1) normal (operational, laboratory) science, and
2) origins or historical science.

Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of

A) causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause within temporal processes) and
B) analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Laboratory Sciences will always tend to question evolutionary assumptions. This is so because Laboratory Science takes place in the present, not only with bench testing but also with statistics. [Recommended reading for Laboratory Scientists. Callum G. Fraser, Biological Variation: From Principle to Practice, Washington, 2001; The book deals with clinical laboratory science. Subtitles: The Nature of Biological Variation; Quality Specifications; Changes in Serial Results; The Utility of Population-Based Reference Values; Other Uses of Data on Biological Variation; Data on Components of Biological Variation; Quality Specifications for Precision, Bias, and Total Error Allowable.]

Among today's scientists are modern magis after they have had a glimpse of what we now know is up there in the heavens. Here are some points of their conclusions.
I From the Mt. Palomar telescope, Edwin Hubble, long ago, discovered that beyond our galaxy are an estimated 100 billion galaxies, each containing 200 billion stars - with their trillions of planets and moons.
II These men found that the same laws controlling our galaxy, controls all of them; it also controls light, matter, atoms, sub-atomic particles, energy, etc. throughout the whole, vast universe.
III The vastness of the universe has caused some to think that many planets like ours must have evolved in the universe, and they keep searching for them in the heavens, hoping to find intelligent life - knowing little that our intelligence may be very blunted, sinful and perverted compared to that above.
IV Researchers have concluded that planets like ours could not have "evolved" freely in the universe. They have discovered scientifically that there are so many factors which have to be met, and which have to occur at the same time, that one scientist said that a planet like ours could not come into existence without a miracle.

There are more than 20 known factors which have to be present at the same time. We present twelve of them. They are:

1. The planet must be within the `Galactic Habitable Zone' in our galaxy. If it is too close to the center of the galaxy, radiation, debris, and other things would bake it, choke it, poison it, and kill it. If it were too far from the center, heavy elements needed for complex life would be missing.
   
2. It must be orbiting a `main sequence G2 dwarf star. Our sun just happens to be one. Without it, gravity, radiation, heat, etc. would be deadly.
   
3. The planet must be protected by outer gas giant planets - to keep it from being hit continuously by meteors, etc. Our earth just happens to have those protective planets too.
   
4. It must be within the "circumstellar inhabitable zone' (the right distance from the sun). We have that too.
   
5. It must have a nearly circular orbit. Without that, everything would freeze some months and melt the other months. Earth has that too,
   
6. It must have an oxygen rich atmosphere like we happen to have.
   
7. It must have the correct mass. If it is too small, it's gravity and magnetic fields would be haywire. If too large, its gravity would crush anything larger than a pea.
   
8. It must be orbited by a large moon, If the moon were too small, earth's tilt would not be stabilized. If too large, giant waves would devastate it.
   
9. It must have just the right magnetic field to protect it from deadly radiation and other factors.
   
10. The outer core of the planet must have the right thickness to have the right `plate tectonics' to vent pressure and have liquid iron in the core to make a magnetic field.
    
11. It must have the right ratio of liquid water and continents.
    
12. It must have a moderate rate of rotation - just like we have it. May that be enough.

V Man will soon see the life from up there come down here - but will they be ready for the shock?

All of mankind alive will see outer space come alive soon. Sadly, sin is found only on our planet. Yet man, in his pride, thinks he is wiser than God and flaunts the word the Creator left with us, and they ignore the signs of His approaching return to end the reign of sin.

The issues:

"1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:1-13.

In what way did the Apostle John link Creation with the Cross? Why are the two teachings inseperable?

In numerous places the Bible clearly links the Lord with the Lord as Redeemer, a link that provides more evidence that evolution cannot be reconciled with what is taught in the Bible, especially with the teaching of the Cross of Christ, on which He died, rested in the grave for 3 days, and then rose from the dead. If that was not so, what would believers face?

1. The Lord would have incarnated into an evolved ape created through the vicious and painfully murderous cycle of natural selection, all in order to abolish death, "the last enemy" 1.Cor. 15:26.
   
2. But how can death be the "enemy" if it was (supposedly) one of God's chosen means for creating humans, at least according to the evolutionary model?
   
3. The Lord must have expended plenty of dead Homo erectus,
   
4. Homo heidelbergensis, and
   
5. Homo neanderthalensis in order to finally get
   
6. His own image - Homo sapiens.

What this would mean, then, is that Jesus came to save humankind from the very process, as Creator, used to create it in the first place. If that sounds ridiculous, it sounds so because it is.

How does the next text help us to understand how crucial a literal reading of the Creation account in Genesis is to the whole plan of salvation?

"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." Romans 5:12.

How is the idea of the Fall into sin, which is so clearly Biblical explained, argued by those who seek to meld evolution with the Bible?

Does God use processes of

1. violence,
   
2. selfishness, and
   
3. dominance of the strong against the weak in order to create a morally flawless and selfless being who then "falls" into a state of `violence, selfishness, and dominance over the weak' - a state of existence from which he has to be redeemed - or else face final punishment?
   
4. If the resurrection of the just, which takes place on the day of the Second Coming of Christ, is an instantaneous event, in the "twinkling of an eye" (1.Cor. 15:52), but some of the dead have been dead for thousands of years, and there is nothing or not much left of them to work with - if God can re-create them in an instant,
   
5. why is He supposed to have used evolution to create them the first time around?

Again, the absurdity of the position utterly rules it out. The only way to make sense of the Cross, of the need for the Savior to redeem a fallen human race, is for human beings to have "fallen" (not ascended) from something, and a "fall" implies a descent, a degeneration; it means that we went from that which was good to something that was not as good.

That makes perfect sense from a literal understanding of Genesis; with evolution, it makes no sense at all. Indeed, the idea of evolution makes a mockery of both the Fall into sin and the Cross on which Jesus Christ died, to redeem us from sin, and we turn away from that Babylonian teaching.

September 21, 2011- "The teaching of Creationsim should be outlawed in school science lessons a group of leading scientists have said. And the curriculum should be changed to ensure evolution is taught from when children start school, according to academics including Sir David Attenborough and Porfessor Richard Dawkins. Those behind the call for `evolution not creationism' say teaching that God created the world is dangerous and must be prevented by law."

True Christians have nothing to fear of the academic freedom to allow teachers the ability to teach about different views of origins. Atheists like Dawkins know they cannot allow children to hear the evidence against evolution and that the evidence is consistent with creation, as these young people will easily see how evolution is a belief that is inconsistent overall with operational (observable) science. That is why these atheists have to campaign to legislate evolution as a fact!

And what are the emotions about? Why do they fight against God?

Well, the Bible tells us, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:18-20 according to the UK Bible under King James of England..

Because they know there is a God - as it is evident around them and written on their hearts - they `beat their chests' so to speak and `cover their ears with their hands,' doing all they can to suppress the very truth that is "clearly seen."

The more we see such anti-Christian situations as that described in this newspaper article, the more it attests to the fact that God is! If there was no God there would be no spiritual battle, and Dawkins and his friends would not care what people believe! But because the Bible is true and each person is accountable to the God of Creation, Dawkins and his friends work as hard as they can to "suppress the truth."

- Would they rather have Muslims teach theiir faith in Creation? -

September 2011: Reading some of Ken Ham's and Georgia Purdom's blogg, it becomes a little more evident that their level of Christianity is not appreciated by numerous fellow supposed believers in `Christian' Churches with which they communicate. They heard it said, `We just don't think people want to hear what you are talking about.' That is a nice way of saying, `Shut up. Don't talk to us about God creating the world in six.' - AiG, when are you going to come to terms with our Creator God and quit avoiding the issue on which the government of God is build? "Sin is the transgression of the law" of God", 1.John 3:4; Yet, "... whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10; For Jesus said, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46. - The type of discernment still lacking is, that defending six day literal Creation, how can you get around the Sabbath? ... at least in the long run? - It seems to me, that the unspoken enmity sooner or later will have to address the Sabbath' question. It is apparent in changes taking place in the `Assemblies of God' church, some of which, I know, had accepted the Sabbath about 20 years ago or thereabouts. What their stand on the Sabbath is now, I have no information on. But their communications with AiG showed to AiG that their stand on creation/evolution is not clear cut and allows for denying six day creation. Well, what kind of example does AiG give on the Sabbath? They are in denial of what God Himself sanctified. The Sabbath, which contains the very name of our kind heavenly Father in its very center, for Jesus said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee..." Mark 14:36. That ought to help everyone see that God's seventh day Sabbath is the `apple of God's eye' from Genesis to Revelation. The world is not only at enmity on the creation/evolution issues with faithful believers, but especially too on the law of God, and in particular at enmity to God's only holy day which Rome perverted into Sunday as any Lexicon will show you - at least they used to. - That is why I desire the dear people at AiG, when the crunch comes, to emerge on the side of truth also on the Sabbath question for it is the very seal of God, for that day will be kept in heaven itself (Isa. 66:23) after the reign of sin is over. - For you see, the devil did not only spoil creation, he spoiled God's Sabbath commandment which contains the seal of God in its very center, Ex. 20:10,11. Those two belong together, and at some point God's people will have to decide who they want to worship - man's Sunday-Sabbath or God's Seventh Day-Sabbath. Widespread apostasy is staked against God's commandments. God's holy Sabbath (sabbatismos) was to be a bulwark against evolution. What about those who don't want to know? I pray for AiG to trust the Lord on the Sabbath issue.

Of course we know that many of these successful churches do serve God as best they know, and God does overlook times of ignorance, but they all have Bibles and with that no excuse that they cannot know. That is why ministers of the gospel carry a heavy burden. If they teach their flock a tainted gospel, they are held responsible for it. The Bible says,

"And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." Exodus 4:14,15.
So we know God is with His preachers, if they speak His Words. The Bible says, "The truth shall make you free." (Jh. 8:32). That means anything untrue does not make you free. So it is important to find out for yourself why the Creator God is upheld in Genesis but not in Exodus 20, verses 8 to 11.

Be warned, if you only take the explanation of someone else on these words, you may be fed untruth, a diluted gospel. And `no', I am not trying to nitpick, I am just a messenger. The links will show you that all the apostels kept God's Law to the letter all their lives. It will show you that the New Testament does not teach a new Decalogue. Your own Bible in your house, learn from it alone. But I love Ken Ham, so does the Lord, for he is earnest in trying to bring the truth and nothing but the truth and some day he too, will keep God's Sabbath holy while still on earth. That I believe and pray for. [A Concordance helps to find parallel texts.]

Since the above was written, some months went by and significant changes are occurring on an accelerated pace. Why? Because Rome is pushing its agenda. If Ken would take the time and study Bible prophecy, and for a time forget his prejudices, and take a deeper look at the great controversy between good and evil, who the beast is, the horn and the various prophetic figures in Daniel and Revelation - mind you, not according to Protestant ideas - he might begin to understand what ship he has been sailing on and in which direction. Then his wondering quest I read June 29, 2011 on his blogg, "Less Christian everyday - what is wrong with the church?", might become clearer. Some angles are presented in the link, not all though, by far.

So, what do we have as a consequence of putting aside the Word of God?

Standards

Marriage

God's Law upheld

Sabbath keeping honors the Creator, it is a bulwark against evolution

Pornography

Homosexual Behavior

Men's Law advanced

Sabbath breakers open door for doubters of God's Power

Why does `Answers in Genesis' refute the principle of `Separation of Church and State'?

Listening to Ken Ham in San Jose, California, on October 17, 2010, he opted clearly for doing away with the principle of the "separation of church and state," saying that our founding fathers were not all Christians and made mistakes and that this principle was a mistake they made. (Click here for view of T. Jefferson) No wonder people like Christine O'Donnell, Republican, are using that argument to confuse America into thinking we ought not to have `separation.' Does he, and others, do they really believe that God was asleep, that He was not working for His cause by giving us the US Constitution which brought religious liberty, the right to a fair trial, and the `Separation of church and state' (all three which are not mentioned in the Constitution, yet believed important) so the persecuted multitudes in Europe could live in peace from Rome? Thus the first amendment [20] rights will be a thing of the past one day soon. It appears the inroads the secularists have made in society by teaching `evolution' and `there is no God' prompts Ken Ham and his team to do so. While the influence of these errors taught by the secularists are deplorable, we hold that the `Principle of the Separation of Church and State' is not the cause of it but rather the falling away from teaching upstart Bible truths over many years, even centuries has led to this situation. There are such Bible truths besides the six day Creation Week which God wants to restore. Can you guess what they are? And yet, AiG, because of their church dogmas (what their theologians and pastors say), seems to ignore them? Leadership was most often at fault for the falling away from true faith in God even in old Israel, but the people loved it so. Do you think it is different today?
Can God's law really so willy nilly be changed ever so often without God speaking it loudly, rewriting it on stone and placing it inside the Ark of the Covenant? Beware, beware! Doesn't AiG know, just as much as they like to quote James 4:4, so James 2:10 is also in effect?
I brought three of my friends to hear you in San Jose in the evening (ancihisATnetzero.net), but there is more to consider than what you teach. You are embarking on a dangerous path.
While since the time of Jesus on earth, as the Messiah, some 2000 years have passed and the majority church in the West has been unfaithful to many Bible principles; at the time of the Reformation, begun through God's servant Martin Luther, the world had another chance to rectify those truths in God's Word that had been forgotten and rejected for such a long time. Truths like the six day Creation Week. But the Bible teaches that a historical time period may receive "present truth" (2.Peter 1:12), which it can comprehend in that age. Martin Luther did not discover all the truths stated in the Bible, neither did Zwingli, Calvin or their successors. Some Bible truths were still a closed book to them. Should the last few generations before Jesus comes again - the consummation - expect to learn more "present truth"? Why not! Yes. We certainly should expect more understanding of the Word of God and `Answers in Genesis' does that very well on the subject of the Creation of this world. They are marvelously eloquent on the truth about the six day Creation Week some six thousand years ago and teach it as literal time. We believe that too. But the Seventh day Adventist Church, like many Protestant churches, has unfaithful members added to their ranks by not carefully teaching the six day creation to their baptismal candidates, school children and members over the years and now there are some who have fallen away yet pretending to be Seventh day Adventists while teaching evolution at home and/or at school. Like I heard one lay member preach one time, he had trouble bringing the teeth of a lion into agreement with six days of creation. If they would read some of the AiG information, they may be stopped in their tracks and perhaps a few may reform.
So, AiG is God's arm to preach this truth in all the world. However, now they are branching out into other areas like politics to influence the view of many Protestant leaders to their members, to unite state and church, while disregarding the dangers that involves.
While they fear that secularists became too powerful in this land, they seem to think that uniting state and church would correct that. But how should it be corrected? By the state supporting the tenants of their particular churches, thus enforcing religious dogmas on all the people? God save us from such a Roman situation.
So it is that today, in the religious world, there are some who believe, that they are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion by teaching that the `Separation of Church and State' was an error of our founding fathers. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and stadiums, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority. They think that God's hand was not in the formation of this nation when most of the people in those days knew the opposite was true. Don't they know, that by pushing their political agenda they play into the hands of Rome and thus betray their Protestantism? Don't they know that today there are no more continents where people can flee to from persecution, except to trust in God's care?
Today, then, we have this shift in political thinking in the churches gaining momentum. Have they not read Revelation 13 and 14? Is Genesis 1-11 all they know? Don't they know the history and character of the majority church which exists ever since the falling away from the true gospel that Christ and His disciples preached in this world? Don't they know how this church prides itself by claiming that it never changes? That this is a church steeped in Babylonian thinking and that it is still even today the enemy of God's people? Have they not read the encyclicals, the Vatican II constitution, and so on?
Since Christ is not now here in person, the undoers of `separation' themselves plan to, and we know they will, undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom. How can that be? Don't they know that the establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ? The Jews would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly throne, wield earthly might and power.
What more does the Bible teach? We read, "And there were loud voices in heaven saying, `The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever." Rev. 11:15. In these last days there is the idea going around that man ought to dominate everything by a perfect brotherhood. Many seem to say, we are headed into a federation of religions and nations were distinctions will be obliterated and there will be a great universal brotherhood. The president of the New World Order, the older, former President Bush, has big plans to bring the NWO about by 2025.[25]
At such a time they envision no more independent nations, they will be all led by one world leader who sits in Rome. Supposedly that will stop the quarreling among nations, albeit it must mean nations with vastly reduced populations, for the elect few. So how can we still say that there is a God who oversees things? The Apostle Peter wrote, God is "longsuffering toward us" (2.Pt. 3:9). That must mean that in our days God is giving men opportunities to try every line they like in their individual life as well as in the life of the nations around the globe. Some things have not been tried yet, and if God were to cut us off short we would complain and say, `If you had left us a bit longer we would have realized our ideal of society and national life.' God is allowing all in the world to prove to the utmost that it cannot be done in any other way than that which Jesus Christ said it can only be done in: that is, by a personal relationship to God through Jesus Christ who is God and Man - One.
When sooner or later we are coming to the end of our plans, Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Mt. 5:3). That means God will give the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks, a gift of God through an unsullied heredity through Jesus Himself. - That is how the love of God comes into the human life, one at a time, to make citizens who will be more Christ like - unsullied by sin. Faith in God is a terrific venture in the dark; we have to believe that God is love despite all that seems to contradict it. Every human mind represents some kind of battlefield where the conflict rages. The great point for true Christians is to remain perfectly confident in God. Paul states that when the sons of God are manifested, and everything is in a right relationship with God and expressed in devotion to Jesus Christ, all the wildness and contradiction in nature and in nations will cease, and the love of God will be the great reality, Romans chapter 8. That is the end of nations, the obliteration of nations. But to realize the plans of Babylon will bring destruction and persecution. Does AiG really want to help that along? Can't they see all of the Bible truths - those after Genesis 11? We must all pray for them.

There was only one ice age which resulted from warmer oceans. It affected the northern hemisphere of EurAsia and America. England was under an ice sheet to about London, the northern half of Ireland was covered, all of Scandinavia, northern Germany, a tongue of ice to about Nantes and the Loire River, back up to about Longt. 4°E & Lat. 51°N judging by the mountains, in a line along the Lippe River, to the Saale River, to Dresden, along the northern Czech border to Krakau. In America all of Canada except the western slopes of the Rockies were under ice which came down to about the Columbia River in Washington, in a northern bow over to the Dakotas, down toward St. Louis, with an uncovered island in Wisconsin (between Minneapolis and Davenport), and then up in a craggy line toward Main. - If the oceans were 85° F (29° C), copious rainstorms and strong winds would have affected these areas until ocean waters gradually cooled over a 500 year period for all the ice to melt away in the following 200 years. Today deep ocean temperature is about 39°F. The aftermath of the Great Flood in the days of Noah brought on a series of colder summers (av. Temp 20-40°F lower than now in northern Canada and Europe) due to atmospheric particles uplifted by many violent, volcanic eruptions since the Great Flood affected the crust of the earth in many places. That means summers were shorter and snow and ice did not melt bringing on the Ice Age. The important fact which has been recently recognized is the evidence that "the ice sheet on Antarctica formed rather quickly. The evidence also shows that the rising of high mountains and `Green House Effect' cannot produce an ice age. Jagged mountains the size of the Alps have been found entombed in Antarctica's ice, giving new clues about the vast ice sheet that will raise world sea levels if even a fraction of it melts, scientists say. . . . "The surprising thing was that not only is this mountain range the size of the Alps, but it looks quite similar to the (European) Alps, with high peaks and valleys," said Fausto Ferraccioli, a geophysicist at the British Antarctic Survey who took part in the research. He told Reuters that the mountains would probably have been ground down almost flat if the ice sheet had formed slowly. But the presence of jagged peaks might mean the ice formed quickly, burying a landscape under up to 4 km of ice." [AiG; See the article here]
In general, evolutionary assumptions have not been helpful in explaining what we see. - Why was the ocean so warm after the Flood? Because the Bible says, ". . . all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." ... "and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (Our high Mtns are post Flood) And God remembered Noah, and . . . the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." See Genesis 7 and 8.
We can understand today that copious quantities of water from below, having been heated by the temperatures present beneath, heated the oceans much like we see hot water even now at Yellowstone park. Indian Ocean, Atlantic and Pacific Mid-ocean rifts upheavals formed mountain chains and caused giant earthquakes. Huge inland lakes on the continents laid down layers upon layers, carved rivers and canyons by using a lot of water in a short time. Probably by 1500 to 1200 BC the ice would have been melted or in a few spots rapidly diminishing. This was the time of cave paintings, the large woolly mammoths, saber toothed tigers, woolly rhinos, giant elk and many creatures. As the volcanic events slowed, the oceans cooled during the Ice Age and less evaporation took place. This led to less moisture in the air for snow and rain allowing warmer inland climate and thawing the ice sheets everywhere. Within about a 200 year period the Ice Age had disappeared. With warmer summers, woolly animals had a harder time and also less food as large stretches of land had changes in vegetation. This, as well as huge dust storms, caused the dying of these large animals like the woolly mammoths in Siberia.
That such an Ice Age is of a much more recent time than long age models theorize is shown by the fact that the higher peaks like Mt. Kilimandsharo (5963 meters, Long. ca. 37°E, Lat. 2°S) had an ice cap within the 1960's but not much (if any) left today. It shows that the melting of glaciers today is just the result of the oceans and the earth are coming back to more normal temperatures like they used to be. Since only summers cooler by 20 to 40°F can produce an Ice Age, and since those temperatures developed only once, there was only one Ice Age. All the phenomena in the world, geological features and man's history can be explained much better by this short age model. As we said, the world's human population today, is the result of about 4300 years of marrying and having children, not tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years of human presence on earth. - This earth will last just a little longer until Jesus comes again to close the chapter of sin for all time to come. His advent will end all suffering, all unbelief, all sickness, heart aches and death.
Cave Dwellers
Many young people, as was I, are interested in the lore surrounding cave dwellers. Who were they? Obviously they were the generations following the time of Noah and his sons. This family, by the watch care of God, survived the greatest calamity this world ever saw. But the sins which led to the great Flood were not let go out of the lives of people. They again began to use their intelligence and skills to work against the purposes of God. The punishment this time was not a flood, however, but the introduction of languages among the tribes. This forced them to separate and spread out over all the earth. Those hiking toward the northern parts, soon encountered the great ice shelf forming. But big game was plentiful and they settled down in the beautiful valleys and forests everywhere. Some of these tribes are known today under various names like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon men, etc. But the Ice Age just began and in time it changed drastically temperatures and living conditions. The people living further north needed each summer to provide shelter, clothing and plenty of food for the long winter months. In time they discovered caves in which they could find shelter from the cold and storms of winter. While hunting or even living in these caves, they left signs of their presence and times. Not yet having been able to produce clay pots or metal wares, they relied on heating stones as hot as they could before putting them in shallow, round, rock carved soup container to heat up their meal. They spend much time in preparing their winter food supplies of dried fish, meat, fruits and vegetables. They also needed large amounts of fire wood, fury deer skins for clothing and bear skins for warm coats and bedding. Cutting, sewing, shaping various items took many hands and skills to be performed by all members of a village. Since most of them came from those who had been around that tower construction at Babel, they believed in all kinds of self-conjured gods to explain the strange things they encountered in life. Some of them sank into deep paganism which caused great heart ache with no way out. Once large population groups had cast aside faith in the only true God, their life would be one based on fear. Now only those who paid attention to the Holy Spirit empowered good motivations in their life could enjoy a measure of peace. The post flood world was rocked by many earthquakes and volcanic events for a lengthy period. All this added to their calling upon the gods in pagan ways. Some tribes were more violent than others. Death and disease also claimed many lives. Life was not easy. Only the summer months seemed to lift the depression caused by long months with little warmth and sunshine. No doubt those tribes having gone to the southern lands, had their own problems as the African continent so well illustrated when northern people learned of their way of life many centuries later.
Killing large animals for a living will bring a measure of brutality into peoples lifes. It is unnatural to kill. Only suppression of feelings of revolt against such acts can sustain such a life. Murder and acts of violence are easier for those who engage in the killing of creatures who want to live just as much as people do. The long shadow of death hung for millennia over creatures and man. The art and weapons, living conditions and tools of those days testify to a way of life which must have seen much sorrow. Only the occasional good deeds of perceptive, seeking people, could bring a glimmer of joy and hope. Sometimes this would arouse the anger of leaders who wanted to rule over the lives of all their subjects and they would find means and methods to seek those out harboring a gentle spirit and sacrifice them to their pagan gods to ensure that their selfish power would never be challenged. This way it came about that some tribes left behind a legacy of rudimentary subsistence and strange cultural habits. The vast majority of people all around the world, had forgotten God because fathers forgot or neglected to pass on the accounts of the true God to their sons. Once that knowledge is disrupted in just one or two generations, their is only loss of noble, selfless qualities in man ahead.
Let us be glad today that we have the knowledge of the only true God still calling us to a life with Him. Let us not heed the call of those who would bring back the fear of rulers in people. Men who want to force their views on all those around them. Let us not exchange faith in the living Creator God, who sanctified the seventh day, with false religion and any pagan sentiments.

AiG on the Smithsonian Museum vs. the Creation Museum in Kentucky
Thumbs up for AiG, at least in many respects, however, in many other respects this writer knows God has even more blessings in store for AiG once they decide to truly serve Him with all their heart and mind. A few comments may suffice to briefly sketch the issues. While the Smithsonian may lack saying anything about God, what about the leadership of the Creation Museum? Do they say all about God there is to say? Or do they just sound pious and leave themselves out major slices of divine instructions found in the Bible? Is their commitment to God or man? If you are truly honest, they present a stunted gospel, a shortened version, which is actually man's version in a few key aspects. While they defend Genesis, at the same time they disobey the Creator. What could be the reason? The reason is only man's cunningly devised fable that God voided His Law and that now popish law is the law we must keep, yes, the same Popes which created the Sunday-sabbath in place of God's seventh-day Sabbath. Then their pastors come around and try to convince God that the resurrection day of Christ is holier than God's memorial from Creation onward. What a fabrication, what an abominable teaching designed to elevate man's religion above that of the Creator. And, despite attempts of trying to get a comment from them, they just ignore God's demand because of fear, of unbelief, of lack of faith in the power of God. They think that their success proofs God blesses them when they have no idea how much God would love to bless them really, if they would truly honor and glorify Him with all their heart. So, we want to encourage AiG to come to terms with God's agenda. Their success is a pitance compared to what it could be if their leadership and ministry would truly teach Creation by the God who gave us His commandments so we would worship the only true God and not some man made version. But alas, so many are nine commandment keepers. If financial success and numbers are indicators of success, atheism, Islam and the Popish church would be blessed far more. That is not how things work though, God blesses those who diligently obey Him in all His requirements - if we would just believe Him and repent, confess our sins and turn to Him for everything.

Giant Tropical Forest Found in Illinios

According to Sara Goudarzi of `National Geographic News' (April 24, 2007), a giant rain forest was discovered in a coal mine near Danville, eastern Illinois.

The experts knew right away how this entire forest ended up underground in a coal mine - you guessed it - by a giant earthquake which caused the entire four square mile area to drop below sea level, get buried nice and neatly at such an early age. `Scientists' (coal miners?) also found intact giant insects like dragonflies the size of sea-gulls and nine foot long millipedes before in other locations. However in the Danville site, so far, they found only "a few insect parts", according to Scott D. Elrick, geologist with the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS).

Looking in the proverbial "Darwinian Book of Ages," investigators knew these fossils were 300 million years old.

Never mind what would happen when 4 square miles drop rapidly below sea level in Illinois, a gaping hole in the ground covered up without a trace on the surface during those 300 million years. No word was recorded on any true transitional species found so far (nor ever will be). The report states, "there were a huge number of plant fossils and not just fern impressions but monster tree trunks." It continues, "Imagine going into the Oregon forest today, flattening everything down, covering it with sediment, and then being able to examine the preserved forest from below."

Well, how about checking out the surface area of the coal mines near Danville for signs of such a sedimentary fill in. There certainly should be a circle of evidence for such an event, even after 300 million years. Will they do it?

"The discovery's sheer size provides an unprecedented view of ancient forest life," commented Kirk Johnson, the chief curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, who was not involved in the study.

"The key thing here is that [the study team] looked at a huge area," Johnson said. "Fossil forests don't typically preserve that much area at all."

Of course not when they are deposited in a huge flood.

"You might get a few trunks or a small area, but by taking advantage of extensive coal mines, these men were able to look at one forest over a thousand hectares of area," said Johnson.

Actually such finds in coal mines have been made before, all around the world, they are not rare. They testify to a world wide, catalysmic flood recorded in the Book of Genesis. They help us understand that further West, a graveyard of bones could be found in the Utah Dinosaur Monument, as well as dinosaur footprint tracks in the ceiling of Cyprus Plateau coal mine at Price, Utah. Actually, it is very hard for us today to envision an event like the Noachian Flood. It was a convulsion the forces of which are not understood today and we must humbly acknowledge that we can just make cursory observations and try to make sense of them and for the rest rely on what scripture reveals.

You ought to realize that to introduce such a misnomer (`evolution vs creationism) tends to vilify, degrade belief in special creation by referring to it as an "-ism," as opposed to the supposed factuality of "evolution" (no "-ism"). Of course, both semantic mistakes are commonly made by the media, politicians, and many others.

Suppose someone wants to talk about three ways of knowing (epistemology) by stating them to be:

Based on that, here is our question in response:

In the last five rows of the table, we notice that labels marked as science are represented as essentially neutral between religion and materialism, or equally disinterested in both. Yet there is one key issue where science, according to many evolutonists, sides with materialism: row four, the question of whether supernatural powers intervene. Thus, according to their definition, science is naturalistic and rules out supernatural intervention.

But what does this mean for a Christian, since Scripture is quite clear that God has "intervened" (to say the least!) numerous times in history? According to humanistic, evolutionistic, atheistic perspectives, Christians must essentially lie to themselves in order to understand science according to their definitions? Presumably these would also expect Christians to reject the Resurrection as well - that whenever science conflicted with religion, science would supercede, and religious scientists would push their religious stories into a "parable" interpretation.

But what is it about the scientific method that requires the absence of any supernatural intervention? Why can evolutionistic defenders be neutral on the question of supernatural intervention, particularly if the facts point in that direction? Why must they restrict the ability of science to indicate design?

(Also, note that in the table it is claimed that science does not include revelation or personal states of being - yet, as we saw above, the assumptions science is based on must be rooted in one or both of these categories.)

Some evolutionistic defenders then may arrogantly assert, science "beats revelation all to heck" in terms of being right about the world. Yet revelation is often an authoritative account of untestable history. When it comes to unrepeatable events and design, revelation does way better than science.[60]

Are Scientists "All a Bunch of Atheists"?

Continuing to hammer this point, Evolutionistic defenders may propose three tenets defining "special creationism"—that God created:

everything in its present form

"kinds" of organisms with limited genetic variation

(usually) everything at one time

Defenders may accurately illustrate our outlook by explaining, "cats and dogs would not have a common carnivore ancestor" in the creation model. That is true; we believe modern cats and dogs are each from a unique created kind (the cat kind and dog kind, of course!). We believe this is based squarely on the evidence: observational science confirms breeding and genetic variation within the cat kind, and likewise within the dog kind, but there is no evidence of a cat–dog transitional form / common ancestor.

Next, defenders may attempt to tackle the creationist allegation that "scientists are all a bunch of atheists." Of course, that allegation is itself an allegation, since we point out that many scientists are young-earth creationists and even more question Darwin. What we (and other creationists) have claimed is that evolutionary belief is itself a (presupposed) religion that both often leads to atheism (or, at least, agnosticism) and is more often accepted by atheists. After all, how can anyone so confidently "know" creation "did not happen" without believing first there is not a god who could have created? We also point to many who have lost their faith because of evolution (vs. very few who report a stronger faith after accepting Darwinism), as well as to evolutionists themselves who have discussed how evolution confirmed their atheism. Of note is Richard Dawkins, who claimed Darwin's theory made it possible for the first time to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." And, of course, Darwin himself was skeptical of God.

But in this example, an evolutionistic defender pulled up a table showing survey results of individuals asked about their belief in a deity, with scientists' answers broken down separately. They glossed over the data, pointing out that a fraction of scientists report that they do believe in God - which is true, of course - though noticeably ignored was the clear fact that a plurality of scientists answered atheistically, in stark contrast to the results of the survey group as a whole.

Varieties of "creationism"

Evolutionistic defenders then may bring up or show slides illustrating the flat-earth and geocentric ideas and attributes them to creationists. That is usually when no-God minded audiences laugh. This is frustrating to creationists since these views don't apply to them and most young-earth creationists, yet many evolutionistic minded readers do not know that, although they should.

To illustrate these views, they may present a spectrum of views. On one end may be "CREATION"; on the other, "EVOLUTION." Along the way, there may be a variety of views listed. Beginning with the end of the spectrum closer to creation there may be . . .

flat-earth

geocentric

young-earth creationism

old-earth creationism (of which she noted and briefly explained the of Day-Age, Gap [Ruin/restoration], and Progressive Creationism)

Theistic evolutionists

Materialists

(Interestingly, all the views listed are about science, except for materialism, which they often try to argue is not! Also, this spectrum inaccurately portrays flat-earthers and geocentrists as "more" creationistic.)

Splitting materialistic hairs

"Materialism, or naturalism if you will, is the idea" of those at the far right of the spectrum, evolutionistic defenders would say, and they may illustrate their beliefs by quoting Richard Dawkins assertion that there is nothing but "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe. However, they also may point out that there are two kinds of materialism/naturalism: methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.

According to such defenders, methodological materialism means that, whether you are religious or not, you stick to the rules "when playing the game of science," ruling out any supernatural explanations. On the other hand, philosophical materialism means you rule the supernatural out completely, all of the time.

But, again, what gives evolutionistic defenders the right to define science as materialistic for Christians? Would not their restriction effectively force Christian scientists to either lie or place their beliefs in an artificial "parable" box? And what about science requiring a fundamental adherence to methodological naturalism?

In short, why play the materialistic edition of the "game of science" at all - or listen to those who are - especially if you're a Christian? It is no different than playing the "game" of philosophy by starting at the outset to rule out God. Academic disciplines that start without acknowledging God, let alone those that reject God from the beginning get-go, should be held as suspect by Christians.

(Keep in mind, that this methodological materialism is one of the "philosophical assumptions" that evolutionists are building their model of science on; it is no less a presupposed axiom than the Word of God is.)

The educational front

Evolutionistic defenders then may ask why teachers can, for example, teach about enzymes without saying, "and God had nothing to do with it," implying that creationists only reject methodological materialism when it comes to origins.

Although they may not wait for an audience response, creationists would gladly answer by explaining that Christians are never materialistic; however, we do believe God set up a universe that runs according to natural laws most of the time. When God tells us He overrode the laws He created (such as in Scripture), we can acknowledge the miracle without deciding that nature is therefore arbitrary, just as a computer engineer can override his own programming without invalidating it entirely. For we may know that God created the physical, natural laws which force us to keep them, else we may die, and it is by means of these natural laws that each one obeys that God designed to save us from death also on the principle of obedience to His moral laws ordained for life. But if we disregard any of these laws, death is at the door. Thus obedience to natural laws teaches us to obey moral laws just the same - and that teaches us the love of God - the God who teaches and saves.

"Equal opportunity" science?

"I would like science to be an 'equal-opportunity' epistemology," evolutionistic defenders may claim. They may show a powerpoint slide which shows an image with the word "science" at the bottom, and pictures of Richard Dawkins and (theistic evolutionist) Francis Collins above, on the left and right, respectively. Arrows pointed from "science" to each individual, while they explain, "[Science] can be used to support either view," then add, "but leave it out" as a line separated "science" from the two men's images.

In other words, you can believe whatever you want to believe - except when it comes to origins! No wonder such defenders laud Christians who "accommodate" evolution; since they play the evolutionists version of the game of science by "parable-izing" (one might say "paralyzing") their religious beliefs. Otherwise, how can such defenders expect their model of science to be usable by theists when they define it as eliminating the supernatural from the start? The creationist's conclusion from such a lecture would be straightforward: science and religion can peacefully coexist, as long as religion bows to science whenever they conflict. Evolutionists will say, that people advocating `Inteligent Design' and creationism can influence school boards and the public because of "the low level of scientific literacy in the American public." Actually the opposite is true, it is the low level of scientific literacy that makes people think that evolution is true. [Ken Ham, AiG]

The Q&A: "You've Gotta Feel Sorry for These Guys"

After such a presentation, often accompanied by enthusiastic applause of the audience, evolutionistic defenders may take questions. Such questions may be very interesting and cover several topics. Questioners amy also represent various viewpoints.

(Note: as with such a particular lecture, the questions and answers are paraphrased, except when noted by quotation marks. After each paraphrased Q&A, a creationist comments.)

Q: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that science can and does say something about whether there is a god, through probability arguments, and thus the hypothesis that there is a god must be either right or wrong. Therefore, science does not give "equal opportunity" to atheism and theism. What do you think?

ED (evolutionistic defender): I would choose a different form of argument for that question. I agree with Dawkins's probability arguments, but science can't prove them. Ultimately there are two kinds of people: people who believe in some sort of immaterial reality, and people who don't; the latter are fewer in number. It just comes down to "what makes the most sense to you." I've known atheist evolutionists who have become young-earth creationists and vice versa, but "all have had some sort of emotional experience" and response that changed their mind.

The ED is right in pointing out that science cannot prove Dawkins's arguments, though Dawkins would respond that he is merely saying "the god hypothesis" is improbable. And remember the ED's earlier claim that creation is "less probable" than evolution? If what the ED said about Dawkins is true, then science likewise can't prove the ED's only earlier conjecture about creation being "less probable."

What is also interesting is the ED's comment that it comes down to "what makes the most sense to you" and an "emotional experience" to choose between theism and atheism, and between creation and evolution. Since these presuppositions form the basis for one's ideas regarding science, it seems the ED would agree that, ultimately, creation/evolution is not a scientific question, but rather a religious question rooted in one's presuppositions.

Q: Couldn't philosophical materialism be considered a religion?

ED: It's rather a belief about non-religion.

We've long said that secular humanism and evolution are as religious as Christianity and creation. They are all presupposed philosophical beliefs about the origin, meaning, morality, and ultimate result of life. And do not just take our word for it - read about proposed concepts for worshipping science or `scientific alternatives to religion' too!

Q: What's the difference between creationism and intelligent design?

ED: Creationism is basically young-earth creationism, of which intelligent design is a subset in the sense that "everything in intelligent design preexisted in young-earth creationism," but many claims in creation science are ignored by intelligent design (e.g., age of earth, Noachian flood).

First, the ED's comment strangely ignored old-earth creationism, though the ED perhaps accurately understands that many old-earth views are closer to theistic evolution than creation. As for the ED's comments on intelligent design, he/her is right that intelligent design is, in a way, a sort of stripped-down version of creationism that removes the "religious" content and focuses solely on showing design, not on pointing people to the Designer; although one could also reasonably argue that biblical young-earth creationism is a subset of ID, in that it limits the designer to being only one possibility.

Q: There is a kind of knowledge not on your chart: conceptual knowledge (e.g., mathematics, knowledge of infinity). Without that form of knowledge we must use religion or relativism for morality.

ED: "I keep falling into this trap of thinking of things evolutionarily, and that's what you see."

In other words, the questioner challenged the ED's original three-fold model of epistemology that had sections for authority, personal states of being, and science, with the valid point that mathematics doesn't fit in any of those areas of knowledge. But the ED'ss response was confusing.

Q: Judge Jones concluded intelligent design was merely a camouflage. Can you comment on role of DNA used as gold standard to show common descent, etc.

ED: "Creationists are very concerned with the amount of variation within created kinds," mainly because the number of animals that had to be on the Ark is at stake - e.g., how many kinds were there? "The Ark fills up really, really fast if kinds are species. You would fill up the Ark with beetles." But after the Ark lands, life radiates into what we see today. "You have to kind of feel sorry for these guys," because they need a fair amount of genetic variability. Plus, the degree of genetic variation between four-legged animals is greater than between orangutan and humans. "That Makes you wonder what Noah's family would have looked like!" So take my word for it, evolution shows that the earth is billions of years old.

The ED fell back on old canards, such as suggesting that Noah had to take beetles on the Ark (he didn't), or that kinds could be species. But remember: the diversity of life we see today is due to the loss of genetic information, not a gain, so it is not so difficult to imagine how the descendants of the creatures on the Ark gave rise to the diversity of life we see today. So we see that evolution cannot work by natural selection or mutation because those processes only lose genetic information whereas evolution requires that it must gain information to make out of an onion a happy human being. So we see that it is true that you cannot turn "cat" into "dog" genetic information by losing it. Therefore, `natural selection' is not the same as evolution.

So, as creationists, those who believe in God as the creator of everything, we know according to history (the Bible) that everything we see was created in six days, and that God says, take My Word for it. What then is the best evidence that the world is young? Since we realize that, when we ask about the age of something we are really not asking a science question, instead, we are asking a history question. We are asking, when did something occur or come about and the best way to answer a history question is to consult a history book. As an example, if you own a button from the shirt of George Washington, first President of the United States of America, and you go to have it scientifically dated and th result comes out, 3.7 million years you know from recorded history books he did not live that long ago. So do not feel offended when people challenge the Bible in a similar way. What we find in our world today is that those persuaded by their faith in evolution say that `the earth is billions of years old; take my word for it!' ... while creationists say, `the earth was created in 6 days, take God's Word for it.' This is the basic issue.

Q: Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has suggested that the definition of science should include supernatural. What is your response?

ED: "It doesn't get us any place to say that God did it." Chalking something up to design would be problematic because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between various creators.

This common anti-creation argument is one some or many creationists always failed to understand. First of all, what would it matter if an answer "didn't get us any place" if it was nevertheless the right answer? Or would a wrong answer be better because it got us somewhere? Second, we disagree that evidence for design doesn't get us anywhere; the robust creation model, for instance, encompasses fields of scientific research made possible by accepting the creation/design paradigm. We can learn a great deal about the world around us and the Designer by studying nature.[70]

As for distinguishing between potential creators, this is a common argument of Richard Dawkins. One of his stock responses to theistic arguments is to ask, "which god" and fill in the names of, e.g., Scandinavian deities.) But actually, on this point, we agree with Scott and Dawkins: one of the problems of the Intelligent Design Movement is that while it does a very good job of showing examples of design, it stops short of identifying the Designer. For that, we need the special revelation of God's Word.

The irony is that the "designer uncertainty" of the Intelligent Design Movement actually seems to destroy the evolutionist argument that it is religion in camouflage. In other words, by asking "which designer," evolutionists prove that the Intelligent Design Movement doesn't teach any religion; after all, the designer "could be" an extraterrestrial.

Q: What about the idea that there are actually two worldviews or paradigms, evolutionist and creationist, and each explains the science? Creationists have long said that there are certain things, like oil and diamonds, that don't take a long time to form, whereas evolutionists say these things take millions or billions of years to form. But now we read about scientists making such things in the lab in a very short period of time.

ED: There is "a lot of literature out there" on why young-earth evidence is wrong, such as that the canyon carved so quickly at Mt. St. Helens (Sunday, May 18, 1980) was unconsolidated ash.

Notice that the ED did not respond to the examples given, but rather gave one strawman example of creationists implying that Mt. St. Helens canyon formations are exactly analogous to Noachian-formed ones (the point being that both canyons were formed by catastrophic processes, and that both were made in not-fully consolidated rock). Meanwhile, there's plenty of other evidence supporting a young earth. Our main point, however, is not that evolutionists don't interpret the facts in support of long ages; it's that each camp must make assumptions about the past - e.g., rates of sedimentation - in order to extrapolate an age for the earth.

Q: What is it about American society that makes disbelief in evolution so common?

ED:: "Oh my." There are historical and cultural reasons, such as the dissident foundation of the United States, including the congregationalism and the "bring your own theology idea of religion" that came as part of a backlash against established European churches. Scriptural fundamentalism was developed and adhered to much more strongly in the U.S. than in Europe.

There is also poor college-level teaching of evolution, especially to future high school teachers - the "trickle down" of bad teaching - and the decentralized, politicized educational system of the U.S. that allows the "noisiest" people to get their curriculum accepted. We wouldn't think of allowing reproductive health education to be based on street wisdom, would we?

Creationists agree that the church in the U.S. has maintained a higher regard for Scripture than the church in some European countries - though that is not necessarily saying a lot. The creation movement has been blessed with opportunities to speak and distribute information around the world, but especially in the U.S.

But the ED is wrong to imply that the U.S. educational system has allowed creationist curricula to be put in place; her organization combats any curricula that even questions Darwinism! She may spin it as "street wisdom" and the pushing of the "noisiest"; it can just as easily be presented as a strong movement for academic freedom in the U.S.!

Conclusions

Crationists would leave such a lecture only more convinced that, at its heart, evolution and materialistic science are rooted in presupposed secular humanism, which rules out a Creator from the start. The ED, and others too, are happy to say that religion and science can get along, but only if Christians "play the game" of science their way by setting up materialism as the authority over Scripture.

[30] It's important to differentiate testable, observable natural selection—which was a scientific hypothesis propounded and accepted by creationists before Darwin and still accepted by creationists today—from "molecules-to-man" evolution. Actually the `fossil record' is the cemetery of the great Flood.

[40] Actually, as Bible-believing creationists, we believe that all reasoning is ultimately circular, because as fallible beings, humans must make certain assumptions before reasoning—such as the assumption that reasoning is possible.

[50] We do acknowledge that God can suspend His general scientific laws, hence, miracles; however, this does not mean creation scientists resort to "miracle!" unless there is a preponderance of evidence against natural explanation.

[60] As we noted earlier in the article, however, the authoritativeness of the revelation does come into play; a fallible crime witness's word means much less than the infallible Word of the Creator.

[70] My guess would be that many evolutionists might counter-respond, "But the creation model has to force science into the pre-existing biblical paradigm; creationists can't follow the evidence wherever it leads." However, evidence doesn't speak for itself; it has to be interpreted. An "ancient" fossil is therefore interpreted/forced by evolutionists into the pre-existing Darwinian paradigm; evolutionists can't follow the evidence wherever it leads, either.

When reading the scientific literature, it is critical to remember that there are two different definitions of evolution. The first is "change in the genetic makeup of a population over time." Many times studies which fall into this group are not inconsistent with a biblical creation worldview. Creatures certainly can appear to have changed, but the type of changes do not suggest that they came from a different species or that they are on their way to becoming a different specie. Ironically, this type of evolutionary research is critical to further developing the creation model and understanding speciation (changes within a kind). This pattern of creative change has been demonstrated scientifically.
The second definition of evolution includes the idea that "all life on earth arose from a common ancestor." This second definition obviously contradicts the biblical testimony that all living things were created by God according to their kind. Those promoting the "common ancestor" concept blur the two definitions of evolution to make it appear that scientific studies support the atheistic evolutionary worldview. It is important to realize that the evolutionary worldview requires a specific type of change not predicted by the creation model. It requires that the overall pattern of mutational change be creative, adding information for new organs and structures. Furthermore, only naturalistic processes can be invoked for the formation of this information. This pattern of creative changes has not been demonstrated scientifically.

Unlike the theory of evolution, the Bible teaches devolution - which explains many phenomena observed on earth; that is, in the beginning God created a perfect and finished world to which nothing could be added to improvement. When sin entered this world, things began to go from bad to worse. Ultimately, sin will destroy our world until one day this earth will be reduced to what it was before creation, "without form and void."

The first location

This was found by a paleontologist by the name of Earl Douglas in 1909. He was digging in the north-east corner of Utah when he found what is today called the "Dinosaur National Monument." It shows a jumble of all sizes of dinosaur bones intermixed even with a group of clams called unioid bivalves. Answers in Genesis reports, "The evidence shows that not only were they deposited in an unlikely place (among land animals), but they were buried very rapidly. When these clams die, their two shells normally come undone within days. However, in this unearthed mass burial, we see that many are still fully intact.

The clams and the dinosaurs were swept into the violent currents of the floodwaters, carried to their final destination and then buried in sediment, where they hardened in time, preserving the remains of these once-living creatures. The subsequent folding of these rock layers and their erosion was likewise very rapid towards the end of the Flood event."

The second location

Now compare this article to the one posted in Yahoo [500] July 31, 2008. In this article the amazing discovery of caves containing water in the driest place of Chile's `Atacama Desert' (ca. W67.5, S23.3) are discussed and how explorers found another, smaller cave, where, in their words, "Another discovery yesterday left the researchers just shaking their heads.

In a different cave in the same region, they found animal remains. Lots of them.

"We found hundreds of thousands of bones and skulls eroding out of the cave walls," Wynne wrote in his blog. "So, we've renamed this small cave Cuevita de Huesos (or Small Cave of the Bones)."

The researchers had to climb about 13 feet up to find a walkable passage.

"This is where we found all the bones mixed in with tree branches," Wynne wrote.

It's not clear if the animals were dumped into the cave by prehistoric people or if perhaps they were trapped by a flood. After all, the expedition is related to figuring out the thermal signatures of Mars caves, and the finding was made just this week.

"Whatever the mechanism for their deposition, this find was incredibly cool and rather exhilarating," Wynne said. Pete [Polsgrove] and I had a blast marveling over the extent of this deposition as well as discussing what could have possibly led to the deposition of these bones."

Comments: These finds are very interesting indeed, especially when compared. It is too early to say much, but it is a striking report and the Chile bone deposits seem to be similar to those in Utah. They were laid down in large numbers, in a jumble, in a flood - albeit, in the days of Noah.

By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS, Associated Press Writer

See here.

[20] The First Amenment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It was Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) who initiated the writing of the 1st Amendment by 1777 after he had written a bill for the Legislature in Virginia in 1779 that guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an emotional speech by James Madison and some other Virginia State amendments, it became law January 16, 1786.
The 1st Amendment

1. decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office.
   
2. it allowed Quakers and others to affirm (rather then swear) their oaths of office.
   
3. it refrained from recognizing the Christian religion, or one of its denominations, as an established church or state church.

[25] It appears the current pontif wants the NWO start by March 2012. The year 2025 may then be the year the leaders of the NWO are in full control and will have anihilated all those they don't want to be part of the NWO. They fail to realize that, when Christ splits the eastern sky, the brightness of His Long Prophesied Coming will destroy all life on earth except those who accepted His freely offered salvation. Its amazing why people turn so easily away from being saved out of this dying world. It must be because they have been taught to think negatively about the true gospel.

[500] See the Yahoo report here: "//http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080731/
sc_livescience/incrediblediscoveriesmadeinremotecaves//".