Age of the Universe

Growing Gap between Two Tectonic Plates

2012-02-11T08:43:00.000-08:00

Gorman recommends you check this out:

"Drifting apart: Amazing underwater photos that show the growing gap between two tectonic plates"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1385589/The-growing-gap-Eurasia-North-American-tectonic-plates.html

More on Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

2011-06-17T10:28:00.000-07:00

(See David Carvers comment on the previous posting)

Anyone who asserts, as Bruce Waltke does, that the overwhelming evidence from science supports evolution theory does not know what scientific evidence is. True, at the present time, the overwhelming concensus from the academic world parrots that opinion. If concensus is taken as evidence, Waltke is right for the time being. But if evidences from science only are the criteria, he is dead wrong.

Evolutionists perform all kinds of good science in areas peripheral to the central iissue, like genetics, cell function, plant and animal behavior, and similarities in morphology. But at its core, evolution theory is simply guesswork, minus persuasive scientific data. Many studies from good science surround evolution theory and this is used as a persuasive front, leading unwary followers to assume that the core assumptions must be scientifically established as well. They are not, not by any means.

If data exists supporting evolution using rigid, scientific protocol, where is it? I have seen nothng that is not far more sensibly explained by creation. Morphological similarites, whether on the molecular level or the macro level, only prove, as creationists often affirm, that they have a common Designer.

A major weakness in creationist arguments comes from a superficial reading of Genesis with the conclusion that God created planet earth and the stellar heavens less than ten thousand years ago. It is no wonder that many scientists turn off at that point and it enables them to take the absolutely underwhelming evidence for evolution and make it seem credible. Bruce Waltke's tragedy should alert us all to the power of "strong delusion" at this terminus of history.

- Gorman Gray

Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

2010-05-17T11:17:00.000-07:00

Last month renowned Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary. In a March 24 release of an interview from 2009 Waltke stated:

"...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

This statement came as a shock to many of us. The Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Hugh Ross' research, and Young Earth Creationists unite in proving the fallacies of Darwinian evolution.

This announcement from Waltke is another indication of the need for sound, biblical exegesis of Genesis one that harmonizes with valid scientific observation. We believe that Young Biosphere Creationism (as explained in The Age of the Universe book) accomplishes these objectives. May we each use our intellectual and spiritual gifts productively to defend and teach the Who and how of origins.

Age of the Earth/ Age of the Biosphere

2010-04-09T09:56:00.001-07:00

My friend, Dr. Jackson, answered a query about the age of the earth this way:

"Dr J. I have a teacher who thinks God created the world but used evolution so the world is millions of years old. How do creationists refute that? What evidence do we have? Does it matter how old Earth is? Ok thanks so much. God bless! - Jessica G."

"Jessica, we've got dino bones with blood still in them. They've gotta be only 4000 years old. pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html We found a group of WW2 warplanes 275 feet inside a glacier that's moved miles in just decades not eons. Glaciers grow faster than they are telling us. http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm Cave stalactites don't take "millions" of yrs, either. Just look up— next time you drive under a stone bridge that --is not-- millions of years old—you'll see them there anyway. The problem is ... how do --evo's-- get off saying Earth --is-- billions old?? Keep thinking. Dr J" - POINTS OF ORIGINS with Dr. Jackson Creation Truth Foundation www.CreationTruth.com

We agree with young earth creation apologists, but call attention to the distinction between the older age of our planet's mineral base and the relatively recent creation of the biosphere. (This latter creation is described in Genesis chapter 1). We believe that the undefined age of the universe model fits a literal exegesis of the Genesis account, allows for the observational evidence of astronomy, yet defends the recent origin of earth's biosphere and the divine creation of all living things.

- posted by J. Woodward

Critique of Smithsonian's "Human Evolution" Exhibit

2010-04-01T09:08:00.001-07:00

John Woodward writes:

My friend, G. Charles Jackson, a Creation Science lecturer, sent me this tip:

"Intelligent Design theorist Casey Luskin, does an excellent job reviewing the displays at the Smithsonian Museum's newest exhibit on "Human Evolution." Enjoy the link. They've included the infamously admitted non-link "Ardi" and disqualified hybrid "Toumai" in their list of missing-link "proofs" of evolution." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/smithsonians_new_human_origins.html

I imagine the exhibit didn't randomly assemble itself... :-)

Creation Conference 2010

2010-02-19T09:47:00.001-08:00

I am hoping to attend this event in N.C. Let us pray for God's blessing on it and opportunities to advocate Young Biosphere Creationism.

"Wednesday, June 9 – Sunday, June 13

Lifeway Ridgecrest Conference Center near Asheville, NC

THE ATHEISTS ARE ON THE MARCH LIKE NEVER BEFORE! Why? Because creation is also being discussed like never before, and they are worried! This series of lectures and activities will equip you and your children with the necessary tools and information to dramatically affect this world for Christ.

Schedule: This five day conference has over 20 sessions including a Q & A panel, a special forum on distant starlight, and a geology excursion to nearby Linville caverns and a broad range of presentations on the creation/evolution issues.

This may be the most comprehensive and important conference held in 2010.

Gary Bates

CEO
Creation Ministries International (US)
PO Box 350, Powder Springs, GA 30127

Phone: 1-800-616-1264 Ext. 205

Online: www.Creation2010.com"

Creationism and a Biblical Worldview

2010-01-30T09:13:00.000-08:00

[from John Woodward]. One of the vital reasons for a biblical, defensible view of creationism is that this is an essential component of a biblical worldview. Dr. Phil Jones is preaching a series on A Biblical Worldview. On January 17, 2010 he gave an excellent overview of the case for biblical creationism and the falacies of evolution. You can listen online or download this message. PDF notes are available on the same web page: http://www.fbcpowell.org/resources/media/sermons/

The Case for a Creator

2009-12-25T15:32:00.000-08:00

[from John Woodward] On Christmas day I have enjoyed a nice celebration with family, a delicious meal, and some extra time to relax with a book. I've had this volume on my shelf for months: The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel.

I have appreciated two of his other of his popular books on apologetics: The Case for Christ, and The Case for Faith. Although the content of these books can mostly be found in other texts, Mr. Strobel is gifted at organizing the topics in an engaging way. He writes with a reasonable tone and uses interviews from scholars in various areas of expertise to strengthen the Case's academic witness and lighten the tone of the book with some narrative and dialog.

