in Genesis 3 has always been a theological conundrum.

Returning for the moment to the “proof” texts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, we do not find in these texts any wording or comments that imply or state that the imposed judgments, on the various kings and kingdoms, were global in scale or effect. Thus, even if one were to allow for a parallel between these verses and the fall of Satan, there is no textual justification for imposing a primeval world-wide, cataclysmic judgment upon the entire earth. The only judgment of such a nature, to date, is found in Genesis chapter 7 and this event is subsequent to Genesis 1:1,2.

In regard to the subject of the fall of Satan and the Genesis “gap” the question might be asked, “if the gap is a necessary time interval during which the ‘fall’ is accomplished, how long does it take to achieve such a ‘fall’ and subsequent judgment?” One cannot really answer such a question. However, the descriptions of the fall (Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:19) would certainly imply a rapid descent, and the judgment (Revelation 20:20) does not appear to be a lingering event. So if we allow, for the sake of discussion, that this future event did occur between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is no need to postulate vast ages of time, other than to support the geologic ages of evolutionary presuppositions.

Textual Harmony Problems

We have looked, in some detail, at the verses quoted by the gap theorists in support of their position. There are many other Scriptural problems that the gap theory must also face. In understanding God’s word to us we must consider each part of the revealed text in relation to every other part. That is, the Scriptures must present themselves as a unified whole, non-contradictory and cohesive throughout. Each precept and doctrine must be supported by all pertinent sections of the Bible and where conflicts occur, we must question our interpretation or understanding of the subject in question. The gap theory should be analyzed in just such a fashion. The descriptive statements promulgated in support of the theory must be compared to all of Scripture, not just the “proof” texts we have already considered. With this in mind the following is offered for your consideration.

The developmental sequence of the creation week (six days) must not only be thought of in a chronological sense, but it must also be considered as a cumulative event as well. That is, the conditions brought about on day one are still present on day two, and day two really represents a sum of the actions of day one and two, and so on through the week. The gap theorists have Satan fallen to the earth prior to day one, but still present throughout the subsequent week. They postulate, for example, that day two is not described as “good” since the atmosphere was made that day, and Satan is known as the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). There are two problems that occur with this reasoning. First, Satan is also referred to as the “prince of this world” three times in the Gospel of John alone, and the earth (world) is nevertheless called “good” in Genesis 1:10. Secondly, if Satan is present, and we all agree that he is the embodiment of evil and ungodliness, why does the summary statement of Genesis 1:31 declare that everything that God had made during the week was not only “good,” but “very good?” Incidentally, this verse also covers the creative acts of day two, when the atmosphere was made, so it too is considered “very good.” It would appear that there would be conditions present on the earth (the fossil record) subsequent to the gap theory judgment and during the creation week that would give stark testimony to the death and destruction of the proposed wrath of God. How these conditions, which would still be evident in the “fossil record,” could be called “very good” with the reason (Satan) for the destruction still at liberty on the earth is hard to understand.

The gap theorists would have us believe that a long break occurs between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and then in verse three the “re-creation” week begins. This reasoning would separate the “creation of heaven and earth” from the rest of the week by some indefinite time period, and certainly then, by their own reasoning, the ‘heaven and earth” creation cannot be considered to be a part of the re-creative week which follows. There are some Scriptures which disagree with this logic, namely Genesis 2:1 to 4 and Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. These verses clearly include the creation or making of the “heaven and earth” within the six creative days. To insist on a creation of the “heaven and earth” separate from the six stated days does great injustice to these texts. It must be pointed out that the Genesis 1:1 statement is the only creative statement in the entire first chapter with reference to “heaven.” If we are to understand the words of the Exodus verses in the sense of their clear, plain meaning and common usage, then we must conclude that day one began with Genesis 1:1, and therefore no gap.

The postulated judgment of the pre-Adamic world is said by the gap theorists to be a complete and catastrophic dealing with sin as a result of Satan’s fall. This judgment is claimed to have destroyed a perfect earth and all its inhabitants. It is assumed that this destruction resulted in the death of those primeval beings who populated the planet at that time. Since we are obviously dealing with the earth and not the entire universe, a major conflict arises between the theory and other Scriptures. A study of the fifth chapter of Romans reveals that death did not appear on the earth prior to Adam’s transgression. Added to this are the claims of I Corinthians 15:21, 22 that by “man came death” and “as in Adam all die.” It is easily seen from these Scriptures that death on the earth did not precede Adam’s sin, but resulted from it. To insist that anything died prior to the judgment passed upon Adam is to be in contradiction with these passages in Romans and Corinthians. We must remember that one of the reasons for having a gap theory in the first place is to accommodate the geologic ages with their extensive fossil records. The fossil record which is assumed to have developed slowly over the eons, speaks clearly and eloquently of death and destruction and if it is allowed to be found prior to either Satan’s or Adam’s fall as the adherents of the theory claim, then the logic leads us to the conclusion that death is not the result of anyone’s sin, but must be attributed to the design and purpose of God in His alleged “original” creation. This reasoning is quite contrary to the person and character of God. In a context of judgment and deserved death (Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11), God declares “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth” (KJV, emphasis mine).

It would appear from the claims of the gap theory that the fossil record can be explained in one of two ways. First the classical evolutionary concept of a slow formation using presently observed (?) processes acting at present rates (uniformitarianism), or as a result of the postulated cataclysm resulting from the judgment of Satan. The first concept, which needs the geological “ages” and is believed by a large segment of the population, we reject as being a patently unscientific concept to account for sudden death and preservation of soft parts of animal structures. The second concept allows for an abrupt change in the environment which could achieve the observed result. There is, however, a major problem with this concept since it places this calamity prior to the great world-wide flood of Noah’s day, which in reality is the true explanation for the majority of the fossil record. If the ruinous event proposed for Genesis 1:2 is the cause of the fossil records that we see today, what effect did the flood of Genesis chapter 7 have upon the earth? In an effort to solve this problem, many gap theorists have proposed one of two flood views. The first, and most absurd, is that of a “tranquil,” world-wide flood. In this concept the water that covered the earth rose and abated with nor much more than a ripple. It is postulated that the waters were so gentle that they had no effect on the surface features of the earth. This precludes the effects of tides, so the moon, whose gravity attraction is responsible for the ocean tides, must not have existed either. Also the observation of one heavy rainstorm refutes this concept. The second, and more prevalent, view is that the flood of Noah’s day was only a “local” flood and not world-wide in scope or effect. This idea is in conflict with the many Scriptures describing the flood, but the most serious problem it raises is found when reading the statements of God as found in Genesis 8:21 and 9:15. God says, in these verses, that He will never again food the earth as He did in Noah’s day. Now, if His action was only that of causing a local flood in the Mesopotamian valley, then the promise to never do such a thing again has been broken time and time again over the ensuing centuries. This explanation of the flood does nothing more than impugn the veracity of God!

