The Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . .
. Scientific
Facts of Creation
By
Wendy S. Scott
Introductory Table of
Contents
Links
Links to other Units with the subject
table of contents. Each begins with a Brief List
of Facts:
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Disclaimer: The author of this guide is not a research
scientist. This information has been
compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific
authorities. The majority of the
information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known
facts are cited. Do
not quote the author as a
scientific authority. This guide is intended
to systematically build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical
alignment and application of the abundance of established scientific facts.
A Layman’s Guide to the
Amazing but Totally True Scientific
Facts of Creation
By Wendy S. Scott
Dedication:
Most of this guide, in one way or another, has sprung from the tireless work of
Creation scientists like those of the Institute for Creation Research, where
such marvelous ongoing research continuously reveals the true facts behind
Creation. For greater depth and original
research resources, visit the ICR website. God, of course, is the Author of
Creation, and the Originator of all wisdom, to whom I owe all praise.
True Blue
All undisputed facts in this guide are in bright blue.
Is there a God? This
is the one imperative question that abides before every one of us
regardless of who or where we are. What
we ultimately conclude from our experiences and observations will influence
every aspect of our life, and subsequently, our after-life. We must therefore give the most serious
attention to our inquiry, and diligently search with the heart of wisdom.
No one, with genuine authority, can prove that there is no
God. There is a truth, and by
definition, there can be only one truth on this matter: either
there is, or there is not a God.
The existence of God is not affected by our opinion. If we are wrong, God doesn’t appear or
disappear subject to our beliefs. While
science is striving to dethrone this mighty king with its own god of evolution,
most people profess a sense that there is something more beyond what we
see. We have a powerful awareness of
eternity stamped on our hearts, compelling us to believe in a life beyond this world, and a mind behind it.
Some people assume that any god will do, or that all roads
lead to the same God, despite the glaring contrasts between them. But can my idea of God and your idea of God
both be true if they are fundamentally opposed?
Our grasp of the purpose of this world, and this life is arbitrary
without a true understanding. Everything
we think and do and hope for balances on the perspective we choose to live
by. Eventually, we must all make that
choice because indecision is not open to us.
This God expects us to decide.
But who is God?
If God is real, there ought to be some indication of who
this Being is, what this Being’s role is in the world, and whether or not this
Being can be trusted. A real
God, not one of our devising, would necessarily exist before time and
outside of matter because as a God, He could not be the product of time
and matter. He must be the originator of
all things, or he is the God of nothing.
If this is a God of reality, and not of imagination, there ought to be
real, tangible evidence of His existence, supreme power and His intent.
Given the consequences bound to the question of the
existence of God, we are compelled to embark on a genuine investigation, void of all prejudices and baseless
standards. As the reader, you must answer
this one question honestly, in order to come to a reasoned conclusion about the
matter. Are you willing to
earnestly examine the evidence in search for the truth, and are you willing to
accept that truth, no matter what it is?
Your first reaction to this challenge
will reveal your heart, and your true position on the issue. The question was not, “Will you believe what
I tell you,” but “Will you accept the truth, whatever it is, when it is made
plain to you?” If your heart, already
knowing the topic of this book, says “no,” then you are falling into the same
trap as a lot of people and scientists who are willing to ignore actual
evidence in order to hold onto their own beliefs. In this case your “truth” is held in
ignorance. But perhaps you were not
aware of this preconception that you held, and now being aware, you are willing
to listen a little more openly. That’s
good, because then you cannot be fooled.
Your understanding will be based on knowledge, and not opinion, or
current world views.
Perhaps you are someone who has been undecided about the
whole matter, or you already believe in God, but have always accepted that your
faith was based on feelings instead of real intellectual and scientific
evidence. You think that your religious
convictions need to bend to scientific claims, but then you are left without
much substance in reality for your faith to stand on. Your God has been whittled down into an
ambiguous icon. If evolution is true,
then faith is in vain. However, it most
assuredly is NOT in vain.
Before authoring this guide, I had the same concerns about
my faith. Although I knew that God was
true, and the world was marvelous, I did not know how to reconcile my faith
with popular science. Wanting to know
the truth, whichever way it went, I began to test everything that I heard on both
sides, against the absolute, unmovable facts that had been determined, and
accepted by all scientists. What I
discovered through my diligent journey as a layman is that the scientific truth
was both alive and accessible to the common person. The truth, I have discovered, is founded on
unshakable facts and logic—unlike the edicts of the reigning scientific
dynasty.
Be encouraged because this text will lay out these facts,
and breach the sanctity of evolution, liberating the truth from its
captors. These facts reveal that the only
God to claim that He made the universe, the planets, all
life, and our very souls, did so not in secret.
This same God that created everything and the natural laws that govern
them, is wise and good, and He has firmly secured His claim through the very
scientific evidence that people profess to tear Him down with.
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
The
Challenge of Truth
There is a great deal of discussion over the factuality of
the theory of evolution. At this point to
entertain any other possibility for the origin of the universe is not only
considered scientific folly, but those who do so are treading on dangerous
grounds in our sophisticated, technological society. Because of this, many people make the error
of viewing the topic the way they have been taught to view the popular concept
of separation of church and state—that science and faith are mutually
exclusive, and should not associate with one another.
In reality though, if God created the universe, and all that
is in it, that makes Him, undeniably scientific. In fact, He would be the most brilliant,
scientific mind to ever exist.
Evolutionists would like us to believe, however, that the persistence of
these Creation fables is interesting for cultural variety only. To foist these
archaic notions onto the rest of the world as the truth is ridiculously
shameful and absurd in the face of “true science” and scientific
reasoning. This is the dichotomy that
society holds now, and as the “scientific” reader sighs deeply, possibly
rolling his or her eyes, (not this garbage again) we can perhaps settle this
matter quickly. The entirety of this
book can be dismissed by successfully answering one fundamental question:
Name one scientifically undisputed fact of evolution.
You may not be aware of all the nuances of the scientific
fields, and have only a casual understanding of the theories of the origins of
the universe based on our public school education. To an open and intrigued mind, this is likely
to be an interesting challenge, and I urge you to thoughtfully consider the
many variables of this scientific riddle.
But for those of you who might be more familiar with the multitudinous
details of particular sciences, I would caution you to take your time in answering
this question.
Sift through all of the vast knowledge that is
available. We are told that the
unshakable, unmitigated scientific evidence for evolution is so powerful as to
risk ridicule at the mere question of doubt.
We have been convinced to trust in all this unsearchable depth of
scientific wisdom, and principles, discoveries, and rational thought, until the
whole of society has been unquestionably fastened to this one concept. Given this unfailing assurance by the
scientific community, dozens of undeniable examples should flood the mind. Name simply one scientific fact of
evolution.
Here’s just a general reminder of what
a fact is. According to the World Book
Encyclopedia definition: “Facts are
truths proved only through such means as experiment, testing, measurement, or
scientific observation.” A fact is
known, by reasonable people, to be true because of undisputed evidence.
Absurdly, the reader may be wondering how to narrow it down
to just one fact? Good, then select a simple
one, just to start with. Be careful
though. There are many ideas that scientists declare to be facts. For instance, one might say “we evolved”
which is only a concept, not a fact. One
might also claim that a fossil find “is a transitional form,” when at best, it
is a perceived or possible transition. These are not tested and proven facts, and
many such professions and concepts have been disproved over the years. A genuine fact that proves evolution should
be scientifically indisputable, and also excludes the Creation
model. It therefore cannot be an
accepted fact of the Creation model as well.
There are many scientific facts that people often assume
contradict the Creation model. Some of
these are: the wide variation in species, natural selection of the fittest,
dinosaurs, the Ice Age, mass pre-historic extinctions, types of plants and
animals unique to the past, fossils, genetic mutations, the complexity and
vastness of the universe, and evidence of “cavemen” and Neanderthals are among
many common misconceptions. The Creation
Science model finds these factors to fit very well with expectations based on
the Biblical account.
This discussion, however, does not intend to argue for the
vague and ineffectual Intelligent Design model now battling for a place in
public schools. It is not necessary to
water down the Creation account into a flexible model that allows for millions
of years of evolution, or a mythical interpretation of Noah’s flood. This book will assume a literal, to the last word
adherence to the Biblical model. If
Creation is such a fairy tale, it shouldn’t be hard to find one really good,
blow it out of the water hard fact that completely belies the Biblical account.
