Supra-Intellectual Faith

Supra-Intellectual FaithSupra-Intellectual FaithBelieving God in an Believing God in an

Intellectualized Culture Intellectualized CulturePart 2Part 2

Supra-Intellectual FaithSupra-Intellectual Faith

A culture strongly influenced by elite A culture strongly influenced by elite naturalists whose naturalists whose a priori a priori belief is that there belief is that there

is no God.is no God.

— — Foolish intellectuals. —Foolish intellectuals. —Psalms 14:1 and 53:1Psalms 14:1 and 53:1

Believing God in an Believing God in an Intellectualized Culture Intellectualized Culture

Part 2Part 2

What is Evolution?What is Evolution?

• Explaining the Universe without GodExplaining the Universe without God

• The idea that the Universe is self-The idea that the Universe is self-originatingoriginating

– The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213

• Evolution can take many forms, of Evolution can take many forms, of which Darwinism is only one.which Darwinism is only one.

What is Evolution?What is Evolution?

• ““The essential attribute of an The essential attribute of an evolutionary concept is that it evolutionary concept is that it identifies ultimate reality with the identifies ultimate reality with the universe of matter, space, and time, universe of matter, space, and time, rather than with the transcendent rather than with the transcendent Creator of that universe.”Creator of that universe.”

– The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.207, Dr. Henry Morris, p.207

Isn’t Evolution a Modern Idea?Isn’t Evolution a Modern Idea?

Not at all!Not at all!• One form of Pre-Darwinian Evolution was known as One form of Pre-Darwinian Evolution was known as

“The Great Chain Of Being.”“The Great Chain Of Being.”– The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.38The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.38

• Long ages have long been a belief of pagan religions. Long ages have long been a belief of pagan religions. – The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.46The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.46

• Even in Christ’s day, Greek Stoics and Epicureans Even in Christ’s day, Greek Stoics and Epicureans believed “everything on the earth evolved directly from believed “everything on the earth evolved directly from the earth material itself.” the earth material itself.”

– The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.212 The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.212

• The Gnostics had similar beliefs The Gnostics had similar beliefs against whom Paul wrote:against whom Paul wrote: ““Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they

deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.”not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.” -Romans 1:25 -Romans 1:25

– The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213 The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213

Evolution IS AtheismEvolution IS Atheism

Since Evolution was devised to explain our Since Evolution was devised to explain our existence without God, Evolution…existence without God, Evolution…

is fundamentally an atheistic teaching.is fundamentally an atheistic teaching.

A Christian must NOT A Christian must NOT believe in Evolution!believe in Evolution!

Evolution IS AtheismEvolution IS Atheism

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin: Evolutionist Richard Lewontin: ‘We take the side of science [‘We take the side of science [sicsic] ] in spitein spite of the of the patent absurdity…, patent absurdity…, in spitein spite of its failure to fulfill of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and many of its extravagant promises of health and life, life, in spitein spite of the…unsubstantiated just-so of the…unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior…commitment stories, because we have a prior…commitment to materialism. …[to materialism. …[WW]]e cannot allow a Divine e cannot allow a Divine Foot in the doorFoot in the door.’ .’

– Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons,' TheRichard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons,' The New York Review, New York Review, p. 31, p. 31,

9 January 19979 January 1997

What About Science?What About Science?

What is Science?What is Science?• Study of observable, repeatable processes Study of observable, repeatable processes

and events and events in the presentin the present. . • What about the past?What about the past?

– We can’t observe the past.We can’t observe the past.– We can only make conjecture and speculation We can only make conjecture and speculation

about the past, based on experiments in the about the past, based on experiments in the present.present.

How old is the Earth?How old is the Earth?

Approximately 6000 years oldApproximately 6000 years old• What about millions of years?What about millions of years?

– Who says?Who says?Science?Science?No.No.Evolutionists!Evolutionists!

– Based on assumptions!Based on assumptions!

• Appearance of age?Appearance of age?– ““But, it looks old!”But, it looks old!”– It is old! It’s 6000 years old!It is old! It’s 6000 years old!


• ““No, I mean it looks millions of years old!”No, I mean it looks millions of years old!”• How do you know what millions of years looks How do you know what millions of years looks

like?like?• Can you tell the difference between a six Can you tell the difference between a six

thousand year-old rock and a six million year-old thousand year-old rock and a six million year-old rock?rock?

• Not really. We don’t have the proper frame of Not really. We don’t have the proper frame of reference to do so.reference to do so.


Did God make the Earth look old?Did God make the Earth look old?• No. God told us how old everything is.No. God told us how old everything is.

– If we presume it looks older than God said it is, If we presume it looks older than God said it is, that’s our own misinterpretation.that’s our own misinterpretation.

• How can we know? (How can we know? (A multiple choice test:A multiple choice test:))A.A. Perceptions and inference?Perceptions and inference?B.B. Conjecture based on interpretation?Conjecture based on interpretation?C.C. Take the word of someone who was there.Take the word of someone who was there.

Of course, Of course, take the word of someone who was there.take the word of someone who was there.


Who was there?Who was there?

GOD


Evolutionists keep increasing the Evolutionists keep increasing the age of the earth.age of the earth.

Since 1900, evolutionists have increased the Since 1900, evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the earth by 100 times!estimated age of the earth by 100 times!

Why?Why?

The more they discover, the more they realize The more they discover, the more they realize there is not enough time to explain the there is not enough time to explain the implications of their hypothesis —Evolution.implications of their hypothesis —Evolution.

Evolution is a Fact!Evolution is a Fact!

What about all the evidence for Evolution?What about all the evidence for Evolution?

EvolutionEvolution• Has never been observedHas never been observed• Has no mechanism to make it workHas no mechanism to make it work• Has no transitional formsHas no transitional formsWe see degeneration and extinction… We see degeneration and extinction…

Not evolution.Not evolution.

Isn’t it?Isn’t it?

Evolution is a Fact?Evolution is a Fact?

• “‘“‘Today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is ... nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself.’”Today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is ... nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself.’” – Keith S. Thompson (Biology professor @ Yale), “The Meanings of Evolution,” Keith S. Thompson (Biology professor @ Yale), “The Meanings of Evolution,” American ScientistAmerican Scientist 70, 1982 p.529, as quoted by 70, 1982 p.529, as quoted by The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24

This was 100 years after Darwin’s book This was 100 years after Darwin’s book that supposedly solved the problem!that supposedly solved the problem!

• It makes you wonder “…why evolutionary Biologists persist in believing in evolution at all. Where’s the evidence?”It makes you wonder “…why evolutionary Biologists persist in believing in evolution at all. Where’s the evidence?” – The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24

One Evolutionist saidOne Evolutionist said

Evolution is a Fact?Evolution is a Fact?• Natural Selection*Natural Selection*

– Adds no informationAdds no information• Evolution requires a way to add new informationEvolution requires a way to add new information

– Mutations (errors, corruption of what was)Mutations (errors, corruption of what was)• Loss of informationLoss of information• Most are harmful, a few are neutral, no known goodMost are harmful, a few are neutral, no known good

– Downhill processDownhill process• It gets rid of information. It gets rid of information. • The only way to get the information back is to breed the species The only way to get the information back is to breed the species

with a variety that still has the genetic information. with a variety that still has the genetic information.

• Evolution demonstrated today?Evolution demonstrated today?– Simple variation of traits within existing populationsSimple variation of traits within existing populations– ““New species” are a reduction in the gene poolNew species” are a reduction in the gene pool

*Creation Magazine*Creation Magazine, 23(3) Jun-Aug 2001 p.28-29 , 23(3) Jun-Aug 2001 p.28-29

Evidence for CreationEvidence for Creation

What Scientific Evidence is there for What Scientific Evidence is there for Creation?Creation?

• We live in the same world as evolutionistsWe live in the same world as evolutionists

• We have the same animalsWe have the same animals

• We have the same fossilsWe have the same fossils

• We have the same ScienceWe have the same Science

• We share the same facts!We share the same facts!

Evidence for CreationEvidence for Creation

All facts must be interpreted!All facts must be interpreted!• Your interpretation will depend on your Your interpretation will depend on your

world-view.world-view.• You take your world view to the fact and You take your world view to the fact and

come up with a story about the fact.come up with a story about the fact.• Creationists don’t disagree with Creationists don’t disagree with

evolutionists on science or the facts, evolutionists on science or the facts, • We disagree on the history.We disagree on the history.

EvidenceEvidenceDating MethodsDating Methods

• Most dating methods indicate a young earthMost dating methods indicate a young earth– Fossils – contain unfossilized bone, blood cells, and sometimes Fossils – contain unfossilized bone, blood cells, and sometimes

soft tissuesoft tissue– Decay of Earth’s magnetic fieldDecay of Earth’s magnetic field– Helium in the atmosphereHelium in the atmosphere

• If earth is as old as evolutionists say, there should be a million times If earth is as old as evolutionists say, there should be a million times more helium atoms. Helium atoms rarely escape the atmosphere. more helium atoms. Helium atoms rarely escape the atmosphere.

– Moon’s recession from EarthMoon’s recession from Earth– Salt in the seaSalt in the sea– Erosion of continentsErosion of continents– Meteoritic dust – Meteoritic dust – High in nickel, the crust should have an abundanceHigh in nickel, the crust should have an abundance

– Many more!Many more!

Evolutionists downplay these dating methods.Evolutionists downplay these dating methods.

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating Methods• CC1414, K-Ar, Ru-Sr, U-Pb, K-Ar, Ru-Sr, U-Pb

– Date estimates by comparing element ratiosDate estimates by comparing element ratios• Three assumptions:Three assumptions:

– Known initial quantitiesKnown initial quantities– Constant decay ratesConstant decay rates– No contamination of quantities or outside influencesNo contamination of quantities or outside influences

• These assumptions cannot be knownThese assumptions cannot be known• Radiometric analysis—even from the same Radiometric analysis—even from the same

sample—produce inconsistent resultssample—produce inconsistent results

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating MethodsHow does Radiometric Dating Work?How does Radiometric Dating Work?Lets examine the one most people have heard about: Lets examine the one most people have heard about:

The Carbon-14 dating method.The Carbon-14 dating method.Normal carbon is Carbon-12. It is Normal carbon is Carbon-12. It is notnot radioactive. radioactive. In our atmosphere, there is a small, but measurable, In our atmosphere, there is a small, but measurable,

amount of Carbon-14. It amount of Carbon-14. It isis radioactive. radioactive. Carbon-14 is believed to be in a rather constant percentage Carbon-14 is believed to be in a rather constant percentage

to Carbon-12 in our atmosphere.to Carbon-12 in our atmosphere.Over time, the Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14.Over time, the Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14.

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating MethodsPlants and animals absorb this carbon into Plants and animals absorb this carbon into

themselves, and since the ratio is presumed to themselves, and since the ratio is presumed to be constant in the atmosphere, it is presumed be constant in the atmosphere, it is presumed this ratio is the same in the organism while the this ratio is the same in the organism while the organism is alive.organism is alive.

When the organism dies, it is no longer absorbing When the organism dies, it is no longer absorbing carbon. As the Carbon-14 decays, the amount carbon. As the Carbon-14 decays, the amount of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 gets smaller. of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 gets smaller.

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating MethodsScientists measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in Scientists measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in

the dead organism, and by “knowing” how long it takes the dead organism, and by “knowing” how long it takes for the Carbon-14 to decay into Nitrogen-14, and for the Carbon-14 to decay into Nitrogen-14, and determining how much is left, they estimate how long the determining how much is left, they estimate how long the organism has been dead.organism has been dead.

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating Methods

For example, this cow absorbs For example, this cow absorbs Carbon while it is alive. Carbon while it is alive. Some is C-12 (normal), andSome is C-12 (normal), andSome is C-14 (radioactive). Some is C-14 (radioactive). Since the ratio is presumed to Since the ratio is presumed to be constant in the atmosphere, be constant in the atmosphere, the ratio is presumed to be the the ratio is presumed to be the same in the cow while the cow same in the cow while the cow is alive.is alive.

EvidenceEvidence


As long as the cow is alive, it As long as the cow is alive, it will have the same ratio of will have the same ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12.Carbon-14 to Carbon-12.

EvidenceEvidence


When the cow dies however, When the cow dies however, it stops absorbing carbon.it stops absorbing carbon.

No more Carbon-14 gets taken No more Carbon-14 gets taken into the cow.into the cow.

The Carbon-14 starts to decay The Carbon-14 starts to decay into Nitrogen-14.into Nitrogen-14.

EvidenceEvidence


Lab researchers measure the Lab researchers measure the remaining amount of Carbon-remaining amount of Carbon-14. 14.

““Knowing” how fast Carbon-14 Knowing” how fast Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14, they decays into Nitrogen-14, they make an estimate of how long make an estimate of how long the cow has been dead.the cow has been dead.

EvidenceEvidence

Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiometric Dating Methods• Remember, there are a Remember, there are a minimum minimum of three assumptions:of three assumptions:

– Known initial quantities:Known initial quantities: That the ratio of the elements were the same when the sample was formed That the ratio of the elements were the same when the sample was formed

as they are today. as they are today. – Constant decay rates:Constant decay rates:

That the rate of decay from one element to another was the same now as it That the rate of decay from one element to another was the same now as it is today. is today.

– No contamination of quantities or outside influences:No contamination of quantities or outside influences: That nothing added or depleted any of the elements after the sample was That nothing added or depleted any of the elements after the sample was

formed. formed.

• These assumptions cannot be knownThese assumptions cannot be known• In a flood scenario, all three of these assumptions are questionable.In a flood scenario, all three of these assumptions are questionable.

EvidenceEvidence


• The Parable of the CandleThe Parable of the Candle

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp

EvidenceEvidenceThe Fossil RecordThe Fossil Record

• Huge gaps between every major life formHuge gaps between every major life form– Non-living to single cellNon-living to single cell– Single-cell to multi-cellSingle-cell to multi-cell– Invertebrate to vertebrateInvertebrate to vertebrate– Sea creatures to amphibiansSea creatures to amphibians– Amphibians to reptilesAmphibians to reptiles– Reptiles to mammalsReptiles to mammals– Mammals to manMammals to man– And more!And more!

EvidenceEvidence

The Fossil RecordThe Fossil Record• Abrupt appearance Abrupt appearance

• Fully formedFully formed

• No transitionsNo transitions

• Many living creatures identical to fossilsMany living creatures identical to fossils

• Creatures/plants once thought extinct are found aliveCreatures/plants once thought extinct are found alive– CoelacanthCoelacanth– Diatonyds (“extinct” rodents)Diatonyds (“extinct” rodents)– Wollemai pineWollemai pine

• Evidence of dinosaurs Evidence of dinosaurs contemporary contemporary with manwith man

EvidenceEvidenceThe Fossil RecordThe Fossil Record

• Out of place embedded rocks Out of place embedded rocks (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., fig.93, ed., fig.93,

p.145)p.145)

• Trees crossing multiple strata Trees crossing multiple strata (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., fig.11, p.10) ed., fig.11, p.10)

• Geologic column Geologic column (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., #69, p.29, #69, p.77) ed., #69, p.29, #69, p.77)

– Non-existent over much of the earthNon-existent over much of the earth– Not complete anywhereNot complete anywhere– Strata often incorrectly sequencedStrata often incorrectly sequenced

EvidenceEvidence

Near-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy• CometsComets

– Should not exist. Oldest no more than 10,000 Should not exist. Oldest no more than 10,000 years years (Brown,(Brown, 7 7thth ed., ed., #89, p.33) #89, p.33)

– No hyperbolic orbits No hyperbolic orbits (Brown,(Brown, 7 7thth ed., ed., fig.125, p.195) fig.125, p.195)

– Presumption of an “Oort cloud”Presumption of an “Oort cloud”• Completely undetectable Completely undetectable (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., fig.125, p.195) ed., fig.125, p.195)

EvidenceEvidence

Near-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy

This is not bad science…This is not bad science…

it’s not science at all!it’s not science at all!

EvidenceEvidence

Near-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy• Where Where diddid comets come from? comets come from?

• Earth!Earth!

More on that in another talkMore on that in another talk

Fountains of the great deep — Fountains of the great deep — Genesis 7:11Genesis 7:11

EvidenceEvidenceNear-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy

• Recession of the MoonRecession of the Moon– Has to be relatively “new” orHas to be relatively “new” or– The Moon should have been long gone from The Moon should have been long gone from

Earth Earth (Brown,(Brown, 7 7thth ed., ed., Technical notes, pp.302-306) Technical notes, pp.302-306)

• Dust on the MoonDust on the Moon– 4.6BY should have resulted in the accumulation of at 4.6BY should have resulted in the accumulation of at

least 50 feet of dust – up to nearly 600 feet – but it’s least 50 feet of dust – up to nearly 600 feet – but it’s only 3/4 of an inch deep indicating a maximum age of only 3/4 of an inch deep indicating a maximum age of only 7000 years. [only 7000 years. [Evolutionists have done some serious back Evolutionists have done some serious back peddling on this by revising their hypothesis on space dust to greatly peddling on this by revising their hypothesis on space dust to greatly

reduce the expected accumulation.reduce the expected accumulation.]] (Brown,(Brown, 7 7thth ed., ed., #86, p.33) #86, p.33)

EvidenceEvidence

Near-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy• SunSun

– Faint young sun and the earth. Even 25% less heat Faint young sun and the earth. Even 25% less heat makes a permanent deep-freeze. makes a permanent deep-freeze. (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., #49, p.23) ed., #49, p.23)

– No indication that the sun evolved or has ever been No indication that the sun evolved or has ever been significantly different from what we see today. significantly different from what we see today.

• EarthEarth – Meteoritic dust should be everywhere Meteoritic dust should be everywhere (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., ed., #82, p.32)#82, p.32)

– Decay of magnetic field 50% every 1400 years. Decay of magnetic field 50% every 1400 years. (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., #83, p.32) ed., #83, p.32)

EvidenceEvidence

Near-Earth AstronomyNear-Earth Astronomy• Planets Planets

– Rotations different (some retrograde), orbits Rotations different (some retrograde), orbits off plane. off plane. (Brown, 7(Brown, 7thth ed., #43, p.21) ed., #43, p.21)

EvidenceEvidence

Distant AstronomyDistant Astronomy• Supernova in 1987: SN1987aSupernova in 1987: SN1987a

– blue dwarf* & red giant as a binary system.blue dwarf* & red giant as a binary system.– Evolutionary theory would have predicted the Evolutionary theory would have predicted the

Red Giant to collapse into itself and nova, but Red Giant to collapse into itself and nova, but the blue dwarf went supernova instead. the blue dwarf went supernova instead.

– The wrong star blew up!The wrong star blew up!**Originally, the pair was described as a blue dwarf and a red giant. Since Originally, the pair was described as a blue dwarf and a red giant. Since

the event, they have revised the description of the one that blew up to the event, they have revised the description of the one that blew up to be a “blue giant” — an unknown star type before the event.be a “blue giant” — an unknown star type before the event.

EvidenceEvidence

Distant AstronomyDistant Astronomy• Supernova in 1987: SN1987aSupernova in 1987: SN1987a

• Some quotes immediately after the event:Some quotes immediately after the event:– ““This completely contradicts everything we have believed about This completely contradicts everything we have believed about

stellar evolution.” stellar evolution.” – ““We’ll have to start all over on our paradigm of stellar evolution.”We’ll have to start all over on our paradigm of stellar evolution.”– ““All existing theories of stellar evolution are now disproved.”All existing theories of stellar evolution are now disproved.”(ACC Astronomy course, 1987)(ACC Astronomy course, 1987)

• They have since re-written their interpretation of the facts They have since re-written their interpretation of the facts of the event to fit their pre-existing theory.of the event to fit their pre-existing theory.

EvidenceEvidenceDistant AstronomyDistant Astronomy

• Stars and StarlightStars and Starlight– God Stretched out the heavensGod Stretched out the heavens

– Isaiah 42.5; Isaiah 44.24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Isaiah 42.5; Isaiah 44.24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15

– Creation has no more problem with starlight Creation has no more problem with starlight than Evolution does.than Evolution does.

Let’s consider…Let’s consider…

EvidenceEvidenceThe Big BangTheoryThe Big BangTheory

– A “red-shift” detected in stellar elementsA “red-shift” detected in stellar elements– Attributed to be similar to the Doppler effectAttributed to be similar to the Doppler effect– However, the red-shift is quantized.However, the red-shift is quantized.

That is inconsistent with the hypothesisThat is inconsistent with the hypothesis– However, God’s stretching of the heavens However, God’s stretching of the heavens

may explain this quantizationmay explain this quantization


– Cosmic Background RadiationCosmic Background Radiation• In front of some galaxiesIn front of some galaxies

– Predicted temperature (30Predicted temperature (30°K) °K) not found not found (3(3°°K instead)K instead)

• Eddington already calculated 3Eddington already calculated 3°K in 1926 as the temperature °K in 1926 as the temperature of space due to starlight.of space due to starlight.

– Other problems Other problems (Brown, 7(Brown, 7th th ed., #55, p.70-72)ed., #55, p.70-72)

• Heavy hydrogen –not mixed, comets 2x, oceans 10x Heavy hydrogen –not mixed, comets 2x, oceans 10x (Brown(Brown, 7, 7thth ed., ed., #27 p.27) #27 p.27)

• Order from chaos (hot gas has no information) Order from chaos (hot gas has no information) (Brown(Brown, 7, 7thth ed., ed., #16d, p.49) #16d, p.49)

• Universe speeding up and slowing downUniverse speeding up and slowing down• Rate of expansion increases with distanceRate of expansion increases with distance• Matter is clumped even on large scaleMatter is clumped even on large scale• Galaxies shouldn’t existGalaxies shouldn’t exist• No Population III stars exist (hydrogen and helium)No Population III stars exist (hydrogen and helium)


Most people (even most scientists) do not understand it. Most people (even most scientists) do not understand it. They envision a dense ball of hot matter exploding into They envision a dense ball of hot matter exploding into an empty space. What they do not realize is that the an empty space. What they do not realize is that the dimension of space must be included in the expansion. dimension of space must be included in the expansion. The dimensions of space itself were part of the exploding The dimensions of space itself were part of the exploding ball. Space itself was once the size of the head of a pin. ball. Space itself was once the size of the head of a pin. Space itself expanded. Space itself expanded.


Astronomer and Mathematician Sir Fredrick Hoyle, who Astronomer and Mathematician Sir Fredrick Hoyle, who

was was by no meansby no means a Creationist said, a Creationist said, “Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch “Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two astronomy, and, in more than two decades, decades, it has not produced a single it has not produced a single successful predictionsuccessful prediction.”.”– Hoyle, F., Hoyle, F., Home is where the wind BlowsHome is where the wind Blows, 1994, as reported in , 1994, as reported in The SkepticThe Skeptic, 16(1):52 , 16(1):52


““Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. The strong tendency is to replace a need for more The strong tendency is to replace a need for more facts by conformity.”facts by conformity.”

– Hoyle, et al., Hoyle, et al., NatureNature 346:807-812, Aug.30, 1990 346:807-812, Aug.30, 1990

In other words, Big Bang is a desolate theory, and In other words, Big Bang is a desolate theory, and in the absence of facts about stellar evolution, the in the absence of facts about stellar evolution, the

orthodoxy imposes its beliefs on researchers.orthodoxy imposes its beliefs on researchers.


• The farthest galaxies, 11 billion light years away, should The farthest galaxies, 11 billion light years away, should show us what the early universe looked like. show us what the early universe looked like.

• The light would have taken 11 BY to get here, so these The light would have taken 11 BY to get here, so these distant galaxies should look young to us. distant galaxies should look young to us.

• Many of the farthest galaxies still look billions of years Many of the farthest galaxies still look billions of years old (by evolutionary description)! old (by evolutionary description)!

• The universe is supposedly only 13 BY old. The universe is supposedly only 13 BY old.

• How did these galaxies become so “old” at a time when How did these galaxies become so “old” at a time when

the universe itself was only 2 BY old?the universe itself was only 2 BY old?

EvidenceEvidenceBiologyBiology

• [Mathematician] Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated that the chance of [Mathematician] Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000.cell was one in 10 to the 40,000. (10 (1040,000 40,000 ))– Evolution from SpaceEvolution from Space, 1981, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1981, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe

• The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at only The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at only 10 to the 80. He called the evolution of life on earth “nonsense 10 to the 80. He called the evolution of life on earth “nonsense of a high order.” of a high order.” – Hoyle, F., “The Big Bang in Astronomy”, Hoyle, F., “The Big Bang in Astronomy”, New ScientistNew Scientist, Nov.19, 1981 , Nov.19, 1981

• Sir Fredrick Hoyle originated the 'Tornado through a junkyard Sir Fredrick Hoyle originated the 'Tornado through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747' example, saying that believing in assembling a Boeing 747' example, saying that believing in evolution is like believing a tornado could sweep through a evolution is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747.junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747. – Hoyle, Hoyle, NatureNature, 294(5837):105, Nov.12,1981 , 294(5837):105, Nov.12,1981 www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp#f3www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp#f3


Did Sir Fredrick Hoyle’s conclusions lead him to Did Sir Fredrick Hoyle’s conclusions lead him to believe in God? believe in God?

No. No.

Sadly, he concluded life came…Sadly, he concluded life came…

from outer-space!from outer-space!


• In Darwin’s day people viewed living cells to be In Darwin’s day people viewed living cells to be about as complex as a ping-pong ball. about as complex as a ping-pong ball.

• Today we know that a living cell is practically a Today we know that a living cell is practically a universe in itself. universe in itself.


• The organic world is one of stability of kinds with The organic world is one of stability of kinds with provision for variation within the kind.provision for variation within the kind.

• There are unbridgeable gaps between the kinds.There are unbridgeable gaps between the kinds.


• If evolution were true, there should be no gaps. If evolution were true, there should be no gaps. We should see a continuum of imperceptible We should see a continuum of imperceptible gradations from one form to another. It would be gradations from one form to another. It would be impossible to tell where the classification of one impossible to tell where the classification of one organism should end and another begin.organism should end and another begin.

• Speciation itself is something we should NOT Speciation itself is something we should NOT see.see.

• This is powerful testimony that Evolution is false.This is powerful testimony that Evolution is false. -H.M.Morris, -H.M.Morris, Many Infallible ProofsMany Infallible Proofs, p.264 , p.264


• Abiogenesis – Spontaneous generation – does Abiogenesis – Spontaneous generation – does not exist today.not exist today.

• We know life comes from life!We know life comes from life!

• Evolutionists have to assume life came from Evolutionists have to assume life came from non-life.non-life.


• Evolutionists have to assume Evolutionists have to assume – A process that does not exist today existed in the pastA process that does not exist today existed in the past– A chemically different environment that does not exist today A chemically different environment that does not exist today

existed in the pastexisted in the past– An oceanic composition that does not exist today existed in the An oceanic composition that does not exist today existed in the

pastpastIn order to explain the generation of primeval organisms that only In order to explain the generation of primeval organisms that only

existed in the pastexisted in the pastAll from a belief system that tries to say the present is the key to All from a belief system that tries to say the present is the key to

the past!the past!H.M.Morris, H.M.Morris, Many Infallible ProofsMany Infallible Proofs, p.270-271 , p.270-271

• This is not science.This is not science.– Science deals with processes that exist in the present.Science deals with processes that exist in the present.


The “earliest” and most “primitive” form of The “earliest” and most “primitive” form of life discovered in the fossil record… found life discovered in the fossil record… found in the Precambrian rocks of southern in the Precambrian rocks of southern Ontairo… [is] still living today. Ontairo… [is] still living today. – H.M.Morris, H.M.Morris, Many Infallible ProofsMany Infallible Proofs, p.273-274 , p.273-274


• Vestigial organs.Vestigial organs.– Not knowing the purpose of a structure does not Not knowing the purpose of a structure does not

mean it has lost its function or has no function.mean it has lost its function or has no function.– All organs once identified as vestigial are now known All organs once identified as vestigial are now known

to have a function.to have a function.– Furthermore, the idea that an originally perfect Furthermore, the idea that an originally perfect

structure deteriorates over generations says nothing structure deteriorates over generations says nothing at all about how it was produced in the first place. at all about how it was produced in the first place.

− The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.25The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.25


• Morphology Morphology – Living entities that look alike came from a Living entities that look alike came from a

common ancestor?common ancestor?– Living entities that look alike had a common Living entities that look alike had a common

creator.creator.

EvidenceEvidenceLanguageLanguage

• Languages are more complex the farther Languages are more complex the farther back in history you go.back in history you go.– The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.253 , Dr. Henry Morris, p.253

– Brown, 7Brown, 7thth ed., #13, p.8 ed., #13, p.8

• Evolution predicted the opposite.Evolution predicted the opposite.

EvidenceEvidenceReligionReligion

• Religions all stem from monotheism, belief in a Religions all stem from monotheism, belief in a creator, and an eternal afterlife. Then they creator, and an eternal afterlife. Then they degenerated into polytheism, pantheism, and degenerated into polytheism, pantheism, and animism. animism.

• Evolution predicted just the opposite. Evolution predicted just the opposite. Researchers are baffled.Researchers are baffled.– --The Long War Against GodThe Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.292 , Dr. Henry Morris, p.292

EvidenceEvidenceConsciousnessConsciousness

• Self-awareness Self-awareness — Evolution cannot explain this.— Evolution cannot explain this.

AltruismAltruism

• Taking action on the behalf of and to the benefit Taking action on the behalf of and to the benefit of another, often at the risk of one's own life.of another, often at the risk of one's own life.— Evolution cannot explain this. — Evolution cannot explain this. [Brown, 7[Brown, 7thth ed., #11] ed., #11]

EvidenceEvidence

The Evidence is on God’s SideThe Evidence is on God’s Side

But this should be no surprise. He created it all!But this should be no surprise. He created it all!

He wants to show you His love.He wants to show you His love.

Will you let Him?Will you let Him?

Date post:	01-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ronan-tyson
View:	18 times
Download:	0 times

Supra-Intellectual Faith

Documents