Defending Genesis

Are we wasting our time???

2009-04-02T12:17:00.002-04:00

News to Note

2009-01-19T10:19:00.003-05:00

Answers in Genesis has a weekly feature on their website that looks at secular and scientific news from a Biblical point of view. These things would be good to know to help you understand the full story of the 'discoveries' in the scientific world. When you read an article from a secular point of view, you will usually get the anti-God, humanistic slant that will often focus on the information that supports their world view and will ignore all other information. So, to find out the 'rest of the story' please take the time to read some of the articles on the "News to Note" feature.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/17/news-to-note-01172009

This week:
“Almost” - researchers almost created life in the lab - but did they 'almost' find proof of evolution?
The gas about gas - does the presence of methane on Mars prove that there is life there?
Gems or fool’s gold? - 15 alleged transitional forms: what are they? AiG's response to the proofs of macro-evolution.
Thanks for nothing, Charlie - What benefits has Darwinism contributed to our society?
Peacockosaur - The feathered dinosaur that 'proves' dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Darwin at the zoo - Another perspective on the case of a pygmy being put on display in a zoo.
Mirroring design - Are perfect designs the result of accidental mutations or God's creativity?

A Question of Origins

2009-01-12T11:52:00.002-05:00

An interesting video:

Atheism: A Myth

2008-12-20T19:13:00.004-05:00

Have you ever considered how intellectually lazy someone has to be to say that there is no God. Think about it. A person says with certainty that there is no all-knowing, all-powerful being in this universe. How can a person be certain of that fact unless he or she was all-knowing? Are you following?
Again, the Bible - God's Word - says it like it is:
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God' " Psalm 14:1
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20
It doesn't take much reasoning to figure it out. It just takes an honest, open mind.

Teaching Science

2008-12-08T14:33:00.002-05:00

There are many people - students and adults - who find themselves in a position in which they have to defend their faith in the literal account of Genesis. With all the "evidences" and claims that evolutionists make, how can a person effectively give an answer?
First, it is important to believe what the Bible says. If a geologist gives evidence for why the Genesis Flood could not have happened, know that there was a global flood because the Bible says that there was a global flood. The God of the Bible does not lie. His Word is eternal. It cannot be proven wrong by fallible men.
Second, realize that an unbiased, completely objective scientist - or anyone for that matter - is a myth. Everyone has beliefs, and those beliefs affect how a person sees the world.
Third, realize that everyone looks at any evidence with a certain set of assumptions, or presuppositions. These assumptions are based on a person's beliefs. There is only one set of evidence, but there are many possible explanations for how something could have happened. Have you ever watched one of those crime TV programs. Fiction or non-fiction, they always present the evidence and the different possible explanations for the evidence. The same is true for the question of origins.
Finally, realize that science has limitations. Understanding those limitations can help you determine when proof has been obtained or when an assumption has led to an interpretation. Science cannot prove an event that happened in the past. The evidence is in the present. That's all the scientist have to work with. They can't recreate the Big Bang, an example of macro-evolution, or the accumulation of the rock layers. They can only theorize if/how these things happened.
Whether you are teaching in a school or working a job, it is possible to prepare yourself (and others) to be able to effectively answer critics of the Bible.

Noah's Ark Rebuilt

2008-10-06T10:35:00.002-04:00

I recently got an email about a man in the Netherlands who built a replica of the ark that God told Noah to build in preparation for a global flood. Perhaps you have received a similar email. The email is actually an excerpt from a FOX news article. You can read the article for yourself:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269090,00.html

As you can read in the article, this ark is actually much smaller than the real one built about 4,000 years ago. To find out more about the events surrounding Noah's ark and God's judgement in the form of a global flood, read Genesis 6-8.

Life created in a lab?

2008-09-29T13:19:00.003-04:00

In one of our earlier posts, we discussed the limitations of operational science (that is, the science that is responsible for computers, medical advances and putting men on the moon, ). Operational science is limited to studying things that can be observed, repeated, tested and falsified. Something that happened in the past that is not, or cannot be, repeated falls outside the realm of operational science.
I recently was involved in a discussion with someone about the fact that spontaneous generation of life has never been observed, therefore, it has never been proven. This person argued that life had been created in a laboratory. The experiment to which he referred is called the Urey-Miller Experiment, more commonly the Miller Experiment. The result of this experiment was the production of amino acids which are the building blocks of DNA. This was touted as proof that life could be formed spontaneously. So did this experiment prove that intelligence is not needed to form life? Ummm...think about it.
Back to the experiment: So how close did Dr. Miller come to forming life in a test tube? Well amino acids are about as close to life as a teaspoon of flour is to biscuits. Amino acids make up protiens; protiens linked together form DNA. DNA, simply put, is the information needed to make life - but it is still not life. In order to go from DNA to life, you need a mechanism to read and reproduce the DNA to form cells on a massive scale. That's no easy accomplishment considering there are no simple cells. To make it more difficult, the mechanism to read and duplicate the DNA is found inside the cells themselves. So which came first: the cell that makes the DNA or the DNA that specifies how to make the cell?
For more info about the Miller experiment, visit:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain

Find out what Bible believers, intelligent design promoters and evolutions alike say about the Miller Experiment: Google it.

Amino Acids and Oxygen

2008-09-08T19:23:00.004-04:00

Here's a "catch 22" situation:

All living matter is composed of proteins, which are basically long strings of amino acids linked together. Since the 1930s, it has been known that amino acids cannot link up if oxygen is present (the oxygen actually breaks the amino acids apart). However, without oxygen, life cannot be sustained. This is problematic for organic evolution. So, either life and oxygen evolved simultaneously (or life held its breath until oxygen made its debut) or God created an atmosphere to sustain life and then created life the next couple of days, just like the Bible says.

Addendum: Upon further research, there are some bacteria that can live without oxygen. Does this mean that these are the cells that were evolved first in the oxygen-less environment? You may believe what you like. However, was there really an oxygen-less environment? It is commonly known that all living organisms require water to survive. It is also commonly believed that billions of years ago the earth was a hot molten glob of rock, over time the earth cooled, it rained on the rocks for millions of years and from this primordial sea, the first life form emerged. Now, what is water? Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. I ask again: was there ever really an oxygen-less environment?

Out-of-Place Fossils

2008-09-01T08:23:00.001-04:00

The evolutionary tree suggests that all life evolved in a specifiec order. The geologic colum dictates where in the rock layers certain fossils should be found. However, reality seems to contradict both the "tree of life" and the geologic column. For example, in the petrified forest in Arizona, petrified trees contain fossilized bees. Does that seem odd? Considering the fact that that the trees are "dated" at 220 million years old and the fact that bees aren't supposed to have evolved until 100 million years later, that is decidedly odd. Edwin McKee, a leading authority on the Grand Canyon, has published photographs of horse-like hoofprints in rocks that are supposedly 100 million years older than the horses. A 1989 issue of Science News contains an article about hoofprints that were found alongside dinosaur footprints. Of course, these findings are completely consistent with the historical account of the world found in the Bible. Everything was created in the first six days of the universe, everything lived together at the same time, and everything (except the occupants of Noah's ark) was destroyed in the global flood of Genesis 6.

Two-celled Life

2008-08-25T15:14:00.003-04:00

The theory of evolution claims that life formed as single celled organisms and then gradually evolved to more complex forms. Why, then, are there no organisms, fossilized or living, that consist of 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells? Further, forms of life that consist of 6-20 cells are all parasites. Parasites are not able to survive on their own. They must have a host to support them. If macroevolution happened, we should find many transistional forms of life with 2-20 cells. We don't. This is yet another example of the fact that evolution does not answer the questions about the origin of life; it only raises more questions.

3 Ways we can know that the Bible is from God

2008-07-26T11:08:00.004-04:00

How can we know that the Bible is God's word and not man's attempt to create a God or determine truth for himself? Is it possible to know? There are many evidences that confirm that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God.

