All Bible verses are from the King James Bible, although I have changed some of the old English. Any similarity to any modern version is only by coincidence. Bible verses other than the King James have been foot-noted properly.
Chapter 46
To Believe or not to Believe, That is the Question? - The Evolution Connection!
Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901—the second longest reign of any British monarch in history. Queen Elisabeth II has just surpassed that period on September 11th, 2015. Explaining England’s great success as a nineteenth century nation, Victoria once said,
England has become great and happy by the knowledge of the true God through Jesus Christ . . . This is the secret of England's greatness.[1]
But England did not stay great for long. For it was during Queen Victoria’s very reign that the seeds of destruction were planted, grew and multiplied. In the early and mid-eighteen hundreds, following such men like Darwin, the great empire accepted the false theories of naturalism and evolution. Through the acceptance of these doctrines, England ate the fruit which would lead to her own downfall.
Naturalism is the idea that all reality can and should be explained by natural non-guided forces. Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural or states that if the supernatural exists, it does not interfere with the natural world. James Hutton and Charles Lyell were the advocates or promoters of naturalism in science, which is called uniformitarianism. Darwin and Lyell were close friends. Darwin even wrote that it seemed like his theory, the Origins, came out of the mind of Lyell.
It is interesting to note that Apostle Peter, writing to the Early Church in order to “stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,”[2] said the following:
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 the creation.[3]
The idea of uniformitarianism, or the idea that all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation, ignores the global Flood. It states that the slow processes that we see today, such as wind and water erosion, are accountable for forming over millions of years all the geological features found in nature.
Peter continues by predicting men would willingly ignore the evidence of the flood in their thinking. Uniformitarianism does exactly that.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.[4]
Hutton and Lyell willing ignored the evidence of a worldwide Flood, which had been the traditional way the geological features were interpreted up until the end of the eighteenth century. They did so because they had an agenda to get “Moses out of science,” and not because of scientific evidence based on reason. Twentieth-century evolutionary scientist Derek Agar, an atheist, wrote the following about that very event:
My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (Hutton and Lyell) who were conditioned by social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field…In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes![5]
The evolutionists wanted to avoid “catastrophic” processes, because that is what the creationists were advocating with their interpretation of the geological column as a result of the global Flood and not “millions of years” of slow evolutionary history. Stephen Jay Gould, a formerly foremost evolutionary American scientist, made the comment about Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism in his remarks concerning the famous “Great Scablands Debate.” During the “Great Scablands Debate” of the early 1920s, a scientist named Bretz presented a paper questioning the uniformitarian interpretation of the geological features found in the “Great Scablands.” Gould comments on the reaction of the American scientific “establishment” to this “creationist” idea.
The ‘establishment,’ as represented by the United States Geological Society, closed ranks in opposition (to Bretz)…. Instead of testing Bretz’s flood on its own merits, they rejected it on general principles (because it sounded too much like the Global Flood of the Bible)… Bretz stood against a firm, highly restrictive dogma- uniformitarianism-that never had made any sense: the emperor had been naked for a century. Charles Lyell, the godfather of geological gradualism, had pulled a fast one in establishing the doctrine of imperceptible change.[6]
Bretz presented his scientific and evidence-based papers on the Great Scablands from 1923 until 1979. It took the establishment, the scientific community, fifty-six years before they were finally willing to accept his conclusions.[7] Their uniformitarian bias had prevented them from accepting Bretz’s conclusions earlier, because his interpretation could be considered as evidence for the global Flood. They could not allow a Divine foot in the door.[8]
But, eventually, the overwhelming scientific evidence of catastrophism, the idea that some type of catastrophic events caused much of the geological features that we find today, won the day. Modern-day evolutionists have, therefore, modified their theory to include periodical catastrophes. It’s part of the Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory. But they have adamantly held to “millions of years,” because without “millions of years,” evolution would be bankrupt. The Apostle Peter warns us that the day of reckoning will finally come for all mankind.
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.[9]
Man prefers living his life free from the idea that there will be a judgment. The famous nineteenth century writer Aldous Huxley confessed he wanted to be free from the religious restraints so that he could behave himself in whatever manner he wished in order to fulfill his sexual desires. Huxley was the grandson of one of Darwin’s closest friends, Thomas Huxley, often referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog.” Grandson Aldous, following his grandfather’s conclusions, made the following apology, which I mentioned in an earlier chapter:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.[10]
So we find during the early nineteenth century a rising tide of intellectualism away from the Bible and faith and away from the traditional Christian interpretations in science. With the acceptance of millions of years of naturalism and then evolution, the wedge against faith had been laid and soon the whole house began to fall. In the Psalms we read,
Naturalism, uniformitarianism, and evolution were the philosophical ideas, though dressed in scientific garb, which attacked the foundation of Christianity. It is in the very book of Genesis that we find the record of Creation, the Fall of man, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the need for a Redeemer. Right from Genesis we see the need of salvation, the need of redemption.
Through the Bible history we see man’s failure as individuals and as nations to follow God. We see man’s failure to live in harmony with God and one another. We see man’s pathetic and despondent condition without God. However, it is in the New Testament, through the life of Christ, that we gain hope once again. We read the beautiful words from the mouth of the Messiah and His Apostles and gain strength to continue on in the weary world we find ourselves. Like Einstein said,
I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene…. No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.[12]
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?[14]
We as a nation no longer believe the writings of Moses. We have rejected the historicity of the book of Genesis and no longer believe the Words of Jesus. It is foolishness unto us. As a result, we are experiencing the “falling away” spoken of by Apostle Paul.
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering unto him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.[15]
The apostle is warning that the day of Christ’s coming and our gathering together unto Him, or what is commonly referred as the Rapture, would not occur until after a falling away from the faith and the revealing of the Antichrist or “the son of perdition.” Paul gives us the reason for the falling away occurring,
Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.[16]
Or in other words, we rejected the truth when it was revealed to us.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.[17]
Are we believing the lie of naturalism, the lie of evolution?
Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, made the following statement:
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.[18]
King David of ancient Israel wrote,
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.[19]
In other words, God speaks through His creation to every man. The creation speaks of the glory of God. We are all without excuse, because all creation cries aloud of God’s existence.
The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It was written from before the time of Moses, when the first five books of the Bible were edited and written down. Nevertheless, we find a similar commentary:
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knows not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.[20]
In the study of the stars, of nature, and of life; we should be brought to the realization that the only logical conclusion for it all is a loving Creator-God.
Werner von Braun, the father of space science and the most important rocket scientist involved in the development of the U.S. space program, said the following.
The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.[21]
Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies said something similar.
Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.[22]
But why has man fallen away from the truth? Paul goes on in his letter to the Romans to explain why:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.[23]
Sounds like the theory of evolution, the new creation myth for modern man. Today’s modern science has
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.[24]
Have we accepted the lies of modern science that negate the Creator God? The Proverbs tell us,
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.[25]
Are we being foolish or wise? Will Jesus’ own warning come to pass? Is our Christian love waxing cold because of the abundance of iniquity in today’s society? Is the abundance of our material blessing choking out God’s Word in our lives so that we become unfruitful?
When Jesus asked His disciples the following question, was He being rhetorical, or prophetic, or both?
Nevertheless when the Son of man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?[26]
Jesus’ question reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote on the death of God in his story The Madman, which Dr. Ravi Zacharias uses often in his discourses:
"Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?”[27]
Nietzsche seems to have known that the rejection of God would cause mankind to fall into an endless abyss of hopelessness. Is this not what we see in the world today? Are we not plunging continually? Jesus said the love of many would wax cold as a result of the increase in iniquity in the last days. Has it not become colder? It certainly seems like in our lifetime that it’s become a bit colder even with all the talk of global warming! Is not night continually closing in on us?
We have chosen darkness rather than light, because our deeds are evil.[28] We have rejected the love and light of God. We have killed Him and have embraced the darkness. That darkness that promised us liberty was itself the servant of corruption and now we are in bondage to it.[29] We ourselves cannot escape.
But there is an escape. God has made a way of escape. He says if we turn around and call out to the Father in Jesus' name, He will hear us. He promises that if we confess and forsake the way of darkness, He will have mercy upon us.[30] Jesus said,
Are we seeking the truth? Then we should come to the light, the light of Christ, the true light and He will set us free! As Jesus said,
If ye continue in my words, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[32]
But he warned,
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.[33]
In other words, if we think we have the light already and don’t need Jesus, then we’re really in darkness. Like Paul also said,
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.[34]
Have we been blinded by the god of this world, or has the glorious light of Christ opened our hearts and minds to God’s truths? Taste and see that the Lord is good.[35] We need to let our hearts be the test-tube to see if Christ is real. The future is in our hands. Will He find faith in us?
Here are a few quotes from books concerning the evolution/creation debate which you may find helpful in your search to find the truth.
James Perloff’s Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism has lots of good information and is a good starting point. If you read nothing else, Perloff’s book is sufficient. When discussing the Big Bang, Perloff makes the following observation:
Evolutionists have frequently stated that scientific discussions must exclude creation by God because supernatural events fall outside the realm of natural law, which is what science deals with…. But the Big Bang itself violates natural law. The laws of physics state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of the conservation of energy. As well-known physicist Paul Davies wrote in his book “The Edge of Infinity,” the Big Bang “represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles…” If one allows for an event beyond natural law -- a “true miracle” as Davies put it -- then it is logically inconsistent to exclude other events, such as creation by God. If there was a “cosmic egg,” who put it there? The cosmic chicken? Scientists have always agreed that there is a cause for every effect. How then can the greatest effect of all -- the universe itself -- have arisen without cause? [36]
Dr. Henry Morris’ The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict is a historical study giving a good understanding of the long conflict between those who believe in a Creator and those who don’t. Morris concludes,
Only an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God could possibly account in any rational sense for the evidence of limitless power in the processes of the universe, or the infinite complexities of design in the organized systems of the universe (expressly living systems!), or the attributes of personality in human beings (self-consciousness, will, emotion, abstract reasoning, etc.). This is only logical, cause and effect reasoning, which is supposed to be the basic approach to any scientific study of the universe. But evolutionists, both ancient and modern – ignore logic when it comes to origins, in order to avoid having to recognize God. [37]
In Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Marvin L. Lubenow does an interesting study of the human fossil record and finds the results confirm the creationist’s viewpoint: there are no intermediate fossils. Lubenow writes,
The popular myth is that fossil evidence virtually proves human evolution. The reality is that evidence has been a disappointment to evolutionists and is being de-emphasized. In actuality, the human fossil evidence falsifies the concept of evolution. The Bible, the Word of the living God, clearly declares that humans are specially created. The human fossil evidence is completely in accord with what Scripture teaches.[38]
Dr. Gary Bates presents a thorough examination of the Extra-terrestrial theory in his best-selling Amazon creationist book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. Those who believe aliens may have seeded the first life on our planet need to read this book. He explains,
The universal and accepted law of biogenesis simply states that all life comes from life. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals arrange themselves into complex, information-bearing bio-molecules needed for life. There are many evolutionary scientists who readily admit this. Yet by faith they believe that this conversion of lifeless chemicals to organic molecules must have occurred early in the history of our planet. Such an unsupported assertion qualifies as religious belief because it deals with the unobserved origin, and therefore the meaning, of life….The concept of panspermia [or life seeded from outer space] merely shifts the problem of life’s origin further into outer space where it cannot be tested.[39]
Once we reject God’s authority, where do we stand? We stand on our own authority. Then everyone does that which is right in his own eyes. But the Bible tells us,
There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.[41]
Adam and Eve’s ultimate sin in the garden was rejecting God’s authority and doing their own thing. They exalted themselves above God and made themselves gods. Sounds to me like today’s modern day philosophy.