As a last example of the gap theory’s inability to harmonize with the full content of the Scriptures, let us look for a moment at a particularly important verse, Romans 14:12. This verse teaches the individual responsibility of man before God. I am not responsible for your sin any more than you are responsible for mine. My sin is an act of my will and expresses my corrupt nature as inherited from Adam. Nevertheless it is I alone that must give an account of my relationship with God. I can claim the blood of Jesus Christ as payment for my individual sin and be accounted as acceptable to be in God’s presence or, as many have, reject the gracious provision given by God. The point is it is an individual undertaking, and decision either way. This concept is not hidden in obscure Biblical texts requiring complicated interpretations to unravel, but is the open claim of the entire Scriptures. With this thought in mind, it is difficult to conceive of a disastrous judgment upon the earth and all its inhabitants because of the action of one angel whose home was not the earth in the first place. This appears to be contrary to the perfect judgmental actions of God as recorded throughout the Bible. Abraham put it very well when he was pleading (indeed bargaining) with God not to destroy Sodom. In Genesis 18:25 we read, “Far be it from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: . . . Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (KJV)" To have slain all those dwelling on the earth for the misconduct of an angel would be capricious to say the least. There are no verses that declare that the entire earth became sinful after a “fall” of Satan. Each angel is responsible for their own behavior before the God who created them, just as I am.


The previous sections of this paper have attempted to demonstrate that the so called “gap theory” is unacceptable from several points of view. From a scientific perspective there is no support from either the facts of science or the postulates of the evolutionary concept of “geologic ages.” As to the theory’s relation to Scriptural content, it has been shown that the claimed “proofs” are superficial and mostly contradictive to the immediate and overall context of the verses applied. These problems are not unexpected, and the incomplete acceptance of such a theory by the Biblical community comes as no surprise when one considers that the primary purpose of the theory is an attempt at reconciliation with humanistic science. This appeasement must be rejected in whatever form it is found since it can only detract from the sacred Scriptures and can add nothing to them. There is nothing in the considered Genesis text that requires such a concept as the gap theory. Our understanding of God’s Word is important and vital both in Christian witnessing and in the conduct of our personal lives.

It is important to understand that this presentation is not meant to attack the proponents of the gap theory but only the theory itself. This theory, originating as it has, falls in the category of a deceptive teaching which can have adverse effects upon those who will believe it. It is in this context that we should heed the warning given by the Apostle Peter (II Peter 3:17,1Cool:

“Ye therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (KJV).

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to LIFE,  and those who find it are FEW.   Matthew 7:13

Science Supports Genesis
August 1, 2015
-  Geneticist says evidence confirms Biblical Adam and Eve.
Dr. Georgia Purdom, a respected molecular geneticist findings confirm the Bible’s teachings that all humans descended from an original couple created by God.
Her latest work, titled “The Genetics of Adam and Eve,” examines the Genesis account of mankind’s origins from the perspective of genetics.

Purdom detailed some recent genetic findings that support the Bible’s creation account.

“One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson.  He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

“This female ancestor could not have lived 100,000 or more years ago as the evolutionists claim.
Genetics clearly shows that human and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago.”

Dr Jason Lisle - Astronomy Reveals 6,000 Year Old Earth

Nuclear Physicist Declares: ‘Science Will Never Contradict The Bible’

An accomplished nuclear physicist has recently expressed outspoken support for the Genesis creation account, arguing that the evolutionary worldview “fails dismally” in its description of scientific realty.

Dr. Brandon van der Ventel is a nuclear physicist with a Ph.D. from South Africa’s Stellenbosch University, where he currently teaches theoretical nuclear physics. Van der Ventel’s specialties include biological systems, physics education, and computational physics.

In an interview with Christian News Network, van der Ventel explained why—as a physicist—he firmly believes the literal, historical interpretation of the Bible’s creation account. The theory of evolution, he explained, is scientifically unsubstantiated.

“The final arbiter of any theory must be based on the strength of its description of physical reality,” he said. “It is in this respect that the theory of evolution fails dismally.”

Not only is the second law of thermodynamics “a powerful argument against chemical evolution,” van der Ventel stated, but the very dating methods evolutionists cite are mostly supported by assumptions—not physics.

“Physics can also play a role when it comes to the sticky question of dating certain objects,” he noted. “It is important to understand that dinosaur bones, for example, are not found with a time stamp attached to them. Every publicized age is based on certain assumptions and conflicting radioactive dates are commonplace.”

On the contrary, the Bible’s creation account logically explains both physical reality and the nature of God, van der Ventel said.

“The creation account in Genesis establishes a number of great truths which form part of the Christian worldview,” he stated. “It points to God as the all-mighty Creator: a timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal Being who is both the explanation and cause of the universe.”

The South African physicist further told Christian News Network that Genesis must be taken at face value, or else the rest of the Bible is compromised.

“At which chapter in Genesis do we start believing God’s revelation and the fact that all Scripture is God-breathed?” he asked. “It is important to understand that the denial of the Genesis account of creation is a direct result of the theory of evolution which posits a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.”

“The denial of the Genesis account is not a matter to be taken lightly by Christians,” he continued. “If the biblical record is not true, then we are left with naturalism and atheism, of which the consequences are truly horrific.”

Van der Ventel asserted that “all scientific evidence has always and will always support the Bible.”