First, there is the fact that the Bible is written by over 40 different people over a period of over 1500 years, and there are no contradictions or changes in doctrines.
There is also the fact that archaeological evidences confirm events in the Bible. There are records of men that make prophecies regarding events in cultures that they could have no knowledge of, and many years(sometimes centuries) later, the prophecy comes to pass.
Finally, the wisdom given in the Bible surpasses that of most, if not all, men who have ever lived. It seems hardly likely that men alone could possess such a wealth of knowledge.

These are all very compelling evidences for the divine inspiration of the Bible; however, there is a much more simple and undeniable way of knowing that the Bible is inspired by God and not concocted by men.

As you read the Bible, you can take note of three simple themes throughout the Bible.
First, the Bible exalts God, the Creator, and only God. He is the creator and ruler of all things, and He is just and right in all things (Psalm 29:2, 75:7, 145:17; Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 4:11). People do not naturally want to admit that there is One above mankind who is in charge of all things.
Second, the Bible demotes mankind. Starting with the first man, Adam, the Bible describes all men as rebels against God, as ungrateful, proud and corrupt. People demote God in their minds to what they want Him to be, avoiding the true Creator (Genesis 3, 6:5; Romans 1:21, 25, 3:11; Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 2:11; John 3:20, Psalm 10:4). Obviously, this is not something that men would include in a book as a major theme, let alone write even once.
Finally, the Bible exalts Jesus Christ as Lord. That means Jesus is the ONLY Saviour. This was as unpopular at the time it was written as it is now. People want many ways to God so they can choose the way that suits them. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6). Other verses that exalt Jesus as Lord, Creator and Saviour are: John 1:3, Philipians 2:7-8, Hebrews 10:7, Isaiah 53:4-6, and Revelation 1:18.

The Six Days

2008-07-21T08:41:00.003-04:00

Have you ever heard (or thought about) the idea that "God could have taken millions of years or six days or six seconds to create the earth so why insist that it had to be six days"? It's true. God could have taken any length of time that he wanted to create the earth, universe and everything. He is all powerful. So why do people take a stand on a six day creation? Because God said that he created everything in six days.
People who argue that God could have taken any amount of time that He wanted to create aren't really interested in how long God wanted to take; rather, they are interested in how long they wanted it to take for everything to come into being - thus removing God from the equation.
When it comes to the question of "How did it all begin?" we should really consult the One who was there when it happened. God has given us a clear record of the events and the timetable; we simply need to trust His record.

How can we KNOW?

2008-06-18T16:53:00.004-04:00

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

The evidence we see in nature that there is a creator/designer is so compelling that it would seem to be ridiculous to not believe. However, a person can know everything there is to know about geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology and chemistry and still not come to the conclusion that there is a creator who makes the laws, holds everyone accountable for their actions and judges every offence. Why? Well there are many reasons, but they all boil down to a problem common to every person who has ever lived: "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12 (read also Psalm 14). Until now, I have been giving scientific evidence for the Biblical account of creation and the flood, and I will continue to do this, but I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that knowing science and evidence will not change your heart and your belief. I do hope that the information on this blog will disillusion those who have been deceived in school about evolution. However, giving evidence for creation is really only a means to an end. The most important thing that you can believe goes beyond "Is there a God?" to "How can I, an enemy of God, make peace with my creator?". There is no scientific evidence that can give an answer to this question. The answer is in the Bible.

Trilobites and Their Ancestors

2008-05-28T14:22:00.002-04:00

Trilobites are a problem for the theory of evolution because they appear suddenly in the fossil record without any trace of ancestry. In fact, hundreds of thousands of trilobites have been found, however, there has yet to be found any animal that can be declared an ancestor of the trilobite kind.
" What bothered Darwin about the fossil record more than anything else was the pattern of paleontology that we've been talking about...the oldest fossils you see are both diverse and complex, [such as] fabulously complicated things like trilobites."

Dr. Andrew Knoll, Paleontologist and Professor of Biology, Harvard University

Is this a problem with the fossil record, or is this evidence of a problem with the theory of evolution?

Flightless Birds

2008-05-23T12:27:00.002-04:00

Whenever you watch a nature show about penguins or read a book about ostriches or any other "flightless bird", you usually hear something about how these animals have lost the ability to fly as a result of evolution, and their wings are useless appendages left as a reminder of their flying ancestors. But this thought is actually contrary to the theory of evolution. Evolution requires that new genetic information be added to create new species. Loss of flight would result from loss of information not an addition of information and, thus, not from evolution.
While it is possible that these animals may have been able to fly in the past and then through isolation of gene pools and natural selection lost the ability, this is only a theory about what happened in the past. The wings on these animals, however, are observable, and through observation, we can see that they are not useless. On the contrary, they have many uses including helping them balance as they walk or run, an intimidation tactic as they scare off predators, showing off to get a mate, protecting their abdomen and protecting their young.
There are no vestigial organs in any creature. God created plants, animals and people and all their parts with a purpose, because He, being an all wise God, knew what we would need to survive.

The Genesis Flood

2008-05-22T14:38:00.002-04:00

There are many who question the nature of the Genesis flood: was it a local flood or a global flood. This question can actually easily be laid to rest if you study and believe what the Bible says:

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

It seems simple. The water covered the mountains, and all the land dwelling animals died. If it were a local flood, why would God have told Noah to build a boat when he could have just sent him to a safe, high place? No, anyone who reads the Bible to find out what happened would have to conclude that the flood was indeed global.
So, why do people believe that it was only a local flood? Well, people who believe in millions of years are typically the same ones who believe that the Genesis flood was only local. People believe in millions of years because of the fossils and the rock layers. They believe that the fossils and rock layers came from millions of years of death and suffering rather than God's judgement of sin. To believe both would be inconsistent.

The Grand Canyon

2008-05-21T15:04:00.005-04:00

A popular evidence for millions of years is the Grand Canyon (pictured right) (the second picture shows the snowline which implies a higher elevation). You've heard it: "an example of what a little bit of water over a long period of time can accomplish." One thing that you are never told is that the topography of the land makes it impossible for the Colorado River to have formed the Grand Canyon. It's actually really simple and obvious once you see all the evidence together. The Colorado River (the red line) enters the Grand Canyon at 2800 feet above sea level (top right of the picture) and flows downhill through the canyon. The elevation of the river drops as the elevation of the canyon rim rises. In order for the river to have started to cut the canyon millions of years ago, it would have had to go uphill. In fact the river would have had to go uphill to about 5200 feet above sea level, because the highest point of the canyon rim is over 8000 feet above sea level. Assuming that throughout time, rivers have always run downhill, there is no way for the Colorado River to have formed the Grand Canyon. So how did it form? Well, no one really knows for sure because no one was there - that's a limitation of operational science (provable science), but it does look as if flowing water is the cause. It would have to be fast moving water because there is not delta or other sediment buildup further down stream. Given the topography of the land around the Grand Canyon, one could safely say that the Colorado River upstream of the Grand Canyon used to be a lake. The water could have risen above the natural dam holding it back and taken the path of least resistance. Once a dam is breached, it typically only fails in that one area as the water rushes through with great force - a force that could easily carve a canyon. But could it cut through thousands of feet of solid rock? Well, if it happened shortly after the flood, it would only have to cut through thousands of feet of soft earth as the ground was probably not hardened into rock during the flood. This is just one more evidence of how the Bible is the history book of the universe written by the One who was there.

Super Germs

2008-05-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

Have you ever heard how bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics? Have you ever heard how this is evidence of evolution? This claim is based on a misunderstanding of how antibiotics work and a little faulty logic.
First of all, when a sinlge bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic to which it is not resistant, it is killed. It is therefore unable to pass on any genetic information through reproduction. Anything that it may have learned through it's encounter with this antibiotic is lost. Actually, bacteria do not "become" resistant to antibiotics; they either are or they aren't. Suppose you have a population of bacteria and you introduce an antibiotic to the population. As a result of genetic variation or mutation, some are resistant to the antibiotic and some are not resistant. The antibiotic kills those that are not resistant and those that are resistant continue to survive and reproduce more bacteria that are also resistant to the antibiotic.
This is really an over simplified explanation. My point is that drug resistance is the result of natural selection - not evolution. (For a more in depth expantion of drug-resistance click here.)

Natural Selection and Evolution

2008-05-19T15:12:00.002-04:00

When Darwin came up with his idea of evolution, he proposed that the species we have today came about through millions of years of natural selection. Observable science has thus far disproved this mechanism for evolution, however, it is still used as proof of evolution. In order for evolution to occur, there needs to be an increase in genetic information or, at the least, new genetic information to replace the old and make something new and different. Natural selection, on the other hand, is nature's (or God's) way of weeding out the weak individuals of a species. It is the "quality control" mechanism of the world. As a result of sin and the curse, there are genetic mistakes in every living thing on the planet. When an animal or plant reproduces and the offspring have some sort of problem or weakness (short or missing limbs, sensory deficiency, etc.) it naturally does not survive long enough (if it is in the wild) to reproduce and, thus, pass on that problem.
Look at dogs, for example. If a person were to put many of the varieties of dogs we see today in the wild to fend for themselves, they would not survive because of their size, shape and/or metabolic weaknesses.
Quality control, in any environment, is meant to weed out the weak - not to produce new kinds. Consider a factory that makes cars. The quality control area will spot remove from the line any cars that have mistakes, but it will never produce a bulldozer or an airplane.

Dinosaurs and the Bible

2008-05-16T14:02:00.002-04:00

If dinosaurs are supposed to have lived with men, they why doesn't the Bible ever mention them? They seem like pretty impressive creatures, why would God never mention them in scriptures?...
There was a guy in 1841, named Sir Richard Owen, who was studying some recently discovered bones of creatures that no one recognized. He noted their resemblance to lizards (only bigger) and decided to call them by a name that meant "terrible lizard": Dinosaur. So, naturally, the word 'dinosaur' would not be used in 1611 when the King James Version of the Bible was translated. Some time between 1841 and the time when people decided that they wanted to believe in evolution instead of the Bible, scientists declared that these dinosaurs went instict 65 million years and they had "scientific proof" to back up their claim. Then, when Bible scholars started studying Job 40:15 they decided that this had to be talking about a creature like an elephant or hippo (couldn't be a dinosaur: no person has ever seen a dinosaur). Only problem is that the passage goes on to describe this "behemoth" as having a tail like a cedar tree - have you ever seen an elephant tail? or a hippo tail? No, I'm pretty sure God knows what he's talking about. The Bible also mentions dragons in Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi. Some call these mythological creatures, yet there are accounts of dragons in cultures throughout time, from the ancient Sumerian story of Gilgamesh to 16th century European encounters. There are even petroglyphs of creatures resembling dinosaurs found on rock walls including the wall of the Grand Canyon.
So, what happened? Well, the Bible says that God made all the land dwelling, air-breathing animals on the sixth day of creation. There was no death before sin (Romans 5:12), and the Bible records geneologies of men as living to be 900+ years old (we could safely assume that animals lived to be very old, too, because the biggest dino egg ever found was about the size of a football and reptiles never stop growing). God destroyed the earth and every living thing that breathes air except the animals and people on the ark that God instructed Noah to build (more about the ark another day). So all the animals that weren't on the ark died and were buried in rock layers, and now people are uncovering the fossils and theorizing about what happened to them.
Here's another thought: You know when you go to a museum and you see those giant dinosaur fossils? Have you ever wondered if that is the actual animal that God created? Consider this: when that animal was alive, it was living at the same time as Adam.

Carbon 14/Radiocarbon Dating

2008-05-15T12:50:00.004-04:00

There are several different kinds of dating methods. Today, I will just explain the Carbon 14 (C 14), or radiocarbon, dating method.
First of all, all living things have carbon in them. C14 is an unstable element that slowly decays. In living things, C14 is constantly decaying, but at the same time, being replaced by new C 14 as it eats and breathes. When the creature dies, it stops eating and breathing, therefore, stops taking in new carbon 14. By calculating the rate of decay and the amount of C14 left in something that was once living, we can figure out how long ago it died. The half-life of C14 (the amount of time it takes for half the c14 to decay) is 5,730 plus or minus 40 years. In two half-lives (11,460 years) there would be only 1/4 of the C14 left. Blah, blah, blah...a little more math...and anything over about 50,000 years old would have no C14 left. (Incidently, C14 testing could not give an age of millions of years.) It's as simple as that. Not really. First, not all plants take in the same amount of C14. Second, the atmosphere has not always had a constant amount of C14. The industrial revolution and the testing of atom bombs has changed the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Third, the earth's magnetic field has not always been the same. The stronger the magnetic field, the less the C14 produced in the atmosphere. Finally, volcanoes emit C14: every eruption sends more C14 into the atmosphere. All of these factors affect the amount of C14 in the atmosphere historically. These factors give a very wide margin of error in C14 dating. And then there's the Biblical flood. Massive amounts of carbon were removed from the atmosphere and buried in all those rock layers that were laid down by water. The conclusion: when dating with C14 testing, many adjustments have to be made to account for these factors that have affected the C14 in the atmosphere, and many assumptions have to be made in order to correct for these factors. This dating method can be useful when adjustments have been made and the results are applied correctly, however, C14 testing cannot give dates of millions of years.

Vestigial Structures: Bad Science

2008-05-14T09:30:00.000-04:00

The term "vestigial structure" refers to parts of a body that have lost their function in the course of evolution and are usually much reduced in size. First of all, the only way to know if something has lost it's function or shrunk in size is to examine the structure in a creature of the past. In the case of organs, this is difficult to impossible because not much can be discerned about an organ (soft tissue) from a skeleton. In the case of bone structures and behaviors, this is also difficult because no one was there to see or study the use for the structures or behaviors. Second, most (if not all) organs labeled "vestigial" get this label simply because the use for this organ is unknown. As the case often is, the more scientists study anatomy, the more they know about it, and these "vestigial organs" come to have at least one known function. In fact, in 1890, there were 180 vestigial organs in the human body; whereas in 1999, there were 0. Many textbooks point to the human appendix as a vestigial organ, however, scientist now know that the appendix performs a vital function during gestation related to the immune system and continues to play a role into adulthood. Finally, there are a multitude of structures and organs in the human body that one can live without, but this does not give evidence to evolution. In fact, evolution has no explanation for structures and behaviors that produce beauty and joy. Only special creation can explain these things.

Spontaneous Generation Disproved

2008-05-13T14:59:00.006-04:00

Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur? He is most famous for developing the process of pasteurization - like they do to milk. Let me explain. Prior to the 17th century, the idea that life could be generated from non-life (spontaneous generation) was considered to be reasonable and proven. Even Aristotle believed that mice came from decaying hay, and crocodiles came from the rotting logs in lakes. Around the 17th century and on, scientists began to question this "truth" and were often met with criticism and ridicule. Louis Pasteur worked as a chemist during the mid to late 19th century during which time he was able to uncover the link between bacteria and decay of food as well as disease in humans and animals. As a result of Pasteur's work, we have food that we can trust to be safe to eat, and we have vaccines for anthrax and rabies. Most importantly, his work proved once and for all that the idea of "spontaneous generation" is false - that is, life does not come from non-life. In a lecture given in 1864, Pasteur said, " Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." Apparently, spontaneous generation is a doctrine that dies hard, because scientists are still trying to figure out how to explain the origin of life through spontaneous generation. The truth is that they already have the answer, proven by science, but they just refuse to accept or believe it.

What about the "races"?

2008-05-12T10:29:00.004-04:00

Even with the civil rights movement and the many social and legislative changes, there are still tensions among people of different color in America and around the world. The tensions that we see today are the result of a combination of Darwinian evolution (a primarily racist philosophy) and a lack of scriptural understanding by Christians. So what does the Bible say about "races"?

