News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Please link to this page using this simple URL:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020


Russ Explains His Position on Creation

I am very aware that all of the answers are not in yet, as science still has a lot of work to do in answering these questions.

I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation. Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence, and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.

It's important to note that I can only hypothesize, as can scientists, as to the age of the Earth and Universe, so here's my best guess.

The universe is old, very old, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands or even millions of years. This is why the matter that makes up the Earth and moon seem old. But considering the young-Earth evidence, it seems that someone stopped by this busy little solar system several thousand years ago and did some rearranging.

(I say "I think" below to humbly underscore the fact that I don't know all of these things. This is my best guess.)

I think God updated some of the satellite positions around the planets, most notably the Earth's moon. Hence the "astronomical" coincidence that the moon, when viewed from the Earth, can eclipse the sun perfectly. It seems self evident that it is not by chance.

He also made other changes to the solar system that are necessary and intimately related to the proper functioning of life on Earth. These changes explain the anomalies that we see pointed out in this video:

Our Solar System: Evidence for Creation
http://urlbam.com/ha/u

I think God also rejuvenated the Earth, changing it in many ways in preparation for the life He would create on it.

The Biblical support for this hypothesis is as follows.


Is Creation the Beginning?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

This is pretty clear, and I think that God did create the Earth in the beginning, probably meaning that time/space was all created at the same "time" as it is necessary (so far as we know) for the existence of matter.

"And the earth [color:#CC0000]was (1961) without form (8414), and void (922)..."[/color]
(Genesis 1:2)

This verse is mistranslated and should read:

"And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."

The word "was" is Strong's 1961 (haw-yaw'): "to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass"

The word "without form" is Strong's 8414 (to'-hoo): "From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface)"

The word "void" is Strong's 922 (bo'-hoo): "an undistinguishable ruin"


Those in doubt (which should be everyone) should look up the words themselves. It's important that everyone does their own research. It's enlightening and rewarding and builds confidence.

So, we have the Earth "becoming" a waste and a ruin. This implies that at some previous time, it was not a waste or ruin. Clearly, the "creation" events that are about to take place are a "re-creation", not an original creation.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
(Genesis 1:3)

Now, I think verse 3 (shown above) occurs after a great deal of time. This means that I generally accept what Christians call the "Gap Theory", being that there is a time gap between verses 2 and 3.

I will also point out that this is the only place (that I'm aware of) that my belief differs from Hovind. Hovind believes in a young Earth, and he provide strong evidence for it, but in studying his case for young Earth, I believe most—if not all—of his points are easily explained by a "renewed" Earth, as I pointed out in the verse above.

I will also add that the Bible make references to previous Earth ages, and I think this is supported by science and is another point of validity for an old Earth, new creation theory.

Now, on the other hand, I must admit that this theory also leaves a few of the "On the X day, God created..." verses isolated, at least, at first glance.


The Creation

So as we look at this, and admittedly (I'm still researching this little by little as time permits) you do find some interesting things.

For example, the first creation is light (Gen 1:3) and that creation is marked by the appearance of darkness and light:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
(Genesis 1:5)

The word evening here means "night" and is from a root that means "dusk". The word morning here is from a root meaning "dawn", which is the first appearance of light. Considering that days are measured by the absence and presence of light, this verse becomes more interesting than at first glance.

It is most important to point out that all of the creation days are written from an Earth perspective, meaning that they seem to be explaining what the Earth experienced (or what an Earth-bound observer would see) during this time. Keeping this in mind, verses like the Genesis 1:3 become easier to understand in that the Earth was probably completely dark and covered with layers of thick water vapor.

The verse that is generally speaking about the creation of light may have nothing to do with the original "creation" of light at all. Light was likely "created" much earlier in time, and in fact, the verse (Gen 1:3) does not say light was created. It says that God said "Let there be light." When we view this from an Earth perspective, it could mean that God allowed light to be on the Earth at that time, even though He actually created light at a much earlier time.

If this is written like the rest of these verses—from an Earth perspective (which would be logical considering the verses were written to be understood by a people who dwell on the Earth)—then things begin to make more sense. The same logic holds true for verses 14 through 16. Verse 17 further substantiates my "Earth perspective" theory.

Most of the remaining creation days deal directly with terraforming the Earth and creating life, all things that I suspect God has no problem doing in an Earth day (24 hours) with His own power.

I think this gives you a pretty good idea of my current creation theory, and I hope it answers your questions.


Related

An interesting loosely related subject:

The Fourth Word of the Bible: Christ's Role In Creation.

Hi Russ, ((( Smiles )))

Thank You for defining it..
I was quite confused on what exactly your views were on this.
Which made me kind of cautious too.

This verse is mistranslated. The verse should read:
"And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."