“Science will never contradict the Bible,” he said. “The reason is very simple: the Author of Scripture is also the Creator. That is what we as Christians should believe and promulgate at all times. It is a false dichotomy to think that the Bible and Science are in opposition. Even Christians fall into this mode of thinking due to the vicious and unrelenting propaganda.”

As a scientist, van der Ventel encourages young Christians to “enter the scientific field since university campuses are hotbeds for evolutionary propaganda.”

“By arming oneself with scientific material it is possible to engage non-believers in a systematic and technical manner,” he advised. “Christian parents should equip themselves and their children since television programs such as the History Channel, National Geographic or Discovery World shamelessly push their evolutionary agenda.”

“It is clear that if we are to demolish arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5), then equipping ourselves is paramount,” he concluded. “All believers should study Christian apologetics, since it will not only strengthen your own faith but also motivate you to boldly proclaim the Gospel in a secular society where the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Christ, are routinely denied.”

As previously reported, a respected molecular geneticist told Christian News Network last month that recent findings in the field of genetics confirm the Bible’s teachings that all humans descended from an original couple created by God.[/quote]

Noah's Exit - A Global Flood - The Religion of Uniformitarianism
8/10/15  Old Testament Survey #12

1 Timothy 4
13  Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
14  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

15  Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
16  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Natural Selection, ‘Engine of Evolution,’ May Actually Inhibit Evolution, Scientists Find

BOULDER, Colo. – A team of American and British scientists has published a new report detailing how natural selection, “the engine of evolution,” can actually prevent evolution from happening—a potentially devastating setback for evolutionists.

Natural selection, a term first popularized by Charles Darwin, plays a fundamental role in the theory of evolution. In his infamous book “The Origin of Species,” Darwin proposed that natural selection “leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.”

“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life,” the English naturalist wrote.

“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages,” he continued, “and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.”

However, a team of American and British scientists has found that natural selection, rather than causing evolution, can actually prevent evolution from happening. By studying walking sticks from the species Timema cristinae, the researchers discovered that variations in the species created a road block for speciation—that is, the development of new species.

“This is one of the best demonstrations we know of regarding the counteractive effects of natural selection on speciation,” said Samuel Flaxman, an assistant professor at University of Colorado-Boulder, in a news release last week.

The scientists focused on two green variations of walking sticks, hoping that the variations would lead to the formation of new insect species via natural selection. But that is not what happened.

“While Darwinian natural selection has begun pushing the two green forms of walking sticks down separate paths that could lead to the formation of two new species, the team found that a … brown variation of T. cristinae appears to be thwarting the process,” the UC-Boulder news release explained.

Flaxman said the brown walking sticks frequently mated with their green counterparts, thus “acting as a genetic bridge that causes a slowdown in divergence.” The lead study author, Aaron Comeault, admitted that these interactions inhibit speciation.

“This movement of genes between environments slows down the genetic divergence of these stick insect populations, impeding the formation of new species,” he explained.

This study, which was detailed in the journal “Current Biology,” illustrates that natural selection can actually present a problem for evolution.

“It also shows how natural selection can sometimes promote but other times hinder the formation of new species, according to the research team,” the university’s news release stated.

These findings evidently confirm the position of biblical creationists, who maintain that natural selection does not result in upward evolution and speciation, nor does it add new information to the genetic code.

“Natural selection cannot create totally new characteristics that were not possible from the information already in the particular gene pool. It can only select from what already exists in that gene pool,” wrote Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis in his book “One Race One Blood.” “It causes changes that take place within a species or within a kind by weeding out certain characteristics that are not advantageous in a specific environment. It can’t cause one kind to change into another.”

“Natural selection does not cause reptiles to evolve into birds—reptiles don’t have the information for feathers; only birds do,” he continued. “You’d have to have brand-new information to get something brand new that never previously existed or was possible from the information available. That’s not what’s happening; natural selection is basically a downhill process (or a conserving process). Natural selection results in a loss of genetic information and/or redistribution of pre-existing information.”

“Creationists understand that God created specific kinds of animals with the potential to reproduce in great variety,” Ham explained. “…Mutations and natural selection cannot add anything to gene pools; they can only take away or alter what is already there.”

Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaître Invented The Big Bang Theory

Most people don't know but it was a Vatican Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître, that came up with the big bang theory. The Jesuit priest was a colleague of Albert Einstein. So it's no wonder when Pope Francis says he believes in the 'Big Bang Theory' and evolution.
How Did We Get All This Coal?

Thankfully, the earth is filled with huge reserves of coal. But that raises an interesting question if most of this coal was formed during the recent, global Flood. Were enough plants alive at the same time to produce so much coal so quickly?

God’s Design for Science Curriculum Shop Now
The USA has more than seven trillion tons of coal reserves.1 Similar huge coal deposits lie underground in Canada, Australia, China, South Africa, and other countries. In many cases, the coalfields are not just one bed but multiple coal beds stacked between other fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers. Where did all this coal come from?

Each coal bed may be inches to feet thick, formed by the accumulation and compacting of thick piles of dead plant material. It has been estimated that, if all the vegetation living on the earth’s surface today were converted to coal, it would amount to only a small fraction—perhaps 3 percent—of the earth’s coal reserves.2

So where did all this vegetation buried in the coal beds come from? And if all these coal beds were formed during the year-long Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago, how did we get all this coal so quickly?

The Quantity of Vegetation Required
The estimated quantity depends on how thick a pile of vegetation, called peat, needs to be compressed and converted into coal. It is usually claimed that it takes a peat layer 8–10 feet thick to produce each foot of coal.3

However, if you compare the energy content of the coal to that of the peat (the calorific value, or energy from burning), or if you compare the weight of equal volumes of coal and peat, in both cases the peat-to-coal compaction ratio would be only about 2 to 1!4

Furthermore, studies of coal beds that are in contact with sandstone layers, along with studies of dinosaur tracks where dinosaurs must have walked on top of the peat layers before their burial to eventually form coal beds, demonstrate that peat-to-coal compaction ratios of between 2 to 1 and 1 to 1 are more realistic.5 Such ratios are also consistent with the measured compaction around many coal balls (limestone nodules containing fossils of plants and/or marine snails, clams, or lampshells) and compaction of wood that is sometimes found in coal beds.

The estimate that all the vegetation alive on earth today would produce only about 3 percent of the earth’s coal reserves is based on a compaction ratio of somewhere between 10 to 1 and 8 to 1. If that compaction ratio is only between 2 to 1 and 1 to 1, then today’s volume of vegetation would produce 15–30 percent of the known coal reserves. Where did the rest come from?

Today’s Sparse Vegetation
More than half of today’s land surface is covered by deserts, ice sheets, or only sparse vegetation. Under the central Australian deserts and Africa’s Sahara Desert is evidence of lush vegetation that grew there during the post-Flood Ice Age—a time of both rapid ice sheet accumulation and plentiful rain at and near the earth’s equator. Furthermore, thick coal beds under some of the Antarctic ice sheet suggest that continent was also once covered in lush vegetation.

Thus, if all today’s land surface were covered with lush vegetation, as the pre-Flood land surface likely was, then the volume of vegetation would at least double. With minimal compaction, that amount would account for 50 percent or more of the known coal reserves.

In today’s world the earth’s surface is roughly 30 percent land and 70 percent ocean. However, the Bible’s description of dry land on Day Three of Creation (Genesis 1:9–10), along with evidence that some of this land was later piled into high mountain ranges during the Flood, might imply there was 50 percent land and 50 percent seas in the pre-Flood world. That would almost double the land surface covered in lush vegetation. If true, even more of today’s coal beds would be accounted for.

Yet there are other sources of vegetation not seen on earth today.

Unique Pre-Flood Vegetation Found in Coal
Much of the vegetation found fossilized in the coal beds is very different from today’s vegetation. The “Carboniferous” coal beds of the Northern Hemisphere, which stretch from the Appalachian Mountains in the USA through England and Europe, all the way to the Urals of Russia, consist of fossil lycopod trees (giant relatives of today’s tiny forest-floor plants known as club mosses), giant ferns, conifers, giant rushes, and extinct seed ferns. Clearly, different vegetation grew back then.

Most of these plants had hollow stems and roots. Their hollow, lightly-built structures were not designed for growing in soils but for floating on water.6 So these fossil plants appear to represent the remains of a floating-forest biome (or ecosystem), which also included odd reptiles and fish. A small-scale equivalent is found today in quaking bogs (mats of spongy bog vegetation that float over lakes).

Thus in the pre-Flood world the oceans once had vast mats of floating forests that apparently grew out from the coastlines, fringing the original supercontinent, particularly where the seas were shallow.7 The volume of this unique vegetation is now preserved in the Northern Hemisphere’s “Carboniferous” coal beds. The extent of these beds would suggest that perhaps as much as half the pre-Flood sea surface was covered with these floating forest mats.

If half the planet was once a supercontinent above the ocean and floating forest mats covered half of the ocean itself, then as much as 75 percent of the earth’s pre-Flood surface could have been covered by lush vegetation—more than six times the area covered by vegetation on the present earth’s surface. These calculations would thus indicate there was more than enough lush vegetation growing on the pre-Flood earth surface to provide the volume of vegetation to form today’s coal beds.

Converting Vegetation to Coal
Once buried, how quickly could this vegetation be compacted and converted to coal? Laboratory experiments have successfully produced coal-like materials rapidly, under conditions intended to simulate the conditions when actual coal beds accumulated.

A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made material resembling coal by heating plant materials with clay minerals at 302°F (150°C) for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen. After a series of such experiments, the team concluded that coal can be produced directly from plant materials via thermal reactions speeded up by the clay minerals in only one to four months.8 Other experiments have also confirmed that clay particles act as chemical catalysts in a rapid coal-forming process.9 It is thus significant that clay minerals often account for up to 80 percent of the non-plant matter in actual coal.

Subsequent experiments have more closely simulated natural geologic conditions, with temperatures of only 257°F (125°C) and lower pressures (equivalent to burial under 5,905 feet [1,800 meters] of wet sediments).10 After only 75 days, the original plant and wood materials still transformed into coal material, comparable chemically to coal from the same area of Indonesia.

Because these experiments simulated natural conditions, we can be confident that the coal-forming process is rapid and requires only months. So there is no reason to insist that coal formation requires millions of years.

How Did Noah’s World Produce So Much Coal?

Some people have wondered how the vegetation during Noah’s day could produce so much coal, since today’s vegetation would produce only 3% of known coal reserves. To find the answer, we must reexamine the assumptions behind that estimate.

First, it is often assumed that around 10 feet of peat is necessary to produce 1 foot of coal. But if you consider the weight of peat and coal, or if you consider the energy content, then 10 feet of vegetation probably produced 5–10 feet of coal.

Second, it is mistakenly assumed that the world of Noah’s day was much like today. That is not the case. It turns out that Noah’s world was very lush, producing nearly six times more vegetation than we see today.
It appears that lush vegetation might have covered up to 75 percent of the pre-Flood world, including the floating forests fringing the land. The Flood waters rose from the oceans and swept over the land, catastrophically destroying and burying all the vegetation in beds between other fossil-bearing sediments. The temperatures and pressures at these depths, aided by the presence of water and clay, converted these beds into coal within months.

Thus the huge coal deposits of today’s world can easily be explained.11 The coal formed quickly in the year-long Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago. This coal is a grim reminder that God judged the world because it had become filled with wickedness, corruption, and violence (Genesis 6:11–13). Yet God also shows His mercy. He used the Flood judgment to provide the huge coal resources so much of the world depends upon today.

Astronomers discover the biggest thing in the Universe

There's some pretty big stuff out there in the Universe, but how big is the biggest? According to a team of Hungarian-US scientists led by Prof Lajos Balazs, the largest regular formation in the Universe is a ring of nine galaxies 7 billion light years away and 5 billion light years wide. Though not visible from Earth, the newly discovered feature covers a third of our sky.

The ring was revealed by nine Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB) originating from the nine galaxies. GRBs are the brightest, most energetic events in the cosmos, putting out as much energy in seconds as the Sun will in its entire lifetime. They're caused by supernovae or hypernovae – supermassive stars collapse into neutron stars or black holes in times ranging from milliseconds to a few hours. Aside from their spectacular deaths, they also help astronomers to measure the distance of other galaxies.

In this case, the observed GRB's indicate that the nine galaxies are positioned in a ring shaped like a shell. They also show that the galaxies are all of a very similar distance from Earth – according to Prof Balazs, there's only a 1 in 20,000 chance that the ring's arrangement is accidental.

If it was visible to us, the ring would cover 36 percent of the sky, making it 70 times bigger than a full moon.

The importance of the ring isn't just that it appears to be a record breaker – it raises questions about the architecture of the Universe. In particular, it casts doubts on the Cosmological Principle. First asserted by Sir Isaac Newton and developed based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the structure of the early universe in the past century, it states that at the largest scale, the Universe is uniform, so no matter where you are, it looks essentially the same.

According to the team, recent work indicates that the largest structures can't be more than 1.2 billion light years across. This is at odds with the new discovery, as the ring is about five times as big, implying a much more uneven cosmos.

The next step for the team is to see if the processes controlling galaxy formation and large scale structure could have produced the ring without violating the Cosmological Principle. If not, it could require rethinking how the Universe evolved.

"If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe," says Balazs. "It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don’t quite understand how it came to exist at all."

The team's results were published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Earth's Age and Salvation - Christ Tied to Genesis

Mormonism is Pagan Polytheism; Multiple Gods

The Mormon God is an Evolving Adam & a Polygamist Pimp

Scopes Monkey Trial 1/3 - Evolutionism Pleads the 5th 2-1-15

Scopes Monkey Trial 2/3 - Evolutionism Pleads the 5th 2-8-15

Scopes Monkey Trial 3/3 - Evolutionism Pleads the 5th 2-15-15

Geocentric vs Heliocentric

Preacher I Cant Rationalize With You We Came From Micro-Organisms

‘It Forces Us to Rethink All These Models’: Discovery Shatters Secular Scientists’ Expectations

The unexpected discovery of oxygen around a distant comet has shocked secular astronomers and challenges the current evolutionary models for the universe’s origins.

In 2004, the European Space Agency (ESA) launched the “Rosetta” spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet. “Rosetta” arrived at Comet 67P last year and has since been orbiting the comet and relaying observations back to Earth.

On October 28, ESA announced that “Rosetta” had detected traces of oxygen (O2) emanating from Comet 67P. In an ESA news release, astronomers described the discovery as “quite a surprise.”

“ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft has made the first in situ detection of oxygen molecules outgassing from a comet, a surprising observation that suggests they were incorporated into the comet during its formation,” the statement announced.

Where did the oxygen come from? According to the evolutionary models, it shouldn’t even be there.

“We weren’t really expecting to detect O2 at the comet—and in such high abundance—because it is so chemically reactive, so it was quite a surprise,” Kathrin Altwegg, who helped analyze the spacecraft’s findings, said in the ESA release.

“It’s also unanticipated because there aren’t very many examples of the detection of interstellar O2,” she continued. “And thus, even though it must have been incorporated into the comet during its formation, this is not so easily explained by current Solar System formation models.”

Secular astronomers believe that Comet 67P is several billion years old. However, according to the secular model of the solar system’s formation, the oxygen should have paired off with hydrogen long ago.

“We think this result is of interest beyond the cometary community because it forces us to rethink all of these models,” said Mike A’Hearn, an astronomer at the University of Maryland, according to a report from “Nature.”

Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, said the existence of the abundant oxygen around Comet 67P is entirely inexplicable in the secular models.

“In secular thinking, comets are supposed to be pristine samples of the early solar system,” Thomas said. “But the early solar system was supposedly encased in hydrogen, which reacts with free oxygen to form water. So, there shouldn’t be any molecular oxygen in comets if the secular model were true.”

The Genesis creation account provides a more plausible explanation for ESA’s recent discovery, says Thomas.

“God created comets on Day 4 of Creation Week, when he said that the nighttime luminaries including stars and planets should be ‘for signs and seasons, and for days and years,’ and set each one in motion,” he stated. “Comets have been decaying or dying ever since the curse.”

Where the secular model falls short, the biblical model makes sense, Thomas proposed.

“If God created Comet 67P about 6,000 years ago, then it could still have unreacted, gaseous oxygen,” he argued. “And it could still have enough water to fuel its intriguing vapor jets.  

This is like finding shiny new metal instead of dirty old rust. Perhaps we should think of the universe as less like a rusty junk yard and more like a new car lot.”

The very existence of comets today is problematic for secular astronomers. Comets, which are often described as “dirty snowballs,” lose copious amounts of gas and dust every time they orbit the Sun, so they cannot survive for millions of years. Some scientists suppose that comets originate in a distant “Oort Cloud,” but such a cloud has never been observed.

“Even long-period comets have estimated lifespans not much exceeding 200,000 years, so comets should not exist if they formed 4.5 billion years ago,” Thomas explained. “Astronomers invented and named an Oort Cloud to rescue their story of comet origins, but evidence for this fictional Cloud comes not from telescopes but only from secularists’ need to supply comets within the last several thousand years and without a Creator.”

The biblical model, in contrast, “has the advantage of explaining the presence of comets in our solar system without invoking an ‘Oort Cloud’ for which there is no evidence,” Thomas opined.

“Creation appeals to a Creator for which there is unmistakable evidence,” Thomas said.

Charles Darwin
The Man, Masonic Order, The Luciferian Lunar Circle 11/11/2015

Darwin's Gestapo
Thomas Huxley, Evolution & the Illuminati Royal Society

Population Reduction, Eugenics, Evolution
David Attenborough Series:  STBC Radio  · 38 of 38 - 11/16/2015
Audio Inside Link: Sons of Evolution: Aldous & Julian Huxley, NWO, LSD & Aleister Crowley
Series:  Satanic Roots of Evolution  · 3 of 3
11/15/2015 (SUN)

Audio Inside Link:
Is the Bible a Geocentric Book?
Series:  Heliocentrism v. Geocentricity  · 3 of 3
11/8/2015 (SUN)  |  Bible: Psalm 19:1-11; Malachi 4:1-3

Audio Inside Link:
Darwin's Demonic Disciples - Ernst Haeckel: How We Got Hitler
Series:  Satanic Roots of Evolution  · 4 of 4
11/18/2015 (WED)

For those of you that are familiar with the demonic consequences and agendas of evolution, you KNOW this psychological warfare this is going...
Census changes could make whites less than 50 percent sooner

Ernst Haeckel: Evolution’s Greatest Forger

Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who Darwin leaned on to prove evolution in the development of embryos, is remembered today for his forged illustrations of embryos. He also helped to make the case for legalized abortion by stating incorrectly that newborn infants are born deaf and without a conscience—which led to the idea that the newborn baby has no soul. So what about the child inside the womb? Based on his logic, Haeckel said that abortion could not be considered murder.