So the eleven chapters of The Case for a Creator retain this good formula while covering topics and issues pertaining to Creation versus Darwinian evolution.

Readers of Mr. Gray's Age of the Universe will be particularly interested in chapter seven of Strobel's book: The Evidence of Astronomy: The Privileged Planet. It opens with this quote from Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias: "Astronomy leads to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan" (p. 153).

The Young Biosphere Creation model that is promoted on this blog offers a sound interpretation of Genesis one that avoids unnecessary stumbling blocks to students of astronomy.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) should be taken at face value. (In other words, the sun, moon, and stars were created at the "beginning," rather than on day four.) Without compromising biblical authority, this view allows for the scientific data of astronomy to compliment Scripture rather than compete with it.

I look forward to delving into more of The Case for a Creator...

USC Lancaster Lecture

2009-09-22T13:58:00.000-07:00

A New Approach to the Interpretation of Genesis 1:16: Same conclusions from a strengthened route

Delivered at USCL 7-11-09 by Gorman Gray

ABSTRACT

Books have been written and conferences devoted to detailing proper methodology for biblical hermeneutics. This presentation will attempt to emphasize the psychological barriers we humans encounter which sometimes prevent sound Bible interpretation. With that cautionary background, we will carefully observe the pattern of Gods procedures on each of the daily activities and apply it to Genesis 1:16, the fourth day, That pattern constrains and explains the interpretation of that very crucial verse of Scripture.

During the six day creation, in every case God 1) Decides to do something, then He 2) Does what He decided to do and finally, He 3) Delights in what He did after completion. This pattern effectively prohibits the commonly accepted interpretation that God created or made the two great lights and the stars on day four. Rather, I will show that God "gave them in the expanse of air" for signs, seasons, days and years on day four, having already, created those bodies with the stellar heavens and planet earth in verse one before any days were possible.

The edited transcript of this lecture is now at the main web site:

http://www.ageoftheuniverse.com/USCL_Lecture.html

Two Volumes of God's Revelation

2009-09-11T16:27:00.000-07:00

The Young Biosphere Creation model is based on a grammatical-historical exposition of Genesis 1. One benefit of this interpretation is that it allows the general revelation of astronomy (Psalm 19:1-6), the harmonize with the special revelation of God's written Word (Psalm 19:7-9). We treasure the Bible as inspired by God and profitable (Psalm 19:10-11; 2 Tim. 3:16,17), and are receptive to the ministry of the Holy Spirit Who illumines, convicts, and empowers believers in Christ.

Here the two volumes of God's revelation are celebrated with complimentary roles.

Psalm 19

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament shows His handiwork.

2 Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language

Where their voice is not heard.

4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their words to the end of the world.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,

5 Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,

And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.

6 Its rising is from one end of heaven,

And its circuit to the other end;

And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;

The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;

8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;

The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;

The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold,

Yea, than much fine gold;

Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,

And in keeping them there is great reward.

12 Who can understand his errors?

Cleanse me from secret faults.

13 Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;

Let them not have dominion over me.

Then I shall be blameless,

And I shall be innocent of great transgression.

14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart

Be acceptable in Your sight,

O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer.

[ posted by John W.]

An endorsement

2009-08-05T04:25:00.000-07:00

Here is a recent endoresement from a reader of Age of the Universe.

"The main-stream creationist insistence on a six thousand year old universe, it seems to me, is the weak point in the creationist framework. With that resolved, everything falls into place and should make sense to anyone with an open mind. As science digs deeper into the complexity of living things, it becomes obvious that evolution is no more than a superstitious fantasy. Unfortunately, creationism seems determined to flounder on the rock of a seven day universe. You have now removed that rock. I believe you have done a great service to the faith."

Colonel Leonard Gaston PhD. USAF RET

Creation Research Society Conference (S.C.)

2009-07-27T14:11:00.000-07:00

I just want to express deep thanks to those of you who helped in prayer on our trip to South Carolina and the address I gave to my friends there. I agree with them about everything except the 6000 year old universe and planet earth. but that point is so cardinal with them that it was a surprise that they allowed me in at all. Anyway, things went well and Alice and I are both convinced it was well worth our time and effort to participate. There were two meetings simultaneous so mine was attended by only 20 or 30 people. Alice has summarized it in the paragraph following.

Trip summary:

John Morris, son of Henry Morris who was the "father of the modern creation movement," attended Gorman's lecture. Since his father died two years ago, John Morris is now president of the Institute for Creation Research. The Morris family is so steeped in young universe theory, they have always been quite critical of Gorman's young biosphere position. However, after the lecture John Morris actually said, "It makes more sense than I had thought," or similar words. Only God knows what will become of this, but right now we are encouraged by two very promising invitations. Because of this conference Dr. Robert Brown, professor emeritus and former head of Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda has invited us to be his houseguests so that Gorman could participate in a session at Loma Linda Church. Dr. Brown has always espoused Gorman's view, but many of the upcoming younger scientists do not. That could be very interesting. So we would ask for your prayers for God's will in these future possibilities. (By Alice.)

Last May an enthusiastic benefactor offered to pay for the advertising in World Magazine. So as a result about 50 books were sold so far with many more in prospect. Today I brought 50 more to the book binder because I have only one book left which will go tomorrow, I suppose. Anyway, I always seem to have enough encouragement to keep me energized and chafing at the bit to extend the breadth of this very important correction to the creationist movement. I am certain that the ramifications of the CRS conference at USCL (University of South Carolina at Lancaster) will not be known for some time... Anyway, time will tell and prayer changes hearts. I want the holy name of Jesus to be glorified.

The debate, affliction, & assessment

2009-04-17T14:40:00.001-07:00

Dear friends and whom it may concern: The following explains my long delay in responding to some of you.

First, let me be clear, I am not a Job by any stretch, but because all believers treasure that first book of the Bible (the first one ever penned according to some students), it must be that many of us go through something like it or on a mini-scale. Hence brother Job has been a comfort to millions over the millennia.

What was the first message God chose to give us in written form? Comfort to His suffering children. He is a good and gracious God even considering Satanically devised misery and death allowed, but discreetly controlled by God during our pilgrimage.

Okay, so I had a date to debate a young genius on February 22nd, 2009. Here is my mini-mini-Jobean experience written in a very short parody.

God: Yes, Satan, I know well enough that Gorman is a weak, dumb Christian with a lot of hypocrisy, so what?

Satan: Well, he has this debate coming up and I think he needs roughing up. Let me mess with him so they have to cancel.

God: No, you must wait till after the debate. Then you may have him for a while for testing but preserve his life.

(This is the mini version of Job 1-2.)

So here is the litany. First, Alice has this persistent cough for four weeks solid and I begin to join her coughing one week before 2-22-09 - not good for a debate being recorded for DVD. Then on debate night I begin to show beginning symptoms of a prostate inflamation.

But during the debate, according to God's decreed limits (as I have presumed in parody) I did not cough even once and there was nothing physically detractive to the presentation other than my normal facial visage.

OK, then the debate is over but instantly and as the evening progressed I had frequent, urgent and miserably burning urination and all through the night.

But otherwise physically I felt all right, so the next day I needed to lift the back seat into the mini-van, which I had done many times before. But I lifted the awkward load and twisted at the same time (dumb - never do it) resulting in a severe back wrench. Turning my body over in bed sent pains resembling a knife.

So now I am on antibiotics (the Urgent Care Doctor thought it was an infection), and waking Alice at night with a timer to make sure I do not sleep too long (to avoid getting a total urinary blockage.) Pure misery that night but this too shall pass? Or so we hoped.

Then came March 2nd, 3 A.M. A pain develops in my belly just below sternum level. In a few minutes I am out of bed writhing on the floor with severe pain asking urgently "Lord Jesus, I need your help! Oh, Lord, help me!" I guess it is severe indigestion so I wait for it to pass which it does in 30 minutes. But fifteen minutes later it repeats for a half hour, then goes away again. Next morning I begin to eat some yogurt then it came again, just, as severe as before. This needs medical diagnosis. The advice doctor concurs and we are sent to ER. Blood tests for pancreas levels shoud be 30-40 but mine read over 3000. Doctor says this certainly is diagnostic of a pancreatic attack. Sonogram shows gall stones - a completely new thing for me, I had no clew of anything like that. Pancreas and gall bladder share the same duct so a stone blockage results in the gall fluids digesting the pancreas - not good. Gall bladder attacks can be from mild to extreme in pain. I have a high tolerance for pain but the attacks I had at home had to be top-of-the-line.

After surgery (no doubt the anesthesia made it inevitable), I had complete urinary blockage. After one catheter, with Doctor's approval, the nurse decides to insert an indwelling catheter with a collection bag which I had to wear home. What a blessing, because I slept for six hours straight that first night at home.

But God is gracious to give me Alice, a highly qualified RN for 24/7 nursing care. She taught me (among many other things) to roll over like a log rather than the upper body first then lower part. It works wonders for relieving the knife-like jabs in the strained muscles in my back.

Now back to Satan. After Job chapter two there is not the slightest hint of Satan in the 40 chapters following in the book - no sign of supernatural activity from evil forces at all. Job does not see it, his three "friends" do not see it, his neighbors do not see it, his wife does not see it, his former servants do not see it, in fact nobody sees it even though that is the central problem and very obvious to good angels as well as bad devils.

So why have I reported all this? Well, some who detract from the thesis of my book and the subject of the debate, The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits? might conclude, God was punishing me for promoting bad theology about Genesis One. But I have a different conclusion. Because all these maladies slammed me in an avalanche just following that very important debate, with such a close parallel to Job's experience of his avalanche of tragedies, I
cannot fail to make the comparison, albeit on a miniature scale. I am all well now, minus a gall bladder, I can urinate normally, lift anything as well as eat anything. What a relief! But Satan hates the truth and the "Age of the Universe" book is a crucial truth for the end times. I have no doubt that he gets a sadistic pleasure in attacking someone who is carrying a crucial, strategic message in these latter days.

Satan's strategy in promoting false doctrine, if he cannot avoid allowing some truth, he will encourage overemphasis until it becomes error. Hence young earth creationists champion biblical literalism (a truth) until they even think that bad translations are the word of God, like the original manuscripts (a major error). Thus they dogmatize "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth and the sea, and rested the seventh day." That is unequivocal, so they
say, for it clearly says, God made everything including the galaxies and planet earth in six days.

Not so. What it actually says is that Yahweh worked on the air, the land and the sea (the biosphere only) in six days for God Himself plainly defines the words in Genesis one using those exact Hebrew words (as translated into English).

The other dogmatism-- "God made two great lights and the stars on day four"-- comes from another misleading translation. To avoid being mislead it ought to read, "And God did two great lights and the stars" or variations like that, and remember it was "for signs and seasons and days and years," not their initial creation. As plain as language can be spoken, God CREATED the heavens before there was a day one, "in the beginning." But the error thinking He created the stars and great lights on day four is overemphasized with dogmatism. The result is that a large segment of Bible believers are forced to believe the universe is a maximum of 10,000 years old and another large segment are forced to distort Genesis in another way making the fossil record millions of years old. I believe that both are errors and the devil loves it.

The truth is in between. The biosphere and the fossil record is, indeed, less than 8000 years old but the galaxies were created "in the beginning," undefined in time. Thus, both camps rally around their special truth and constructive dialogue is almost extinguished. Satan delights in this impasse. It is one of his strategems which I hope my book should resolve (if more people would read it).

Now, after this epic description, if any of you are interested in the topic, a DVD of the debate is available for $12 post paid in US. If there is a financial hardship, email me for a special rate. The book is $15 ppd. (See website below.)

Gorman Gray Christ is risen from the dead. Everything's all right.

1420 N. "Q" Circle Washougal WA 98671-8356

website www.ageoftheuniverse.com Phone 360 - 835-8361

Debate DVD available

2009-04-16T13:55:00.001-07:00

A debate regarding the age of the universe can mean many different
things to people so please understand the context and purpose of this
engagement.

