The God of Creation

In my last article I wrote that the evidence did show that the earth is old and that life has been around for millions of years. I also wrote that the Genesis creation was in fact a re-creation. In a response to that article I received this comment,

Okay, your God could have been creating for millions of years during the period that you see as the gap in the Genesis record. But what method did God use? Is it possible he was using evolution?

I contend that, if there was a creator God that he created all those living things by allowing them to evolve from common ancestors. Since you reject that method what do you put in its place? What method do you think God used to create all those creatures? So far, evolution is the only method on the table. I have presented my view. You have yet to suggest an alternative. Please suggest an alternative method, and tell us why you think it is more plausible that God used this method rather than evolution. Until you do that, the debate cannot even begin. Evolution is the only method on the table. Do you care to suggest an alternative method that God might have used?

I think it’s a fair question however I think the writer has overlooked that I did speak of an alternative method and that is, God spoke life into existence just as it says in Genesis. However, since the question of God is questioned, perhaps we need to leave this discussion for the moment and look at the evidence for God. But before we do let me say again why I believe that God did not use evolution as the means by which he created. In my opinion by allowing life to evolve meant he spoke the spark of life into existence and then left it to its own devices. Some life forms lived, and some died, this is not the God I serve. But for argument sake let’s assume that He did use evolution as the means by which to create, then the writer of this question would have to consider the evidence for God just as I have to consider the evidence he lays out for evolution.

In order to say that evolution is wrong we have to prove that creation is correct. In order to do that we have to prove that God really exists and that Christ is who he said he was. To do that we have to look at the Jewish writings and their history and see what effect they’ve had on history. Now I know many would ask why, and the answer is quite simple, the argument for evolution and creation starts in Genesis and ends at the cross. If God never existed as evolutionary science and secular humanists teach then creation is indeed a myth, but if we can prove that God does exist and that Christ is who he said he was and is than evolution and its teachings fall flat and it forces those that believe in evolution to take a second look at scripture and its teachings.

When we look at ancient history we find that the ancient laws are quite similar to Jewish law. For example the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi, a large stone monument with ancient laws written on it was found in Mesopotamia. It supported the authenticity of the Law of Moses since some Bible critics had held that the art of writing and the science of law were unknown in that early period of history.

There were also striking parallels between some of Hammurabi's statutes and those of Moses in the Book of the Covenant. For example, in citing the law for personal injury, Hammurabi's statute 206 states: "If a man wound another accidentally in a quarrel with a stone or his fist, and oblige him to take his bed, he shall pay for the loss of his time and for the doctor's." The Law of Moses, for the same offense, is remarkably similar (Exodus 21:18-19).

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.

For the sake of argument the similarity between these and a few other laws got me to thinking of the possibility that the Mosaic Law in the Bible could have been taken from the Code of Hammurabi, or that both may have been a copy of something earlier.

With that in mind I went further back in history to the time Of Egypt. When I did that I found that Egypt had considerable written law as well. One document, The Instruction of the Vizier made mention of laws and sayings. This Egyptian document is often called “The Oldest Book in the World” and was originally written by the vizier in the Fifth (or Third) Dynasty which dated back to 1860 BC -1814 BC so it was possible that the Code of Hammurabi could have been copied from Egyptian law. Notice what this Ptah-Hotep (the second in command in Egypt) had to say of his life on earth.

“The keeping of these laws have gained for me upon earth 110 years of life, with the gift of the favor of the King, among the first of those whose works have made them noble, doing the pleasure of the King in an honored position.” The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep,” Precept XLIV

In Genesis 50:26 we find that Joseph also lived 110 years. So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten. And after they embalmed him, he was placed in a coffin in Egypt.

With that in mind I went back even further to a king called Melchizedek, a character in the Old Testament who appeared in Genesis to the patriarch Abraham. He is called "king of Salem" (believed to be ancient Jerusalem) and "priest of the most high God" in Genesis 14:18. But since there was nothing in history to validate this claim, at least none that I could find, the writing of the laws either of Moses or the code of Hammurabu may have been written or copied around 2000 B.C. or could have been taken from this ancient King.

So what about the other civilizations that interacted with Israel, what did they contribute to the evolution of society. We know about Egypt. We know that Israel left Egypt and settled in and conquered (1250-1230) the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites.(Joshua 3:10) Which are believed to have been nomadic people who settled in this area and developed trade routes which in turn attracted more powerful regional neighbors such as the Assyrians, babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. We see the Assyrians in approximately 740 BCE.

It is in Assyria where locks and keys were first used. The sexagesimal system of keeping time was developed. It is in Assyria where paved roads were first used. The first postal system, the first use of iron, the first magnifying glasses, the first libraries, the first plumbing and flush toilets, and the list goes on, and all this took place around 745-727 BCE

We see the Babylonians in 597-587 and we see the Persians in 539, and the Romans in 63 BCE

Now in all these exiles where Israel is conquered we see the conquering countries using Jews in their administration. We see Joseph sold as a slave, yet rises to second in command in Egypt. Under King Nebuchadnezzar, in the Babylonian exile we see in the book of Daniel he and others being elevated to positions of authority.

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility- 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king's palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king's table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king's service. 6 Among these were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

Now all this happened in the fourth year of the reign of king Jehoiakim around 606 BCE. The hanging Gardens of Babylon are believed to have ben constructed around 600 BCE, so here again we see Jews in exile but in places of authority.

If you look at history beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within the societies they lived in. Which raises the question why didn’t they excel as a nation? And the answer would be they did. Where are all the nations that conquered them? While all those that have conquered them have been assimilated the Jews still remain a viable nation. And what about the writings of these nations, while most are in museums the Jewish writings along with their language is still in use today. Which brings me to how does God or Christ fit in to all this? He does because there are many prophecies in the old testament that predict a messiah who would come and Christ claimed to be that messiah. So if Christ is not who he claims to be than all of scripture falls apart and nothing more needs to be said.

Were there others that effected history as much as Christ? I’ll come back to that later, but first we have to see if Christ is who he said he was. The first question I had to answer was, how long after Christ’s death were the scriptures written? To answer that I had to find out when he died, and according to history he died about 33 A.D. The next question I had to find out is, how accurate are the manuscripts we have today and that would be what is found in the bible compared to other ancient manuscripts. If we look at Roman historian Tacitus, he wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in 116 A.D. His first six books exist today in only one manuscript and it was copied about 850 A.D. Books eleven through sixteen are in another manuscript dating from the eleventh century, and books seven through ten are no more, for they have been lost in time. Josephus wrote The Jewish War and there are nine copies which were written in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. Homer’s Illiad has fewer than six hundred and fifty manuscripts today and some are quite fragmented and come down from the second and third century A.D. From the time it was written to the time it was copied is almost a thousand years later. So in essence there is but a thread that connects the ancient works to the modern world.

In contrast, in 1939 a Papyri was discovered to have portions of the four gospels and the book of Acts and it dated to the third century. Another was found containing portions of eight letters written by Paul plus a portion of Hebrews which dated back to about 200 A.D. Then in 1920 a fragment of the gospel of John was found which originated between 100 to 150 A.D. or as early as 98-117 A.D. Now why was that so important? German theologians in the last century argued that the fourth gospel was not even composed until at least 160 A.D. to distant from the events of the life of Christ to be historically useful.

In comparison I found that there were over five thousand Greek new testaments in existence today. And if we categorize all the different manuscripts in different languages there are about 24,000 in existence today. After a lot of research we find that the manuscripts are 99.5% accurate from what they were written to what we have today.

With that many scriptures the next question that needed to be asked, did Jesus actually exist, we find him mentioned by Josephus. In The Antiquities he describes the death of a Roman governor by the name of Festus, a high priest named Ananias, and James the brother of Jesus, all mentioned in the New Testament. In it he writes, “A man named James, the brother of Jesus, who is called the Christ.” Josephus also wrote about Christ in the Testimonium Flavianum.

Tachitus wrote in 115 A.D. “Nero persecuted the Christians”

Pliny the Younger another Roman wrote, I have asked them if they are Christians.”

So with that I believed that Christ did exist. What about other evidence? There was an historian by the name of Thallus who wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean in 52 A.D. and although his work has been lost Julius Africanus quotes his work in reference to the darkness that the gospels had written about at the death of Christ.

Julius Africanus says, Thallus, in the third book of his histories explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably as it seems to me.” So Thallus apparently was saying yes, there had been darkness at the time of the crucifixion, and he speculates it had been caused by an eclipse. Africanus then argues that it couldn’t have been an eclipse given when the crucifixion occurred.

Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D. reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (33 A.D.) there was a great eclipse of the sun and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared.
33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour

The next question I had to ask was, Were there any who did not believe before Christ’s death and who did after he arose? And the answer is yes. The first would be James the half brother to Jesus. James did not believe, as a matter of record neither did his family, but after the resurrection we find James as the head of the church in Jerusalem being stoned for his belief in Christ.

The Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years all writing about an event that would or did take place.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses.
Joshua = Joshua
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel, Nathan, and Gad
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Nehemiah
Esther = Mordecai
Job = Moses
Psalms = several different authors, mostly DavidProverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon
Isaiah = Isaiah
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah
Ezekiel = Ezekiel
Daniel = Daniel
Hosea = Hosea
Joel = Joel
Amos = Amos
Obadiah = Obadiah
Jonah = Jonah
Micah = Micah
Nahum = Nahum
Habakkuk = Habakkuk
Zephaniah = Zephaniah
Haggai = Haggai
Zechariah = Zechariah
Malachi = Malachi
Matthew = Matthew
Mark = John Mark
Luke = Luke
John = John
Acts = Luke
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos
James = James
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John
Jude = Jude
Revelation = John

What about eye witnesses to Christ after his resurrection. In one case there were over 500

You would agree with me that the Jewish people are very stubborn. The question I had was this, how do you convince someone of the Jewish persuasion who believes in the following,

1. They had been taught since the time of Abraham to offer sacrifices for sins. And now all of a sudden the death of a Nazarene carpenter forgave sins and sacrifices were no longer needed.

2. They had laws passed down from Moses which separated them from all other nations, and now the law of Moses no longer mattered.

3. The Sabbath was to be kept holy, and now the worship was on Sunday.

4. They believed in one God or monotheism. And now all of a sudden you had God the Father, God the Son, and Gods the Holy Spirit are considered one God when all they knew was Yahweh.

5. The had considered the messiah as one who come in power and glory to set up an earthly kingdom and Christ was teaching of a heavenly kingdom

We find a man by the name of Saul of Tarsus. A Pharisee, a man of high rank in the Jewish community and one who hated Christians. So you take Saul a Pharisee who became Paul who was a teacher and lawyer of the law and lay this on him, what do you think his reaction would have been? Exactly what it was, he accused them of blasphemy a sin punishable by death which is what they accused Jesus of. What would cause a man like him to convert.

Acts 9:1-6 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

After he met Christ he converted and wrote most of the New Testament. His writings were written before the Gospels, about two years after the death of Christ. So we do have accurate information on who Christ was, but that wasn’t enough, I had to look now to the old testament at the prophecies that told of the coming of Christ and here are but a few. You must also understand no prophecy foretold the coming of Buddha, Confucius or Muhammad. Yet there are hundreds concerning Jesus Christ, the Messiah. All of these prophecies were fulfilled in the life and death of Christ. Also remember that all of the Old Testament prophecies were spoken, and recorded, hundreds of years before Jesus came to earth.

1. Be Born in BethlehemOT Prophecy: Micah 5:2 'But you, Bethlehem, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old.'NT Fulfillment: Matt 2:1 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea...'

2. Preceded by a messenger OT Prophecy: Isaiah 40:3 'The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'NT Fulfillment Matt 3:1-2 'In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

3. Enter Jerusalem on a coltOT Prophecy: Zech 9:9 'Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King comes to you... humble riding on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'NT Fulfillment Luke 19:35 'They bought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and they put Jesus on it.'

4. Be Betrayed by a friendOT Prophecy: Psalm 41:9 'Yes, my own friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.'NT Fulfillment Matt 26:47-50 'and while he spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords... Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whosoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast... and Jesus said unto him, 'Friend, why have you come?'

5. Have his hands and feet piercedOT Prophecy: Psalm 22:16 'The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me. They have pierced my hands and my feet.'NT Fulfillment Luke 23:33 'And when they came to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.'

6. Be wounded and whipped by his enemiesOT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:5 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed.'NT Fulfillment Matt 27:26 'Then they released Barabbas unto them and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.'

7. Be sold for thirty pieces of silverOT Prophecy: Zech 11:12 'And I said to him, If you think it is good in your sight, give me my wages... So they weighed out thirty pieces of silver for my price.'NT Fulfillment Matt 26:15 'What will you give me if I deliver him unto you? And they agreed with him for thirty pieces of silver.'

8. Be spit upon and beatenOT Prophecy: Isaiah 50:6 'I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked out my hair: I did not hide my face from the shame and spitting.'NT Fulfillment Matt 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and hit him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands

9. The betrayal money thrown in the temple and used for a potters fieldOT Prophecy: Zech 11:13 'And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter that magnificent price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.'NT Fulfillment Matt 27:5-7 'And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple... And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's field as a burial place for strangers.'This is a remarkable prophecy for it is God who says 'Cast it to the potter that magnificent (sarcasm!) price at which they valued me...' How could man put a price on God? It doesn't make sense until God Himself, Jesus Christ, came to earth and was valued and betrayed for exactly 30 pieces of silver!

10. Cast lots for Jesus' clothingOT Prophecy: Psalm 22:18 'They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.'NT Fulfillment Matt 27:35 'And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots.'

Statisticians have calculated that for all of the above prophecies to be fulfilled in one person it is a combined probability of One chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000! And this is limiting ourselves to just these 10 prophecies! Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies, and now we have seen that His life and death did accurately fulfill these prophecies made hundreds of years before. So with all that data in front of me and the many books that have been written that not only confirm what I had discovered but in fact produced more evidence to back up my research. The next thing I had to consider was the so called inconsistencies in scripture and what about all the social issues and injustices committed under the guise of religion.

There are supposed discrepancies in the genealogies of Jesus, mainly in Mathew and Luke. So I took a look. In Matthew he looks at it from the point of Joseph. Since Joseph was considered the adoptive rather than the biological father, but in Jewish history that would still make Joseph and his family legal ancestors whom Jesus’ royal lineage would have been traced. So here is where the two ancestral genealogies merge. For Joseph, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.

Luke looks at the genealogy of Mary, The son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz.

In essence, if we look at the history of Western civilization, we find that Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture. Read the new atheist books and make a list of the institutions and values that Hitchens and Dawkins and the others cherish the most. They value the idea of the individual, and the right to dissent, and science as an autonomous enterprise, and representative democracy, and human rights, and equal rights for women and racial minorities, and the movement to end slavery, and compassion as a social virtue. But when you examine history you find that all of these values came into the world because of Christianity. If Christianity did not exist, these values would not exist in the form they do now.

By contrast, does it make any sense to say, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"? Religion didn't poison Dante or Milton or Donne or Michelangelo or Raphael or Titian or Bach! Religion didn’t poison those unnamed architectural geniuses who built the great Gothic cathedrals. Religion didn’t poison the American founders who were for the most part not Deist but Christian. Religion didn't poison the anti-slavery campaigns of William Lloyd Garrison or William Wilberforce, or the civil rights activism of the Reverend Martin Luther King.

To sum up my findings, God in Christ is who he said he was. God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never have a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

God said to Moses that to look upon him would mean certain death. Why does he remain hidden? Because of who he is. To put it in terms we can understand, A Creator God, if He exists, must, by definition, exist beyond the limits of the universe in order to have created it. The laws of physics tell us that we cannot make measurements beyond the limits of this universe. Therefore, scientists can conclusively determine that we cannot ever detect God using any of our instruments.

However, God is not restricted to our limitations and could choose to reveal part of Himself to us. God could not reveal His entirety to us without causing major problems in our universe. The sudden appearance of dimensions and matter from outside the universe would destroy anything in the vicinity. This is why the Bible says that nobody can see God and live. However, God could reveal His nature by communicating with humans and sending an incarnated version of Himself. This is exactly what Christianity claims - that God gave messages to humans through the prophets and sent an incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ, who took on the form of a human in order to interact with humans directly.

With the evidence in front of me as to who God is, the argument for evolution which is the argument that God does not exist is a failed argument.

The evidence for an old earth

From the responses I received about my last article I can see I must be more specific. The question that keeps coming up is, is there a gap between the first two verses of Genesis and can I support my theory? The theory that I wrote about in the previous article is a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. I base my theory on Scriptural fact. The Bible clearly states that planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. I wrote these articles as we will see later that the arguments for evolution and the creationist (young earth) point of view collapse because of how the data in interpreted.

To write these articles I had to comb through hundreds of scientific websites, both for and against evolution and creation (young earth) and along with the scientific websites I had to review theological websites and all the data that went with them. With that behind me I then had to review all the data I had collected over the years. The first problem I came across and rightly so, is that both camps, evolution and creation have very learned men and women. PhD’s are a dime a dozen so-to-speak, along with all the other degree’s issued by colleges around the country. So we have knowledge on both sides. Both sides use the same science and both sides use the same facts, the difference is, the facts are interpreted differently depending on what they believe. So in essence we have a head butting contest. (And one of those contests is with myself and another gentleman on the side of evolution). Both of us have looked at the evidence and have come up with a different interpretation, but that occurs when you look at the evidence through different filters. The question that remains is who is right? I thought about this question for some time and came to the conclusion that for me to argue talking points presented by both sides would be of little value and would probably take the rest of my life to gather all the evidence from both sides and be able to present it in a way that would be both understandable and interesting. In essence it would be a big fat book that would probably never get read and those that read it would find something to criticize, and the criticism would come from both sides. So I decided to lay out what science says and what scripture says, for in my last article I said,

“But I believe that if we take science and Christian doctrine and lay them side by side much as a person would a jigsaw puzzle, we find that when the pieces fit they form a mosaic of science on one side and the truth of Christ on the other, both of which introduce us to how awesome God really is.”

Now do I have all the facts? No, but I do believe I have enough to present a reasonable argument that shows that both evolution and those who support the young earth theory are both wrong.

The first step in the process was to see what scripture had to say about creation and does both the old and New Testament corroborate the evidence. Here’s the problem as I see it. Evolution say’s that the earth is old; creation (young earth theory) says it’s young, so how do we match up both scripture and science. To find out we go back to the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Before we look at the creation narrative I would like to point out another scripture in Genesis. Genesis 2:4 says,

These are the (generations) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word that is used is towldah to-led-aw' or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations.

After the creation narrative the scripture emphasizes this point. The same word is used when describing family history or the generations of births as described in Genesis 5:1. Here is what it says.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Throughout scripture we see how important it was not only to the Hebrews but to God to keep records. For we see all through the Old Testament and even in the Gospels we see the generational records of man and Christ. We see record keeping at the beginning of life as we know it and at the end, for it says in Revelation 20:12,

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Is God speaking of multiple creations, look at what scripture says in Genesis 2:1-5
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Now I ask you, why didn’t Moses write it this way if what we read in the creation narrative was the original creation?
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
In getting back to the creation narrative we find something interesting, only two times do we find water covering the earth and both are found in Genesis. Once during re-creation and second when Noah is taken into the ark.
Genesis 7:18-20 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Interestingly enough we do find corroborative evidence in the New Testament and we find it in 2 Peter 2: 4-7. It says,

KJV. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

CEV. They will say this because they want to forget that long ago the heavens and the earth were made at God's command. The earth came out of water and was made from water. 6Later it was destroyed by the waters of a mighty flood.

Notice what it says in bold. Peter is not making reference to the flood during Noah’s time because he is talking about creation. Now let’s look in more detail as we break down Genesis to see what it say’s.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

As we said earlier, when God creates he creates in perfection. So why does verse two start out as…

Now the earth was without form(formless) the word formless comes from the Hebrew word, tohuw to'-hoo. It is used and comes from an unused root meaning to lie waste or a desolation, and notice what is in parenthesis,(of surface) indicating not the whole earth just the surface was in a state of desolation which is to say, the earth was already in a created state. Notice also some of the other meanings of the word , i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.)

Now before we continue with Genesis, look at what Isaiah 45:18 has to say.

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The word Vain is taken from the Hebrew word bohuw bo'-hoo which comes from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void. He goes on to say that it was to be inhabited. Both Genesis and Isaiah use almost the same word showing the state of planet earth, but Isaiah goes on to say that in the very beginning God created it to be inhabited in perfection.

Back to Genesis.

And void (or empty) Here again the Hebrew word bohuw bo'-hoo is used and comes from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void). Void of life.

And (darkness) The word choshek kho-shek' is used meaning literally darkness; and figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness.

Now I have to make this note, the word darkness is used not only to describe physical darkness but spiritual darkness as well for we see the same word used in Job 3: 4-5 KJV says

4Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. 5Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.

The CEV says,

4Forget about that day, cover it with darkness, 5and send thick, gloomy shadows to fill it with dread.

So what the writer of Genesis is saying is this, there was a physical darkness that covered the earth as well as a spiritual darkness for we know… and we need to back up and look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Young earth creationists use this verse to say there was no sin prior to Adams fall, but I disagree for it was in eons past that Satan fell through his rebellion and passed on the sin to man. But before he passed it on to man he passed it on to the creation as well. When God said, you shall die we know Adam did not die immediately and so it is with the creation, it was a process. In the last article I looked at the laws that govern our universe, and just as Adam eventually died so did creation as we will see later.

was over the surface of the (deep) Here the word thowm teh-home' or thom is used; meaning an abyss as a surging mass of water, especially the deep or the main sea or the subterranean water-supply. The Hebrew word hamam haw-mam is also used. It is used in this sense as to put in commotion; by implication, to disturb, drive, destroy:--break, consume, crush, destroy, discomfit, trouble, vex.)

I think that in using these words the writer of Genesis is trying to show the state of creation. While surfing the internet I came across an interesting article which I’ll put here. Later we will refer back to it for reasons you will see later.

Giant star is a dying water world
July 12, 2001 Posted: 10:49 AM EDT (1449 GMT)
By Richard Stenger
(CNN) -- A red giant star in its death throes seems to be vaporizing a horde of comets, raising the possibility that another planetary system possesses water, an ingredient necessary for known life, astronomers reported Wednesday.
The carbon-rich star was not expected to contain significant amounts of water. But an orbiting NASA radio observatory detected huge concentrations of water vapor around it.
"The most plausible explanation ... is that it is being vaporized from the surfaces of orbiting comets, dirty snowballs that are composed primarily of water ice," lead investigator Gary Melnick said Wednesday. Several hundred billion comets, located in the far reaches of the star system, would have been necessary to produce the intense concentration of water vapor, Melnick and his colleagues told reporters.
Although that amount seems colossal, the mass is comparable the estimated quantity of water in the Kuiper Belt, a swarm of icy debris beyond the orbit of Neptune, during the infancy of our solar system.

"Occasionally a comet comes in close to the sun and starts to vaporize," said team scientist Saavik Ford. But CW Leonis "is so much more luminous that the sun that comets start to vaporize even at the distance of the Kuiper Belt."
CW Leonis is about 500 light years from Earth, located in the constellation Leo. Astronomers think the red giant is shedding its outer material, which in tens of thousands of years will produce a nebula system.

"We think we are witnessing the type of apocalypse that will ultimately befall our own planetary system," ( I’ll add this, it has already happened if we read and interpret Genesis correctly) said David Neufeld, who helped analyze the data from the Sub millimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite, which has searched the universe for signs of water for more than two years.

In about six billion years or so, the sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel supply and expand into a red giant like CW Leonis, incinerating planets along the way.
"Even Pluto will be vaporized, leaving a cinder of hot rock," Neufeld said.
The observations suggest that other planetary systems resemble our own, the astronomers said. More than 60 planets have been discovered outside the solar system, but their composition remains a mystery. The new findings boost speculation that many posses’ vast caches of water, like many bodies in our solar system.

Melnick, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and his colleagues were to report their findings in the July 12 issue of the journal Nature.

and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice, it does not say that God created water, it says that the Spirit of God Hovered over the water, so in essence water already existed as did old earth. And as we see according to the word used there was great trouble within and around the earth both physically and spiritually. One other thing I would like to point out is this, that nowhere in the creation narrative does it say anything about God doing anything to the earth, and that’s because it was already in its created form with mountains and valleys.

Before we leave this argument lets look at one more thing I think is important.

Genesis 1:1 it says, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:6 So God made the expanse and separated the water
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, He also made the stars
Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image. Now this is where it gets interesting because it’s the only time God does both.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In the beginning God created out of nothing the heavens and the earth. He made out of existing material the expanse, the sun, the moon, and the stars. He created out of nothing that which lived in the sea and the birds, and from what the scripture implies, birds came from the water. Out of existing material he made the animals after their kind. And then he took what was already in existence and created something that had never existed before as you will see later on.

Look at Genesis 1:20

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Did feathered dinosaurs exist?
New evidence raises questions about current theory
Biologists examining evidence for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs have reached some surprising new conclusions. However, they caution that "the problem of avian origins is far from being resolved." Their analysis is published online October 10, 2005 in the Journal of Morphology, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and available via Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/morphology).
Dinosaurs have long captured the imagination while their relationships have eluded full explanation. Innovative research and a comprehensive consideration of the old can also inspire new interpretations, as researchers recently found when examining the evidence supporting the current theory about feather origins and the relationships of birds and dinosaurs.
All experts agree that birds are related to theropod dinosaurs; however, debate has raged on over whether today's winged creatures are derived directly from advanced theropods, or from an earlier shared ancestor. The current theory supports direct derivation, but recent fossil discoveries in China have led to new questions about the claim. The Chinese discoverers reported finding all stages of feather evolution and ancestral birds, even though the deposits are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx.
Researchers, led by Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, considered the new findings in the context of the existing literature and furthered the knowledge base with additional experiments. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin, and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors (protofeathers). Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales also examined evidence relating to the tridactyl hand, which is composed of digits 1-2-3 in dinosaurs, the most critical characteristic linking birds to derived theropods.
Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar and Hinchliffe found no evidence for the existence of protofeathers on dinosaurs and no evidence in support of the morphogenesis of the feather from putative filamentous protofeathers. They suggest that 'protofeathers' described on fossil findings "are probably the remains of collagenous fiber 'meshworks' that reinforced the dinosaur integument." Based on their examination of fossilized remains of dinosaurs with no relationship to birds, they suggest that decomposition of skin can lead to patterns resembling feathers.
Birds have been thought to be related to theropod dinosaurs because both groups have a hand reduced to three digits. Theropods are known from fossil evidence to exhibit a hand with digits 1-2-3, the thumb and next two digits. However, the researchers found that the vast majority of evidence supports a 2-3-4 digit identity for bird wings. The bird hand "appears different from that in theropod dinosaurs," they say, and casts doubt upon the theropod derivation hypothesis. Finally, they discuss the significance of the Chinese discoveries with respect to bird origin and flight.
The authors emphasize that the totality of evidence from various branches of science must be included if we are ever to solve the mystery of bird origins and the origin of avian flight. From their careful examination of the available evidence they offer an interim attempt to define morphologically the most salient features of Aves: "Birds are mesotarsal bipedal archosaurs with pennaceous feathers, and a tridactyl avian hand composed of digits 2-3-4."
It is too early to abandon debate on the origin of birds, the authors say. However, mounting evidence suggests that "a possible solution to the disparate data is that Aves plus birdlike maniraptoran theropods (e.g., microraptors and others) may be a separate clade, distinctive from the main lineage of Theropoda, a remnant of early avian radiation, exhibiting all stages of flight and flightlessness."
Article: "Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence," by Alan Feduccia, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe, Journal of Morphology, Published Online: October 10, 2005 (DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382).
Now let’s look at 2 Peter 2:4-7 again

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of (old), The Greek word that is used is ekpalai eh'-pal-ahee meaning long ago, for a long while:--of a long time, of old.

and the earth(standing) The Greek word here is sunistao soon-is-tah'-o, or (strengthened) sunistano soon-is-tan'-o, or sunistemi soon-is'-tay-mee (including its collateral forms); to set together, i.e. (by implication) to introduce (favorably), or (figuratively) to exhibit; intransitively, to stand near, or (figuratively) to constitute:--approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with).

out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being (overflowed) The Greek word here is katakluzo, kat-ak-lood'-zo from 2596 and the base of 2830; to dash (wash) down, i.e. (by implication) to deluge:--overflow with water,) Here again the earth is shown to be covered in water.

(perished) (apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee, meaning to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.)

So what the writer here is saying, everything that was associated with old earth was destroyed.

Now let’s go back and look at what scripture says in verse three of Genesis.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now what’s interesting here is, he uses the same words when he says,

Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.

We know that seeds can remain dormant for years and as soon as whatever is covering it up is removed they start to germinate and grow. Here we see God saying, let there be light, or let vegetation grow again. It’s almost as if He’s regenerating what was once there. He does not create, he just commands the plants to grow after their kind.

Now it doesn’t say where the light came from. ( The Hebrew word used is,'owr or from 215; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):--bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun)

We know the sun had not been re-created yet, so what is he saying? I think what he is saying is this, may the darkness that covers the old creation be lifted. I believe it was an oppressive darkness brought about by the fall of Satan. I think we can almost call it a form of depression, much like what a person feels. For it says in Romans 8:18-22

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Really what it reminds me of is this. Years ago when I worked on cars I used a trouble light. Now there was light from the sun, from the garage, and from the car itself. But if I really wanted to look at something I got a trouble light out and focused it on the area I was working on. It almost sounds like God is saying, since I am light, let my light illuminate the troubled area so I can focus on the trouble at hand. Now here is where it gets real interesting and I want to remind the reader of the article inserted earlier. The Bible doesn’t say how much water covered the earth nor does it say whether the water covered more than the earth. But it does say that once God put light on the subject that it was good and He divided the light from the darkness. With that being done God now focuses on the water issue, for the very next thing God did was make a firmament. Now here is where I had to do some research.

Most people and myself included thought this meant just the expanse of the sky, or the atmosphere, or outer space, or both, some scholars believe it to be a relic of pre-scientific knowledge. Young Earth Creationists have interpreted the waters above the firmament as a theoretical water canopy which once surrounded the Earth, but no longer exists. (I’m still not sure it fits with the laws of physics)At this point in time I’m not sure whether it existed or not, so lets look at what Genesis has to say in chapter one verse 6.

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus 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. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now, lets look at Psalm 148: Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away. Verse 7 then says to earth to praise the lord.

God divided the waters from the waters.

Now look at Genesis 1:14-15 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Now look at Genesis 1:6-7 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus 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.

If the firmament included the stars and all the stars died out, imagine as crazy as it sounds that water covered even them. But what is even stranger is this. God divided the waters so that there was water beneath and above the firmament which is an indication that the third heaven where God resides is separated from us by water. We can draw a parallel from this that the earth was floating in a sea of water.

Go back and read the article of a dying star. Suppose our universe died all at once, imagine the amount of water that would be created.

With this in mind is what I proposed possible? Science fiction or science… you decide.

Was light the first thing God created? I don’t think so, scripture simply says that Gods Spirit hovered over what was already there. Thus we have the element of water which is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and we have the elements and compounds in solid form which is matter, being the earth. Now according to physics and the equation e=mc2 and according to scripture we have matter so we must have space. And if there is space and matter we must have time. Matter, space, and time are directly governed by the speed of light which is a constant and that is the exact words of Genesis 1:2. We have planet Earth, a lot of water, and a universe in time that already existed before God ever said "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3.

The next thing we must look at is verse 4. It says,

God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
The Hebrew word for darkness is (choshek kho-shek' from 2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:--dark(-ness), night, obscurity.)

The darkness is nor only speaking of something physical but spiritual as well, so with those facts we can determine that earth and a universe were already in existence for an extended period of time. The physics or the equation e=mc2 was in operation and time, space, and matter have already been established, which means the processes which regulate radioactive decay and the half life principle are already functioning, and somewhere in the distant past Satan fell and the powers of darkness came to be before Adam was created.

Now before we forget, as I said earlier the bible is not a science or a history book but the plan for man’s redemption. The theme throughout scripture is about a war over a Kingdom and who will ultimately rule. This battle for domination goes back long before Abraham and long before Adam's day. It began sometime after God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:1. As we stated earlier in an earlier article Satan was the first ruler appointed by God somewhere in the ancient past. Lets go back to an earlier article where Satan is described. Ezekiel 28:12-19 says, “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings that they might gaze at you. You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.”
Now we have to understand, the scripture although it is speaking about several ancient kings, it is also speaking of an ancient evil, the one who started it all and who destroyed the first creation. How do we know, lets look at what scripture and science says. But before we do that remember how we set up the argument in previous articles.

We set up the possibility of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and we also showed how evolution could not have happened. For those who misunderstood the models of weather and global warming let me say this. They are models used to predict, and the data being used is more relative and accurate in the way they are used than the way evolutionary theory would use it. However, if we use the same data that evolution uses and compare it to scripture then we find just how accurate science just might be.

When and where Satan fell is unknown, however if we go into the past we can look at the different ages. If you recall I listed those in the last article. The Snowball Earth hypothesis as it currently stands proposes that the Earth was entirely covered by ice in part of the Cryogenian period 850 to 630 million years ago which is part of the Proterozoic era and it could have been part of other times in the history of earth. It was developed to explain sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical latitudes and other enigmatic features of the Cryogenian geological record.

According to the exponents of the hypothesis multicellular evolution began to accelerate after the last big freeze ended. Snowball Earth remains controversial, and is contested by various scientists who dispute the geophysical feasibility of a completely frozen ocean(possible the reason God recreated life in and from the water), or the geological evidence on which the hypothesis is based. However, how do we link this period with the Cambrian Explosion? Following the Snowball earth and the Cambrian explosion it is thought that the earth continents began to break up. This sequence of events which could be called a super ice age, the Cambrian explosion, and the breakup of landmasses marks the time of Satan’s rebellion.

Now if you recall, I said it’s all in how you look or interpret the data. But here again in order to believe this scenario one must believe that there is and was a spiritual battle. The reason many choose to believe in evolution rather than creation is simply this, to acknowledge God means we are responsible for our actions and sin does exist which means we have to change our lifestyle.

Satan’s fall is in the timeframe from about 750 million to 580 million years ago. Lets look at the evidence. When Satan fell so did creation. If you recall in our last article we looked at the question of the laws that operate the universe and how God would follow those laws. When Satan fell so did creation and following those laws creation began to unwind Their fossilized remains prove that there was a struggle for life under that sentence of death across the geologic ages.

Now if you recall we discussed the age of our sun. I said that it’s thought to be about 5 billion years old. If we look at the ages above we can see its possible the universe could have very well shut down over time for we have no idea when the original creation took place. Evolution says that life evolved. I ask this question, what if life was going strong at the time Satan fell. Here is an article I found that supports my theory, however those that read this may well find one that does not.

The Cambrian Explosion provides devastating evidence against gradualistic evolution
By Kevin Miller


If you believe in evolution then I challenge you to consider the facts surrounding the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion is the compound term used to describe the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago. Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years (and some Chinese scientists even believe that time period is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)). Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of Pre-Cambrian life forms (Ediacaran fauna), blue green algae, and single celled animals show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.

Evolution is considered probable by many because of the amount of time proponents believe has been available for change. But not even the most firm believers in evolution can provide a reasonable explanation for the complexity increase that takes place in about 5 million years starting 540 million years ago. Five million years is like a blink of an eye when it comes to the evolutionary timeline. As mentioned earlier just about all of the 70 phyla that have ever existed on this Earth first made an appearance in the fossil record at the time of the Cambrian Explosion. Today only 30 of these 70 phyla are still around - with the rest having gone extinct.

Some evolutionary proponents say that there was less competition around so evolution could take place in a fast manner. The truth of the matter however is that there are biological limits to how fast species can change. The only so-called rapid evolution takes place in the space of small single celled animals and bacteria that have very short life spans and fast reproductive cycles. And fast evolution doesn't always occur in that space either. The Science 268 1995 issue contains a story that tells of the live bacteria named Bacillus being found in the stomach of a 25 million year old bee encased in Amber (like Jurassic Park). When they compared the genetic makeup of this bacteria to the same species of bacteria living today they differed only 6.7%. This is evidence that is problematic for believers in evolution. Michael Jackson made morphing technology popular and it's nice to think that animals can change in similar ways but the reality is that change occurs very slowly.

Others have claimed that perhaps the precursors to the Cambrian creatures existed but never fossilized. Considering the wide array of creatures found during the Cambrian explosion this can be considered at best special pleading.

The dramatic sudden increase in complex life on Earth about 540 million years ago is enough to put aside the theory of evolution as the only cause for speciation for the life forms on Earth. It speaks of sudden creation like that mentioned in the book of Genesis. In general the entire fossil record is marked mainly by periods of stasis with very little gradual change. (Science March 10,1995). And the change that has occurred mainly happens vertically in the tree of life. The subject of transitional forms has been a controversial one and maybe some good transitional forms do exist that show that an evolutionary lineage of a particular species but the complete dearth of complex animal fossils before the Cambrian Explosion is simply not in support of evolution. Transitional forms require interpretation, the lack of fossil precursors does not. If one takes the evidence for what it says the Cambrian Explosion explodes the theory of evolution.

Consequently, what appears in the fossil record to the evolutionist as an explosion of life is to the creationist, an explosion of death. The sudden appearance of the remains of extremely complex life forms does not mean those ancient life forms were only as old as the Cambrian times. They could have been living in the geologic times long before the Cambrian. Things that are alive don't leave remains until they die. The Cambrian, therefore, marks the first record of death of complex life forms in the Earth's history, not the very beginning of complex life itself.

Now here’s where we have to back up to Genesis 1:2 the Earth is a lifeless and uninhabited planet drifting in the cold and darkness of the chaotic remains of the old universe. The planet is submerged in water, and waters also rage around it and across a ruined universe. When did this happen? If the ages of the geologic fossil record are true and faithful, as is commonly accepted; if the principle of radioactive decay and half-life dating is true and reliable; if those same dating techniques are reliable when they show that the oldest known rocks on the earth are around 3.8 billion years old, and that the first fossil remains of macro organic life on this planet were approximately 500 - 700 million years ago, then we are confronted with the only logical conclusion: The record of creation in Genesis is a re-creation. The Creation vs. Evolution paradox is not about direct descendents of things long past but of direct descendents from the Genesis creation. So how does Genesis read.

A long time ago, in very distant times past, the Lord God first created the heaven and earth Genesis 1:1. But then as Genesis 1:2 states, there was a vast gap in historical time, on the order of possibly hundreds of millions of years. In the beginning (verse 1) we have a perfect creation of heaven and earth, but in verse 2 we see a decimated heaven and earth. The geologic column fits in between Genesis1:1 and 1:2, and the geologic time marker at Genesis 1:2 is the very end of the Pleistocene. The end of the Pleistocene which is about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago shows evidence of global extinction and a severe drop in global temperatures. From the evidence we can see that all life perished from the face of the Earth for a brief period before God regenerated a new creation from the remains of the old heavens and earth.

The last Ice Age started about 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago (during the Pleistocene epoch). The Earth was much colder than it is now. The sea levels were lower than they are now since much of the water was frozen. Snow covered much of the land and glaciers and ice sheets extended over large areas. These phenomenon changed the landscape of the earth, forming lakes, changing the paths of rivers, eroding land, and depositing sand, gravel, and rocks along the glaciers' paths.

During the last Ice Age, there were many large, interesting mammals, like the saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, mastodons, and mammoths. These animals have long since gone extinct and are known mostly from fossils, from frozen, mummified carcasses, and even from ancient cave drawings. The geologic time frame preceding the six days of Genesis correlates roughly with the end of the great "Ice Age" at the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary, which dates to about 10,000 to 14,000 years.

So what happened to these large mammals?

Now you have to remember that according to scripture Adam was a worker of the soil. We see that in Genesis and his family was as well and we don’t see an indication of hunting until Genesis 10:9. So if the Paleoclimate data is valid and the time line of the bible is as well, then we must conclude it must have been a another race of humanoids.

Who were they? In the next few pages we’re going to look at Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon since many believe they are the early descendents of man. When we’re finished we’ll look at Genesis to see what it has to say and see if we can find common ground between what science says and what scripture has to say and what it implies.

But before we can look at that lets look at what DNA is. DNA is a linear array of these four bases A,G,C, and T, only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical which would indicate that all living forms of life came from one source which would make the argument for evolution. Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical, so we can use that as our base for our argument

Human DNA is said to be 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. So the question is, what’s in the other 1.6 percent that makes us different from them? If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? They have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh blood group genes, and fewer Alu repeats in their genome than humans. They are also different in that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes, so there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions. Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. So, now that we have determined where 75% of the base DNA is, we have to look at the remaining 25%.

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, it was discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals. This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly “miniscule” difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind how can we say that other species are almost identical to us simply because of a large genetic overlap.

Now lets look at what is thought to be another ancient ancestor.

Neandertal DNA by Mark Rose
If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 May, 2003 BBC
The scientists found that while, unsurprisingly, modern humans show clear genetic signs of their Cro-Magnon ancestry, no such link between Neanderthal DNA and modern European DNA could be established.
The results, they say, indicate that Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the genes of modern humans.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 January, 2004 BBC
Researchers collected data on 15 standard "landmarks", or features, on over 1,000 primate skulls. Computer software transformed this data into sets of 3D coordinates for each skull and then superimposed all these sets on top of one another. Using statistical analysis, they compared differences between modern human and Neanderthal skulls with those found between and within 12 primate species. The results support the view that Neanderthals were indeed a distinct species.

Recently the remains of an "anatomically modern human" (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia, have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA genetic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. Read the article below.

Mitochondria and Mitochondrial DNA
Written by: Annemarie Nagle
What is surprising about this fossil, aside from its incredible age and apparent gracile characteristics, is that the mtDNA sequences isolated from the bones do not match those of the Australian Aborigines or any other known lineage in the modern world. One possible implication of this evidence is that this particular lineage may have evolved independently in Australia, casting doubt as to the certainty of the out of Africa migrations. Another possible explanation is that Mungo’s lineage actually originated in Africa and was carried to Australia via migration. The fact that this mitochondrial sequence has never been seen before suggests that the lineage went extinct in both Africa and Australia (and presumably everywhere else it may have been carried) following these migrations. This theory would also assume that LM3’s mitochondrial lineage branched off before the most recent common ancestor of mitochondrial lineages extant today. Scientists have discovered, however, that a portion of Mungo’s mtDNA sequence appears to have been inserted in the nuclear DNA of chromosome 11, a trait that is widespread among modern human populations.

Many scientists have also questioned the integrity of mtDNA analysis on a fossil of such great age, and organic molecules of comparable antiquity have only been recovered from fossils in very cold regions. Excavations in other regions of the world in climates similar to that of the Willandra Lakes area have shown that these conditions are not normally conducive to the preservation of DNA greater than 10,000 years old.

12,000-Year-Old Human Hair DNA Has No Match With Modern Humans© Copyright © 2001 by Linda Moulton Howe - All Rights Reserved.

Now lets look at another article that deals with Neandethal.

Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton
By Bjorn Carey, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 10 March 2005 04:51 pm ET

Anthropologists have built a "Frankenstein" Neanderthal skeleton, the first and only full-body reconstruction of the species. The result, announced today, is a shape no one expected. "It's almost like making my own fossil discovery," said Gary Sawyer, one of the skeleton's architects.

Sawyer, an anthropologist at the American Natural History Museum in New York, and his colleague Blaine Maley of Washington University, pieced together the skeleton using bones mostly from an individual known as La Ferrassie 1.

La Ferrassie 1 was missing its rib cage, pelvis, and a few other parts, so Sawyer and Maley had to scrounge around to find some parts.

"The missing parts had to come from another classic Neanderthal that was similar, if not identical, in size to the La Ferrassie man," Sawyer told LiveScience in a phone interview.
The spare parts came from Kebara 2, a 60,000-year-old skeleton discovered in Israel in 1983. Kebara 2 was previously known as the specimen with the best rib cage, pelvis, and vertebral preservation.

The La Ferrassie man was discovered in France in 1909 and is about 70,000 years old.

'Dwarfy-like beings'
Sawyer said the replacement bones are remarkably similar in size to La Ferrassie man - most were off by only a few millimeters.

Still, as the scientists pieced together the bones, something didn't look quite right. A rotund, bell-shaped torso, produced by a flared lower ribcage, and a pelvic region that looked slightly wide and feminine, began to form in front of their eyes.

"The biggest surprise by all means is that they have a rib cage radically different than a modern human's rib cage," said Sawyer. "As we stood back, we noticed one interesting thing was that these are kind of a short, squat people. These guys had no waist at all - they were compact, dwarfy-like beings."

Other bits and replacement pieces, mostly the ends of bones, were collected from half a dozen other Neanderthals. The remaining gaps were filled in with reconstructed human bones.

The finished product is "like Frankenstein," Sawyer said.
Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.

Evolutionary side road
"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots."

The reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton is currently on display at the Dolan DNA Learning Center in Cold Spring Harbor, NY. It will eventually go on permanent display at the American Museum of Natural History.
This research will be published in the March 11 issue of the Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist.

Neanderthals were a relative of homo sapiens that co-inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia with hum from about 120,000 to 29,000 years ago. They were well adapted to the cold and were very muscular -- good traits for hunting large animals.
"They had very strong hands," Sawyer said. "If you shook hands with one, he would turn your hand to pulp."

That’s one opinion, now here’s another.

DNA study deals blow to Neanderthal breeding theory
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:38 PM ET

Neanderthals and early human ancestors probably did not interbreed, according to Italian researchers. Scientists know Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were different species who both lived at the same time, about 40,000 years ago.

Researchers at the University of Ferrara in Italy extracted and analyzed DNA from the bones of four Neanderthals, as well as two Cro-Magnons found in Paglicci Cave, a paleolithic site in southern Italy. The scientists took every precaution to prevent the samples from becoming contaminated.

The team looked at mitochondrial DNA from cell structures in the samples. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from generation to generation along the maternal line.
The DNA from the Cro Magnon specimens resembled the variation scientists see in today's humans, but the Neanderthal samples "differ sharply," the researchers said in the May 27 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The results suggest Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the modern human gene pool, according to the study.

"This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neanderthals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool," the study said. Neanderthals and early human ancestors probably did not interbreed, according to Italian researchers.

Scientists know Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were different species who both lived at the same time, about 40,000 years ago.

Researchers at the University of Ferrara in Italy extracted and analysed DNA from the bones of four Neanderthals, as well as two Cro-Magnons found in Paglicci Cave, a paleolithic site in southern Italy. The scientists took every precaution to prevent the samples from becoming contaminated.

The team looked at mitochondrial DNA from cell structures in the samples. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from generation to generation along the maternal line.
The DNA from the Cro Magnon specimens resembled the variation scientists see in today's humans, but the Neanderthal samples "differ sharply," the researchers said in the May 27 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The results suggest Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the modern human gene pool, according to the study.

"This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neanderthals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool," the study said. The findings support the prevailing "out of Africa" hypothesis that modern humans emerged from Africa a few hundred thousand years ago and spread out, replacing the Neanderthals.

The competing "multiregional hypothesis" holds some interbreeding took place between Neanderthals and early humans. Supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point out its impossible to prove the ancient DNA is authentic.

DNA's Evolutionary Dilemma
Genetic studies collide with the mystery of human evolution
By Bruce Bower
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm

I’ll not include the entire article, just the last sentence.
"Over the next 10 years, more complex genetic models will emerge," Hammer says. "DNA research has not solved the mystery of human origins."
So the question is this, why the recreation? As I said, it is assumed that Satan fell somewhere in the ancient past, exactly when, who knows. I don’t think when he fell is as important as to why. I think to understand this better we first have to determine what was the cause of his rebellion. We also have to determine what God has been doing during the eons of past time. In looking at our surroundings both here on earth and the sky above us and looking at the theories put forth by science I think we can safely say that God has been in the process of creating throughout his existence which incidentally is time without end in the past, present, and future tense because God dwells outside of time. For us to assume that man is God’s only creation in absurd. If we look at time through the eyes of God whether it be 6000 years or 4.5 billion years, that time frame would be just a click of the second hand of your watch.
We also see something else in scripture. We see that for everything God created Satan has a counterfeit and an apposing view. One of those counterfeit teachings is evolution. Where did it start? To answer that we have to look at Genesis 6.
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them
Take a look at – sons (of) God. The Hebrew translation is this, ben bane, a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc
'elohiym el-o-heem': gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God, or a deity.
So what we see here is the sons of a deity or a super natural being looking at the daughters of men. The question is this, where did theses sons of God come from and who were they. If we go back to Satan’s rebellion it would be safe to say that they were beings that fell with Satan. But the question then arises, why did God create man in the first place? He didn’t do it out of boredom or loneliness, there had to have been a reason. If we look at what evolution calls the ascension of man, you could call it evolution. An evolution of a creature created by Satan. Why? We know that Satan was powerful and intelligent. Even Michael the Arch Angel would not directly confront Satan. So from that and from scripture we can say that other than God, Satan was the most powerful and intelligent creature God made excluding himself.
I believe that Satan watched as God created. He saw the glory in creation, he saw the adoration and worship of newly created beings towards God and wanted that. It’s possible that part of Satan’s rebellion was trying to create his own world. I believe that God allowed him to try using the technology God created in developing life, DNA. The arrival of Cro magnum was as close as he got whether it was through genetic development or procreation with early humanoid forms we will never know. But if we look at Genesis 6 I think we get a glimpse of what happened
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
I believe God allowed Satan to carry out his rebellion as far as he could and then either destroyed it or allowed creation to simply unwind and destroy itself. After the creation of man Satan once again tried but failed, for nowhere do we see the scripture making mention of the sons of God other than in reference to angelic beings or mankind.
The geologic time frame preceding the six days of Genesis correlates roughly with the end of the great "Ice Age" at the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary, which dates to about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. The geologic record reveals a mass extinction episode at this time in which hundreds of large and unusual forms of mega fauna mysteriously perish from the face of the earth.
In Genesis chapter one there is a particular phrasing "after their kind" and "after his kind." It was during this time the Lord God made the new world on the face of the old Earth during those six days. In reading the scripture we find that God filled the new world with many of the same KINDS of plants and animals that had been on the face of the Earth previously. Many were not replaced after their kind, however, but new ones were introduced in their place.
Whether God allowed the old world to totally unwind or whether he destroyed and recreated remains a mystery, however all the old is gone and everything was replaced. The DNA is similar, just like man and ape, but they were created after their kind.
God created man I believe for several reasons. The scriptures tell us he loved us before he knew us, or before we were created as he did with all his creation. But above all I believe man was created to prove to Satan that he wasn’t or couldn’t be God.
We see Satan trying again in Genesis chapter 6 to create through human means and we see the flood destroying what was left of Satan’s creation.
In conclusion I have tried to give the readers of this article both the Biblical and Scientific answers to what I believe are the issues that cloud the thinking of those that believe in evolution and young earth creation.
Science has proven that the stars we see up in the sky are much older than 6,000 years. Young Earth Creationists have listed their arguments and suggest that changes were made in the speed of light, so God deliberately made everything appear to be old. In so doing they make God a liar.
What if old earth and the original creation went out in a blaze of glory as some Old Earth Creationism believes, could we see it? If it did maybe the light show hasn’t reached us yet, after all we’re looking into the past. But if it did think of the light show that awaits us. Luke 21:25-26 says
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.(Luke 21:25-26
Through carbon dating… about 12,000 years ago which would point to the end of the Pleistocene, old earth and the heavens above became a cold, dark, and ruined cosmos 6000 years ago God recreated
To end this article I would like to add a link http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_bacteria_030106.html
I’ll leave you will the last paragraph of the article
The debate does highlight a need for clearer standards of evidence for matters paleontological and astrobiological. Ironically, despite more data, improved techniques, and increased focus on the field, scientists are finding that one of the most difficult questions to answer is also one of the most basic: "How do we really know?"

In Defense of Creation

This blogs role is first and foremost dedicated to the truth of what scripture teaches on the subject of creation. However as a Christian Sci fi writer I am called upon at times to defend my theories and some of my writings. Some of my theories about creation are just that, theories. But I believe that if we take science and Christian doctrine and lay them side by side much as a person would a jigsaw puzzle, we find that when the pieces fit they form a mosaic of science on one side and the truth of Christ on the other, both of which introduce us to how awesome God really is.