Ernst Haeckel was much more than just a fabricator of evidence in support of Darwin’s new Theory of Evolution, he was a zealous disciple of Darwin who himself has placed on record the conviction that Haeckel's enthusiastic propagandizing of the doctrine (of evolution) was the chief factor of its success in Germany.

Haeckel, again, was the first to attempt to draw up a genealogical tree exhibiting the relationship between the various orders of animals with regard both to one another and their common origin. These phylogenetic trees have become popular tools for the presentation of the theory of common decent from common ancestry or drawings that connect one life form to another allegedly related life form. The only problem with these fanciful illustrations is that they are completely imaginary.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the late professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University is quoted as making the following startling admission concerning these popular evolutionary trees.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." "" (Gould, Stephen Jay, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86.May 1977, page 14)

Haeckel’s unreserved promotion of Darwinian Theory helped to lay the foundation of the modern eugenics movement. Haeckel wrote and promoted his Monism theory of life. This theory rejected a dualistic view of man e.g. physical and spiritual, and embraced a purely biological view of all living things. A movement that used Darwinian Theory to justify the murder of those deemed “unfit” to continue living, while focusing on personal, individual fulfillment, self-love and a love for nature, sans any inference of God or biblical revelation.

Some of the forward looking social programs that Haeckel’s newly established religion endorsed included placing natural selection on a high pedestal, and seeing some human ethical codes as interfering with the process. Nature selects by killing the unfit so, Haeckel argued, humans should not only not interfere with this process by keeping the unfit alive, but help it along by eliminating them.

Of course many of his contemporaries were also racist and in favor of eugenics, but as the most eminent German biologist and theoretician of evolution of his day, Haeckel, bears a grave responsibility in giving racism and eugenics the facade of scientific legitimacy. The modern-day activities of the eugenics movement can be seen in the work of Planned Parenthood. A group who today promote themselves as a family planning organization, but whose roots go right back to Haeckel and the false religion of monism he established and promoted. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a devout follower of the eugenics movement and a racist.

This religion, where the strong (adults) suppress and eliminate the weak, the unwanted and the possibly unfit with the approval of the government in modern abortion clinics all over the world is the continuation of the ancient practice of child sacrifice. Mankind is not evolving, they are devolving. Going backwards and practicing primitive atrocities in the state-of-the-art doctor’s offices and clinics around the world.

'Star Wars: Force Awakens' Racks Up $50M-Plus in Advance Ticket Sales

J.J. Abrams’ tentpole is now four weeks away from opening.

By Pamela McClintock

With a month left to go, Star Wars: The Force Awakens has racked up more than $50 million in advance ticket sales in North America, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter.

That’s the double the previous record set by The Dark Knight Rises in 2012 with $25 million. Imax alone accounts for a third of all ticket sales, according to sources. Force Awakens, looking to reboot George Lucas’ Star Wars series, begins rolling out the evening of Dec. 17 in North America. Overseas, it opens day and date in much of the world.

There are still plenty of seats available for opening weekend in the U.S., according to online ticket services.

Still, the ticket-buying frenzy puts Disney and Lucasfilm in the enviable but still challenging situation of managing expectations. Many believe Force Awakens will score the biggest North American debut of all time, ahead of the $208.8 million earned in June by Jurassic World. The question is, by how much. Some believe Force Awakens could cross $250 million and even approach $300 million.

In May 2012, The Avengers made history when opening to $207 million domestically, then a record. Capacity was at 63 percent.

Read More: New ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Footage Debuts During ABC’s #TGIT

At the same time, the pre-Christmas corridor isn’t know for huge openings, with consumers distracted by holiday preparations. Rather, movies can amass huge fortunes during the final two weeks of the year, and especially the week between Christmas and New Year’s weekend. To date, the biggest December bow is 2012’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ($85 million).

Online sales began Oct. 19 for Force Awakens before the full trailer debuted on ESPN’s Monday Night Football, with ticket sites like Fandango crashing under demand fueled by social media buzz. According to Twitter, between 11 a.m. Oct. 19 and 11 a.m. Oct. 20, there were 1.1 millionStar Wars-related tweets.

By the morning of Oct. 20, Fandango had recorded record presales, selling eight times as many tickets as it did on the opening day of sales for the first Hunger Games movie. Imax, which will show the film in about 390 theaters domestically, sold around $6.5 million worth of tickets in 12 hours — it previously never had sold more than $1 million a day in presales. In less than 12 hours, AMC sold out more than 1,000 shows nationwide, setting its own record (its Imax auditoriums accounted for 38 percent of sales).

The Wall Street Journal first reported that Force Awakens has hit a record in terms of advance ticket sales.

‘Get ’Em Young’: Evolutionists Praise New Book Teaching Children About Their ‘Grandmother Fish’

An evolution-promoting author has released an illustrated children’s book, titled “Grandmother Fish,” that uses whimsical text and drawings to convince preschoolers that they are the products of evolution and the descendants of animals.

“Grandmother Fish: a child’s first book of Evolution” is a 40-page children’s book written by Jonathan Tweet. The book begins by introducing its readers to a fish from whom all humans supposedly descended.

“This is our Grandmother Fish,” the book’s opening line says. “She lived a long, long, long, long, long time ago.”

“She could wiggle and swim fast,” the next page says. “Can you wiggle?”

Tweet then introduces other important figures in the evolutionary tree—a reptile, a mammal, an ape, and then a primitive human. Other creatures, including sharks, dinosaurs, horses, whales, and elephants, are described as “cousins.” The book closes with a description of evolutionary concepts for parents to explain to their children.

Tweet, who is a Seattle-based game designer and evolution promoter, hopes “Grandmother Fish” will cause young children to accept evolution.

“The book engages a young child’s imagination with sounds and motions that imitate animals, especially our direct ancestors,” he wrote on his website. “The book lets children see for themselves that we are related in form and function to the nonhuman animals that came before us. It’s our story of where we came from, told so simply that a preschooler can follow it.”

Since the book’s recent release, various evolutionists have enthusiastically endorsed it.

“Aren’t kids of this age too little to be taught evolution?” asked NPR’s Barbara King. “My answer is no—not too young.”

“We all know by now that more than 40 percent of Americans say that God created human beings in our present form in the last 10,000 years,” King continued. “…That dismal situation cries out for big efforts in science education and … there’s hard evidence to show that the storybook route can be effective in kids’ mastery of evolutionary concepts.”

P.Z. Myers, an ardent atheist and outspoken evolutionist, praised Tweet’s book as “a great idea” that will make kids believe evolution from an early age.

“Get ’em young,” he wrote on his blog.

However, Dr. Georgia Purdom, a geneticist with Answers in Genesis, described “Grandmother Fish” as “deceptive” and “sad.” Tweet’s book, Purdom wrote in an online review, promotes several flawed arguments.

“The book compares animal behavior to human behavior,” she stated. “…This seduces children into thinking because they can do the same types of things they must be related to the animals.”

“Well, certainly children can wiggle (every parent can attest to this!), but that doesn’t mean humans are related to fish,” she explained. “It’s no secret that humans and animals have some similar behaviors, but as we have reported many, many times before this isn’t because of shared ancestry. Instead, God designed animals to be intelligent, but their intelligence pales in comparison to that of humans who are made in the image of God.”

“Grandmother Fish” claims that evolution unfolded over hundreds of millions of years. But Purdom says, scientifically, that is impossible.

“As a professional geneticist, I can attest to the fact that time is not the key but rather what is needed is a genetic mechanism that adds new and novel information so that organisms can evolve from fish to humans,” she stated. “The problem is that with all the thousands of papers published on mutations, no such mechanism has ever been observed.”

“All the time in the world is useless if there is no genetic mechanism to add what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution,” she said.

Geological Discovery Proving Source of Earth’s Water Amazingly Similar to Biblical Account of Creation

Scientists have struggled for years trying to understand the source of Earth’s oceans and the planet’s water. Until recently, the prevailing scientific theory held that icy comets hit the Earth while it was still forming. A discovery last year by geologists seems to prove that the real source of the earth’s water is from deep underground, amazingly similar to the Bible’s account of creation, which described waters below and waters above (Genesis 1:7).

The first clue came in the form of a battered diamond found in Brazil. Graham Pearson, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada, discovered the diamond quite by accident while searching for a means of dating the diamonds. Diamonds that have come up from so deep from the earth are usually discarded by diamond miners since they are scarred and discolored, having little commercial value. This diamond contained a rare mineral called ringwoodite, which has never been found on the planet’s surface before. It only forms under extreme pressure and is only found in meteor fragments or is artificially made in laboratories.

The diamond was brought up from the earth’s mantle region, which stretches from 254 to 410 miles deep, by volcanic activity. The mantle, the hot rock layer between the crust and the core, makes up most of the earth’s volume. It has never been explored since it is incredibly deep and inaccessible, and the geothermal energy at that depth would melt any drill bit.

The ringwoodite found embedded in the diamond was 1.5 percent water, contained not as a liquid but as hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen molecules bound together). This suggests there could be a vast store of water in the mantle transition zone.

“It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s oceans,” Pearson told Live Science’s Our Amazing Planet.

Brandon Schmandt, a seismologist at the University of New Mexico, set out to test the theory. Using the Earthscope USArray, a network of portable seismometers across the United States, he found the waves slowed down upon reaching the layer of ringwoodite, indicating that they were passing through water as well as rock and confirming that the transition zone is an enormous water reservoir.

“The surface water we have now came from degassing of molten rock. It came from the original rock ingredients of Earth,” Schmandt told Live Science.

One of the researchers with Schmandt said that if conditions had been slightly different, and the water was not stored underground, “it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out.”

While critics of the Bible claim Biblical stories are improbable and lack factual basis, scientists and archaeologists are discovering that in many cases, the Bible is an accurate guide for their investigations.

Audio Inside Link: The Intellectual Foundation for the LGBT Agenda: Freud, Jung, Kinsey, & Psychology
Series:  STBC Radio  · 39 of 39

Audio Inside Link:
Darwin's Perfect Soldier: Adolf Hitler - Evolution and the Occult
11/22/2015 (SUN)
Fox News Contributor Gets Death Threats After 'Star Wars' Joke

The Hollywood Reporter
November 25, 2015

Fox News contributor Katherine Timpf is getting death threats for a jab at Star Wars she made during a segment on Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue last month.

As a guest on the satirical political news comedy show that airs at 3 a.m. on Fox News Channel, Timpf said: “I have never had any interest in watching space nerds poke each other with their little space nerd sticks, and I’m not going to start now. You people are crazy. You Star Wars people are crazy. Yesterday I tweeted something, and all I said was that I wasn’t familiar with Star Wars because I’ve been too busy liking cool things and being attractive — people threatened my life.”

Monday, Timpf, also a writer for the National Review, shared some of the threats along with a piece she penned about the abuse she’s been receiving.  

"A lot of people are clearly a lot of upset. But guess what? I’m not apologizing. Why? Because the all-too-common knee-jerk reaction of apologizing for harmless jokes after overblown hysteria is ruining our culture. This political-correctness obsession threatens free speech, and I absolutely refuse to be a part of it,” she wrote in Monday’s piece. “Obviously, the totally insane whackjobs who have been attacking me don’t represent most Star Wars fans. But the fact that so many adults have responded with so much unhinged emotion astounds me.”

