An excerpt from Rob Franzen's new book, Creation Under Fire Concise
In 2005 I came out with a book entitled, Creation Under Fire from within the Church. That book was the result of several years of study and research surrounding the question of whether there was a gap of time between the first two verses of the Bible. Two-thirds of the book is basically a critique of the “gap theory” along with other creation theories within the church. Researching this matter, I was overtaken by the vastness of the subject of creation.
It went way beyond any one particular theory. I caught the vision, if you will, discovering how immensely important the subject of our origin really is, and why Satan has made every effort to pervert it from the beginning. It is by design that the waters of our origin are so muddy and filled with controversy and confusion. God is not the author of confusion.
First Published in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
Michael Eppers' recent letter condemning Ken Ham's stand in the recent debate with Bill Nye the "Science Guy" is just another attack by an uninformed atheist [" Scientific Evidence Trumps Religious Views ," May 6].
The question asked was what would it take to change your mind (deny God).
Ken Ham answered properly and said nothing would change his mind or get him to deny the true God of the Bible.
The real and only God established the science we have today. Of course Christians believe in science. God established science, and on occasion God exceeds the principles he established to perform miracles.
Larry Ingels, P.E., a VIRGINIA CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE Advisor comments on the misleading example by Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy', in his debate with Ken Ham concerning so call 'annual' ice rings.
Bill Nye, the “Science Guy”, in his recent debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, made reference to the ice core evidence concerning the age of the earth. Mr. Nye and many other scientists are apparently convinced that all the rings found in ice cores are annual rings.
From Non-Living Chemicals (a primordial slime or pond of warm inert goo)*
Into Simple Life Forms (amoebas)
Into More Complex Life Forms (primates)
Finally into humans (orangutans to Orientals, gorillas to Negros, chimpanzees to Caucasians, and (this is new) kangaroos** to Australians.
God’s creative acts to make heaven and earth are miraculous in nature. These acts concerning our origins would not be subject to man’s scientific investigations and speculations even if he were there at the time of creation and equipped with knowledge and instruments of today. The miraculous cannot be explained by science. Science is just a tool we have to examine, study and experiment with.
In the historic debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, Nye insisted repeatedly that the creation model was not scientific and that it did not make predictions. This was in spite of the several creationist predictions that Ken Ham had outlined in his opening statement. Though many more could have been given, this sampling should have sufficed.
In a public debate, it is extremely difficult to give a very detailed explanation, so I am thankful for an opportunity to write an article detailing exactly how the creation model led me to make a specific creationist prediction in my own research which has been verified by results from evolutionists themselves.
At a recent Creation meeting in Fredericksburg, VA, we viewed a DVD “How Darwin Got It Wrong”, from Creation Ministries International (CMI). The speaker was Dr. John Sanford, a noted scientist from Cornel University. He covered seven areas where Charles Darwin “got it wrong”.
Bill Nowers writes:
Darwin started it, the intentional blurring of microevolution into a belief of macroevolution. Darwin collected hundreds of specimens during his two year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle. How many of these specimens were indicative of macroevolution? If you guessed none, correct, go to the head of the class. Even Darwin's most famous specimens, the finches, did not show the slightest indication of being anything but finches.
I will begin by stating the mission of TASC: "to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of the Christian faith by increasing awareness of the scientific evidences supporting the literal Biblical account of creation and refuting evolution."
While the TASC Board invests considerable time and energy in pursuit of scientific evidences for explanations of the universe, earth, and life as we know it, we never want to lose sight of the importance of the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ. It is the constant desire of TASC to have all peoples recognize first and foremost the Creator Himself.
When we are talking about evolution we are referring to explanations of our Origins, who we are, how we got here and why. This happened many years ago and there are no operational scientific experiments that can answer these questions.
I would like to explain why I believe that the earth and the universe are about 6000 years old. My premise is that the Bible is the Word of God. As the Word of God, the Bible is completely trustworthy. Because it is completely trustworthy, I can accept the plain reading of it. The plain reading of the Bible leads me to accept the historical narrative found in the book of Genesis. I also believe that if the historical record in the Bible is not accurate, then I would have no reason to trust the theology or the morality of the Bible because it can no longer be considered the Word of God.
David DeWitt talked about his book, Unraveling the Origins Controversy. The interview, part of Book TV's college series, was recorded at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Unraveling the Origins Controversy answers many of the most challenging questions in the origins debate. Scientist and author, Dr. David A. DeWitt clears up the confusion about creation and evolution by distinguishing fact from interpretation. He exposes the underlying assumptions and evidence on both sides of this contentious debate from a consistent Biblical worldview. Using scientific evidence and Scripture, he presents a positive, compelling case for a creation perspective.
A Biblical Perspective on How to Live In a Culture That Rejects Truth
In order for the Bible to make such statements as above, it must assert that there is such a thing as original, absolute truth. Is there such a thing? If so, what truth? Whose truth?