> Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings

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

(1/3) > >>

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.


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.


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.

McDonald, ‘Escaped Helium From the Atmosphere.

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.

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!


There is a reason why this is a damnable doctrine. 

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.

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

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.


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.]


                   Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
                                       By Brett Vickers

Thomas Barnes
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
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
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.]


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.]



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


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.

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

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


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.]


                                 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.]



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version