Divine Origin and Sacred History: Genesis in Job (Part 3)

        The Flood

Not only do we find distinct references to Creation, the Fall, and the Curse, but the book of Job continues to amaze with specifics about The Flood of Noah’s day.

Keeping in mind the Genesis record of human debauchery and continual evil in the days preceding the Great Purge (see Scripturosity article series “Who were the Giants of Noah’s Day?” Parts 1,  2,  3), notice the following reflection in the third discourse of Eliphaz (22:15-18). “Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: Which said unto God, Depart from us…Yet He filled their houses with good things…”

Not only was knowledge of the Flood fresh, but it was established that the trigger was divine and that man’s wickedness was the reason.

How could Eliphaz be so emphatic about that?

Do you recall the setting that we established earlier (see Scripturosity article “Understanding the Book of Job” – Part 2)? The chronology places the events in the book of Job at or around 2,000 BC, which would be 300-400 years following the Flood. Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. Shem lived 502 years after disembarking outliving Abraham and dying when Isaac was 130 years old. The survivors from the lost world were undoubtedly revered (or loathed) figures in the rebounding population with tremendous respect and consideration given to their words.

It is easy to see how the Flood account could be so vivid.

Job, in particular, had an acute sense of the historicity of the Flood. We can make that claim based on his multiple references.

“He (God) is wise in heart and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against Him, and hath prospered? Which removeth the mountains (intimating that mountains were a part of the created, antediluvian landscape), and they know not: which overturneth them in His anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place (intimating a different axial attitude), and the pillars thereof tremble (9:4-6).”

In this passage (vv.1-10) Job acknowledges both God’s creative exploits and His destructive force. It is His world; He can break it if He chooses to. “Who will say unto Him, what doest thou (v.12)?”

“Behold, He breaketh down, and it cannot be built again: He shutteth up a man (in this hydrologic, judgment context, this man must be Noah; Gen. 7:16), and there can be no opening. Behold, He withholdeth the waters (atmospheric and subterranean) and they dry up: also He sendeth them (the waters) out, and He overturneth the earth (12:14,15).”

Job’s point to his “friends” was that God has, in the past, chosen to set one man apart, uniquely, for the purpose of accomplishing that which is unprecedented. He did it with Noah; now God was doing it again with him.

He recognized that the post-Flood landscape was dramatically different from the topography of the early earth as a result of judgment at God’s hand.

“…by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Pet.3:5,6).”

“For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again…through the scent of water it will bud…As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down, and riseth not…If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come (14:7-14).”

Job uses the phenomenal retreat of the Flood waters and subsequent ecological rebirth to express his faith in a hope beyond the grave.

“He (God) hath compassed (determined the extent of) the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end (26:10).”

Job reflects on God’s promise kept since the time of Noah’s altar and takes comfort in His faithful maintenance on earth. “…And the Lord said in His heart, I will not…again smite any more every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease (see Scripturosity article “Noah’s New World” – Part 1).”

 Job continues in his answer to Bildad (26:11-14) exposing the egotism and ignorance of the friends by highlighting the power necessary for Creation and the authority requisite for global judgment as merely “parts of His ways.” Simply put, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. He mocked their folly in claiming to be His worthy delegates (v.2-4). The sovereign dynamic that formed the mountain ranges and towering peaks has the right to demand humility of the creatures that inhabit them (v.12).

“He (God) putteth forth His hand upon the rock; He overturneth the mountains by the roots. He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; His eye seeth every precious thing (28:9,10).”

Job seems to have been aware of or conceptualized “run-away” or catastrophic plate tectonics as well as appreciated the destructive hydrologic flows that cut the deep, stratified canyons during the Flood-water retreat (see Scripturosity article “Noah’s New World” – Part 2). To Job, every phenomenon of nature was a signpost pointing the observer to the Creator/Redeemer.

With regard to the Flood and its signature left all over the earth, Henry Morris offers the following (The Remarkable Record of Job, p.28).

“The Noahic flood marked a great discontinuity (break from the established sequence), both in the course of human history and in the normal operation of the natural processes that God established supernaturally in the beginning. The rates of most geological processes (such as erosion, sedimentation, tectonism, and volcanism) were vastly accelerated during the year after the Flood. God finally allowed the Flood to run its course, after which all these rates gradually slowed, though much “residual catastrophism” persists even to the present day.”

The earthquakes and volcanoes that we experience today are reminders of when the Creator judged His earth “with the earth (Gen.6:13).” These are only remnant tremors and eruptions compared by magnitudes to the geologic events that continued to shake the earth beyond the retreat of the waters (see Scripturosity article “Is Earth’s Fire Responsible for its Ice?”).

When God finally breaks heaven’s silence in the discourse, He amplifies His authority in Job’s life by taking credit for an intimate management of the Flood; from its initiation to its cessation. “…Who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb…and brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hither to shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed (38:8-11)?”

His message to Job (and all that come across this record) was, “I am the God of the Flood; I’ve got a pretty good grasp of your situation.”

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Romance in the Stone

Among the “precious things” mentioned by Job in his comparative value lesson on wisdom were rubies and sapphires (28:16,18). Obviously, for Job to reference them as he did reveals two things. First, industry of the day (400 years following the Flood) had advanced with the understanding and technique to discover and extract these colorful stones. Secondly, their rarity was clearly comprehended. This in itself is remarkable suggesting that the economic advancement of the region was well beyond the agricultural emphasis that you might imagine.

Have you ever wondered where such treasures originated and how they reconcile biblically with earth science? It is a fascinating study.

Once again, as with the gold (see Scripturosity article “Grasping Earth’s Gold”), volcanic activity is critical to their exposure. Uniquely though, these crystals were transformed from an original source material through a process of heat and pressure deep within the earth where the composition of rocks becomes metamorphosed into entirely new substances.

While “some rubies and sapphires are found in high-grade metamorphic rocks, called gneisses (pronounced nīces) and granulites,” Dr. Snelling points out (second quarter 2010 Answers magazine; “Rubies and Sapphires – Sparkling Reminders of God’s Judgment”) that most of them are generated in deep sedimentary silt, shale, and limestone deposits. The best rubies are found in Middle and Far-Eastern marble mines while sapphires are generally plucked and carried to the surface in magma flows. This is why “sapphires are most commonly found in stream beds and other secondary deposits.”

Dr. Snelling and other geologists are satisfied that these beautiful deep-blue and blood-red gems are “closely linked to major earth movements.”

In his article he breaks their formation down to “three distinct episodes.”

“The first episode was early in the year-long Flood catastrophe, when the African and Indian fragments of the pre-Flood supercontinent Rodina rapidly collided. Pre-Flood and early Flood sedimentary and igneous rocks were buckled, squeezed, and heated, transforming them into the metamorphic gneisses and granulites that host the ruby and sapphire deposits of eastern Africa, Madagascar, India, and Sri Lanka.

Then, according to the biblical model of earth history, when rapid crustal plate movements were quickly slowing down at the end of the Flood, the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate to form today’s Himalaya mountains. Limestones that had been deposited early in the Flood were then metamorphosed into the ruby-containing marbles of Myanmar, Vietnam, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

During this same period, and extending into the early post-Flood era, residual hotspots in the earth’s upper mantle generated pockets of molten basalt around the globe. When the continental plates, now moving much more slowly, drifted over this molten basalt, the basalt magmas squeezed explosively through the fractured crust, erupting within hours as volcanoes at the earth’s surface. As this magma passed through the fractured metamorphic rocks, it plucked rock pieces and sapphires from the walls and carried them to the surface.

This catastrophic activity lasted through the final stages of the Flood and into the post-Flood era, when new mountains were still rising and volcanoes exploding. Violent weather then rapidly sculpted the new surfaces. Whenever rocks were exposed to weathering and erosion, the indestructible rubies and sapphires were liberated from their hosts and washed into alluvial deposits (generated by the erosive and depositional force of water), later to be mined and enjoyed by man.

Since rubies and sapphires appear to be products of the Flood, we can understand why they aren’t mentioned in the Scriptures until the time of Job. By then, the post-Flood people who scattered from Babel had migrated across Asia to the places where they would find rubies and sapphires.”

An interesting consideration is the biblical mention of gemstones in the context of the Garden of Eden. The onyx stone is mentioned in Genesis 2:12 as being a component of the region of Havilah, also known for its “good” gold (see Scripturosity article “Grasping Earth’s Gold”). In a carefully chosen message for the king of Tyre, the Lord, through the prophet Ezekiel, simultaneously addressed the ruler’s dark possessor saying, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold…(Ezekiel 28:13).” These references to earth’s pre-Flood treasures may testify of intense creative energy deep within the earth on Day 3 when the dry land emerged from the primordial ocean.

What is the context of Job’s expressed geomorphological observations? He was illustrating the value and the rarity of wisdom. “He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and His eye seeth every precious thing…and the thing that is hid bringeth He forth to light. But where shall wisdom be found? Man knoweth not the price thereof (Job 28:10-13).

Job was struck by man’s compulsion to seek, understand, and extract earth’s rare treasures while showing no urgency toward the pursuit of a far weightier prize. “Whence then cometh wisdom and where is the place of understanding (28:20)?”

His conclusion in appreciation of God’s sovereign and intimate maintenance of His creation was, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding (28:28).” These beautiful crystals were stark reminders of God’s response to sin several hundred years earlier.

Isn’t that just like a loving God to show mercy – even in judgment? Think of some other Flood-induced deposits that modern generations continue to benefit from – like the massive coal seams sandwiched between sedimentary rock layers or the crude oil and natural gas trapped in porous rock reservoirs deep below the surface.

“The Lord is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all His works (Psalm 145:9).” The purpose of both general revelation (the natural world) and special revelation (the preserved Word) is to draw mankind back into the fellowship for which he was created (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”).

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Grasping Earth’s Gold

In one of Job’s answers to the ill-informed panel of friends (14:18,19) he references earth processes recognized today to be within the scientific discipline of geomorphology.

“And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.”

What was the context of Job’s geomorphologic observations? These earth processes were simply part of divine governance. They were predictable systems that changed the topography of the established land features.

The point of Job’s reference to erosion in answer to his friends was “as predictable as the processes of nature that wear away the stone exposing its hidden treasures, so is the certainty of exposure and corresponding regret of a life characterized by vain, frivolous pursuits.”

This was neither a technologically simple nor spiritually dull civilization that expressed these observations and contextualized them as divinely appointed and influenced processes (“Thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth” -14:19).

Job made a similar acknowledgement a little while later when he wrote, “He (God) cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and His eye seeth every precious thing (28:10).”

Of Job’s scientific object lesson, Dr. Henry Morris writes (The Remarkable Record of Job, p.41), “The process of establishing a post-flood drainage system exposed the ‘precious things’ in the rocks, the beautiful and valuable metals and minerals so highly prized and widely used by man. Chapter 28 of Job mentions a number of these – the ‘gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire” (v.16), the ‘silver’ and the ‘crystal’ (vv.15-17), the ‘rubies’ and the ‘topaz of Ethiopia’ (vv.18-19)…But all these ‘precious things’ are said to be far less valuable than true wisdom and understanding (true science one might say), which is discovered only through the fear of the Lord.”

A most interesting study, beyond the exposure of such treasures, involves the source of such and the spectacular compatibility with the biblical model of earth history.

Gold is referenced in the Adamic tablet of Genesis (2:10-12) as an element of the original creation. Apparently, it was not distributed equally since the record distinguishes the antediluvian land known as Havilah by its “good” deposit of the precious metal. During the global destruction of “the world that then was” in Noah’s day, this and other mineral resources were displaced from their original deposit sites and subjected to the catastrophic influences of sedimentary burial, plate tectonics, and magmatic venting.

Geologist and author Dr. Andrew Snelling offers his deposition scenario for today’s gold discoveries in an article for Answers Magazine (first quarter 2011) entitled “Gold – A Little Bit of Heaven on Earth.”

“Initially hot acid waters in deep crustal rocks dissolved the gold, and molten magma and volcanic waters carried it toward the surface. This hot material then entered the cracks in the rocks near the earth’s surface.

As it cooled, the gold remained in place, either associated with certain large granite bodies (often with copper) or in veins and orebodies.

After these ‘primary gold deposits’ were put in place, heavy rains and other natural forces eroded many of the rocks. Because gold is very heavy and resistant to corrosion, it settled out into what are called ‘placer deposits.’ These secondary gold deposits include the gold particles found at Sutter’s Mill, which sparked the California gold rush in 1849.

Most placer deposits formed at the end of the Flood when the retreating waters drastically eroded the landscape. Indeed, most of the Flood-generated primary and secondary deposits formed during the closing stages of the Flood, especially during the building of the Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, European Alps, and other related mountain ranges.”

Dr. Snelling points out that earth processes are still exposing gold today. Not only in secondary deposits revealed through erosion, but also in primary ones such as seen at the Lihir mines in Papua New Guinea. Lihir Island consists of a series of volcanic units evidenced by hot-springs in and around calderas (collapsed volcanoes). Here, according to the article, “volcanic waters are still depositing gold at a rate of 52 pounds per year.”

A May 11, 2012 AP article entitled “Gold! Haiti Hopes Ore Find Will Spur Mining Boom,” reveals that there may be a literal “golden” lining to the devastating earthquake that rattled the island in January of 2010.

“Haiti’s geological vulnerability is also its promise. Massive tectonic plates squeeze the island with horrifying consequences, but deep cracks between them form convenient veins for gold, silver and copper pushed up from the hot innards of the planet. Prospectors from California to Chile know earthquake faults often have, quite literally, a golden lining.”

In a 2012 Discover magazine publication called Extreme Earth, Robert Kunzig authored an article entitled “Strip-Mining the Sea.” The article describes the discovery of tremendous ore deposits on the sea-floor around hot volcanic springs known as hydrothermal vents or black smokers off the coast of Papua New Guinea. These venting plumes of 650 ° F, metal-rich water grow chimneys that break off and reform leaving heaps of valuable deposits around them. The Bismark Sea expedition dredged rocks from the mounds that “contained copper and gold concentrations several times higher than those typical of mines on land.” This is likely a snap-shot on a dramatically reduced, yet comparable, scale of the way gold may have been distributed throughout the newly deposited landmasses when “the fountains of the great deep” erupted mixing the slurry of reconstructive sediment.

One discovery has even been attributed to the initial revelation of the landmass during the Creation Week. This is found in South Africa and is known as the Wit-waters-rand deposit (or simply known as the “reef” by the locals). About 40% of all known gold comes from this basin in the Dark Continent. Dr. Snelling describes it as “a great sea reef rising gently above the surrounding landscape.” He agrees with its classification as a placer deposit (water being essential in its placement), but rather than millions of years of settling, gold-laden sediments at the bottom of a huge ancient lake, he attributes it to the originally created landmass that emerged from the waters on Day 3. While it eventually became covered by mudflows during the great Genesis Flood, tectonics and erosion have exposed it at the surface once again. Perhaps this is the remnant deposit that distinguished the “good” gold of the pre-Flood land of Havilah (Gen. 2:11-12).

As in the original creation, the new earth (of Revelation prophecy) will be characterized with the existence of gold – transparently pure gold. The capitol city will not only have streets made of this rare metal (21:21), but the city itself will be constructed of it (21:18). Perhaps this forecast is detailed to help the believer rightly assign value while living on this present earth. Be discerning when it comes to your pursuits. Don’t prioritize in time that which will be common in eternity.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Radioisotope Dating – Rocking the Ages

The previous article series addressed the scientific age-assessment of ancient organics (see Scripturosity articles “Carbon Dating – The Basic Measurement & The Biblical Model”). What about the popular measurement practice used to date the rocks themselves?

Scientists seem quite satisfied that the earth is billions of years old. Have these modern dating techniques closed the book on the age of the earth? Should the literal rendering of world history as presented in the book of Genesis be revisited in light of the dating claims of modern science?

Was Job just making an uninformed leap of faith when he declared that the earth itself would attest the Lord’s hand (12:8-9)? Let’s turn over a few rocks and see if there is more to these measurements that seemingly validate uniformitarian geochronology.

In addition to radiocarbon or Carbon-14 dating, another form of radiometric dating is “radioisotope dating.” Just as with radiocarbon dating, radioisotope dating measures the spontaneous decay of unstable, radioactive atoms within a sample. In radiocarbon dating, the measurement depends on the natural transition of radioactive carbon to stable nitrogen. In radioisotope dating, the calculation relies on the radioactive decay process of other elements like unstable uranium to lead or potassium to argon.

Meaningful radioisotope dating starts with igneous rocks such as granite and basalt which were formed from cooled and solidified molten material. Sedimentary rock like sandstone, shale, and limestone cannot be directly dated using this method.

The dating “clock” starts when the molten rock cools. As with Carbon-14 dating, the unit of measure is the “half-life.” In this case, it is the length of time for half of the parent element (uranium) in a sample to degrade to its daughter element (lead). The age of a rock is then determined by the known rate of decay and the present amount of a daughter element. Half-lives that are extremely slow, representing billions of years, are still very accurate due to statistical proration.

The problem with modern dating claims is that scientists approach the investigation with a bias linking multiple assumptions to the equation before applying the real science.

There are 3 basic assumptions that direct the “dating” of rock samples.

1) The initial conditions of the sample are known accurately. They assume that when the sample originally crystallized from magma, the only atoms that were present were parent atoms. Because parent atoms decay into daughter atoms, they assume that no daughter atoms were present at the time of crystallization. They don’t even allow for the possibility of daughter atoms because that would imply a lack of maturity rather than an emphatic statement of long age.

2) The sample has remained uncontaminated in a closed system during its history. It is necessary to assume that the rock has not exchanged any atoms with its surroundings from the time it crystallized to the time the sample was extracted for measurement. If the system was not closed, atomic migration would invalidate the age.

3) The nuclear decay rate or half-life of the parent isotope (reference to elemental uniqueness within a chemical family) atoms has remained constant since the rock was formed. Accuracy in dating is dependent on the consistency of radioactive decay. If there is data suggesting that radioactive decay is not a non-negotiable constant, then the age of the earth becomes scientifically unsettled.

Based on multiple lines of objective evidence, a group of scientists known as the RATE team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) are now suggesting that radioactive decay was accelerated at some point in earth history. These evidences include the abundance of a nuclear decay by-product (Uranium to Lead) called Helium. The diffusion or escape rate if helium from zircon crystals tells a far different story regarding the age of the earth; suggesting thousands rather than millions of years.

In his book entitled Thousands…Not Billions challenging the deep-time conclusions of modern dating methods, Dr. Don DeYoung resolves the following.

“The RATE research does not challenge, but rather affirms the existence of billions of years’ worth of the daughter products of uranium decay in these zircons. But RATE also finds in the zircons a large fraction of the helium generated by this same uranium decay. The RATE helium diffusion measurements show that such high concentrations of helium simply cannot be sustained for more than a few thousand years. The only way we can reconcile the observed amount of uranium decay with the observed levels of helium retention is with one or more periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the earth’s recent past. We conclude that the RATE helium diffusion experiments give strong evidence for accelerated decay of the uranium atoms inside zircon crystals, and a young age for the earth.”

Radioisotope dating is not the clear-cut, evidential champion of deep-time as the scientific elite would have the “uninitiated” public believe. In fact, some within the secret society are even calling into question the categorical constancy of elemental nuclear change – a former non-negotiable (see Scripturosity article “The Age of the Earth – What Do the Rocks Say”).

In one instance of radioisotope dating error, documented in a June 2001 Creation magazine article entitled “Radio-dating in Rubble” (Keith Swenson), scientists extracted a 15 lb. block of igneous, dacite rock from the reforming lava dome at Mount St. Helens. The reputable Massachusetts lab to which the sample was taken used the potassium-argon method and dated the 11 year-old rock between 340,000 years to 2.8 million years old!

General revelation (nature) is ever validating the narrative of special revelation (Scripture) offering the open-minded seeker a worldview rife with clarity and purpose (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”).

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Biblical Model (Part 2)

In one of Job’s introspective rebuttals (12:8-9) he expresses his confidence that the message of the earth itself absolutely corroborates Scripture’s account of a creative and judgmental sovereign “hand” in her past.

If the geologic column is a true schematic of earth’s ancient timescale, as scientific consensus promotes, then there should be no measureable carbon in any formations assigned ages beyond 100,000 years. The problem is radiocarbon is found to be present in petrified or fossilized wood embedded in rock layers given supposed age-classifications ranging from 32 million up to 250 million years old (see “Carbon-14 Dating – An Evolution Dilemma” written by Andrew Snelling for Answers Magazine). Likewise, coal sampled from seams separated by hundreds of millions of years and assigned ages up to 320 million years, not only contained Carbon-14, but were measured at virtually the same age (48,000-50,000 years) radiometrically. How does 50,000 year-old coal come to be sandwiched between rocks aged at hundreds of millions of years? Uniformitarian geology predictably claims “contamination” foul, but labs would not maintain credibility if samples were continually compromised – particularly if the results regularly bristled the mainstream.

While the measurement data represents enormous flaws in the assumed ages of the rocks and the uniformitarian model, those familiar with the biblical timeline recognize that the Carbon-14 dating numbers are still as much as 10 times higher than the chronogenealogies of Scripture allow. Is there a logical explanation?

In a follow-up to his previously mentioned contribution to Answers Magazine, geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling offers that there are 3 basic assumptions used in the carbon dating exercise in an article entitled “50,000-Year-Old Fossils – A Creationist Puzzle.”

Assumption #1 – The production of Carbon-14 has always been the same in the past as now.

Assumption #2 – The atmosphere has had the same Carbon-14 concentration in the past as now.

Assumption #3 – The biosphere has always had the same overall Carbon-14 concentration as the atmosphere, due to the rapid transfer from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

It is well known that levels of atmospheric Carbon-14 can vary based on divers factors including latitude, cycles in sunspot activity, and the measurable diminution of earth’s magnetic field.

Snelling says, “A stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower Carbon-14 concentration than it does today.”

Based on the present decay rate of earth’s magnetic field, protection from destructive cosmic energies could have been 8 times stronger at the time of the great Flood than it is today signaling far lower levels of C-14 when an entire biosphere became covered in sedimentary mud-flows and encapsulated in rock. This would reduce the original ratio of radiocarbon to non-radioactive carbon and correspondingly lessen the representative age allocation.

Another critical consideration is the current inventory of organic material trapped in rock layers below the surface of the earth. Skeptics of the biblical model of earth history boast that earth’s current plant covering is only a fraction of the necessary biomass needed to produce the coal seams that we see today. This is a true observation. A similar geological phenomenon is the massive deposits of natural gas and oil that carry a biogenic signature intimating a past source of organics beyond modern comprehension (see Scripturosity article “Oil, Oil, Everywhere – Part 3). This evidence suggests that the pre-Flood atmosphere was far different than today – one having the carbon-capacity necessary to generate a biosphere that would support earth’s enormous fossil-fuel reserves (see Scripturosity article “The Longevity of the Ancients – Part 2).

If earth’s fossil-fuel inventory intimates higher carbon content in the past and the decaying magnetic field suggests lower production of radiocarbon previously, then the ratio of today’s radioactive carbon to its stable isotope is a flawed starting point for reliable dating. If there was a way to synchronize the radiocarbon “clock” with the apparent conditions of the pre-Flood atmosphere, carbon dating would likely reflect ages more compatible with the timeline represented in the book of Genesis.

In summary, let’s review what we know about carbon dating.

• Carbon dating is based upon the natural atomic response of an unstable isotope to seek nuclear equilibrium.
• Both radioactive carbon (Carbon-14) and non-radioactive carbon (Carbon-12) enter earth’s biosphere and the food chain through photosynthesis after they combine with oxygen to form CO².
• As long as an organism is engaged with earth’s ecosystem, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive to stable carbon ratio.
• Once a creature dies or plant fades it can no longer add molecular carbon to its structure initiating the radiocarbon “clock.”
• This “clock” is a function of the natural nuclear decay process that takes place with all unstable isotopes and is expressed in units called “half-lives.”
• A half-life is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample.
• The consensus half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years.
• The effective measurement range of Carbon Dating is around 60,000 years since there should be virtually no radioactive carbon left in a sample after 10 half-lives.
• Radiocarbon dating presents profound inconsistencies within the evolutionary paradigm of earth history.
• Two factors suggest a reduced original ratio of unstable to stable carbon in earth’s early atmosphere – the decay rate of earth’s magnetic field (lower production of radiocarbon in the past) and earth’s enormous fossil-fuel inventory (higher total carbon in the past).
• Such conditions would lessen the representative age-allocation of carbon dating producing results that are far more compatible with the history of earth and humanity as detailed in the eyewitness account of Scripture.

“For ever. O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. They (speaking of the settled Word and the established earth) continue this day (in harmonious compatibility) according to Thine ordinances: for all are Thy servants (Psalm 119:89-91).”

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Basic Measurement (Part 1)

Carbon dating is a form of measurement classified as radiometric. Radiometric dating is a scientific technique used to estimate the ages of rocks and fossils. The reason that this method of measurement is important to the believer is because most lab results reflect ages that are in profound contrast to the history of earth and humanity established in the biblical timeline. Conversely, carbon dating also raises serious suspicion regarding the accuracy of the assigned epochs of the geologic column. Let’s see if we can add some clarity to the measurement muddle.

All matter is made up of atoms – the basic building blocks of all things. Atoms are constructed of smaller particles known as protons, neutrons, and electrons. The nucleus of each atom is made up of the protons and neutrons at the center, while its outer layers consist of the electrons.

It is the number of protons in the nucleus that gives the atomic signature to each element. As an example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all nitrogen atoms have 7 protons, and each oxygen atom has 8. However, within the nucleus of a given isotope (established proton signature) can be a variant number of neutrons. It is the combination of both the protons and the neutrons that determines the mass of each atom.

An atom is considered “stable” when the number of its nuclear protons and neutrons are equal. Since there are 6 protons in a carbon atom, its stable form has 6 neutrons giving it a mass of 12 and the common reference of Carbon-12. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope because it has 8 neutrons to its 6 protons. Unstable isotopes, such as Carbon-14 (also known as radiocarbon), are always seeking nuclear equilibrium (that is an equal proton/neutron count) and this is accomplished by a process known as “radioactive decay.” Radioactive decay demands that the original element upon which the action takes place will become a different element. In the case of Carbon-14, the “beta decay” process (signified by an ejected electron) essentially causes it to lose a neutron and gain a proton changing it to the stable element Nitrogen-14.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t all the Carbon-14 atoms be stabilized into Nitrogen-14? Earth’s biosphere is never without Carbon-14 because it is continuously being added to the atmosphere through high-impact, atomic collisions with cosmic rays. The most prominent element in our atmosphere is nitrogen making it the most likely to be impacted by these violent intrusions. These high energy bombardments separate some of the nitrogen atoms from one of their protons and replace them with a neutron creating a new Carbon-14 atom.

The logical question becomes, “How does Carbon-14 become relevant in dating measurements?” These newly transformed radiocarbon atoms now behave similarly to the stable carbon isotopes (Carbon-12) and combine with oxygen (the second most plentiful element in the atmosphere) to form Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide has a proportionate distribution of radioactive and non-radioactive carbon atoms that indiscriminately enter earth’s biosphere (regions occupied by living organisms) through photosynthesis (a process critical to the existence of earth’s plant covering). With radiocarbon in the food chain, all creatures (including humans) have trace levels of Carbon-14 within their physical composition. As long as an organism is alive, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive carbon ratio with its stable (Carbon-12) counterpart. But once a creature dies or a plant fades (see Scripturosity article “Planting Seeds of Doubt”) it no longer can add molecular carbon to its structure. This is point at which the measurement starts.

Scientists are able to measure the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in an organic subject by using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer. As time goes by and as the natural process of radioactive decay takes place, less of the radio-carbon will exist reducing the ratio with its stable counterpart. The standard expression used to communicate the rate of radioactive decay is “half-life.” This is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample. While the decay is not simultaneous, half of the radioactive atoms will be reduced within a specific and consistent timeframe. Scientific consensus places the half-life of Carbon-14 at 5,730 years. So this means after 5,730 years, a given sample of ancient organic matter will only have half of the Carbon-14 atoms that it had at the moment it ceased to interact with earth’s biosphere. In 11,460 years those remaining will be halved again. When you halve the percentage of radiocarbon 10 times (57,300 years), there are virtually no unstable atoms left to decay.

This places the effective measurement range of Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon) Dating at around 60,000 years (though some would argue a maximum effectiveness around 100,000 years) creating quite the dilemma for those whose worldview posits ancient earth strata separated by hundreds of millions of years. Carbon dating discovery of not-so-ancient organics within assigned deep-time sediment layers is ever giving heartburn to the hardcore zealots of naturalism.

But the obvious quandary for the Biblicist is that much of the carbon dating data still bears out ages which are radically conflicted with the history presented in our Premier Text. Part 2 of this short article series will address this informational impasse and offer a rational reconciliation scenario for the believer’s apologetics toolbox.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 8)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #9 – Many leading evolutionists are skeptical of the theory and find it problematic. For example, Eldridge and Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium proves Darwin wrong. If the world’s leading evolutionists cannot agree on the theory, the whole thing must be a wash.

 

Creationists do not need to lean on the “in-fighting” of evolution’s leading proponents to expose its flaws. It is quite interesting, though, to realize that many of the iconic figures within the popular scientific community represent some of the best arguments against the core of evolution and its necessary mechanisms. While Eldridge and Gould may have denounced the use of their scholarly musings as support for the competing paradigm, professors of a biblical cosmogony hold their work in high regard for their personal courage and intellectual honesty.

One of the best examples of this ethical spunk is a work authored by Stephen J. Gould entitled Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle. In this enlightened stroll down the dingy corridors that led to the grand ballroom of the Heroic Age of Geology, Dr. Gould completely discredits and dismantles the notion upon which every evolutionary conception hangs – deep time.

In his book, Dr. Gould confirms the philosophical power-play that was taking place at the turn of the 19^th century. “I know no better way to illustrate this ecumenicism of creative thought than the debunking (in a positive mode) of remaining cardboard myths about science as pure observation and applied logic, divorced from realities of human creativity and social content. The geological myth surrounding the discovery of deep time may be the most persistent of remaining legends.”

Prominent British geologist and avowed anti-creationist, Derek Ager acknowledged the formative cultural influences that directed the developmental years of geology in his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. “My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (contextual reference to uniformitarians) who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field.”

In his critique of geologic, deep-time inception, Dr. Gould reveals, “The reality of history is so much more complex and interesting; the irony of history is that Lyell won (a reference to the idea of historically uniform geological processes promoted in his famous book Principles of Geology). His version became a semi-official hagiography (reference to Hebrew Scriptures) of geology, preached in textbooks to the present day. Professional historians know better, of course, but their message has rarely reached working geologists, who seem to crave these simple and heroic stories…Lyell was not the white knight of truth and fieldwork, but a purveyor of a fascinating and particular theory rooted in the steady state of time’s cycle. He tried by rhetoric – perhaps the neatest rick of rhetoric in the history of science – to equate his theory with rationality and rectitude – and he largely triumphed.”

Note the remarkable candor of his conclusion. “We shall probably never know whether Lyell perpetrated this ruse consciously…In any case, Lyell’s rhetorical success must rank among the most important events in nineteenth-century geology – for it established an ‘official’ history that enshrined, as the earth’s own way, a restrictive view about the nature of change. If any scientist ever tries to convince you that history is irrelevant, only a repository for past errors, tell him the story of Lyell’s rhetorical triumph and its role in directing more than a century of research in geology.”

What Stephen J. failed to recognize was the “directing” impact of Lyell’s work on every other discipline of science as the context of all observation. Without the foundational axiom of “deep time,” evolution (geological, biological, anthropological, cosmological, etc.) has no footing.

Michael Shermer uses the example of “punctuated equilibrium” (the idea promoting indeterminate periods of evolutionary stasis followed by a virtual explosion of radical, developmental change – also known as the “hopeful monster” theory) as a healthy debate spark among evolutionists insisting that such disagreement is good for the integrity of science. “They (creationists) apparently take this normal exchange of ideas and the self-correcting nature of science as evidence that the field is coming apart at the seams and about to implode. Of the many things evolutionists argue and debate within the field, one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that evolution has occurred. Exactly how it happened…continue(s) to be discussed.”

Creationists do not dispute that evolution has occurred if we are talking about adaptation and variation within the barriers established by genetics (see Scripturosity article “After Their Kinds”). The disingenuous representation by the zealots of evolutionism is that Christian biologists deny this scientific reality discrediting their ability to construct a viable model apart from claims of the miraculous.

Speaking of the miraculous – wouldn’t that be the appropriate qualification for a theory of radical, evolutionary change that just exploded onto the primeval scene leaving no evidential trace in the fossil record?

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 4)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #4 – There is an amazing correlation between the facts of nature and the acts of the Bible. It is therefore appropriate to use creation-science books and the Bible as reference tools in the public school science courses and to study the Bible as a book of science alongside the book of nature.

 

As a follow-up to his representative creationist claim, Michael Shermer does not argue against the assertion of harmony between “the facts of nature and the acts of the Bible.” He simply offers that he believes it to be similar logic to using Shakespearean literature, interpreted by scholars to contain insight into universal origins, as a textbook for the science classroom. “Shakespeare’s plays are literature,” expounds Dr. Shermer, “the Bible contains scriptures sacred to several religions, and neither has any pretensions to being a book of science or a scientific authority.”

As mentioned previously (Part 1), public schools are probably not the place to lobby such demands. Academia is entrenched in naturalistic bias. School boards and judges, though individually successful and intellectually engaged, carry their own philosophical baggage to the discourse and are not inclined to place their careers and reputations on the line entertaining any measure of reason against the scholastic and political establishment. Regardless of the data or the logic introduced, the notion of being dismissed to the ranks of the uninitiated is an intolerable, social, political, and professional risk.

The reason that Shermer continues to frame these claims in the context of public school, science classrooms is because he knows his position is unassailable within the current academic infrastructure. The argument should not be for the Bible in the public school, science classrooms, but for an educational forum (world culture, religion, philosophy, etc.) that allows honest, scholarly, comparative analysis of competing cosmogonical paradigms.

If the naturalist, evolutionary position is so strong, such an evaluation should be readily welcomed. As Texas Governor and Presidential candidate, Rick Perry said to the 7 year old boy who had been prompted by his mother to ask about his position on evolution and the age of the earth, “In Texas we teach both creation and evolution as theories of origins, because I figure (children like) you will be able to figure out what is right (when the ideas are placed side-by-side).”

The truth is there is an amazing evidential harmony when the observations of the natural world are framed by the chronicled history of the biblical book of Genesis.

Alleged creationist claim #5 – The theory of natural selection is tautological, or a form of circular reasoning. Those who survive are the best adapted. Who are the best adapted? Those who survive. Likewise, rocks are used to date fossils, and the fossils are used to date rocks. Tautologies do not make science.

 

Dr. Shermer elaborates, “Sometimes tautologies are the beginning of science, but they are never the end. Gravity can be tautological, but its inference is justified by the way this theory allows scientists to accurately predict physical effects and phenomena. Likewise, natural selection and the theory of evolution are testable and falsifiable by looking at their predictive power.”

Oxford American Dictionary defines tautology as “the saying of the same thing twice in different words, especially as a fault of style.” A tautology has been defined as a formula that is true in every possible interpretation. That would mean that any claim using tautological reasoning is not falsifiable – making it scientifically unsatisfactory. A theory may be “the beginning of science” because it decides “what we can observe (Albert Einstein),” but at least a theory (in theory) is falsifiable. A tautology can maintain a theory beyond logic and scientific scrutiny because it is buttressed up by redundant propositions. Once a tautology becomes recognized in the process of validating a theory, it must be put aside as illogical. It does not mean that the theory is baseless, only that it cannot be bolstered by the reiteration.

You cannot validate the geologic column and the intimated chronology by saying that the fossils are dated by the rocks and then say, as necessity dictates, that the rocks are dated by the fossils. Your measurement essentially has no standard and the elasticity prevents evidential contradiction.

Science deserves better.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 3)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

 

Alleged creationist claim #3 – Education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, so it is appropriate for creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school science courses. Not to do so is a violation of the principles of education and the civil liberties of creationists. We have a right to be heard, and besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

 

Author Shermer elaborates, “Exposure to the many facets of issues is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy but most certainly not science; similarly, biology courses should not include lectures on American Indian creation myths.”

It is interesting that opponents of the biblical model of origins refer to their counter-paradigm as an –ism. The intimation is that creation is appropriately relegated to a philosophy while evolution is regarded as a scientific fact (or at least so close to being a fact that the uninitiated should not be encumbered with the dubiousness of its status).

I agree with Shermer that a balanced “exposure” is key and that informational suppression is counter to the general education process. But how does an intellect like Michael Shermer reconcile the classification of one cosmogony as philosophical but scientifically invalid and the other as the only appropriate historical axiom from which to contextualize every scientific discipline? This is a disingenuous misrepresentation and a gross suppression of reason. Both are models – theories that help the observer to make sense of the data.

Perhaps if schools consider the study of origins to be requisite to a well-rounded education, the contrasting paradigms ought to be presented in a philosophy or a world culture class. But to claim that evolutionism is satisfactorily scientific and that a creation cosmogony carries no weight to the lab is intellectually insincere.

“There is considerable harm,” warns Shermer, “in teaching creation-science as science because the consequent blurring of the line between religion and science means that students will not understand what the  scientific paradigm is and how to apply it properly.”

This has become the favored war-cry from the evolutionary trenches. Teaching creation as a viable cosmogonical option will only confuse the students and discourage would-be scientists from pursuing a science-centered career. Ultimately, it will weaken our national defenses and stifle medical research putting innocent lives at risk.

Shermer clarifies his distortion, “If the universe and Earth are only about ten thousand years old, then the modern sciences of cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and early human history are all invalid (not just biology)…all science becomes meaningless (p.53).”

The only “blurring” that is taking place is the line of distinction between operational and forensic (reconstructive) science (see Scripturosity article “Blinded By Science” – Part 2). One’s assigned age to the Earth or another’s cosmogonical axiom does not validate or invalidate the scientific disciplines in which they operate. All operational science can function freely and accurately from the perspective of either philosophical starting block – whether it happens to be a literal Genesis or Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

By way of personal experience, recently I benefitted from the scientific research of the inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine when I herniated one of the disks in my lower back (reminding me of nature’s Curse and adding me to its chorus of groaning). Having the distinct pleasure of meeting and dining with him during a trip to Long Island, it became clear that Dr. Raymond Damadian is not only a man of faith, but is a committed Christian and a young-earth creationist. Clearly, his preferred model of origins did not negatively influence his scientific discoveries or medical inventions.

Because my professional career is in energy exploration, I interact with geologists on a daily basis (see Scripturosity article “Oil, Oil, Everywhere” – Part 2). While the majority of these scientists subscribe to a deep-time, uniformitarian model of earth history, some of the most talented and successful within the profession contextualize their observations from a globally encompassing hydrologic catastrophe as detailed in the Genesis chronicles.

Origins suppositions, while they are certainly influential in worldview development, do not affect operational science.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 2)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

 

Alleged creationist claim #2 – Science only deals with the here-and-now and thus cannot answer historical questions about the creation of the universe and the origins of life and the human species.

 

This is a straw-man statement assigned incorrectly as the position of the biblical resistance. I would like to assume that these examples are simply based in an ignorance of the true creationist viewpoint or that Mr. Shermer actually heard this defense from a misinformed biblical enthusiast. But my suspicion is that opponents of the creation model are either not careful to research the true position or they intentionally misrepresent the claims in order to distract or re-route the debate into a more defensible posture.

I completely agree with Shermer when he says, “Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology.” He even acknowledges that “there are experimental sciences and historical sciences.”

Experimental sciences do measure and test and analyze in the “here-and-now.” Historical sciences, however, require that the informed observer use these measurements and analyses to construct past scenarios that best fit the evidence. What most naturalists are unwilling to concede is that observation is always preceded by presupposition.

One Harvard University paleoanthropologist, David Pilbeam, finally came to grips with the lack of substantive checks and balances within his field of study with this candid assessment in a 1978 article in Nature magazine entitled “Rearranging Our Family Tree.”

“Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive data…We are unaware of our many assumptions.”

“Conflicting visions of these human ancestors probably says more about our conflicting views of ourselves than about the actual fossil data.”

“In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking…Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data…I am more sober than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us.”

Albert Einstein admitted during an interview with German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, “…on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe.”

That is why Michael Shermer and like-minded proponents of naturalism can say, “Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science.” Likewise, when the Genesis account of origins is overlain as the forensic axiom, the experimental sciences reveal remarkable harmony with the record.

The evolutionists like to present themselves as unimpaired paragons of objectivity, but the truth is no evidential scrutiny is unaffected by a preexisting interpretational bias. In fact, it was a philosophical struggle that changed Charles Darwin’s worldview and his interpretation of every natural observation (see Scripturosity article “Darwin’s Un-natural Selection”).

Read Full Post »