And God Said... - Creation Studies Institute

I would certain that the definition of evolution, e.g. ‘change in a kind of organism over time’ (Miller & Levine 2004) is understood and also make certain that this person understands that ‘variation’ is not evidence of evolution or one form of life changing into a completely different creature over time. Once I have established those definitions, I would explain that the fossil record supports the account of biblical creation and argues against this definition of evolution, e.g. all life forms appear abruptly in the fossil record fully formed.

I would then approach the evolution versus creationism comparison by using the logic of cause and effect or what is commonly referred to as the ‘cosmological’ argument or the argument of ‘first cause.’ Using this principle, creationism illustrates the first cause as God, e.g. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, Gen. 1:1.

I would then explain that although the Bible is not primarily a science text, it is found to be completely accurate and trustworthy concerning every topic is covers. I would suggest that it is unscientific to exclude scientific explanations because the premise might be unpopular, e.g. Intelligent Design infers a Creator so it is censored from the debate. This is also true of Creationism. I would ask this person if they would be willing to examine some evidence for biblical creationism and then be willing to provide that evidence and prayerfully follow up with them later.

Miller, K.R., Levine, J. (2004). Biology. Definition of evolution. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ. Glossary p.1093. For further information concerning this subject see Creation Science, The Fossil Book, Refuting Evolution I & II on our resource page.

2.Creationists say we are getting worse, but since we have medicine, don’t we live longer?
Haven’t we improved?

It is true that the medical field has improved our general health and lengthened our life expectancy from earlier times. However, to believe that humans are only living longer and longer lives is inaccurate.

Man was originally created to live eternally. When Adam sinned, death entered into the creation and Adam and Eve immediately died spiritually, became separated from their Creator, and began to die physically as well. Life expectancy dropped considerably after the Flood from hundreds of years to < 150 years. In fact, some of the recorded average life spans historically are startling, e.g. Classical Greece and Rome = 28 years old, Medieval Britain = 33 years old, early 20th century = 50 years old and in 1998 it was averaged to 67 years old worldwide.

Because of the serious nature of sin and the effect it has on lowering life expectancy, God set the average life expectancy of man to be 70-80 years old in a Psalm attributed to Moses, ‘The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away,’ Psalm 90:10.

The good news is that God has reversed this curse by sending His Son, the Messiah, to suffer the death that we deserve so that in Him, we might have everlasting life and be restored to the relationship with out Creator that was severed when Adam sinned.

From the biblical perspective, man has not been evolving, he has been devolving. Life expectancies have fluctuated effected mostly by living conditions and other quality of life factors; however it is God’s expressed will and His plan that people experience the abundant and everlasting life He has provided to everyone in Jesus Christ.

Most biblical creationists believe that the Ice Age began soon after the Flood approximately 3,000 BC and continued for less than 1,000 years. The biblical version of the Flood produces the environment necessary for ice to accumulate on the land in sufficient quantities to be labeled and Ice Age. The oceans need to be warm at mid and high latitudes and the land masses need to be cold, especially in the summer. Warm oceans evaporate lots of water, which moves over the land. Cold continents result in the water precipitating as snow rather than rain, and also prevent the snow from thawing during summer. The ice will accumulate quickly. 1

Slow and gradual evolutionary scenarios to explain the Ice Age do not work. Long age theories involve a slow cooling of the earth that will not generate and ice age. 2

The biblical explanation of a worldwide cataclysmic flood does provide a mechanism for the Ice Age. While evolutionists believe in many ice ages as explained by uniformitarianism, the supposed similarities between rocks in those geological systems and the special features produced in the Ice Age are not consistent. 3

Batten, D. 2006. The Creation Answers Book. What about the Ice Age? Creation Book Pub., Eight Mile Plains QLD, Australia, p. 202.
Oard, M.J. 1990.An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Technical Monograph, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp.1-22.
Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides? Creation Research Society Books, Chino Vally, Arizona.

Radiometric dating methods are often used to prove the long ages associated with the Theory of Evolution. These dating methods are based upon the rate of decay of certain radioactive isotopes that appear in nature. Carbon dating, more specifically 14C, is used to date once living things that lived within a timeframe of thousands, not millions, of years. The rate of 14C decay is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 + 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, theoretically, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one quarter will be left.