A request for comment from Fox News was not immediately returned.
Animal rights activists storm the field during Lions-Eagles game

In the final two minutes of the Eagles-Lions game, a couple protesters ran onto the field, immediately after the Lions snapped the ball. For the sake of everyone's safety, the game was on hold while security tried to get them off the field.

The cameras did not have a good glimpse of the banner they were holding. But apparently, it was to promote an end to animal cruelty:

Given that it's Thanksgiving, it seems like an appropriate thing to promote. But it was nevertheless a strange moment in the game.
Campbell's, along with other corporate giants, are running ads like these to numb the American public and attempt to present this as the 'new normal'. No longer is it about the quality of their products, but rather about the underlying message their products promote.



“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Ahead of the December release of The Force Awakens, the half-minute long ad for their Star Wars-themed soup stars a gay couple — actors David Monahan and Larry Sullivan, who are married fathers in real-life — and their son. It starts with the first “dad” feeding soup to a little boy and saying in a Darth Vader voice “I am  your father”. At this point the confused little kid looks over to his second “dad” as he hears him say “no, Luke, I am your father”. Wow, how messed up is this little kid going to be as he grows up?

Campbell’s, along with other corporate giants, are running ads like these to numb the American public and attempt to present this as the ‘new normal’. No longer is it about the quality of their products, but rather about the underlying message their products promote.

The website OneMillionMoms says “This gay-inclusive commercial is attempting to desensitize viewers. There is concern about the way this ad is pushing the LGBT agenda, but an even greater concern is the way that they are attempting to redefine “family” and “real marriage.” They have a link there for you to take action and contact Campbell’s to let them know how you feel about their commercial.

Job 12:7  But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Job 12:8  Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
Job 12:9  Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?

Job 12:12  With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.


Did you know that the earth’s magnetic field has reversed direction—or ‘flipped’—multiple times in the past?

The evidence for these reversals is rock solid, because when molten rock cools, certain mineral grains align with the earth’s magnetic field, thus recording the direction of Earth’s magnetic field at the time, in the solidified rock.

Previously, most geologists thought that a single reversal would take many thousands of years. However, creationist physicist, Dr Russell Humphreys, reasoned they must have happened quickly to fit within the biblical timescale.

So Dr Humphreys made a prediction that quickly-cooling thin lava flows would be found that recorded fast changes in the direction of the magnetic field.

This prediction was later proven correct. Scientists were shocked to find major magnetic field changes had occurred within weeks in a single lava flow. They published this in the regular scientific literature. Thus yet another scientific prediction, based on biblical history, proved to be correct. To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website

Science confirms Earth’s magnetic field flipped rapidly

Flat Earth Folly (Part 1): Heliocentrism v. Geocentricity

The long war against God. A lecture by Dr. Henry Morris. Part 1 of 4.

The long war against God. A lecture by Dr. Henry Morris. Part 2 of 4.

The long war against God. A lecture by Dr. Henry Morris. Part 3 of 4.

The long war against God. A lecture by Dr. Henry Morris. Part 4 of 4.

Evolutionists Startled by ‘Exceptionally Preserved’ Embryos in Ancient Fossils

A team of French and Canadian scientists have identified preserved embryos within the eggs of a tiny shrimp-like creature believed to have lived over 500 million years ago, raising questions about both the development of the creatures’ brooding abilities and the likelihood of such delicate materials surviving for thousands of millennia.

Waptia fieldensis is a tiny, shrimp-like arthropod whose fossilized remains were first found 100 years ago in Cambrian layers of fossils in Canada. Now extinct, Waptia was a frail creature that carried the eggs of its young within its own body.

Canadian researchers studying Waptia specimens recently made a startling discovery: despite the fossils’ purported ages, collections of tiny eggs somehow survived within their fossilized bodies. The scientists marveled at the remarkable condition of the creatures, describing them as “exceptionally preserved.”

“New, exceptionally preserved specimens of the weakly sclerotized arthropod Waptia fieldensis from the middle Cambrian (ca. 508 million years ago) Burgess Shale, Canada, provide the oldest example of in situ eggs with preserved embryos in the fossil record,” the researchers wrote in a report published earlier this month in the journal “Current Biology.”

A December 17 press release from the University of Toronto heralded the discovery as the “oldest evidence of brood care in the fossil record.”

“Clusters of egg-shaped objects are evident in five of the many specimens we observed, all located on the underside of the carapace and alongside the anterior third of the body,” Jean-Bernard Caron, a University of Toronto professor who co-authored the study, said in the release.

Though the Waptia fossils were first unearthed over 100 years ago, it wasn’t until scientists recently revisited the specimens when the eggs and embryos were noticed.

The researchers attempted to tie their discovery into the evolutionary framework, proposing that their discovery is evidence of “rapid evolution of a variety of modern-type life-history traits”—namely, care for offspring by egg-bearing females.

However, others interpret the discovery as yet another instance of evolutionists struggling to explain the sudden appearance of complex physiology and advanced behavior among allegedly “simple” organisms.

“Waptia is a ‘shrimp-like arthropod’ with a lot more body complexity than the ability to lay eggs and hold them under its carapace,” an article last week on “Evolution News and Views” reports. “It had a nervous system, sensory organs, stalked eyes, antennae, respiration, digestion, and the ability to swim. Nevertheless, the ability to lay eggs and transport them to a protective place constitutes an additional design in this animal, requiring genetics and behavioral preparedness.”

“It’s amusing to see the euphemisms evolutionists use for the Cambrian explosion,” the article continues. “The paper spoke of the ‘Cambrian emergence of animals.’ The news release calls the Cambrian explosion ‘a period of rapid evolutionary development when most major animal groups appear in the fossil record.’ Why call it evolutionary development? If animal groups just ‘emerged’ or ‘appeared’ in the record, that’s not evolutionary.”

Another debatable aspect of this recent discovery is the likelihood of eggs and embryos surviving hundreds of millions of years. As previously reported, the discoveries of a variety of perishable biomaterials—including dinosaur blood cells and proteins within ancient shells—create predicaments for evolutionists, who maintain that such materials are tens of millions years old.

Spiritual Poverty
James Knox - Proverbs 24:30 -34

Without Excuse Not To Believe In God

How should the Bible be interpreted?
(Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-01) Forum Index -> CHAPEL Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum