Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

Kat · March 06, 2009, 12:36:17 PM

2008 Nashville Conference
Saturday morning part #1: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession1.mp3
Saturday morning part #2: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession2.mp3
Saturday morning part #3: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession3.mp3
Saturday morning part #4: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession4.mp3
Saturday morning part #5: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession5.mp3
Saturday morning part #6: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession6.mp3

#1 audio

Let me ask a general question. How many believe that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 or 20,000 years old and that God did create it that long ago in six, what we would call solar, 24-hour periods or days? How many think that is probably closer to the truth? Any one? Are you afraid to raise your hand? So you believe that?

[Someone's comment: Well that's what I've been taught.] So you're not quite sure now? [Right.] Okay, well that's good. How many believe for sure that the earth is maybe millions or billions of years old and that it's creation took million or billions of years? Okay, pretty close to half or a third.

How many believe that the flood was a world wide flood, described in Genesis 7? How many believe it was maybe a very large flood, but a regional flood some place? How many don't care one way or the other?

Well, a pretty good many years ago I saw things in Genesis. I knew this was a big subject and not one that I wanted to tactile until I had made certain progress in other areas.

The 'Lake of Fire' is kind of my signature articles I guess, along with a few others. I put 'You Fools, You Hypocrites, You Snakes' as the number one article, because I think it personifies my unique approach to the Scriptures more than anything that I have written. Then we put the 'Towers' paper right up front there too. Because it's a kind of timely issue now with the so called war on terrorism and all of that.

So I have had other priorities for some years. But I knew for some time that the 24-hour creation days were probably not what the Scriptures were talking about. Even going back like five years some of you will remember me speaking at some of the conferences about Adam and Eve. I just have never believed, in many years, that Adam was created in the afternoon on the sixth, of a 24-hour period, then his wife was created an hour and a half later or something. God had said two or three times that "it is not good for man to be alone." What? When I go to work in the morning I'm away from my wife for eight hours. I mean that is three or four times longer than he would have been away from Eve, if she was created before sunset. Well does that make sense?

He created Adam to dress and keep and cultivate the garden, long before He made Eve. He brought all of the animals to him to study and to name. I wouldn't doubt if some of the Hebrew names for some of those animals still reflect Adam naming them.

It's interesting, because when I was doing a study on 'Was there death before Adam's fall,' the names of certain birds of prey means to devour. That's what the word means, the name of the animal means to devour. Of course that shoots a hole in the theory that there was no death before Adam's fall. Because we've got animals that were devouring... not grapes, they were devouring other birds or other animals.

So I knew Eve came along I think years, certainly years... three, four, five or ten years after God formed Adam He formed Eve. That's why it says in the Hebrew that when Adam saw her... here it says in the King James.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones...

No, that is not what it said.

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones... (LITV)

"At last" is the connotation of that in Hebrew. Finally, that's what it means. Adam said to God, 'finally someone for me!' "At last!" Okay. The English loses a lot. He wouldn't have said that if she was made just two hours earlier.

The "evening and the morning," I knew that evening carried a connotation much deeper than the setting of the sun. And that morning carried a much more significant spiritual, symbolic meaning than the rising of the sun. When it says.

Gen 1:5 ...And coming is it to be evening and coming to be morning, day one. (CLV)

Then there was some other things too. When I am studying some of the words more carefully it says;

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow ... (KJV)

That word is sprout or to bud out of the ground. See the conventional thinking is that God created these trees with fruit hanging on it, so that 72 hours later Adam and Eve could be picking fruit and eating. But no, sprouting, He's sprouting trees in the garden. How long does it take a fruit tree to product good fruit? At least three years.

Where it says, Eve said to a serpent.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

What fruit? I mean if God started vegetation to start growing the third day and here they are at the sixth day and they've got fruit? How do you get fruit to grow in 72 hours? You have a major problem there. Then more recently, this past year, when I started studying this more deeply I saw more things.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

That's not the word erets - earth, that word ground - adamah means soil, "to till the soil." It takes thousands and thousands of years to make soil. You might say, 'well God just made some soil to begin with.' But that is not how it is made. You can say He did it, you can say He took a short cut and made soil. Soil has organic material in it, any where from 5% to 15%, but all soil that grows anything has organic matter in it. How do you have organic matter in the soil on the sixth day... No, excuse me, you've got to go back to the third day really, when stuff was growing. There was no soil.

Listen to this. It is amazing when you look and you know what you are looking for.

Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
v. 2 And the gold of that land is good:

This is on the day that God made man, three verses later... what gold? How could there be gold there? Where does gold come from? Gold comes from, out of the earth, in volcanoes. Everything comes out of the earth, copper, tin, iron, sulfur, gold, silver it all comes out of the earth. It's not laying around on top of the earth, it came 'out' of the earth.

On this poster we have geography terms, we have mountain, volcano, tundra, cannon, plateau, mesa, bad lands, hills, valley, lake, river, marsh, iceberg, ocean, bay, sound, cape, peninsula, prairie, cliff, dune, beach, desert, strait, gulf, plain, swamp, waterfall, channel, delta, sea, isthmus, island, lagoon. Those are geography terms of the topography of the earth.

Back in Genesis one and two and three and four and five and six, how many of these features were on the earth? Any comments or ideas? [comment from someone: all of them?] How many of these features would you find on the earth? Two. Actually in verses two, three, four, five and six you would have one feature, ocean or sea. By the third day you would have two features, the sea and the earth or the land.

Gen 1:9 ...and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

God said "let the dry appear," the dry land. So there was dry and wet. That's all that there was, dry and wet. Volcanoes take a long time to develop. God didn't create mountains, directly. The earth creates mountains. You see when there is plate tectonics and it pushes... you can see how my pages crumples up there, we're making mountains. That's how mountains are made.

God didn't say that He made each one of these features in Genesis one. It's a very simple outline. Plateau and mesa and desert... did God create deserts in the creation week? We know what brings about deserts. We know what brings about islands... volcanoes. The Hawaiian islands, they have been building for millions and millions of years.

So except for two, wet and dry, these features did not exist during the creation week, not until later on.
Now after verse eleven in there where it says and let there be green plants.

Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. (ESV)

Then the earth could start going through any and all of these phases from then on, over a period of billions of years or a least a couple of billion years.

So I had a problem with the soil and the gold. There wouldn't have been gold there. Gold has to first be erupted out of volcanoes and then to see it, it's got to be eroded away. It's the same way with soil. Soil is the erosion of mountains, that's what soil is.

I get a kick out of young earths, sometimes they contradict each other so dramatically that it's a hoot. They say, 'well if the earth is billions of years old, why wouldn't the whole earth just have twenty mile high mountains from all these volcanoes?' You know they keep piling on and piling on and if that had been going on for three or four million years these mountains would be twenty miles high from these volcanoes.

But then another young earth group says, 'if the earth is million and billions of year old how come everything has not eroded into the sea?' What? One says, 'how come it hasn't kept going up and up and up.' And the other says, 'how come it hasn't gone down and down and down?' You can't have it both ways. The fact of the matter is both are happening. It's always building up, mountain chains are always crumpling up. The erosion is always eroding away, so there is a equilibrium.

It's like the salt in the ocean. Humphreys and some of these guys with their salt in the ocean, it's just the dumbest theory. But they caught on to something that is just a little technical... you know most young earth people that follow this stuff they are not technological minded and they just eat it up. Then a real scientist comes along and just blows it out of the sky.

So I knew that there was problems with Genesis, if we were going to take the fundamentalist approach to this thing.

I found an email about two months ago and I didn't even know I had it anymore. I read it twice and I thought where did I get that? But I thought it was kind of interesting, so I thought, I'm going to use that at the conference. This is someone that sent me an email that was sent to him, so this person sends me this.

Ray,

Pat _____ just sent this to me. Answerstogenesis.org is the organization that I mentioned to you, it is in California. I thought you might find this worth your while to help you except the truth of Exodus 20:11.
---------

Okay lets just turn there. He thought that I didn't except the truth of this verse and he was saying, maybe this will open your mind up Ray and at last you will be able to except the truth of Exodus 20:11.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Well there it is, we work six days and rest the seventh, just as God worked six 24-hour solar days and rested the seventh. He said maybe this will help you except the truth of that. Oh really.

Now here is the part that Pat wrote;

I thought I would share this with you after our phone discussion on the subject of old earth verses young earth. Jay Wiley is a good friend of mine and a scientist with a PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is a former Indiana State professor and has written several books on science related subject as well as a home school science curriculum.

I emailed him stating, if the earth is young, science should bear out Scripture and vise versa, which it does. I see that more clearly now. I apologize for my corner of doubt that I related to you, regarding resent articles I had read describing an older earth. I have a hard time understanding time and numbers with God.

Perhaps Ray would be interested in what Jay has to say. He leaves room for a change in his theology if science can prove an old earth. But at this time I see that is not the case.

Thanks,
Pat
---------

Well they will have their day in court. So then here is the message that Pat got from Dr. Wiley that he sent to this person and then he sent it on to me.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for your email. It was good to hear from you. I am indeed a young earther, because I do think that science points that way. I can incorporate a young earth into my theology, because I think science clearly points to a young earth. Here are my top five (5) arguments for a young earth.

1) Earth's magnetic field. To date the only theory that can correctly predict the magnetic field of planet earth in the solar system is the rapid decay theory by Dr. Russell Humphreys. He was even able to correctly predict magnetic fields of two planets, that magnetic fields that had not been measured. When the measurement were made his theory was the only one that was right. In addition his theory predict (although Mars has no magnetic field now, it should have had one in the past) the famous Mars rock that is supposedly to have shown evidence for life on Mars, actually indicates at one time that Mars did have a magnetic field. The rapid decay theory requires a earth younger than 10,000 years.

2) Helium in the atmosphere. The compelling idea about this technique is that there are no unknown pathways for escape of helium. Due to it's chemical inertness. All old earthers who have studied it recognize that helium issue as a big problem.

References:
McDonald, 'Escaped Helium From the Atmosphere.

Chambers...

Joseph Donald, the Theory Of Planetary Atmosphere.

Gladimere (Ray's comment: of course that is one of their own people) The Age Of The Earth Atmosphere.

The study of The Helium Flux Through The Atmosphere, from the Institute for Creation Research.

3) Helium in Zircons. Once again, there is no way to see any other means by which helium can be created or leave rocks. In the amount of helium, zircons indicate extremely young rock. Reference - Gentry. (Ray's comment: He gives Gentry as a reference, although Gentry does not say that at all. He uses him as a reference just to pull out something that he wants, but that doesn't back up his theory.)

4) Dendrochronology. Still the most accurate dating technique known. You just can not find dendrochronological sequence older than 20,000 years, with the inherent problem of double and triple rings, this number is clearly too large.

5) Sodium in the Ocean. This one has been studied until the time of Newton. We have identified all inlets and outlets of sodium and even if the ocean was originally fresh water, there is no way to understand why it has such little salinity in an old earth.
---------

So there it is, this guy is a physicist or whatever, has a PhD in physical chemistry or whatever. There are his five things. Do they sound convincing? Do they sound scientific? I mean first he starts off with Dr. Humphreys (he's got a legitimate degree), works at Los Alamos the federal government project there. There is five of them, but if the earth is old those five don't stand and those five are scientific... or are they. We'll take a little look at that later.

What I want to talk about next for a little bit, is where is the authority for the teachings, doctrines and theories of a young earth and a global flood? Who are the authorities? Because if you are going to argue from a scientific perspective, beginning with cosmology and astrology and bringing it down to geology, then of course the Scripture too... who is qualified to argue these things? Is there some area of expertise that represents all of the young earth advocates of the world? Does anybody know? [Comment from someone: the church?] No, the church knows very little in these areas.

See if you are going to talk about earth geology being the result of Noah's flood and that the Grand Canyon strata was laid down in Noah's flood, you have to be at least a geologist even to attempt to explain how those layers were or were not laid down.

Well there is a source. If you go to the internet you will find links where they teach all these theories that the earth is young, the flood is global and God created everything in six literal solar 24-hour days. The most preeminent of them all is a site called 'Answers In Genesis.' This is the one my friend had given me in the email, he said, 'this is the one I told you about Ray, here is where it is all at.'

'Answers In Genesis' is headed by a number of reputable scientist. Now many of the scientist are pseudoscientist or fraudulent fake scientist in that area of young earth creationalism. And they do not have legitimate degrees at all. But Dr. Steven Austin has a PhD in Geology at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. John Boomgardener has a PhD in Geo Physics and Space Science. These are pretty advanced fields of study.
Eugene Chaffin has a PhD Theoretical Physics.
Don DeYoung has a PhD in Physics.
Dr. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in Physics.
Andrew Snelling has a PhD in Physics.
These are from Iowa State, Penn. State, University of Sydney.
Larry Vardiman has PhD in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

Now these are reputable scientist and I would not disparage their knowledge of sciences and physics and geology, not at all. But what I will do is I will destroy their credibility. It isn't that I personally am going to destroy their credibility, I'm going to pass on to you where they have already destroyed their own credibility. I believe every one of these (with the exception of maybe one or two, but for the most part I think I have read enough on all of these), I think they bend the truth, twist the truth and fabricate stuff that doesn't exist. They'll use information that's legitimate, that will help their cause and reject others that contradict it and they will on occasion lie. Now when we are done with these, we are going to see how much credibility they have.

This is the supreme council of young earth advocates on this earth, there is no one higher. No one comes ahead of these men in promoting or explaining young earth theory, no one. Anybody that has come up with anything on their own, be it some Doctor of physics in Russia, I'll guarantee you in the last twenty years or more some one has come across it and it is filtered through Answers in Genesis or one of their publications. So this is the source. There is no one out side of these people and their affiliates that has any credible for a young earth and a global flood. No one that I know of.

Kat · March 06, 2009, 07:37:26 PM

Audio #2

I mentioned 'Answers in Genesis' (there are some others, but they trade back and forth on the young earth creation sites), before I start going through some of these people; what they say, what they don't say, what they believe and teach and so on. There is some really good material they have, you could read on your own sometimes, that might be helpful.

There is a paper written by Mr. Glen Morton called 'Morton's Demon.' Glen Morton use to be a young earth advocate, then after he got his PhD and went into the oil field, he saw that none of it made sense any more. But he wrote that thing 'Morton's Demon,' which is a take off on somebody that wrote about a real demon that was trying to promote perpetual motion... you know where there is no lose of energy and it keeps something going, it's along that line and it is very good.

I'm going to quote a little bit from Dr. Joshua Zorn, because this is so typical. Why is this important? Why do we want to know the truth of this matter? So God created everything in six literal days... or six thousand years... or created it sixteen billion years ago. And was there a localized flood described in the account of Noah or did it cover the whole earth... the whole globe... the whole planet? What does it matter? Is it really that big of a deal? Does it have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ or salvation or any of those things? It has a great deal to do with it, a great deal.

The Scriptures talk about God and the Word of God being blasphemed among the nations.

Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you, as it is written.

Now I'm here to tell you that one reason that I'm covering this, is this is one of the biggest ways of teaching contrary to the Scriptures. That God created the heavens and the earth in six literal 24-hour periods, six thousand years ago and that Noah's flood covered the whole planet, that teaching is blaspheming the word of God. Because that is not what the word of God teaches.

It's also blaspheming the truth in the face of science, because that is not what science and geology and all of the laws of the universe teach either. It's against both of those.

There is two billion Christians and the majority of them believe in this literal 24-hour six thousand year ago creation, with the global flood that destroyed everything on earth. So if there are two billion Christians then there are four billion that are not Christians.

There are four billion people out there that when they hear the Christian doctrine... they don't get upset at the teachings of Jesus Christ. They don't have a problem with the fact that Jesus Christ was a good man who said turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, do unto others, they don't have a problem with that. They don't find that silly or stupid or evil or anything, they don't have a problem with that. I'll tell you what they have a problem with, they have a problem with the first page of the Christian Bible, because they believe what Christians teach is what that Bible teaches, that God created the heavens and the earth six thousand years ago in six 24-hour days.

Most of those people know that that is impossible, so it's, 'your holy book is stupid. You want me to believe in a holy book where the first chapter contradicts everything we are taught in all the major universities of the world, it's stupid. I'm not going to believe in such a God and such a religion.' But that is not what the first chapter teaches and that is not what science teach.

Everything that I am saying is in my opinion. Because one day they are going to come after me with high powered attorneys. In my opinion these people are not only dishonest, but frauds.

So I'm going to go through some of it, I have spent many hundreds and hundreds of hours to find this stuff, because I knew it was there. I know where there is smoke there is fire and that's how I do my Bible study. When I know that there is some piece of truth that God is showing me, I keep looking, because I know that there is more. If that's truth, I know that there is more I just have to find it. It's like a treasure, you dig and dig until you find it.

The Testimony of a Former Young Earth Missionary
Dr. Joshua Zorn

How I Came to Believe That the Earth Is Young
I became a Christian in 1973 at the age of thirteen when my Sunday school teacher took four lessons to explain the plan of salvation to us. Although I had attended church (in a mainline denomination) all my life, this was the first time I had heard that the blood of Christ shed at the cross could wash away my sins. I immediately accepted this good news that salvation was by grace through faith and not by works. I began a new life in Christ which has now led me to work as a church planter in the former Soviet Union.

A few years after my conversion, as I was traveling across the country with a busload of Boy Scouts on our way to Philmont Scout Reservation in New Mexico, I picked up a small book at a truck stop in Nebraska. It presented a radical view of earth history from a Christian perspective and I was fascinated. After returning home I quickly found related literature in my local Christian bookstore and I became an enthusiastic devotee of young earth creation science (YECS) as promoted by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

[Comment from Ray: Now that's (ICR) the highest educational body of these young earth advocates.]

As the son of a physics professor, I had a love for science and as a naive and enthusiastic young believer, my mind was fertile ground for the ideas of this movement. If Christianity were true and the world were against Christianity, we would have to oppose the world, especially the doctrines which had resulted in the decline of faith in the western world.

College Years as a Young Earth Enthusiast
As there was no access to other Christian points of view, I probably would have remained a YECSer all my life had I not gone on for further studies. I sailed through my undergraduate years at a liberal arts college with a major in mathematics, never encountering in class sufficient evidence to shake my belief in a young earth or rabid opposition to evolution. (I took no classes in biology or geology). In fact, I took the initiative to hold a public lecture entitled "Darwin--Was He Wrong?" to which I invited all my friends as well as the campus at large. I had answers to all the feeble scientific objections that my fellow students could raise (which demonstrates, I think, how few people really have their beliefs founded on facts as opposed to indoctrination) and felt that I had carried the day. Fortunately for me, no faculty showed up!

The Collapse of a False Belief
I do remember one moment of doubt and humility as an undergraduate. I was walking through a university library looking at shelf after shelf of books on geology. Could all these educated people really be so completely wrong?

By the time I entered graduate school, I had discovered Christian geologist Davis Young's book, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before, and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. I found that all the other Christian graduate students had problems with YECS geological arguments. And so, although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so rejected the young earth position.

The Crisis
But rejection of the young earth was not only a matter of science. It affected my faith and the core of my life. I believed that the Scriptures taught a young earth and was seeing that the scientific method led to a different conclusion. Worse yet, I was aware that if the earth is old, maybe the theory of evolution is true. Did this mean that the Bible was wrong and perhaps my entire belief in the Gospel was misplaced? I went through a period of deep soul seeking, clinging to the Lord although I could not make sense of Scripture and science. In the end, I agreed to follow the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth, be open-minded but skeptical toward evidence for evolution, and not abandon the faith (which I was convinced was true for many other reasons). I just confessed that I did not have all the answers on how to interpret Genesis.

Evaluation of YECS Science
Twelve years have gone by since I abandoned the young earth viewpoint. As I continued to study (toward a Ph.D. in mathematics with applications in population genetics), I unfortunately saw argument after argument of the YECSers crumble in the face of evidence, both new and old. The list is in the hundreds and goes far beyond the issue of the age of the earth. The last straw was when evidence forced the ICR to back down on its claim of overlapping man and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy river bed in Texas.

[Comment: In Glen Rose Texas, this guy Dr. Carl Baugh, who is on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, he has a little house 'Creation Museum.' He's the one that kind of popularized these tracks there in the Paluxy River, it's not a big river. They found dinosaur's tracks and then he claims that there are human footprints in the same strata as the dinosaur's tracks. Well it turned out to be totally bogus, although hundreds of thousands of young earth Christians around the world are still sitting down and sending emails telling others how this is proof. The whole thing has been blown out years and years ago. What looked like it could have been sort of a human footprint, as more erosion took place it uncovered a more clear dinosaur track.]

It is truly unfortunate that such well-meaning Christians who share with me both a high regard for Scripture and evangelism, have made so many scientific errors. Although it pains me to part company with Christian brethren, I believe they are doing more harm than good and urge you to be skeptical of their science.

YECS arguments have been refuted in many places by both Christian and secular authors. For starters, let me recommend Creation and Time by former astrophysicist and evangelism pastor, Dr. Hugh Ross. Ross refutes ten typical arguments for a young earth.

The YECS movement has spread out of Seventh Day Adventism into American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. The history of the movement has been meticulously documented in the book, The Creationists, by Numbers.

Very few of the early Jewish interpreters or church fathers held to the six consecutive twenty-four-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1.

[Comment; Did you know that? People think that early Christians and early scholars that they all believed that the earth was created recently, a couple thousand years ago, in six days. They did not! All major Jewish cabbalist and rabbis and historians who know the Hebrew well, did not believe that. They knew that there was a deeper meaning to that evening and morning, it did not represent day and night or a day.

There is a lot of misinformation out there that is fraudulent information. I mean young earthers will teach that this whole geological column of billions of years that that was invented by evolutionist, so that they would have plenty of time to work in their theory of how we evolved from sea slime. No!

Christian geologist long before Darwin ever wrote his book, didn't believe that there was a global flood when they studied the geology, Christian geologist. It is mostly English geologist that really started to study the strata back in the late 1700's, early 1800's. Long before Darwin came onto the scene. You know that is a lie.]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who concludes that "Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed."

Many arguments put forth by Christians against evolution do not stand up to scrutiny.

[Comment: Now you have to understand when we talk about evolution we are not automatically talking about atheistic spontaneous generation and all of that. That word evolution is not a nasty word, it does have meaning and it does fit into the scheme of many things that we find in nature.

One thing that really popularized the idea that the earth is very young and created in six 24-hour periods, is the book 'The Genesis Flood' by Witcom Morris. I think that came out in 1961. I went to Ambassador college in 1967 and that was required reading, we had to read that. The whole book is fraud, the whole book. It just twist everything around, it's pseudoscience, fraudulent science.]

Lessons from My Life
It is sinful (slanderous and untrue) to teach that all who believe in an old earth are liberals who don't care about evangelism. It is precisely because I do believe in evangelism that I am writing this paper!

Christianity Is Not in Opposition to Science
In our everyday lives, we constantly apply and even trust in the results of scientific research. The technologies to build an airplane, create antibiotics, or evangelize distant peoples via Christian radio all depend on the accuracy of our understanding of how the world works as discovered by the scientific method. Thus Christians have gained much from the sciences. Science continues to be so successful at generating knowledge in its proper fields that it is unwise for so much of the church to be so against certain results of science.

[Comment: I put together most of my writings and so on, on a computer and I use e-Sword. I use to fumble my way through Strong's concordance and it was very tedious. I mean e-Sword is like, whoa. You can download it free, just look up e-Sword.net. You can type in any word and it will give you, from Genesis to Revelation, every verse where the word is found. You can use your mouse and you can click on the Hebrew or the Greek word from which it came and you get it instantly, it's amazing.

Science... if they put together e-Sword and computers with the same dexterity and trustworthiness as these men that teach a young earth, then there would not be an internet. I mean you couldn't use anything, because it wouldn't work.]

As Christians we do believe in miracles, such as the resurrection of Christ, which go beyond scientific explanation. But our belief in occasional miracles is no reason for us to oppose science as such.

Negative Spiritual Implications of YECS
The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church.

How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture? How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their reputation? How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"? How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James 3:1) things that probably are not even true? Each must search his own heart.

As I write this paper, I see YECS literature becoming more and more widely distributed in the growing churches in my corner of the former Soviet Union. We are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even harder than it is already. Lord, give us wisdom!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html
------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a reason why this is a damnable doctrine.

Kat · March 06, 2009, 07:39:36 PM

audio #2

Glen Morton... I don't know this guy, but I kind of love him, because I have read so much of his stuff. He's my kind of man.

      Why I left Young-earth Creationism
      by Glenn R. Morton

[Comment: He is the one who wrote 'Morton's Demons' by the way. Glen Morton went to the Institution of Creation Research and got a degree there. He then went on to work in the oil fields for thirty years. He's a real expert in seismology and different things. He personally is accredited with finding thirty three major oil fields, he knows his stuff, he know geology and seismology and so on.]

I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield. This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers.

[Comment: There are three different kinds of rocks; igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic. Igneous is what comes out of the ground from volcanoes, it's hot then cools.

Sedimentary is when those formations like the Hawaiian Islands are ground down by wind, rain, sun, earth quakes, glaciers and all of those things. It flows down into the valleys and becomes soil - sedimentary rock.

30,000 feet, that's nearly six miles of strata.]

One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.

I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

[Comment: John Morris is one of the main men in Answers in Genesis and the main man behind the new creation museum up in Frankfort Kentucky. A $27 million museum.]

John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry. John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. (In a review of what took place states: "Morton chopped him off at the ankles.")

[Comment: This is John Morris of Witcom and Morris of the Genesis flood, of the Creation Museum and Answers to Genesis, the most reputable young earth site on the entire worldwide web, this John Morris.]

Two questions, said Morton: What oil company did you work for? "Well, uh." Actually Morris never worked for an oil company.

[Comment: How are you going to believe these guys? When they will give you a formula that will fill this whole wall of blackboards, technical stuff that you could not begin to comprehend. How do you trust them? I will tell you... you don't! If you have to, you get an atheistic scientist and he'll cut his ankles off. Better yet get a Christian scientist. There is fraud going on.]

Second question, How old is the Earth? "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College (part of this group of young-earthers), and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them.

When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data.

This type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them.

Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data:
'an apostate,'(Humphreys)

[Comment: This data is what he finds under ground and on seismic charts and things like volcanoes, rivers, impact craters. How did that stuff get down there in Noah's flood?]

He said he was call 'a apostate' by Dr. Humphreys.

[Comment: Remember we read the list of the five (5) most profound proofs of a young earth. The first one was by Dr. Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys calls Dr. Morton 'an apostate.']

'a heretic' (Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is)
'a compromiser' (Henry Morris)
"absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful" (John Woodmorappe)
'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.)
'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas])
"I have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

[Comment: Why? Because Dr. Morton showed them the evidence, data. They didn't know what to do with it and they didn't like it. So they criticize and ridicule and condemn. Now he graduated from this Institute of Creation Research, they have a course in geology.]

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true.

[Comment: Did you get that? NOTHING that he was taught at the Institute for Creation Research on geology... when he went out in the field with Atlantic Richfield for thirty years, NOTHING WAS TRUE! ]

I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

[Comment: Did you get that? He asked, did anything that you were taught, when you went out into the field and applied your trade, did anything turns out to be true? ]

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'

A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one.

[Comment: Does this amaze you like it amazes me? You know I'm not very bright and these guys write all kinds of formulas, Dr. Austin, Dr. Baumgardener, Dr. Moraffie, all these guys write all these formulas. I don't know what all those formulas mean, but some of these other Christian scientist do and they will show you where they go off the track. Just because you are not well educated doesn't mean you have to be a fool.]

No one else could name one either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

[Comment: All these great muckyde mucks with all their degrees and everything and add that to their great theological insight and all the Scriptures and everything else. They teach these young men and women these things and then they go out into the real world and it's all a crock.

Like Dr. Morton said, he would go down 30,000 ft. and I'll show you one thing after another after another after another... it's proof that there never was a global flood involved in laying down any of that strata.]

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.

[Comment: there's the problem].

I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/Evolution. He presented a wonderful Days of Proclamation view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism.

[Comment: So what he is saying is, I don't believe all of the stuff that he wrote was correct, but he said that the book that he wrote was a great help and without it he would now be an atheist.]

There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally yet, it did change my life.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

You just don't find this everywhere, you've got to dig for some of this stuff. It's amazing what is in there. We will be reading more of Glen Morton's stuff.

The truth of the matter is there are no theories of young-earth creationist that are either historical, scientific or Scriptural. There are thousands of proofs that there never was a global flood and that the earth is billions of years old. Thousands, and there is not one to prove the opposite. Not one.

One of the great writers on the internet has a site Answers in Creation, of course his site is an answer to the site Answers in Genesis. Because Answers in Genesis is just pseudoscience. But anyway Greg Neman has the site Answers in Genesis. He has a page that says;

      Evidence for a Young Earth
   This section of articles presents scientific evidence for a young earth.

Of course the page is blank.

In over twenty years of searching we (this man is a Christian, Bible believing, Applied Physicist and a reputable PhD.) have yet to find any. If we find any we will post them right here.

So I think I have already destroyed some of these men's credibility. I'm going to destroy some more. You make say, 'so Ray is this fair to be knocking the character of these men?' Absolutely.

If I want to discourage you from believing in what Satan has to sell you, the first thing I'm going to teach you is that he is a lair and the father of it.

      Answers in Genesis

History:
Answers in Genesis resulted from the merger of two Australian creationist organizations in 1980, Educational Media Service and Creation Science Educational Media Service, formed by John Mackay, Ken Ham. The group merged with Carl Wieland's Creation Science Association in 1980 becoming the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) that subsequently became Answers in Genesis (AiG).

In 1987, Ken Ham was seconded by CSF to work for the Institute for Creation Research in the United States, then in 1994 left ICR (Institute for Creation Research) to found Answers In Genesis-USA. Later that year, CSF in Australia and other countries changed their names to Answers In Genesis (AiG).

In 2004 they have an average of 35,000 to 45,000 visitors a day. Following "turmoil" in 2005, by February 2006 Answers in Genesis-USA and the UK office "withdrew" from the AiG "family", retaining the brand name and the website. The Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and South African branches rebranded themselves as Creation Ministries International (CMI). After some of AiG's comments in late 2006, AiG became involved in a legal dispute with CMI. CMI has accused AiG-USA of damaging and publicly defaming their ministry. In 2007, CMI filed suit against AiG-USA alleging a variety of wrongdoings.

[Comment: This is going through all the stuff the UK version of Answers in Genesis went through. They rebranded themselves 'Ministries International.' AiG became involved in a legal dispute and now they are suing each other back and forth. Typical of what you would expect of a good Christian organization... all suing each other, claiming fraud or title infringements or whatever nonsense that is involved.
AiG of course rejects most of real science.]

A young universe is challenged by the distant starlight problem, which presents the dilemma of how light from objects millions or billions of light years away could be observed in a young universe. Some creationists have attempted to answer this with explanations involving God creating light en-route or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the past.

[Comment: So what He created the stars and then He kind of created the light halfway here? Why do they come up with all that nonsense? Because they have nothing.]

Why do they fabricate formulas? Why do they use outdated material? Why do they use experiments that they knew did not function properly by the first people that used it thirty or forty years ago, rather than three or four years ago, when they had perfected many of these areas of methodology? Why? Because they have nothing. Why do they keep propagating the same stupid theories twenty years after they have been proven wrong? Why? Because they have nothing. Because they have nothing or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the pass, that was Dr. Humphreys. They don't even blush when they say it. They just come up with this stupid stuff.

Dr. Humphreys contends that while the material components of the universe will be expelled from this white hole theory of his. The outside regain contains some stars that would have aged billions of years while the earth would have only aged a day or so. Actually there is a inkling of credibility to his theory if you reverse it. The aging took place here on earth, while where the spreading out of the universe took place would be days, compared millions and billions of years. But I don't want to confuse you.

But real scientist look at this and says;
"Humphreys fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore - we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else - but that is far from the only problem with the model. In particular, Humphreys badly mangles the standard General Relativity (GR) treatment for gravitational time dilation - in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole.

Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations."

There are more legal controversies and all that, but I don't want to get into that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis
------------------------------------------------------

Kat · March 07, 2009, 09:48:39 AM

Audio #3

I have some papers here on The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and this thing has gone through all kinds of splits and one thing or the other. I think they took it down to Texas, but they wouldn't grant them accreditation and so on.

   Institute for Creation Research

In 1982 the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) received accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS). According to Henry Morris, TRACS is a "product of the ICR Graduate School."

[Comment: I mean, so if you can't get accredited then create your own accreditation society or associations and accredit yourself. Am I going to fast for anyone?]

On April 23, 2008 education board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees.

[Comment: because they failed to meet all kinds of parameters. This is the greatest institution for young-earthers, you know.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research
----------------------------------------------------------------

     Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
      By Brett Vickers

Thomas Barnes
(1911-2001?)
Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, is perhaps best known for the argument that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is proof of its young age.

[Comment: This is the one, that the guy sent me the email, the Physicist who said here are my top ten (10). The first one he said was probably Dr. Humphreys theory of this... well it isn't even Dr. Humphreys theories, it's Thomas Barnes' theory. Humphreys got it from him.]

Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary.

[Comment: He calls himself a doctor and he does not have a legitimate science of doctor degree, he does not.]

Carl Baugh
(b. ?)
Baugh is a Baptist minister who claims to be an archeologist with a Ph.D.

[Comment: Carl Baugh is the guy on Creation in the Twentieth Century on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. This goes around the entire world preaching the heresy of the fundamentalist church. ]

an archeologist with a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges, the primary body responsible for college and university accreditation in the region.

Baugh has also claimed (2) Ph.D. degrees, in education and anthropology from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas. According to Glen Kuban, who has thoroughly researched Baugh's Paluxy "man-track" claims and his credentials, neither Pacific College nor the College of Advanced Education is accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees. Pacific College is a small religious school run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson, a close associate of Baugh's. The College of Advanced Education is a division of the International Baptist College, of which Baugh himself is president.

Baugh's dissertation for his degree from Pacific College is titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and dinosaurs were Contemporary".

[Comment: This was the name of his dissertation. Give me a break.]

Its contents include descriptions of his field-work on the Paluxy river "man-tracks", speculation about Charles Darwin's religious beliefs and phobias, and odd ramblings about the biblical Adam's mental excellence.

[Comment: Will come back to Baugh a little later.]

Richard Bliss
(1923-1994)
Richard Bliss, formerly a member of the ICR staff, claimed to be "a recognized expert in the field of science education." Bliss claimed to earn a D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota in 1978. A previous version of this article described the university as a "diploma mill operating out of a Florida motel" as late as 1984.

[Comment: These are all part of the Institute of Creation Research which became the Answers in Genesis. The greatest names, with the greatest scholastic achievements in young-earth science.]

Clifford Burdick
(1894-1992)
Clifford Burdick, a researcher for the Creation Research Society and a member of the Creation-Science Research Center.
Burdick has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences (Phoenix, Arizona) in Carl Baugh's Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. According to Ronald Numbers inquiries revealed the University of Physical Science to be nothing more than a registered trademark.

[Comment: Are you believing this stuff !?]

As described in its memographed bulletin, 'The University is not an educational institution, but a society of individuals of common interest for the advancement of physical science. There are no campus, professors or tuition fee.'"

Kent Hovind
(b. 1953)
[Comment: Does that name ring a bell with anybody? I think I received two or maybe three emails from people who said, 'Ray your going to cover Kent Hovind, aren't you? I mean you're not going to let this conference slip by without you discussing Kent Hovind and all his teachings and everything?' It's because he is called Dr. Dino for dinosaur. Then the emailer gave me web sites where his teachings are and on and on and on. I wrote back and said, oh no, I won't skip Kent Hovind, not 'Dr.' Kent Hovind. I'll be sure to mention him.

I got the feeling that one of the emails was saying, I'd hate to see you make a fool out of yourself Ray. I hate to see you get up there and teach all this stuff and not cover Dr. Kent Hovind, who just totally destroys all these old-earth theories and everything and evolution and all of that. He totally destroys it all, in a masterful way. So I would hate to see you make a fool out of yourself and not cover him. Yea we will cover him.]

Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur (amphibian dinosaur).

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools.

[Comment: We'll talk about that 250 dissertation in a little bit.]

Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It (comment: that's a web site) lists Patriot University as a degree mill.

[Comment: It's a fraud.]

Don Patton
(b. 1941)
Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.

Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:
When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees.

Kelly Seagraves
(b. 1942)
Kelly Segraves is the director and co-founder of the Creation-Science Research Center (not to be confused with the Creation Research Society).
In 1975, Segraves listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university could be located.

[Comment: So first the degree is not real, it's honorary and comes from a university that no one could locate.]

After having this degree called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981 and now lists D.R.E. in its place.

[Comment: D.R.E. is a Doctorate of Religion Education. Of course it has nothing to do with science.]

Segraves also claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972. According to Bears' Guide (comment: that's on universeities.)

Sequoia University was issued a permanent injunction in 1984 by a Los Angeles judge and ordered to "cease operation until the school could comply with state education laws."

[Comment: Not regulation so that you can be accredited, but laws.]

Harold Slusher
(b. 1934)
Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.
Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill." Ronald Numbers describes CPU as:
an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band.

[Comment: I mean you can't make this stuff up. Yet people will email me and say, 'Ray maybe this will help you except the truth.' Well maybe this will help 'you' except the truth.]

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You know I really should just skip through this stuff, but it is so incredible, that I just can't. I have to lay it on you.

We talked about Carl Baugh and showed his degrees, but he gets a little more involved. This guy, when you won't except one of his degrees, then he will say, 'well I've got a masters degree over here or I've got a doctorate over there.' His is the guy that comes on television on TBN, Creation and the 21st Century.

      A Matter of Degree:
   Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials

Texas "man track" enthusiast Carl E. Baugh claims to have "degrees in theology" as well as advanced degrees in science. Baugh's "man track" claims have been evaluated and refuted on the basis of the physical evidence alone.

Although questions have been raised before about Baugh's science degrees, the theology degree most frequently claimed by Baugh is a "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the California Graduate School of Theology." Baugh described this as an "earned degree."

[Comments: Not a honorary or phony or something else. Not a degree mill, but an "earned degree."]

An "earned degree" (implying normal course work and graduation); however, attempts to verify the degree from CGST have been unsuccessful, and a former close associate of Baugh's stated that the degree was "not real, but honorary." In any case, the school is not accredited by any national or regional accrediting agency, and evidently has little standing in the academic community (it is not even listed in standard college and graduate school directories).

A December 1986 "vita" by Baugh did not mention the degree from CGST, but did list "1959, Bachelor of Arts, Burton College" and "1983, Master of Arts, Luther Rice in Conjunction with Pacific College of Graduate Studies." I have not been able to verify the existence of Burton College. Luther Rice is an unaccredited seminary in Jacksonville, Florida. A representative from Luther Rice indicated that Baugh graduated in 1984 with an M.A. in "Biblical archaeology...through our Australian extension ...since we don't have a degree in that."

Baugh gave the location of the College of Advanced Education (CAE) as Irving, Texas; however, the Chamber of Commerce, and Department of Taxation, and phone directory in Irving have no record of the school. When pressed by an assistant for the address of CAE, Baugh gave it as "2355 West Pioneer, Irving, TX, 75061" and indicated that its dean was Dr. Don Davis.. The address appears on a small house in Irving, located next to Sherwood Baptist Church, whose pastor is Rev. Don Davis. Davis indicated that CAE is a "missions" school, with no science classes or facilities.

[Comment: This is the guy on international television, TBN, day after day, week after week, year after year representing this nonsense to the world.]

Rev. Davis explained that Baugh's anthropology degree was granted "through" CAE, "under the auspices of Clifford Wilson in Australia."

A copy of Baugh's CAE "diploma" (furnished by Baugh) indicates that CAE is the "Graduate Division" of International Baptist College (IBC).

[Comment: These things just go on and on and on. Well where is the actual school, oh there aren't any.]

However, the school is not accredited, nor certified to grant degrees in any subject. When I called IBC in 1986, the man answering the phone stated that IBC is a correspondence school for Bible studies based on cassette tapes by Jerry Falwell. Further, the letterhead of IBC listed Baugh himself as "President." Thus, it appears that Baugh essentially granted himself a science degree from a branch of his own unaccredited Bible school.

[Comment: You can't make this stuff up. This is just a total sham.]

Pacific College Incorporated (a.k.a Pacific College of Graduate Studies and Pacific International University), from which Baugh claims a master's degree in archaeology, traces to a small, private, religious school in Australia, whose president is Clifford Wilson.

[comment: PCI is not accredited or authorized to grant degrees. Any degrees from college is illegal in Australia and fraudulent in the United States.]

Moreover, a recent booklet by Baugh states that Baugh received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the College of Advanced Education in conjunction with Pacific International University (emphasis added). Thus, all of Baugh's alleged science degrees seem to trace circuitously back to Baugh himself and his partner Wilson--through their own unaccredited religious schools and/or branches of them.

Last, there is no evidence that Baugh has even a undergraduate degree in any field of science.

[Comment: And he parades those doctors degrees with such pride.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.ht

Kat · March 07, 2009, 09:51:56 AM

These are kind of unrelated things, but I found them so I'm going to comment on them.

"TULSA ZOO REMOVES EVOLUTION EXHIBIT"

Tulsa architect Dan Hicks, supported by a petition signed by 2000 area residents, plus a scientifically conducted poll showing that over 2/3 of the city's population believed the zoo should not promote evolution...

[Comment: I think this was the Answers in Genesis or their publications or something.]

...was able recently to persuade city officials to remove exhibits depicting horse evolution and human evolution from display at the zoo. Hicks and his co-workers credited the influence of ICR materials with playing a significant part in this action and also suggested that citizens in other communities could undertake similar projects."

[Comment: So somebody decided to check that out. They contacted the ICR inquiring about the scientific poll that was conducted, from all these people that did not want this in their town and they never received an answer.]

There was no "scientifically conducted poll" done by ICR or anybody else. The Zoo did NOT remove any exhibits depicting horse and human evolution.

[Comment: But they printed it in their publications and Answers in Genesis.]

One would THINK that ICR would have learned a lesson from having this lie exposed. Alas, they have not. In the December 2003 issue of "Acts and Facts", we find:
"A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY Grand Canyon National Park invited Dr. Steve Austin, ICR geologist, to speak to rangers about his discovery of an extraordinary fossil deposit within Grand Can- yon. The talk to uniformed rangers and science research coordinators occurred on the south rim of Grand Canyon. Dr. Austin illustrated the mass kill and burial bed containing billions of large nautiloid fossils within the Redwall Limestone. Discussion followed about how limestone strata could be deposited in minutes.

[Comment: That thing is how many, 300 feet thick I think and deposited in minutes?]

The rangers expressed interest in improving geologic lectures to the public and changing signs which consider only uniform sedimentary process oper- ating over millions of years and wanted to explore other creationist thinking on Grand Canyon."

[Comment: That what they recorded in their publication, okay. Dr. Austin their man of faith and power... their man was invited to give this lecture. They were very interested, they wanted to hear more and were even going to start changing the signs at the Grand Canyon, okay.]

Since this spiel sounded so similar to the earlier Tulsa Zoo lie, I had my suspicions that ICR was fibbing yet again. A quick email to the National Park Service's Grand Canyon office confirmed that my suspicions were indeed correct. The Park Service responded:

[Comment: Are you ready for this? Now you read that little glowing report there, about how he talked to all those rangers and they were so interested and that they were going to change some of the signs and some of the explanation of what people are seeing there in the Grand canyon and so on. This is from the park Grand Canyon Park Service.]

"Hello Lenny,
Thanks very much for bringing your information of Steve Austin to our attention. Steve Austin was one of the 100 or so Research Permit holders in our park. All Permit holders are obligated under the Permit requirements to submit articles or presentations to the park for the purpose of educating interested park staff on the nature of their research. Steve came to present his research under the guidelines of discussing only his study methods and results (the same constraints for all research presenters) - and that is exactly what he did without one reference to Noah, Noah's flood, or any other creationist ideas.

I don't know what individual rangers said to him privately after his presentation regarding his study; however during the public question and answer period he was scrutinized and questioned very rigorously by a few of the Park Interpretive Rangers. No one at any time expressed interest in changing our interpretive signs to include creationist views.
I am sorry to learn Steve Austin is not being truthful about the circumstances of his research presentation. Our policy is to allow all researchers an opportunity to present their data in a public forum at the Park; however, if researchers abuse this privilege by false proclamations to further their own agenda, we will have to take this into consideration when selecting speakers in the future.

Sincerely,
Emma
Emma P. Benenati, Ph.D.
Ecologist / Research Coordinator - Grand Canyon National Park"

[Comment: And this is the top echelon in the world.]

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/zoolies.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Greg Neyman who has Answers in Creation, not Answers in Genesis. This is an excellent site, I mean just great material. This is just a little on John(?) Morris here or one of the two Morris' on the Museum for Creation Research. It's all part of the same group of people. So Greg Neyman is commenting here, because he took a look at this walk-thru. At the Answers in Genesis' website they have this walk-thru that you can look at from the museum.

Creation Science Rebuttal
Creation Museum - A Preliminary Review
By Greg Neyman

The first two points of the walk-thru are the entrance. Point 3 is where the young earth deception begins, and they start out with an obvious one. This is the Grand Canyon Wall. They portray a section of rock from the Grand Canyon, but it includes a dinosaur skeleton embedded in the wall. The horizontal layers of the Grand Canyon are dated by geologists as being 545 million years old at the bottom (Tapeats Sandstone), and 250 million years old at the top of the canyon (Kaibab Limestone). This means the youngest rocks at the canyon are Permian in age. The dinosaurs did not live until the Triassic Period, which began at the end of the Permian. The first dinosaurs appear about 230 million years ago. In fact, if you proceed up the geologic rock column in the western United States, you would not find any dinosaur fossils until you reach the Kayenta Formation, which is another 3,000 feet above the top layer of the Grand Canyon.

[Comment: You've got to go 3,000 feet higher, where at the Grand Canyon there is nothing 3000 feet higher. It starts with the Kaibab Limestone formation and you've got to go 3,000 feet higher. I mean you've got to come forward in time a lot further before you find any dinosaur fossils.]

This formation contains only trace fossils (dinosaur footprints), but no actual dinosaur bones.

[Comment: That would be going even much further.]

Answers in Genesis would have its museum visitors believe that dinosaurs were in the Grand Canyon rocks, when in fact, they are much further up the geologic column. AiG considers the rocks of the canyon to be deposited by Noah's Flood. However, there are absolutely no dinosaurs or mammals in these rocks. If the young earth story is true, all animals, including dinosaurs and mammals, would have been buried by these flood sediments.

[Comment: There are not, they don't find any. So when they fabricated their museum they put up the wall, representing the rocks of the Grand Canyon and they embedded dinosaur bones in there, when they know no human being has ever found a dinosaur bones or a mammal bone in any of the Grand Canyon. The museum is a fraud, $27 million worth of fraud.]

http://www.answersincreation.org/creation_museum.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Humphreys
From Wikipedia

[Comment: These are just little excerpts on one or two of their theories, we will get into a little more of it later.]

Cosmological model
Humphreys' book called Starlight and Time presents a controversial cosmological model in which the Earth is several thousands of years old.

This model is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity and so on. Humphreys' conclusion is not in scientific consensus, because the conclusion contradicts most current scientific understanding.

Humphreys claims there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea. Conversely, Thomas claims that "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years.

[Comment: He says it can't be more than 62 million year old. Duh, excuse me, I though he said 6000. That's 62 million, doesn't help you out a whole lot does it.]

But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks.

[Comment: This is good, I love this stuff, because this is the way my mind can understand things. In other words, consider all the sodium going into the ocean over billions of years, you ought to have thousands of times worth of salt than it has, you see.]

It's like someone noticing that; (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on.

[Comment: Some snow falls fast, some slow, some melts, some places it snows a lot, some places it doesn't snow at all.]

The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."

Likewise Kevin Henke claimed he has "criticized and documented some of the numerous problems in Dr. Humphreys' work." For example, Humphreys "thinks that zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."

[Comment: Now we have two of the five that we started out with today, right. Two of them are Humphreys and we did a little excerpt on those.]

Henke claimed that the equations in Humphreys work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."

[Comment: I mean when real scientists look at these men's work, it's just a farce. I mean they would not get a C in a high school report on something like that. And yet they have the whole world believing that they have proven that the earth is 6000 years old and there was a global flood and it was made in six days. Okay moving on to something else.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

Kat · March 07, 2009, 09:53:27 AM

   The Dissertations
     by Kent Hovind

[Comment: Kent Hovind said he did this dissertation to get a doctors degree. Of course he gets the title of his dissertation as one thing and then when he tells people at his doctors degree is on, it a totally different subject. It starts out that someone is questioning him and they say we want to get a copy of it. He says I'll give you a copy of the revised addition when I get it finished. This guy says, a revised addition? You don't revise a theses for a doctors degree, either you get a degree on it or you don't. Then it gets locked up in the university vault or on microfilm or something and no one ever changes a comma after that again. And he said when I get the new one revised... it's unbelievable.]

Hovind said, "My 250-page dissertation dealt with the subject of the effects of teaching evolution on the students in our public school system."

[Comment: But originally the one that the university (degree mill) has is 100 pages long. Not 250 and has a different subject. So he recanted to Evans and said;]

"My dissertation was originally about 100 pages. I continued adding material and it grew to 250 pages. Over the last 10 years I have constantly been adding material."

[Comment: Can you believe this nonsense. This guy said, Ray your going to cover Hovind aren't you? I'd hate to see you make a fool out of yourself, because this guy knows his stuff. Yea this guys got it down baby.]

The dissertation DOES NOT deal with the subject of "The Effects of Teaching Evolution on the Students in our Public School System". NONE of the four chapters of the Patriot University document addresses this subject, and - IT IS NOT EVEN ONE OF THE SUBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TWELVE "MISSING" CHAPTERS!!!

[comment: Btw Patriot University is a correspondent course. This is so far below anything that could be called a college.]

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

--Misspellings are rampant.

--THE THESIS HAS NO TITLE.

--There are no references or footnotes. In at least two places (pp 65-66) the citation simply notes that there is a book title to be added. [Comment: And this was turned in for a doctors degree?]

--The single illustration, the electromagnetic spectrum, is cut out of a science textbook and taped on; it does not fit the page. Additionally, there are substantial formatting errors typical of a draft, but not a final, version.

[Comment: Hovind doesn't want to admit that his study was really on Christian things, because he trying to be something in the secular world.]

A thesis is supposed to be a body of ORIGINAL research. A thesis contains original and new data or theories that ADD to the body of existing knowledge. The first sentence is a greeting, equivalent to "Hello, my name is Barney, the Big Purple Dinosaur".

[Comment: He has a section in there on evolution how it started with Satan at the time of Adam and Eve. It's all such unbelievable things. Then he has some funny stuff and it just shows you how juvenile this thing is. This guy here says this thing here would not even qualify for a high school book report and he claims to get a doctors degree out of it.]

One gets a real sense of deja vu when reading this chapter because large portions are EXACT, VERBATIM PARAGRAPHS from Chapter 2.

[Comment: He repeats the whole same thing over again and this is only a 100 page dissertation that he's suppose to get a doctors degree out of it.]

He refuses to participate in long-term exchanges via the Internet or other media where these issues can be discussed in depth and where his material is easily refuted (and HAS BEEN refuted).

He attributes plate tectonics to evolutionists .... never mind that this theory surfaced a hundred years after Darwin!

No original thought is presented. This is nothing more than a rehash of long-discredited theories. It is a rambling, low-quality book report, sans the references. It is not an original, thoughtful, coherent body of knowledge. To award a Ph.D. for this is a travesty and an insult to anyone who has actually worked to achieve one.

Kent Hovind says (in his statement above) that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr." or "hey you" by the scoffers. In fact, his Ph.D. is very precious to him or he would not be listed as "Dr. Kent Hovind" in the Pensacola, FL, phone book (it is very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to do this).

[Comment: Nobody would ever put their name that way, only someone with a giant ego would do that.]

Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counselor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science.

Taken from - A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
-------------------------------------------------------

I want to demolish these peoples credibility. I don't want to just call it into question, I want to demolish it. Because they don't deserve to be listened to.

Kent Hovind
   From Wikipedia

Legal Problems

Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped), and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence.

[Comment: 'Ray your going to cover Kent Hovind aren't you.' And Mr. Humphrey's two of the five best arguments for a young earth that there is. His wife is also sentenced to one year, although she said she had nothing to do with it. They said court evidence proved otherwise.

Anyway here is a whole section of all his legal problems and everything. The government is fining him $600,000 and he is serving ten years in prison. He is a phony, a fake, a fraud, a liar, a cheat, deceiver, a heretic and whatever else there is.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
-------------------------------------------------------------

MATSON v HOVIND
by DAVE MATSON

GEOLOGIC COLUMN

Dr. Hovind (G1): The assumption that the geologic column is a base from which to calibrate the C-14 dates is not wise.

[Comment: The geological column has absolutely totally nothing to do with radio 14 carbon dating. Nothing at all, but he doesn't know that. A 'doctorate' degree?]

Dr. Hovind (G2): The entire geologic column is based on the assumption that evolution is true.

[Comment: That has nothing to do with evolution what so ever, nothing. Yet this is one of the main people... well he's not doing it anymore, he's behind bars.

Some of these, I have more material on and I'll cover them now, because they are very quick. It still is in reference to Dr. Hovind.]

Dr. Hovind (G4): Poly-strata fossils, missing layers, layers out of order, misplaced fossils, and layers in reverse order all invalidate the geologic column.

[Comment: That's what Dr. Hovind says. Do you know what Poly-strata fossils are? They are something that young-earth advocates claim absolutely proves that the earth is not old.

A Poly-strata fossil is where you have sentiments laid down by water, lines and rows of sentiments, maybe ten to twelve feet high, with a tree going right up the middle. They say, 'wait a minute if strata was laid down very slowly, how could you have all these layers of strata with a tree going up through all of these layers? It just laid there limp and solid for millions of years while these layers piled up along besides it?' It's one of those fabricated arguments, where you avoid the whole truth.

No geologist claims that every little strata requires thousands of years to be laid down. They know how these are down, it's being done today. They list several places where rivers periodically overflow the banks. So trees are being slowly buried, you know, off the banks in the woods, they are being buried in these mud fields and so on... it's debris that comes off the river. We can watch it happening before our eyes. No it doesn't take millions of years, I mean that sort of thing can be done in a relative short period of time, as it ca be in swamps and bogs and so on.

But that doesn't mean all the layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down in one year. That's really nonsense. We'll get into the Grand Canyon a little bit later on.]

http://www.kent-hovind.com/matson/3geocol.htm
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Hovind: It only takes one proof of a young earth to decide between CREATION and EVOLUTION.

[Comment: That's all we need? One? He says, 'One, one proof and we've got it.']

If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture. Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts. Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.

[Comment: One thing does not prove everything. Unless the one thing proves all of the other proofs to be wrong.]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

In every case, in every theory and every idea that was ever presented that this earth was created 6000 years ago, in six day and that there ever was a universal flood around the whole world. In every case, every one of those things has been looked at and found false in one, two, three or more ways. All of them. There are no exceptions. Here's fifty pages more of Kent Hovind's nonsense. Now I'm going to skip that whole thing.

Kat · March 08, 2009, 06:06:53 PM

Audio # 4

Okay we are going to get more into the Scriptures as we get going. We are going to get into the first chapter of Genesis. We are going to go through the Genesis flood and we're going through Psalms 104 and various things we are going to go through.

But I have one other thing here in reference to Kent Hovind, because it kind of ties this whole thing together a little bit with this Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis and all of these some what independent guys like Kent Hovind. He's only slightly connected with them, but everybody considers him as one of the greatest and so on.

Kent Hovind is so arrogant and bombastic, he just tries to make anybody who believes in evolution or whatever, just feel like a total idiot. He's got this little thing where he says, 'well you believe we came from a rock.' You say no, I don't believe we came from a rock. Then he would say, 'yea you do.' Then he has a way of twisting it around and he would say, 'yea you really do believe we came from a rock. I think God created us, but you think we came from a rock.' He just really puts them down and stuff.

But Kent Hovind goes on tour all around the country and all around the world. Kind of like this Bill Wiese and his 23 Minutes is Hell, you know he's a big speaker everywhere, spreading the word. Kent has these little picture shows and he's got all his little jokes and everything.

But he doesn't understand science, even though he was a science teacher in school. He has no PhDs, but we went though all that bologna with him. But he is still promoting the same young earth theories that have fallen by the wayside, last year, five years ago, ten years ago or twenty years ago... and he is still promoting them. To the point that Answers in Genesis and Dr. Wieland, Dr. Ham and Dr. Sarfati are a list of imminent people that I showed you. They had to write in their own publication and Answers in Genesis and article called Maintaining Creationist Integrity. So all these young-earthers are showing... they went back and forth with Kent Hovind, on all this stuff that he is teaching and they are saying, 'you can't teach that stuff any more. The scientist are laughing us to scorn.' But Kent maintains, 'no, they haven't proven that wrong.' They haven't proven that Superman didn't come from the planet Valcom or Krypton or whatever it was. You can't prove a negative anyway, it's so stupid. So they write this thing and I'm going to go through some of it, because it's kind of funny. Here we have one group of young-creationalist, telling another one that you've got to stop teaching all this young-earth nonsense. Because the scientist are laughing us to scorn.

Maintaining Creationist Integrity
by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati

Point-by-point response to Kent Hovind's reply to our 'Don't Use' page

KENT HOVIND: NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.

CMI (Creation Ministries International—formerly Answers in Genesis): This story is an urban myth.

[Comment from Ray: It's a myth, NASA never said that, but Hovind teaches it wherever he goes.]

KENT H: The Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal.

[Comment from Ray: What he's saying is, when we find these Mammoths buried up in Siberia and Alaska and all these places. They are foreign and they were washed there by Noah's flood and buried and flash frozen. They never belonged up there in that cold weather.]

CMI: This ignores the definite adaptations to cold, such as woolly coat and small surface area of ears, trunk and tail, all of which would minimize heat loss.

The world's leading creationist researcher on the Ice Age and mammoths, Michael Oard, has published powerful reasons for putting aside some of the traditional arguments about 'snap' freezing, based on firsthand research. For example, the undigested food in the stomach is easily explained by the fact that the elephant stomach is a holding bay, not a digestion organ. And undigested stomach contents were found in mastodon remains in unfrozen soil at a much more southern latitude.

[Comment: So they said, 'you can't teach that, it doesn't work, it makes us look foolish.']

KENT H: The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in old strata invalidate the geologic column.

CMI: These remains are not natural burials. This is a classic example of a 'Clayton's refutation'—i.e. the refutation you make when you're not making a refutation, but still giving the impression that you have the higher ground.

[Comment: But the truth of the matter is, they criticize Kent Hovind for doing that. AiG does exactly the same thing.]

KENT H: The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.

CMI: Interpretative sketch and eye witness reports of the decomposing remains, the evidence collected so far overwhelming favours the basking shark identity for the Zuiyo-maru carcass.

[Comment: Not a dinosaur.]

KENT H: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.

CMI: Death began at the Fall, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Comment: They are both wrong.]

KENT H: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

[Comment: Isn't that cleaver. If we came from apes, how come there are still apes?]

CMI: Evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.

KENT H: Women have one more rib than men.

[Comment: I find it hard to believe that anybody, who could talk and chew gum at the same time, would believe something as stupid as that. But he teaches it.]

CMI: Dishonest skeptics are usually the only ones who use this ridiculous argument to discredit creationists.

KENT H: Archaeopteryx is a fraud.

CMI: Archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil of an unusual bird.

KENT H: There are no beneficial mutations.

CMI: We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.

[Comment: There are advantageous mutations.]

KENT H: Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood.

CMI: There is no basis for this claim.

KENT H: I don't think it is possible to know the truth of this one.

[Comment: He says that to everyone. 'Well I think the jury is still out on this one.' He won't acknowledge any one of these as being wrong.]

[Comment from somebody: Don't these two have the same agenda? Ray's answer: Well yea, but one is saying that the other one is still arguing these stupid arguments, that they have been disproven for ten twenty years and it's time to give them up. They want to move on to better ones.]

CMI: Our comment 'there is no basis for this claim' means exactly that: that there is no reason to believe that it was vertical. It does not mean that it can be proven that it was not. In a similar vein, it is logically possible that the core of Pluto is made of green cheese, but there is no reason to believe that it is.

KENT H: Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

CMI: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks.

[Comment: And others are fraud, the man carbs, they have proof of that.]

KENT H: With that said, I have been to the Paluxy four times and have seen the evidence first hand.

CMI: So have several of our researchers. The evidence of genuine tracks is not in dispute. Where we urge great caution is in using this evidence as proof that they are of human origin.

KENT H: Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.

CMI: The 'Earth' that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. 'Earth' refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.

KENT H: The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.

CMI: The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood.

KENT H: The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.

[Comment: That email I got, he says the same thing, that God calls this science falsely... there is no such verse in the Bible.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (KJV)

1Tim 6:20 O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge, (YLT)
It just means knowledge.]

CMI: The original Greek word translated 'science' is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism.

[Comment: It had nothing to do with evolution.]

KENT H: Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark

[Comment: Ron Wyatt is one of these young-earth creationist who has a lot of stuff on the internet. He has his own museum. He claims to have found Noah's ark and he's got all kinds of artifacts from Noah's ark and it's total bogus nonsense, all of it. But Kent says Ron has found Noah's ark.]

CMI: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.

KENT H: Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible.

CMI: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt's claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.

[Comment: So you see there is no honor among thieves.]

KENT H: There was no rain before the Flood.

CMI: This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there should be no dogmatism.

KENT H: Natural selection as tautology.

[Comment: Tautology is like people that are over six feet are taller than people that are five feet. Well duh. So natural selection is a tautology of the survival of the fittest... the fittest survive. Well duh, did we think the weakest survived and the fittest die?]

CMI: Maybe it is, but it's still a fact.

[comment: You see these people can be cleaver sometimes when they are dealing with the truth. When they are dealing with the truth they can see that this Hovind guy is off his scientific rocker.]

KENT H: Gold chains have been found in coal.

[Comments: Ever heard that one before?... and bells and pots... in coal veins. So how could coal be billions of years old?]

CMI: The evidence is strictly anecdotal.

KENT H: I disagree and cover this in The Hovind Theory.

[Comment: Oh well, if it's in The Hovind Theory then it couldn't be false could it. Like if someone says, 'I taught that myself.' Oh well then I guess it's true.]

Kent H: Only one gold chain has been found in coal to my knowledge [On June 11, 1891, The Morrisonville Times reported; "A curious find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was breaking a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain about 10 inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship ..."

CMI: This is exactly what is meant by anecdotal evidence. The word is derived from 'anecdote' meaning 'story'. There is a story, but no coal sticking to a chain.

KENT H: The Hidden History of the Human Race Michael A. Cremo p.113], as well as an iron pot [found in coal in 1912 at the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, OK. Now in Creation Evidence Museum, www.creationevidence.org] ...

CMI: Again, there is an iron pot (minus coal) in a museum, but no evidence apart from anecdotal that the coal contained the pot. I.e. a pot with a story about it.

KENT H: ... a soul of a shoe

CMI: Presumably 'sole'.

KENT H: Oct. 8, 1922 American Weekly section of New York Sunday American by Dr. W. H. Ballou. The stitching pattern was clearly visible including the twist of the thread. The rock was "213–248 million years old". The Hidden History of the Human Race, Michael A. Cremo p.113–115, ph. 209-337-2200.

CMI: Again we ask, where is the artifact showing the association between it and the coal? We do not deny that there may have been such artifacts, but the reason we say one should avoid their use is precisely because they are to this point not available. Sadly, this becomes just 'one more story'.

KENT H: A bell was found by W. V. Mr. Newton Anderson inside a lump of coal in 1944. He still has the bell. (304)-842-5556. newt@iolinc.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . A Carved Stone was found in Lehigh Coal Mine near Webster, Iowa, April 2, 1897 Daily News Omaha, Nebraska.

CMI: Same again, exactly. There is any number of spoons, pots, etc that are said ('anecdotal') to have come from coal, but how can one use these legitimately to the heathen in apologetics when there is no more association between the items and the coal?

KENT H: Plate tectonics is fallacious.

CMI: Dr John Baumgardner's work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, CMI recognizes that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.

KENT H: This needs to be defined better. The plates are moving but this does not prove they have always been moving ...

[Comment: How do you make that stuff up? How do you even talk to somebody like that. I think that is enough, that is enough of Kent Hovind.

http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kat · March 11, 2009, 09:21:29 AM

Back to my email...
You know people think they know things, they just know that they know. Like how long is a day, well everybody knows how long a day is. So how long is a day? [Someone answers: 24-hours.] How many believe 24-hours is a day? We are going to see some interesting things. All young-earth creationist believe a day is 24-hours and it says He did this and He did that and it was so and that was the third 'day.' That was the third or the forth or the fifth 24-hour 'day.' But this does not say a 24-hour day.

The word 'day' is found in the Bible about 2200 times, I would like anyone to find me a verse of Scripture where the Bible talks about a 24-hour day. Just one out of 2200, show me one verse that in context or any way you want to say it, that this means 24-hours. Show me one.

[Someone answers: The people rested on the seventh day (Ex. 16:30), I would think that would be 24.] Okay, that could be.

[Someone answers: What about when Jesus looked at the fig tree and then the next 'day' He wouldn't look at it again. Would that be a normal day?] Not necessarily.

Okay let's take that whole thing in context. Before they rested the seventh day, what did they do? [Someone answers: They worked.] For how long? Six days. So as long as they worked each day, they were to rest on the seventh day. Would that be correct? [Someone answers: Yes.] Okay how long did they work each day? [Someone answers: Not 24-hours.] Not 24-hours! If they worked six days of 24-hours, they would be damn tired by the time the Sabbath came around. But you might say, 'but didn't they also rest the night time of the Sabbath?' Yes, but they also rested the night time of the six work days. Although I want fault you on that one, I mean that could be legitimately used to mean a 24-hour day, it could.

[Someone's question: What about when Jesus fasted?] He didn't fast for forty days. The reason... it's very explicit how long He fasted. That's why it doesn't use days.

Mat 4:2 And when He had fasted for forty days and forty night...

If forty days equal forty 24-hour periods, you don't have "and night." No we can't count that one. I mean not specifically, in a general sense you could. Because from the one sunset to the next sunset He did not eat. Because the Scripture themselves know the meaning of the word 'day.' So did you think that He didn't fast all day and eat all night, they had to tell you He fasted for forty days AND ALSO during the night. I mean if the word day means a 24-hours lunar cycle is almost never used in the Scriptures, never. And when it is, even then it uses some buffers to be sure you understand what it says.

When it says you are to keep the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27-32). It says from "even until even." So that you are not confused that you go all day without eating, and then you say, 'oh well we can eat all night.' No, God meant it to be 24-hours, from even not until morning or from morning unto even, but from "even unto even" 24-hours. But it had to state that, because if somebody was just zeroing in on the real meaning of the word day, they would say, 'wait a minute, alright we will fast all day and then we will go feast all night. He didn't say we couldn't feast at night, He said we had to go for a whole day.'

Let's get more specific. How many hours are in a day? How many hours did Jesus Christ say are in a day? Did Jesus Christ say, are there not 24-hours in the day? Do you know a Scripture like that?

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?

A day is twelve hours of light. That a day. Twelve hours of darkness is not day, it's night. Now we are going to get into that in more detail and you are going to learn a lot about these Creation days.

So we have these five theories presented and these are the best there are.

The earth's magnetic field... Dr. Russell Humphreys has proven this and shown through his theory of the earth's magnetic field that the earth can not be more than 10,000 years old. First of all this is not Humphreys' theory. This is the theory of a man by the man of Barnes. He took twenty five measurements of the earth's magnetic field and then he started playing with these and came up with this theory. But the experts say there are several fatal errors in Thomas Barnes' work, then they go through them. Now this gets fairly technical and it involves formulas and stuff like that. So it is not that easy for me to try to explain this. But there is some of it in more layman's language. Here is one problem.

Magnetic Field - Young-earth "proof"

It seems that the dipole field has gone uphill at times!
Studies of the magnetic field as recorded in dated rocks and pottery have shown that the dipole moment actually fluctuates over periods of a few thousand years and that decreases in field intensity are eventually followed by increases. For example, the archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
Quite clearly, the dipole field has increased at times!

[Comment from Ray: So when you take these known facts into consideration, this theory just falls. It's just one way of saying, wait a minute this is doing this and this is the same thing as the rain fall or the snow, you know. It's snowing so many inches an hour and at this rate the snow will be eighteen miles deep in less than a year. But it doesn't snow at that rate for a whole year. You see it's all nonsense, all of these arguments.]

Point 2, by itself, is fatal to Barnes's idea in that Barnes was not actually plotting a decline in total field strength. Evidence shows that the dipole field has increased in strength at times.

[Comment: All I want to show you is that there are real scientist who have taken these thing to task and said this does not follow scientific protocol. They have taken short cuts and made diversions and done things that can not be substantiated.]

Barnes simply ignores the fact that the earth's magnetic polarity has reversed itself on numerous occasions. That fact, alone, is absolutely fatal to every fibre of Barnes's argument.

[Comment: But see when these guys, some of them with legitimate doctors degrees, present this stuff in technical terms, they bamboozled the people. They think, well this guy he's got it all worked out.'

Somebody gave me a paper at the last conference in Mobile, because they knew I was going to talk about this at the next conference. It said, one side had worked out a mathematical formula proving the earth is only 6,000 years old. Oh really, it's just nonsense. But they believed it, because some scientist said he had a formula. Well let twenty or thirty other scientist look at it and see what they think.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
--------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a little excerpt from a paper on this subject.

     Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?
      by Joe Meert

However, we have already seen that all of that his ideas regarding reversals, field intensity from archeomagnetic data (and in fact the lack of evidence for a global flood) is based on bad data, or even worse, invented data.

[Comment: Humphreys took Barnes' idea and tried to get even more bamboozled. Now they call it Humphreys, but it wasn't it was Barnes idea.]

Humphreys can calculate energies until the cows come home, but the archeomagnetic data that are available indicate that there were no magnetic reversals in the past 5000 years (they are simply an artificial invention of Humphreys).

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------

      CREATIONISTS AND "MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY
      by Lenny Flank

"Dr" Thomas Barnes (the doctorate is an honorary one), a creationist physicist who served as head of the ICR's "graduate school". Since Barnes' death, the magnetic field theory has been championed by Russell Humphreys.

Barnes then made the assumption that ALL of the non-dipole measurements constituted meaningless "noise", and asserted that only the dipole elements of the magnetic field are generated by the core. He further concluded that, because of the measured decrease in field strength, this dipole field must be decaying exponentially, with a half-life of approximately 1,400 years. Thus, Barnes calculated, by about 10,000 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have so strong that life would have been impossible. Therefore, he concluded, the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

And how does Humphreys "know" that the magnetic field of the earth decayed slowly for exactly 1656 years, or that the earth's magnetic field was produced by atoms with their spin axes aligned at the time of creation? Not through any scientific data.

The same observatory measurements that show that the dipole moment has decreased since the early 1800's also show that this decrease has almost been completely balanced by an increase in the strength of the total observed field which has remained almost constant.

[Comment: Now that's by a real scientist, Dalrymple, in 'Can Earth Be Dated from its Magnetic Field?']

Barnes also presents no evidence whatever to support his assertion that the magnetic field has been decaying exponentially, or that it becomes progressively stronger in the past.

[Comment: So these scientist take this theory apart point by point by point and it doesn't fly.]

There is thus no justification whatever for Barnes and Humphreys to attempt to extrapolate their magnetic measurements for the last 150 years or so back to the moment of creation. It is apparent that the earth's magnetic field is not "decaying", and that it routinely fluctuates and even occasionally reverses itself completely. The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age.

[Comment: But yet this is one of the best, the top five, one of the very best.]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Magnetic field' by Steel Price. Same thing, he goes through it and it's just bunk. Then we have this.

   Claims relating to the age of the Earth

Rapid-decay theory
Russell Humphreys accepts a core-current based magnetic field and archaeomagnetic measurements of the magnetic field (based on measurements of human artefacts), and concludes that several reversals of the magnetic field occurred during the biblical flood. Such rapid (month long) variation contradict measurements of the conductivity of the Earth's mantle.

Such ideas are inconsistent with the basic physics of magnetism. While short term variations have been shown to be due to a variety of factors, the long-term (million year) variation in field intensity (and even reversal in polarity) are modeled as due to changes in electric currents in the liquid core of the Earth.

[Comment: So it all depends how far you want to go and how much you want to read to disprove some of these. Because some of them are a little technical.]

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7468791

Kat · March 11, 2009, 09:23:26 AM

We are going to go through a little bit more of it. But then when we get through this, because we've got some more yet, but then we are going to go into it. You can see all these mathematical formulas going through point by point by point showing that neither Barnes or Humphreys has a clue as to what they are talking about this.

On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field

The physics of Humphreys' theory, such as it is, can be represented by a single equation [20, page 142, equation 1]:

     Mc = k (m/mw) w

Plug in the MKS units, and numerically we get [20, page 142, equation 2] (MKS units work out to Joules/Tesla or J/T):

   Mc = k (0.9425) m

Assume that the dipole today (M) is the result of an exponential decay since creation [20, page 143, equation 3]:

      M = Mc e-t/T

where t is the time since creation, and T is a characteristic decay time that depends on the core of the planet as in [20, page 143, equation 4]:

   T = ( 0 × × R2 ) / 2 seconds

[Comment: In this argument (from the email) it says, 'he was even able to correctly predict the magnetic field of two planets, before they were even measured.' And it says in here...]

All Humphreys has to do is come up with a dipole at creation that is about the same as Saturn's is now, and the result is going to be very nearly right.

[Comment: In other words, any scientist could have done the same thing. He didn't come up with some great scheme on his own. Any scientist could have done that, this is not some accomplishment.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for the magnetic field and all of that nonsense.

This might be interesting, it is a little more on that, but a little simpler.

Is the Earth Young?

Evidence 2
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength.

[Comment: This is what this argument is all about.]

This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).

Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved.

[Comment: That's what they all do, they assume that what they are setting up to prove is already true. Therefore they will not really look at the evidence, except in a way that they can twist it to show this is the end results. It's like, 'well we know that the defendant is guilty, all we have to do is twist and lie about the evidence, until it comes out that way.']

Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument.

[Comment: Now another argument, but this will be shorter. One of the five biggies. Why the earth is got to be old.

"Helium in the atmosphere. The compelling thing about this measuring technique is that there are no unknown pathways for escape of helium, due to it's chemical inertness all old earthers who have studied it recognize the helium issue as a big problem." (source ?)]

Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

[Comment: And so the earth can only be so many thousand years old. Because helium is dispersed in the atmosphere and it can't leave the atmosphere. If this has been going on for more than 10,000 years, then it would be a lot more. If it has been going on for ten million years, then it would be a heck of a lot more ?]

Response:
Directly false. Current observation & measurement shows that the rate of helium loss from the atmosphere balances the rate of production through radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Cook was unaware of the loss of ionized helium along polar magnetic field lines, as are more current champions of the same argument.

[Comment: There are no known ways of escape? There are several. They have actually found several more. So they are just about in equilibrium, the amount going into the atmosphere is equal to the amount that is going out. It is bogus, to think that proves that the earth is 6,000 years old, it nonsense.]

http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Atmospheric Helium:

Melvin Cook and other YECs (young-Earth creationists) have argued that the Earth's atmosphere has too little helium to be billions of years old. However, a review of Vardiman (1990) and other YEC documents show that their arguments are largely based on selective quoting of outdated references from the 1960s and 1970s.

[Comment: That half a century ago.]

Dalrymple's report, significant portions of this 1990 document simply repeated old YEC arguments that had been refuted earlier by Dalrymple.

More recent studies (such as LieSvendsen and Rees, 1996; Shizgal and Arkos, 1996) provide additional information on helium escape mechanisms, which further undermined YEC arguments on this issue. Nevertheless, the final nail in the coffin of the YEC atmospheric helium argument occurred when NASA satellite images showed helium and other gases being swept from the Earth's atmosphere into deep space. One event occurred on September 24-25, 1998 after a solar coronal mass emission.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find these articles all through the internet, if you know what you are looking for. There are lots of scientists that have dealt with this stuff. Now will these people answer back to these scientists and show where their calculations are wrong? No. Will they get on a public forum with any of these? No. Will they publish any of their nonsense in any reputable journal for science on earth? No. Why? Because they would be laughed to scorn. First they would have to correct the mathematical errors, 3 x 6 is not 19.

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production.

[Comment: There it is. There is no evidence at all that helium-4 either does or can escape from the atmosphere in significant amounts, is what he says. That's in Morris' book.]

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:
"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm piling you up with this stuff, so that you can see that there is a plethora, a mountain of evidence against everyone, all of these young-earth theories. The earth was not created 6000 years ago in six days, nor was there a global flood.

So there is a lot of this stuff, we've only gone through two so far of these. Then we have helium in zircons, dendrochronology and sodium in the ocean, these are the five (5) biggies remember. We could do all five of them, because this guy says these are the best. But they are nonsense. Still they are kind of technical, but these better scientist they have all these formulas worked out, they know what's going on. They are not bamboozled by such charlatans.

You know the question arises, why do these reputable men like Steve Austin and Baumgardner that have reputable degrees, why do they promote this stuff? Surely, I would think in the recesses of their mind they have to think, you know we haven't got much. Why do they do that? I'll tell you why I think they do it, they have rock star status. There are two billion Christians who look to them as the great saviors of the Scriptures. The last defenders of the Genesis one truth that God created... they have rock star status and they won't give it up.

I'm laying in bed one night about six months ago and I usually pray myself to sleep. I'm thinking, you've got all of this technical stuff ( and I've got more of it at home) and I thought God there has got to be a way where I can show people very simply, without getting into helium, diffusion and all of this technical stuff... and we are going to get a little bit into radiometric dating and all of that stuff. I mean that is as high as it gets in physics and quantum math and all of that stuff. Isn't there some way to prove to just everyday folks, if the earth is billions of years old and there wasn't a universal flood that wiped out all life on the face of the earth... If that never happened and the earth is billions of years old, is there not a way to be able to prove that without any formulas or any technical know how. Where really a ten or twelve year old child could understand it, if I had a couple of minutes to explain it to him... and boom, it hit me right between the eyes. Impact craters, wow.

There is the Barringer crater or what they call the Arizona crater.

It's about a mile in diameter, it's a pretty good size hole and it's a recent one. They think this one hit 49,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the power of a hundred and fifty atomic booms. That is how much power is in that.

Here is my caption: 'You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood.'

How so? ... I'll show you and you will like it.

Then about three weeks ago I got another one, another simple proof that the earth is billions of yearsold, well let's not say that, at least many many millions, if not billions. And there never was a global flood. The Pyramids. You say, 'how can that prove that the earth is million and millions of years old, when He only created it a couple thousand years ago? How can that prove that the earth millions and millions of years? How can that prove that there never was a Nosh's flood the flooded the entire earth? How can that prove that?' It does! It's amazing, it does, I've got the proof and I'll show you.

Then I have one other in the (handout) book. Now this one you can't prove anything about the flood. But you can prove that the earth is billions of years, not millions, but in this one you can prove, billions. Because this will show you a principle that we can apply to all parts of the sky and all parts of the galaxy. That is a supernova. I will show you how that proves how old the universe is.

Kat · March 12, 2009, 08:54:44 PM

2008 Nashville Conference video #1 and audio #5

We started picking up these five (5) greatest of all proofs that the earth is young. We talked about the Earth's magnetic field (1) and we talked about helium in the atmosphere (2). We've got three left; helium in zircons (3), endocrinology (4) and sodium in the ocean (5).

It's interesting. The argument why the Earth is young is there is not enough helium in the atmosphere. If the Earth was old, there should be a lot more up there, because it supposedly goes in at a certain rate and nowhere does it come out. Well, it does come out and they found where it comes out and different ways it comes out and so forth. But the argument is, too much helium in the atmosphere.

Now another argument they have that the Earth is young and not old, is too much helium in zircons. Not enough in the atmosphere, too much in zircons. This one is still hanging around. This one has not been totally buried yet. The young Earth people still cling to this idea that there is helium in zircon stones, specifically at this one Fenton Hill location in Texas. There shouldn't be that much helium in there if the Earth is as old as they say it is.

Just like helium in the atmosphere, I've got about 100 pages on that. I've got about 40 pages on this, but I'm not going to go through them. All I'm going to do is show you what's wrong with the theory.

Now, from the perspective of Dr. Humphreys, he's got all these formulas and all this stuff worked out that show a certain conclusion. But when somebody (in this case, Kevin Henke PhD) takes a look at the man's work, he finds some problems. How many problems with Humphrey's work? Eighty four (84). I'm not even going to go through the problems, I'm just going to come in on some of the categories.

Impure and improper biotite separations --

When legitimate scientists work on things like this or isometric radio carbon dating or any of these things, there is a very, very strict and precise protocol that you follow. Because things can go wrong if you screw up anything even a little bit.

It's kind of like brain surgery. You don't just cut the person's head open, go in there and start pushing things around, cutting things off. There is a very strict protocol and you have to follow all their vital signs as you go here very selectively, very, very carefully. You see? But I get the feeling that some of these guys operate like a bull in a China shop. They think, 'Oh, that proved that theory wrong. We proved the scientists wrong.' They prove nothing wrong.

Unexplained 'typos' --

His very work has typographical errors throughout that have not been corrected.

Inaccurate Q0 values and Inflated Q/Q0 values --

In other words, using the wrong values.

Important Thorium Data are Missing --

The Wet Past of the Fenton Hills Rocks --

They try to show that it was a wet climate. They have no idea that it was a wet climate.

Possibility of Extraneous Helium --

They show how yes, helium does come out, but there are also methods by which it can go in.

Temperature Problems --

Pressure Problems --

When these minerals were extracted, these zircons that have the helium in them, was extracted from Fenton Hill, they were deep, very deep, which means they were under tremendous pressure. But then when they do their experimental work, Humphreys put them in a vacuum. Well what does a vacuum have in common with extreme pressure? You see? The scientists say you cannot work like that, where you just come up with this stuff off the cuff, and then think you're going to get accurate results.

Dr. Humphreys' Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 --

Here is where scientists went through his work point by point by point.

Using Improper Equations to Calculate Standard Deviations --

Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircon --

Fudging the Graph --

Fudging the Graph from Magomedov 1970 is a paper that they quoted from.

Misrepresenting Arrhenius Plot --

Misrepresenting a certain plot from another man's work. It just goes on and on and on.

Humphreys Violates the Scientific Method --

It goes all the way down to 84 problems that he has.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixd.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the things that Dr. Henke says is, "If you're doing work of this consequence, then you need to publish it. You need to have peer review."

Does everyone know what a peer review is? In other words, when medical doctors come up with new theories about disease or this or whatever, they'll publish an article in the American Journal of Medicine or the New England Journal of Medicine. Then other doctors and scientist will read it and study it. With all their expertise and the multitude of counselors there is safety.

Pro 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

That's the Bible. These guys totally reject that scripture and the multitude of counselors. They don't want anybody else as counselor except their own prejudice little group. So they claim they have peer review. You say, 'well, who reviewed it?' Well, it's the other guys that agreed with me on everything. What the heck is that? It's nonsense. All of this stuff is nonsense.

So, right there, Dr. Henke goes through eighty four problems with Humphreys' helium in zircons. Yet this doctor said that's one of the five best arguments in the world that this is a young Earth and a young creation. It's nonsense. You've got to look at a broader perspective.

I'll give you another scripture.

Pro 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.

The scripture says the first one that comes to you with a story sounds right, because he's presenting everything from his point of view. It's like the political debates and everything that is going on. It's kind of interesting. Senator McCain will say something, and then you say wow. Maybe he'll say something against Obama, let's say, you're like, 'wow, he's like that. I didn't know he was that bad of a person. Oh yeah, he's bad.' The next day, Obama will come out with an answer to it and you say, 'oh, well he didn't say that.' Well, of course not and it goes the other way too. Everybody fashions everything from their perspective, from their point of view, and so on.

But what I'm trying to show you here today is that I've got a plethora of people, I've got all kinds of people in all kinds of fields of study that have looked at this stuff. These people don't have some atheistic, evolutionary axe to grind. Most of the people that I quoted today, who have given a rebuttal to some of these silly arguments, they're all Christians. They're not evolutionary atheists at all. So much for helium in zircons. It's just nonsense.

DENDROCHRONOLOGY

Now here is the simple argument and what this doctor sent to my friend, who sent this email to me.

Email;
Still the most accurate dating technique, you just cannot find a dendrochronological sequence older than 20,000 years with the inherent problem of double tree and triple tree rings, this number is certainly is too large.

Excuse me? I don't even know what the argument is. What is the argument? How does this prove that you can only go back 20,000 years using dendrochronology? You can't go back 4.5 billion years, well duh, trees are organic, when they get old and die and they rot away. I mean they don't stand around waiting to have their rings measured a billion years later, come on.

Now yes, some trees petrify, but that's not the normal state. All the forests of the world did not turn into petrified forests one after the other through thousands and millions of years. That's a very unusual thing, under certain very specific circumstances that you get a tree turned to rock.

Furthermore, it is not the most accurate known. It is pretty accurate. Ice cores are pretty accurate. Sediments in the bottoms of lakes and so on are very accurate. There are little lake sediments that settle out as thin a couple pieces of paper on an annual basis. They go back through thousands of years at the bottom of a lake bed.

They went on to say that bristlecone pine trees of California are the oldest known thing on the Earth, they live to be 5,000 years old. Well that's not true either, actually the creosote bush lives longer. They have a creosote bush in one of the safe parks that's 11,250 years old. Creosote bush has a big trunk, but it's considered a bush I think, not a tree. It lived to be 11,000 years old.

But what they used then as a proof for a young Earth disproves it. Because if the flood was 2348B.C. and bristlecone pine trees live to be 5,000 years old and creosote bushes to be 11,000 years old, we wouldn't know that they can live that long because there wouldn't be any alive from that far back. See what I'm saying? The flood would've killed them. How in the world the teachers of a universal global flood can believe that salt water can be piled up for miles on top of farmland and forests and grass and peach trees, for a whole year. With currents, admittedly by all these young Earth scientists, up to 150 miles an hour, so violent that they tear up the entire strata of the Earth three miles deep. Yet somehow peach trees make it through that. It's nonsense.

Dendrochronology doesn't prove anything about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. Then we have this last one.

Sodium in the Ocean -- This has been studied since the time of Newton we have identified all the inlets and outlets of sodium. But even if the ocean was originally fresh water... The Earth could not be old...

Oh bull. They talk like they knew what they were talking about. I have numerous papers on this. This one says;

The Ocean Salt Argument
For A Young Earth

One argument still being used in many young Earth creationist publications and websites is the ocean salt argument.

http://67.199.69.61/origins/downloads/Origins_chap05_art12_salt.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, this has been disproven so often, so many times... yet it's still around. This guy thinks it's one of the five top. How many of these type arguments do young Earth people have? Hundreds. As they fall by the wayside, they come up with new ones. Most of them are just silly nonsense, just silly.

But then they come up with these helium in the zircons and helium in the atmosphere where you've got to get into all kinds of physics and quantum math and calculations and they lose the average layman. They don't know what they're talking about. They say, 'if that's what you're saying, okay. If that's what proves it, then it proves it.' But in the multitude of counselors there is safety. They have no safety.

Those that come first with the story sound right. But what happens when the follow up comes? The proverb indicates that when the second storyteller comes along or maybe a third and a fourth, sometimes the first one doesn't sound so right anymore.

But these people don't publish in any quality, recognized science publication on Earth, none. Not one. Listen, these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stupid young earth theories that these scientists come up with and write them up and then put them on Answers In Genesis and all these young Earth sites. People go, 'oh wow, look at that.'

Why don't they take one of those articles, just one, not one hundred, just one, put all their great minds together, right it up as perfectly as they can and publish it in Geology Today or The Scientific American? Why don't they? Because they are so badly written, the science is such pseudo fraudulent science to begin with, no reputable magazine or journal would ever take a second look at it. It's nonsense to them. It's childish foolishness. That's why you never see this stuff published. It doesn't qualify to go that far.

Now there are theories on different things that get published in these scientific journals that may or may not end up being a scientific law in the end. But there is enough information and proper scientific methodology behind the research that at least it's worthy of publication. It's worthy of other scientists saying let's take a look at it. Maybe they reject it, maybe they accept part of it or maybe they say you've got something here but it needs further work.

Of all this stuff that they have and I've got beaucoup of stuff on this radio dating. So Gardner and all these guys came up with this thing where they're going to disprove radio dating. What they were going to do is get samples of different minerals and different stratas and so on. Then send them to a bona fide laboratory which radio dates different minerals and find out if there is any truth to the whole system or whether it is bogus. Dr. Steven Austin was in charge of that, with about half a dozen other scientists from creation research. They got donations of I guess it was $5 million or something, because it was very expensive. Then they rigged the experiment. They rigged it!

Steven Austin had known that there were some problems with certain radio dating and so he went where they could not get consistent dates. He knew that. I've got it here somewhere, I could go through it, but I'm not going to take the time. So he got people, churches and laypeople to fund him for millions of dollars to get this work done. When I think in the back of his mind he already had the whole thing rigged. We have proof that he knew that certain methods did not work on certain minerals. Therefore, any reputable scientist just threw those out. In other words, we're not concerned with things that don't always work perfectly, but with things that do work. Not everything always works perfect and you've got to have the right instrument and the right system to check the right whatever it is that you're checking.

I will give you a little analogy. Okay I have a little calendar. Let me make a point that everybody can see very simply, that you've got to use the right instrumentation, the right methodology for what it is that you are testing. Now we know for example that certain things... there are certain isotopes that have a half life of hours, like 48 hours. Some have it for years and some have a half life of like a billion years. In other words, whatever the element, what we call the parent product that we're dealing with, like say uranium is the parent. That disintegrates down to what they call a daughter. So uranium will give off radiation and disintegrate into lead, that has a certain half life. They can do this on anything. They can determine anything that has radiation, what is the half life of that radiation. In other words, how long does it take until half of whatever is radiating is gone. Then whatever is left, it will disintegrate again at that same half time, whatever it is. With radio carbon dating it's only about 1,500 years.

So in 1,500 years in any given piece of carbon, maybe a piece of firewood from an ancient Indian fireplace. In 1,500 years only half of the carbon 14 will still be in there. In another 1,500 years half of that half will only be in there. In another 1,500 years, half of that half will only be in there. So when you get up to about 40,000 or 50,000 years there is almost nothing left in there and you can't date it much further. Although they now are getting to where they think they can radio carbon date (some things at least) up to maybe 80,000 or 90,000 years.

Now supposing we're going to run the 100 yd dash. We want to time somebody, how long it is going take them to run the 100 yd dash. (Using the little calendar) It's September. On your mark, get set, go. Stop. There. He started the run here (pointing to a date in September) and I figure he stopped about here (over a little on the date). You get it? Can you time a 100 yd dash on a calendar? No. Even a stopwatch isn't good enough anymore. You've got to have a laser beam or something.

The 42-year-old swimmer, she lost a gold medal in China by 1/100th of a second and Phelps won a gold medal by 1/100th of a second. You don't time that on a calendar.

So there is a problem with these people. They don't know what they're doing sometimes. Of course they come up with bogus dates and numbers and so on.

Kat · March 12, 2009, 08:56:01 PM

The Ocean Salt Argument
For A Young Earth

What Joly didn't know was that sodium and other salts are removed from the ocean in several ways. These include the formation of salt flats, chemical reactions of salts with the ocean floor, living organisms taking up salts and depositing them via skeletal remains on the ocean floor. Salt beds, in some cases more than a mile thick.

http://67.199.69.61/origins/downloads/Origins_chap05_art12_salt.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------

One mile thick... a salt bed! They say, 'well, the Earth is so old there should be more salt in the ocean.' Do you know how many salt beds there are one mile thick? There are a lot of them. Well maybe not a lot a mile thick but there are a lot of them that are very big.

So they calculate that it would only take sixty two million years, would be the maximum age of the Earth. It's still way out of the six thousand range. Sixty two million is a lot shorter than four and a half billion, but it's a heck of a lot longer than six thousand too. Even if their argument had any validity to it, it wouldn't prove anything. Not really.

This paper (The Ocean Salt Argument For A Young Earth) says, Scientists in the 1900s studied the rates at which the various salts enter and leave the ocean.

But when these young Earth people, Austin Humphreys in this case or Witcom and Morris, they hedge on the figures and they make it come off so that it looks like it's going this way, a little more. Then you extrapolate from that, go backwards or whatever so many billions of years and it doesn't fit. But if your figures are off, they're off. You can't hedge and fudge and lie and distort and twist so that you get a little something in your favor. Then you're running backwards six billion years and you say that doesn't work.

There are so many of these things. They talk about the lost second of the Earth. The earth is slowing down and they talk about this lost second. Of course I think some young-earthers took that as literally one second. No, it's just in the range of a second, it's like 92/100 of a second, it's not a full second. So the difference between a very fraction of a second and a full second, when you run it back millions of years, it's quite a difference. Even there, the theories behind it don't hold up anyway.

So much for these five great theories... Five nonsense. None of them will hold up to the peer pressure of, I don't want to say real scientists, but these men. Well they started out as real scientists, I mean they've got degrees, so they are scientists. But they no longer follow the scientific method. The scientific method is that you have a certain protocol when you are establishing the laws of nature and the laws of science and the laws of physics and so on. You've got to follow the protocol. You can hedge. There are no hedge factors in there. So before a theory is presented as something factual and actual and a law, it's tested and retested. You must be able to reduplicate this thing over and over, whether it be through formula or in the laboratory or out in the field. None of this stuff can be verified or duplicated in the young earth theories.

Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer, has challenged Dr. Humphreys. He said let's debate this stuff. If you think you've got all the answers and you know what your facts are, let's debate it. But Humphreys wants to have a peanut gallery of young evolutionists that would cheer him on. When he says something clever, they will applaud. When somebody else says something, they will boo, that kind of childish idiocy.

So Hugh Ross says we'll have a debate, but there is not going to be a peanut gallery. We're going to have a minimum of fifteen PhDs from well known universities. I don't care which ones, any of them, Penn State, UCLA, M.I.T. it doesn't matter. Fifteen legitimate PhDs. Then we're going to sit down and discuss your theories. I don't care if they are Christians, atheists or what... PhDs. What do you think Humphreys' answer to that was? No way, Jose. I got to straighten out my sock drawer that weekend.

I was supposed to debate someone on tithing a couple years ago. This producer for the religious program on CNN in Atlanta called me and she wanted to do a thing on tithing, because she had read my paper somehow. She wanted me to take the side that tithing was not for Christians today. But she wanted to find a noted person, somebody that people would know in the theological world, to debate me. We talked a couple times and she asked who is well known that believes in tithing and I suggested a few, like Creflo Dollar (because his name is so great, Dollar). Anyway as it turned out, this thing got put off and put off and put off. Finally she said she had some people that were pretty well known around the country that said they would do it, until they found out who they were going up against. They wanted to check out what it was I taught before... then all of a sudden, that's right, they had to straighten out their sock drawer that weekend. She couldn't get anybody, they would not do it.

That was the first part of this email to me, but we didn't cover all of it yet. It says;

I thought you might find this worth your while to help you accept the truth of Exodus 20:11, for six days God created... Maybe someday, Ray, you'll just accept that Bible truth and won't fight it.

Now I'm going to go through an article that this man wrote all about this. It says;

Moses informs us that heaven was created at the exact same time as the earth. We need to know that in Hebrew the word is always in the plural, for in six days Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. But God the Father existed quite well before there was heavens and He will do very well when the heavens shall pass away. But if indeed heaven is God's Elect...

[Comment from Ray: How many of you have ever heard that? This guy teaches it. ]

If indeed heaven is God's elect, how then can it be said that heaven was created at the same time as the earth? Here's the way God did that. "In the beginning," the Hebrew for the word "beginning" here, is firstfruit. See Leviticus 23:10. Christ God created the Heavens and the earth in Christ.

[Comment: So, it says "in the beginning," that Hebrew word means firstfruits. You know when it talks about firstfruits in the Bible, it's the same word as the word, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth." In the first, at the start, In the beginning. That's all that means in that context. In other words, in the first of the harvest, at the beginning of the harvest, when the harvest starts, that's your firstfruits.

He says Jesus Christ is our firstfruit, it says that we're a kind of firstfruit and Jesus Christ is the firstfruit of them that slept. So what he's saying is in the beginning, Christ created the heavens, He was the firstfruit. In the Christ, God created the heavens and the earth.]

What a revealing statement. God creates everything, including His elect, in the firstfruit.

[Comment: He created everything in Christ, in the firstfruit. And he says;]

We God's Elect, are the heavens.

[Comment: So all of the Elect... all of the heavens of the Elect, were created back in Genesis 1:1, in Christ. I'll continue;]

Were the days of creation really ages? Is the seventh day finished? This man writes and says; on your website you state many times that our bible is signified and that these things have different meanings, spiritual meanings, symbolic meanings. Why is it then that when you talk about the days of creation in Genesis 1 they are literal? Why can't they be spiritual or symbolic like you say everything in the Bible is?

The short answer is that there is a qualifier with each of these days of creation which does not appear in other scriptures, which are later used to refer to the overall periods as days. For example...

[Comment: Then he shows in Genesis 2:4...]

All of the days are counted as a day. This verse summarizes what took place in the six days. That is not the way he uses the word day here though in creation, as Christ is creating the earth he goes a great length to tell us each step in the creation process; "And God called the light day and the darkness He called night, and the evening and the morning were the first day."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So he's saying that's how we know these days were not symbolic or spiritual or figurative language for longer periods of time or anything like that. Here is how we know that these were 24-hour solar days, "evening and morning." So we're going to take a look at this thing, 'day,' and see what we have.

I asked you earlier, how many can tell me a definition of a day, and then we went around on that a little bit. What is the biblical definition of a day? Somebody had said a day is like a thousand years. But I didn't ask what it was like, what is it? I don't want to know what it's like or similar to. What is it? What is the definition? You see, they like to go back to the beginning and say, 'you have to see what it says in the beginning, because that's where it tells us these days consisted of the evening and the morning. Two segments of twelve hours, a 24 solar hour day.'

Now what do the scriptures tell us, what is the definition of a day? Well I'll give it to you. He read it, he quoted it in his answer and missed it. I'll give you the definition.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day...

Now there is the biblical definition of a 'day.' The light, the sunshine. Look up 'day' in Strong's Concordance, the first definition - the light, the heat, the warmth. The warmth of the day, the part that is warm by the sun, that is a day. Then by extension it can involve a 24-hour period. The first and most proper definition of a day is daylight, day time. "God called the light day." Did He call he night, day? No, He did not. Get it out of your minds and start thinking biblically.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night...

How simple is this? Why don't we believe the scriptures? The light of the sunshine is day. When the sun goes down it is no longer day, it's night and God says so.

Gen 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It says it's the first day, that's not very good. It should be;

Gen 1:5 ...And there was evening and there was morning-- one day. (YLT)

Now the reason for that is this is the ultimate "day one." When you say first, it's always being contrasted with something else. There was nothing else to contrast this to. Therefore, it has to be day one. From then on in the Hebrew, it does say second, third, fourth. But on the first one, it doesn't say first, it says, "day one" in the Hebrew.

So, the light is the day, that's what a day is. How long is it? Well, it's when the sun goes up until the sun goes down. How many hours is it? Let's ask our Lord. How long did Jesus Christ say a day was?

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day...

He said are there not how many hours in the day? "Twelve hours." So is the biblical definition of a day 24-hours? Can anyone show me in the bible where a definition of a day is 24-hours? I don't think anyone can actually show me where the word day means 24-hours. It could include the 12 hours of night, but it doesn't mean that.

Now someone talked about Sabbath, as God created and worked for six days and He rested the seventh.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.

It doesn't mean He rested. He didn't rest for the seventh day, He stopped working on the seventh day. He has not rested then or since, He stopped. It was a day of stopping. It was not a day of rest. We rest because we get tired and we need it, God doesn't. God didn't rest. The word is not rest, in the Hebrew it means to stop. He stopped His work on the seventh day.

I said that the word appears 2,189, some nearly 2,200 times. Now we're back to Dr. Morris here. I've got a little thing on Dr. Morris, you know Witcom and Morris and the creation museum and Answers in Genesis and all that. Here he says 2,291 times, of course that is singular and plural. "Occurring 2,291 times in the Old Testament, it almost always means a literal day." ( http://tvja.org/science/pdf_Documents/creation%20vs.%20evolution.pdf )

Excuse me? What is a literal day, as opposed to a un-literal day? A literal day, he said of the 2,291 times in the Old Testament, it almost always means a literal day. But by that, he means 24-hours. No, pale face. Of the 2,291 times you can find in the Old Testament the word day almost NEVER means 24-hours, which he considers a 'literal' day. In fact, day is used more prevalently as an indeterminate period of time, even than it is for the twelve hours of daylight. The least that it is used is a 24-hour period and even there it usually doesn't call it that by itself. When the night is included, it's mentioned. Why? Because these people didn't know that day also defined night. Night has its own word. Day... Night.

So when we talk about even the commandment of working, he said; "maybe you will understand this. So in six days God created... for six days, we are to work." For six 24-hour days, we are to work and then rest one? No. How many scriptures talk about the night is coming when you can no longer work? You need the day to work. You need the light. So even where it talks about the commandment, we are to work six days, not six days and six nights and then rest one.

A day can be known as the light contrasted to the darkness, it's a period of 24-hours, a general daytime, a point in time, a year in the plural, an age or indeterminate long period of time...

In virtually all the places where you read, you know all of Jacob's years were so many, it's days. The Hebrew is 'days' were so many years.

Gen 47:8 And Pharaoh said to Jacob, "How many are the days of the years of your life?"

Right there you can see time after time after time it's used to mean a longer period of time than 24-hours.

One of the problems we have with this is that Hebrew words can be used in numerous ways. I'm going to have to learn to be a little more careful how I interpret a word too. I'll say this word comes from a root that means this or that. Well okay that's good, but does that mean this or that in this context using this word?

Okay let me see if I can explain that a little better. If you want a really good English dictionary, you would probably get The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, it's like thirty volumes, it's got maybe 500,000 or 600,000 words. Or you may have a Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary like I have, which is about this thick. I have two of them, one has 2,600 pages. Or you can get a desk top Merriam Webster or I particularly like The American Heritage Dictionary, it's about this thick, about 50,000 or 60,000 words. If you go to Strong's Concordance, his Hebrew dictionary you'll find about, not 60,000, but 8,500. But those 8,500 words come from root words, that are just used differently. While the new words are not even 8,500, it's 2,552 in the Old Testament. That's all, 2,552 words. So these words are used over and over again.

Almost all the words in Hebrew consist of three letters. You don't find ten letter, six letter or five letter words, there are a couple of four letter words. Almost all of those 2,552 words are three letters, three consonants. Once in a while they will write a Hebrew word with a vowel, but not often, it's just for particular reasons they do. Then of course we have now what is called pointings, which are little dots and slashes, which change the meaning of words.

Let me give you an example of something here. This man said, "if the heavens are indeed the Elect." Is that even in the realm of possibility, that the heavens means the multiple heavens or the spiritual realm of God's Elect, where God's Spirit lives in their heaven or whatever. Is that even possibility? No it's not, it's not possible, here's why. Remember I read this where he said, "in the Hebrew 'heavens' is always in the plural." That's true, BUT... there's a big but. But it's called a dual. Even in Strong's definitions he'll say a dual, a plural - dual meaning two. Plural yes, thousands or millions, no. Two.

Hebrew reads from right to left and when you come to the end of the word heaven/heavens it has what looks like a square box ( ם ), that's the dual. That's the plurality, but it signifies dual. Now some things can be plural and mean thousands, but not heavens. Heavens is always used in the plural with that box, which means two. Two heavens.

Now interestingly, probably most of you know that the word translated God, in the beginning of the Bible is Elohim, El means God. Elohim means plurality - plural, but it's a plural dual, two. What does that do to the trinity theory, that Elohim is plural, Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It wipes it out.

What does it do with the idea that God created the heavens and the earth through His Son Jesus Christ? It verifies it, dual. "In the beginning, (dual) El. Not that there are two Gods, but El in the duality of Father and Son.

Kat · March 15, 2009, 09:52:46 PM

Audio # 6 Video #2

We read where this man says (in the email);

Moses informs us that heaven was created the exact time as the earth. We need to know that in the Hebrew this word is always in the plural.

What he fails to understand, it's always in the dual. So he is not going to fit thousands and thousands of the Elect's heavens into the two heavens of Genesis 1:1. He says; He created the heavens and the earth at the same time.

Then he quotes Moses in Exodus 20:11. So these young-earthers, they equate one with the other, that when it says Moses said in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is the same as in Exodus 20:11 where it says, "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is."

Now how many times I've said we have to pay attention to all the words? Now in Genesis 1:1, there is a whole lot more in here than most of us can even begin to realize and after spending many hundreds of hours on this, I don't even claim to have scratched the surface. So we're told in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." When did He create them? On six days or in the beginning? In the beginning.

Is that the same as where Moses said in Exodus 20 verse 11, "for in six days God made the heavens and the earth"? Is that not the same thing? Well you would say, 'It has to be the same thing.' It's not. Moses didn't say in Exodus 20 verse 11 for God told us in the first chapter of Genesis that in six days He made the heavens and the earth. He doesn't say that, these are two different facts.

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

Now that "created" is just a simple verb, but it has additions to it. When they put a little 7 as a suffix to that, it changes the simple word 'create' to what in English we call a pluperfect. It's the difference between yesterday my wife baked a cake or yesterday my wife had baked cake. I mean they're both past tense, but one is called pluperfect. It is not happening at the time that the statement is being made.

"In the beginning..." at this beginning point, God created the heavens and the earth. No. "In the beginning God (already had) created the heavens and the earth."

Hebrews 4, here again we're talking about a day, a Sabbath day. It talks about that He wouldn't let them enter into their rest.

Heb 3:11 ... They shall not enter into My rest.
v. 12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
v. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
v. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
v.3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest: although the works were finished from the 'end of the sixth day'.

Is that what it says?

Heb. 4:3 ...although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

"In the beginning God (HAD) created the heavens and the earth." He already had created them. Now here is where the Bible and science mesh. People pooh-pooh the Big Bang like it's the big boogeyman, the big bird or some dumb thing.

So I'm saying what is the difference if we call it the Big Bang or the God Awesome Blast? God talks about performing powerful things by the blast of His nostrils (2 Samuel 16:22). The Bible tells us that He is stretching out, spreading out the heavens like a curtain, if you check Youngs and Concordance.

Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: (KJV)

Psa 104:2 Covering himself with light as a garment, Stretching out the heavens as a curtain, (YLT)

Psa 104:2 You are muffled with light as a garment. Stretching out the heavens like a sheet, (CLV)

Even in the King James, it said He spreadeth.

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, (KJV)

You know when you put spread and then 'eth,' spreadeth, that's like the Greek eroist tense, is spreading.

John 3:16 For God so loves the world.

Not He loved, past tense. He's still loving, it's not come to an end. It's not like used to love the world, but now He doesn't, God still loves the world. Now they got it right in the rest of the verse. "For God so loves the world..." then, for whosoever believed on Him. No, "whosoever believeth" present progressive. He so loves those that believes and they should not be perishing, but be having eonian life.

John 3:16 For God so loves the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not be perishing, but be having eonian life.

God's Awesome Blast

So the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For years I didn't have a clue what that meant. How could they be finished from the foundation?

Listen, scientists say that as far as they can understand, the universe stared at a central point, it had a beginning. Now they didn't know that 30-40 years ago, they're saying it now. Cosmologists, physicists, astronomers, all concede that this universe did indeed have a beginning. It started at an infinitesimal point from which is spread out, and time and space spread out with matter. It isn't like there was this huge space from all eternity and God built a universe inside of it. The space itself is a creation and scientists now believe that as the universe expands, space expands to receive it.

I don't know how many, but not too many years ago, this one scientist detected what they call radiation background noise in space, which is the echo left over from the big bang. Since they know that the heavens are spreading out, then when they're out here, at sometimes they were back there. If they were spreading out to here, they must have come from back there. If they ended up here and they're spreading, they must have come from this one point.

Do you know the greatest Cabbalist have said that, for two and three thousand years? Did you know that Maimonides said that the universe began as a spec the size of a mustard seed... who never had one class in physics, astronomy or cosmology. One thousand years ago - two thousand years ago they said that. They believed that is what was meant, it started at a single point no bigger than a mustard seed... the entire universe! And that's exactly what advocates of the Big Bang Theory say, exactly what old Jewish Cabbalists were saying thousands of years ago, who really understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

They know, by the laws of physic and quantum mathematics and all of these higher systems of learning. They know how to project backwards what would happen if you took the universe and start squeezing it back to its source. They can also extrapolate, not perfectly, but to a degree that it makes sense... so they can extrapolate how the universe expanded. What happened in the first 100 millionth of a second. What happened the second 100 millionth of a second and the third and the fourth and the first minute, and the first three minutes. They can do it based on quantum math and physics, they could do it, they can work it out.

I used to hear this little take off on, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and then they say, 'but scientists say in the beginning, not God, but in the beginning was the hydrogen atom.' So in the beginning the hydrogen atom, not God? So everything came from the hydrogen atom? But it just didn't make sense to me. How could you get all of the other elements from a hydrogen atom? First of all, hydrogen is the lightest element there is, right. So it's the very lightest one there is... how can you get iron, which is very heavy, out of hydrogen? How do you turn a hydrogen atom into iron?

[Comment from someone: How do you get the universe out of a mustard seed?] You take out all the air.

But it appears the scriptures and scientists are agreeing on this one. So in the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth and they were finished from the very foundation. How so? I mean, well we have to see what it was He 'created' and what He later 'made' from what He created. We'll see the foolishness of such heretics as this, they have not a clue as to where they're talking about.

"In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth." We know from science it's at a starting point and spread out. We know from the scriptures it started with God and spread out. Not only spread out, but it's still spreading. Those words are still in the future tense. God is spreading and science tells us that the universe is today, it is spreading. Now we know how scientists figured that out, but how did the writers of the scriptures know that? How could they look up at the starry skies at night and say looks to me like it's spreading out, at millions of miles an hour? There is no perception of movement at all, except as the earth twists.

So what God created was, everything that was necessary for what He was going to make. He did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, as this person tells us it says in Exodus. It does not.

In Genesis it says, "in the beginning God created," the word is bara and it means to bring in something new, something really new. In Exodus 20, it says "for in six days God made..." First of all, even the translators knew not to put create. They put "created" in Genesis 1:1, but not in Exodus 20:11. Why didn't they put, for in six days God created the heavens and the earth? Because He didn't do that in six days. Then what did He do in six days? He "made" the heavens and the earth. What's the difference? All the difference in the world.

In Genesis 1:1, He brought into existence everything that exists in the universe. From day one through day six He formed all of that into everything as we now see it in the universe. Two totally different operations. Totally, totally different, they are not synonymous.

The word bara (created) and the word asah (made) are two different words and they mean two different things. In the beginning He created it all, it was all there. But it wasn't until certain things transpired before He began His work of asah.

We reach something very interesting.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested (just means He stopped) from all His work which God created and (to or for) made.

Now that is a horrible translation there. The "created" and "made" are okay, but not the word "and." There is no word "and" in the Hebrew there. ...which God created that's bara, and the word "made" is asah. God blessed all which He created, it should be 'to' or 'for.' That word should always be translated to or for, not 'and.' All that God created to make or if you wanted to say that He created for making. You would never learn that in a million years reading the King James Bible.

He did two things in Chapter one. He created the universe and then 'for' six days, not for in six days. That word 'in' is not in Exodus 20:11, for in six days. No, for six days, period. Not for in six days. For six days then He did something else. What did He do? He made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that in them is.

Exo 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is...

Are you seeing it? In a sense, in Genesis 1:1 He made all the raw materials of the heavens and the earth. In the six creation periods He fashioned it - molded it - built it. Verses 1 and 2 have absolutely nothing to do with that happens in verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on.

Kat · March 15, 2009, 09:53:49 PM

Now scientists will tell you, I mean I haven't read that many books... The main books on this that I've read are Dr. Schroeder's, who is an applied physicists, has a PhD and he's a theologian. So he tries to explain some of these more difficult scientific matters in layman's language.

When in the Big Bang, according to scientists there was for so long this explosion spread out, but it was a considerable time before there was light. Because it was so dense... I mean you pack one hundred billion galaxies with one hundred billion stars into a grapefruit - mustard seed. It was in a since an exploding black hole. There was no light. Scientists will say there was no light... light could not escape and there were no heavy metals. There was no iron or tin or led or gold or silver, it was the hydrogen atom. So not only do you condense the whole universe down to the size of a grapefruit or a mustard seed, you condense the whole universe down to hydrogen. This is mind boggling.

But scientists will tell you not only was everything that exists in the universe, in that exploding central point, not only was it all in there, it was infinitesimally timed to the trillionth of a mega second. It had to be perfectly timed. The timing had to be flawless beyond imagination or it wouldn't have worked. We wouldn't have what we have today.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form (or more like formless, not that it didn't have any form at all, it was formless) and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now I'm not completely sold on the idea yet, that this is totally speaking about water covering the earth, although it certainly did. But I think it has a larger meaning. Remember that old song, Bridge Over Troubled Waters? In a sense I think that is what this is talking about. This is the beginning of the creation and its troubled waters. You get the idea that something is not right here.

Some will say, 'it should read and the earth became without form and void.' Well, actually yes it did in a sense 'became,' but not at this point. Again, the Hebrew here is pluperfect in English. It would more accurately be translated, "and the earth," and is correct, the word 'and' is in there. "And the earth" is one word in Hebrew, it's erets. There is the word earth and then a sign for 'and,' and a sign for 'the.' So that's all in there. It isn't just the word there, only earth. No, it's "and the earth." It's in there, and the earth was...

Now the only way you can translate that "was," is if you translated and the earth was - already. It was already void (and vacant) and darkness was upon the face of the earth. But a better translation would be, "and the earth had existed." Pluperfect English, past tense, had existed. The earth was already this way or had existed in this condition.

Notice what God says next.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light:

Let there be light. What do scientists tell us happened after the big bang? It took awhile before there was light. In the beginning He had created the heavens and the earth, but there was no light. Three verses later He tells us in the third verse "let there be light," and it should read, "and there became light."

So you see how this idea of a big bang is not that stupid and atheistic and evolutionary nonsense and all of that. Millions of scientists work with the laws of physics and quantum math and all of these things, cosmology and astronomy. All of their knowledge of all of the laws of physics fit into the model that the heavens and the earth had a beginning from a central point that exploded out very rapidly. It's the only thing that fits, nothing else fits. There is no other theory that fits except this thing that they've come up with, the Big Bang. You could call it the big spreading out and it would sound more scriptural. The fact of the matter is, it is scriptural. Christ calls it the spreading out, scientists call it the Big Bang, which is just another term for spreading out rapidly and powerfully from a central beginning.

So, why does this person say, "well these can't be longer periods of time than 24-hours." Because he said, "the short answer is we have a qualifier, "and there was evening and there was morning." It was day and night, that's got to be a literal solar 24-hour day." But is that what evening and morning means?

I told you years and years ago I knew there was a much deeper meaning to that evening and morning. I just didn't want to take this guy on at the time and I didn't want to get into it because I know it was a big study. I've spent a whole year on this. I mean I wrote some other articles and did some stuff, but mostly I was working with this. I've got a lot more material that I'm not giving you here today, I don't know if I ever will, but I have it up in my noodle for whatever purpose.

So, do you understand now about that last verse, everything that God had created to make? He created all that, for what? To make this. So He did not make the heavens and the earth in six literal days, like it would say in the King James. But "for six days" He made it. "For six days He made - asah. He even did some creating during that period of time. I'll be getting into that.

You know, it's interesting. There are three things in Genesis that God created. Genesis 1, three things only. What three things did God create in the first chapter of Genesis? Man (1). Heaven and earth (2). The word created is used one more time in that first chapter. This is the only thing in the first chapter of Genesis that is called great. Whale (3).

Gen 1:21 And God created great (bara, this is new) whales.

This is something quite new. Man and female was quite new, that was different from any of the other animals or anything, it was new. He "created" them. This is a new thing coming into being. The other thing He created, not only did He create it, but He created "great"... Nadine. What are the Nadine? I'll be getting into that.

He (emailer) says, That the phase of the evening and the morning is repeated six times in the creation account. Were it not used then we would be justified in assuming that these could be longer periods of time.

No. Since it is used, we have a pretty sound reason for why they are longer periods of time. He says if they, were not used then we might think that these were literal solar days of 24-hour duration. No, just the opposite.

Evening and morning has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the time period that is being discussed. Has nothing to do with the length of the time. Evening and morning have to do with a condition. The evening is a condition that comes about at the end of a day. Morning is a condition that comes about at the end of a night. So don't be coming up with definitions of stuff that don't exist. Evening is as it begins to get dark, going from daylight to darkness. That transition period is the evening. As it goes from dark to becoming light, that division there between darkness and light, that is called morning. It doesn't last for three hours or six hours or twelve hours, like a day and a night do.

YOM

Alright, let's cover some more things about day. Day is used to represent many things other than, even the daylight part of a 24-hour solar cycle. Day is used to represent the word 'time' 67 times in the Old Testament. It just means time.

Genesis 4:3: And in the process of time (yom) it came to pass. Cane brought forth...

In the process of yom, days. It's the word day. Day and days 2,291 times always comes from the word yom, it's pronounced like home, not yum. So in the process of time. If you say in the process of days it came to pass, well you would understand it. But time fits better.

In Deuteronomy 10:10 it speaks about the time.

Deu 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time (yom), forty days and forty nights;

Where it talks about forever or for the eon many times, Isaiah 30.

Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come forever and ever:

It's yom, day. Day can be used many ways.

1Kings 1:1 Now king David was old and stricken in years (yom)...

David was old and stricken in years. The word is yom. He was stricken in yom.

Gen 41:1 And it came to pass at the end of two full years (yom)...

And after the end of two yoms, years. The word is yoms.

Finally Amos 4.

Amos 4:4 Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years (yom):

Your tithes after three yoms. But it's definitely speaking about three years, not days, not 24-hours cycle. But after three years you bring in this other tithe.

Numerous times in the Old Testament yom is translated age.

Gen 24:1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age (yom):

Stricken in age, old age.

Gen 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age (yom) of Jacob was a hundred forty and seven years.

The whole age of Jacob. It's yom. The yom of Jacob.

It's used to mean the word ago or always or season.

Joshua 24:7 ...and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season (yom).

They dwelt in the wilderness a long season, a long yom.

This word is used all kinds of ways that never ever insinuates 24-hours.

In Chronicles it's translated to the word 'chronicles' 37 times in the Old Testament. It's translated 'continually' or 'continuance' and 'ever' or 'evermore,' that's King James talk.

So yom is not for a 24-hour period. It stands for time in general, days, weeks, months, years, eons, ages.

Another interesting verse is Genesis 1.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day (yom) from the night;

How about that. Is a day and a night, a day? No, God divided them. They're two different things. He divided the day from the night, how can they be the same thing? So when He says, "and the evening and the morning were day one," that could be millions or billions of years. There is no time limit set on that whatsoever. None.

Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat