Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint     
“Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint”
The Creation Evidence Museum is in possession of a set of Cretaceous footprints discovered by amateur archaeologist Alvis Delk[1] of Stephenville, Texas. This fossil of dense Glen Rose limestone consists of Dinosaur footprint (Acrocanthosaurus) and an eleven-inch human footprint intruded by the dinosaur print.
In early July, 2000 Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop (both of Stephenville, Texas), was working in the Cretaceous limestone on the McFall property at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas and discovered a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint. This discovery was made in the vicinity of McFall I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has excavated since the Spring of 1982. The eleven-inch human footprint matches seven other such footprints of the same dimensions in the “Sir George Series,” named in honor of His Excellency Governor General Ratu Sir George Cacobau of Fiji.[2]
         Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity:
The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered.
                                                  Importance of Discovery:
Professor James Stewart Monroe, writing in Journal of Geological Education candidly asserted that “Human footprints in geologically ancient strata would indeed call into doubt many conventional geological concepts.”[3] Professor David H. Milne of The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington and Professor Steven D. Schafersman of the Department of Geology, Rice University, Houston, Texas made further admissions in writing that “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism.”[4]

Professor Steven M. Stanley in The New Evolutionary Timetable opined that “any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory…As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.”[5]

[1] [1] Delk, Alvis has extensive field experience under direct supervision of state certified archaeologists. His personal discoveries range from early Texas Spaniard artifacts to early Texas military maps, etc. This current footprint discovery is in keeping with his tireless pursuit to explore Texas’ historical treasures.
[2] Baugh, Carl E., Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Doctoral Dissertation, Pacific College of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia and Poplar Bluff, Missouri, USA, Fall 1989, p. 196
[3] Monroe, James Stewart, Journal of Geological Education, “Creationism, Human Footprints, and Flood Geology”, V.35, p.93
[4] Milne, David H., and Schafersman, Steven D., Journal of Geological Education, 1983, V.31, p.111
[5] Stanley, Steven M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 171

William E. Dannemeyer of the United States Congress carried the issue to its ultimate conclusion in writing to this researcher, stating that “This is a significant breakthrough with enormous implications for establishing the origin of mankind.”[1]
                                                        Photographic Evidence:

[1] Dannemeyer, William E., United States Congress, Personal Correspondence to Carl E. Baugh, 1983

Photo “A” – Overview      Photo “B” – Human
 Photo “C” – Human Toe Detail     Photo “D” – CT Scan

[1] Dannemeyer, William E., United States Congress, Personal Correspondence to Carl E. Baugh, 1983

Response to the skeptics:
Responding to the skeptics, part I

(added August 30, 2008)
For more information on the Delk track, visit the Creation Evidence Museum website.
Introduction & background
The skeptic speaks
The skeptic's mistakes
A proper analysis
Why the major blunders?

I like being a nice guy.  I like to encourage people and speak of the good things that they do.  But when someone decides to publically oppose the truth, using falsehoods, while making increasingly condescending remarks, then there's not much else I can do except publically rebuke them.  When you take it upon yourself to oppose the truth with falsehoods, you will lose. And so....

A few days back, I posted some further X-rays from the CT scans of the Delk track on my official "Delk track" page.  This was in response to a question by username "ftom2006" over at the Delk track video on youtube.  [At the time of this writing there are well over 700 comments on the video - all the quotes here are buried in the comments there]
He had a good point which I felt should be addressed, basically stating that if the density gradients show that the lowest density in the rock revealed that it has the density of a jellyfish (for example), then there's something wrong.

I wanted to be respectful to ftom, as at the time, he was being quite respectful.  But his comments were also raising some concern - he seemed to know something about what he was talking about, but also made huge errors in his claims.  His first big blunder was in trying to pass off the high-density area at the junction of the dinosaur toe and the human track as simply an artifact of beam hardening:

"Actually, there's nothing special about the alleged 4 cm deep 'high density' point (07:40). Similar to the ends at the smaller sides of the rock, that's an area of morphologic edges, and it shows a variation in brightness compared to the alleged 'low density' areas exactly as it has to happen due to beam hardening."
Common sense would say that's ridiculous, as this would completely invalidate CT technology: What's the point of buying a bazillion dollar machine if it throws out random errors on the order of centimeters deep? 
But to be sure, I asked not one, but two separate CT technicians about this, quoting ftom's comment.  They both said the same thing, almost verbatim:  "....that's.... just .... not possible!"  They were both rather surprised at such a ridiculous suggestion.

I addressed this erroneous claim of beam hardening, and a whole wack of other claims on my official Delk track page.

Despite this ridiculous claim, I did feel his questions about density variations and sample measurements were quite reasonable and called for.  I had to wait several days for the CT tech who actually carried out the scans on the Delk track, as he was out of his office for several days.  Though I already had the full suite of X-rays from the Delk, including the ones with density sample sites, I had several technical questions that I wanted to ask the technician.  After having a very enlightening conversation with him, I posted some of the highlights on my official Delk track page, as well as the X-ray scans which had the density sample sites on them.

Ftom then posted back a very long, technical, impressive sounding response that was sure to send the Delk track proponents scurrying! And consequently, he started getting a little lippy.
(note:  I'm not going to sit here and nit-pick over spelling mistakes, etc...  So don't expect a [sic] at every single mistake - this is the internet, and I think people are allowed to make speeling mistakes in posts.):

Ftom wrote:
"[1] Well, since absolute density values are still missing: one does not really need to know the absolute density values to evaluate the scan results. If the inherent assumptions of the method, like detection of transmitted intensities, no scattered fraction, no beam hardening would be true, indeed, there would be an essentially linear relation between the Hounsfield number and the true density values.

A minimum HU of 488 (Fig. 7e, #3) and a highest HU of 3048 (Fig. 7a, #2) are given for the rock on the ianjuby-Delk website. Both values are clearly distinct, since the internal precision (sd) of the HU determination reads about 1% for the highest, 5-10% for somewhat lower, and 25% for the lowest values. Whatever the absolute apparent density values, their difference translates to the fact that the minimum apparent density is only about 16% (=487*100/3048) of the maximum apparent density.

Let's consider the consequences in case that the apparent density variations, as obtained  from uncritical HU reading, would be mistaken to reflect true physical densities of the rock. The investigated sample appears to be some impure limestone, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Accordingly, the rock is essentially composed of the mineral calcite (CaCO3). Calcite has a density of 2.71g/cm^3.

This value is the maximum physical density for a 100% dense, totally compacted limestone at room conditions, just as Delk proponents are about to sell for the rims of this slab.
Accordingly, the minimum apparent density corresponds to the value of 0.43g/cm^3. This is simply not a realistic density for this rock, not even remotely, not at all. The corresponding absurd rock would be a limestone composed of 84% porosity and 16% calcite floating in air. Adding some impurities like mica or quartz won't change anything significant in this estimation.

Prize question, therefore, which of the two is hollow and rattles if shaken: the Delk slab or the oversimplified notion that HU readings correspond to the physical density of this rock?"

Figure 7a

Figure 7e

Prize question indeed!

It's at this point that I usually just sit and wait, to see if the skeptics are going to sink their ship just a little bit more, or start frantically bailing the boat and trying to patch the holes.

But wait - Glen Kuban (username "nabuk3" on youtube), apparently revelling in the "thorough debunking" of these sophisticated CT-scans, decided to jump on the ship as it was going down:
"ftom, Thank you for contributing your expertise and insights. To boil it all down... do I understand you correctly to say that in this case the print proponents were _not_ justified in assuming, as they seem to have done, that lighter areas = higher density = compaction?"
Ftom replied in a string of impressive sounding comments, based on his original analysis:

"Yes, nabuk, equation essentially _not_ justified. The estimates demonstrate that the apparent density differences are far too large to represent true density differences."
"Starting with lower density of a more realistic, porous limestone (e.g. ~2.2 g/cm^3) would just worsen the situation, yield even more absurd, low density values for the core of this rock (~ 0.35 g/cm^3). In this case, the whole slab is likely to float in salt water. Turning the model around, starting with a realistic density assumption for a porous limestone in the core (~ 2.2 g/cm^3) would necessitate a density of ~ 13.8 g/cm^3 for the a rim of this slab, i.e a density higher than elemental iron (~7.9), somewhere between a bar of lead (~11.4) and native gold (~19.3 g/cm^3).
Inherent assumptions for X-ray CT density measurements had not been fulfilled in the case of this rock-shaped, rock-dense object. "
It'll float on water....?

Through a bunch of convoluted math and illogical reasoning, ftom used the Hounsfield numbers to "calculate" the density in the center of the rock.  A Hounsfield unit of 487 in this case (figure 7e, sample 3).  By his reckoning, the rock density at this sample point must be on the order of 0.43 g/cc (0.43 grams per cubic centimeter).  And of course to come to that figure, he was being generous to us creationists.  As he astutely pointed out, anything of this density will float.

It was Andrew Rodenbeck, a guy who knows nothing about CT scanning technology, who pointed out the first, most obvious error in ftom's logic and calculations.

CT scanners produce Hounsfield numbers.  The Hounsfield scale is based on water and air.  Air is -1,000 (negative one thousand) on the scale, water is zero.  As an example, bone can be anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand Hounsfield units, depending on the bone and where the sample is taken.  The CT scanners are calibrated to the density of water as their zero point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that 487 is a higher number than zero. If a Hounsfield unit of zero is equal to the density of water, and water has a density of 1 g/cc, one does not have to be the head cashier at Walmart to realize that a Hounsfield number of 487 must represent a density much higher than  0.43 g/cc, as ftom claimed.
The third major blunder he pulled off relates to the second.  In his words, "the minimum apparent density is only about 16% (=487*100/3048) of the maximum apparent density."

The density "zero" point is -1000 Hounsfield units, not zero Hounsfield units. Ftom incorrectly attributed the entire density span of the rock to the 3048 positive Hounsfield units, instead of the full 4048 HU.  So the minimum density is actually 37%, before any error margins are considered.
In fact, if ftom had stopped for a moment to think (more on this in a second), even without calibration on the CT scanner, there was lots of clues that he was in error. 

For starters, one can get a pretty good handle on the density variations within the rock.  For instance:
We can give a very good guess-timate on the density of the rock, and therefore can get a pretty good handle on what density the highest HU value represents.
We can then approximate densities using the Hounsfield numbers
The lowest reading was clearly an outlier in the measurements
Other sample readings of CT scans can be used as a gauge for density gradients within the Delk CT scans
For the sake of our study, we are only concerned with sub-surface density variations
Sample measurements from other CT scans:
In all the fray, apparently ftom forgot the sample readings of selected Hounsfield numbers that I provided from various places on a random CT scan of a single patient, on the very same machine the Delk track was scanned on.  I'll repeat them here:
Air inside a lung: -651 (note this is negative)
Cortical bone: 172
Liver: 33
Rib center: 104
Rib surface: 754
Vertebrae: 195
It should be noted that these were select readings from a single patient, and not an average. The fact that 487 is considerably higher than most of the bone samples I provided should've been a clue to ftom that somethin' wasn't quite right in his equations.  Bones sink in water, therefore their densities are higher than 1g/cc, and the reading of 487 was higher than the average bone density.  Instead, apparently he forgot this in his "expert analysis."

In fact, he questioned the sample reading I provided from Cortical bone.  He was quite right in that this is one of the densest bones in the body... which is precisely the reason that the CT technician who gave me that number chose that location!  I thought perhaps I had made a mistake in transcribing the number, but fortunately, I had recorded the conversation as it was the fastest way to take notes.  Nope, there was no mistake.

This just goes to show you that a single, low-density reading is not the end of the matter.  If we take the maximum error margin for figure 7e, point 3 (HU 614), that's 40% of the maximum density - a far cry from ftom's calculations, and is a discrepancy easily explained in a number of ways.

The Outlier:
This lowest Hounsfield number is very much an outlier in comparison to the other numbers.  Indeed, it's deviation (SD) can be +/- 126, or about 25%.  In other words, the CT scanner figured the error margin for that number was on the order of 25%!

Clearly, if anything, the number is going to be higher, not lower - simple logic and comparison to the other samples make this obvious.  If ftom wishes to disagree and make a fool of himself some more, he's welcome to.

After all, ftom was very quick to point out the unexpected HU sample reading of the cortical bone that I provided.  He immediately spotted it as an "outlier," and promptly proceeded to replace the number I provided with a number he thought was more reasonable!  He then accordingly re-evaluated all the Hounsfield units right across the board! 
Now that would be hypocritical of ftom to then criticize me for saying that lowest HU is simply an outlier, wouldn't it?  Especially because - let's face it - logic is on my side, and not the side of those who would argue that the rock is less dense than the HU's imply.

As both the skeptics and myself have pointed out, the rock has many thin laminations and cracks.  Thus, this one sampling, taken with a circle a mere 7 milimeters in diameter, may very well have landed on a crack or lamination, thus accounting for the lower HU reading.
 No, I feel quite justified in claiming that the lowest Hounsfield number is no doubt higher than 614. This number is simply an outlier - the sample site probably landed on an internal crack or something, it is an anomaly.

We only care about sub-surface:
Of course, we are only interested in sub-surface density variations anyway - variations that occur within the first few centimeters of the rock.  This is where all of the "action" is going to take place, and as one can see for themselves, we clearly see a lot of variation several centimeters deep into the rock.  Thus, once again, the density variations are demonstrated as genuine.

Lastly, as I have already repeatedly said, the images that are displayed are rendered for maximum contrast.  This is to make a good visualization of the very real density gradients in the rock.  Density gradients which conveniently line up with two fossil footprints - that's just a little too much coincidence.

Prize question, therefore: which of the two is hollow and rattles if shaken: the Delk slab, or ftom's analysis of the CT scans of the Delk slab?
Ftom has apparently gone on to other 'arguments' about how the "air" looks as dense, or denser in the rock in the CT scan, yada yada yada... But... I don't look too worried now, do I?  You guys are smart - I think you'll be able to figure out where he went wrong there too.

Why the major blunders?

Sadly, this is typical of anti-creationist writing.  This is what I have to deal with all the time.  Anti-creationist propaganda is typically very badly researched and written, often containing major logical and scientific blunders - even from experts and very intelligent people.  While sometimes I have no doubt it's deliberate deception, I do think that usually it is just honest mistakes - but why so many, and so often? 
The reason is because the anti-creationists usually venture into nit-picking the evidence, trying to discredit it.  As my good friend David Lines says, "They are looking at the eyelid of an elephant through a microscope.  As a result, they can't see the elephant that is about to crush them."
All too often this nit-picking is to serve no other purpose than to obfuscate the evidence - distract people with so much nonsensical information and impressive-sounding arguments that people will simply not look at the evidence.

The elephant in the living room is obvious to anyone who looks at the Delk track: It is profound evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together.  Don't let anybody distract you away from this very simple, observable fact.

Indeed, it would appear that we are *quite* justified in assuming that "lighter areas = higher density = compaction"

And by the way Glen Kuban - yes, I do still stand by what I said about the Limestone cowboy.  But I'll deal with that subject later on.

Strati sedimentari e fossili polistrati.

Durante l'orogenesi queste rocce sedimentarie ancora di consistenza plastica e molle si curvarono per azione dell'enorme pressione, probabilmente del cataclisma del diluvio universale, dal momento che gli strati geologici sono costanti per tutto il pianeta, assumendo la forma come le pagine di un grosso libro. In queste rocce non si denotano spaccature di alcun genere, per il semplice motivo che gli strati dei banchi si sono curvati tutti assieme contemporaneamente prima che la roccia si solidificasse. A suffragare ciò, sono gli stessi alberi fossili cosiddetti polistrati, che attraversano gli strati di roccia come si nota sulla figura a destra. Se gli strati si fossero sovrapposti con intervalli di tempi dell'ordine di migliaia o milioni di anni, un qualsiasi albero sottoposto a tale azione si sarebbe decomposto molto prima di essere ricoperto completamente da tutti gli strati. Nella fattispecie viene dimostrato il contrario ovvero che tutto  è avvenuto in tempi molto brevi. Ed è proprio questo il motivo per cui tra le presunte ere geologiche non si trovano isotopi radioattivi come conseguenza di una biologia esistente tra le ree geologiche, e non ci sono neanche frammenti di meteoriti, che sono unicamente presenti sulla superficie attuale del pianeta.
Evoluzionismo ad una svolta

Pubblicato il 30/09/2009 | da Lorenzo Scarola

I reperti archeologici a nostra disposizione, ribaltano le tesi evoluzioniste indimostrate da 150 anni.
I reperti archeologici portano in tutt'altra direzione!
E questo,
1. non solo perché non si è mai trovato un solo fossile che sia il passaggio tra due specie diverse.
2. non solo perché tutti i ritrovamenti di ominidi sono risultati dei falsi, ma soprattutto perché, sono stati trovati fossili polistrati, e altri reperti di cui parleremo.

Difficile è allora, trovare una conclusione diversa da questa:
chi ci ha mentito con determinazione?
Si può veramente mentire in questo modo, cioé in maniera universale e istituzionale?
Se così fosse, una infamia terribile ricadrebbe su molte facoltà universitarie e non solo.

Nonostante da un ventennio si poteva andare in tutt'altra direzione, l'evoluzione viene ancora imposta nelle scuole con fervore religioso.
Ma uno scricchiolio a quel sistema ideologico di menzogne propinato per legge, si poteva già scorgere, quando l'ex Ministro dell'Istruzione Letizia Moratti, propose l'eliminazione della teoria dell'evoluzione (ovviamente, supportato da documentazioni, e da personalità scientifiche), partendo dai libri di testo di scuola media.
Cosa che le provocò un linciaggio mediatico, acritico, riguardo poi, alle motivazioni che avevano spinto il ministro dell'Istruzione a fare una tale proposta “oltraggiosa” nessuno indagò.

Quindi anche io non conosco le motivazioni del Ministro Moratti, ma una teoria che rimane tale dopo, i nostri ultimi 150 anni, è una cosa che puzza troppo!

Ma nessuno sa che dall'altra parte dell'oceano, il dott. Carl Baught, non solo offre un supporto scientifico ad alto livello, coadiuvato da scienziati di fama mondiale, quali suoi collaboratori, ma che addirittura lui è Direttore del Museo della Evidenza della Creazione nel XXI secolo, sito a Glen Rose texas . Un museo colmo di reperti archeologici che spingono in tutt'altra direzione. Ma questa direzione, purtroppo è in così netto contrasto con l'altra, che uno dei due certamente mente in maniera totale.

Tutte queste informazioni sono facilmente reperibili sulla T.B.N.E. Trinity Brodcasting Network.

Come è possibile per la comunità scientifica internazionale, ignorare quei manufatti in ferro, che sono inseriti nel carbone fossile?
Ma chi nasconde le società prediluviane che hanno dato origine a costruzioni ciclopiche, come a manufatti speciali anche nella loro composizione metallurgica, visto che il ferro ha le stesse proprietà inossidanti dell'argento e questo, non solo a scongiurare qualsiasi ipotesi di falso, ma sicuramente a dichiarare l'esistenza di un pianeta terra totalmente diverso dall'attuale, cioè un ambiente saturo di ossigeno con due atmosfere di pressione, con un campo magnetico 40volte superiore all'attuale, e dove i raggi ultravioletti erano totalmente filtrati.. ovvero le caratteristiche tecnologiche affinché il ferro possa avere le stesse proprietà inossidanti dell'argento.
Chi e come ha costruito i megalitici? (Stonehenge)?
Forse ha utilizzato la forza dei dinosauri?
Come è possibile, che ancora oggi, che per la costruzione di questi megaliti, non si riesce a trovare una spiegazione, neanche teorica, visto che hanno inventato la teoria della evoluzione?
1. Sai che ci sono alberi di polidentron di 46 metri, fossilizzati in verticale e che attraversano tutte le ere geologiche fino ai giorni nostri?
Allora, adesso devi prendere in considerazione l'ipotesi che ti hanno truffato.

Ribadisco che le leggi fisiche e chimiche messe dal Creatore, non negano la possibilità di sintetizzare delle proteine, ma? trovarci in una evoluzione delle stesse proteine che giunge autonomamente a una strutturazione intelligente e autonoma della vita, cioè alla nostra attuale organizzare gli esseri viventi, è qualcosa che è stato dimostrato essere impossibile dalla scienza della statistica!
Il disegno intelligente? Quello si è l'unico plausibile per la scienza della statistica.
Ma la violenza mediatica della ideologia evoluzionista è da considerare una forma totalitaria, una impostura?
Qualsiasi cosa sia, oggi? Essa è iniziata a crollare con il nostro dialogo.

Tu sai? della? recente scoperta del genoma?
Ovvero, nel DNA di tutti i viventi, non ci sono soltanto i geni di ogni specie in questione, ma i geni di tutti gli esseri viventi del pianeta presenti ed estinti ammassati in una enorme enciclopedia genetica, insomma è come se, in un enorme cimitero di lampadine fulminate, fossero attive o accese le lampadine o i geni strettamente essenziali.

Allora, il GENOMA (patrimonio genetico presente anche nelle creature più arcaiche), cioè, l'insieme genetico, la enciclopedia delle specie viventi, di tutte le SPECIE VIVENTI (vegetali e animali) del PIANETA, sconfessa un cammino evolutivo, e rende nella loro genesi contemporanea tutte le forme di vita comparse o estinte del nostro pianeta.

Cosa è il genoma di tutti i viventi? Come è presente negli organismi, che sono stati ritenuti più antichi o meno evoluti!
Insomma, negli organismi preistorici si trovaerebbero anche i geni dell'uomo!!
Che catastrofe! Che truffa!

kingnichendrix di you tube dice: "Adamo ed Eva? I più antichi resti umani trovati su questo pianeta sono in Africa e sono di piccole dimensioni, l'evoluzione è provata? Ti prego, dimmi di cosa si tratta?"--ANSWER--- non possiamo negare il gigantismo ed il nanismo all'interno della stessa specie! Ma, per una specie di fossile di transizione dalla scimmia all'uomo, poi è stato dimostrato che un dente (dei tre denti che si disponeva) apparteneva ad una specie di maiale estinto! Quindi, tutti gli ominidi sono risultati dei falsi! Ma la bugia? si diffonde in prima pagina, mentre la verità viene nascosta, dopo molti anni, in ultima pagina!