Since about 1960 there has been a theological and scientific movement
returning many Christians to belief in a recent creation of all
biological life less than 10,000 years ago, and a
literal, worldwide Flood about 4500 years ago just as (from the
genealogies) the literally interpreted Bible appears to teach. Dr.
Henry Morris, a college professor with his specialty in applied
hydraulics engineering became convinced that Genesis and a global
flood was literally true and that it agreed perfectly with all the
facts of demonstrable science. He is considered the father of the
current creationist movement.

But his literalist interpretation of the Bible concluded that the
entire universe was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago
mostly from two verses of Scripture namely Exodus 20:11 and Genesis
1:16. so that began what is known as young earth creationism (YEC).

A few voices emerged saying, "Not so fast. Let's examine the Bible
more closely before jumping totally to those YEC conclusions."
Without examining the numerous other views of Genesis, this debate
concentrates on two views.

Gorman Gray has written a book entitled, The Age of the Universe:
What Are the Biblical Limits? in which he insists that the literal
Bible does not define the age of the universe, (which therefore could
be millions or billions of years old) whereas it does, indeed, define
the age of the Biosphere (living things including fossils and the
home for living things) at less than 8000 years ago. Brandon Church
takes the common YEC view and directs most of his effort toward
opposing Gray's book.

To order the DVD, please visit http://www.ageoftheuniverse.com/Orders.html

Gorman's surgery

2009-03-06T11:57:00.001-08:00

Dear Family and Friends,

After a pretty miserable week, compounded with multiple problems (upper respiratory infection, prostatitis, pancreatitis, and back strain), Gorman's doctors kept him on nothing but IV fluids and antibiotics until Wednesday. His pancreatic lab values which ordinarily are 30-40 had been over 3,000 in the ER. After "resting" his pancreas, the labs diminished to almost normal on Wednesday, whereupon the surgeon decided he was comfortable to operate. It seems that the pancreas and the gallbladder share a single duct. A gallstone had plugged the duct preventing either organ from draining their digestive juices, so Gorman was essentially digesting his own pancreas, which was exquisitely painful. After more MRI's, lab tests and x-rays, they whisked Gorman to surgery on Wednesday relieving him of his gallbladder and all those stones. This was a complete surprise to him, as he never had a single symptom before Monday. Now I can no longer tease him by calling him "Mr. Gotrocks" 'cause his rocks are all gone.

I brought him home this evening and he is resting as comfortably as possible, taking fluids and very soft foods for a while, and will probably be back to his own email in the very near future. He is still on antibiotics, and obviously pain meds. He will have to go back for another procedure in about 6 months to handle the urology problem. We are so grateful to God that this was discovered before it caused great damage to the pancreas. His mercies followed us throughout this whole thing in so many ways.

Our most sincere thanks and appreciation for the support of all our wonderful family and friends. You visits, calls, cards and emails really lifted our spirits, and we could feel the results of all your prayers. Gorman had the most wonderful doctors, everyone from the Kaiser phone advice doctor, the ER doctor, his Kaiser internal medicine doctor who followed his entire hospital course, and a very skilled and knowledgeable surgeon. Everyone from the parking attendant, the various x-ray and lab technicians, all the nurses and aides, even the transport people were so very kind. Surely the spirit of God was with us in every way, thanks to
all your prayers and support.

Again our most profuse thanks. God bless you.

We love you all,
Sincerely,
Alice (for Gorman)

Debate DVD

2009-03-06T11:53:00.000-08:00

The debate on Feb. 22nd went well. A DVD of the event will be available shortly.

-JBW

Age of the Universe Debate

2009-02-10T11:34:00.001-08:00

The INSTITUTE for CREATION SCIENCE

Sunday, February 22, 2009 Meeting, 5:00 to 7:00 PM

"Age of the Universe Debate"

The February 22, 2009 meeting of the Institute for Creation Science will be a formal debate between two creationists concerning the biblical age of the universe.

Debaters Gorman Gray and Brandon Church both agree that the Bible is God's authoritative and accurate word to mankind, that Genesis chapters 1-11 are historical narrative, and that biological macro evolution has never occurred in the past and does not occur in the present.

Where they differ is on whether or not the biblical record specifies the age of the universe outside the bounds of the earth's biosphere. Mr. Church will argue that the Bible clearly states that the universe in its entirety was created at the same time as the rest of the creation some 6000 years ago. Mr. Gray will argue that, while the age of the biosphere (living things including fossils) is specified and less than 8000 years old, yet the age of the universe and the planet earth mineral base is not defined in the Bible. Both of these Christian men will use theological as well as scientific evidences to support their respective positions.

ICS director J.D. Mitchell will moderate the debate and the debate will extend through the entire meeting time. This meeting of ICS will be held at Rivercrest Community Church located at 3201 NE 148th Avenue in Portland, OR 97230. Doors open at 4:30 PM to allow your access to the creation science book and DVD tables. For more information on this meeting, please access the website www.creationengineeringconcepts.org where you can also find a map to Rivercrest Community Church.

We look forward to seeing you on Sunday, February 22, 2009!

J.D. Mitchell, Director

Delivering a Brief Defense

2009-02-09T14:50:00.000-08:00

There is so much information to consider when giving an answer to someone who believes in evolution. Perhaps this memory device would help:

How to deliver an answer to evolutionists: 'FEDEX'

First Cause (Cause and effect law). How did the universe and matter come into existence?
Fossil Record. The Cambrian period has the "earliest" fossil record. These fossils correspond with their kind today. No viable links between species have been found.

Evolution. The theory is conjectural science, not operational science. What actually occurs in nature is micro (adaptation), not macro (transmutation to new species).

Dating methods. Radioactive dating techniques are unreliable to calculate an ancient age of things.
Data in genes (DNA). How did the information get there?

Entropy. The second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. (Things tend to become more random, not more organized over time.)

X= wrong! Therefore, Darwinian evolution is a humanistic, unproven theory. Probability, common sense, scientific evidence, and the Bible refute it.

- John Woodward

Parody on Global Warming

2008-12-24T13:20:00.000-08:00

'Twas the night before Christmas
Through our nation and more,
Not a creature was stirring,
Not even Al Gore.

The snow although charming
from Seattle to Maine,
For sure global warming
Ain't here if I'm sane.

We hope it's none harming
No shivers and fright
Farewell global warming
And to all a good night.