Dave A. Schoch’s The Assunptions Behind the Theory of Evolution:The Modern Theory of Evolution Isn’t Dead – Because it was Never Really Alive! will further your understanding of the assumptions that evolutionists believe off-hand and why they are unfounded scientifically and logically. Schoch notes,
Naturalism is not a criterion of science. The only criterion of science is searching for the truth, no matter where one’s investigation may lead, no matter what direction the search may go. Naturalistic interpretations are being imposed upon facts instead of being inferred from those facts.
For example, the Law of Causation dictates that (1) nothing happens or takes place by and of itself; (2) that no action, work, movement, or energy process takes place without an initiating cause; (3) that the cause is always greater than the effect that it causes; and (4) that the cause must be sufficient enough in order to produce the effect that is being attributed to it.
Now, we can begin from any place on this planet, with anything, and follow the string of events – the effects and their causes – backward in a very scientific manner to the point where we reach the beginning. Once we reach the very beginning we run out of naturalistic causes sufficient enough to produce you, me, the world, and the cosmos around us. True science has demonstrated this over and over again. Once we run out of naturalistic causes for the universe and all it contains, the fact that everything is here requires us to look toward the supernatural. [42]
The truth is the facts of observational science have destroyed the evolutionary myth, but atheistic scientists are refusing to let a Divine foot in the door. They are adamantly clinging to their historical evolutionary fable which is contrary to reason and sound science. Why? Because they do not want God in their understanding. They don’t want to accept God in their science or in their lives. Like the Scripture explains,
Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools. [43]
In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Dr. Michael Denton, who is an agnostic and not a creationist, gives a critical look at the theory of evolution, explaining why the theory is not credible. Denton writes,
Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory – the concept of the continuity of nature, i.e., the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from blind random process – have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1959. [44]
Editor Dr. John Ashton has collected 50 articles from Doctors of Science where each one offers his reason for believing In Six Days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation. My older son read Aston’s collection when considering the alternatives to the six-day creation story. The essays presented in Ashton’s book convinced him that creation was indeed the more scientific and logical choice.[45]
Brian Young’s Doubts about Creation? Not After This! has some interesting tid-bits not found in any of the other books mentioned. He touches on the Nephelim of Genesis and the Book of Enoch. When talking about the validity of the New Testament he notes,
History even shows that many of the disciples of Christ were killed themselves for following Jesus. If these men were lying, they would have to be crazy to die for a lie. The only way they could do such a thing is to actually believe it. How could they be deceived into believing such a thing when they already had their doubts to begin with? Only a fool would die for a cause without proof. The disciples clearly had proof because they saw not just the empty tomb, but the resurrected Jesus. [46]
Why do we find Flood legends throughout the various civilization of the world? Why are the stories so similar? Is it because they are the result of one common event? Charles Martin investigates this question in his book The Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event. When comparing the Babylonian version to the Genesis account Martin says,
The Babylonian account sounds more like a fairytale. This is not to say that the Babylonians made up their version. Not at all; the two versions are too alike to be independently invented. The changes and distortions we see are, most likely, the results of the dispersion (the scattering of the different language groups at the time of the confusion of the languages at the Tower of Bable)…If the dispersion happened in the Mesopotamian region, then we can expect one of these two versions to be the original, “source version.” Comparing the two stories, basing our judgments solely on the text, the Genesis version seems to be more logical of the two. I consider the Hebrew version to be the source of the Flood legends from around the globe. [47]
In Dinosaurs or Dragons? Creation or Evolution? Darek Isaacs researches the evidence of dragons in history trying to decide if the dragons were in fact dinosaurs. He comes to a surprising conclusion. For example, Isaacs discusses the pictographs of large pterosaurs drawn by ancient American Indians and spoken of in their legends passed down from antiquity. The evolutionists claim these flying reptiles died out 65 million years ago. Isaacs writes,
Yet, again, the American Indian exercised commendable knowledge about creatures that were not supposed to be around. These creatures seemingly made such a large impact on the psyche of the Indians that they were memorialized in paintings and carvings. This is exactly the kind of evidence we would expect to see if the legends of the dragons and huge flying reptiles were based on truth. This is archaeological confirmation to the oral and written histories of our past.[48]
Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial exposes the irrational position of the evolutionists. While on sabbatical in England, Berkeley University Professor Johnson became interested in the Darwinian question and took a legal look at the arguments and found them extremely lacking. He writes,
To scientific naturalists, recognition of a supernatural reality amounts to superstition, and hence to an abandonment of science. To theists, on the other hand, the concept of a supernatural Mind in whose image we are created is the essential metaphysical basis for our confidence that the cosmos is rational and to some extent understandable. Scientific naturalists insist, paradoxically, that the cosmos can be understood by a rational mind only if it was not created by a rational mind.[49]
Dr. Carl Werner, using history and observational science, shows the weaknesses and faults of the evolution theory. His book Evolution: The Great Experiment is well illustrated and easily understood by youth and adults alike. When talking about the original source of the DNA he states,
One of the biggest problems facing scientists who support evolution is to explain how DNA could come about by random interaction of chemicals. Many scientists who oppose evolution look at DNA as a feature of design, implying that there was a designer who made the DNA and programmed it with information.[50]
He goes on to calculate the probability of an 18,000 letter DNA, the simplest necessary for life, to form correctly by chance. His calculations come up with a staggering improbability: a number followed by 10,837 zeros. He compares this number with the mathematical improbability of someone winning the national lottery every day of the year, a number with only 2,881 zeros after it. With such impossible odds, Werner questions whether life could have really formed naturally.[51]
In Search for the Truth Bruce Malone offers over 125 one-page articles on the theory of evolution. Each article can be used separated as “a letter to the editor,” if need be. Malone states,
Darwinism offers a world view that concludes that people exist as a result of purposeless processes. Therefore, ultimately right or wrong do not exist. Evil becomes just a matter of poor training so we can ultimately perfect ourselves. This is in direct opposition to the Biblical world view that starts with an intelligent Creator, explains that death and suffering are a direct result of man’s actions, and provides a solution to this problem which are not based on our efforts to make retribution or ‘improve ourselves’. Both world views use science to support their conclusions. This book addresses which world view is best supported by the actual scientific evidence.[52]
Dr. Stephen Meyer’s lengthy tome Signature in the Cell is a scientific defense of Intelligent Design. When examining the problem that the information code presents to the evolutionist’s theory, Meyer concludes,
Our uniform experience affirms that specified information – whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment – always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source. Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma.[53]
In his book Creation Facts of Life, Dr. Gary Parker asks whether all the variation we see in human beings today could come from two created human beings? We find out that research done by evolutionists Francisco Ayala suggests that a human couple has a difference of 6.7% in their gene code. He calculated that a human couple with just that amount of DNA difference, which is the average difference found in couples, would translate into the mathematical possibility of a couple producing a staggering 10 to the 2,017th power different children.
That’s a 1 followed by 2,017 zeros. The number of atoms in the known universe is a mere 10 to the 80th, nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in the genes of just two human beings.[54]
Those are a few of the books I’ve read on the evolution/creation debate. If you haven’t investigated the topic thoroughly please get a hold of some of these books and read. You may be surprised at how much good scientific information and reasoning there is that refutes the evolutionary concept.
To go to the next chapter click on link
To go to index of chapter click HERE
[1] http://logosresourcepages.org/History/quotes.htm (accessed 03/2016)
[2] 2Peter 3:1
[3] 2Peter 3:3-4
[4] 2Peter 3:5-6
[5] Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, 1981, pg. 46-47.
[6] Stephen Jay Gould, “The Great Scablands Debate,” Natural History, Vol. 87:7 (Aug.Sep 1978) pg.12&14.
[7] http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html (accessed 03/2016)
[8] http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm (accessed 03/2016)
[9] 2 Peter 3:7
[10] Aldous Huxley, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19. http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-23a.htm (03/2016)
[11] Psalm 11:3
[12] http://gentleislam.com/love/pages/einstein.htm (accessed 03/2016)
[13] Hosea 8:7
[14] John 5:46-47
[15] 2Thessalonians 2:1-3
[16] 2Thessalonians 2:10
[17] 2Thessalonians 2:11
[18] Romans 1:20
[19] Psalm 19:1-3
[20] Job 12:7-10
[21] http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/
[22] Ibid
[23] Romans 1:21-23
[24] Romans 1:25
[25] Proverbs 1:7
[26] Luke 18:8
[27] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Madman, 1882. http://www.historyguide.org/europe/madman.html (accessed 03/2016)
[28] John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
[29] 2Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
[30] Proverbs 28:13 He that covers his sin shall not prosper: but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.
[31] John 8:12[32] John 8:31-32
[33] Matthew 6:23
[34] 2Corinthians 4;4
[35] Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in him.
[36] James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, Maine, 1973, p.123-124 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWthzqE_h0
http://jamesperloff.com/why-the-creation-evolution-debate-matters/ (03/2016)
[37] Dr. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict, Master Books, Arizona, 1989, p.274.http://creationtoday.org/product/the-long-war-against-god/ (03/2016)
[38] Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker Books, Michigan, 1992, p.334.
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/bones-of-contention-revised-and-updated-edition/142791 (03/2016)
[39] Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Master Books, Arizona, 2004, p.126. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jjhkf_e4pM (03/2016)
[40] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Master Books, Arizona, 1987. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKF2MxPlJ28 (03/2016)
[41] Proverbs 14:12
[42] Dave A. Schoch, The Assunptions Behind the Theory of Evolution:The Modern Theory of Evolution Isn’t Dead – Because it was Never Really Alive!, Author House, Indiana, 2008, p.72.
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1249087.Dave_A_Schoch (03/2016)
[43] Romans 1:22
[44] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Great Britain, 1985.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/pdf/korthof18.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Nh3RjZQiI (03/2016)
[45] John Ashton, Editor; In Six Days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation; Master Books; Arizona, USA; 2001.
http://api.ning.com/files/kvOHl9cTrw7nNm9triMxsw6T5A7r3Q0S7e2RPDerPNa0GRvO96ilNq6QDhf*A4jVWiDDrGp2n71bBZIeXO9pHKbQ1oPST-47/InSixDaysLO.pdf (03/2016)
[46] Brian Young; Doubts about Creation? Not After This!; Creation Instruction Publishing; Oregon, USA; 2008, p.239. (accessed 03/2016) http://creationtoday.org/product/doubts-about-creation-not-after-this/
[47] Charles Martin; The Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event; Master Books, Arizona, USA; 2009, p.97.
http://creationtoday.org/product/flood-legends-global-clues-of-a-common-event/ (03/2016)
[48] Darek Isaacs; Dinosaurs or Dragons? Creation or Evolution?; Bridge Logos; Florida, USA; 2010, p.47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rho47Mey0Ww (03/16)
[49] Philip Johnson; Darwin on Trial; Regnery Gateway Publishing Co; 1991, p.164.
http://www.maxddl.org/Creation/Darwin%20On%20Trial.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw (03/2016)
[50] Dr. Carl Werner; Evolution: The Great Experiment; New Leaf Press; Arizona, USA; 2008, p.193. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w
http://thegrandexperiment.com/ (03/2016)
[51] Ibid, p.196-197
[52] Bruce Malone, Search for the Truth, www.searchforthetruth.net, p.6.
[53] Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2009, p.347.
[54] Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life: How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God, Master Books, 1980, p.126.
1 Comments:
Excellent! Well done!
Post a Comment