I creazionisti in America sono stimati al 25%, e di sicuro negli ambienti scientifici sono sotto il 5% .. tra biologi e antropologi praticamente nessuno. In Europa dividi per 10  --- risposta---> il 50% dei ricercatori americani sono creazionisti, ma questo in segreto, solo alcuni si possono permettere di vedersi tagliare i finanziamenti, di essere licenziati, ecc...
E questa violenza sui ricercatori è enorme: mediatica, istituzionale ed economica.
I miei dati sono reali, anche i tuoi sono formali o ufficiali, ma sono veri, entrambi.
Autore della pubblicazione:
Lorenzo Scarola
Domanda risolta
Come si spiegano i fossili polistrato, da una prospettiva non catastrofistica? 
Eliu, Miglior risposta - Scelta dal Richiedente”
Non vi può essere spiegazione non catastrofistica. Quei fossili, alti alberi, se fossero stati esposti per milioni di anni tra uno strato e l'altro, sarebbero marciti e sarebbero spariti. Invece è chiaro che siano stati fossilizzati tronchi di albero, ed in un solo momento. L'esplosione del vulcano St. Elena nel 1980 ha fornito una spiegazione visibile e concreta della formazione degli strati fossili e dei fossili polistrato. Tra le altre cose, le evidenze della formazione catastrofica dei canyon e modelli sulla formazione in poco tempo dei bacini carboniferi.
Il tutto catastroficamente ed in breve tempo. Il tutto calzante e spiegabile con il cataclisma globale conosciuto come Diluvio di Noè.

Evoluzione: oppio degli ignoranti.
12 settembre 2013 | Filed under: Evoluzionismo, Scienza
bd-darwin-FINAL. Fossili fuori sequenza .  I fossili polistrati attraversano troppi strati.
La radioattività dei fossili accorcia le ere geologiche.
Fossili fuori sequenza. Per l'evoluzionismo, i pini non potrebbero essere apparsi prima di 350 milioni di anni fa. Ma si ritrovano polline fossili di pino nell'argilla precambriana Hakatai ( Gran Canyon-USA ) che dicono datare 1,5 miliardi di anni, prima che la vita fosse apparsa. Studi fatti sul polline con microscopi elettronici a scansione indicano tempo molto più recente.  I fossili polistrato attraversano troppi strati. I fossili polistrati penetrano più strati geologici. A Joggins (NewScotl-USA) alberi fossili eretti si estendono su 760 metri di profondità, penetrando 20 orizzonti geologici. Questi alberi devono essere stati seppelliti più velocemente di quanto ci volesse per marcire. Ciò implica che l'intera formazione fu depositata in pochi anni.
Cf:. l'esplosione del Mount Helen pochi anni fa in Usa e gli alberi che seppellì.
Cosa dire del fossile di balena di 24 metri, in posizione verticale a Lamproc, Calif. Eppure l'evoluzionismo vorrebbe che lo strato più alto, fosse stato depositato milioni di anni dopo lo strato più basso.                 
La radioattività dei fossili accorcia le ere geologiche. I radio-aloni sono anelli di coloreà che si formano attorno a microscopici pezzi di minerali radioattivi nei cristalli rocciosi. Sono evidenze fossili del decadimento radioattivo. I radio-aloni schiacciati di Polonio 210, indicano che le formazioni del Giurassico, Triassico e Eocene nell'altopiano del Colorado furono depositati entro pochi mesi l'un dall'altro,e non a distanza di milioni di anni.
I radio-aloni orfani di Polonio-218 che non danno traccia dell'elemento madre implicano una creazione istantanea o un drastico mutamento nel ritmo di decadimento della radioattività.                                                    
Il carbonio14? Balla! Attestò che una corna di mucca vichinga del X°, scoperta in Scandinavia era dal XXIII secolo dopo Cristo! Conchiglie vive pescate a Palombino furono datate 4000 anni prima di Cristo! Il potassio-argon Datata con questo mezzo, la lava del Kilau era eruttata, 1 secolo fa, si rivela vecchia di 22 milioni di anni. Gli Hawahani che assistettero all'eruzione dovevano aver abusato dal vino di palma, I sistemi di datazione? Nessun campo è dimostrato essere più soggetto a imposture e imbrogli, pantano di bugie dove scuole e media nuotano allegri.
Pochi sedimenti sui fondali marini. L'evoluzionista (tettonica a zolle) dice che  i fondali sono vecchi di 200 milioni di anni. Dovremmo avere chilometri di sedimenti sui fondali. Eppure, l'oceano ne ha solo 250 metri. Dunque il presente oceano esiste da meno di 15 milioni di anni.
L'oceano accumula sodio troppo velocemente. I fiumi versano nel mare 450 milioni di tonnellate di sodio annuo. Il 27% torna fuori. Il resto ci rimane. Se il mare non avesse avuto sodio all'inizio, avrebbe accumulato la quantità odierna di sodio in 42 milioni di anni. è molto meno dell'età data per l'oceano: 3 miliardi di anni. Dicono che le immissioni di sodio in passato dovevano essere minori e le emissioni maggiori. Con calcoli in tal senso, i risultati danno ancora, 62 milioni di anni. Per altri elementi contenuti nel mare danno età, ancora più giovani.

Il nostro mondo è più giovane di quanto si pensi?  Dobbiamo contare gli anni a miliardi?
Nell'esposizione di queste pagine si fa spesso riferimento a risultati che vorrebbero indicare un'età per il nostro pianeta (e l'universo che ci circonda) di milioni di anni.
Le prove che vengono addotte scoraggerebbero una tale deduzione e limiterebbero l'età della terra e fanno vedere come la Terra sia più giovane di quanto suppongano gli evoluzionisti; le stesse prove mettono in seria crisi anche la scala dei tempi redatta basandosi sull'evoluzione.

Esistono molte altre prove a favore di un universo giovane, ma sono stat scelti solo gli esempi più immediati e significativi per brevità e semplicità.
Alcune delle voci di questa lista possono essere conciliate con l'idea di un universo "vecchio", solo facendo una serie di improbabili e non provate supposizioni; altre voci possono coesistere solo con l'idea di un universo "giovane".
Gli evoluzionisti ritengono che la Terra abbia circa 10 miliardi di anni, ma ci sono diversi motivi per ritenere che quell'età sia esagerata.
Alcune prove che riportiamo indicano un'età massima di migliaia di anni, come si ricava dalla Bibbia. Anche dove viene indicata un'età massima di milioni di anni, si contesta ugualmente l'idea evoluzionista che necessita di miliardi di anni.
Un'età massima di milioni di anni, poi, non impone che la Terra abbia effettivamente quell'età, perciò non nega necessariamente l'orizzonte biblico di circa 10.000 anni.

Si può indagare sull'età della Terra utilizzando vari sistemi, ma si tratta sempre di metodi indiretti, perciò molto dipende dai presupposti di partenza e dai metodi ai quali si dà la precedenza.
Il testo contenuto nella presentazione è da un articolo della rivista "Creation ex nihilo", Vol 13, n° 3, agosto 1991, di D. Russel Humphreys (
già pubblicato sul periodico "Proiezioni" (n° 7, 1992) col titolo "Prove per un mondo giovane",
 per la traduzione di David Rubeo, Adattamento per il web di Renato Gallo.
Un altro articolo, sullo stesso argomento, è visibile nelle pagine del sito

      I fossili polistrato attraversano troppi strati
      Fossili fuori sequenza
      La radioattività dei fossili accorcia le ere   geologiche
 I fossili polistrato attraversano troppi strati
I fossili "polistrato", quelli che penetrano più di uno strato geologico, sono descritti nella letteratura geologica corrente.  Per esempio, a The Joggins (New Scotland- USA) molti alberi fossili eretti si estendono lungo 760 metri di strati geologici, penetrandone ben 20 orizzonti geologici. Questi alberi devono essere stati seppelliti più velocemente di quanto gli ci volesse per marcire.  Ciò implica che l'intera formazione fu depositata al più in pochi anni.
Eppure la teoria evoluzionista vorrebbe che lo strato roccioso più alto fosse stato depositato milioni di anni dopo lo strato più basso.

Fossili fuori sequenza
Secondo la scala temporale evoluzionista, gli alberi di pino non potrebbero essere apparsi prima di 350 milioni di anni fa. Sono però stati ritrovati dei fossili di polline di pino nell'argilla precambriana Hakatai (Gran Canyon- USA) che si suppone datare 1,5 miliardi di anni, prima che ogni forma di vita fosse apparsa. Lo studio originario è stato attentamente ripetuto e verificato in condizioni strettamente controllate da un comitato di scienziati che ha esaminato il polline con microscopi elettronici a scansione ed ottenuto valutazioni indipendenti da altri esperti. Scoperte come queste non fanno che accumulare dubbi sui metodi di datazione ed anche sulla scala temporale evoluzionista.

La radioattività dei fossili accorcia le ere geologiche
I radio-aloni sono anelli di colore che si formano attorno a microscopici pezzetti di minerali radioattivi nei cristalli rocciosi. Sono le evidenze fossili del decadimento radioattivo. I radio-aloni schiacciati di Polonio-210 indicano che le formazioni del Giurassico, del Triassico e dell'Eocene nell'altopiano del Colorado (USA) furono depositati entro pochi mesi  l'uno dall'altro, non a distanza di centinaia di milioni di anni come richiede la scala temporale convenzionale. I radio-aloni "orfani" di Polonio-218 che non danno traccia dei loro elementi madre implicano una creazione istantanea oppure un drastico mutamento nel ritmo di decadimento della radioattività.

    Molti strati rocciosi hanno pieghe troppo strette.
    Troppo elio nelle rocce calde

Molti strati rocciosi hanno pieghe troppo strette
In molte aree montane è possibile vedere strati rocciosi spessi centinaia di metri piegati e ripiegati in forme a zig-zag.
La geologia convenzionale sostiene che queste formazioni sono state seppellite a grandi profondità, e si sono solidificate lungo un periodo di centinaia di migliaia di anni, prima di essere piegate.
Eppure, il piegamento è avvenuto senza rotture e con raggi di curvatura così piccoli che l'intera formazione doveva essere ancora molle e non solidificata quando si piegò.
Ciò implica che l'intervallo di tempo tra la deposizione dello strato ed il suo piegamento può essere stato al massimo di alcune migliaia di anni.

Troppo elio nelle rocce calde
Uno studio pubblicato da "Geophysical Research Letters" mostra che l'elio prodotto dal decadimento radioattivo nelle rocce profonde e calde, non ha avuto il tempo di fuoriuscire.
Quindi, benché si supponga che le rocce siano vecchie di milioni di anni, l'età che suggerisce la loro conservazione di elio è di molto inferiore. 

Copyright 2001.  Il testo può essere usato liberamente citando la fonte  - Edizione per il Web di Renato Gallo -
    I continenti si erodono troppo velocemente
    Il magnetismo terrestre sta decadendo troppo in fretta
    Non c'é abbastanza elio nell'atmosfera

I continenti si erodono troppo velocemente

Ogni anno l'acqua e i venti erodono circa 25 miliardi di tonnellate di terriccio e rocce dai continenti e li depositano negli oceani.  A questa velocità occorrerebbero solo 15 milioni di anni per erodere tutte le terre al di sopra del livello del mare. Eppure si suppone che la maggioranza delle terre sia rimasta sopra il livello del mare per centinaia di milioni di anni. Le teorie che sostengono l'innalzamento della crosta terrestre per l'alleggerimento dovuto all'erosione sono inadeguate per compensare queste discrepanze.

Il magnetismo terrestre sta decadendo troppo in fretta
L'energia immagazzinata nel campo magnetico della terra si è abbassata costantemente di un fattore 2.7 negli ultimi mille anni. Con teorie complesse ed inadeguate l'evoluzionismo cerca di spiegare questo rapido calo e come la terra abbia potuto mantenere il suo campo magnetico per miliardi di anni.
Esiste una teoria creazionista più chiara e semplice che spiega questo fenomeno basandosi su dottrine fisiche e che combacia con i dati paleomagnetici, storici ed odierni.
Il risultato principale è che l'energia del campo (non l'intensità locale) è sempre diminuita almeno con la stessa velocità di oggi. Questo significa che il campo magnetico non può essere più vecchio di 10.000 anni. 

Non c'é abbastanza elio nell'atmosfera
Tutte le famiglie di elementi radioattivi esistenti in natura generano elio durante il loro decadimento. Se questo decadimento ha luogo per milioni di anni, come afferma l'evoluzionismo, una grande quantità di questo gas avrebbe dovuto trasferirsi nell'atmosfera. Considerando la bassa quantità di elio che sfugge dall'atmosfera verso lo spazio e ipotizzando che non ve ne fosse all'inizio, ci sarebbero voluti meno di 2 milioni di anni perché si accumulasse la piccola quantità di elio presente oggi nell'aria. Ciò significa che l'atmosfera è molto più giovane dei 5 miliardi di anni ipotizzati dall'evoluzionismo, ma in armonia con la tesi di una creazione recente (6.000-10.000 anni) di un'atmosfera già funzionante.

    Le galassie si avvolgono su loro stesse troppo in fretta
    Le comete si disintegrano troppo velocemente

Le galassie si avvolgono su loro stesse troppo in fretta
Le stelle della nostra galassia, la Via Lattea, ruotano intorno al centro della galassia con velocità differenti e le più interne ruotano più rapidamente che le esterne. Le velocità di rotazione osservate sono così elevate che se la nostra galassia fosse più vecchia di alcuni milioni di anni, non potrebbe avere la sua attuale forma a spirale, ma sarebbe un ammasso informe di stelle.  Eppure si suppone che la sua età sia di almeno 10 miliardi di anni. Gli evoluzionisti lo chiamano "il dilemma della spirale" e cercano di risolverlo con una complessa teoria di "onde di densità". Tale teoria, però, pone problemi concettuali e non è confermata dalle osservazioni. Lo stesso dilemma riguarda anche altre galassie ma esso non esisterebbe se le galassie fossero considerate di recente formazione.

Le comete si disintegrano troppo velocemente
Secondo la teoria evoluzionista, le comete dovrebbero avere la stessa età del sistema solare: circa 5 miliardi di anni.  Eppure, ogni volta che una cometa transita vicino al sole, perde così tanto del suo materiale che non potrebbero sopravvivere più a lungo di 100.000 anni. Alcune di esse mostrano un'età di circa 10.000 anni. Gli evoluzionisti spiegano questa discrepanza introducendo collisioni probabilistiche ed altre azioni che dovrebbero accadere molto di frequente, visto le centinaia di comete osservate. Fino ad oggi, però, nessuna di queste ipotesi è stata confermata da osservazioni o da calcoli scientifici. Copyright 2001.  Il testo può essere usato liberamente citando la fonte  - Edizione per il Web di Renato Gallo

Scientific Evidence for Creation   

A tremendous pyramid of evidence for design and recent creation is available for detailed study.
Romans 1:20 states: "For the invisible things of him from the creation are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse."
Scientific evidence for creation abounds in areas of objective observation. Scholars in various scientific disciplines have written about the incredible complexity in living systems and the structure of the universe. This complexity is beyond the possibility of natural development.
In the panel to the right, we begin with a brief summary of the Creation in Symphony Model by our Director.

Variant Protein Expression in Living Systems
Dependent upon Information Already
Present in Genome

            Original research carried out at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas in the mid-1990’s utilized the physical atmospheric parameters of the hyperbaric biosphere on premise.  Alteration of atmospheric parameters included increase of atmospheric pressure, oxygen and carbon dioxide ratios, and electromagnetic moment.  Under these alterations physical structure and protein expression of snake venom were significantly changed.  Comparison was made between ambient control conditions and hyperbaric biospheric  conditions. 

            In the independent analysis and correspondence related in the following pages some protein expressions were enhanced, some were diminished, some were eliminated, and some expressions not seen under ambient conditions were seen under hyperbaric conditions.

A.M. Coffee Track" In 1934 Mr. A.M. Coffee of Stinnett, Texas, a pumper for the Gulf Oil Company, discovered a trail of nine "human-like footprints" in series on a rock ledge about four miles out of town. He worked one of the tracks loose and took it home. After he showed the artifact to a few friends including his boss, various interested persons took the rest of the tracks from the site. The discovery created an instant controversy among archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists, because the sedimentary rock system of the entire area is geologically assigned Permian (assumed to be 225 million years old). CONTINUE
Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth" Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils...CONTINUE
Evidence for Creation (10 brief reasons)
The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive"...CONTINUE
The Earth's Magnetic Field
Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years...CONTINUE
Our Created Earth: Uniquely Designed for Life
Of all the lessons which the Earth continually teaches us, perhaps the most obvious...CONTINUE
Scientific Problems With Macroevolution: (Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )...CONTINUED
The largest quantities of woolly mammoth remains are found in Arctic and sub-arctic...CONTINUED
Carbon Dating
A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists...CONTINUED
Evidence for Creation
Scientific Allusions in Scripture
Carbon-14 and Recent Creation: Various data and numerical statistics are discussed. Properly understood, these data render C-14 dating techniques relatively reliable only within a few thousand years before present and point to a recent creation.
The Heavens and Recent Creation… Planet Earth travels 66,000 miles per hour as it orbits the sun. That specific speed perfectly offsets the sun’s gravitational pull and keeps earth’s orbit the proper distance from the sun. Earth’s magnetic field is affected by the sun’s rays, and any significant disruption of the earth-sun magnetic balance would bear consequences....CONTINUED

Various aspects of the creation model such as the effects of the electromagnetic field, pink light, ultraviolet filtration, energized water, etc. have been incorporated into various products ( pink eyeglasses, energized water and stun guns) being sold to the general public...more info...
A Moment in History...
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’
Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
MYSTERY SOLVED!  The mystery and confusion can now be laid to rest.  

A major discovery has been made in Glen Rose. During the 1930’s a talented rock craftsman named George Adams fabricated a couple of human footprints, along with several dinosaur footprints. These were sold to passing tourists in order to make money during the great depression. One of his “human” footprints was so good that he buried it when a Smithsonian representative began asking to see the “astounding discovery.”
The Adams family is held in high esteem among honorable citizens throughout the Glen Rose area. The most famous of the brothers was Ernest Tolbert Adams, an Oxford scholar and noted attorney. Ernest is credited with discovering the first dinosaur footprints and several human footprints in the sedimentary rocks of the Paluxy River. George Adams was well respected in his own right as a gifted painter and rock mason. I held extensive discussions with George’s daughter and son-in-law during my early years in Glen Rose. These good people were friends of the museum and, being familiar with their father’s skills, affirmed that none of the footprints in our possession were carved.
Each time our museum team discovers new human footprints in the sedimentary rock some evolutionist will refer to the 1930’s carved footprints, and erroneously claim that we have simply re-discovered one of those prints, or perhaps carved them ourselves. Such was the case in the recent discovery of the marvelous “Delk” footprint.
The mystery and confusion can now be laid to rest. Dennis Moore, a local pastor and friend of the museum, was searching through the rock and dirt at the old Adams home place. As the enclosed photo shows, he discovered the original carved footprint half buried near the cellar. With permission from the family we had CT Scans performed, and found no compression density under any of the carved print. All of our genuine footprints show clear density compression in the appropriate areas.
Thank you for your faithful support of our credible research and declaration of creation truth. We are pleased to be your representative in the cause for our Creator. Those familiar with surface crystallization of limestone deposits can readily see the lighter (denser) surface material. The carver cut through the crystallized surface material rendering the depression of a human-like footprint. Notice there is no lighter (denser) compression whatsoever under the carved contour.   

Illustrated Creation Model
The question is often asked, "What do you mean by the term creation model" ? A model is a framework around which observations and facts are organized. Thus, the creation model is a framework of information in which the universe and its living systems are explained as having been designed and sustained.
In the course of forty years involving Biblical and scientific research, our Director has formulated a composite Creation Model. Its basic tenets are held by leading creationists. In addition to these basic pillars, distinctive research programs have led to specific areas of refinement in this particular model. An outline of this model follows.

Creation Model- Session 1

Creation Model- Session 2

Creation Model- Session 3

Creation Model- Session 4

Creation Model- Session 5

Creation Model- Session 6

Creation Model- Session 7

Creation Model- Session 8

Creation Model- Session 9

Creation Model- Session 10

Creation Model- Session 11

Creation Model- Session 12

Creation Model- Session 13
All material copyright© 1998 by Carl E. Baugh

 The religious nature of evolution

by Carl Wieland

Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled 'The New Antievolutionism' (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) 1 These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science? , denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.

He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.

Ruse said this (emphasis added)

    'at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may .'

He went on to defend this unprovable assumption by the fact that, in his view, it works. Nevertheless, said Ruse,

    'evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.'

Further on, he said that one can't just say that evolution is science, creation is religion, period. One has to have some other 'coherence theory of truth, or something like that. I still think that one can certainly exclude creation science on those grounds'.

Law professor Phillip Johnson has severely criticized Ruse's anti-creation testimony at the 1982 Arkansas trial at which the sorts of admissions above failed to surface. Johnson quoted Ruse as stating that it is OK to say different things on this subject to different audiences

    'I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics … should recognize … that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.'

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. See The Religion of Humanism .
Related Articles

    A Who's Who of evolutionists

Related Media

    What all atheists need to believe
    15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 15
    CMI Teaching creationism is child abuse? (Part 3)
    CMI Teaching creationism is child abuse? (Part 2)
    CMI Teaching creationism is child abuse? (Part 1)


    A complete transcript of the talk is available online at and in print in Young, CC and Largent, MA, Evolution and Creationism A Documentary and Reference Guide , pages 253–260.

    Transcripts are also available from the (so-called) National Center for Science Education, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709–0477, USA (Cost $US1.00 plus postage). The NCSE is an organisation totally devoted to promoting evolution, with hardly a hint of real science like physics, chemistry, etc. See How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations? for information. Return to text

La natura religiosa dell'evoluzione

da Carl Wieland

Rinomato canadese scienza filosofo Dr Michael Ruse ha fatto ammissioni sorprendenti circa la natura religiosa di evoluzione in un simposio intitolato 'The New Antievolutionism' (nel corso della riunione annuale dell'Associazione Americana per l'Avanzamento della Scienza 1993.) 1 Queste dichiarazioni scioccato i suoi colleghi perché ha scritto un libro, ma è scienza?, denunciando creazionismo perché è religioso ed è stata l'ultima persona che dovrebbe dare il proprio gioco.

Egli apparve ad ammettere che l'evoluzione si basa sulla esclusione dogmatica di una miracolosa creazione / creator-in effetti, un impegno di fede al naturalismo, l', credenza religiosa indimostrabile che nessun elemento soprannaturale esiste o è rilevante.

Ruse ha detto che questo (il corsivo è mio)

    'A un certo livello di base, l'evoluzione come una teoria scientifica si impegna a una sorta di naturalismo, vale a dire che a un certo livello si va ad escludere miracoli e questo genere di cose, qualunque cosa accada.'

Ha continuato a difendere questa ipotesi indimostrabile dal fatto che, a suo parere, funziona. Tuttavia, ha detto Ruse,

    'Evoluzione, simile alla religione, consiste nel fare determinati a priori o metafisiche assunzioni, che a un certo livello non può essere provata empiricamente.'

Più avanti, ha detto che non si può solo dire che l'evoluzione è scienza, la creazione è la religione, periodo. Uno deve avere qualche altra 'teoria della coerenza della verità, o qualcosa del genere. Continuo a pensare che si può certamente escludere la scienza della creazione per questi motivi.

Legge professor Phillip Johnson ha duramente criticato anti-creazione testimonianza di Ruse al processo del 1982 dell'Arkansas in cui i tipi di ricoveri di cui sopra non è riuscito ad emergere. Johnson ha citato Ruse in quanto affermando che è OK per dire cose diverse su questo argomento a diversi tipi di pubblico

    'Voglio dire, mi rendo conto che quando si tratti di persone, diciamo, a livello di scuola, o questo genere di cose, certi tipi di argomenti sono appropriate. Ma quelli di noi che sono gli accademici ... dovrebbero riconoscere ... che il lato la scienza ha alcune ipotesi metafisiche incorporati nel fare scienza, che, non può essere una buona cosa per ammettere in tribunale, ma credo che in onestà che dovremmo riconoscere, e che dovremmo pensare su alcuni di questi tipi di cose '.

Molte persone non si rendono conto che l'insegnamento dell'evoluzione propaga una religione anti-biblica. Vedere La religione dell'Umanesimo .
Articoli correlati

    Chi di A Chi di evoluzionisti

Media correlati

    Che tutti gli atei hanno bisogno di credere
    15 Domande per evoluzionisti - domanda 15
    CMI Insegnare il creazionismo è pedofilia? (Parte 3)
    CMI Insegnare il creazionismo è pedofilia? (Parte 2)
    CMI Insegnare il creazionismo è pedofilia? (Parte 1)


    Una trascrizione completa del discorso è disponibile online all'indirizzo e in stampa in Young, CC e Largent, MA, evoluzionismo e creazionismo A Documentary Guida di riferimento e, pagine 253-260 .

Gli evoluzionisti sostengono che il dibattito tra di loro e creazionisti è un dibattito tra scienza e religione . Propaganda a questo effetto è così pervasivo abbiamo chiesto il permesso di Answers in Genesis ministeri gruppo , e l'editore , Master Books , Inc. , di pubblicare un intero capitolo del libro Menzogna  Evolution sul ​​nostro sito web per confutare questo . Questo capitolo contiene alcune buone argomentazioni per spiegare perché l'evoluzione deve essere correttamente visto come religione . Ci sono argomenti supplementari non presentate in questo capitolo del libro . Si prega di prendere il tempo per leggerlo nella sua interezza . Meglio ancora , acquistare una copia del libro e vedere tutte le prove convincenti supplementare prevede il motivo per cui il dibattito evoluzione / creazionismo è di importanza critica per i cristiani di oggi . Siamo profondamente grati a Answers in Genesis e Maestro Books , Inc. , per averci permesso di pubblicare questo sul nostro sito web .


Vedi anche questi link  Avvertenze da Dio su Evolution
  EVOLUTION è la religione, non la scienza
  La religione dell'Umanesimo evolutiva e le scuole pubbliche

Capitolo 2
Evolution è religione

Il termine " evoluzionista " è ampiamente utilizzato durante i seguenti capitoli . In altre parti di questo libro , discuteremo le idee di cristiani che cercano di sposare i concetti di evoluzione e la Bibbia . Tuttavia, poiché la maggior parte degli evoluzionisti non sono cristiani , vorrei che il lettore comprenda che il termine " evoluzionista " viene usato per indicare coloro che credono che l'evoluzione - nel senso del tempo , il caso e lotta per la sopravvivenza - piuttosto che il Dio della Bibbia è responsabile per la vita.

Nella rivista ufficiale della filiale South Australian degli scettici australiani ( questa organizzazione ha obiettivi simili ai gruppi umanisti americani ) , le intere 30 pagine di The Skeptic meridionale , Volume 2 Numero 5 , autunno 1985 , sono state dedicate ad un attacco alla creazione ministero della scienza in Australia e negli Stati Uniti . Nell'ultima pagina , leggiamo quanto segue  . "Anche se tutte le prove ha finito per sostenere qualsiasi teorie scientifiche migliore montati Genesi , ciò dimostrerebbe soltanto come intelligente la vecchia Ebrei erano nel loro uso del buon senso , o che fortuna non lo fa bisogno di essere spiegato da Dio non osservabile ". Queste persone che attaccano con veemenza il ministero creazione nel dire che siamo un gruppo religioso sono essi stessi un gruppo religioni. Hanno davvero detto che anche se tutte le prove ha sostenuto il libro della Genesi che ancora non avrebbero creduto che fosse un documento autorevole . Stanno lavorando dal presupposto che la Bibbia non è la Parola di Dio , né può mai essere . Essi credono , non importa quale sia la prova che Dio non esiste . Queste stesse persone sono più fermamente convinto che l'evoluzione è un dato di fatto .

L'evoluzione è fondamentalmente una filosofia religiosa . Siamo nei ministeri creazione stiamo spiegando alla gente che sia la creazione ed evoluzione sono opinioni religiose di vita su cui le persone costruiscono i loro modelli particolari di filosofia, di scienza o di storia . La questione , dunque , non è scienza contro la religione , ma la religione contro la religione ( la scienza di una religione contro la scienza di un'altra religione ) .

Il famoso evoluzionista Teodosio Dobzhanksy ( The Biology Teacher americano , il volume 35 , numero 3 , marzo 1973 , pagina 129) cita Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  "L'evoluzione è una luce che illumina tutti i fatti , una traiettoria che tutte le linee di pensiero devono seguire . " Per il cristiano , naturalmente, questo è una diretta negazione dei detti di Gesù , come citato in Giovanni 812 ( NR )  . "Io sono la luce del mondo, chi segue me, non camminerà nelle tenebre , ma avrà la luce della vita ". In Isaia 205 ( NR ) siamo esortati a " camminare nella luce del Signore. " Nel versetto 22 dello stesso capitolo leggiamo "Stop confidando nell'uomo .... "

Non ci vuole molto sforzo per dimostrare che l'evoluzione non è scienza , ma la religione . Scienza , naturalmente , ha coinvolto osservazione , utilizzando uno o più dei nostri cinque sensi ( gusto , vista , olfatto , udito, tatto) di acquisire la conoscenza del mondo e di essere in grado di ripetere le osservazioni . Naturalmente , si può osservare che ciò che esiste nel presente. Si tratta di un compito facile da capire che nessuno scienziato era presente nel corso di milioni di anni suggerite ad assistere alla progressione evolutiva presunta vita formare il semplice al complesso . Nessun scienziati viventi era lì per osservare la prima vita formando in qualche mare primordiale . Nessuno scienziato vivente era lì per osservare il Big Bang che si suppone sia avvenuta 10 o 20 miliardi di anni fa , né la formazione presunta della Terra 4,5 miliardi anni fa ( o anche 10.000 anni fa ! ) . Nessun scienziati c'era - no testimonianza umana era lì per vedere questi eventi si verificano . Certamente non possono essere ripetuti oggi.

Tutte le prove a scienziati ha esiste solo nel presente. Tutti i fossili , gli animali vivi e le piante , il mondo , l'universo - in realtà, tutto , esiste ora - nel presente. La persona media ( compresa la maggior parte degli studenti ) non viene insegnato che gli scienziati hanno solo il presente e non possono trattare direttamente con il passato . Evolution è un sistema di credenze del passato sulla base delle parole degli uomini che non erano lì , ma che stanno cercando di spiegare come tutte le prove del presente ( cioè , fossili , animali e piante , ecc ) è nato . ( Dizionario Webster definisce la religione come segue  " ... la causa , principio o sistema di credenze detenute sino a con ardore e la fede . " Certo , questa è una descrizione adatta di evoluzione . ) Evolution è un sistema di credenze - una religione !

Ossa fossili di non venire con piccole etichette attaccate ti dice quanti anni hanno . Né fossili sono le fotografie con loro che ti dice ciò che gli animali sembravano come popolavano la terra molto tempo fa .

Quando la gente visita un museo che si confrontano con frammenti di ossa e altri fossili ordinatamente disposti in teche di vetro . Questi sono spesso accompagnate da immagini che rappresentano l'impressione di un artista di ciò che gli animali e le piante avrebbero guardato come nel loro ambiente naturale . Ricordate , nessuno scavato l'immagine , solo i fossili . Ed esistono questi fossili nel presente. Ad esempio , in Tasmania c'è un letto di arenaria contenente milioni di pezzi di ossa , la maggior parte delle quali di dimensioni non superiori alla fine del vostro pollice . Gli evoluzionisti hanno messo una foto in un particolare scavo in modo che i turisti possono vedere come gli animali e le piante vivevano nella regione " milioni di anni fa . " È possibile guardare quei pezzi di ossa per tutto il tempo che vuoi , ma non vedrete mai il quadro gli scienziati hanno disegnato. L'immagine è la loro storia della propria parzialità preconcette , e che, in definitiva , è tutto ciò che mai può essere.

Quando conferenze nelle scuole e nelle università , mi piace chiedere agli studenti cosa si può imparare da un deposito fossile . Chiedo agli studenti se tutti gli animali e le piante contenute nei depositi vivevano insieme , sono morti insieme , o sono stati sepolti insieme . Ho poi avverto loro per assicurarsi che la risposta che mi danno è coerente con la vera ricerca scientifica . Come pensano in proposito , si sono resi conto che non sanno se gli organismi vivevano insieme perché non vedono accadere . Non sanno se gli organismi morti insieme perché non vedono che questo accada sia. Tutti sanno veramente è che sono sepolti insieme perché sono stati trovati insieme . Pertanto, se si tenta di ricostruire l'ambiente in cui gli organismi vivevano proprio da quello che si trova lì , si potrebbe fare un terribile errore . L' uso corretto della scienza ha bisogno di essere enfatizzato nel nostro sistema educativo .

L'unico modo in cui si poteva sempre essere sicuri di arrivare alla giusta conclusione di qualsiasi cosa , comprese le origini , dipende da quello di sapere tutto quello che c'è da sapere . A meno che non sapeva che ogni bit di prove era disponibile, non avrebbe mai potuto davvero essere sicuri che nessuna delle sue conclusioni erano di destra . Non avrebbe mai saputo quali ulteriori elementi di prova ci potrebbe essere da scoprire e , quindi , se questo avrebbe cambiato le sue conclusioni . Né può una persona mai sapere se avesse raggiunto il punto in cui ha avuto tutte le prove . Questo è un problema reale per qualsiasi essere umano - come può mai essere al cento per cento sicuro di niente ? Si tratta di una sorta di dilemma , non è vero ? E ' come guardare un misterioso omicidio in televisione. Cosa succede ? È ovvio . A metà lo spettatore sa chi l'ha fatto - il maggiordomo . Verso la fine , questa conclusione è ancora evidente . Tre minuti prima della fine , la nuova prova è ammesso che non avevi prima, e questo cambia totalmente le vostre conclusioni . Non era il maggiordomo , dopo tutto !

Tuttavia, a partire con la prova inconfutabile delle Scritture , ci viene detto che in Dio Padre e il suo Cristo " ... sono nascosti tutti i tesori della sapienza e della scienza " (Colossesi 203 ) . Non c'è modo qualsiasi mente umana può sapere tutto quello che c'è da sapere . Ma abbiamo qualcuno che lo fa. Questo finisce il nostro dilemma . Siamo in nessun dubbio che ciò che Dio ha rivelato nella Sua Parola sono veritiere e accurate . Egli non è un uomo da poter mentire ( Numeri 2319 ) su qualsiasi cosa . Con il tempo , ne sapremo di più completamente . Si aggiungerà alla nostra conoscenza , ma lui non cambierà quello che la sua parola ha già rivelato .

La storia è stata raccontata di una persona che tornò al suo professore universitario molti anni dopo aver conseguito la laurea in Economia . Ha chiesto di esaminare le domande del test che stavano usando ora . Fu sorpreso di vedere che erano praticamente le stesse domande è stato chiesto quando era uno studente . Il professore ha poi detto che sebbene le domande erano le stesse le risposte sono state completamente diversa !

Una volta ho discusso con un professore di geologia da un American University su un programma radiofonico . Ha detto che l'evoluzione è vera scienza , perché gli evoluzionisti erano pronti a cambiare continuamente le loro teorie hanno trovato nuovi dati . Egli ha detto che la creazione non è scienza perché vista di un creazioniste sono stati fissati dalla Bibbia e , quindi , non erano soggette a modifiche .

Ho risposto , "La ragione teorie scientifiche cambiano è perché non sappiamo tutto , non è vero ? Non abbiamo tutte le prove . "
"Sì , è vero ", ha detto .
Io risposi  "Ma , non lo sapremo mai tutto . "
«È vero », rispose lui .
Allora ho detto  " Saremo sempre continuare a trovare nuove prove . "
" Abbastanza corretto , " ha detto. Ho risposto  " Ciò significa che non possiamo essere sicuri di niente . "
"Giusto , " ha detto.
"Ciò significa che non possiamo essere sicuri di evoluzione . "
" Oh, no ! L'evoluzione è un dato di fatto », sbottò . E 'stato catturato dalla sua propria logica . Stava dimostrando come la sua visione è stata determinata dalla sua polarizzazione .

I modelli della scienza sono soggette a modifiche sia per i creazionisti ed evoluzionisti . Ma le convinzioni che questi modelli sono costruiti su non lo sono.

Il problema è che la maggior parte degli scienziati non si rendono conto che è la convinzione ( o la religione ) di evoluzione che è la base per i modelli scientifici ( le interpretazioni , o storie ) utilizzato per tentare una spiegazione del presente. Gli evoluzionisti non sono disposti a cambiare il loro credo effettivo che ogni vita può essere spiegata da processi naturali e che Dio non è coinvolto ( o addirittura necessaria) . Evolution è la religione a cui si sono impegnati . I cristiani hanno bisogno di svegliarsi a questa . L'evoluzione è una religione , non è una scienza !

Evolutionists claim that the debate between themselves and creationists is a debate between science and religion. Propaganda to this effect is so pervasive we asked permission of Answers in Genesis ministries group, and the publisher, Master Books, Inc., to publish an entire chapter from the book the Lie Evolution on our web site to refute this. This chapter contains some good arguments as to why evolution should properly be viewed as religion. There are additional arguments not presented in this chapter of the book. Please take the time to read it in its entirety. Better yet, purchase a copy of the book and see all the additional compelling evidence it provides for why the evolution/creationism debate is of critical importance for Christians today. We are profoundly grateful to Answers in Genesis and Master Books, Inc., for allowing us to publish this on our web site.


Also see these links     Warnings from God about Evolution
      The religion of evolutionary Humanism and the public schools

Chapter 2
Evolution is Religion

The term "evolutionist" is used extensively throughout the following chapters. In other parts of this book, we will discuss the ideas of Christians who try to marry the concepts of evolution and the Bible. However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Skeptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhanksy (The American Biology Teacher, volume 35, number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 812 (NIV) "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." In Isaiah 25 (NIV) we are exhorted to "walk in the light of the Lord." In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, "Stop trusting in man...."

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

Fossil bones to not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist's impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment. Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present. For example, in Tasmania there is a sandstone bed containing millions of pieces of bones, most of which are no larger than the end of your thumb. The evolutionists have placed a picture at one particular excavation so that tourists can see how the animals and plants lived in the region "millions of years ago." You can stare at those pieces of bones for as long as you like, but you will never see the picture the scientists have drawn. The picture is their story of their own preconceived bias, and that, ultimately, is all it ever can be.

When lecturing in schools and colleges, I like to ask the students what can be learned from a fossil deposit. I ask the students whether all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together. I then warn them to make sure that the answer they give me is consistent with true scientific research. As they think about it, they come to realize that they do not know if the organisms lived together because they did not see it happen. They do not know if the organisms died together because they did not see that happen either. All they really know is that they are buried together because they were found together. Therefore, if you try reconstructing the environment in which the organisms lived just from what you find there, you could be making a terrible mistake. The correct use of science needs to be emphasized in our educational system.

The only way one could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he could never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions. Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence. This is a real problem for any human being--how can he ever be one hundred percent sure about anything? It is something of a dilemma, is it not? It is like watching a murder mystery on television. What happens? It is obvious. Halfway through the viewer knows who did it--the butler. Towards the end, this conclusion is still obvious. Three minutes before the end, new evidence is admitted that you did not have before, and this totally changes your conclusions. It wasn't the butler after all!

However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures, we are told that in God the Father and His Christ" ... are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 23). There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have Someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 2319) about anything. In time, we will know more fully. He will add to our knowledge, but He will not change what His word has already revealed.

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!








[Job 38:4-7]:

(v. 4) "Where were you [Job] when I [God] laid the earth's foundation? Tell Me, if you understand.

(v. 5) Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know? Who stretched a measuring line across it?

(v. 6) On what were its footing set, or Who laid its cornerstone -

(v. 7) while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"


[Dr Carl E. Baugh states, op cit, p.65]:

"According to the observation of radioastrophysicists, stars, by radio wave context, are 'singing' to us....

..Stars throughout the universe are emitting radio wave energy... these stars emitting radio wave energy, but that there is music on those radio waves of energy.... not only is music emitted, but the music being emitted is in a major key. The music being emitted from these stars is harmonious. NASA compared the music being emitted from these star sources to the instruments of an orchestral creation. It seems that everywhere we look, creation is orchestrated. Recently, with some special plasma ionized research units, NASA found that Neptune and some of the other planets in our solar system emit a signal which sounds like whistling, as if it were whistling a tune...

...First of all, there was a firmament of water above the earth in crystalline form. Crystals take on very special characteristics. When energized with a current of electromagnetic energy, crystals amplify long radio waves. Each morning before the Flood, as the earth turned toward the sun, when the angle was just right, the energized radio waves reaching the earth through the universe were amplified by the crystalline firmament canopy. Each morning before the Flood the radio wave signals from these stars, or 'music,' could be heard on Earth.

Light energy does something to the human body and to all life forms, even if it cannot be seen. In the early hours of the morning, as the fiber optic nature of this crystalline canopy above the earth was transferring light from the sunny side of the globe, it would have very gently enhanced that light. If an individual were asleep, and could not see the light, as the light were enhanced that individual would begin to stir, for the light would be received in the biologic mechanism of his body. Light would gently induce the individual awake.

The crystalline water in the firmament canopy before the Flood would filter out the harmful shortwave radiation. The canopy would permit the long waves of energy to go right through it. In fact, the long waves of energy would not only be able to pass through the canopy, but would be enhanced, or amplified by it. While the individual sleeping before the Flood was gently induced awake by the light, about dawn he would also have been greeted by the amplified sound of the radio wave energy being emitted by the stars.

NASA had found that there are bursts of energy from these sources, but there would also be sustains, crescendos, diminshes, and terminations. There would be new music every day."




[Gen 1:1-2]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(v. 2) And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."]

[Mr Baugh, op cit, p.43, states]:

"These verses [Gen 1:1-2] show that even on the first day of creation, before God created light, God created the earth in a watery form. This is extremely important.

Studies done by renowned physicists, such as Dr. Russell Humphreys, show that each molecule of water possesses a small electromagnetic field. When these molecules are aligned, the result is a composite electromagnetic charge of all the molecules of water that are aligned. When all of these molecules are in composite alignment, you have the composite energy of all of the molecules.

God began by creating the earth first in all the universe, even before creating the electromagnetic spectrum of light into the heavenly bodies, such as the sun and the stellar heavens....

[There is strong indication that] God first created the earth as a sphere of water... The life forms that God would create on day number three [vegetation, plants, trees], being in botanical form, would require this water. On day number five, God would design the fish and fowl. Each of these creatures would require this water. On day number six, God would create insects, dinosaurs, man, and woman before the day was finished.

[Dr Carl E. Baugh states, op cit, p. 46]:

"On day number three God would create the other elements in perfect balance. He created the botanical life forms, full-bloomed, with the seeds within the life form.... In Genesis 1:6-8.... "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

It is obvious from the Biblical context that this firmament included two composite layers of water, adjacent on each side with a firmament in the middle. Some Biblical exegetes have suggested that perhaps this firmament referred to the expanse, and the water on the surface of the earth was in one composite form. They also maintain that we had a bubble of water approximately eleven miles above the earth as a second layer. However, the clear scriptural mandate is that this entire firmament was encased by layers of water on both sides as a composite part of the firmament. Later, the scripture describes the seas and oceans on the surface of the earth.

We can, therefore envision a model of the firmament approximately eleven miles above the surface of the earth. We believe the firmament was approximately eleven miles above the surface, because there exists a heat sink at that elevation. It is between -130 degrees Fahrenheit and -180 degrees Fahrenheit at that elevation. Nearer to the earth it is warmer, and further from the earth it is warmer for at least some space. If we were to amass the amounts of water present on Earth, and assimilate the greater amount of water within the earth, this would leave the approximate remainder of a ten-to-twenty-feet thick lineal dimension double encasement of water in solid crystalline form as the firmament....

Here we have a firmament, not just water in cloud or vaporous form, but in solid form.

Note that there are a number of presumptions made in this study in order to draw these conclusions, not the least of which is that conditions on the earth were dramatically different before multiple earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., caused the catastrophic the worldwide flood. If the proposed temperature range at eleven miles up is incorrect in this age, the possibility of it being that cold in the preflood period or the location of the canopy in the mesosphere allows for a solid, superfrozen water canopy to exist at that time. The superfrozen ice canopy was presumed in the study to be causal to the higher air pressure which afforded the superlarge lifeforms and extraordinarily long lifespans. In any case, if the conditions in the preflood age supported such a canopy, then a key source of the flood and the existence of super large life forms, as fossils indicate, and longer lifespans, etc., are corroborated. But know that since we cannot measure all the parameters today because the earth is so different, in order to support this solid canopy model, (not a theory), then we will have to wait and see how God did this when He creates the new heavens and the new earth. So far this seems the most plausible explanation that does not border so heavily on science fiction.

[Joseph C. Dillow, 'The Waters Above', Moody Press, Chicago, 1981, p. 63]:

"The amount of rain in the flood. A final reason for understanding the 'waters above' as a heavenly ocean and not as clouds is that only such an ocean of water could have supplied sufficient water to maintain a forty-day global rainfall...

The maximum amount of water that can be maintained in clouds in our entire present atmosphere is only about 10.54 cm for a saturated atmosphere with a sea level temperature of 28 degress Celesius. That amounts to 4.14 inches or a forty-day rainfall rate of 0.00431 inches per hour - haredly a torrential downpour.

The Hebrew context shows that the water and the firmament are in a very special form. It was apparently in crystalline form - pure, transparent, relatively thin ice. It was probably no more than twenty feet thick at best. The Hebrew word used to describe this firmament is really quite astounding. In fact, if we do not follow the Hebrew literally, our model does not work at all. The biblical record has to be literal, or it really isn't verifiable. This firmament had to be of literal composite, just as the scripture stated.

The word used in the Hebrew to describe the firmament is "raqiya" ...[which] means to compress or pound out, and stretch out this arch of heaven in thin metal sheets....

[Dillow, Ibid, p. 63]:

"[The Septuagint] translated the Hebrew word rãqîa by the Greek word stereõma, which was used in classical Greek to express a solid body and not an empty expanse. It had the idea of a vault of heaven as an embossed bowl."

[Baugh, cont.]:

"On day number one, God concluded the creation of the day by saying: 'It was good.' On days three through six, He also concluded the days' creations by saying: 'It was good.' However, on day number two, God did not say that it was good.....

on day number one, He had already pronounced it as good....

He did not create new elements on day number two; He simply used the elements He created on day number one - the elements of hydrogen and oxygen.

Many very fine scientific creation researchers have envisioned for decades that there was a greenhouse effect before the Flood, and in all probability, there was. They envisioned that there was water vapor, perhaps in cloud form, above the earth.

However, if we simply use the vaporous form of water, the scriptural mandate in Genesis 1:14-18 cannot be fulfilled, because it says the stars were 'set' or enhanced - added in full dimension to this firmament. If the firmament cover had simply been water vapor, the stars would only have been seen in approximately eighty percent of the detail that we see today. Yet the Biblical record says that they were enhanced. The original Hebrew word used is the word "nathan". The literal translation means that they were added and yielded in full dimension within this firmament. The only way this could have worked is for the word "raqiya" to have a literal meaning.

["raqiya" = compress or pound out, and stretch out in thin metal sheets]

Researcher Dan Cook spoke to one of the physicists involved in the hydrogen bomb project at Laurence Livermore National Laboratories. That physicist related to him that the scientists there, some years back, took the elements of water and compressed them under supercold, cryogenic circumstances. Hydrogen became near-metallic in form, and took on the characteristics of metal. It became crystalline, transparent, fiber optic, superconductive, and ferromagnetic. All of these characteristics have tremendous implications.

The hydrogen in the water was compressed and energized, and the pressure held in stasis form because of the crystalline ice on each side; for the Biblical record states that God made the firmament in the middle, with water above and water beneath. Under such supercold circumstances where great pressure exists, in addition to tremendous energy, hydrogen takes on metallic characteristics. Envision the earth before the Flood, with a firmament consisting of compressed energized hydrogen taking on near-metallic characteristics, in the middle of a solid water formation suspended about eleven miles above the earth. This configuration would have done some wonderful things.

On day number four, when the sun was created, the energy of the sun upon this hydrogen would have caused a gently pink coloration in the sky; at sunrise and sunset there would have been a vivid pink coloration; and at midnight there would have been a magenta pink sky. In other words, the sky before the Flood was never totally dark.

[Dr. Carl E. Baugh states, op cit, p.51]:

"The biblical record states that God made the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. We have assumed for centuries that the greater light was the sun and the lesser light was the moon. The moon certainly bears an impact on and, to some degree, affects the earth. The moon does not always remain in visual form, however. The lesser light ruling the night, consequently, was not only the moon, even though the moon certainly has a purpose in the orchestrated model. The lesser light ruling the night included transfer of energy from the day side of the earth along the lines of this "raqiya" firmament. The electromagnetic energy was carried along the elemental lines of near-metallic hydrogen, which was fiber optic in nature. This would cause a twilight glow on the night side of the earth, while on the day side of the earth the greater light would literally rule the day.

The statement is made that this light 'ruled the day.' Scientists and researchers are finding that the most important color in the entire spectrum is pink. This is the color that is produced by energized hydrogen. They find that plants grow better under pink light and that individuals respond in mood to pink light. Researchers have found that when a person is affected by the right spectrum of pink light, the brain secretes norepinephren. Norepinephren is a natural tranquilizer and neurotransmitter. Before the Flood, man was dominated by various spectra of pink light. The tranquility of ...his environment offered him the ability to have his brain work at maximum efficiency. The firmament made that possible with a gentle pink glow in various spectral forms, with the greater light ruling the day and the lesser light ruling the night. God made a wonderful orchestral creation, and man ultimately received the full benefit....

There are records, archaeologically discerned, among many cultures which refer to a time in the past when the sky 'hung low'....

...physicists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories took the element of hydrogen (an element of water) and compressed it under super cold temperatures. When the pressure reached a certain degree under diamond points, the hydrogen took on near-metallic characteristics: superconductive, transparent, fiber optic, ferromagnetic, and crystalline in form....

The Hebrew word for firmament is 'raqiya', which means to press, or pound together into thin metal sheets. This is the explanation of how the canopy, or arch of heaven, was formed and stretched out around the world in thin metal sheets.... of the elements in water (hydrogen) binds together in a crystalline lattice. Under such pressurized transformation, the hydrogen in water takes on the characteristics as described in the Biblical account of creation.

We are informed in Genesis 1:16 that the greater light was to rule the day and the lesser light was to rule the night. The transfer of light, fiber optically, means that the greater penetration of light during the day would produce varying shades of pink, and the lesser light of night would produce a deeper shade of pink, in addition to an enhanced moon.

Biologists have found that the greatest plant growth is encouraged under pink light. Further investigation has revealed that it is pink light which optimally triggers the growth of cells within plants.....

A contributing factor to the enormous size of plant life before the Flood was energized hydrogen in the firmament giving off the pinkish glow.

The enormous size of plant life in the antediluvian world also dictated the size of certain forms of animal life, or dinosaurs.

[Dr Baugh, op. cit., p.56-64]:

On day number six, the final animal life was created, and in order to keep the vegetation in balance, such huge plant eating creatures were required. After the Flood, the decline in the size and abundance of plant life would not have supported the dinosaurs for very long. Even elephants today in Africa are threatened by the lack of needed vegetation to support Reduced partial pressure in the atmosphere played an even greater role in the demise of the dinosaur.

In the world before the Flood, the light would be at its lowest pink hue at high noon because of the angle of the light passing through the firmament. But, just as important, envision the firmament - this double bubble of crystalline water - and the effect it would have upon the atmospheric pressure. The atmosphere would be pressurized to a greater degree than we now have. Researchers, like Dr. Henry Voss, at the University of Illinois, have been able to approximate the atomic weight of such a canopy. This crystalline canopy would put a cap on the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure today at sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch. Before the Flood, the air pressure would have been about two times what it is today....

...The ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere would have been about thirty percent, compared to twenty-one percent today. Some researchers have concluded that due to the pre-Flood atmospheric conditions which had greater amounts of oxygen, man could have run up to two hundred miles without suffering fatigue. It has been discovered in hyperbaric medical chamber experiments that under these circumstances, an open wound would heal overnight. It is therefore understandable how man could have lived to be several hundred years old, even after the fall, in this pre-Flood world, Heavier air pressure and more oxygen in the atmosphere were conducive to longer life.

Another factor in the pre-Flood environment which was in man's favor was less radiation from the sun. The canopy above the earth acted as a filter to trap most of the short-wave radiation. It is the short-wave radiation that is causing man many problems today....

before the Flood, almost all ot the harmful radiation would have been filtered out by the water canopy.

Today, because of harmful short-wave radiation man suffers genetic damage, cancer, and other health damage factors that shorten the lifespan. Also, there are certain microbes and disease germs that xould not live in the pre-Flood atmosphere. In addition, there was a mist each morning that sided the oxygenation of the entire water table. More oxygen in the water would account for great whales, great sharks, and the chambered nautilus marine life forms that were gargantuan [in]...size. The fossil record bears evidence that such creatures existed; but, without more oxygen in the waters today, they could not live in contemporary oceans, seas, or rivers. The theory of evolution does not provide an answer as to how such enormous marine monsters lived, but the creation model does provide an answer...

...An additional beneficial characteristic would be the extra oxygen in the atmosphere, and with the great assimilation of oxygen in the air, man was possibly twenty percent larger than he is today. Adam and Noah were probably about seven feet tall, and there were others who were even taller.

In the sixth chapter of Genesis, we read that there were giants on the earth before the Flood. At Glen Rose, Texas, we have excavated some of the footprints of those giants. Their footprints were preserved as they walked over the muddy sediment in the early phases of the Noahic Flood.

The environmental context before the Flood would exercise the full genetic viability for all life forms. [Full genetic viability ? the full capacity of a species to produce characteristics within its own species - without changing such.] For example, today the dragonfly - which is a superior helicopter - has a wingspan not exceeding six inches. But in the fossil record, dragonflies have been found with wingspans of up to thirty-six inches. But in the fossil record, dragonflies have been found with wingspans of up to thirty-six inches. There has to be an explanation as to how at some point in time dragonflies grew to such gigantic dimensions. It would certainly require a greater concentration of oxygen. Conditions that would support such monstrous life forms, even in the insect world, scientifically dictate that there had to be such a canopy above the earth. In order to provide that much oxygen would have to approach the level of toxicity, unless the atmospheric pressure was greater. Again, such an atmospheric condition can only be explained in terms of a firmament. Therefore, we have to follow the Biblical record of creation specifically or the environmental chain breaks into unconnected parts.

The greater atmospheric pressure, with approximately thirty percent oxygen, would have created optimal conditions. Thus, dragonflies could have grown to a size supporting a thirty-six inch wingspan.

Consider another illustration. In West Texas, there has been found a fossilized pterodactyl, a flying reptile, with a wingspan of fifty-two feet. There is no way this flying dinosaur (as it has been called) could have flown with the current atmospheric pressure. It would have been utterly impossible. But, with an atmospheric pressure of approximately thirty-two pounds per square inch, this flying pterodactyl would have had a field day...

..a firmament of compressed hydrogen held in place by a layer of crystalline water which would keep the temperature at a consistent level....

..NASA had discovered in the examination of superconductive materials that when held near a magnet, the lines of force generated in the free flow of electromagnetic energy hold the materials in place, either above it or below it. In other words, researchers have not been able to find a mechanism for holding up a water canopy unless that water canopy has exactly what the Biblical record clearly describes: a superconductive solid metallic base. Hydrogen would be such a base under these circumstances, and with a free flow of electrons, it would support itself above the dipole magnet of the earth. All the laws of physics known in current research show that this would simply support itself above the earth, and it would be held there until warmer temperatures would moderate its enclosure...

..A superconductive canopy of compressed hydrogen in near-metallic form was encased above and below in crystalline water. The stars were shining at a distance, a startling characteristic of the pre-Flood world. In Genesis 1:14-18, the stellar heavens are described. The stars are in color, and the Biblical record states that God set the stars in the firmament. The ancients described the firmament as a vault above the earth, and the stars were placed in this vault. This is not what the Biblical record says to us. The Biblical record states very clearly that God 'set' the stars in the firmament much as a jeweler would enhance a diamond by placing it on a background of black velvet. The word 'set' is taken from the Hebrew word 'nathan'; it means 'to add and yield.' In other words, the stars are not physically placed in the firmament, because they are great distances away. But, as light from the stars penetrates the firmament, there is a very strong magnetic field in the middle; it is superconductive without any resistance to the flow of electrons. On each side is an electromagnetic field charged to a lesser degree in the crystalline water formation. What is then presented in a pressurized form on each side is a photomultiplier. Each photon of light which strikes the configuration is multiplied by ten because of the interaction in the atoms. On the earth side of the canopy, the stars were seen with ten times the photons that the light brought to the outer surface of the canopy. Before the Flood, the stars were seen by man as being about three times brighter than they are seen today. In other words, in the firmament, God set the stars, or added and yielded their dimensions in full color.

NASA has found that when a red filter is used in space, the stars appear in beautiful color. This is exciting because God put the stellar bodies in space for signs, for days, for months, and for years. We understand that by observing the rotation of the earth in relation to the movement of the sun and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, we can tell times. But now we can perceive that with the enhancement of the light, those before the Flood could, by the configuration of the stars, tell time at any moment. They would not need a Rolex watch; they would have something far better.

Before the Flood, Earth's inhabitants never saw total darkness. Research has indicated that the temperature would have been about seventy-eight degrees Fahrenheit during the day. Imagine superior man with a perfect environment, perfect food with complete nutrients, no harmful radiation from space, and disease microbes held in check. The pre-Flood world was, in our understanding today, paradise.


[Dr. Carl Baugh, op. cit., p. 68-71]:

"In the orchestral creation model as described in part in Job 38, God said there were foundations to the earth, and that there were elements in perfect balance. Inside the earth there existed the radioisotopes in perfect balance with moderators, such as iridium, strontium, rubidium, radioisotopic lead, and uranium in perfect balance with maganese, water, sulpher, magnesium, and other elemental moderators. Under those circumstances, inside the earth there would have existed a perfectly controlled nuclear reaction. Not only would there have been a nuclear reactor, but with the elements placed in perfect balance, there would have been what physicists now call a breeder reactor. You would have ended up with as many elements as you started with, as long as there was a constant energy input into the system. The constant energy input was generated throughout the celestial heavens, and received into the crystalline firmament canopy; and the primary electromagnetic field of the canopy transferred this energy supply would have been continuously restructured and replaced. Under those circumstances, with the radioisotopes inside the earth in a long-term decay rate, there would have existed a perfectly balanced nuclear reactor inside the earth.

You would need such a perfectly balanced reactor in the orchestral model. It is primarily the shortwave energy which heats up the atmosphere around us every day. However, that shortwave energy would have been filtered out by the firmament canopy before the Flood. The heating of the environment did not come from above; instead, there would have been a gently thermal blanket within the earth, probably surrounded by a layer of asphalt inside the earth called the 'swaddlingband' [baby clothing strips] in Job 38:9. This would moderate and sustain the temperature which would then be radiated to the earth's surface. Possibly it would be returned to the surface of the earth through water fountains and recycling reservoirs. This energy would be returned to the earth so that at night the energy transferred into the earth would cause the environment to be slightly cooler. During the daytime, because of this perfectly balanced thermonuclear reaction inside the earth, it would have heated up slightly, to approximately seventy-eight degrees Fahrenheit.

With Job 38 as a context, and with all of the natural elements in perfect balance, let us emphasize the element that is the most common worldwide. This element is silicon, or sand. Inside the earth, there would have existed a perfectly balanced nuclear reactor designed with radioisotopes and moderators. Above that rested a solid crust of granite around the earth; then above that, there would have existed a layer of sand or silicon. Above this silicon layer would have been the vegetation. This would also give a slightly warmer ambient temperature context for the root systems. Amazingly, botanists have found that when plants are grown hydroponically, they grow to be superior plants. When a plant is grown under pink light, it is superior. When the roots are slightly warmed, the plant grows and produces in a superior fashion. When the amount of carbon dioxide is slightly increased, the plant grows better still.

A Japanese physicist, Dr. Kei Mori, took only two of these gradient elements (he filtered the ultraviolet rays and increased the carbon dioxide) and exposed plant life to these conditions. In two years, under his supervision, a tomato plant grew to be sixteen feet tall with nine hundred and three tomatoes on it. The tomato plant has continued to grow to this day. Our last report shows that it is over five years old, over twenty feet tall, and has produced over four thousand tomatoes. All Dr. Mori did was filter out the ultraviolet rays and allow the plant to take in more carbon dioxide.

The United States Department of Agriculture simply added some carbon dioxide to cotton plants, and they found that it resulted in a thirty to fifty percent increase in growth rate. Before the Flood, however, the following conditions existed that would have helped plants to grow better:

    There existed increased atmospheric pressure.
    Carbon dioxide was increased to an efficient degree.
    Hydroponic growing conditions existed, in which plant roots penetrated into the water table in the sand, thus the nutrients were better supplied.
    There was a variation of flow within the water table.
    There was a slightly warmer temperature gradient in the root systems and the water table.
    There was efficient use of pink light.
    There was an elimination of ultraviolet radiation.


[Dr Carl E. Baugh op cit, p.72]:

"...the description of the restored earth found in Isaiah 35 shows that the forests will again sing.

Around an individual before the Flood in this canopy context, the radio waves from the stars were enhanced by this canopy in the morning hours. The crystalline structure of the sand would pick up and amplify these radio waves. Finally, there are qualities in the cellular structures of plants which would cause the reeds to vibrate, so the forest began to sing. Anyone who knew his Creator could not help but respond.....

...Only now have we been able to put together this orchestral creation model, balancing out all of these elements in an articulated form. The Biblical records explain reality far better than the evolutionary concept does."

[Dr Carl E.Baugh, op cit, p. 89]:

"...Isaiah 35...corresponds to other chapters in... ...Isaiah which tell of a coming millennium when the lion and the lamb will lie down together.

[Isa 11:6-9]:

(v. 6) "The wolf will live with the lamb,

the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

and a little child will lead them.

(v. 7) The cow will feed with the bear,

their young will lie down together,

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

(v. 8) The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.

(v. 9) They will neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mountain,

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

[Dr. Baugh, cont.]:

It will be a time, according to Isaiah, that a child with a genetic deficiency will still live to be a hundred years old, yet an old man will fully live out his days. This prophecy foretells a time in the future when man will again have the ability to live for hundreds of years.

[Isa 65:20]:

"Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,

or an old man who does not live out his years;

he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth;

he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."

[Baugh, cont]:

In Isaiah 35:1... [which reads]...'The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.' What this means is that the earth will return to an ecospherical condition as existed before the Flood. The only environmental factor that could account for such a return to a world like the antediluvian world would be a literal reestablishment of the firmament.

[Isa 52:8-9]:

(v. 8) "Listen? Your watchmen lift up their voices,

together they shout for joy.

When the Lord returns to Zion,

they will see it with their own eyes.

(v. 9) "Burst into songs of joy together,

you ruins of Jerusalem,

for the Lord has comforted His people

[Dr Baugh, cont.]:

" 'Is it literally possible that the wilderness will actually rejoice and sing?' My answer is an emphatic, yes!.....

In preceding chapters... conditions on Earth [before the Flood were described] [with] the crystalline canopy, and the longwave radio energy from the stars, and how the radio energy would have been transferred to the silica. Man was serenaded each morning by the sand under his feet. Sand actually has the ability to sing when energized, and this fact has been verified by numerous scientific studies. In addition, the atmosphere would be charged with vibrations and resonate within the cellular structure of the plants. Actually, before the Flood the wilderness would sing as the Bible affirms. And the botanical life forms would pick up the music vibrations....

..As the text of Isaiah 35 declares, even war-torn Lebanon will be a place of joy in those days, and the song of glory of the Lord will be sung even by the roses from Beirut, to Mt. Carmel, and to Sharon....

..But scientists have discovered that, under certain circumstances, in some of the sands when resonated, there are actual discernable musical notes and harmony in the atmosphere.

'Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not; behold your God will come with a vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you" (Isa. 35:4). The indication in this verse is that God will build a context which will be beneficial to man. Man is now in full deterioration. While in the twentieth century science has made a thorough investigation into the functions of life, the environmental dangers, causing such diseases as cancer, are increasing and encompassing us at a very alarming and negative rate.

[Isa 35:5-6]:

(v. 5) "Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

(v. 6) Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Water will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert."

[Dr. Baugh, cont.]:

"The inference is very strong here that the natural circumstances of the ecology will be changed and revert back to conditions strikingly similar to preFlood days. Man will respond physiologically, and there will seemingly be genetic corrections or repairs...

...Advance studies suggest that if a biological organism is permitted to live within the context whereby it is resupplied with energy without contamination, it has the ability to repair itself to a great degree. Of course, this life-encompassing context includes energizing daily with the right spectra of light, and the correct levels of pressure, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide, as it was originally designed to have....

..Dr. Robert Gange relates that certain laboratory studies show there is an ability within the DNA to actually strip out inharmonious properties; and, to some degree, repair the DNA. If that be the case, it would certainly be plausible within a given ecological context where life organisms are within their designed environment for the body to have the ability to repair itself. The blind would be able to see; the deaf would be able to hear; the lame would be able to walk. Programmed within a man's body are the genes composing the entire genetic structure for shapes, sizes, and functions of all organs. Thus, if man's body would be permitted to repair itself, the errant genetic flaws would be corrected and brought back into balance. The designed context for man's optimal benefit was the pre-Flood environment under the firmament. A natural corollary for man's genetic expression involves the restoration of the canopy for the Millennium..."


[Gen 6:5]

(v. 5) "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

(v. 6) And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

[Henry M. Morris states in The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich, 1976, pp. 162-164]:

"Moral and spiritual conditions in the antediluvian world had deteriorated with the passing years, not only among the Cainites but eventually among the Sethites as well. Materialism and ungodliness abounded, except for the small remnant connected with the line of the promised Seed [through Noah], along with those few who may have been influenced by the witness of such men as Enoch. [Gen 5:21-24; Heb 11:5; Jude 1:14]

The [preFlood] world was rapidly becoming unimaginably wicked and violent, and evidently... [Noah's] ...preaching and witnessing seemed futile [Ref 2 Pet 2:5]. Whether or not he saw some of his own children engulfed in this morass of evil, there is little doubt that he saw it overwhelm his brothers and sisters and other loved ones. He must often have longed and prayed that the God with Whom he, like Enoch, 'walked' would intervene before the entire world succumbed...]

(v. 7) And the LORD said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.

[Morris, Ibid., p. 176]:

"Although God had made a perfect world for man and had been marvelously long-suffering toward His creatures, there finally came a time when, in justice to His own holiness, He had to terminate man's boundless wickedness. 'Any further delay would have completely prevented the accomplishment of God's purpose in and for mankind. [Gen 3:15] Man's outward wickedness had become 'great in the earth,' because his inward imaginations had become completely evil and always evil.]

(v. 8) But Noah found grace ["chen"] in the eyes of the LORD.

(V. 9) These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect [i.e., "complete"] in his generations': Noah walked with God.

[Morris, Ibid., p. 177]:

"Note the consistent Biblical order here. First, Noah 'found grace.' [i.e., trusted in the grace of God unto eternal life] Then Noah was 'a just man' (that is, 'justified' or 'declared to be righteous') Thus he was 'perfect in his generations' (or 'complete,' in so far as God's records are concerned), and therefore he was able to 'walk with God.' Salvation in any era is exactly in this way. By sovereign grace, received through faith, the believer is justified before God and declared to be complete in Him. Only as a result of, and on the basis of, this glorious gift of grace, can one then 'walk' in fellowship with God, showing the genuineness of his faith by his works. Four times it is said later, for example, that Noah 'did all that God commanded him' (6:22; 7;5; 7:9; 7:16).]

(v. 10) And Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

(v, 11) Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.

(v. 12) And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

(v. 13) Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

(v. 14) Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.

(v. 15) And this is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, and its height thirty cubits.

(v. 16) You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.

(v. 17) And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

(v. 18) But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark - you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you......"

[Henry M. Morris, Ibid.., pp. 161-164 cont: "...[So] The first age of human history was brought to its climax and culmination in the says of Noah. The sin-disease, which began so innocuously when Eve was tempted to doubt the word of God, which then began to show its true ugliness of character in the life of Cain, which came to maturity in their godless civilization developed by his descendants, finally descended into such a terrible morass of wickedness and corruption that only a global bath of water from the windows of heaven could purge and cleanse the fevered earth. The characteristics of those awful and tragic days, strange as they may seem to our enlightened culture today, are nevertheless to be repeated in the last days of this present age....

Two days before Christ's crucifixion, His disciples asked Him, 'What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?' (Matthew 24:3). His reply pointed to a number of 'signs,' all of which occurring together in that generation (that is, the generation which would see the signs), would be the sign they had requested. These signs were climaxed with the prophetic warning, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the Ark, And knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be' (Matthew 24: 37-39). Thus did Jesus not only verify the historicity of the great Flood but also encourage us to study closely the characteristics of the days before the Flood, for these would also characterize the days just before His return."]