Thursday, October 29, 2015

I Found This To Be True...

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. I especially was interested in their famous dinosaur displays. What I found there were some nice displays that show the amazing creatures dinosaurs were....and a lot of fairy-tale like stories of their history. My husband and I talked with a lot of other visitors who noticed the same thing. We discussed with them the Biblical perspective of their presence on earth and the likely reason for their demise (The Biblical Flood and harsh world following).  

Can't See the Forest for the Trees
At the 75th annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, held this year in downtown Dallas, the world's foremost fossil experts presented scores of research summaries. Researchers described extinct giant mammals from Argentina, one-of-a-kind bird fossils from China, and good-old North American classic dinosaurs. Amazingly, almost all of these fossil descriptions included phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree diagrams. Today's paleontologists show a religious-like devotion to fit their finds in an evolutionary tree. And with equally amazing regularity they describe problems with this process of constructing evolutionary trees. Are these problems significant enough to cast doubt on the whole exercise?
One poster described a duck-bill dinosaur (hadrosaur) called Tanius from China and provided two different phylogenetic tree options—an inadvertent but open admission that they don't really know which scenario is correct. Maybe neither. The poster authors wrote, "Tanius sinensis shows a complex of derived and primitive characteristic generating considerable character conflict and resulting in a loss of resolution among non-hadrosaurid hadrosauroids."1 In other words, instead of revealing itself as between other evolutionary forms, Tanius looked quite unique.
Similarly, one researcher offered a new take on the evolution of an extinct cat-like creature.2 Unfortunately for those who imagine that each creature falls neatly along imagined lines of descent, this study also generated more than one tree diagram. Their differences were based not on creature characters but on the statistical method used to position the creature in the various trees.
The same kinds of problems plagued attempts to fit Europasaurus onto an evolutionary tree.3 At fewer than 20 feet long in adulthood, this tiny sauropod is dwarfed by its normal-sized kin. One presenter used a well-preserved specimen to show the positions of the sauropod's cranial nerves. Various authors have proposed different places for Europasaurus on different trees, but the creature's unique arrangement of nerves suggested yet another tree needs to be manufactured.
These three examples illustrate dozens of evolutionary tree reassignments that formed a broad theme for the meeting. It seems that one can construct different phylogenetic trees from either different traits or statistical methods used to evaluate traits.
And who decides which traits to use in these constructions? The entire process appears to be steeped in arbitrary decision-making. And with the trees in such constant flux, it looks as though evolutionary researchers will never arrive at a certain story for any creature. Why do so many of these experts have such a difficult time sorting out what evolved from what?4
Tree-crafting will never end so long as belief in big-picture evolution reigns.
Accepting creation would resolve most of the confusion, bringing into focus the big picture. If God made each basic kind of creature, then they do not all share a common ancestor. Each kind would exhibit a unique set of created characters. No wonder all these wondrous creatures don't fit on an evolutionary tree—they never evolved.5
Under a creation model, researchers could categorize creatures into probable kinds, instead of imagining that all creatures are related. The continued failure to find harmony in phylogenies—after over 150 years—points to the failure of its underlying evolutionary assumptions that teach such things as Triceratops and T. rex having evolved from some unknown reptile. Would researchers find more success if they asked creation-based research questions, like how many horns adorned each variety (sometimes called "species") in the ceratopsian kind?
Until big-picture evolution gets booed off the stage, its presenters are doomed to unwittingly decry ever-changing and ever-problematic phylogenetic trees that retell evolutionary stories that never actually happened.
  1. Borinder, N.H. et al. 2015. Postcranial anatomy and phylogenetic affinities of Tanius Sinensis (Ornithopoda; hadrosauridea) from the Late Cretaceous of China. Poster no. B109. Dallas, TX: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 75th Annual Meeting.
  2. Barret, P.Z., C.A. Boyd, and D.C. Pagnac. 2015. Taxonomic and phylogenetic revisions of North American Nimravidae. Poster no. B75. Dallas, TX: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 75th Annual Meeting.
  3. Schmitt, A., F. Knoll, and E. Tschopp. 2015. Paleoneurology of Eurposaurus holgeri, an insular dwarf sauropod from Northern Germany. Technical session XVII, 2:45pm. Dallas, TX: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 75th Annual Meeting.
  4. The most serious problem with the whole exercise is its circularity. Researchers first assume that a certain collection of fossil forms share ancestry, according to standard evolutionary thought. Then they plot those forms onto a diagram resembling a family tree, only to conclude the very premise with which they began—that these creatures shared an ancestor.
  5. See Thomas, B. and F. Sherwin. 2009. Darwin's Withering Tree of LifeActs & Facts. 38 (5): 16. 
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on October 28, 2015.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Refreshing Truth for a Cursed World

Dwelling with God: From Eden to the New Jerusalem

Published: 22 October 2015 (GMT+10)
God created human beings in His image and with the unique capacity for relationship with Him out of the rest of the physical creation. God’s plan has always included dwelling with His people in a place characterized by holiness, and we can see that theme all throughout Scripture.


Eden was the first place where God communed with man, and its description conveys what the earth was like before sin corrupted it.
“A constant in this passage is the bounty of God’s goodness to his special creation through a beautifully complete environment with luscious verdant herbage and a land rich in water and precious stones.”1 
Eden was the first place where God communed with man.
It was a perfect garden paradise with all types of fruit trees and it was well watered by four rivers. Adam’s job was to tend and keep the garden. Interestingly, these same words would later be used of the priests’ service in the Temple (Numbers 3:7–88:25–2618:5–61 Chronicles 23:32Ezekiel 44:14). “Adam was to begin by ruling the garden for God and presumably to extend God’s reign over the whole earth.”2
Eden was a place God came to commune with Adam and Eve, and because there was no sin, there was no need for sacrifices for sin. However, once Adam sinned, that fellowship was broken and Adam and Eve could not stay in the Garden. They were driven out so they could not eat from the Tree of Life and cherubim and a flaming sword were placed at the entrance so they could never return.

The Tabernacle

While God appeared to people, He did not dwell continually with anyone until the exodus of Israel from Egypt. God’s presence with them symbolized their favoured position as His nation and the people the promised Saviour would come from. He instructed them to build Him a tent so that He would have a dwelling with them. As Scripture elsewhere makes clear, He did not need a house, and He could not be contained in one in any case (1 Kings 8:27). However, it was a powerful symbol and became a central part of the Israelite religion.
Moses was given strict instructions about how to make the tabernacle, and he was warned not to deviate from it. The author of Hebrews says that Moses was shown the heavenly tabernacle, of which the earthly tabernacle was a copy (Hebrews 8:5).
The tabernacle, like Eden, had only one entrance. As one approached closer to the Holy of Holies, the materials became more costly and luxurious. On the outside, the curtains that formed the walls for the tabernacle were plain skins, utilitarian and chosen to withstand the elements. The metal elements were made of cheap bronze. But inside the materials were silver, then gold. The curtains were embroidered with cherubim—the same creatures that guarded the entrance to Eden ‘guarded’ access to God in the tabernacle.
A reconstruction of the lampstand (Menorah) of the Temple created by the Temple Institute
Most Israelites never entered the Tabernacle. “Indeed, the whole structure of the tabernacle emphasizes that God’s presence cannot and must not be entered casually.”3
Rather, they worshipped and sacrificed in the courtyard. The priests could enter the tabernacle to perform their duties. There they would see the altar of incense and the table of the Bread of the Presence, both of which were wooden, overlaid with pure gold, and all the utensils associated with them were also golden.
The other piece of furniture, the most glorious feature most priests would ever see, was the lampstand. It served a practical purpose—the tent was an enclosed space that did not allow sunlight in, so lamps were necessary to allow the priests to see so they could do their work. But it also had important symbolism.
The lampstand was specifically designed to look like a flowering tree with almond blossoms, and some of these blossoms would hold the lamps. The menorah which is used in Jewish worship today is modeled after this lampstand. When it was properly outfitted with the lamps and lit, it would fill the entire tent with light. Most commentators see a clear reference to the Tree of Life in the lampstand.

The Ark of the Covenant

The most intricately-crafted item in the tabernacle was something most people would never see—the Ark of the Covenant. The ‘lid’ of the Ark was the mercy seat—a solid gold slab which perfectly fit over the top of the Ark. Two cherubim were crafted on the top of the mercy seat, and their wings overshadowed the mercy seat. The Ark was appropriately ornate, as it represented the most holy place where the Presence of God dwelled.
Whenever the tabernacle was dismantled to be moved from place to place, a select few priests were entrusted with the task of covering the Ark with special covers which would protect the Ark and shield it from view; the only other person to ever see the Ark was the High Priest, and then only once a year, when he would enter the Holy of Holies to atone for the sins of the people.

Solomon’s Temple

Solomon’s Temple continued some of the motifs present in the Tabernacle. Cherubim guarded the holy place (1 Kings 6:23–28). The palm trees, flowers, and pomegranates decorating the Temple recall the garden paradise (1 Kings 6:29–327:18–20). Because it was larger than the tabernacle, the Temple had not one, but ten lampstands, five on the south side and five on the north side. The Holy of Holies was a perfect cube, overlaid with gold which would symbolized the glory of God.

Ezekiel’s Temple

Solomon’s Temple was destroyed when Judah was conquered and sent into exile; this was God’s judgment on their idolatry. But God promised to restore Israel, and to pour out His Spirit on them (Ezekiel 25–29). In this context, God showed the prophet Ezekiel a vision of a temple. The structure in Ezekiel’s vision had obvious reference both back to Eden and looking forward to the New Jerusalem.
Because God is unchanging, it shouldn’t surprise us that there is continuity in how He presents Himself and the place where He communes with His people.
Cherubim and palm tree motifs featured in Ezekiel’s Temple (Ezekiel 40:1622263741:18–2025–26). The temple featured square dimensions (few height dimensions are given), with the altar in the very center of the square. When the glory of the Lord fills this temple, it makes the very land glow, terrifying Ezekiel (43:1–3).
Water flowed from the temple eastward (through the gate that remained closed because God had entered through it). This unusual stream started as a trickle, but grew to be an impassible river. The water of the river was life-giving; the fertile soil on its banks supported fruit trees on either side (Ezekiel 47:7), and the leaves of these trees are said to be for healing (Ezekiel 47:12). The river flows into the Dead Sea and revives the ecosystem there, allowing many fish to live there (Ezekiel 47:8–10).

The New Jerusalem

When Israel returned from exile, the temple they built did not live up to the glory predicted by Ezekiel, and today, Christians are said to be themselves the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). But even Ezekiel’s temple pales in comparison to the complete restoration of the Heavens and Earth predicted in Revelation.
After the complete defeat of all God’s enemies, the New Jerusalem is presented descending from Heaven—Heaven and Earth are ‘married’ as God makes His permanent dwelling place with His people. The entire city is radiant with the glory of God, and made of the most precious gold and jewels. It is presented as a perfect cube (as the Holy of Holies was), and huge enough to contain all the people of God from every age with plenty of room to spare.
The New Jerusalem has no Temple; in a sense, it is a temple. There is no need to keep sinners away from God’s presence, because there will never be sinners there. A river like from Ezekiel’s Temple flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Revelation 22:1), and the Tree of Life, now a huge orchard, grows on either side, yielding abundant fruit with healing leaves (Revelation 22:2). The New Jerusalem will be unimaginably beautiful and radiant, but by far the greatest privilege will be the immediate access to God believers will have there.

God’s home—and ours

Because God is unchanging, it shouldn’t surprise us that there is continuity in how He presents Himself and the place where He communes with His people. When we look at the places where God chose to dwell, we see that it is pointing toward the New Jerusalem where once again sinless people will dwell with God—this time with no possibility of another Fall.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Mathews, K., Genesis 1–11:26, New American Commentary, Holman Publishers, Nashville, p. 199, 1996. Return to text.
  2. Schreiner, T., The King In His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, p. 7, 2013. Return to text.
  3. Schreiner, ref. 2, p. 42. Return to text.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Once Again the Evidence Points to Creation

Pollen problem


Researchers have reported finding several types of pollen from flowering plants in ‘dinosaur rock’ (Middle Triassic).1 On the evolutionary timeline this puts the origin of flowering plants ‘100 million years earlier’ than previously accepted.
Although such extensions in fossil ranges happen quite often,2 this one negates a long-held dogma of the evolutionary storyline. That is because these fossils would mean that flowering plants were present even at the beginning of the supposed dinosaur era.
Consequently the dioramas in museums, and children’s books on dinosaurs, ought to show flowering plants living at the same time as dinosaurs. To date, however, you would be hard-pressed to find any such plants illustrated, reinforcing the false idea that dinosaurs lived in an entirely different ‘other world’.
These fossils would mean that flowering plants were present even at the beginning of the supposed dinosaur era.
The Bible tells us that the creation of plants (including flowering plants) on Day 3 of Creation Week actually predated the creation of dinosaurs on Day 6. And the rock strata with fossils do not represent the order of appearance and extinction over billions of years as the evolutionary paradigm would claim, but instead reflect the order of burial during and since the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9; cf. Luke 17:26–27), only about 4,500 years ago.
No wonder that one finds pollen all the way down in Precambrian strata (supposedly more than a billion years before dinosaurs!).3 Pollen, and many other fossils dramatically ‘out of place’ in relation to evolution’s supposed ‘timeline’, present a major problem to defenders of Darwin’s ideas.

Good Question...

Snakes with Legs?

As weird as it may sound, some snakes had legs. Fossils reveal little legs on ancient snakes that have apparently been extinct for some time. Yet, those had only hind legs. Now, in the journal Science researchers describe a new fossil with four limbs. They suggest that this new fossil illustrates how legged snakes evolved from legged lizards. Is this accurate?
Researchers have known that all legged snakes looked like snakes. They were long and tubular with many vertebrae. Legged snake fossils also have the characteristic snake skull. For example, lizard skulls have a raised eyebrow ridge, but the top of a snake's skull is flat.
This new fossil named Tetrapodophis found in a private collection is no exception to the trend. The Science study authors wrote, "The snake-like spine and reduced limbs of Tetrapodophis suggest that the animal engaged in characteristic serpentine locomotion, with the limbs playing little or no role in locomotion."1 Perhaps they didn't play a role in locomotion, but maybe they played a role in mating—like the hind spurs of modern pythons.
Researchers agree that snakes lost their legs over time. Possibly the newfound four-legged snake represents an earlier form of a particular snake kind.2 Could God have created a four-legged snake that lost its legs after He cursed the world? For all we know, He may have made some snake kinds with no legs and others with the genetic ability to turn leg production on or off.
We know animal populations have lost appendages. For example, the famous flightless weevils of genus Galapaganus inhabit the gusty Galapagos Islands, and comparing them with continental varieties reveals they lost their wings. Also, some salamanders have apparently lost limbs, and ancient eels may have had larger fins than those in modern populations.
'Legless lizards' have either reduced or absent limbs. The reduced legs look a bit out of place, similar to legged snakes known from fossils. Perhaps for some of them, legs just get in the way. In other words, whereas legless lizards with reduced limbs may still be in the process of losing them, it appears several snake varieties finished that same process long ago.
The Science study authors wrote, "As the only known four-legged snake, Tetrapodophis sheds light on the evolution of snakes from lizards." Just what light would that be? Based on characteristics that show it was not a marine snake, "Tetrapodophis therefore supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from burrowing rather than marine ancestors."1 But from what burrowing ancestor did it evolve? They have no idea.
According to evolutionary dogma, snakes evolved from lizards. But nobody has yet identified a candidate part-lizard/part-snake fossil creature. Instead, all we have are either snakes or lizards. These snakes with little legs were still just snakes—not in-between forms. This complete lack of any evolutionary pre-snake forms is why "their evolutionary origins are obscure." And after this fascinating new fossil, their origins remain just as obscure as before.
Thus, Tetrapodophis sheds no light on snake origins.
So far, the data show that snakes have always been snakes—whether they had legs or not. This fits God's Word where He described making creatures to reproduce after their kinds, not in-between kinds. And a fallen creation full of creatures with the genetic potential to produce trait variations in offspring explains snakes losing legs over time. This new fossil highlights the once-good creation that sin corrupted described in Genesis. Now that story has legs.
  1. Martill, D. M., H. Tischlinger, and N. R. Longrich. 2015. A four-legged snake from the Early Cretaceous of Gondwana. Science. 349 (6246): 416-419.
  2. Or possibly it was not a snake. Some paleontologists wonder if it was an extinct amphibian. See Perkins, S. Four-legged snake fossil stuns scientists—and ignites controversy. Science News. Posted on July 23, 2015, accessed August 4, 2015. 
Image credit: Copyright © 2015. D. Martill. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 10, 2015.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Pluto and the Solar System

Today, more than nine years after its launch, the New Horizons spacecraft is scheduled to make its closest approach to the dwarf planet Pluto.1 This will make New Horizons the first space probe to closely examine Pluto and its moons during this flyby. A NASA press release states, "A close-up look at these worlds from a spacecraft promises to tell an incredible story about the origins and outskirts of our solar system. New Horizons also will explore—for the first time—how ice dwarf planets like Pluto and Kuiper Belt bodies have evolved over time."2
But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.
But of course, such a claim is a tacit admission that they do not yet have in hand a plausible secular explanation for the solar system's origin, notwithstanding a barrage of misleading claims in popular science television shows and magazines.
The New Horizons spacecraft is intended to yield information about "Kuiper Belt bodies." What are these, and why are they important to secular scientists? The answer involves comets.
Comets are essentially "dirty snowballs" that orbit the sun. Secular scientists believe that comets are leftover materials from the solar system's formation some 4.5 billion years ago. Because it is a "dirty snowball," a comet loses some of its mass every time its orbit takes it close to the sun, not unlike an ice cream cone exposed to a heat lamp. Comets lose their mass so rapidly that no comets should exist at all today if the solar system really were billions of years old!
Secular scientists are well aware of this problem and have proposed two sources to replenish this dwindling comet supply. The Kuiper Belt was proposed to be a disk of trillions of comet-sized icy bodies orbiting beyond Neptune. Secular astronomers believe that, from time to time, some of these icy bodies are disrupted from their orbit and redirected into the inner solar system where they become comets. This Kuiper Belt is thought to serve as a source for short-period comets—those that require less than 200 years to make a single orbit of the sun.
The second of these supposed sources is the "Oort Cloud," an enormous reservoir of comet nuclei thought to surround our solar system, but (conveniently) located too far away to be seen, even with our most powerful telescopes. The Oort Cloud is said to be a source for long-period comets—those having orbital periods greater than 200 years.
One major problem with the Oort Cloud is that there is zero observational evidence that it even exists! The Oort Cloud is purely hypothetical.
Does the Kuiper Belt exist? Instead of finding trillions of comet-sized bodies, astronomers instead discovered hundreds of much larger objects (such as Pluto and its moons) that exist beyond Neptune's orbit at the outer edges of our solar system. But to replenish the solar system's comets, a Kuiper belt would need to contain many more icy bodies than the mere hundreds which have so far been observed. Moreover, these observed objects are much larger than typical comet nuclei.3 Hence, it is rather misleading to refer to these objects as "Kuiper Belt bodies," since they are too large and exist in far too few numbers to actually constitute the kind of Kuiper Belt that secularists were expecting! Hence, a more scientifically accurate term for these bodies is "Trans-Neptunian Objects," or "TNOs."
But if neither the Oort Cloud nor a Kuiper Belt of trillions of comet-sized masses exist, then secular scientists have no explanation for how comets could continue to exist in a 4.5 billion year-old solar system. But comets can exist in a solar system that is only about 6,000 years old, even without a Kuiper Belt or an Oort Cloud.
Secular scientists hope that new data will help them craft a story and explain the solar system apart from the Lord's handiwork, but these efforts have a way of backfiring on them. One is reminded of Psalm 76:10, which says, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise You . . . ." Rather than weakening the case for creation, data collected by previous spacecraft have only strengthened the case that our solar system was designed and is much younger than the age of 4.5 billion years that secular scientists have assigned to it.4,5 Christians should not be surprised if data collected by the New Horizons spacecraft continues this trend.
  1. In 2006, Pluto lost its status as a planet and was reclassified as a "dwarf planet."
  2. Talbert, T. 2015. New Horizons: The First Mission to the Pluto System and the Kuiper Belt. Posted on June 16, 2015, accessed July 8, 2015. 
  3. Lisle, J. 2014. The Solar System: Pluto. Acts & Facts 43 (4): 10-12. 
  4. Hebert, J. 2013. Youthful Solar System Bodies Puzzle Evolutionary Scientists. Creation Science Update. Posted on February 13, 2013, accessed July 8, 2015.
  5. Psarris, S. 2009. What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy: Our Created Solar System. Creation Astronomy, DVD. This widescreen DVD presents this information in the form of a delightful tour of our solar system. Available at the ICR online store:
Image credit: 2015 NASA. Public domain. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.
*Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.
Article posted on July 14, 2015.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Summer 2015 Fairs

Dane County Fair
Madison, WI
July 15-19

Waukesha County Fair
Waukesha, WI
July 15-19

Wisconsin State Fair
Milwaukee, WI
August 6-16

Sheboygan County Fair
Plymouth, WI
September 3-7 (Labor Day Weekend)

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

From the Grand Canyon to South Africa, Evidence Abounds for Noah's Flood

Cape Peninsula sandstones, South Africa, deposited during Noah’s Flood

Published: 26 July 2012 (GMT+10)
Maroon mudstone beds and buff sandstone beds alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive south of Cape Town.
Maroon mudstone beds and buff sandstone beds alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive south of Cape Town.
In the steep road cut alongside Chapman’s Peak Drive, south of Cape Town, South Africa, you can see some of the flat-lying beds of sediment that form the 1000-metre (3000-ft) tall mountains along Cape Peninsula. The mudstone has a distinctive maroon colour while the coarser sandstone is buff. The road runs just above the contact between the sandstone and the underlying granite.
Geologists have called these sediments the Graafwater Formation, which is around 70 metres (200 ft) thick along Chapman’s Drive.1 Above it sits another 550 metres (1800 feet) of sedimentary strata, the Peninsula Formation, which lacks the distinctive maroon mudstone layers.2 The Peninsula Formation forms the impressive cliff faces prominent in Table Mountain and the escarpments above Chapman’s Peak Road.2
There are many features of these sandstone deposits on the peninsula that point to large-scale, rapid deposition
There are many features of these sandstone deposits on the peninsula that point to large-scale, rapid deposition, as you would expect during Noah’s global Flood.
  1. The sediments cover a large geographical area. McCarthy and Rubidge have a geologic map that shows the Table Mountain Group extending beyond Port Elizabeth, 700 km (400 miles) to the east, and almost as far as Vanrhynsdorp, 300 km (200 miles) to the north.3 This points to a geologic process that covered a very large area, as would be expected from Noah’s Flood.
  2. The sandstone beds are “amazingly uniform”.2 This feature can be seen in the above image of the road cut, but also from a distance when you look at the escarpments in the area, such as the escarpment of Table Mountain or of the Twelve Apostles. Once again, this points to an energetic geologic process that covered a large area.
  3. The sandstone beds are frequently quite thick, some as thick as 6 metres (20 feet).4 This points to a large water flow with abundant sediment, again as would be expected from the Flood catastrophe.
  4. The continuous nature of the sedimentation indicates continually rising sea level. There is no evidence of erosion or a break in deposition at the contact between the two formations, so geologists believe that the sediments represent a process of continuous deposition.5
  5. Sedimentary structures indicating flowing water are common, including large trough and tabular cross bedding.6
  6. Abundant wave and ripple marks, again indicating flowing water.6
  7. The sedimentary beds show evidence of slumping, including load casts.6 Imagine how a billiard ball placed on a layer of soft mud would sink into the mud. When sand is deposited onto soft sediment, blobs of sand will sink into the underling mud forming ‘load casts’. These features indicate deposition so rapid that the sediments are still uncompacted and loose.
  8. Well rounded quartz pebbles up to 70 mm (3 inches) in diameter are distributed through the sandstone, sometimes forming thin lenses of pebble conglomerate.6 These stones give an idea of the water flow needed to carry them along.
Finish reading HERE

An Old Earth or a Global Flood

By Russ Miller at

Monday, March 16, 2015

Bilblical Creationists Among Best Scientists

Einstein’s Heroes—biblical creationists

There’s little doubt that the most famous scientist of the 20th century was Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Today his name is synonymous with ‘genius’. Most people today would recognize his most famous equation, E=MC2, (though many would be hard-pressed to explain what it actually means!). But even Einstein had his science heroes.
So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientists for Einstein to have thought highly of them! And they were. Einstein had pictures of his three heroes of science on his study wall.1 They were Isaac Newton2 (1642–1727), Michael Faraday3 (1791–1867), and James Clerk Maxwell4 (1831–1879).
But these three men also had another thing in common—they were all Bible-believing creationists.
All three men were deserving of Einstein’s veneration. Newton’s laws of motion and his notion of gravity were the first ideas that successfully unified ideas about the motions of the stars, planets, and the earth. Faraday is widely regarded as the greatest experimenter of all time. His work involved showing that magnetism could produce electricity, and discovering benzene, among many other things. Maxwell discovered the four fundamental equations of electricity and magnetism, and predicted electromagnetic radiation at a certain enormous speed. Light was measured to have that speed—300,000 km (186,000 miles) per second—showing that light was electromagnetic radiation. Without their discoveries, we wouldn’t have much of the technology we have today. Practically everything involving moving parts, electricity, and magnetism can in part be attributed to the work of these three men.
But these three men also had another thing in common—they were all Bible-believing creationists. By today’s standards all three would be regarded as ‘fundamentalists’. Newton wrote more on theology than he ever did on science, believing the Bible to be God’s Word. Faraday was a member of a very conservative offshoot of the Church of Scotland, the Sandemanians. The Sandemanians were known for their plain interpretation of the Bible. A recent book said:
“A member of a gentle Christian sect, the Sandemanians, Faraday was deeply religious and viewed science—exploration of nature—as an extension of his heartfelt faith.
“Although we in the 21st century debate the conflict of science and religion, Faraday saw no such division. “‘The book of nature, which we have to read, is written by the finger of God,’ he wrote. For Faraday, ‘unravelling the mysteries of nature was to discover the manifestations of God.’”5
Maxwell was widely read in theology. He interacted with many of the best theological minds of his day, always as a solid evangelical Christian. In fact, he often chided other believers for tying religious truth too tightly to the science of the day. He understood this not as a problem for God’s unchanging Word, but as a problem for man’s ever changing understanding of how the world works.
Maxwell’s faith in the Bible even shocked a young Karl Pearson6 who, when he questioned the Flood, was reprimanded by Maxwell for questioning the Bible!
“The conversation turned on Darwinian evolution; I can’t say how it came about, but I spoke disrespectfully of Noah’s Flood. Clerk Maxwell was instantly aroused to the highest pitch of anger, reproving me for want of faith in the Bible! I had no idea at the time that he had retained the rigid faith of his childhood, and was, if possible, a firmer believer than Gladstone7 in the accuracy of Genesis.”8
Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell were not biblical creationists for nothing.
Sadly, Einstein did not share the spiritual convictions of his heroes. Like many in his day and now, he felt free to abandon the biblical God.9 Little did he know that for all his great work he was operating on borrowed assumptions. Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell were not biblical creationists for nothing. They understood that the only reasonable ground for the amazing regularity we find in the natural world is the orderly and unchanging God of Scripture. They understood that the assumptions of science,10 which only find their grounding in God, cannot be separated from the history11 to which He has testified. And they understood that His Word is surer than the foundations of the universe, including the laws that govern it. They sought to think God’s thoughts after him.
Einstein’s heroes have a lot to teach us. The world is ordered because God orders it. God’s Word doesn’t change and is always trustworthy, unlike man’s scientific theories. But good science will always square with Scripture—they both come from the same God, after all. They also teach us that far from being opposed to science, biblical creation is its solid foundation.

Article from HERE

Thursday, February 12, 2015

DNA-Evidence for Creation

February 24, 2015

Jay Seegert

Evolution: Probable or Problematic?

Creation in 6 Days?
Kettle Moraine Bible Church
204 S. 7th Ave.
West Bend, WI

Evolution: Probable or Problematic?

Jay will demonstrate that various aspects of evolution actually seem fairly plausible to many people, including Christians.  For example, a fish slowly turning into an amphibian… with the fins being slightly modified into short legs/feet and being able to crawl up on land and breath air.  So from a certain distance or vantage point, things can appear to be quite plausible or look very good.  However, when you “look under the hood” you see a completely different picture.
In this talk, Jay will “take a look under the hood” regarding what actually has to happen genetically in order for a single cell organism to change into a human being.  He will show how DNA works and point out a serious problem with the concept of evolution.  By the end of the lecture, the audience sees how utterly impossible molecules-to-man evolution really is, even though portions of their story occasionally seem plausible.

Creation in Six Days? - A Biblical and Scientific Analysis

There is a lot of debate and confusion over the length of the “days” in the Genesis creation account. The most straight-forward interpretation seems to indicate they are normal solar days, but this would be in conflict with the view common amongst most astronomers and other scientists that the universe is almost 15 billion years old. In this talk, both Scripture and science are examined and reasons for why we can confidently trust the straight-forward reading are presented in a very gracious and encouraging manner.

About the Speaker:
Jay Seegert is the Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer for the Creation Education Center (, as well as a former national speaker for Creation Ministries International.  He also served as President of the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee, Inc. for 3 years.

Jay is an Ambassador and Board Member of Logos Research Associates and is also a speaker for Ratio Christi.

Jay has degrees in Physics and Engineering and has been speaking on the Creation/Evolution controversy for over 25 years.