Recently I was asked to respond to an article I posted on the blog entitled “Theistic Evolution and Abiogenesis and to defend what I believe to be the truth. In order to do that we have to look at a number of definitions. First off we’re dealing with two theories, evolution and creation. Let’s look at the definition of both. Evolution is described as a set of prescribed movements.

It’s described as,

Unfolding - The action or an instance of forming and giving something off. Emission - The process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. Growth - The process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance or something evolved. It also includes the process of working out or developing, and the historical development of a society. Phylogeny, a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations or a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.

In order for me to fully explain my position let me first add a quote from an article taken from a blog that supports evolution. (http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/)

“The concept of the Cambrian explosion is often used by anti-evolutionists as support for divine intervention during the origin of animals. If most animals appeared at the same time, they argue, evolution would fall apart since Darwin's theory depends on gradual change over time. It now appears, however, that the Cambrian explosion is a mere artifact of the fossilization process. Because fossilization is a chance process that requires multiple events of varying probabilities, the fossil record can be misleading as a true history of life on Earth. It provides a general guideline, but the first appearance of an organism or taxon in the fossil record cannot be taken as the first appearance of the taxon in history. Instead, the first appearance of a taxon in the fossil record is the first discovered fossilized account of that taxon.”

Now let’s get back to our definition of creation and the differences between creation and evolution.

The process explicable in terms of scientific laws compared to emergent (which is what we’re discussing) evolution that according to some theories involves the appearance of new characters and qualities at complex levels of organization (as the cell or organism) which cannot be predicted solely from the study of less complex levels such as the atom or molecule. Creative evolution is a creative product of a vital force rather than a spontaneous process explicable in terms of scientific laws. Merriam – Webster

Here again is another quote from the same article mentioned above.

Previous molecular studies have been inconsistent. some support the Cambrian explosion and some refute it. Blair and Hedges argue that the results that support the Cambrian explosion are flawed because they either misapplied calibration points or used an improper model of nucleotide substitution. The allegation of calibration point misconduct is a bold one coming from the Hedges lab, considering a recent review in which the authors conclude that Hedges and collaborators' "divergence-time estimates were generated through improper methodology on the basis of a single calibration point that has been unjustly denuded of error." I'll stop at that, as I don't want any grief from the folks upstairs (and, no I don't mean god -- the Hedges lab is literally "upstairs" from me), but I will point out that Hedges and Kumar did refute the allegations here.

I think the best definition for evolution comes from Rajesh C. Miranda. He is an associate professor in the department of neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center. He says, Evolutionary theory cannot speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing environment.

It is on his definition of evolution that I base my argument. It is the emergence of the species. But not through the process that evolution speaks of, but through adaptation and interbreeding. The two quotes I added above demonstrates there are still arguments about the evolutionary process. The first argues against your point of:

First, how can you deny evolution? What about the overwhelming evidence for it? For instance, there is a well established series of fossils that show that the horse, zebra, and donkey evolved from a fox-sized creature that lived 50 million years ago. The best explanation for that evidence is that the horse and zebra evolved from earlier creatures.

George Gaylord Simpson was an American Paleontologist, an expert on extinct mammals and a major contributor in the amalgamation of contemporary thought that contributed to his books of “Tempo and Mode Evolution” written in 1944, and “Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals” in 1945. He is also noted for concepts such as punctuated equilibrium, (a theory in evolutionary biology which I’ll address later.) In his work, “Quantum Evolution” he dispels the myth that the evolution of the horse was a linear process ending up with what we see today. So your argument for the evolution of the horse seems to have gone by the wayside by one of your own.

Simpson's first major contribution to theoretical biology was in the area of evolution. Since Darwin, paleontologists had almost exclusively been evolutionists, but, again with little exception, they failed to accept Darwin's mechanism for evolution or natural selection. They commonly believed, as epitomized by H. F. Osborn that long-term phenomena of evolution or macro evolution, such as speciation or major changes in a line of descent (for example, the shift from three-toed to one-toed horses), required explanations that could only be reached through studies of the fossil record. Here again we come up with a problem such as was stated above, that the fossil record can be misleading as a true history of life on Earth, which brings me to my point. In every case in the theories of evolution the words, (if, hypothesis, maybe, and can be are used.) And for all these theories models are often used.

You’re Question.

And what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all?

To answer your question we have to review data that the evolutionary processes use and how it is interrelated and compare it to data from several models that are in use today. We’re familiar with weather and hurricane forecasting, and we’re also aware of the predictions of global warming, so we’ll use those models and compare them against evolutionary models.

“Few terms are used in popular and scientific discourse more promiscuously than model.” Nelson Goodman [1976]

Bruce Winterhalder says, “Models represent observed or hypothesized relationships of structure and function in simplified or abstract form. They transform a reference situation, usually a complex system or process, in order to make it more accessible or tractable. Everything important about a model is shaped by its being an instrument of prediction or investigation. Because of this, the properties of models and the capacities expected of them are nearly as varied as are the goals in using them. Models are ubiquitous in archaeology, biology, and related historical evolutionary sciences. They are particularly useful in these fields because the subject matter is complex

The first model is Molecular-Genetic systems origin. This model describes mathematically some hypothetical evolutionary stages of pre-biological self-reproducing macromolecular systems. Manfred Eigenis is a German biophysicist and a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, and is a member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In the 1970’s he and his associates preformed an in-depth study on the life origin problem. They tried to imagine the transient stages between the molecular chaos in a prebiotic soup and simple macromolecular self-reproducing systems. They developed several mathematical models, illustrating the hypothetical macromolecular systems; quasispecies and hypercycles are the most significant. The models were intensively analyzed mathematically as well as compared with biochemical experiments and discussed from different points of view.

The conclusion, “The considered models of course can't explain the real life origin process, because these models are based on various plausible assumptions rather than on strong experimental evidences.”

Jay Odenbaugh, Department of Philosophy of Lewis and Clark College Portland, Oregon wrote a paper on models. Here is his conclusion.

“In this essay, I have attempted to survey the recent and not-so recent work of philosophers of science and biology on models. We have considered models as analogies, relational structures, partially independent representations, and material objects. Whether there is an extant account that can make sense of the bulk of models in biology remains to be seen. However, as we noted in the Introduction, there is much work to be done. Moreover, we have barely touched on the functions that models play in biology, on how they provide explanations, how they can be tested, and the trade-offs that may exist in model-building.”

Lets first look at an abbreviated model for evolution.

The Hadean time - It is believed that the earth formed after the Big Bang some 4 ½ billion years ago (4500 mya) It was during this Precambrian period when profound events occurred, leading ultimately to "life" as we know it today. It started at 4500 million years away or mya to 3800 mya. It was during this period the sun formed by gravitational compaction, and eventually reached the temperature and pressure conditions for nuclear fusion. As this was happening other particles coalesced under gravity to form continually growing planets. Science is unaware that life existed during the Hadean time, but the prerequisite ingredients for life to emerge were in production. If life did arise during the Hadean, it did so in a truly hellish environment.

The Archean time – It started at 3800 mya to 2500 mya - atmosphere that existed during Archean time would be toxic to most extant life. It is believed that life on earth made its appearance in the seas. The first life is believed to be the Eubacteria (i.e., bacteria), single-celled prokaryotic organisms with no DNA-containing Nucleus. The most prevalent theory is that the Eubacteria are ancestral to the Archaeans, only identified as a distinct domain of life in the 1970’s. Domain Arachaea include organisms that can exist, and maybe are the only organisms that can exist, in extremely hostile environments, such as thermal vents and hyper saline water.

The Proterozoic time – It started 2500 mya to 544 million years ago (mya) It produced events paramount to the further evolution of life, most notably the steady buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere. Stable continents formed. Bacteria and Archaean microbes, some able to tolerate extremely hostile environments, became increasingly abundant. By about 1,800 mya, eukaryotic celled animals appear as fossils. Cyanobacteria, photosynthetic Eubacteria that produce oxygen as a metabolism byproduct may have appeared of early as 3.5 billion years ago, but became common and widespread in the Proterozoic. The rapid build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere was primarily owing to their photosynthetic activity. Regardless of whether the Eukaryotes with DNA-containing nucleus evolved in the Arachaen or Proterozoic, these ancestors of all plants, animals and fungi are believed to have obtained their energy complex metabolism systems from endosymbiotic bacteria (known as the theory of endosymbiosis

The Paleozoic Time - Meaning "time of ancient life." This era lasted from 544 to 245 million years ago, and is divided into six periods over 300 million years. They are the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian.

The Mesozoic Era – This gave rise to dominance of dinosaurs in terrestrial ecosystems. The Mesozoic lasted from 245 to 65 million years ago, and is divided into three periods. The Mesozoic, which derives its name from the Greek with a rough meaning of middle animals, began after the Permian extinction and ended with the Cretaceous extinction. It comprises the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods.

Cenozoic Era – This was made up of two eras. The Tertiary Period from 65 to 1.8 mya, and the Quaternary Period that began less than 2 million years ago marked the origin of the close human ancestors as well as the modern forms of the animals we see today.

I’d like to point out several things in this model. Look at the area’s highlighted in red, there is nothing on the website that I could find that said, this proves life evolved, it simply states, It is believed, The most prevalent theory, are believed, everything is based on supposition. That’s not to say that time lines are not correct, that certain species did exist, but there is no evidence that the spark of life evolved. There are some that teach on theistic evolution, that God used evolution to create, I disagree with the teaching on the grounds it puts limits on God and does not agree with what scripture teaches, however theistic evolution comes closer to solving the mystery than Darwinian evolution.

Now let’s look at the models for weather and global warming and the data they use. There are are six widely accepted conditions for hurricane development. The first condition is that ocean waters must be above 26 degrees Celsius or 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Below this threshold temperature, hurricanes will not form or will weaken rapidly once they move over water below this threshold.

The second ingredient is distance from the equator. Without the spin of the earth and the resulting Corioles force, hurricanes will not form.
The third ingredient is that of a saturated lapse rate gradient near the center of rotation of the storm. Hurricanes are warm core storms. The heat hurricanes generate is from the condensation of water vapor as it convectively rises around the eye wall. . The fourth and one of the most important ingredients is that of a low vertical wind shear, especially in the upper level of the atmosphere. The fifth ingredient is high relative humidity values from the surface to the mid levels of the atmosphere. . The sixth ingredient is that of a tropical wave. Often hurricanes in the Atlantic begin as a thunderstorm complex that moves off the coast of Africa. It becomes what is known as a midtropospheric wave.

The question then, how do we use these six conditions in developing a forecast? And the second would be, is all this data accurate?

The behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be given certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main sources of error:

The first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing at the point of initialization due to the lack of up to the second data. When the model starts it has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.

To answer your question about the fossil records and the appearance of mammals, evolution has used data they think is correct. Unlike today where we have documented data verified through history, they use data that I believe is inconclusive, so the initialization of their models is incorrect based on what was said above and other data not covered here.

The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.

Here again since all the evidence is not in, evolution uses theories based on data produced in a laboratory or by some other means. The problem I have, is the data correct or does it just fit with a certain theory?



And third is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.

Once again, our understanding of the past outside of recorded history is a matter of supposition. Just as our understanding of our own atmosphere is which we can observe, make models of, and perform experiments on and be able to verify the results. Even with what we know the data is not perfect, and may I say much more so are the equations, models, data, and our understanding of the evolutionary process

The best hurricane forecasting models we have are global models that solve the mathematical equations governing the behavior of the atmosphere at every point on the globe. The four best hurricane forecast models are GFDL which is the NWS/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory model, the GFS - Global Forecast System model run by the NWS, UKMET - The United Kingdom Met Office model, and NOGAPS - The U.S. Navy's Naval Operational Global Prediction Center System, these are all global dynamical models. These models take several hours to run on the world's most advanced supercomputers. They are all good forecasting models but none of them are perfect, although they have been improved over the years and are becoming quite accurate.

The best time to view these models in action is when a storm is being tracked. If you go to a weather page you’ll see different colored lines predicting the storms path and those lines are the result of data from each of the models. The same goes for the models used in tracking global warming. They use different data and different algorithms just as the models used to track hurricanes, however we have to understand that the models used for global warming are still in their infancy, and just as our understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect neither is our understanding of what causes global warming or even if its happening, and I think this also applies to evolution.

So how do we predict global warming or the evolutionary process? Here again we’re in the infancy of two new sciences. We can use the ice to checkout weather patterns that have occurred over time. Evolution says it can predict the origin of life by the fossil record. Global warming uses the ocean currents as well as measurements collected by devices called microwave-sounding units on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites using different channels of the microwave-sounding unit’s measure radiation at different frequencies, providing data for different layers of the atmosphere. These measurements are important because, for years, satellite data inconsistent with warming at the surface have fueled the debate about whether climate change is actually occurring. So how do they check warming at the surface?
The Atlantic North Equatorial Current flows westward off the coast of northern Africa. When this current interacts with the northeastern coast of South America, the current forks into two branches. One passes into the Caribbean Sea, while a second, the Antilles Current, flows north and east of the West Indies. These two branches rejoin north of the Straits of Florida.

In the first phase the current travels north, the warm water transported by the Gulf Stream undergoes evaporative cooling and brine exclusion. The cooling and evaporation is caused by the wind moving over the water leaving saltier brine, in so doing the water increases in salinity and density, and decreases in temperature. The second process involves the formation of sea ice, which likewise increases the salinity of the brine solution, thereby decreasing its freezing point. These two processes produce water that is denser and colder. In the North Atlantic Ocean the water becomes so cold and dense that it begins to sink down through warmer, less salty and less dense water. This downdraft of heavy, cold and dense water becomes a part of the North Atlantic deep water with a transit time of about 1600 years which becomes a south going current.

There was some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift. However the time it would take to accomplish this is unclear. There were very aggressive estimates that ranged from a few decades to conservative estimates of a few hundred years. If this did happen it could trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling which would affect areas such as Great Britain and Scandinavia.

The accusation that scientists bend their observations is a very serious one, for bending one's observations to fit what one expects to find is the opposite of good science. Doing so deliberately would invariably destroy a scientist's career.

Here again we have data, more than we know what to do with. My point is this, if we cannot make models (they are getting better) about events that are occurring now with reliable and fairly accurate data, how can we say what happened a million years ago on data that could be flawed or skewed on the scientist’s perception, teaching, the models being run, data from a possible flawed model, and school of thought. Example, at the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years old… What happened? Data changed. Was the data correct? For the most part yes, but you see my point. Most scientists don’t deliberately bend the their observations they go along with the current model and the newly updated information. However as we will see later there are some in the Neo Darwinian community who are willing to do just that.

I’m not going to go into radiometric dating techniques, to do so would add to the article and most would not read it. What I will say is this, just as there are flaws in the models used so are there flaws in the dating process. What I will do is add a website address if you care to check out the dating process.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

In order to understand the time difference between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 we have to understand something. Scripture was not written as a science or a history book, but as a plan to redeem man, therefore God left out a lot that we must take by faith.

In order to understand creation we have to understand who God is. God is eternal, that means he had no beginning and he has no end. (Headache time). For us to conceive of this is impossible because we are creatures of time. Who is God and can we know him? I think the answer is yes. God is creation because all of who he is, is reflected in it. First of all creation as we know it is endless, look out at the night sky and know you are looking into eternity present and past.

God is order. Our atmosphere contains water vapor which helps to moderate our daily temperatures. Our atmosphere contains 21% oxygen, which is necessary for us to breathe, 78% nitrogen, and .9% argon. The other 0.1% consists of water vapor, carbon dioxide, neon, methane, krypton, helium, xenon, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. These latter elements are important to have because they help to absorb harmful solar radiation before it can reach the surface of the Earth. If present in larger amounts, most of these latter elements would be poisonous to humans. If the Earth was any closer to the Sun, it would be too hot to support life. If the Earth was any farther away from the Sun, it would be too cold to support life. God is the beauty we see, the essence of love, intelligence, and the large variety of both plants, animals, scenery, and humans.

God is mystery, thus the confusion over creation. Example What is dark matter and the virial theorem? In mechanics the virial theorem provides a general equation relating the average total kinetic energy of a system with its average total potential energy. Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) applied this theorem to the coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together. Thus we have dark matter.

As I said earlier we would get back to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. At the time Darwin wrote Origin of the species he postulated that things would change gradually over time using slight variations eventually creating all that we see now. At the time of his writing Darwin said, at this time we have not checked out the earth, we have not checked the fossil record yet, so in the years to come we’ll collect all this fossil evidence and if my theory is correct we’re going to have to find as he said innumerable fossil records showing change over time. We’re 149 years later now and the fossil record is complete with billions of fossils and multiple museums and we still have no definitive species in transition, we have only fully formed fossils in the fossil records. There are not any fossils that show bumps, little appendages, or slight changes as Darwin suggested. If evolution is to be considered correct we should find thousands of fossils in definitive transition along with fully formed fossils based on statistics. But we don’t! So to counter this the Neo-Darwinian theorists have said you’re right, the fossil records don’t match traditional Darwinism which is a slight change over time, so now we have huge punctuated events in history that are not seen in the fossil records. So now instead of slight change over time you have an event every million years or so that makes drastic changes in the evolutionary cycle. For example, a super nova occurred or some other catastrophic event took place and a creature in the water gave birth to a species that could live on land as well as water. Now the problem is they don’t know why it happened it just did because they believe it did. Sound fantastic, this is main stream theory not fringe stuff. This is what the top Darwinian thinkers of the day believe. Instead of slight change over long periods of time they believe in punctuated equilibrium or macro evolution, change from kind to kind.




If we are to believe that God is eternal, then we also have to believe that God in eternity past has always been in the mode of creating. Before I go any further lets see what theoretical physics has to say.

1. Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking.

2. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research “supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time.”

3. Some versions of string theory portray our visible universe as a three-dimensional space embedded in an invisible space having more dimensions. Our zone, called a braneworld—the word comes from its similarity to a sort of membrane—could periodically bounce into another, parallel braneworld.

But before we get to Genesis lets look at creation. God created the laws of physics, chemistry, and the mechanics that control our universe. The first question that needs answering is this. If God created, was it a perfect creation? And the answer is yes, but since God established the laws that govern creation he then follows those laws. To better understand what I mean let’s look at our sun. First of all, if you want the current age of the sun which is estimated to be about 5 billion years old. (Using the current dating systems) This number is determined from radioactive dating of objects in the solar system which are known to have formed around the same time as the sun. The total lifetime of the sun before it becomes a red giant is around 10 billion years, meaning that the transition will occur around 5 billion years from now. We can estimate when the sun will die, and that will be when the sun runs out of energy to keep it shining. The time for this to occur is roughly the total energy the sun has that can be turned into light, divided by the rate at which the sun is giving off energy. My point is, the sun was created and is governed by the laws of physics, so eventually the sun will die. Is that perfection in creation? It is when God created the universe and the laws that govern it. Let’s look at another example. Genesis states that God created man. The man that God created was perfect in every way, but was man designed to live forever. We see that God planted a tree called the tree of life. When Adam sinned what did God do? And the LORD God said,

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

God planted the tree of life to give man the ability to live for an extended period of time. Perhaps the fruit regenerated man. We have to understand that God created man with a biological clock and man was created from something that was not perfect, dirt. The only thing that God created that was eternal was the soul of man. God breathed into man the breath of life and he became a living soul. The day Adam sinned his spiritual side died leaving the body as God said to return to the earth. To prevent sinful man from living forever God drove him out of the garden where the tree of life was.

So, if God creates and knowing that creation according to the laws that govern the universe God also re-creates. The big bang theory that took place that science says created our universe, was it creation or re-creation?

So it’s my contention that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was devastation, to the point that all life was destroyed and that in Genesis 1:2 God recreated. Do I have proof, no more than what evolution teaches. It’s a possibility if we look at what scripture says..

God told those he created to be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth. The Hebrew word that is used for replenish I find to have a plethora of meanings, so it just might mean as another translation says “to fill” the earth.

Now, this brings us to another question, could the destruction we see in the fossil records be from the flood of Noah? Let’s take a look at what scripture says and what it doesn’t say.

When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.

There are some that think there was a canopy that surrounded the earth. Think about this, if the canopy was destroyed from above by a meteor, the impact on earth would have caused the underground water to erupt, and depending on the canopy and the volume of water in it, think of the devastation, that could explain the different layers that the fossils records are found in. Take for example the Mount St. Helen eruption. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ‘Little Grand Canyon.’ About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow. The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of ‘billions of years’ is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.

In the creation story it says that God created everything in six days. It goes on to say that God created Eve. It also tells us that God placed man in the garden to care for it.

Just as I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there’s a gap between Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:1 the bible doesn’t tell us how long they were in the garden. But I think we can draw some insight due to the punishment God placed on Eve. Then the LORD said to the woman, "You will suffer terribly when you give birth.”

God told Adam that his punishment would be working the ground and it would be such that he was going to sweat. We know Adam took care of the garden, so when driven out Adam suffered because he understood the punishment. He knew what it was like in the garden and now he knew what it was like to work by the sweat of his brow. I think we can draw a reference here. Was childbirth a pleasant experience in the garden? Genesis says “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Could it be that the couple had children while in the garden, the Bible is once again silent. If I were to have said to my daughter who is now 20 at the age of 12, because you did this thing I’m revoking your driving privileges. It wouldn’t have meant a thing because she didn’t drive. My point is, outside the garden Eve also understood her punishment. We also don’t know how many time Eve had her conversation with the serpent. The Bible doesn’t indicate in any way she was surprised by its ability to speak. If we look at temptation and how it is presented we don’t usually give in the first time, so this also may have been a long process over many years.

The next thing we have to look at is the age of Adam. The Bible says, When Adam was one hundred thirty, he had a son who was just like him, and he named him Seth. Adam had more children and died at the age of nine hundred thirty.

Now the question is, when did Adam start to age, at the time of his creation or at the time he sinned and was driven out of the garden? If they were in the garden for any length of time would there have been a need to count time? If Adam had eaten of the tree of life then time would not have been an issue. Think on this. God placed him in a garden full of fruit trees and there was only one he could not eat of, being human, having just been created, if it were me I would have tried every tree including the tree of life. So my point is, did Adam age while in the garden? These are all questions that have no answers, but I think they might better explain the age of the earth.

Now let’s get back to Genesis and the creation story and see how the creation story fits. In my own mind and way of thinking I’ve dispelled the notion of the fossil records having evolved. The fossils are there, they did exist, the question is when?

What about the creation story? I think we’ve established the possibility of a gap between verses one and two and the possibility of multiple creations. Here again some would say that verse one is a foreshadow of the creation, and it is possible, and if it is we’ll see another foreshadow a little later. But let’s look at what scripture does and doesn’t say. Jesus said in Luke 10:18

"I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening."

I believe Satan was on earth when he initially revolted against God. Notice what said in Isaiah 14:13 about Lucifer or Satan.

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.”

Satan decided to take on heaven. Now we don’t have a record in scripture about what happened, but I think we can look at other scriptures to get an idea. First of all look at Ezekiel 28.

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Here we find a description of Satan before he fell. When he rebelled, what happened? The scripture really doesn’t say, but I believe that he must have had some authority or rulership over our universe, and while he was still obedient God made a decision that I believe sent him into action against God. Hebrews 2:5-8 says,

“We know that God did not put the future world under the power of angels. Somewhere in the Scriptures someone says to God, "What makes you care about us humans? Why are you concerned for weaklings such as us? You made us lower than the angels for a while. Yet you have crowned us with glory and honor. And you have put everything under our power!"

God had not created man as yet but the plan is made known. Satan finds out that God never intended for the angels to be elevated above their original creation. He never intended them to rule the world that is to come. Satan resents God for who he is and then a plan is put forth to create yet another being who will rule over even Satan. Satan is then in full rebellion. Rev. 12:7-9,

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. "

From this scripture it does appear that Satan will once again try to rise up from the earth to attack heaven, only to get cast down again.

Now there’s something else we have to look at. Scripture makes mention of three heavens, Paul makes reference to it in 2 Corinthians 12. The third heaven is where God resides, the second is where the stars reside, and the first is the atmosphere that surrounds the earth. Scripture says he was cast down to the earth, the first heaven. I believe that when he was cast down he didn’t go willingly but destroyed everything on his way down. Now here’s something else we need to think about. Genesis 1 talks about God creating the sun, moon, and stars. We know that light travels at 186,000 mps. If God were to follow the laws that he created than it stands to reason that they must have been created in time past. Listen how Moses writes, God said,

"I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. I command them to shine on the earth." And that's what happened. Now Moses goes on to explain the creation much like he did if you believe in foreshadowing as some believe happened between verses one and two. God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

Notice Moses is talking about the sun and the moon. And then almost as an after thought he says, He also made the stars. Now here is where it gets real interesting. Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule the day and night, and to separate light from darkness. It’s almost as if Moses is saying, God created them with his hands, he checked them out and then placed them in just the right place, because he ends with, and God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

While were speculating could it be that what God is talking about is not only our earth but our particular solar system which consists of the sun and the other celestial objects gravitationally bound to it: the eight planets, their 166 known moons, three dwarf planets Ceres, Pluto, and Eris and their four known moons, and billions of small bodies. This last category includes asteroids, Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, and interplanetary dust which happens to be in the milky way. A previous creation would allow the light from distant stars to be seen. I’ve been watching “The elegant Universe” and the theory called M-theory, a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. The five theories all share essential features in that they all have vibrating strings, one being a closed loop the other four being open. We’re living in a universe of eleven dimensions with parallel universes right next door. A magnificent universe composed entirely of the music of strings. String theory says that everything in the universe from the tiniest particle to the most distant star is made from one kind of ingredient, unimaginably small vibrating strands of energy called strings. Just as the strings of a violin gives off a variety of tones and music, the strings in string theory vibrate in many ways making up all of what we see around us. So in essence the universe can be compared to a symphony orchestra. M-theory also theorizes that our universe is but a bubble in an ocean of universes, perhaps dark matter is what holds everything together. This got me to thinking. If M-theory is correct than could it be that since God resides outside of time God has for eternity past, present, and future been conducting an orchestrated creation? Could it be that Satan who in theory was the chief angel of music in heaven have been involved someway in creation? Ezekiel 28:13 NKJV seem to hint that Satan was involved with music in Heaven. For it says:

“The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created,” Ezekiel 28:12-19 says,

“You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. 14 “ You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. 16 “ By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings that they might gaze at you. 18 “You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you. 19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.”

Could it be that when he rebelled he destroyed the music of creation and the creation account in Genesis is a recreation of what he destroyed?

In any case both are theories and neither one can be proven, but thinking about the possibilities of everything that’s out there doesn’t it send a chill down your spine as to how great God really is and how fantastic the creation is. I think that’s the part I enjoy the most, writing about all the possibilities, for scripture says it has not entered into the heart of man what God has prepared. Can you imagine God knowing all that he knows and still considers us as the crowning glory of his creation, for he says that even the hairs of our heads are numbered. Is my faith in him challenged what I try to understand it all or I’m challenged by those who do not believe? No! My faith is strengthened because I don’t have to try and disprove every new theory that comes along or a new report of a new discovery. I accept the fact that God is who he said he is and was and everything else falls into place.

Uh, excuse me, but what irreducibly complex systems are you talking about? Can you name even one irreducibly complex system for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution?

As a matter of fact I can. But before I go any further let’s give the definition for an irreducibly complex system for those who may come across this site and not know what we’re talking about, and let’s put the definition down for evolution as well.

Irreducibly - Impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition.
Complex - A group of obviously related units of which the degree and nature of the relationship is imperfectly known
System - A numbering system, a gravitational system, a thermodynamic system, digestive system, a lymphatic system, a river system, etc, etc, you get the idea.
Evolution - It’s the act of change or to increase in complexity


So do we have any modern day ICS that shows evolution or something that has evolved? The population of English speaking people in this country, our highway system started from a few cow and wagon trails to what it is today. Our phone system, the power grid across the country just to name a few, but in each case we know how and where they started, because in a sense they did evolve just as the above definition indicates. But if we look at life and to say it evolved… there are some questions that need to be answered.

Have you read “The Flagellum Unspun” by Ken Miller? The synopsis of his article is that the flagellum is not a irreducibly complex system, but that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS - a subsystem of the bacterial flagellum) has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed.

Now I’m not a biologist or a scientist, but throughout the entire article, using Darwin's theory he offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If Ken Miller had any idea of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms he would have put it in the article. Ken Miller also used a publication called Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe. He uses a publication (1996 first edition and 2006 second edition) to point at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. Here again if there were any new evidence in the evolutionary process he would have used it to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Another example would be a question I found doing some research. The question is this

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed, right.

Here is the response

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it

Here again there is no evidence to support evolution, just the same old song and dance, (other processes might have) so without any more support for evolution than what we have here and I’ve looked for it, we can say that the human body is full of complex systems, namely the skeletal, control (nervous), cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, urinary, reproductive, just to name a few.

The question is not - name even one irreducibly complex system for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution, but which one did.

Can you really contend that a science must be wrong because some scientist in the past once made a mistake? It would surely seem to me that the fact that one scientist once made a mistake would not prove that all of a particular field of science is wrong. Of course the models of abiogenesis are still being tested. The origin of the first living cell happened a long time ago, and there is very little evidence of what actually happened.

Why does much of your email dwell on abiogenesis, about which we know little, and ignore the overwhelming evidence that all existing creatures on earth evolved from early one-celled creatures?

You just lost your argument. If we have very little evidence of what actually happened and abiogenesis is still being tested without a specific answer that would be like… Example, I worked for a pharmaceutical company where assays and equipment were developed to test drugs. If we had worked from the assay side down to the disease we would have never come up with a drug that would either treat or cure the disease. That’s what you call reverse engineering. When I was in the military and the Soviet Union got there hands on something we made they did do some reverse engineering to come up with a similar model. That’s also like someone trying to reverse engineer a computer without a working knowledge of electricity. To develop an assay you must first understand the disease and it’s the same for evolution. You’ve created a time line, creatures, man, and a theory by working backwards. However, think on this. Reverse engineering does not always produce the end result you are looking for.

I made the comment

Do they really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about.


Your response was - Ah, but I know that men (and women) are better than animals in those essences I value most, such as creative thinking, understanding the world, and working together to improve it. I don't need anybody to tell me about the greatness of being human. I can see it for myself. In fact, that is why I call myself a humanist, to show my respect for the greatness of humans. Exactly why would anybody tell a humanist that he needs to have more respect for the greatness of humanity? That's what our viewpoint is all about! So no, evolution does not give me a low view of humanity.

As for your statement, if evolution is indeed a fact and man did evolve, then why the preoccupation with religion? If all we are is a mammal on the evolutionary ladder why are we so concerned with death, and the preparation for it? We’re the only species that buries our dead. If we are an evolutionary creature as you would say where did the emotion or the conscious awareness of humanity come from. Something had to place in man the need for, the awareness of, or the understanding of God, because we’re the only creature that does. Our closest ancestor (so to speak) doesn’t seem too concerned. Evolution didn’t put it there, the creation by a supreme being did and that’s what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

I’m going to leave this article with an interview preformed by Dr Benjamin Wiker; it’s from a book entitled One of the World's Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind.

In the interview long time atheist Antony Flew answered this question.

Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " 'Can you hear me now?'"

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.