Yes.. I've heard of this before..
From listening to the Shepards Chapel version on this subject.
For anyone out there who doesn't agree 100 percent with Shepards Chapel, save it as..
I just want you to know thats not the Church my family attends and I don't agree 100 percent
totally with all of his Bible intepertations either.
As interesting as it is..
Or alot of Churchs out there though I do enjoy listening to the variety of Bible teachers on TLN..
I learn alot from that too and some are better then others but they all bring something to think about to the table
and some more then others of course.
But I do learn alot in the listening too and searching of especially from thoses who truely study the scriptures weither
I accept/agree with 100 percent of their interpretation of or not.
And it's rare to find a 100 percenter got that right and if one truely does..
Stick with that Church or teacher..
But I think alot of what he has studied on certain aspects of it is pretty good.
He does his homework as well..
I like the teachers who do their homework.
Who really searches the scriptures ect..
And he translate's it as the earth became void as well.
He's really into looking things up in the Strong's Concordance and the Interlinear Bible plus other references as well..
Thats what I liked about him that he wants a person to look it up for themselves not just to take mans word for it.
I mean all the years I have spent in Church.
He's the one that really got me thinking about being proactive and looking it up for myself.
In more of an scholarly way..
And I've been reading and studying things ever since.
Just a lot of stuff..
Read read read..
As long as it Scripture/Bible base..
Comes from that source of reference..
I like to read it and compare and not only take mans word for it alone..
But think about it as well..
Yes.. A waste land became void.

O.K.. ((( Smiles )))

The Gap Theory..
Yes.. I've heard of that one too.
Plus Pastor Doug Batchelor's DVD Evolution, Creation and Logic is a very interesting DVD as well.
He bring's alot to the table as well too.
Plus as you wrote..

I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation.

I think he is more of a young earth creationist.
And I think your right in that because he calls alot to mind to think about on that subject.
It's very interesting and he does it well.

And you posted this as well..

Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence,
and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence.
To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.

Yes.. I agree with that as well too.
And so I think it's safe now in that aspect if I post something on that subject below.
In that context just another way of looking at it.
As I like to just study up on both ways of viewing it and see what they have to say about it.

And you posted this..
The universe is old, very old, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands or even millions of years.

Thats what I think too.
In the light of the frustration on both sides.
I think it's O.K. to post this weither you agree with it or not.
Just bringing it to the table like Shepards Chapel or Pastor Doug.
I just like reading interesting things.
Just looking at if from all the different ways of viewing it.
You can appreciate that right???
I hope.

Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence,
and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence.
To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.

Here's another take on it.
Weither one agree's with it or not.
Interesting reading..

In The Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth ."
{ Genesis 1:1 }

Genesis does not teach that the universe was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past.
What does it teach.
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account ???
Whats the Bibles viewpoint on that.
Many people claim that science disproves the Bible's account of creation.
But the real contridiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists.
Some of theses groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24 -hour days some 10,000 years ago.

The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion.
If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible.
A carefully study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific fact.

The following shows what the Bible really teach's.

When was " the Beginning " ?

The Genesis account opens with the simple , powerfull statement...
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
{ Genesis 1:1 }

Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action seperate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward..
The implication is profound.

According to the Bible's opening statement, the universe , including our planet Earth,
was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is aproximately 4 billion years old,
and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old.
Do theses findings--- or their potential future refinements..
contradict Genesis 1:1?
No..
The Bible does not specify the actual age of " the heavens and the earth."
Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

How Long Were The Creative Days ?

What about the length of the creative days ?
Were they literally 24 hours long ?
Some claim that because Moses-- the writer of Genesis- later referred to the day that followed the six creative days
as a model for the weekly sabbath , each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long..
{ Exodus 20:11 }

Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion ?
No, it does not.
The fact is that the Hebrew word translated " day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24- hour period.
For example, when summarizing God's creative work, Moses referes to all six creative days as one day.
{ Genesis 2:4 }

In addition , on the first creative day, " God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night."
{ Genesis 1:5 }

Here, only a portion of a 24- hour period is defined by the term " day. "
Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stateing that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then were the creative days ?

The wording of Genesis chapter 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Creation Appears Gradually..

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth.
These two facts , combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or " days,"
help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creative account.

How so ?
A carefull consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one "day"
continued into one or more of the following days.
For example, before the first creative " day " started ,
light from the allready exisiting sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth's surface,
possibly by thick clouds.
{ Job 38:9 }

During the first " day," this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*

* In the description of what happened on the first " day, "
the Hebrew word used for light is 'ohr, light in a general sense, but concerning the fourth " day, "
the word used is ma-'ohr', which referes to the source of light.*

On the second " day,"
the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below.
On the fourth " day,"
the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear..
" in the expanse of the heavens."
{ Genesis 1:14-16 }

In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and the moon began to be discernible.
Theses events happened gradually..
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures--- including
insects and membrane winged creatures--- started to appear on the fifth " day."
However , the Bible indicates that during the sixth " day,"
God was still in the process of " forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens."
{ Genesis 2:19 }

Clearly, the Bible's language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each " day," or creative period ,
to have occured gradually rather then instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative " days."

According To Their Kinds..

Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of liveing things ?
No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic " kinds " of plants and animal life..
{ Genesis 1:11,12,20-25 }

Were theses original " kinds " of plants and animals programmed with the abililty to adapt to changeing environmental conditions?
What defines the boundry of a " kind" ?
The Bible does not say..
However, it does state that living creatures " swarmed forth according to their kinds."
{ Genesis 1:21}

This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a " kind."
Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that fundamental categories of plants and animals
have changed little over vast periods of time.

Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that all the universe,
including the earth and all liveing things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past..
Rather,
the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries.

Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible's declaration that God created all things..

Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote,
that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively over periods of time.
How could Moses gain that access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago ?

There is only one logical explanation..
The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge.

This gives weight to the Bible's claim that it is " inspired of God."
{ 2 Timothy 3:16 }

Why We Believe in a Creator.

Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature.
They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came by chance.
Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe.
Why have they arrived at that conclusion ?
You may find their comments interesting.*
The views presented by the experts in this articule do not necessarily reflect thoses of their employers.*

" Unfathomable Complexities of Life "

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning profile: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutations in plants.

For 21 of thoses years,
I have been employed by Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne , Germany.
My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology..
bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life.

My study of theses topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have had an intelligent orgin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life.
But theses fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context.
In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to
scientific scrutiny.
I have examined such arguments over decades.
After much carefull study of liveing things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted
so that life on earth can exist.

I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

" Everything I Observe Has a Cause "

Byron Leon Meadows profile:
I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics.
Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to moniter global climate,
weather, and other planetary phenomena.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics.
I seek to understand how and why certain things happen.
In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause.

I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature.
The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If the conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution ?

Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions ?

This is not unheard of among scientists..
But observation, no matter how convinceing , does not presuppose conclusion...
For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave,
because light often behaves like a wave..
However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known a photons.

Similarly, thoses who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence,
and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way they view evidence..
I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary " experts " themselves argue,
over how it is supposed to have happened..

For example,
would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4,
while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6?

If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced,
then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

" Something Cannot Come From Nothing."

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka profile:
I am a geologist employed by the U.S Geological Survey in Flagstaff , Arizona.
For almost three decades,
I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology.
Dozens of my research articules and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journels.

I was taught to believe in evolution,
but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have orginated without a powerfull Creator.
Something cannot come from nothing.
I also found a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself.
The book gives numerous examples of scientific fact in my field of expertise, such as the earth is spherical in shape and hangs " upon nothing. "
{ Job 26:7} { Isaiah 40:22 }

Theses realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.
Think of the way we are made.
We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, inteligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings.
In particular , we can expirence , appreciate, and express love.

Evolution cannot explain how theses wonderfull human qualites came to be.

Ask yourself, ' How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution ?
The geologic record is incomplete, complex,confusing..

Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary
processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies..
And while Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data is inconclusive or contradictory...
Their careers and their feelings of self- worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth,
which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding.

To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

" The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell "

Paula Kincheloe: profile: I have several years of expirence as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology.
I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and it's components.
The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins,
and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization,and precision involved.

And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn.
The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed to me who the Creator is--- namely, Jehovah God.
I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer
but also a kind and loveing Father who cares for me.
The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe..
This can be a confusing time for them.
If they believe in God, this is a test of faith.
But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us
and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities.

I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible's account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

" The Elegant Simplicity Of The Laws "

Enrique Hernandez - Lemus profile:
I am a full- time minister.
I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico.
My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe,
which is a mechanism of star growth.
I have also worked with the complexity of DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance.
For example,
consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule..
The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion,
an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible.
I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity
present in liveing beings.

In addition , when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space,
I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion.
To me, theses laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician-- they are like the signiture of a Master Artist.

Sometimes people ask me how I can believe in God.
Their reaction is understandable , since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs..
However the Bible encourages us to use our
" thinking ability." ------ Proverbs 3:21

All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible,
convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

An Interview With A Biochemist.

In 1996, Michael J. Behe, now professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.,
released his book Darwins Black Box-- the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
In the articule under the title.
" How Did We Get Here ? --- By Accident or by Design ?
which refered to Behe's book..

In the decade since Darwin's Black Box was published, evolutionary scientists have scrambled to counter the arguments Behe raised..
Critics have accused him of allowing his religious convictions---- he is a Roman Catholic--- to cloud his scientific judgement.

Others claim that his reasoning is unscientific.
Professor Behe was inteviewed to learn why his ideas have caused such controversy.

Why Do You Feel That Life Provides Evidence Of Intellegent Design ?

Professor Behe: We infer design whenever we see complex functional arraignments.
Take, for instance, the machines we use everyday---
a lawnmower, a car, or even simpler things.
An example I like to use is a mousetrap.
You conclude that it is designed because you see different
parts arranged to perform the function of catching a mouse.

Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life.
And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life.

For instance, within liveing cells there are little molecular " trucks " that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other.
There are tiny molecular " sign posts " that tell theses " trucks " to turn left or right.
Some cells have molecular " outboard motors " that propel the cells through liquid.
In any other context, when such functional complexity is evident,
people would conclude that theses things were designed.

We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims of Darwinian evolution notwithstanding.
Since it's been our uniform expirence that this sort of arrangment bespeaks design,
we are justified in thinking that theses molecular systems were also intelligently designed.

Why In Your Opinion Do The Majority Of Your Colleges Disagree
With Your Conclusion Regarding Intelligent Design ?

Professor Behe: Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design
has extrascientific implications that is seems to point strongly beyond nature.
This conclusion makes many people nervous..

However, I always taught that science is suppose to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because
you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications.

How Do You Respond To Critics Who Claim That Accepting The Idea
Of Intelligent Design Promotes Ingnorance ?

Professor Behe: The conclusion of design is not due to ignorance.
It's not due to what we don't know; it's due to what we do know.
When Darwin published his book The Orgin Of Spieces 150 years ago, life seemed simple...

Scientists thought that the cell was so simple that it might just
spontaneously bubble up from sea mud..
But since then, science has discovered that cells are enormously complex,
much more complex than the machinery of our 21st- century world.
That functional complexity bespeaks purposefull design.

Has Science Produced Any Evidence To Prove That Evolution,
By Means Of Natural Selection, Could Have Created The Complex Molecular Machines That You Talk About ?

Professor Behe: If you search the scientific literature, you will discover that nobody has made a serious attempt --
an expiremental attempt or detailed scientific model -- that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes.

This is despite the fact that in the ten years since my book was published,
Many scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancment of Science ,
have issued urgent appeals to their membership to do everything they can to fend off the idea that life provides evidence of intelligent design.

How Do You Respond To Those Who Point To Features Of Plants or Animals That They Claim Are Poorly Designed ?

Professor Behe: Just because we don't know the reason for some feature in an organism does not mean that it doesn't have an important role to play.
For example, so called vestigial organs were once thought to show that the human body and other organisms were poorly designed..

The appendix and the tonsils, for instance, were once thought to be vestigial organs and were routinely removed.
But then it was discovered that theses organs play a role in the immune system, and they are no longer vestigial.
Another point to remember is that in biology certain things apparently do occur by chance..
But just because my car has a dent in it or gets a flat tire does not mean that the car or tire was not designed.

Likewise, the fact that some things occur by chance in biology does not mean that the sophisticated, complex,
molecular machinery of life arose by chance..
That argument is simply not logical.

The Bible says that God created liveing things " according to their kinds."
{ Genesis 1:20,21 }

It does not support the idea that life arose from non- liveing matter or that God started off the process of evolution with a single cell..
Still, each " kind " has potential for great variety..
So, the Bible allows for change to take place within each " Kind. "

Also, consider what Paul wrote about God:
" His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made."
{ Romans 1:20 }

With thoses words in mind, take a close look at the human body, the earth, the vast universe, the ocean depths..
Examine the fascinating world of insects, of plants , of animals--- whatever field interests you.
Then useing your " power of reason, " ask yourself,....
' What convinces me that there is a creator ?'

And lots of scientists do believe in a creator.

The Bible does not comment on the age of the earth or solar system.
What it says is compatible with the thought that the universe may well have been in existence for billions of years before
the beginning of the first creative " day ".--- Genesis 1:1,2.

If, indeed, evolution was true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto:
" Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die."---
1 Corinthians 15:32..

Make no mistake about it..
true Christians do not accept the aforementioned statements nor accept the premise upon which theses statements are based
---- evolution..

On the contrary, they believe that the Bible is true..
{ John 17:17}

Hence, they believe what it says about how we got here:
" With you [God] is the source of life."
{ Psalm 36:9 }

Theses words have profound implications.

A Listing of Some of the Physical Constants Necessary for Life to Exist.

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neuron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent;
a matching must exist between temperture of the sun and the obsorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur;
if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions..

But if it were alittle stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable;
without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have formed;
had space been less then three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible;
and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably..
--- The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7..

Plus..

God and Humankind....

Humans are unique..
The book of Genesis reveals that God personally formed the first man " of the dust of the ground ,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
( Genesis 2:7 , New King James throughout )

And significantly , God created man and women ,
" in his own image "
( Genesis 1:27 )

Only humans were made in the image of God...

Thus from the beginning , the Bible shows that man and women were
designed to have the capacity to have a special relationship with God.
This capacity sets humans apart from the rest of creation...

From a purely physical stand point , human life is no different from that of animals..
( Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 )

Humans and animals have a transient biochemical existence..
But in humans there is a significant added dimensions..

God endowed human beings with minds..
That makes us unique almong all creatures...
That's why we need and yearn for a relationship with God.

A shared earthly physical existence..

From a purely physical stand point , human life is no different from that of animals..
( Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 )

Humans and animals have a transient biochemical existence..

Excellent information Lynnmn. Very well said. Thank you.

I think Murray is one of the best Bible teachers around. I don't agree with him 100% on everything, as he is not a conspiratorialist, but other than that, his teaching is very solid.

Thanks again.

Most evodates are ruled out if one accepts the histories and physical evidence that a worldwide flood took place in Noah's time. This is why evolutionists have always done their level best to deny the flood.



I do not wish them partial failure in their efforts.

Yes.. ((( Smiles )))

Weither Old Earth New Earth..
Christians believe in the flood of Noah's time.
They believe in Creation.
They believe in DNA, Cells ect..
The wonders of the human body they believe in..
But they don't believe in Macro Evolution..
And even Micro Evolution they would describe the meaning of it differently as one example of..

Still, each " kind " has potential for great variety..
So, the Bible allows for change to take place within each " Kind. "

Or within the DNA..
But lots of diversity in this world in skulls of humans here and around the world.
God seems to be a God of diversity in flowers and trees and birds and bees..
Just pick up a book on describing all the different kinds of birds or plants ect in the world..
And just think of all the varietys that must have gone extinct and just how much diversity there could possible be.
God just loved to create " a true artist" it's just so beautifull even the colors of a rainbow a sunset and flowers it's totally awesome.

Just to good to be true at times that so much variety is out there to view...
It's like a gift to us.

But in watching Pastor Dougs DVD over and over again and from all I have read over the years..
I have a good idea of the concepts of creation..
But yes...

Most evodates are ruled out if one accepts the histories and physical evidence that a worldwide flood took place in Noah's time.
This is why evolutionists have always done their level best to deny the flood.

The post world flood may have been very different from the pre world flood..
The flood itself may have thrown dateing methods off as with salt water and sink & float plus..
there are so many things to take into account to base a foundation on.

I've read of some.
And there was no doubt a flood..
Ancient history around the world talks about a flood..
The Bible talks about a flood..
There was a flood..
And just because somebody else can't accept that..
Doesn't change that for us.
There's always going to be that gulf there that can't be bridged for the ones who don't except that.
But there is so much more then just that too..

Plus Hi Russ, ((( Smiles )))

Your welcome.. glad you liked it.
Had to stop there as that just plain tuckered me out..
posting all of that..

Also on another subject..
I think Murray is one of the best Bible teachers around also.
I have his three earth age cassette and someday when I get the time too..
I will share his views on what that is as well..
What Murray has to say about it.
His views on the creation..
Maybe Pastor Doug too..
It's alot..
I just like to share interesting information as always on this board.
Archeology findings ect...
Thats what I do..
Share the Lord ...
Expecially for thoses who find it so.
Who ever likes to read it that is.

Now to rest up..

Take Care
Lynn

Hi Russ, ((( Smiles )))

I hope this is O.K. to do because you posted this somewhere else but I didn't want it to get lost in the threads..
But I just got the DVD recently at Target for a good price.
The one you posted about below..
I don't do quotations yet but you posted..

I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in understanding the social pressure used to force scientists to "endorse" evolution see the movie Expelled.

I watched this movie this past week and it is an excellent statement about the social/political/economic pressure that is used to keep the evolution religion mainstream.

Ironic it is that evolutionists blame these types of activities on religion when they don't even know they are involved in the same.

This is the ultimate blindness: One who preaches against the very things they practice.
_________________________
Russ of Herb Allure

And then I happened to read this thought..

" To suggest that a person's strongly held religious view
is less tolerant then a strongly held antireligious view
is morally, intellectually, and poltically inconsistent and incorrect."

--- Cal Thomas, The Things That Matter Most...

And in talking about the things that matter most.
And what matters most to me is..
And I just love this..
God created the earth for us and us out of the earth.
With the breath of life.

" Out of Dust"
The World Book Encyclopedia reports; " All the chemical elements that make up liveing things are also present in nonliveing matter ."
In other words, the basic chemicals that go to make up liveing organisms includeing man , are also found in the earth itself.

This harmonizes with the Bible's statement:
" And Jehovah God proceeded to form the
man out of dust from the ground."
-- Genesis 2:7..

Oh Plus.. ((( Smiles )))

Did yours come with a little brown booklet called..
The wonders of the universe?
And the help support academic freedom petition..
Standing up for free speech and free scientific inquiry?
And it looks like there is also a book out.
But I was reading the wonder booklet and it said..

I can see how it might be possible for a man
to look down upon earth and be an atheist,
but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens
and say there is no God.

-- Abraham Lincoln..

But I like this one..

Nature is the art of God.

-- Dante Alighieri..
Did you get the wonders booklet too??

Ok

I have read your position on the age of the earth. While interesting, it is not novel. However it is lacking in details.

Why do you believe the earth and universe are old?

How old do you think they are?

Was there life before the recent preparation by God?

Once I know your answers to these questions, I can form a more complete investigation into your hypothesis.

The Bible speaks about previous ages of the earth. Even in the Genesis account, when properly translated, language is used that states the Earth had become a "waste" and a "ruin" and was not created at that time.

We have located artifacts on Mars that where obviously built by beings that had the same kabbalistic belief system that the power-brokers do today. These ruins are very old. It is also becoming apparent that at least one of the moons of Saturn has geometric structure that defies natural processes (sound familiar ).

These and other legitimate scientific positions indicate an old universe, and the Bible is in complete agreement with that.



I don't know. I think that science has a hard time with that question, as I have heard several honest and qualified physicists admit.



Yes. The angels existed before the re-creation of Earth, as indicated by the fact that they shouted for joy during the event.

I also think the discoveries by Hoagland are indicators that the fallen angels have been here for a long time developing technologies that allow them to "walk among the stones of fire" as the Bible puts it.

The stones of fire may be the planets and the fire may be the sun. This simplistic language may have been used so it would be digestible (even if not completely understood) throughout time.

Oh yes, ((( Smiles )))

I was just listening to that today.
It is so deep.
The Three World Ages..
Arnold Murray explains it all so well and backing it up with scripture..
He's one of the Bible Teachers I really enjoying listening too.
Even in another scripture subject..
He talks about Moffet translating standing where it ought not..
To standing where he ought not.
Sticking to the subject in regard to Satan..
Another subject but...
As you wrote...



Became void/waste.
There was no man, no birds, no tree, no cities..
No bird with a branch to carry..
No man to carry it too.
Zero, zilch.
Why, because God shook it and it became void.
They were broken down at the presence of the Lord.
By Gods furious anger.
God did not create a wasteland.

Plus he added..
Christianity is a reality not a religion.
Plus Jesus would not ask you to do anything that he did not have to do himself.
And following Satan leads to the lake of fire.
And Satan who wants to inherit yet Satan the Devil which is death.
Will inherit and lead one to Judgment/Death.
And the wages of sin is death.
As God is a consuming fire.

I have his tapes on Fallen Angels and Genesis too..
I really enjoy listening to theses.
As you mentioned above..



I think he is too..
But ya.. A conspiratorialist...
If one believe's the world this system is ruled by the wicked one "Satan " and they are ruining/destroying the earth like the Bible speaks of..
The kings of the earth plotting..
It is a conspiracy.



Trying to deceive us to make us believe the lie..
The bible says so.
Thats what they do.

Take Care
Lynn

Well said. How can I add anything to that?

Perhaps you could explain this one further. All translations I have seen indicate that the Earth was always "waste" before God started the creation process.

Reference to articles covering this, please. I work for NASA and have heard nothing about any of this.

What other legitimate scientific positions?

...and they built structures on Mars...

Bible verses please.

Yep, ((( Smiles )))

I got all that information.
It's all on the Three World Ages tape I have..
I know that Arnold Murray of Shepards Chapel uses the Interlinear Bible Hebrew/Greek/English and cross references
it with the New Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible..
Plus it contains the King James translation on one side of it and the Literal Translation on the other side.
It's coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers.
I'm sure Russ has one too and has studied alot as well.
But Pastor Murray has been around for decades and he's really into researching the Bible..
Really into it...
I like teachers like that.
That do their homework and point out how they got to that place it makes one think.
Even if I do write all this out I'm pretty sure it may not be good enough for you anyway as I'm pretty sure you have already made your mind up anyhow.
Thats just my take on it.
Thats neither here nor there though but I'll just put it out there anyway as a person has the choice of free will to do what they want with it..
Anyway..
But no matter old earth new earth previous earth ages the most important part..
Is to consider the end.
What God wants us to know.
Where we are headed and why is that??
Thats how I see it but will gather the information as soon as I can do so.
I think it may match Russ's take on it but I'm not totally sure.
We shall see it may take alittle while though..
Will include Bible verse's that Pastor Murray documents in his Three World Ages presentation..
That I can do..

Greetings All!

This is a most dynamic post, Russ. Thankyou for sharing 'His Brand of Creation'. Do you mean 'HIS', or speaking for 'yourself?', sorry..... :-)

In my reading last night, I happened upon these fantastic verses from the "weeping" prophet,(JEREMIAH), whose writings became one of the four major prophetic books of the O/T.

Referring to Jeremiah 51:14-16 - located under the topic of 'Babylon judged for sins against Israel':

"The LORD of hosts has sworn by Himself:
"Surely I will fill you with a population like locusts, and they will cry out with shouts of victory over you."

"It is He who made (Creator), the earth by His power,
Who established the world by His wisdom,
And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.

When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens,
And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain,
And brings forth the wind from His storehouses."

Biblical History explains the 'Creation of planet earth, and also the heavens.'

What a mighty God we serve. Thank you, Lynn, for your insight. You truly do 'your homework' on the Bible. Keep it up!

Blessings, Abishag <><

Thank you, once again, Russ...

As I am sitting here reading references, etc. I find in JOB Chapter 9, beginning with verse: 5-10 :

"..God removes the mountains, they know not how,
When He overturns them in His anger;
Who shakes the earth out of its place,
And its pillars tremble;
Who commands the sun not to shine,
And sets a seal upon the stars;
Who alone stretches out the heavens
And tramples down the waves of the sea;

He, Who makes the Bear, Orion and the Pleiades,
And the chambers of the south;
Who does great things, unfathomable,
And wondrous works without number."

WOW! The oldest book ever written, still the number one best sellar, contains all the "Creation" information.

What a mighty God we serve!
Blessings, Abishag

Hello LinearAq,

'Having just posted Scripture verses from the book of JOB, I find it very interesting that you say you work for NASA, yet you have heard nothing of comparable Bible verses to todays' meteorological comparisons? (my words)

Do you not find it interesting that approximately 4000 years ago JOB spoke of the same Constellations mentioned on today's Weather Broadcasts? (Bear, Orion, Pleiades)

Hmmmmmmm......very interesting indeed, I'd say.

So, you said you wanted to SEE scripture verses... You have them right before your eyes. (If you would but look).

I am not a 'debator', LinearAq. I am posting what I KNOW to be true Scientific information.



Abishag

The Bible says the Earth "became" a waste. This implies that there was a previous time when it was not a waste, although this does not state it dogmatically.

Please show me where the Bible indicates the Earth as always being a waste. I am familiar with the Bible and have not seen any such indication.



Does that surprise you? Hoagland discovered the same thing at NASA: The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. This is classic compartmentalization.

There are many places, but this is a good place to start:

http://enterprisemission.com/

I would order the UN conference DVD to get a solid introduction. The information is based on this book:

http://enterprisemission.com/images/monument.jpg



Evidence supports the idea that the monuments on Mars, being built according to kabbalistic numerology, were built by fallen angels, that same angels that gave technology to men, and who gave the "doctrines of demons" (the Kabbalah) to men as well.

This is an interesting and deep study.

Hello. I hope your day is going well

Where did I say I have heard nothing of Bible verses that compare to today's "meteorological(?!) comparisons? Thou doth presume much.

I don't usually hear of the constellations in our weather forecasts. Be that as it may, did you think that the people of Job's day couldn't see the stars? Now, if they told me about the black hole at the center of our galaxy or the gravity induced fusion of hydrogen within stars, then I would be quite impressed.

On another note. "Orion" was a hunter from Greek mythology and Pleiades represents the seven sisters of Atlas. If Job is the oldest book of the ever written then why would it have Greek names? Does the original Hebrew have "???. ???????, ?????" and "???????" where those two references are? I rather doubt it.

Not really that surprising at all that the people in Job's day could see patterns in the stars and gave those patterns names. The stars were there as guides for traveling after all.

Again, you assume that I have not studied the Bible. The source of your information about me is in error.

And how is it that you KNOW this particular Scientific information?

Which Bible are you looking in? Even my Strong's concordance doesn't support this....please elaborate.

The direct reading of the Bible (Genesis 1) implies strongly that God created the world in a formless state and it was in that state until God put things on it.

Crackpot nonsense. His science is incredibly screwed up.

I saw the deep space data streams and helped decode them into pictures. No structures on Mars....sorry! As a Christian, aren't you supposed to be discerning about information that you accept as correct teaching?

Interestingly, the astrological symbols and their associated names were developed much earlier than that, and they have remained almost perfectly consistent throughout the ages. Amazingly, they are all symbols representing the work of Christ in the Earth, even down to the names of the stars. Fascinating study.

I would recommend that you read The Witness of the Stars by Bullinger. He's a brilliant researcher, tracing astrology back to the earliest known sources.

I'm looking at Strong's (an old one).

And the earth(776) was(1961) without form,(8414) and void;(922) and darkness(2822) was upon(5921) the face(6440) of the deep.(8415) And the Spirit(7307) of God(430) moved(7363) upon(5921) the face(6440) of the waters.(4325)
(Genesis 1:2)

was(1961) - became

without form(8414) - lie waste / desolation

void(922) - ruin



Two things to consider here.

(1) First, you're statement is flat wrong. When you read it in it's original translation, and consider that the word "was" means "became", then it implies that it was not "without form" at some former time.

(2) Peter and other books make references to previous Earth ages. Of course, this is consistent with Genesis. It's really quite plain to see.



Such brash statements demand self inspection.


Have you watched his lectures? What exactly is crackpot?

Is it possible that you're frightened by ideas you're not familiar with? Is it possible that you're more interested in pleasing the emperor than serving truth?

There are physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and scientists from every other discipline who believe and accept his work.

I have watched his U.N. lecture along with his University of Ohio and JPL lectures numerous times and have found no fundamental flaws with his logic. He's an excellent speaker and develops his theories with expertise.

Do you know that his discoveries on Mars led to predictions about Neptune that turned out to be accurate?

Do you understand Hoagland's statements about the important differences in Maxwellian and Newtonian math, and why they are so important today?

Please tell us exactly what you believe is flawed. I'll gladly read it and consider your case.



Your statement is irrelevant because the technical process of helping to decode data streams into graphics has nothing to do with the physical interpretation of the content of the pictures.

It's like saying, "I can do framing" so that makes me an architect.

Again, I would implore you to check out the 3 lectures that I mentioned earlier. He gave them to your colleagues. Why don't you watch them before throwing them away.

Don't you agree that there is much too much rash judgement in the world today? I do hope so.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

Hi Russ, ((( Smiles )))

I found it..
It's in a Bible that seems to be more focused on meanings and possible mistranslations..
And footnotes of compareing scriptures to earlier manuscripts.
Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls ect..
And explaining with indexing what each chapter is pertaining to.
And the words Jesus Christ is in this Bible too as well as the words Christ Jesus which is fine with me as Christ is not a last name but as this Bible explains..
Foot note.. Or Messiah " the Christ " {Greek) and "the Messiah" {Hebrew} both mean the " the annointed one"..
The only problem I have with it which is like with the King James translation is..
I like how the Interlinear Bible uses Gods name instead of just the title and also the word Lord like in the King James is an English word in translation, title.
They stick to the King James style in that way but..
Just looking at Bible.com a person can see their are many Bibles/Translations out there.
But I agree like you do that the closer to the orignal text/word the better and also to look up the meaning of a word like a dictionary as well..
But as all the King James versions translated the Hebrew word as WAS..
This Bible " New International Version "..
Makes a footnote by the word Was..
As possibly "Became "..
As they also noted the translation of the Red Sea with the footnote ..
That is, the Sea of Reeds..
They are very into footnotes of what some earlier manuscripts say or possible mistranslations or what was not found in an earlier manuscript...
but seems to follow the lead of the King James Version with footnotes of theses details..

Became or Was Laid to Waste..

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/earthsage.htm

Creation or Evolution Does It Really Matter What You Believe?

When God shakes something up he shakes it up big time.
It Becomes ruin waste without form and void.
It's interesting the same wording is used in Jeremiah 4:23
And there was no man after no birds no flood no cities it was all gone..
Laid to waste..
And we know the Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts.
We do owe alot to King James to make the Bible more known unto the people.
But man is not infallible only God is..
The King James translation wasen't handed down to us by God himself.
But by and through translaters who I'm sure did the best they could at that time.
Which was a pretty good job.
Though we are very gratefull to King James.
We still should be able to look up the meaning of the words based on the original language for ourselves.
And not be considered disloyal to King James.
He sounded like a wonderfull ruler.
And did not want to keep the original manuscripts out of the peoples hands.
He wanted us to have it.
What was taken out of the orignal sacred tounges.
Was the King James.
He wanted us to have that too..
Not to keep anything from us.
But for us to expand in our knowledge of the Scriptures.
I do appreciate that.
What a wonderfull gift to the people.

Jeremiah 4:22

For my people are foolish. They do not know Me.
They are stupid children, and they have no understanding.
They are wise to do evil, but they do not know to do good.

Jeremiah 4:23

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains , and, behold , they quaked.
And all the hills were shaken.
I looked, and, behold, there was no man; and all the birds of the skies had fled.
I looked,and,behold the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all it's cities were broken down, before the face of Jehovah, before his glowing anger.
For so Jehovah has said, The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end.

Became or Was Laid to Waste..

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/earthsage.htm

Creation or Evolution Does It Really Matter What You Believe?

When God shakes something up he shakes it up big time.
It Becomes ruin waste without form and void.
It's interesting the same wording is used in Jeremiah 4:23
And there was no man after no birds no flood no cities it was all gone..
Laid to waste..

Laid to waste..

Special Studies - The Three World Ages (1 of 8)

Pastor Arnold Murray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUUEF4m1rRo&feature=related

There is a movie out that explains how that can be!
Has time always remainded the same in a timeless universe as space itself is stretching so is time. So the cosmic clock or our clock as what is time in the stretching of time and space. CBR and the slowing of the cosmic clock the slinky effect of the stretching of time. And in point of reference what if both are correct? Louise Flectcher and Ernest Borgnine in The Genesis Code. Faith and Science what if both are true? The Genesis Code - Official Trailer [HD] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM&feature=related
What if.

And the Three World Ages or Ages is because of the word...
Eon and Eon is a period of time.
The Eons of the Bible
With Concordance

http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html