1. The Bible says that we are all of "one blood": And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. (Acts 17:26)

2. The dividing of the people by languages at the tower of Babel also resulted in the dividing of genetic information including the information that determines skin color and other major features that define a particular people group.

3. Biologically, there is only a 0.2% difference between any two people in the world (regardless of skin color). The differences that make up the supposed "races" only account for 0.012% of the genetic code.

For more information about the subject click here.

Embryo Evidence

2008-05-10T22:33:00.000-04:00

Have you ever seen this first picture in a science or biology textbook?

This is a drawing by a man named Ernst Haeckel and is presented in many textbooks as proof for evolution under the title "Recapitulation Theory" or "Biogenic Law", which basically asserts that every animal in its embryonic stage goes through a sort of evolution as it develops - starting with the single cell stage, to fish stage and on up the chain of evolution. The problem: Haeckel intentionally distorted the early stages of the embryos to make it seem as if all animals look the same at this stage, giving reason to believe that they all originated from a common ancestor. In a letter written to an international weekly publication (Münchener Allegemeine Zeitung, published Jan 9, 1909), Haeckel admits to falsifying the drawings. While most scientist will admit that the recapitulation theory is false, they still point to similarities in embryos as evidence for a common ancestry. In addition to this, many current textbooks still use the fraudulent drawings and theory as support for evolution. Probably most disturbing is the fact that in the abortion industry, the idea has been used to convince teens and women the baby is still in its fish or monkey stage so it's not really human yet, justifying the killing of the unborn baby. In the mid to late 90's, Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, sensing that the drawings were inaccurate, began to study and compare the drawings presented by Haeckel with actual photographs of these embryos and found some startling differences (left - to see a larger picture click here). Obviously the size and shape of the embryos is drastically different from the drawings by Haeckel showing that even the scale used by Haeckel was incorrect. In addition, scientists now know that even the sequence of development of anatomy among the species is varied. As I have said before, there are actually more differences than similarities between the animals being compared. The similarities among life on earth do not prove evolution; however, they do give evidence for a common designer.

A Fish Tale

2008-05-09T09:30:00.001-04:00

Question: How do fossils form?

According to evolution, fossils form when a living creature dies and is either buried by sediment, frozen or gets dried out (desiccated). The only problem with this explanation is that when a creature dies, it immediately begins to decompose and/or gets eaten by other creatures. Even being "covered by sediment" will not necessarily prevent a) another animal from digging up the carcass and eating it or b) bacteria and other animals that live underground from eating the carcass. Similar problems arise with animals that are frozen (if it's a seasonal freeze, it will eventually thaw) and desiccated (it takes time for an animal to dry out). Another possible, and perhaps more likely, process for fossilization is if they are rapidly buried by massive amounts of sediment (landslides, catastrophic floods) leaving behind no living creatures to devour the carcass of the dead animals and perfectly preserving them for fossilization. The following picture is unique and very telling about how fossils form. As you look at this picture consider how it could be possible for a fossil such as this to be formed.

This fossil is of a perch eating a herring found in Wyoming. First notice how well preserved the fossil is. Not only did the bones fossilize, but you can clearly see the impression of the soft tissue of the fish including the fins. It is obvious that there was no time for decompostition. Also, there is clear evidence that the animal was not actually dead when it was covered with sediment (well, one of the fish might have been dead). The fish had to have been rapidly covered with a large amount of sediment suddenly.
Some may say that this fossil is the result of an isolated incident (perhaps a local flood), however fossils showing little if any sign of decomposition are very common. Consider how they are able to find so many fossils of intact animals of every species (animal and plant). Consider also the different types of fossilized shells that are found. It only takes days or even hours for some of the more delicate varieties of shells to be disintegrated at the bottom of oceans and lakes, however there are relatively the same amounts of these fossilized shells found as the more durable variety.
The conclusion: perhaps there is another explanation for a great majority of the fossil record. If there was a world-wide, catastrophic flood, then we would expect to find "billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." And we do.

Understanding the Missing Links

2008-05-08T10:00:00.002-04:00

A lot could be said about missing links or transitional forms of species. First it is important to realize that when a scientist goes on a fossil hunt, he is not just looking for fossils, he is looking for (and getting paid to find) the missing links. Charles Darwin said that in order for his theory to be true there must be evidence in the fossil record of thousands of transitional forms of species. This is the scientists' starting point, and all evidence they find is based on this presupposition. It's the idea that "evolution happened, now let's figure out how". This goes against reason: shouldn't you gather the evidence before you come to a conclusion about what happened? Second, when a progression of fossils appear in a textbook, etc., notice that only the similarities of the animal are being shown. Often there are more differences about the animals than there are similarities. Also be aware that the pictures may not be to scale (the first is big, the second is small, and the third is medium sized).To get an accurate idea of what is being compared, you should study each animal individually. Finally, and this is the most important, in order for evolution to happen, genetic information must be added to the genome. This has NEVER been observed to happen. The idea that it used to happen or that it happens so slowly that you can't see it happen can not be proven or falsified and, therefore, is not operational science.
In my last post, I discussed the definitions for science. Remember origins science cannot be proven or falsified, and evolution is the study of origins; therefore, there is no proof for evolution. The evidence that evolutionists study is the same evidence that creationists study. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions because they start with different presuppositions.

What is science?

2008-05-07T09:00:00.000-04:00

There are those who believe that if we accept creationism, then we have to throw science out the window. This is not true.
First, let's define science. There are actually two different kinds of science being discussed in this issue. First is operational science. This is the type of science that studies what can be seen, observed, tested and proven or falsified. This is the type of science that is responsible for all of the technological and medical advances we see today. Creationist do not have a problem with this kind of science. The second type of science is called historical or origins science. This obviously is the study of what happened in the past. The past cannot be proven, no matter how much evidence you have, especially if no one was there to observe it. Operational science cannot prove that evolution happened in the same way that it cannot prove that God created the world in six literal days. Evolutionist have to theorize about what happened in the past whereas creationists have the account of the One who was there.
Evolutionist do not and cannot use operational science to prove that life spontaneously came about or that animals evolve into other kinds of animals because these things are not observable (more on micro and macro evolution in another blog). Creationists, on the other hand, can read the account in Genesis 1-11 and then observe the world (operational science) and see evidence of the events of the Bible. I'll post more about these evidences in other blogs.

Cain's wife

2008-05-06T10:27:00.000-04:00

One of the main reasons people don't believe the Biblical account of creation is because they have questions that no one seems to be able to answer. Well, here's one big question: Where did Cain get his wife? The Bible is clear that the only people that God created were Adam and Eve, and that every creature he created reproduced after their own kind, so, logically, the only people that could exist on earth would be offspring of Adam and Eve. There were no laws governing who a person could and could not marry (God didn't give those laws until Moses); there was also a limited number of people for Cain to choose from: his sisters. And there were a lot of sisters considering Adam lived for 930 years. So, at that point in history, if you didn't marry a close relation, you didn't marry. Genetics tell us that it is unwise for people of close relations to have children (today) because of copying mistakes and the risk of serious birth defects, but consider this: God made everything (including Adam and Eve and their genes) very good (sin brought all the problems into the world). It stands to reason that there were no genetic mistakes in Adam and Eve, and there would be few if any in their children and grandchildren.

In the beginning...

2008-05-05T15:20:00.001-04:00

The goal of this blog is to give information about the creation/evolution issue to our friends, family and anyone else who visits.
Foundations in Genesis is a creation evangelism ministry started in Westerville, OH in March 2008. We are committed to defending the Bible and, namely, the first 11 chapters of Genesis which lay the foundation for the rest of the Bible.
For more information about Foundations in Genesis, visit our website: FoundationsInGenesis.org
Thank you for visiting and please check back soon for facts, quotes and things to think about related to creation and evolution.