-G.G. 12/24/08.

The Role of Faith

2008-12-22T07:58:00.000-08:00

John W. writes:

“Now faith is ... [believing] the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:1-3).

Whether we look through a telescope or microscope, creation shouts the glory of her Designer and Creator!

Yet, It amazes us that unbelieving scientists can have "faith" in the mechanism of Darwinian evolution when that theory is so lacking in convincing evidence. For example, Michael Behe and others have pointed out that recent advances in microbiology prove "irreducible complexity" in the code of life, such as in the DNA molecule. Darwin might be excused for supposing that the cell is "simple," but that's not an option today. Non-atheistic scientists point out the obvious: Where did all the information come from at the genetic level? No naturalistic explanation is acceptable.

What all the scientific knowledge and technology in the world cannot produce (life from non-life) is supposed to have arisen without cause, design, or external intervention. Here is faith in a model of origins that suppresses the obvious general revelation of God.

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:19-22).

This confirms that popular "belief" in evolution is not inductively shown from scientific data. but is based on philosophy and the determination to be "gods" who are free and self-determined.

May Christians confidently choose to welcome general and special revelation as described in Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge..."

As the writer of Hebrews declares, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:1-6).

After its kind

2008-12-04T11:37:00.000-08:00

A note from Margaret:

Thank you, Gorman, for mentioning "evolution" in connection with the museum at Drumheller. I have been thinking about evolution lately, too.

When Glen was in high school, he was taught the theory of evolution by a teacher who could made it sound very reasonable. One of the "proofs" had to do with "tigons" and "ligers." Lions and tigers can interbreed, was the argument, and that proves they have a common ancestor. Ergo - evolution is a fact.

But that's not the whole story. Biologists are well aware that MALE tigons and ligers are always sterile. Only the female is fertile; so they cannot interbreed. One evolutionist speaks ruefully of this "natural biological barrier against hybridization," because it effectively prevents "successful breeding." In other words, no matter how hard men try to manipulate the breeding of lions and tigers (which do not interbreed in nature), they cannot produce a new "kind" that can reproduce itself.

I find that exciting, because it fits so well the story of Genesis 1. All the kinds created by God were to reproduce according to their own kind; and that is something tigons and ligers cannot possibly do.

Humans, on the other hand, are all one "kind." In spite of the enormous diversity that exists between the races that have descended from Adam, there is no "natural barrier" to prevent interbreeding. In fact, the offspring of two different races usually exhibit the kind of "hybrid vitality" that biologists expect when the gene pool has been strengthened and lost genes restored. Humans - no doubt about it - have a common ancestor. They reproduce according to the "kind" that God created a few thousands years ago.

I believe the "natural biological barrier against hybridization" was put there by God. It ensures that the "kinds" God originally created will not be used to create another "kind." Tigons and ligers are evidence that the barrier works. They CANNOT reproduce according to their own kind, because lions and tigers do not have a common ancestor.

The laws that govern the physical universe are absolutely dependable. (That's why I sort of envy your place of residence near the path of the total solar eclipse that is forecast for 2017. I'd love to see that.)

But the biological laws that govern life are just as dependable, and I'm grateful to you for the reminder...

- Margaret Collier

Summary Point # 16

2008-11-23T15:03:00.000-08:00

This view of Genesis [young biosphere creationism] can accommodate a short or long period of time before the first day. Where the Bible remains silent, we may cautiously look to science and make our guesses. In any case, we must glorify God as Lord of the vastness of time as well as the vastness of space. But no room can be allowed for biological development during the vast time period. The biology and dry land geology of our earth is recent--less than 8,000 years old.

Summary Point # 15

2008-10-24T13:58:00.000-07:00

The ex nihilo creation of the universe is not a suitable example for men to imitate in their weekly work pattern, because men cannot create anything ex nihilo. Therefore, it is reasonable that God's six-day example was limited to "making" or working on preexisting materials--like man does in his daily labor.

This work, on the already existing planet, is recorded for us beginning with the first earth day. Exodus 20:11 does not refer to anything that God created ex nihilo before there were any earth days, namely the universe of stars, planets, and angels. The fourth commandment is not even primarily a passage on origins. It is much wiser to build a cosmogony from passages specifically centering on that subject.

Summary Point # 14

2008-09-25T09:27:00.000-07:00

The words "heaven" and "earth" are each defined in two ways in Genesis, one of which is specified by God Himself during the six-day activity as atmosphere and continental land. Therefore, the definitions assigned during those six days must modify the passage in Exodus when referencing the very same six days. This is basic hermeneutics 101 or if there is a "grade school" hermeneutics it would be centrally emphasized there. Exodus 20:11 refers only to the work of the six-day period which pertained to earth's air, land, and sea for "work" is the setting of the fourth commandment. The "uninhabited and empty" earth was being "filled" with biological life. To apply Exodus 20:11 to the stellar heavens violates the context, for it has nothing to do with the original creation of sun, moon and stars, completed in verse one, but only the "work" of the following six days. Air and land, having been defined by God Himself during those referenced six days, simply leaves us with no other option.

Summary Point # 13

2008-09-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

All the "days" of Genesis were literal, solar time periods. God cited the six days [Gen. 1:1-31], followed by a Sabbath [Gen. 2:1-3], as an example for man to work and rest. The Hebrew asah when translated, "worked on," "brought forth," "established" or "did" in the origins passages [1:7,16...], better reflects the meaning of the Hebrew word in that context.

Halley and Northrup

2008-09-05T13:27:00.001-07:00

Re: August 31 posting.

Thanks, John, for the references to people who held my view before me. I also remember when writing the Age of the Universe book making a deliberate decision to avoid the commentaries and expositions until after I had absorbed the Scripture for myself. So I depend on good friends like you to do research for me "after the fact."

(Age of the Universe, Page 82) Some say, "Your interpretation is new. The church has never understood it this way," My answer is "No, it is not new. True, it has not been widely known and several sources supply only pieces of the whole, but consider. Would anyone guess the argument of this chapter before satellite exploration? Hardly. Similarly, would the early or medieval church concern themselves with galactic distances and the speed of light before Roemer measured it in 1676? I insist that one need not know the facts of astronomy to conclude the interpretation offered here. Job 38 was here from antiquity and all the arguments presented are valid for any time period. I have not concerned myself with the history of relevant interpretations but I will mention the well known commentary of Jamieson, Faussett and Brown,which (in part) supports my thesis. Similarly, Halley's Bible Handbook (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1962 pages 59-61) states regarding the fourth day:

"On the "first day" (light from sun, moon and stars) must have penetrated the earth's mists (1:3) while they themselves were not visible. But now, (on the fourth day) due to the lessening density of the clouds,... they became visible on earth."

Probably hidden away in some dusty volume is the entire thing in one piece, like scrolls found in pottery in an archaeology site.

(And from page 179) Following are quotations from Dr. Northrup which are listed below for the following purpose: It should be significant that the conclusions I have presented in various papers since 1985 or so and verbally for decades before that, were arrived at completely independently from Dr. Northrup even though they sound so similar. My suspicion is that numerous people who do not publish at all but who have examined the text have also come to the same conclusions. No one has a patent on Bible interpretation. Halley's handbook has a brief explanation which has some differences but again is similar. I include Dr. Northrup's interpretation to show how independent students can come to precisely the same conclusions from a search of the Scripture without the slightest knowledge one of the other. This is important for it shows that the truth was there, available to each without derivation from a common source other than the Bible itself. It is also encouraging that I, with a careful use of prayer, lexicons, dictionaries and other tools available to any student but with zero knowledge of Hebrew, can derive the same conclusion as he, an expert in the original languages. This should encourage other students to "search the Scriptures" which is the privilege of every believer even without academic letters. I have referred to Dr. Northrup earlier within this text (see pages 54 and 73).

Affirmation from

2008-08-31T14:20:00.000-07:00

From J.B. Woodward:

As one of Gorman's readers, it has interested me to come across other scholars who have held to one or more of his propositions. Although Gorman's book was born out of his personal Bible study, there are many other confirming witnesses.

Note this entry in the The Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia. It was written by Ashley S. Johnson in 1896. Under the topic, "Creation," the author gives the following summary:

Date. The date of creation cannot be determined. The first statement of the book of Genesis places the time in remote and impenetrable antiquity.

Creator. The writer of Genesis offers no proof of the existence of Jehovah or of the fact that all things were made by Him. (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:10; Hebrews 11:3).

Light. The process of creation had probably been going on for ages before light was created by the fiat of Jehovah (Genesis 1:1, 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

Days of Creation. The fact that the creative work had been going on for unnumbered ages, leads the reverent student to the conclusion that the "days" were ordinary periods of twenty-four hours each, and that each product of Almighty power was finished and appointed to its sphere on its designated day. The phrase "evening and morning" occurs six times in the first account of creation, and it cannot be understood except in the light of the above statement.

[emphasis added]

Johnson, Ashley S. "Creation," Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia. Blue Letter Bible. 1 Jul 2002. 31 Aug 2008.
.

Summary Point #12

2008-08-26T07:19:00.000-07:00

Whether celestial bodies were created on day four of Creation Week (Gen. 1:14-19) or simply unveiled then, an observer on earth would visually experience no difference at all, hence, God's textual description could be identical either way.

Therefore, the record of day four provides no compulsion to think "created" (ex nihilo) in Genesis 1:16 when the verb (asah)is allowed its contextual force.

Summary Point # 11

2008-08-21T13:08:00.000-07:00

Job 9:7 declares,

"(God) speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
He seals off the light of the stars."

Although a different context, this quotation from Job perfectly explains the "making/doing" of the great lights and stars of day four of the Creation week. The "sealing off" was reduced (diminished) on day one (Gen. 1:3) and unsealed completely on day
four (Gen. 1:14). God sealed, then unsealed the stars.

Summary Point #10

2008-08-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

In Luke 23:45, the sun "stopped shining"; its "light failed" at the crucifixion. All agree the sun was then hidden from visibility, not extinguished. Like the three days of darkness in Egypt (Exodus 10:22), and the darkness predicted at the Second Coming (Mark 13:24), these illustrate the darkness before day one of the creation week. The sun had been created and was shinning (Gen. 1:1), but "darkness was on the face of the deep"--the ocean of planet earth (Gen. 1:2).

Summary Point # 9

2008-08-04T14:12:00.000-07:00

9) No suggestion is indicated in the record [in Genesis 1] of a temporary illumination for days one to three. That is a forced construct imposed on the text to rescue a mistaken concept. Then another construct is needed to undo the temporary light so the sun can take over on day four. Those imposed ideas (eisegesis) simply are not in the text but are inane inventions. Accept the obscuring cloud of Job 38 made translucent for day one and then transparent for day four and all major problems are solved and completely rational. It is undisputed that God created an earth that was dark. It is
also undisputed that the atmosphere was clear on day four. The atmosphere that produced the darkness on the ocean surface at some time had to be cleared as a logical necessity with no other options; it is supremely reasonable to have it cleared progressively until complete on day four giving visibility to stars. On day four, the great lights and stars are described as having been "given forth" (nathan) in the air. No artificial, temporary light is needed.

A Bribe for All Seasons

2008-07-24T09:45:00.000-07:00

Mutually Incompatible Philosophies:
Why They Seldom Resolve.

"You must not wrest judgment; you must not respect persons nor accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous" (Dueteronomy 16:19).

This essay has nothing to do with bribes of money or material nor of literal extortion. My thesis proposes that social forces can function in almost the same ways as do literal material bribes.

It is a biblical principle: Bribes blind the mind of the wise. He does not say, "A bribe blinds the minds of foolish people." No, no, it is wise people. Extortion turns wise people into fools (Ecclesiastes 7:7).

Wherever there exists competition for position or power, or even a desire for acceptance with those who are highly positioned and powerful, there exists a kind of extortion and bribery to conform. Many examples could be provided--political, religious, social, academic, intellectual and scientific. Church organizations, the neighborhood gangs, or the corporate ladder are all subject to this hazard. Competing intellectual ideologies of all kinds are fueled by it. Current clothing styles worn by celebs bribe high school students to conform and the celebs themselves are bribed by the hunger for success.

The "bribe" may consist of a lucrative job or a political advantage. It can also be social advantage such as belonging to the "in" crowd. Even the children's playground can be ruled by the bribe of social acceptance. The big man on campus, whether in Congress, or Harvard, or kindergarten--if they weild social influence--can blind the eyes of the persons influenced. They are intellectually forced to join a political party, or to take their first puff of a cigarette or disclose a secret to the most popular five year old.

The prospect of tenure can bribe a professor to promote the party line. The prospect of becoming a cardinal can bribe the bishop, or an offer of a church pulpit can bribe a Protestant to accept the doctrinal distinctives of a mother organization. The prospect of marriage can bribe the maiden into compromise. Herd mentality creates a bribe which sends young warriors into conflicts which might be good or might be very, very bad.

If someone has written books, or given lectures on a position and then is confronted with challenging information, the bribe of social peer acceptance by the various social structures surrounding them looms to force "hang on to the party line" whether it is a book with its errors or perverted morals of friends. The same dynamic shows up when a person living in immorality is rebuked. They usually resist change due to per pressure.

Having lived "x" years supporting a denomination with certain distinctives, and an assured income which would be jeopordized from that source, how could one ever think of changing or even modifying doctrines when retirement looms?

Extortion turns a wise man into a fool and a bribe corrupts the heart (Eccl. 7:7). My title refers to conflicts in philosophy or ideologies. So, with the above illustrative background let us apply this principle more directly into that area of personal theories or developing ideologies.

T.C. Chamberlain wrote an article on geology in about 1905. The article (quoted below) was provocative but so good that it was published in the Journal of Geology 1995 as an historical essay. It describes what can happen to a theorist if they do not "hang loose" during the development of a theory. What Chamberlain says about geology, I want to apply to chosen life styles or religious affiliations or all the examples preceding. The principles below apply to many venues.

He writes on the subject of geology (italicized, bold) but I am asking readers to insert their own discipline, religion, thought system or philosophy in place of the word "geology."

The Model Builder

In geology [Or in my current philosophy whether created by me or as merely a persuaded follower of someone or some other doctrine. - GG] In geology there are lots of unknowns. The moment one is offered an original explanation for a phenomenon, which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more and more dear to him. While he persuades himself that he holds it still as tentative, it is nonetheless lovingly tentative, and not impartially and indifferently tentative. So, soon, as this parental affection takes possession of the mind there is apt to be a rapid passage to the unreserved adoption of the theory. There has been imminent danger of an unconscious selection, and of magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of phenomena that fail to coincide. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily in the embrace of the theory and feels a natural coldness toward those that assume a refractory attitude. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires. There springs up also, unwittingly, a pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to make it fit the theory. When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation are all dominated by affection of their favorite theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to a position of control in the process of the mind and observation. Induction and interpretation are guided by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily grows to be a master that leads its author whithersoever it will.. The subsequent history of that mind in respect to that theme is but the progressive dominance of a ruling idea.

Briefly summed up the evolution is this: A premature explanation passes first into a tentative theory, then into an adopted theory, and lastly into a ruling theory. When this last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone.

The article generated tremendous amount of response but disappointingly the reaction largely was, "We hardly ever follow it and we do not follow it now. It takes too much time."

Well, obviously God wants us to resist the forces, "the bribes" (intellectual, social, political, financial, moral), or whatever leads us into any kind of error or darkness.

Pride and selfishness has an automatic blinding quality because it provides a kind of extortion, which forces the person to hold tight to the error he/she is holding. There is fear that the social Gestapo accompanying that ideology, or doctrine, or prevailing theory will ostracize or (figuratively) execute any person who deviates from the accepted norm; that fear controls the choices. Some would rather risk hell, holding on to an error, than give a thorough, unbiased search for truth. Often the sheer numbers of devotees is enough to convince many that a certain doctrine is true. Few will risk social rejection here on earth when there are 850 prophets of Baal unanimous in their enthusiasm and also aided by the political powers of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 18).

The basic need for us is humility. But that requires a thorough repentance which never comes without help from God. It requires bowing the knee to Jesus Christ, making Him the boss of our lives and asking Him fervently for help.

I say it with compassion, dear reader of any description and in any area of competition for position, power or social acceptance: If this shoe fits for you, then by all means wear it. God will reward you as He did Elijah in His good time. I do not know a single person (including myself) who is not tested with bribes and powerful temptations. Few have the moral strength to choose life when the various bribes hang overhead. "After all, I've poured my life into this belief system. How can I change now?"

But the competing ideologies cannot all be right which means millions of intelligent, dogmatic people need the humility to consider, "I could be one of those millions who are mistaken." For some it might be only a few peripheral areas while the basic theology is okay. With others the entire system has to be scrapped. For example, Saul of Tarsus was turned 180 degrees through his personal encounter with the Truth (Acts 9).

In many denominations, organizations or social arrangements, one is surrounded with an unconscious aura of the fear of change. Therefore, it could be safer to stay away from such organizations or social coteries because it automatically locks one into error if error exists. So much is invested that this becomes a subtle extortion or bribe preventing an honest search for truth.

This need not contradict the maxim, "in essentials, unity; in distinctives, liberty and in all things charity."

Now please reread Chamberlain's article again with your particular persuasions inserted for the word, "geology." Evolutionary theory fits this shoe. So does the approval of live-in sexual relationships without marriage. So may a dogmatic rapture theory or a humanistic political party. So does almost every mutually incompatible philosophy. But human nature is stubborn, unwilling to bow the knee and admit reality. That is why these conflicts seldom resolve. Humble hearts are rare. Let us heed this summons to be teachable and prayerfully follow truth at any cost.

- Gorman Gray

Summary Points # 7 & 8

2008-07-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

7) In English we "do" our dishes and "do" our hair (transitive verbs). Neither the dishes nor the hair are created by "doing" them, and, likewise, the stars were not created when God "did" them (for signals and seasons). Asah is transitive in Genesis 1:16.

8) The luminaries (lamps or lights) were "set" or "given forth" in the atmospheric expanse in the same way that rainbows are "set" in the cloud (same word, nathan). Their function described on day four was for seasonal markers. The Bible was written for men, so the viewing platform is the surface of the earth, where man was to dwell. God Himself talks to Job about the constellations, obviously viewed from Job's perspective (Job 38:31-33). To suggest an isolated planet earth created first, followed by celestial bodies and then earth itself accelerated into orbits later, from its patent absurdity, justifies incredulity from the scientific community.

comment from Margaret

2008-07-16T08:26:00.001-07:00

Margaret has left a new comment on your post "Summary Point # 6":

I think it's a mistake to split the first sentence of v. 16 in two, as if the first half were the whole thing. God made those lights DO something. He gave them a role to play. He made them govern the day and night. As Ps. 104:19 puts it, he appointed (asah) the moon for seasons. The word (asah) is used in a similar way in 1 Kings 12:31.
It should be noted that "asah" is NEVER translated "create". That is not what it means.
So, just as God made (caused) Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, so he made (caused) the lights to rule the day and night.
How?
The gradual lessening of the atmosphere that started on day one progressed through day two and continued until day four, when the atmosphere finally became transparent. And there were the lights, in the firmament of heaven, controlling such things as seasons, days, months and years - just as God planned for them to do.

I think your blog is a good idea, Gorman. I hope more people get into the discussion. You are very stubborn, but you allow other people to be just as stubborn. I approve of that.

Margaret

Summary Point # 6

2008-07-14T10:53:00.001-07:00

Ordinary readers might not make that connection (about God "making" the dry land by causing it to appear as He "made" the sun and stars by causing them to appear) and might conclude that the text plainly reads that God "made" the stars on day four by which he thinks "created out of nothing." They are not expected to notice this indirect reasoning, however compelling it may be.

Hence a better translation for "made" on day four is needed, which does not mislead casual readers (Gen. 1:16). "God brought forth, or prepared, or did, or put into execution, or established, or produced, or performed, or brought about, or put, or arranged, or provided, or set in order two great lights and the stars" on day four--take your pick. Or make up a word which is a blend of all those choices and
suitable to the day four context. It will probably be close to "did." "Made" is okay if accompanied and understood with the Jonah caveat. The verb is commonly translated over six dozen ways including those cited above. "Do" or "did" is, by far, the most common translation.

Summary Point #5

2008-07-02T13:13:00.000-07:00

5) On day two, God made the air (the expanse where birds fly) which "continually separates" the ocean waters into the clouds in the hydrologic cycle. Jonah, the prophet, informs, "Yahweh made (asah) the sea and the dry land." That being the case, then we must ask just how God "made" the dry land on day three? "Let the waters be gathered into a sea, and let the dry land appear." God made the dry land, not by creating the dry material, but by uncovering, exposing, and manifesting the submerged continent.

God made the great lights and stars the very next day, not by creating them, but by uncovering, exposing, and manifesting the obscured lights. They appeared, just as the dry land "appeared," thus completing the "separation of day and night." The immediate context, of "making" the dry land, clearly justifies a similar picture for the "making" of the great lights and stars on the next day. The stars emerged from the clearing atmosphere like land emerged from water the day before.

Summary Point 4

2008-06-24T11:28:00.000-07:00

4) The expression "evening and morning" is meaningless except on a rotating sphere with a single light source. God began clearing the dense blanket on day one to diffuse visibility, then completed it on day four. Like Gideon's lanterns, Moses' veil, or the pillar of cloud hiding Shekinah glory, so stars were veiled until day four.

Summary Points 2 & 3

2008-06-13T15:53:00.000-07:00

2) After that basic celestial creation, God hovered like a patient, brooding bird at night for an undefined time until the first day of light over the ocean which took place less than 8,000 years ago.

3) We conclude that planet earth existed as a coherent body after the verse one creation, rather than an "unformed" fluidic mass, by use of the "subtraction method" (starting at the "very good" completed sixth day and carefully subtracting each days specified work until the command, "Let there be light.") Then we look at the remaining scene to determine inescapably that planet earth was completely formed, ocean covered, although sterile, at verse one and if earth was complete, then the "heavens" were complete, being part of the same expression. If earth had been created before the heavens then a logical Holy Spirit would say, "In the beginning God created the earth and the heavens," not the reverse. The planet was "uninhabited and empty" of life. Later the "empty" condition was replaced with "full" when God commanded living things to "fill" the air, land and waters. The six days all relate to the biosphere.

Summary Points # 1

2008-06-05T13:49:00.000-07:00

I will be posting summary statements that appear at the close of the book The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits. It is intended as a discussion starter. Each paragraph, therefore, should not be considered complete as an argument. But many subjects are epitomized, thus providing many topics for discussion. Obtain the book from the web site www.ageoftheuniverse.com. Visitors to this blog are invited to comment, improve, elaborate or disagree. (Friendly respectful language only will be posted but all views are welcome.) Paragraphs are numbered for easy reference.

1) It is a grave and grievous error to conclude a mandatory young universe. God created the universe and planet earth in the undefined past, probably long before the six days of biosphere work of Genesis. To view Genesis 1:1 as a topical summary is erroneous and destructive to the true testimony of the creation account. The planet was ocean-covered, but kept in total blackness by a blanket of thick darkness somehow made of "waters that were above" and wrapped around the planet, like a swaddling band and blanket are wrapped around a newborn babe. The planet Venus, with a clouded atmosphere, has never experienced a true "first day" on its surface, and, therefore, has no terrestrial reference to season, years or celestial orientation. Although its atmosphere differs completely in composition (and there may be considerable translucence) it illustrates earth‚s condition of "darkness on the surface of the ocean" before day one which had a totally opaque cloud cover. Omission of this primary creation passage in Job 38 cannot fail to leave a flawed interpretive legacy.

Endorsement

2008-05-27T09:20:00.000-07:00

Here is a recent note from Kurt Vanderber:

"I just finished your book and must say it is awesome! I have never committed to a specific camp on the age of the universe, but I must say that you have presented overwhelming evidence for an undefined age of the universe/early stage earth. I thank you for clearing up Genesis 1."

- professor of mathematics, State University of New York (Cobleskill, NY)

Blog launched

2008-05-27T08:52:00.000-07:00

As I receive correspondence from readers of my book, The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?, I've seen the value of making this dialog open to those who are learning about origins. Issues, resources, and disputes can be explored here in a more interactive way. You are invited to read and respond to these entries as we seek to clarify and defend the Young Biosphere model of creation.