What is true about the decay rate of 14C is that it should be completely converted into 12C if something is millions of years old. The problem arises when fossils are tested that evolutionary scientists say are millions, not thousands of years old. While there are certain factors that do effect the carbon based radiometric dating techniques, e.g. plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. Secondly, the rate of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant over time, e.g. it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things that died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. 1

Other factors also affect carbon dating and they include the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, the affect of the Genesis Flood on carbon balance. The Flood would have buried huge amounts of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere. 2

Creation researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 – 45,000 years should be recalibrated to the biblical date for the Flood. 3 Such recalibration makes sense of anomalous date from carbon dating – for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk oz carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated. 4

Carbon dating can be a useful tool for dating organic based items from recent history, thousands not millions of years. While this is useful, this tool must be applied carefully and when it is corrected for the influence of the worldwide cataclysm of the Flood we get dates that fall into the biblical model of a young earth.

Batten, D. 2006. The Creation Answers Book. What about Carbon Dating?
Creation Book Pub., Eight Mile Plains QLD, Australia, p. 69. Ibid. pp. 70-71.
Brown, R.H. 1992. Musk ox muscle was dated 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years. Corrected dates bring the difference in age approximately within the life span of a musk ox. With sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by sloths. Correcting the dates increased the number to a more realistic 1.4 per day. Ibid.

Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days of creation along with all the other creatures of the animal kingdom. A surprising fact is that there is evidence that man and dinosaurs did co-exist. This evidence is documented by numerous historical accounts of living animals that were called ‘dragons’ that fit the description of what we call dinosaurs. In fact there are several documented drawings and sculptures of the following dinosaurs: Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Ankylosaurus.

In addition to these, the Bible describes a behemoth in Job 40 that clearly resembles either an Apatosaurus or a Brachiosaurus. Even the Talmudic writings refer to Leviathan in Job 41 as a great sea dinosaur. It is also true that most dinosaurs were not really very large. The average dinosaur is thought to be the size of a chicken.

Unmineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones have been found worldwide. The latest of these discoveries was discovered in 2001 when the femur of a T. Rex was cut in half while attempting to move it from the remote location where it was discovered by helicopter. Not only did it give off a foul smell do to the process of decay it was under going, it yielded blood cells, blood vessels and ligament like material when it was treated with saline solution. It stretches credulity to believe that this bone was even thousands of years old when evolutionary science tell us it was 63 million years old.

6. How can I briefly explain to a person knowledgeable about Evolution why and how to believe in Creationism?

Miller, K.R., Levine, J. (2004). Biology. Definition of evolution. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ. Glossary p.1093.

7. Is it possible that God would have created an earth which is a billion years old, in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago, in the same way that He created Adam not as a baby, but as an adult?

There are several issues I would like to address with this question. The first one is that this question seems to assert that there is some compelling evidence that the earth is billions of years old. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the earth is young. So I would ask this person, why even pose a question like this at all since there are no sound scientific reasons to believe that the earth is billions of years old.

Secondly, the question begins with the phrase “is it possible that God…” Although God is all powerful and nothing is too difficult for Him, there are some things that are impossible for Him to do. For one, the Bible declares in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. This brings up the important philosophic and scientific necessity of the doctrine of a “grown creation”, otherwise referred to as the Apparent Age Argument. In chapter 6 of the late Dr. Henry Morris’ ground-breaking treaties “The Genesis Flood” he describes the argument in these terms:

“Men complain, however, that God would be dishonest to create things with an appearance of age. “How could a God who is Truth,” they say, “cause things to look as though they were old and had come into their present form by a long process of growth when actually they had just been created? This is deceptive and therefore impossible. God would not lie.”

This sort of reasoning, though it has often been propounded, is entirely unworthy of fair-minded, reasonable men, especially scientists! It is essentially an affirmation of atheism, a denial of the possibility of a real Creation. If God actually created anything at all, even the simplest atoms, those atoms or other creations would necessarily have an appearance of some age. There could be no genuine creation of any kind, without an initial appearance of age inherent in it. It would still be possible to interpret the newly-created matter in terms of some kind of previous evolutionary history. And if God could create atomic stuff with an appearance of age—in other words, if God exists!—then there is no reason why He could not, in full conformity with His character of Truth, create a whole universe full-grown.

Obviously, if He did this, there would be no way by which any of His creatures could deduce the age or manner of Creation by studying of the laws of maintenance of His Creation. This information could only be obtained, correctly, through God Himself revealing it! And if God reveals how and when He created the universe and its inhabitants, then to charge God with falsehood in creating “apparent age” is presumptuous in the extreme—even blasphemous. It is not God Who has lied, but rather man who has called Him a liar, through rejection of His revelation of Creation as given in Genesis and verified by the Lord Jesus Christ!

