Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Dear 6days,
... I could use an article by a scientist who believes the Earth is 7,000 years old and man is 7,000 years old. Do you have anything like that, 6days? Or am I supposed to believe the Earth is old and man is young? Especially when they consider man is 1.5 million years old, and I do not agree.

Ok... To start, realize that although Biblical creationist scientists are a small percentage...It still is a growing number that likely is in the tens of thousands.

There are different lists... different organizations...Some other languages. For example South Korea has a fairly healthy population of scientists who believe in Biblical creation /young earth. Also, keep in mind that there are many who don't want their names on such lists for fear of reprisal from employers, or other reasons.
Here is one such list from Creation Ministries...
BIBLICAL CREATIONISTS
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of MRI technology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geology
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemistry
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physics
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Paul Ackerman, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Wichita State University.
Dr Élizabeth Beauchesne, Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences.
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Dr Bernard Brandstater, Anesthesiology
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Ben Carson, Professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. He has 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.
Dr Robert W. Carter, Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology (read his story)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Paleontology
Dr Bob Compton, DVM, PhD
Dr Ken Cumming, Biology
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemistry
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics
Dr Geoff Downes, Plant Physiology
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research (more than 80 research papers)
Dr André Eggen, Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry; biologically active peptide synthesis.
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G. Gallop, P.G., Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Maciej Giertych, Genetics
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Science
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemistry
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Science
Dr Barry Harker, Philosophy
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physics, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physics and Cosmology
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculture, Ecophysiology
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Science
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Science
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botany
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineering
Dr Dewey Hodges, Professor of Eerospace Engineering
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomology
Dr Jonathan Henry, Chemical Engineering, Astronomy
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropology
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physics
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Science
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logic, Formal Logic
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr David King, Astronomy.
Dr John W. Klotz, Biology
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biology researcher and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr Matti Leisola, Biochemistry (esp. of enzymes), D.Sc. in biotechnology, Dean, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Sciences, Aalta University, Finland
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Peter Line, Neuroscience
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysics
Dr Raúl E López, Meteorology
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Gloria Luciani-Torres, Molecular Oncology Researcher (Cancer Biology)
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology and Microbiology
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Opthalmology researcher
Dr James Mason, Nuclear physics
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomy
Dr Angela Meyer, Plant Physiology
Dr John Meyer, Physiology
Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Robert T. Mitchell, Internal Medicine (specialist)
Dr Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr Gina Mohammed, Plant physiology
Dr John N. Moore, Science Education
Dr John D. Morris, Geology
Dr Len Morris, Physiology
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geology
Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Craig Russell, Soil science, plant nutrition, ecology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott, Education
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysics
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,
I could use an article by a scientist who believes the Earth is 7,000 years old and man is 7,000 years old.

There are thousands of such articles by astronomers, geologists, biologists etc.
Here is one by a geneticist.
http://www.examiner.com/article/you...eneticist-evolution-is-physically-unrealistic

Here is another by a microbiologist
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=308

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

You're like a little treasure trove of information goodies. I will check some of these out when I get home from Church. I am going to evening Palm Sunday Service, because I don't go to morning Easter Sunday service. I can't get up that early. I'm a night owl.

You've done more than outdo yourself here, 6days. I can't thank you enough, and I mean that! I will get back to you about my book. Tonight we are sharing in the Lord's Supper and they will also be having certain people who want to get baptized in water in the Baptismal Pool. It's a very good Baptist Church. You'd think it were non-denominational, to be honest. I could wear jeans there if I wanted and they would not mind. They know that some people don't have money for a suit and tie. That's what I am wearing though. OK, will chat with you again soon, Buddy!!