Name one fact that even EVOLUTIONISTS all
agree is unwavering and completely unshakable.
Go on, set the book down, and think about it. This will wait. Just don’t forget to come back . . .
Okay, weeding through the impenetrable mound of assumptions,
suppositions, and unproven conclusions, one might be astounded to find that
there are no facts to support evolution to the exclusion of the Creation
Model. If you still think there is
something out there that you are missing; that perhaps this is a ridiculous
proposition, or you think you might actually have a fact in mind, then consider
what one of dozens of highly regarded evolutionists have readily admitted.
Colin Patterson, who remains an evolutionist despite his
revelations, confirmed this lack of support in a 1981 address at the
For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution . . .
but there was not one thing I knew about it. . . .So for the last few weeks
I’ve tried putting the simple question to various people and groups of people
and [scientists]. The question is “Can
you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing
that is true?” . . . and all I got was silence. . . . During the past few years . . . you have
experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith . . . .
Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey
anti-knowledge.
Evolutionists know that there are no scientifically
undisputed facts that demonstrate evolution, that’s why instead of presenting
them, they simply mold the evidence only to fit their assumptions even when it
is decidedly not the most logical conclusion. They declare every
aspect of evolution a fact so often that people assume there is something
behind it. Even though evolutionists will
not even consider scientifically sound alternatives to evolution, they are
still not able to agree to a single concept of how this “fact” of evolution
played out. From the Big Bang to the
rise of man, there is strenuous dispute over how any of it occurred.
There are dozens of scientific views and interpretations
concerning the evolutionary process.
These disagreements are not on minor details, but on the principle
concepts of how the universe came into being, and if and how macro-evolution
occurred. Every major stage of this
process remains completely unsettled as to the mechanisms involved because
evolution conflicts with true scientific facts. It is called the Theory of
Evolution, but it is much more than one theory.
There are no “facts” to actually build the skeleton of evolution
on that all, well regarded evolutionists except.
But curiously, one may wonder, are there any scientific
facts that point to the Creation model to the exclusion
of evolution? Facts that no reasonable
scientist would deny? There are.
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE
INFO
The
Creation Model
Many rumors have been dispensed about the Bible. People think that if they point out what they
view as errors or inaccuracies in the Bible, then they have proven the faith to
be false. They are right. If indeed the Bible said something ridiculous
like the moon was made of green cheese, (Mormon prophesy), or that the sun sets
in a spring of murky water every night (Surah 18:86, the Quran), or that
the sun was pulled across the sky by a god and his chariot (Greek myth of
Helios), or that the world was carried on the back of a turtle (Hindu myth of
Chukwa), or that a woman was impregnated by an elephant (myth of Buddha’s
birth) along with many more faith based misconceptions, then it would be
reasonable to question whether it was the word of an inerrant God.
No such evidence is given, however, and arguments against
the Bible typically breakdown to “Man has translated it so many times, you
can’t trust it,” and “The Bible is full of contradictions.” Ask specifically
what they are, and the whole of someone’s argument against the Bible usually
comes down to “That word was used in this translation, and another word was
used in this translation,” or “In this Gospel Mary went in the tomb, and in
this one several women went in,” not considering that one Gospel just gave more
details.
The Bible has withstood every academic test—it is
historically accurate, we know that the translations are faithful (thanks to
the Dead Sea Scrolls), the detailed prophecies have come true, the texts have a
spiritual and historical continuity, and they are scientifically sound. No other ancient document meets the standards
the Bible meets, and yet no other ancient document has undertaken such a
monumental task.
The Bible covers more ancient history than any other book of
antiquity, and was written by more than 40 different authors over the period of
1,500 years, yet the doctrine, salvation, and nature of God maintain complete
continuity throughout. The Hebrew
scribes faithfully copied the Old Testament manuscripts so that each line and
column always ended the same, eliminating any possible errors. The New Testament writings can be attributed
to the eyewitnesses themselves, and were widespread within their lifetimes. They date within the span of 40 years of
Jesus’ crucifixion based on various historical citations and continued
references to the
The existence of this kind of proof is remarkable since
writing itself was not the tool of the common person, and these writings were
widely distributed while witnesses to Jesus’ ministry were still alive and able
to dispute each author’s claims. Even
secular sources of the time (including Roman official documents and the Jewish
historian, Josephus) confirm the essential doctrines of early Christianity: that
Jesus claimed to be the way to God, that he predicted His own death, and
resurrection, that all His followers became bold and published His Gospel even
enduring death, and that they worshiped Him as God. Additionally, hundreds of
precise prophecies have already been fulfilled, a feat not even attempted by
the texts of other beliefs. Despite the
Bible’s incredible trustworthiness, it takes very little to let people off the
hook of believing in it.
Society does, however, have a higher level of tolerance for
its own faith in Naturalism, and people’s stomachs are significantly stronger
when it comes to false scientific claims.
If one perceived inaccuracy disproves God’s Word, how many
blatant errors will it take to topple the monument of evolution? How many “false prophecies” can science
endure before evolution goes the way of Greek myths, and succumbs to the status
of a societal icon like aliens from outer space?
If there are indeed provable, testable facts that confirm the
Creation model, and exclude the theory of evolution, but there are no provable,
testable facts that confirm the theory of evolution, and exclude the Creation
model, then the Creation model would be the more reasonable scientific
perspective, whether one wishes to believe in God or not. Taking faith out of the equation, the
Creation model factually demonstrates to be the more accurate scientific model.
“O
Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain
babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing,
have erred concerning the faith,”
I Tim 6:20-21
First, so the reader is able to keep the evidence in
perspective, here is the basic Creation model, according to the Bible, or
Moses’ book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 (and affirmed by several other books of
the Bible). God created the universe,
all the chemical elements, light and energy and matter, all the principles of
physics, and natural sciences, the heavens, the earth, the atmosphere, and all
life including man as a distinct and fully developed being in six literal
days. Because He is God, millions of
years wouldn’t make the task any easier, and therefore this allowance is an
unnecessary intrusion into the Biblical account.
God called His Creation very good. The Bible tells us that He gave every form of
life the ability to reproduce after its own kind, fixing each basic genus. In Genesis chapter 3, when Adam and Eve
committed sin, they opened the door that allowed evil into the world, which
brought death and destruction. From then
on, all life and energy has been slowly degenerating under the curse of the
destructive presence of evil. Later, in
chapter 6, the earth was full of violence when the hearts of people had grown
cold toward God, and they continued to reject a relationship with Him. God
pronounced a judgment on the earth and on humanity to cleanse the world corrupt
from rebellion.
God warned the people about the coming judgment through Noah
for 100 years before He sent the global Flood to destroy all terrestrial
life. Noah and his family were spared
because he was the only one who had given his heart to follow the Lord. God used Noah to preserve a remnant of His
Creation in order to continue life on the earth after the Flood, and replenish
it with the good seed of the faithful.
He instructed Noah to build the
The Flood occurred when God caused torrential rain to fall,
and fountains of water to brake up from deep within the earth and sea. It rained for forty days, and the ark was
lifted by the floodwaters. After 150
days, Psalm 104:6-9 tells us that God caused the waters to recede with
the sudden rise of mountains, through continued volcanism and the movement of
the earth’s crust. This caused the water
to flow to the foot of the mountains, into the valleys of newly formed sea
basins, where the water is contained to this day (which is bounded by
underwater mountains). In Genesis 8:1,
God also caused a wind to pass over the land, creating weather currents, which
aided the evaporation of the water into the clouds. After about a year, the Ark rested on a
mountain (Mt. Ararat) in the Middle East, and all its inhabitants went about to
resettle and replenish the earth.
At this point, the weather and topography of the earth would
have been extremely different. The Bible
tells us in Gen 2:6 that before the flood, there was no rain, but a mist
rose from water sources under the warm ground, and watered everything. Likely, the water in the atmosphere had been
contained in a water canopy that maintained the global tropical climate, and
kept out much of the sun’s radiation.
Now after the collapse of the canopy, the cataclysmic geological
episodes and introduction of rain clouds, the climate and the atmosphere would
have shifted dramatically.
The post cataclysm landscape and conditions brought the Ice
Age, a climate that would influence genetic variations in some animals through
their pre-programmed DNA (like wooly mammoths).
However, the new colder climate would likely hinder the broad success of
other animals, such as dinosaurs and other creatures not suited for the
cold. The Ice Age would also facilitate
repopulating the world through land and ice bridges.
Animals first began to disperse throughout the world, but
people disobeyed God and did not.
Instead, they built a great civilization capped by the
The information and discussion throughout this book will
demonstrate the scientific validity of this model, and reveal how biased and
unsubstantiated the evolution model really is.
This book is a journey that the author endeavored to
undertake in pursuit of the true scientific facts. It is a layman’s quest for genuine, unbiased
answers to this mystery of our origins.
It takes great strides in drawing conclusions purely from the undisputed
logic and science that can be easily gleaned from everyday textbooks and
resources. With such accessible
corroboration, it was possible to reclaim the things of science from the elite-minded,
and bestow them through undefiled evidence, back to the citizenry. Let us now peak behind Oz’s curtain, and see
him for what he really is.
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Bias Dispensed
The “Truth” about
Evolution—can we believe everything we hear?
Truth is an elusive thing. Who can you trust to give it to you? Some people like to think that there is no
absolute truth (absolutely). We betray
this notion in our very convictions about life, and each believes that what we
hold fast to is right, or true. Though
philosophies market this elusive concept in order to promote their own brand of
exclusive truth, our daily realities prove, logically, that there is
Truth. While one may cloud the issue
with philosophical challenges, I can tell you that at the writing of this book,
I, a female, live in
When people ask me where I grew up, they don’t
want to hear, “Why do you assume I am grown,” or “Who knows, my past is my
future,” or “According to eastern thought, the reality we call life doesn’t
exist.” Well, if that’s true, stop
getting up in the morning, and going to work to earn money to pay for this
fantasy of life, and while you’re at it, try not moving when a car is driving
toward you and test the edge of your reality.
We are all thankful that science at least claims to be a
study of our reality.
Unfortunately, though, truth can be manipulated
when it is dispensed to the hearer.
Before we endeavor to weigh the truth about the origin of the universe, we
must dispel this concept that the scientific perspective is always truthful and
unbiased, and that the Judeo-Christian perspective is always fanciful
and biased. The reason millions
of people believe that evolution is a fact, and that Creation is a fable, is
that we do assume that science is unbiased, and religion has an
agenda. Once this assumption is deeply
established through repetition, it is possible to pass anything off as the
truth, cloaking it with authority, and conviction. The public assumes that the scientists are
being forthright, and yet bias scientists use this trust to cautiously lead us
through the evolutionary minefield with their careful phrases and
implications. When you act like you know
what you are talking about, people will believe it. People will not question it. People will stop using their minds.
One may wonder if scientists, as a community,
are really capable of conspiring to keep such secrets, and why. Society is generally cautious about giving
heed to conspiracy theories, which frequently sprout from paranoid minds. But then how do we know when a conspiracy
really is being perpetrated? We know
through honest testing and inquisition by unbiased sources. However, we watch the movies. We know the plot. When the suspected perpetrators refuse to
submit to scrutiny, our suspicions should be aroused. The protective barrier entrenched around
evolution should tip us off that something evocative is being hidden. Shall we poke a hole in the wall, and see?
As we scrutinize the evolutionary scientific
establishment, you will doubtless hear many logical and common sense ideas and
wonder why you never thought of them before.
When this happens, remember that it was the scientific misinformation
that prevented you from coming to these same, obvious conclusions, and
prevented you from thinking past what you were told. Scrutinize everything—said by scientists, and
said here. Weigh it all, and judge for yourself. What is really true?
Why would so many scientists participate, willingly,
or by coercion, to protect this concept of evolution? The reality is that
despite society’s assertion that evolution science is the only non-religious
science, it
is in fact a decidedly religious dogma which presumes that God
does not exist. This in itself is a
faith—an unproven assumption that there is no God. Scientists will tell you that they cannot prove
there is no God. Why then do all
scientific theories exclude God, and fail to keep the door open when examining
the evidence? Evolutionary science is
emphatically an anti-God establishment, even though it theoretically allows us
the luxury of “a form of god” that does not claim to have specially created
life and the details of the universe.