But if we are willing to accept in faith the account of Creation as simple, literal truth, then we immediately have a most powerful tool for understanding all the facts of geology in proper perspective. We can study the data in terms of the concept that the minerals, the rocks, and their various combinations were being brought together during the six days of Creation by unique creative processes into forms eminently and perfectly suitable for man’s habitation and dominion. Of course, this original form is now much masked by virtue of the subsequent entrance of sin, decay and death into the Creation, with all their tremendous ramifications. Not only mankind but also “the whole Creation” has been delivered into the “bondage of decay” and has ever since been “groaning and travailing together in pain” (Romans 8:21, 22). Recognition of these basic facts will, we are convinced, ultimately lead to a far more satisfactory and scientific explanation of the observed geological field relationships than any evolutionary synthesis can ever do. Then further in Chapter 7 he discusses: The Fact of a “Grown” Creation and “Apparent Age”

We have already shown7-29 that the Bible quite plainly and irrefutably teaches the fact of a “grown” Creation—one with an “apparent age” of some sort, analogous to the “apparent age” of a mature Adam at the first instant of his existence.7-30 This Creation must have included all the chemical elements already organized in all the organic and inorganic chemical compounds and mixtures necessary to support the processes of the earth and of life on the earth. These processes include the phenomena of radioactivity. It is perhaps possible that only the parent elements of the radioactive decay chains were originally created, but it is eminently more harmonious with the whole concept of a complete Creation to say that all the elements of the chain were also created simultaneously, most likely in a state of radioactive equilibrium.

This means that, with each mineral containing a radioactive element, there were also at the original Creation all of the daughter elements in the decay series, including some of the final stable end-product. Such a concept is undoubtedly shocking to the mind of a consistent uniformitarian, but there is nothing impossible or unreasonable about it. In fact, short of denying the existence of any Creator or original Creation at all, one must logically come to some place in the long chain of secondary causes where something was created. If so, that something, at the instant of its creation, must have had an “appearance of age.” And the only way we could then determine its “true age” would be through divine revelation. An “apparent age” might, of course, be deduced for that something on the basis of any processes of change which were observed in connection with it, but this would not be the true age.

And this is exactly the situation we find in connection with these radioactive elements and with many other geochronometers. It is eminently reasonable and consistent with the basically efficient and beneficent character of God, as well as with His revelation concerning the fact, that He would have created the entire universe as a complete, operational, functioning mechanism. The grossly cruel and wasteful processes of an almost interminable evolution leading up to man’s arrival as its goal, as usually envisioned by uniformitarians, (or at least by theistic uniformitarians), are on the other hand utterly inconsistent with the character and wisdom of God! It is therefore not ridiculous after all, but perfectly reasonable, to suppose that the radiogenic elements, like all other elements, were created directly by God.

The obvious question then arises as to whether the “apparent ages” of the minerals so created, as indicated by the relative amounts of “parent” and “daughter” elements contained therein, would all be diverse from each other or whether they would all exhibit some consistent value; and if the latter, what value of apparent age might be implied.

In the absence of specific revelation, it seems impossible to decide this question with finality. However, it is more satisfying teleologically, and therefore more reasonable, to infer that all these primeval clocks, since they were “wound up” at the same time, were also set to “read” the same time. Whatever this “setting” was,7-31 we may call it the “apparent age” of the earth, but the “true age” of the earth can only be known by means of divine revelation.

8. The bible teaches that God created the world out of nothing. If that is true, why does it say “the earth was formless and empty” and “the Spirit of God hovered over the waters”? It sounds like there was some water there.

I always say that the best way to understand any written document is to speak with the author and ask him or her just exactly what they intended to convey in their writing. This is known as “original Intent.” However, often the author is no longer available to answer questions directly. In such cases you may be able to turn to other writings by the same individual to see if they lend any clarity. If these are not available, you must understand by inference and by the context it is found in. For, accurate is the adage “a pretext out of context is a pretense.” In the case of the opening words of scripture, we do not have the luxury of reading any previous thoughts of the creator. In such a case, the context, by inference, must bare witness to itself.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Here we have the first mention of time, space, and matter (and/or energy). Scientists refer to the reality known as our universe as the “Space-Mass-Time Continuum.” How marvelous it is that God would open His revelation with such a scientifically accurate and beautifully concise description of His creation. “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter and/or energy).” Physicists describe matter as existing in a plane of space along an avenue of time. In other words, you cannot have matter without a simultaneous relationship to space and time. Matter must occupy space for some length of time in order to be considered as existing in reality. In fact, reality as we know it would not exist at all unless all three of these components are functioning in a perfectly balanced dynamic described by scientists as a tri-unity. Interestingly, we call it a universe, not a multiverse. This relationship is a wonderful reflection of the triune nature of the Godhead itself (for further discussion on the trinity click here).

Now let us examine the next verse which introduces the question at hand: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Again, this is an incredibly concise and scientifically profound statement with tremendous implications. God created the Space/Mass/Time continuum with an earth suspended in some sort of watery matrix described simply as “The Deep”. That is, by inference, the deep must have been created when the space/mass/time continuum was created as a place to hold the earth. Thus, you have all of the matter of the universe collected together in one place, described as the deep, and suspended in this deep place you have the earth in a condition described as “formless and void.” To put it another way, the newly created plane of space at this point in time had only one place in it and that place was called the deep and this deep is where the earth existed.

“And the earth was formless and void” simply means it was unformed and unfilled. Some Bible commentators attempt to relate this verse to a passage in Jeremiah 4:23 that describes a scene of God’s judgment. They contend that the use of the phrase “without form and void” here is speaking about the destruction of a pre-adamite civilization. However, we must remember that sound biblical exegesis demands that we derive the intended meaning from its context and/or from previous usage. The principle of first mention would not allow us to relate later usages of words from different contexts to earlier usages. The formless and void used here is merely a statement of the fact that God had not as yet completed his formation of the earth. He had not yet filled it. In God’s infinite wisdom, He decided to create in a sequential day by day fashion. He certainly could have done it all at once, but He did it in six days and rested on the seventh as a pattern that we should follow. Therefore, on the first day the earth would have to have been un-formed and unfilled. He was not yet finished with it. There is no judgment here. In fact, at this point, there was no evil in all of the creation.

Now, if all of the matter of the universe were collected into one place, its gravitational pull would be tremendous. We are further notified that the condition of this matter was such that it is described as a watery deep. That is how a physicist might describe a place where all the nuclear bonds from all the elements were stripped away and held together in one place. In fact, it would by definition be what science refers to as a black hole; a place where even light cannot escape from the gravitational field (… and darkness was upon the face of the deep).

The Principle of First Mention

“One of the remarkable evidences of Biblical unity is its internal consistency. Nowhere is this more strikingly evident than in a phenomenon called the law of first mention. That is, the very first time an important word or concept of Scripture is mentioned in the Bible (usually, though not always, in the book of Genesis), its usage in that passage provides the foundation for its full development in later parts of the Bible, especially in the New Testament.

This principle does not apply to every word, of course, but rather to certain key words—the “key-notes” of grand themes that are interlaced throughout the Scriptures, climaxing in a crescendo of power and beauty in the full revelation of Jesus Christ. No attempt is made here to present a complete listing of these words, nor a complete exposition of the development of any one of them in its Biblical context, but a number of examples, with brief comment, will be indicated below.

(1) Light. This word, of course, first appears in Genesis 1:3, and it is significant that it follows the first word spoken by God. The inference to be drawn immediately is that light is not dependent on the sun or moon or stars (which were created later, as “light-holders”), but rather comes through the Word of God. All else is darkness. When Jesus, the Living Word, finally came into the world, it was said that “light is come into the world” (John 3:19). Of the written Word, the Holy Scriptures, it was said: “We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). Finally, the word occurs for the last time in Revelation 22:5. “They need no... light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign forever and ever.”

(2) Love. This great word appears first in what seems like a strange context—the love of a father for a son whom he is about to slay. “Take now thy son,” said God to Abraham, “thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest (literally, ‘thine only and beloved son’),… and offer him there for a burnt-offering” (Genesis 22:2). Abraham, despite his great love for his son, was willing at any cost to obey God’s will, knowing in faith that the greatest ultimate good for his beloved son must come in obedience to God’s Word. Therefore, he “offered up his only begotten son,.... Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure” (Hebrews 11:17, 19). The real significance of this event could only be understood 2,000 years later, when it was realized that all this was a “figure” of a much greater sacrifice, when the heavenly Father would offer up His only begotten Son. This first mention of “love” tells us that the foundation of all love—of marital love, parental love, filial love, of all love—was in the divine love existing within the Godhead from past eternity. Jesus, as He prayed to the Father, said: “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). It is thrilling to note that, in the New Testament, the first time the word “love” occurs in each of the synoptic Gospels, is when the Father calls out from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Then, in the Gospel of the beloved disciple, the book in which the word “love” appears oftener than in any other book, the word occurs first when the Lord Jesus says: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

(3) Faith. After looking at the word “love,” we should also look at the other two words in the great triumvirate of 1 Corinthians 13:13: “Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three.” The word “faith” occurs first in its verb form, and is found in Genesis 15:6 “(Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” We are told, thereby, as it were, that righteousness before God comes not by works or rituals but only by faith. Furthermore, this saving faith is not some abstract faith in oneself or in society or in other men, but faith in Jehovah, the only true God, and specifically in His Word of promise. The New Testament commentary on the event says: “(Abraham) was strong in faith, giving glory to God; being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness” (Romans 4:20-22).

(4) Hope. This word is expressive of that expectation that God’s plans, both for the salvation of the individual and for the redemption of the whole creation, will someday be perfectly accomplished, all present appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. All these expectations are centered in “that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). The corresponding Hebrew word first occurs, interestingly enough, in the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho. Joshua (whose name is the same as “Jesus”), after a long period of delay and wandering, suddenly and miraculously crosses the Jordan River to destroy the hopelessly wicked and unbelieving inhabitants of Jericho. But there was one woman in the city, Rahab by name, who had come to believe in the true God, and was willing to act on that faith even though her action would incur the wrath of all her fellow-citizens. She and her family were saved when Joshua came, recognized only by a “line of scarlet thread in the window” (Joshua 2:18). This seemed a very slender hope, but it was sufficient. The word “line” is the word which everywhere else in the Old Testament is translated “hope” and it occurs here for the first time. The scarlet color, of course, represents blood, and therefore sacrifice. Her life was spared and her sin forgiven (she had been a prostitute) because of her trust in Jehovah evidenced by her treatment of God’s emissaries and symbolized by the redemptive, blood-red “hope in the window” (Joshua 2:21).

(5) Blood. And while thinking of the hope of redemption through the blood of Christ, we might note that the first occurrence of “blood” is in Genesis 4:10: “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” The first mention of blood, therefore, is in connection with the shedding of blood, innocent blood. Abel was the first prophet and first martyr (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50). Cain was able to shut the prophesying voice of Abel by spilling his blood, but only then to have the voice of his blood crying out from the earth itself. Similarly, the Jews clamored for the blood of Christ, saying: “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25) but then later complained to the apostles, “... ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28). The blood of Jesus, of course, “... speaketh better things than that of Abel” (Hebrews 12:24), not only condemning all those who, like Cain, reject God’s Word and persecute those who speak it, but also sealing an eternal covenant of redemption and peace for those who receive and obey it. “The God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Hebrews 13:20).

(6) Grace. One of the most wonderful words of the Bible is “grace.” Note some of the words that are used to describe it: “sufficient” (2 Corinthians 12:9); “abounding” (2 Corinthians 9:8); “glory” (Ephesians 1:6); “exceeding riches” (Ephesians 2:7); “manifold” (1 Peter 4:10). It is, of course, “by grace ye are saved” (Ephesians 2:8). And so it was with Noah. In a world of universal wickedness, destined for destruction, “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). This is the first mention of “grace” in the Bible. God had, in sovereign grace, chosen Noah even before he was born, as evidenced in the prophecy of his father Lamech (Genesis 5:29). It is only after Noah found grace that the Scripture says he was a “just” and “perfect” man. That is, he was made “righteous” and “complete” (these two words also are first mentioned here in Genesis 6:9), on the basis of his receiving the grace of God. Just so, we are made “the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21) and we are “complete in Him” (Colossians 2:10).

(7) Word. This brief study of the first mention of several key words in Scripture should also include notice of the first time the word “word” itself occurs in Scripture. It is most significant that it is not in connection with words of men, but with the Word of the living God! “After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (Genesis 15:1). The Word of the Lord is thus personified and indeed is the Living Word, the pre-incarnate Christ Himself. Whenever in the Old Testament God is seen or heard or in some way is manifest to the physical senses, it is always the second person, the Word. “No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (John 1:18). Here also is the first of the great “I am’s” of Christ. “I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.” No wonder Christ said: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” Then, when His listeners scoffed at the thought that He had seen Abraham, He replied “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Furthermore, the word “vision” occurs first in this verse, indicating the only true revelation from God will show forth Christ, and so do the words “shield” and “reward.” Thus, the promise also assures us that the Lord Jesus Christ is both our protection from every harm and our provision of every need. Finally, as the first mention of “word” in the Bible directs us to the Living Word, Jesus Christ, so the last mention conveys to us directly from Him the strong warning neither to add nor take away any word from His Written Word, “the words of the book of this prophecy” (Revelation 22:18-19).

Several other examples of first occurrences, all in the book of Genesis, (after the fifth chapter), are listed below. The reader is urged to study these words and their doctrinal development in subsequent Scriptures for himself.”

First Occurences
Just ( righteous)	Genesis 6:9
Perfect (complete)	6:9
Atonement (pitch)	6:14
Covenant	6:18
Altar	8:20
Shed (pour out)	9:6
Wine	9:21
Drunken	9:21
Praise (commend)	12:15
Peace (salem)	14:18
Tithes	14:20
Vision	15:1
Shield	15:1
Reward	15:1
I Am	15:1
Imputed (counted)	15:6
Righteousness	16:6
Angel of the Lord	16:7
Worship (bow down)	18:2
Mercy	19:16
Fire	19:24
Obey	22:18
Sow	26:12
Salvation	49:18

MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS
PRACTICAL AND USEFUL EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Creation Research
President, Christian Heritage College

9. Evolutionists have drawn lines of evolutionary descent between supposed ancestors to mankind. Are these “Cavemen” real or are they just computer generated images?

We have all seen the “artist conceptions” of what “ape-men” might have looked like. Some even show them interacting with one another in villages and hunting teams. The funny thing is, they come up with these drawings often with little more than a shard of fossil remains to go by. So how could they come up with the images they have? They build them using nothing more than shear imagination. In other words, they find a small piece of jaw bone or a piece of a leg bone and reason from that where they believe this organism would have fallen in their preconceived notion of human evolutionary decent. Then they build whole villages from their imaginary ideas.

However, when it comes to cave dwellers, it should be remembered that humans have often lived in caves because of their natural ability to provide shelter and protection. After the dispersion nations from the Tower of Babel, people took shelter in whatever area they could find. In fact, the book of Job, which was written in the first generations after the Flood, Job mentions cave dwellers. Consider this from Dr. Henry Morris’ notes in the Defender’s Study Bible for Job 30:6: “caves of the earth. Job here is referring to what modern paleoanthropologists call the “cavemen.” These were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel and then, for some reason, deteriorated mentally and physically, as well as spiritually. They fled “into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste” (Job 30:3). They were “driven forth from among men” (Job 30:5) by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth.”
Here is another matching article from Science and the Bible:

The Ape-Men

There still remains the problem of the fossils that have been classed as ape-human intermediates, the “hominid” forms. The evolutionary reconstructions one sees in museums and textbooks sometimes seem quite impressive, but they are highly imaginative and speculative. The fossils of these supposed hominids are fragmentary and questionable. Since many fossils of true apes and true men have been found, the very scarcity of fossils that could even be considered as possible intermediate forms between apes and men is alone enough to discredit the theory of man’s ape-like ancestry. Only a few bone fragments have been found that have been imaginatively construed as some sort of lower species of man. This is a strange situation in view of the multiplied millions of “ape-men” that must have lived and died during the hypothetical million-year transition from the first ape-like ancestor to man.

The few fossils offered as evidence by paleoanthropologists have mostly been discredited by evolutionary anthropologists themselves. The three hominids that were being promoted most vigorously by evolutionists when I was going to college were Java man, Peking man, and Piltdown man. The bones of the original Java man (Pithecanthropus erectus) have since been recognized as belonging to two different creatures—the skull to a gibbon, the femur to a man. The fossils of the original Peking man were quite controversial from the beginning but in any case were lost during World War II. Piltdown man, of course, is now universally acknowledged to be a hoax—but a hoax that fooled the world’s leading anthropologists for decades.

Other fossils considered in the same category as these, however, have been found later and are now generally grouped in a genus named Homo erectus. These have all been very incomplete skeletons, however, and their chronology also is doubtful. The most nearly complete such skeleton thus far was found in Kenya and announced to the public only in 1985. Its aspect was distinctly human in size and posture, and even the skull looked much like that of Neanderthal man, except for its relatively small cranial capacity. The latter, together with its supposed great antiquity, was supposed to have required a Homo erectus identification. However, while it is true that the skull size was smaller than the 1,500 cubic centimeter average of modern Homo sapiens, it was nevertheless within the range of the latter, so might very well have been from a true human being. As far as the dating of Homo erectus is concerned, certain of these fossils have been dated as recent, within the time of modern man; others have been dated as very old, at least as old as many fossils of Australopithecus, a supposed ancestor of Homo erectus. In any case, Homo erectus is acknowledged to be in the same genus as modern Homo sapiens, and at least some of these specimens were probably no more different from modern man than modern men are from each other.

In recent years great attention has been centered on Australopithecus, a supposed hominid represented by a number of fossils found in South Africa by Raymond Dart, Louis Leakey, Richard Leakey, Carl Johanson, and others. Anthropologists have been bitterly divided over the evolutionary status of these australopithecines. Some think they were practically identical with the modern pygmy chimpanzee; some think they were erect walkers, while others insist they were knuckle-walkers or tree-swingers. Their chronology overlaps with that of Homo erectus. Some are convinced that these were the direct ape-like ancestors of modern man, whereas others argue that they were true apes that in turn were descended from a manlike ancestor. The famous footprints found by Mary Leakey in Tanzania have been attributed to Australopithecus, but they were virtually identical with modern human footprints and probably were not made by Australopithecus at all. At best, the status of Australopithecus is equivocal, but the high probability is that this creature was an extinct ape, with no evolutionary relation to man.

The past sixty or so years have even witnessed a number of noteworthy scientific blunders by evolutionists. In addition to the famous Piltdown hoax, there was the case of Hesperopithecus, a tooth found in 1922 in Nebraska and promoted by Henry Fairfield Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History as an ape-man. Osborn was even ready to introduce it at the 1925 Scopes trial as evidence for human evolution. Two years later, however, the complete skeleton was found, and it proved to have belonged to an extinct pig. There have been many other such instances, but they have all been ignored and quickly forgotten by evolutionists.

The Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon tribes of cavemen were originally thought to be ape-men but are now universally accepted as true men, Homo sapiens. A number of fossils of men have also been found in ancient strata, supposedly laid down before man evolved. These include the Calaveras skull, Petralona man, the Wadjak skulls, Castenodolo and Olno skulls, and others, but evolutionists commonly try to explain these away as hoaxes, geologically reworked, or by various other devices.

In view of the chaotic state of modern paleoanthropology, there is nothing to refute the creationist point of view that apes were created as apes and people as people. Many of the supposed “hominid” fossils (e.g., Australopithecus, Ramapithecus) are extinct apes, where others (e.g., Neanderthal) clearly represent extinct tribes of men. Such extinct tribes, or “races,” as some would call them, are best explained as descendants of families that emigrated from Babel after the “confusion of tongues.” As a result of isolation, inbreeding, and (perhaps) mutations, they gradually deteriorated in strength and intelligence and eventually became extinct.

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
Henry M. Morris

10. The topic of “Intelligent Design” is often referred to in the media. What are your thoughts of using purely scientific arguments like these that omit any reference to “God”?

This is a great question. I am persuaded that Intelligent Design arguments are beneficial to the cause of Christ. In the Book of Proverbs chapter 26 verse 5 we read: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Intelligent design arguments silence the claims of those who say there is no God (Psalm 14:1). Also, Paul encourages us in Romans Chapter 1 verse 20 “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:” Intelligent Design arguments are simply those which examine the “things that are made”. Once those truths are understood, the hearers are then convicted “without excuse.”

Perhaps a better question would be, are Intelligent Design arguments beneficial for evangelism. To that I would point to Paul’s exhortation in Romans chapter 10 verses 13-15: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” And again in 1 Corinthians 1:21 we are further encouraged “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”

In light of these scriptures, it is apparent that souls are not saved or drawn to the Lord by examining the creation, nor with persuasive arguments of Intelligent Design, but rather by the “foolishness of preaching” the gospel; that is, the good news that Jesus Christ paid the price for the salvation of all those who call upon His name. It should be remembered that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus Christ as God to the darkened heart. It is after coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ that people often continue in a sort of mental bondage behind walls of false reasoning’s (such as evolution and secular humanism) that keep them from maturing in their faith. The Lord has given us the mighty weapon of truth that is able to tear down those walls. The words of our Lord declare in the Gospel of John chapter 8 verse 32: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Intelligent Design arguments are good in that they expose the lie of evolution. However, only the Spirit of God can use them to enlighten His children or convict unbelievers.

11. Isn’t the evidence of our expanding technology proof of the evolution of human brain development?
Are we more advanced than our ancestors or are we actually in decline?

If you look at recorded history it seems quite obvious that technology has been ever increasing in complexity. However, the question must be asked, are we truly better off? For example, we may be able to put a man on the moon, but that same technology also enables us to place a cruise missile in our adversaries back pocket. No one could deny that the printed page has brought much good; Bibles, poetry, literature. However, we now also have pornography, vain philosophies, and dangerous political ideas in great abundance. In the past, life at home was harder technologically speaking, but morally speaking the standards were much higher in the past than they are today and mentally speaking the average American was far more robust than what we find today. Our modern entertainment media has desensitized our population to evil and robbed most of their ability to imagine and dream. Are we truly more “advanced”?
Consider this quote from Ian T. Taylor in a recent article on “Creation Moments”
(http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcript.php?t=1958) :

“It would seem almost ludicrous to ask the question, has mankind made progress since his appearance on this planet? Many would answer that it should be perfectly obvious that man has come a long way from primitive beginnings in the cave.

Until recently, historians have always spoken of the idea of progress in history but this is now being seriously questioned. While it is true that there have been improvements and innovations in technology throughout human history, each step forward has brought with it a mixed blessing. For example, the movable-type printing press introduced about 1447 reduced the cost of printing thus making, say, Bibles much more readily available. While this helped to establish moral absolutes those same printing presses also produced pornography and politically dangerous ideas from the Greeks. More recently, television seemed like free entertainment but overindulgence has robbed many of their health and the ability to think for themselves. In those very early chapters of the Bible we are told how in disobedience to God's command, our first parents, Adam and Eve, ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is mankind's fallen nature that has caused the good and the evil to come together as a package. We have made progress in technology but we have also regressed morally. As it was in the days of Noah, the earth has become filled with war and violence by man's use of good inventions put to evil purpose.”

Is our ability to utilize the technology of our forefathers and add to it with increasingly complex inventions of our own considered “evidence” of evolution? Consider this definition from Dr. Henry Morris:

“Evolution implies "descent from a common ancestor" with all of life related, consisting of modified forms of very different things, such as a person descending from a fish. Evolution does not mean merely "change," for all things change with time. For clarity we must restrict this term to meaningful change, especially the descent of new types of organisms from earlier, different ones. ”

Our compounding technology does not add to our gene complexity. Lamark was a prominent scientist in France in the late 1700's and early 1800's. He coined the term biology. Lamark proposed the idea that living organisms acquire certain traits during their lifetime and pass on those traits to their offspring. This idea is known as Lamarkism. You may remember the picture of the supposed ancestral giraffe stretching to reach the higher leaves. It was proposed that this stretching would increase the length of the parent’s necks. Lamark then submitted that this trait would be passed on to the giraffes offspring. After generations of these small changes, evolution was thought to occur.

However, this idea of Lamarkism was easily disproved with careful scientific investigation. Acquired traits like larger muscles from body building (or even smaller muscle development through the lack of use of body parts i.e. our pinky’s are getting smaller) are not passed on to succeeding generations. Even brain power increases through reading and investigation, or any other trait that can be learned or developed, cannot be passed on to our offspring. In fact, nothing that we do in that regard will have any affect at all on our chromosomes, the building blocks of life. The only things that will have that sort of impact are mutanogenic drugs or radioactive substances that are considered very dangerous and labeled “harmful” to life.

T. V. Varughese, Ph.D of the Institute for Creation Research has written a compelling article entitled “Christianity and Technological Advance - The Astonishing Connection” located here (http://www.icr.org/article/374/).

Another tremendous resource on this topic is the book “The Puzzle of Ancient Man” by Donald E. Chittick, PH.D. Popular culture has led us to believe that ancient man was primitive, originating from primates and steadily improving through a process of time and chance. But does that agree with reality? What does the evidence left behind from past cultures tell us? Was ancient man simple and primitive as we have been taught, or did the level of science and technology existing thousands of years ago rival, or even surpass, the level of ours today in the 21st century?

In this updated edition, Dr Chittick examines more details of technology, evidence of ancient machine power, and optical technology possessed by ancient people. Come and examine with Dr. Chittick what the facts say about ancient man that have long gone unnoticed and often times ignored by today's secular culture.