May God Enrich Your Life Even More And Also Those You Love,

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

From the second author:
One of the strongest arguments for a young Earth comes from the field of population kinetics. Without going into full detail here in the short space available, the argument from population statistics may be stated as follows. Using the formula

Pn = 2/(C-1) (Cn-x+1) (Cx - 1)

it is possible to compute the world population (Pn = world population after n generations; n = number of generations; x = life span in terms of generations; 2C = number of children per family). If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, with man having lived on the Earth only one million years (some evolutionists suggest that man, in one form or another, has been on the Earth 2-3 million years), there would be an Earth population of 1 x 105000! That number is a 1 followed by 5,000 zeroes. But the Universe (at an estimated size of 20 billion light years in diameter) would hold only 1 x 10100 people. Using creationist figures, however, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an Earth population 104900 times greater than would fit into the entire Universe! The question is—which of the two figures is almost exactly on target, and which could not possibly be correct?

Here he assumes a constant growth at maximum optimal increase since man was on earth. An exponential curve, in other words.

But as any bacteriologist should know (one of my degrees is in bacteriology) the graph of a culture shows a sigmoid curve as the culture first grows exponentially, and then lack of nutrient and increase in waste products slows and then stops growth. Ultimately the culture dies off unless constantly refreshed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC184525/

So this guy, unless he's faking his credentials, really has no excuse. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history, knows that the human population works that way too. And it has always fluctuated up and down.

I think you do your cause more harm than good by presenting people like this. He's either a fraud, or completely ignorant of population dynamics.

And of course, compiling data from project Steve and the many lists of scientists who doubt evolution, we come up with a stable number over the last decade or so, of about 0.3% (not 3%) of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, who doubt evolution.

Do you see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationists?

(this is the place where creationists abandon the argument, and say "popularity is no measure of truth")

 

[6days]

But as any bacteriologist should know (one of my degrees is in bacteriology) the graph of a culture shows a sigmoid curve as the culture first grows exponentially, and then lack of nutrient and increase in waste products slows and then stops growth. Ultimately the culture dies off unless constantly refreshed.

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Yes the growth rates /patterns of bactieria is different from humans.
Of course the humam growth rate is not consistent. (Lower in middle ages, etc).
Michael asked if Biblical creationist scientists have articles how evidence supports a young earth.
That was one example showing how the current world population is consistent with a start of just 8 people, 4500 years ago. Other Christian scientists have similar conclusions should you...or Michael be interested.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

Thanks so much for all of your help and for defending me, and for giving me so much info that I can peruse to find others that believe the way that I do. I feel like I have been too hard on the evolutionists and atheists on this website, so I'm sending out a big I'm sorry to them all, and that I do practice was Christ preached. I'm SORRY Hedshaker, Stuart, noguru, gcthomas, The Barbarian, Kdall, and dennyg1, and everyone whom I've left out. Please FORGIVE me, honestly!! You all just know how to hit the wrong buttons with me, but I know I have not been as kind as I could have with you all. Notwithstanding, be very kind to my excellent friends 6days and Alwight. They have stood out indeed and I can't thank them enough. I learned in Church today to have a bigger heart than I've been having. Thank God for the new me. And THANK YOU 6DAYS!!!

God Be With Us All In The Days To Come!!

Michael

 

[Stuu]

The same rule applies.
We can't use the scientific method (repeatable observable experiments) on our beliefs about the past. We examine things that exist in the present, making conclusions about the past.

So therefore we CAN use the scientific method to test our beliefs about the past.

It's called archeology, and it's called forensic science, to name two examples.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

From the second author:
One of the strongest arguments for a young Earth comes from the field of population kinetics. Without going into full detail here in the short space available, the argument from population statistics may be stated as follows. Using the formula

Pn = 2/(C-1) (Cn-x+1) (Cx - 1)

it is possible to compute the world population (Pn = world population after n generations; n = number of generations; x = life span in terms of generations; 2C = number of children per family). If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, with man having lived on the Earth only one million years (some evolutionists suggest that man, in one form or another, has been on the Earth 2-3 million years), there would be an Earth population of 1 x 105000! That number is a 1 followed by 5,000 zeroes. But the Universe (at an estimated size of 20 billion light years in diameter) would hold only 1 x 10100 people. Using creationist figures, however, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an Earth population 104900 times greater than would fit into the entire Universe! The question is—which of the two figures is almost exactly on target, and which could not possibly be correct?

Here he assumes a constant growth at maximum optimal increase since man was on earth. An exponential curve, in other words.

But as any bacteriologist should know (one of my degrees is in bacteriology) the graph of a culture shows a sigmoid curve as the culture first grows exponentially, and then lack of nutrient and increase in waste products slows and then stops growth. Ultimately the culture dies off unless constantly refreshed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC184525/

So this guy, unless he's faking his credentials, really has no excuse. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history, knows that the human population works that way too. And it has always fluctuated up and down.

I think you do your cause more harm than good by presenting people like this. He's either a fraud, or completely ignorant of population dynamics.

And of course, compiling data from project Steve and the many lists of scientists who doubt evolution, we come up with a stable number over the last decade or so, of about 0.3% (not 3%) of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, who doubt evolution.

Do you see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationists?

(this is the place where creationists abandon the argument, and say "popularity is no measure of truth")

Dear The Barbarian,

I'm not trying to abandon the argument, but I don't understand even close to half of what you are saying. I do understand algebra trig., but it's been awhile. And as far as bacteriology goes, I haven't a clue. So you are saying that I should not think that man has been around for 1.5 million years? I think he has only been around for like 6,000-7,000 years or so. What do you think of that, The Barbarian? We have to make sure that the methods used to date these things are foolproof. That is the hard part. Even when men think they have a foolproof way, they have a C-14 problem dating things older than a certain amount of years, etc. I figure the same with the other methods of dating. We've not even lived for the half-life of all of these other dating methods. So none of it can be observed, just deduced, in fact or in fallacy. What can you do? I can't let my God down. I want to believe what He says. So what do I do? I will have to keep searching and then weigh things in the balance. By the way, I'm a Libra. What can I say?

God Be With You The Barbarian!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear The Barbarian,

Young earth creationist, James S. Allan, PhD, a geneticist, says evolution is physically unrealistic! What do you think?? There's more where that came from. Not everyone believes the same way as someone else. It is ALL so INTERESTING!!!

Praise God, Catholic Christian,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

So therefore we CAN use the scientific method to test our beliefs about the past.

It's called archeology, and it's called forensic science, to name two examples.

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

I'm not 6days, but I do hope he'll see this and respond to you. I will ask him if he does not. Do you accept my apology for being too hard on you? My olive branch says I am SORRY!! So you are saying that archaeology and forensic science could help us out? Sounds excellent to me. I think they used archaeology in the Grand Canyon here to analyze the layers of silt and earth, in questioning the Great Flood. They seemed to agree that there WAS a Great Flood by finding a certain layer. I am in Arizona where the Grand Canyon is at. We also have the Meteor Crater here. I live in Phoenix, Arizona. You live in New Zealand, which I can imagine, is very beautiful indeed. All of that ocean-front property!! Cool!! We hit a high today of 97 degrees, Stuu. Tomorrow it's going to be much of the same. We broke a record today since they've been keeping records here in Phoenix.

Well, I hope you forgive me, bro!

Michael

 

[Stuu]

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Now you're starting to make sense.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

They are people too, and are in need of a Savior, even if they don't know it.

You really are a victim of christianity, aren't you. Look what it does to you. See what insults it causes you to make. See what absurdities about biology it forces you to believe.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

You really are a victim of christianity, aren't you. Look what it does to you. See what insults it causes you to make. See what absurdities about biology it forces you to believe.

Stuart

OK, Stuart, I'm not a victim of Christianity, but I shouldn't have said what I did, seeing that it insults you. I am very sorry. I'll definitely work on it. Really! I've corrected where I said that. Thanks for making me more aware of it.

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes the growth rates /patterns of bactieria is different from humans.

Nope. Pretty much the same. You have a few humans entering an unpopulated area that is suitable for humans, and we see the same sigmoid curve of population growth: exponential increases, followed by slowing growth, and then stasis or even decline.

Of course the humam growth rate is not consistent.

But your guy assumed it was. Which is why he came up with a ludicrous number.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear The Barbarian,

Check out James S. Allan, PhD?, the young earth creationist?? Try typing his name into your browser.

God Be With You, The Barbarian,

Michael

 

[Simon Baker]

Dear The Barbarian,

So we are talking about bacteria, right? And it's growth rate? What ludicrous number? Are you talking about 1.5million years ago? I guess I'm wrong.

Michael

Mikey, If YOU DON'T GET IT YET, You Never Will, Focus On The Angels !

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear The Barbarian,

Check this out:

The Young Earth
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

It is becoming increasingly rare in the creation/evolution controversy to find things on which both creationists and evolutionists agree. Generally speaking, the two cosmogonies are light-years apart from start to finish. But there is one thing on which parties on both sides agree: evolution is utterly impossible if the Earth/Universe system is young—with an age measured in thousands, not billions, of years. In his book, The Creation/Evolution Controversy, R.L. Wysong addressed this point.

Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an impossibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old. There probably is no statement that could be made on the topic of origins which would meet with so much agreement from both sides. Setting aside the question of whether vast time is competent to propel evolution, we must query if vast time is indeed available (1976, p. 144).

It is interesting, however, to observe how something on which both sides agree has caused so much disagreement. Aside from the basic issue of whether creation or evolution is correct, the most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history—in other words, the age of the Earth. While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago. Opposed to that view, of course, is the idea of evolutionary theorists that the Universe is 8-20 billion years old, and that the Earth is almost 5 billion years old. Further complicating matters is the fact that the biblical record indicates living things were placed on the newly created Earth even before the end of the six-day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day three). According to evolutionary theory, however, primitive life forms evolved from nonliving chemicals roughly 3.5-4.0 billion years ago, with all other life forms developing gradually during the so-called geologic ages. Man, in one form or another, then arrived on the scene approximately 2-3 million years ago.

Even to a casual observer, it is apparent that this is no small problem. Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth. A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large.

In the earlier quote from Dr. Wysong, it was suggested that we must “query if vast time is indeed available.” That is our purpose here. There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old. That evidence needs to be examined and considered, although in certain scientific circles the idea of a young Earth may be considered unthinkable. In their book, The Truth: God or Evolution?, Marshall and Sandra Hall recognized this fact when they observed: “It is not easy to overthrow a belief, however absurd and harmful it may be, which your civilization has promulgated as the scientific truth for the better part of a century.” The Halls continued by saying:

Time, as poets and insurance salesmen remind us, is the enemy of life. But time has its friends, too. Without great, incomprehensible, immeasurable stretches of time to fall back on, the evolutionists would be sitting ducks for the barbed queries of even high school students. Time is the evolutionists’ refuge from the slings and arrows of logic, scientific evidence, common sense, and the multiplication table.... The proven uncertainties about scientific dating are a well-kept secret. The average person reading his newspaper or magazine gets the clear impression that dating is a science as exact as the addition of fractions.... Since no one can envision ten thousand years—much less a half-million or a million years—“scientists” can hide behind the two thousand millions of years that they say evolution took, and they can hide there in relative safety. They think (1974, pp. 74,69,71,75, emp. in orig.).

Or, as Richard M. Pearl commented: “To the geologists, time is what space is to the astronomer—vastness beyond the thoughts of people...enough to make ‘all things possible’ ”

What do you think??

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Mikey, If YOU DON'T GET IT YET, You Never Will, Focus On The Angels !

Dear patrick jane,

If I don't get it yet, that is my problem. It, however pj, does not mean I will Never Get It. You need to focus on the angels a lot more than I do. To teach you some lessons about not being sarcastic. God says to treat others like you want to be treated.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

How are things going with you lately? It's been a while. Things are going quite well here. My sister Diana is having her gall bladder surgery tomorrow. She already has Multiple Sclerosis, so we are hoping she is strong enough for the operation. I am praying. It will be removed by robotics and if necessary, they will cut her open. Then she'll have to stay one more day in the hospital and be released.

How is your health doing? Pretty good, I hope!! I've already had mine removed, years ago. A cinch! Well, we've been discussing Creation and Evolution here for a few days now. How the Piltdown man was a big hoax for 40 years so people would believe in evolution. Do you remember that? It was probably way before your time. 1912, I think. That would make it 1952 if it continued for 40 years. I was born in 1955. I'm 59. Will be 60 this October.

My diabetes flared up again. I will get some medicine from the doctor this week. I also have anemia, so I have to get some iron supplements. My iron is low. My multivitamin doesn't have any iron in it. I'm really shocked. I'm going to change my multivitamins to something much better. You exercise more than I do, I think. So you're probably more spry. I don't have a bike to ride. I wish I had one of those ride-in-place bikes.

How has your weather been doing? Not cold, I hope. Spring has come here in Phoenix. We got up to 97 degrees the other day. Broke a record. Do you have a little garden at all, Alwight? We grow artichokes here, and tomatoes, and oranges, and green peppers. Plus roses and other flowers. It's planting time right now. Artichoke plants look like HUGE dandelion plants, with the vegetable growing on stalks up through the middle. They are so expensive in the grocery stores ($3 each).

Alwight, I want to apologize to you also if I've ever said something bad to you. I learned in Church this past Palm Sunday that I might not be as nice as I could be. So I regret that. I tried to tell noguru also, but I couldn't get a PM to him. I hope he catches wind of it. Mark SeaSigh told me to tell you Hi!! We spoke on the phone a couple days ago. I do hope you're taking good care of yourself and that you are happy! Please wish my sister well, Alwight. Thank you so much!!

Have A Joyful Life And Make It Count!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

This is a copy of a post that I'd done. I thought it would be helpful here also. Will most likely blog it. Thanks!!!

I was told by 'someone' that because women wanted to go to work like men, because of Women's Lib, it caused a single household income to double, because the man AND the woman was working. This meant twice as much money, and it did not take long for the vendors and sellers to 'up' their prices because they knew that the 2-person households had more money to afford the things they were selling. What I mean is, a car cost nearly twice as much over the long run after women's lib than it did before. This is because of a two-person household income level. So now, other women who did not want to go out and work found themselves having to go out just so they afford things again, because all the prices of things had increased. Do you know what I am saying here? I'm sure there is a better way to put it. Single income families became Double income families out of necessity just because women wanted to go out and work. Even if they would have left the man to stay home and take care of the kids, it wouldn't work. And my "source" also said that, without a mother's devoted hours of attention to her children made the children lose quite a bit of nurturing and teaching, because instead of staying with Mom, they were in daycare centers. And the kids became worse and worse than they used to be. Growing up with more emotional problems and not knowing what love really is. A kid without a mother to take care of her/him suffers more than I can explain here. We're starting to figure this all out now. You can't imagine the depth of it, even the X-box games these kids are playing, the music lyrics they are hearing, the TV they are watching, etc. Our whole U.S. foundation is rocked to the core. And now no one can quit working, because the vendors are not going to cut their prices in half. We're stuck!!

My source for all of this was the Lord. I knew if I said it earlier, it wouldn't be welcomed, and probably not now either. The Lord cannot tell a man on earth something without everyone around him starting to sharpen their darts. It just isn't fair. Anyway, that's what He told me and only He can fix it. Otherwise, we are stuck with it. Women should stay home and take care of her children, their family, cooking and cleaning, etc. If this is not desired, then let the women go to work and let their husbands stay home and do these things. Most people don't have that option anymore because everyone has to keep a two-income family. OK, I've said what I've wanted.

Oh, and by the way, when I was younger, I felt that abortion was okay if it was done very early and it was the mother's choice. I asked God about it and He told me that He was not happy with it at all, because they were murdering a life given to them. He said they don't know what they do. But He said that He still loves them (the pregnant women) because they don't know what they are doing. I suppose it is the same with gays. God still loves them, but they are doing wrong. Someday, they will understand. But I am not positive of the gays as I am about the first two things I spoke about: feminism and abortion. Those things were told clearly to me. And I wrote some of this in my book. Oh well, I'll close for now.

Let There Be Much Forgiveness For Us, O God!!

Michael