In fact, everyone who does not desire to believe in
God the Creator, must believe in a form of evolution. This refusal to believe in God the Creator,
is a powerful motivator because once you decide God did not create the
universe, there is no other scientific option but evolution. And once you decide that there is no option
to evolution, your job, if you are a scientist, is to make it fit. It was not the scientific evidence that first
convinced people there is no God. People
have refused to believe in God the Creator throughout history. The evolution myth is an ancient concept that
can be traced back to “the Great Chain of being” rooted in Greek
pantheism. Only now, science is seeking
to substantiate it. It is not unreasonable
to wonder if science’s intellectual skeptics are now driving evolution’s bus.
Again, if the Creation and Noah’s Flood accounts
are such scientifically inadequate premises, why do evolutionists feel
compelled to continually, even angrily, dispute and censor Creationist
concepts? They don’t ridicule Hindus, or
Buddhists, or Muslims, or psychics, or New Age spiritualists about their deeply
held convictions. Could it be that these
faiths are not a scientific challenge to the establishment? Could it be that there really is reliable
science behind the Creation model? There
are good scientists out there pursuing the truth and raising rational issues
about a naturalistic origin of the universe, and they know that the evidence
does not exclusively substantiate to the evolution model. But if this is so, why don’t we hear more specifics
about this evidence for Creation?
Perhaps it is because of the forgotten
oxymoron—once a scientist becomes convinced by the evidence that the Bible is
true, that scientist ceases to be considered legitimate, and is now considered
a Creationist. Rationally, there can’t
be any non-Creationists who agree that the evidence supports Creation over
evolution. Scientists who recognize the
evidence for Creation become illegitimate, and the scientists who disregard it
are considered real scientists because they confirm evolution. There is very little room for a middle
ground.
However, many scientists who have been taught
that there is no scientific alternative to evolution are beginning to recognize
the problems with evolution in their own work.
This recognition, occasionally, reveals glimpses of the truth about
Creation, and some of this evidence is beginning to take root. Despite this, the majority of the scientists
still remain devout to evolution. They
adamantly deny any possibility that God specially created everything, or that
He sent a worldwide Flood. They take
great pains to convince the less-scientific that the idea is completely
unfounded and superstitious—in spite of the compelling evidence.
Un-Discovered
To demonstrate this willingness to mislead, even
deceive the public, the following is a typical example of scientific
manipulation. It comes from the newly
self-appointed czars of cutting edge science—The Discovery Channel. The January 18, 2004 program (and subsequent re-airing)
“Noah’s Ark, the True Story,” promised to examine the details of the account of
Noah’s Flood from a purely scientific viewpoint (why don’t they ever do
“Buddha, the true story,” or “Muhammad, the true story,” or “Joseph Smith, the
true story?”).
According to the promo, the scientific evidence
itself would be weighed to test the veracity of the Biblical account. Instead, the producers reveal their bias
against God and against the validity of the Flood account on every point. The program would set up false obstacles to
weaken the credibility of the Biblical premise, and then feign to help salvage
it by making more feasible concessions to the original account. By this, the program systematically belittles
the legitimacy of the Bible on the testimony of this “science.”
A closed-minded approach is evident from the
beginning. One of many quotes
demonstrates this skeptical predisposition.
After describing a litany of seemingly insurmountable problems for the
account, the host presents this dilemma—“It may seem there is a stark
choice—dismiss the story as myth, or appeal to the hand of God.” Naturally, if the evidence validated the
Flood account, then it would, by default, testify that this God in heaven was
true. The statement unequivocally mocks
the existence of God, revealing an absolute biased against the
possibility. The entire program is
filled with disparaging remarks, making it clear that the account would not be
taken seriously. We are so used to
scientists excluding God from their assessments, that we forget how
unscientific it is to assume that there is no God outright, without even
considering the evidence.
There were blatant distortions intentionally
perpetrated in this program, a common practice for this network. Their custom is to feed the viewer a false
assumption, and then to knock down that assumption, thereby falsely
discrediting the concept while appearing to be genuine. As the host cataloged the original Biblical
account beginning at God’s direction to build the
The first intentional misrepresentation began
with the
The problem with a 450’ boat made of wood, is
that wood, as a material, cannot maintain the shape of the boat, and the boat
would start to distort at sea, and the seams would open up, and it would sink.
While he is speaking, and continuing to say
“boat,” he points to their depiction of this “boat,” indicating where the
boards are curving together to a point at the bow, and specifying the inability
for the wood to hold the strain of this large, curved shape. At this point, an animation of this boat
appears, and it quickly breaks up and sinks into the sea. The narrator then comments, “It’s a
safe bet that a wooden
This would not be so bad, if the program were
not deliberately ignoring one indisputable fact. The original word that we translate to the
English word “Ark” means “box,” and not boat, otherwise it would
have been translated to “boat.” The
instructions specify a length, width, and height, and indicate 3 stories—most logically and simply interpreted
as a box. There
is no indication in the Biblical description that the structure resembled the
image depicted in the animation, or is any other than this most obvious
rectangular shape. The expert that so rashly dismisses the account with the
insurmountable strain on the large, curved boards would not be able to make his
argument against a rectangular box, which is a
strong, simple structure.
In fact, it is such a good structure, designed
for stability in rough water, that we still apply a similar design to barges. It would also be more feasible to build, as
the bottom of the hull would not have to be balanced on scaffolding, but could
sit squarely on the ground, until the rising waters lifted it up. One must assume that, among all the experts
that would have to be consulted in responsibly undertaking such an important
and public examination of this sacred text, at least one person would know such
a simple fact that any common Bible concordance can tell us.
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Furthermore, the narrator generalizes the cause
of the inevitable destruction of the
The implication at the start of the program was
that actual scientific evidence and experimentation would be used to test the
account, but not even the effort was made to simply build a scale model to test
the structure according to an accurate interpretation of the clear
instructions. No other evidence is
offered against the feasibility of the Biblical account of the structure of the
Another assumption was intended to cast doubt on
God’s directive to Noah in Genesis
The deception lies in the assertion that 30
million species would need to be loaded onto the
According to the Dorling Kindersley Science Encyclopedia,
there are about 4,000
amphibian, 6,500 reptile, 9,000 bird, and 4,000 mammal species living today
throughout the earth, totaling only about 23,500 species. This figure would naturally include marine
mammal species, like whales that would not go on the
Although it is necessary to add numerous extinct
animal species to the list, such as several dinosaurs and flying reptiles,
mammals with no surviving forms today, etc . . . most of the present individual
species are variations of an initial form of the species. Such species today could have radiated from a
basic ancestor, like the wide variety of mice, rats, hares, bats, finches, etc
. . . and therefore it would be necessary to take even less animals aboard.
The mice in
The majority of these birds and animals were
smaller than dogs, while only a relatively few, including juvenile dinosaurs
and elephants, would be larger. The
simple logic of which animals would go on the
Another deception was formulated in this
fashion. The narrator, presumably not a
scientist, makes this challenge concerning geological evidence of a global
flood:
Such a catastrophe should have left evidence all over the planet in the form of
uniform marine sediments spread across the earth and the ocean floor. But is there any proof of a devastating global flood?
At this point, the program goes to a commercial,
leaving the viewer to assume that the next part will discuss whether or not
there is a layer of marine sediments all over the world. When the program returns, Geologist Ian
Plimer comes on and states:
A great flood would leave a signature. It would be a very great signature apparent
all over the world. There is no such
signature and there is no evidence. In
fact, there is only overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
At
this point the narrator adds:
The
absence of direct evidence is only one
of the problems with this story. In fact
the whole idea of a global flood flies in the face of what is known about
planet earth.
Not one example
is listed to support or explain this declaration of an utter lack of
evidence. All scientific inquiry is
brushed off with an absolute statement as if it was a fact: “There is no
evidence.” The assertion has the effect
of reassuring the viewer that there is no need to investigate further, the
scientists have done it, and there is nothing to the claim. In fact, this “fact” is really an
opinion. The true and undisputed fact—famously
known, and the very foundation upon which evolution is built—is that there indeed is a very great
deposit of marine sediments covering the entire world. The misrepresentation is that the wording
suggests that there is not. (The
later section on Geology will discuss this in detail.)
What the statement really means is that despite
the overwhelming evidence of a prominent marine layer, we have chosen to
interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective of long ages, and it
dictates that there was no worldwide flood at the time the Bible indicates. The minds behind the program are apparently
afraid to even mention the existence of this marine layer within the context of
the program for fear that the viewers might start thinking for themselves and
put 2+2 together. It would be easier for
them not to discuss the marine layer here, than to mention it, and then have to
explain all about why they don’t think it is from the Flood.
To make any concessions at all would be to risk
people concluding that this blatantly evident marine layer, and all the fossils
it contains, was actually the result of the same catastrophic Flood of the
Bible. This would not only validate the
Bible, but acknowledging a rapid deposit of sediments negates the assumption
that fossils are the result of long ages.
If fossils were deposited in a catastrophe, then they do not represent
millions of years of evolution. Any
concession that concurs with the Flood account, risks disclosing that the
evidence proposed for evolution has been misinterpreted. And who would admit such a thing?
There were many more intentional distortions in
this program, but the final one we will discuss was set up by the
narrator. He continues:
To
flood the entire planet to the top of the Himalayas would take five times
the volume of the water in the oceans.
It’s hard to imagine where such a deluge would come from.
The geologist then states, with “unquestionable”
and emphatic authority:
We know
how much water we’ve got in the oceans, we know how much water we’ve got
in the polar ice caps, we know how much water we’ve got in the atmosphere, we know
how much water we’ve got in the rocks.
If we put all of that
together, which has happened many times in the geological
past, we still do not flood the
continents.
Two certain truths reveal that this distortion
is intentional. First, the statement
forces an unknowledgeable viewer to accept the conditions of the assertion—that
the top of the present day
The
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Secondly, scientists have the geological history
before them to dispel any doubt about the Flood covering the area of the
Every Geologist and Paleontologist knows
for a fact that the
As a contrast, another network, The History
Channel, made an honest attempt to evaluate the account of Noah’s
The narrator next comments “Boats must resist
leakage, so the Biblical builders developed a sophisticated technology for
tightly joining the wood planks.” Dr. Ward
then begins to describe the well known techniques of the ancient
As the narrator begins to recount the Biblical
instructions for building the
At this
point, the narrator introduces some research conducted by an engineer, Joseph
K. Silver, who was an
Shearer looked up requirements and standards
with the United States Coast Guard, the American Bureau of Shipping, and the
International Maritime Organization, and finally concluded that:
Basically, his concept of the Ark fit all the
requirements. The rule of thumb is that
ocean going barges have a length to depth ratio of about 15 to one. The Ark actually met those criteria.
Shearer went a step further and created a
computer model of the
In the final analysis, the sincere approach of
the History Channel included the applicable research and input from appropriate
experts who scientifically determined that the design of the
An honest reader will find that deceptions and
manipulations of wording, even outright lies, pervade the scientific community
in order to keep the average person from recognizing the truth. There are hundreds of good, honest scientists
out there working hard to give us understanding. However, when at any point the evidence and
observations soundly discredit evolution, and affirm Creation and the Flood,
those findings will not be made well known, and explanations will always be
conjured.
If indeed there is so much evidence to
corroborate the Biblical account, why of the two possibilities, do scientists
always slant it toward evolution? Because
they have no other choice. Again, they
have decided to believe that the universe was formed without God, that science
must exist outside of religion, and to concede to any part of the overwhelming
evidence, would be to relinquish all that they are, and all that they hold fast
to. Science must provide a viable
alternative to God, even at the cost of the truth.
Evolutionists are the Pharisees of science,
jealously guarding their domain with pompous authority, and casting out the
converted. Just as Jesus said of those
religious tyrants, “Woe to you . . . for you are like unmarked graves, and the
men that walk over them are not aware of them . . . Woe to you, for you have
taken away the key of knowledge; you wouldn’t enter in yourself, and those that
would have entered in, you hindered,” (Luke 11:44, 52). We have supposed that we have nowhere else to
turn to for the truth.
Evolutionists use science like a shell game,
cloaking the truth with slight of word.
There are no facts to prove the theory of evolution because there is not
one piece of evidence that every evolutionist will agree is an undisputed fact
of evolution. They only agree that
evolution itself is a fact. The Creation
model, however, is so sound that the excellence of this world blooms with
wisdom and beauty when viewed through its scope. “For I will give you . . . a wisdom that all
your opponents will not be able to overcome, nor resist,” Luke 21:15.
The following text, sectioned by Units,
lays out scientific facts that support Creation Science to the exclusion
of the evolutionary theory.
back to top PHYSICS BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO