Gospel Truth





Home Up Deceit Eden Language Some Quotes FAQAC Creation Science Evolution? Oil & Water Chance? Design Why Scientist Believes God's Accuracy


CREATIONISM - We prefer the term "creation science." But opponents are in the majority, ...so their term is: "creationism."
Paul Abramson

Scientists who focus on details all day long may inadvertently miss the big picture of this incredibly complex creation around us. Flowers, stars, the wind, snow, nettles, ice cream, acid, love, bears, and granite. All that is in this giant universe just kind of "exploded" into existence and complexity all by itself? There is no Creator behind it all?

How many dimensions are there? Humans have five senses and we're relegated to a small bluish planet on the side of a particular galaxy. Does it make sense to you that we can somehow come to grips with "all that is"? Remember that we've only known about the existence of radio waves for the past 100 years. Modern humans are hot stuff, huh? Have you ever walked into a room and fell a "chill" or that something was wrong? Have you ever sensed that you were being watched? ...How many dimensions are there? Could there be dimensions (or realms) outside of our inherently limited natural senses? There are some "prove it to me" folks in every generation. Atheism goes back at least 3,000 years. We only have 5 senses, which is enough to sense some of what's out there. But when people think that their understanding is at the "center of the universe" I must refrain from joining such nonsense. Pride goes before a fall. ...The pre-Galilean-evolutionists ... thinking that everything revolves around their understanding - or else it doesn't exist....

Does "God(s)" have to answer to us and our understanding? (Does He/She/It/They ... have to answer at all, in fact.) Think about it. Or is it more logical to proceed with the perspective that it is we humans who have to seek out and answer to Him?! Human senses (upon which all of science is necessarily dependant - all the "testable-repeatable" categorizations, etc.) only perceive data from some of the dimensions around us. We are largely unaware of the others.

A high schooler may learn how to take apart and repair automobiles. He or she might get really good at it. But understanding how something works and why is still a far cry from then deciding that if no engineer steps forward - maybe the car just fell together all by itself. I don't have enough faith (nor misplaced pride) to believe such a theory. ....Human DNA has some 3.5 billion base pairs in careful, detailed sequential arrangement. Where's the big factory to make more humans? ... Oh wait, it's built in. Also partial repair processes are built-in. You start exercising certain muscles - they respond and automatically grow bigger for the next day. We can (collectively) hold our breath and stomp our feet but the notion that "God has to answer to us" (among other evolutionary assumptions) is really backwards IMHO. Creationists contend that it is actually we who are standing on the side of science, against religious beliefs that would hold us back. We recognize firstly that there *must* have been a Creator. Just as any car must have had a designer even more so life on Earth shows evidence of incredible built-in design.

Maybe scientists, though smart in some ways, could be generally weak in other areas, like spiritual perception. Have you ever thought of this? (Possibly somewhat like a "nerd" who's brilliant with computers, but who has trouble dealing with humans.) Mired in details and complex formulas, but possibly missing the big picture. You wouldn't want a brilliant lawyer to perform open heart surgery on you (even though he or she is smart), or for a jet mechanic to do your taxes, right? So don't trust scientists when it comes to what are really ancient history and spiritual matters - our origins and the purpose of life. How we first got here and precisely when it started is inherently outside of modern testable-repeatable science.


You and I arrived on planet Earth only recently. Cities and languages already existed. Art and table manners were taught to us by others; and so was history. Each personís life touches others; as we each learn, then in turn teach (selections of) what we saw ourselves and heard from others, then die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Slowly, inevitably things get dusty and forgotten or rewritten or lost.

Our understanding of human and Earth origins builds the learned history used as the foundation for our future; it is a base of experiences, of wisdom. There is an old Russian proverb, "If you dwell on the past you will lose an eye. But if you forget the past you will lose both eyes."

I do not know if Creation & the Flood as recorded in the Bible are true. But I do know that there is some very good evidence to support this scientific theory. Most other sites which deal with our ancient origins claim to "have the final word". Well, www.creationism.org  links to several of these on both sides of this Grand Canyon of controversy, but knowing the limits of my own IQ Ö Iíll try to share more of the evidence and debated theoretical problems than set-in-stone conclusions. You're smart; you can look at this set of arguments and then decide which direction to pursue for your own research. This (approximately 30 page long) report can be comfortably read in an evening. There are actually several creation-related theories out there, most of which compromise between strict "evolutionism" (no God, period) and strict "creationism" (no evolution, period - there were 6 days of Creation, less than 10,000 years ago).

As for myself I used to believe in "theistic evolution" (one of the compromise creation-evolution theories), but more and more the evidence appears to point me to a young Earth and no evolution. There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided" from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed: "micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind", i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd. Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first, but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets. Regardless of my individual beliefs however I hope that you can glean from the evidence and ideas which are related in this report.

Look at the evidence for yourself. I think youíll be amazed at just how many holes there are in the evolutionary theory as commonly believed today. And then there are the politics involved in the discovery and classification of artifacts. If an archaeologist successfully bolsters a claim that a few one-of-a-kind bone fragments somehow fit right into ancient human lineage, rather than just another unsuccessful "spur" out there, then long term research grants are a lot more forthcoming. Debate, counter-claims, political wrangling; "Survival of the fittest" at its finest.

One thing that most average people donít know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen. It's not scientific to ignore the values which don't match current beliefs and to keep testing till they find a date they like. This topic will be discussed further in the section below titled: "Professionals, Competition & the Scientific Method".

Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in "the wrong order" or even upside down. And sometimes a geologist, archaeologist, or mining operation will be digging along and come across a few large logs upright and transversing what an evolutionist would have called "millions of years" but what a creationist would look at and see evidence of the Great Flood from the time of Noah - an Earth covered with a myriad of sedimentary rocks, often hundreds of feet deep and formed under great (though temporary, lasting under a year) pressure. In the forests near your home do you see dead trees that have stayed upright and undisturbed for the past few millions of years? Of course not! In some places ants won't leave picnickers alone for even one hour before moving in on the target. Insects and microbes are constantly on the look out for decay and unprotected food to take advantage of. Upright tree trunks are mute testimony to rapid, deep sedimentary deposition. Evolutionary theory, as currently believed, requires structural modification or to be completely replaced with an entirely different theory of our ancient origins.

The Flood theory can readily handle strata which, by exception, stacks in "evolutionary" order. The creationist can also discuss layers which have stacked "upside-down" - since theyíre not such - if the Flood is a historical event. Evolutionists though, must conjure up a myriad of exceptions when dealing with the real fossil evidence we see in the world today. (These exceptions often require more faith than does the Bibleís historical account of what happened!)

Is it necessarily scientific (but not religious) to exclude God in geologic strata interpretation? Is it necessarily religious (but not scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation? If our (supposed?) Creator could, within one of many possible dimensions, also operate as a Scientific Mathematician then the two are not at all at odds. And in that case such a belief system with no god(s) on top would merely be another false religion out there; a religion (a system of beliefs) which detracts from or denies the invisible yet obvious hand of the true Maker. Evolution, as a belief system about origins should be considered on its scientific merits, not as an article of blind faith - that it "must" have happened.

There is significant evidence that the Earthís climate used to be much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today. This is in keeping with the Bibleís record in Genesis. It is not in keeping with modern evolutionary beliefs. Fossils and some still frozen remains (the mammoths, for example) in the Arctic and (palm leaf imprints) in the Antarctic may be better explained if there was a firmament (thick cloud canopy) above the Earth prior to the Flood, as recorded in the Bible.