End of Year

Questions for Gap Theorists

In the early 1800s, some unbelievers (and a few Christians) began to teach that the earth was “millions of years old.” This old earth teaching laid the groundwork for the evolution theory, which became popular a few years later. In an effort to blend both belief in the Bible and “millions of years,” some well meaning, but misguided theologians invented the gap theory which allowed “millions of years” to be placed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Questions for gap theorists to answer

  1. Was Satan already the “god of this world” (II Cor. 4:5) when God gave Adam dominion (Gen. 1:26-28) over the earth?
  2. Thousands of species of living animals are also found as fossils. If fossils represent animals destroyed in “Lucifer’s flood,” did God recreate these exactly as before?
  3. When God said everything was “very good,” was Satan evil, and were Adam and Eve standing on thousands of dead plants and animals?
  4. Wouldn’t Noah’s worldwide flood have erased all evidence of the “billions of years” taught in the gap theory?
  5. What did God mean in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17?
  6. If Satan was created on a “day” and the first day, according to the gap theory, only included Genesis 1:3-1:5, how could Satan have existed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 prior to the first day?
  7. Does everyone who reads the Bible need some “guru” to tell them what the Bible says?
  8. Why can the words “let” (Romans 1:13) and “gay” (James 2:3) change meanings in 400 years, but the word “replenish” cannot?
  9. Why do we need a gap? What took place during this time? Isn’t this just trying to compromise the Bible with the current teaching that the earth is old?
  10. Why does Revelation 21:1 state that the earth we live on now is the “first” earth if it really is not?
  11. Was Adam “the first man” as I Corinthians 15:45 says?
  12. It has never been proven that the earth is billions of years old.

Further Study

For more information, see The Gap Theory by Dr. Kent Hovind and Stephen Lawwell.

,

Leave38 Responses to testQuestions for Gap Theorists

  1. Mike Ayala October 25, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    http://www.drdino.com/national-geographic-goes-creation

    National Geographic goes Creation!

    Dennis October 22nd at 1:35 am

    Hi Dennis,

    I’m not sure which artifacts of the genetic bottleneck you expect to see among wild animal populations, however, one major difference between the dispersion of the human population and the wild animal populations is that the terrestrial animals mostly have limited geographical range whereas humans have spread right across the globe.

    I do not know the experiments you reference, but in the human population we certainly do have tissue rejection problems. The dynamics of speciation and isolation from within kinds since the bottleneck may provide the answer to your question. For example, did the tests take tissue from a cheetah and try to graft it into a California mountain lion? Cats have spread over most of the earth, but speciation and isolation have had a dramatic effect on them.

    Your supposition, “these kind of marks should be seen on basically any animal today even including humans. But they don’t.” and “This happened for Cheetah’s, who are said by scientists to have been through this bottleneck for around 10000- 12000 years ago…” are hypotheses which need tests to falsify them in order to prove their validity, and they may be mitigated by other factors you have not yet considered: Humans have had between 150 – 200 generations since the flood whereas cats and dogs could have had easily 10 – 20 times that. Mice and other rodents could easily have had 50 times that. Also, at the time of the flood the genetic stock was still at a relatively young age with far fewer mutations from the original blueprint of life. Genesis 5 records 10 human generations including Noah before the flood. The reduced cosmic ray damage before the flood suggested by environmental indicators in the text would help to preserve the genetic stock in a pristine condition and prevent the very high mutation rate we see today.

    What we do see in the human population is definitely a genetic bottleneck. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” bottleneck scenario actually very well matches the Babel dispersion recorded in the Bible. Out of Africa bottleneck estimates vary from 1000 – 10,000 individuals with the more recent estimates toward the 1000 mark: Humans nearly became extinct in the recent past. The human population in Genesis 10 easily fits between 1000 – 10,000 individuals.

    Out of Africa can simply be described as:

    – A single dispersal of people
    – Traveling through the Middle East
    – Into uninhabited territory
    – With three main mitochondrial lineages
    – All in the recent past

    Genesis 10:32 is the key to the human genetic database,

    “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.”

    This is translated in today’s genetic vernacular as: “Sort according to Y-chromosome”.

    Genesis teaches that we should see a Y-Chromosome spread across the world with little diversity and three main mitochondrial DNA lineages randomly distributed across the world.

    1 Y-Chromosome – (Noah)

    3 Mitochondrial DNA – (Three sons’ wives)

    8 X-Chromosomes

    What we do observe is:

    – Y-Chromosomes with little variation; The variations are geographically specific.

    – mtDNA with more diversity; The variations are randomly distributed across the world.

    This observation is in direct contradiction to what evolutionists expected to see because of normal human behavior: Men go off to fight wars, rape the conquered, travel the trade routes, and have a girl in every port whereas the women generally stay at home and manage domestic affairs. The genetic echo from the Babel Dispersion is inescapable and plainly observable even until today despite historical human behavior.

    Darwin’s original basis for the origin of man was based on three faulty ideas: Homology, Recapitulation, and Vestigial Organs. Darwin’s interpretation of common traits to demonstrate a common descent is also the evidence Creationists show for a common Designer. Recapitulation and Vestigial Organs have both been long proven false.

    Darwin was wrong about origins because he supposed life is grossly simple. What we know today is life is mind-boggling complex. Evolution critically depends on life being simple and the result of dirty mass action chemistry. Life depends on perfect specificity to the atom and optically pure chemistry.

    If the realization of the complexity of life does not stun your mind, you are not paying attention!

    The genetic evidence observed today matches the recorded historical account of the Bible. The Babel Dispersion matches the Out of Africa observations. The “marks left” from the Babel Dispersion are loud and clear to be observed today if we are aware enough to look for them.

    Hopefully this will open your eyes to the reliable witness of the word of God.

    God bless you, Dennis.

    Mike Ayala

    PS: If you are interested in arguments against the flood, I suggest you examine the Shinarump Conglomerate, the Tapeats sandstone bed and its equivalents across the globe, the Coconino sandstone bed, and the Hermit and Bright Angel shales and find an explanation where we see these type of deposits on this scale being formed anywhere today by slow gradual processes or how these could have been deposited by slow gradual processes in the past.

  2. Mike Ayala October 25, 2010 at 7:13 am #

    Hi Dr. Hovind,

    Great set of questions. The problem for the Gap theorists is they do not trust the word of God at face value. The Lord teaches us that He does nothing but that which He reveals through His servants the prophets. If there was a supposed gap as taught by some, it would be clearly evident elsewhere in Scripture, and one would not have to add to the word of God to sell their ideas. Besides, the waw-consecutive precludes there being a gap.

    God bless and protect you.

    Mike Ayala

  3. Philip Kingsley Subas October 25, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    One Question on YEC (though it may look kiddish)!!!

    Genesis 1:2

    If God was light and Holy Spirit was hovering over the face of the earth, then why was there darkness in the face of the deep (KJV Job 38:30)?

    Where did the water come from? Does it

    This question is bothering me. I don’t find that God created light after that as a convincing argument.

    But would love to hear more references from the bible on whatever reply u give.

  4. Philip Kingsley Subas October 25, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    * Does it mean When God created earth it was filled with water(or atleast the surface)?

  5. zachary Bauer October 25, 2010 at 8:50 am #

    Great post. I was inspired by you a couple years ago to begin teaching creation science seminars in St. Louis at my local church and others local churches. We just had our two week session end covering the Garden of Eden. It’s great stuff and so many people come up and tell you that they enjoyed the information. We use a powerpoint and videos to teach the class.

    Hang in there Dr. Dino. We are continuing what you started and are holding the line.

  6. Jack Napper October 25, 2010 at 10:25 am #

    In the early 1800s, some unbelievers (and a few Christians) began to teach that the earth was “millions of years old.”

    History of geology FAIL

    This old earth teaching laid the groundwork for the evolution theory, which became popular a few years later.

    Didn’t the Ancient Greeks have some ideas about evolution? You statement directly contradicts your earlier statement in one of you seminars that it started in the Garden of Eden.

    In an effort to blend both belief in the Bible and “millions of years,” some well meaning, but misguided theologians invented the gap theory which allowed “millions of years” to be placed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

    Yeah I mean it couldn’t be a mistranslation or utter failure in interpreting scripture. Why let the whole Hebrew language get in the way of what scripture actually says.

    I mean why not completely re-interpret…

    Yom Echad
    Yom Sheni
    Yom Shelishi
    Yom Revii
    Yom Chamishi
    Yom HaShishi

    and Yom HaShabbat

    as 7 literal days and completely read it all out of context. Of course what do you expect from Christians. These are they same group which allow Roman pagan worship into their religion. Halos, Sunday, etc.

  7. Bill Lupetti October 25, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    Hi: I hope my question is not too simple. I was wondering why when they find all these fossils from the flood. They never seem to find the bones of the people that were living at the time of Noah.
    Thanks, and GOD BLESS

  8. Jay Liemowitz October 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Mike Ayala said,

    “What we do see in the human population is definitely a genetic bottleneck. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” bottleneck scenario actually very well matches the Babel dispersion recorded in the Bible. Out of Africa bottleneck estimates vary from 1000 – 10,000 individuals with the more recent estimates toward the 1000 mark: Humans nearly became extinct in the recent past. The human population in Genesis 10 easily fits between 1000 – 10,000 individuals.”

    The bottleneck described in Genesis 10 is simply not supported by the very evidence you cite. This bottleneck is estimated to have occurred some 55,000 years prior to date you give the events of Genesis 10. If such a bottleneck of only 10,000 individuals had occurred so recently in our past, then as Dennis was pointing out, we should see similar phenomenon to that of the Cheetahs whose skin grafts do not invoke an immune response, in addition to the myriad of genetic tests to determine the age at which this bottleneck occurred, which so far, is off of your estimate by a factor of 10. Your own attempt to explain away this observation would in fact make the disparity even worse, since, as you point out, human generations take longer to propagate, we should see even less genetic diversity than that of cheetahs, had we experienced such a severe bottleneck only 4,000 years ago. Lastly, you didn’t address Dennis’s main point: if a flood had wiped out every species save 2 individuals some 4,000 years ago, then EVERY species should show very limited diversity, and the bottlenecks for every species on earth should trace back to the same time period. They don’t.

    As a side note, I’d like to point out that this idea that all dogs (including dingo’s, wolves, and coyotes) are perhaps descended from 2 individual “proto-dogs” aboard Noah’s Ark is a highly bizzar argument to use against evolution. We who accept evolution do not claim that such diversity could even occur in so short a time period. Creationists attack on the one hand the theory for claiming that millions of years are required for evolution to occur on large scales, and then on the other they argue that evolution occurs at a far faster rate than even their opponents would defend. It’s a rather obvious self defeating claim.

    You continued “What we do observe is:
    – Y-Chromosomes with little variation; The variations are geographically specific.
    – mtDNA with more diversity; The variations are randomly distributed across the world.
    This observation is in direct contradiction to what evolutionists expected to see because of normal human behavior:”

    I believe you have this backwards. Given that males can spread their seed much more efficiently and than females, we should expect to find more genetic diversity amount mitochondrial (female line) DNA. Imagine one male with many wives. He can spread his (Y chromosome) DNA to many, many children all in a relatively short period, hence, they will all share his Y Chromosome DNA. With each child having a different mother, we would expect more diversity within mitochondrial DNA of this generation.

    You concluded “Darwin’s original basis for the origin of man was based on three faulty ideas: Homology, Recapitulation, and Vestigial Organs. Darwin’s interpretation of common traits to demonstrate a common descent is also the evidence Creationists show for a common Designer. Recapitulation and Vestigial Organs have both been long proven false.”

    Darwin based his theory on much, much more than these 3 principles, and I question whether recapitulation was even one of them, but since I don’t find any mention of this anywhere, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt there.
    It’s important to note that the idea that living forms change over generations didn’t even originate with Darwin. You’re giving him more credit than he deserves. Darwin simply took the prevailing theories of Lamarckian evolution and modified them to more accurately describe the mechanism that drives this change. Natural selection was Darwin’s main contribution.

    Common designer doesn’t explain most examples of homology, let alone the examples of analogy. Common descent explains both of these observations beautifully. Why put air breathing mammals with lungs into purely aquatic environment, when existing forms of fish are more efficient and better suited for such environments? Why create many different forms of flight wings, (pterosaurs, bats, birds) when one design would suffice. Furthermore, why should the bone structure of the wings of bats so closely resemble the bone structure of other mammals, both land dwelling and sea dwelling, that evolution claims are their closest relatives. The nested hierarchical pattern we find in nature is best explained by common descent. Period.

    Vestigial organs have never been proven false; there are numerous examples within your own body. We’ll continue this discussion if you wish, I’d only ask that you first explain to me in your own words, what you think a vestigial organ to be. Then we’ll go from there.

    Jay

  9. Jennifer Preston October 25, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    http://www.drdino.com/response-to-senate-candidate-christine-o%E2%80%99donnell

    Mark James
    You realise that if there are 11 dimensions, it would mean parallel universes.
    My Mum is from New Zealand. Lots of family out there. You didn’t get caught out in the Christchurch Earthquake did you? My great aunt lost her hearing aid but that was it. Weather is a lot better. I’d love to move out there some time.

    The thing with this theory that makes me believe in God, is that the theory says that the probability of each and every individual existing, given the specific events that needed to occur to create each and every individual, is incredibly small, yet each individual exists. I look at all my friends and family and sometimes myself and think, each and every one of you could so easily have not existed and yet here we all are, and that makes me believe there is a God planning each person’s existence. Regardless of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more or whether Genesis is literally true.

    Geno Castagnoli
    The theory was around, but so was Steady State Theory. Was it not Stephen Hawking that realised Steady State Theory could not be correct by realising that you could work the mathematics of the expanding universe back to a singularity and showed that Big Bang Theory shoved Steady State Theory out the window?

    Stephen Holshouser
    What you are saying is ignore everything and believe 100% of the Bible without question. I don’t take Genesis literally, not just because of science but because of Theology and Biblical History too. Theological research is showing that Genesis was never supposed to be taken literally. I’m not confused about what Christianity is. Like I said before, Christianity is not based on whether or not you believe in Genesis. It is based on whether or not you believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe Jesus rose from the dead and took our sins for us. I don’t have to believe in a literal 6 day creation to go to heaven.

    Mike Ayala
    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?
    How do I know what? That they were right? Well because of experiment. Fizeau Foucault apparatus is a particular one. Cavity resonance is another method. Then you also have electromagnetic constants. The reason light travels at the speed of light is because it is massless. Anything that is massless has to travel at the maximum speed of light. What is the breakthrough is that this speed of light has a speed limit. For all it’s worth, I’m pretty amazed that some of the cleverest people on the planet cannot see the flaws in the Big Bang theory that Kent Hovind sees. I think I’ll listen to Stephen Hawking when it comes to Physics and Kent Hovind when it comes to teaching people. I’m also pretty amazed that some of the cleverest people on this planet can’t see that new stars forming could just be dust clouds clearing. If you go to the European Southern Observatory and look at some of the pictures there, what gets me is that
    1. The stars behind the dust/gas cloud are just as bright if not brighter than the ones not behind the gas/dust cloud.
    2. The light from the brightest stars in the dust/gas cloud is blue which means that the light hasn’t started moving away from us yet. The stars behind the gas cloud are red which means redshift and the star has already been moving away from us.
    Therefore I conclude that the bright blue stars are newly formed stars.

    2. How do you define a vacuum?
    Vacuum is empty space i.e. space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure i.e the space between the planets and stars and galaxies.

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?
    E=mc^2 has nothing to do with time. It’s about the exchange between Energy and Mass. I can recommend the book “Why does E = mc^2″ by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw for a really good explanation for the c^2 exchange rate. The advantage of that book is that you don’t need that much mathematical knowledge to understand why you’ve got c^2. Einstein’s theory is much more mathematical and apparently this site should go no more complicated that 4th grade. However 4th graders should also be able to understand the book. Time does not affect how much energy will be created from a particular mass. The same amount of mass does not give off different energies over time. As more energy is released the mass will get smaller as more of it is converted into energy, which means there is less mass to be converted into energy so the amount of energy will reduce, if that’s what you mean. Eventually the mass will have been converted into energy and there will be no mass. This is what happens when stars die. A star will use up all of it’s mass by converting it into energy. When the mass runs out, the star dies. But that is in its simplest form. There is a lot more to E = mc^2 than meets the eye. E = mc^2 is when the momentum of an object is also zero i.e. when an objects is not moving, or in its rest frame. But remember, the Earth is spinning on its axis and rotating round the sun, so E = mc^2 is really just skimming the surface of all that relativity tells us.

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?
    Um, this is what nuclear fusion does. Because the speed of light is so large, if you square it, it means that you don’t need a lot of mass to create a very large amount of energy. In fact 1 gram will give you an awful lot of energy. But E = mc^2 is not really what you have to observe. E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2^c where p is the momentum. When an object is in rest form p = 0. This is the equation you really have to observe. But really if you know that c is an unchanging constant in a vacuum and have proved that, the mathematics kind of proves the rest itself. What you can do is take observations from simpler experiments and use those observations to form mathematical relationships between different things, and then work your way down the maths. I have already explained how I know c to be constant.

  10. Paul Monsef October 25, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    OK…I’ll try…

    1a No. Probably not, Does it the Bible say that he wasn’t?

    2a They are probably not animals destroyed in “Lucifer’s” flood, A Gap theorist doesn’t have to even say Lucifer was placed on Earth; some say Venus hence the meaning of the satanic pentagram encompassed by two circles. But no one really knows where Lucifer fell from

    3.1a Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Is this referring to the everything God made? Or maybe it’s referring to just what the Bible describes in the previous verses? Angels excluded.

    3.2a The Bible does day he was a murderer from the beginning does it not (Joh 8:44)? Yet Ezekiel 28:15 says “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, TILL iniquity was found in thee.”

    4a The Gap Theorists to not all say it was a billion years; the text simply does not say. It could have been 10,000.

    5a It says God “made” the earth in 6 literal days, but it says “create” in Gen 1:1. The Earth was “without form and void” yet it was still there, Thankfully the Bible is perfect and interprets itself; one other time the phrase “without form and void” was used. See Jer. 4 and it’s a referring to something that had been destroyed.

    6a The question is IF. The phrase in Ez. does say “in the day” and as we know the Bible interprets itself, Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, So did God create the earth and the heavens in one literal day as defined by Gen 1:5 (before there was even a sun).

    7a Nope

    8a The bible defines “let” and “gay” for us, just like “REplenish” so we don’t need a Guru to tell us what the Bible says.

    9a We don’t need one. What took place was probably merchandising and trafficking (Ex 28) Nope.

    10a Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea… It’s possible that it because the Earth which was “without form and void” before Adam had not “passed away”. Simply as Peter described the preFlood earth as simply perishing or the old heavens. See 2 Pet. 3

    11a Why yes, the first on this Earth. But I’d need to know why you asked the question to really answer it.

    12a True!!

  11. Alfred Russell Wallace October 25, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Guess what..?

    The Bible does not make sense.

    Why?

    It’s all a fable written by men to claim power over others.

    The end.

  12. Paul Monsef October 26, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    Philip,
    It’s possible the entire universe was filled with water. Water on mars? Saturns rings?or maybe just the earth….

    Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

  13. Paul Monsef October 26, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    Alfred,
    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    2 Corinthians 4:1-6 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; (2) But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (3) But if our GOSPEL be HID, it is HID to them that ARE LOST: (4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (5) For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. (6) For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

    The nonExistance of God is a fable by men to claim power over others…. which is why i don’t even expect you to read the above.

  14. Jay Liemowitz October 26, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    On you comment “Was it not Stephen Hawking that realised Steady State Theory could not be correct by realising that you could work the mathematics of the expanding universe back to a singularity and showed that Big Bang Theory shoved Steady State Theory out the window?”

    You’re basically right, except that it wasn’t Hawking. The steady state theory actually began to give way due to Einsteins General Relativity. When Einstein proposed that mass warps space-time, it became extremely difficult to align that understanding with a flat universe, that is, a universe that is neither expanding outward or contracting inward. Einstein didn’t particularly like this implication of his theory, so he proposed the idea of a cosmological constant; a yet unknown force that kept gravity in check in very large scales, keeping the universe in a constant state. After Edwin Hubble’s observation through red shifts that the universe is actually expanding, Einstein called his cosmological constant his “biggest blunder” (ironically, new evidence suggests that he may not have been completely wrong about the cosmological constant, even though we do know the universe is expanding).

    This leads us to the final death nail in the steady state theory, the cosmic microwave background, discovered in 1965. Before such observation was made, cosmologists had calculated, based on the predictions of the Big Bang theory that the entire universe should be bathed in a sea of very low temperature radiation, essentially the “leftovers” from the big bang. Imagine a room of very bright light, bouncing off the walls from every direction. Suddenly the walls of the room begin to expand, but the amount of light present stays constant. As the room becomes larger and larger, the light will become respectively dimmer and less capable of illuminating the ever larger room. This is essentially what we find with the cosmic microwave background; a sea of very low energy photons, filling every space of the universe, in every direction, even those containing no stars or galaxies.

    The most profound evidence of the big bang is the fact that working the speed of expansion backwards, as you mention, it was predicted by cosmologists that the temperature (or, energy level) of this sea of photons should be just under 3 degrees Kelvin. This prediction was made long before any such observation from the WMAP and COBE satellites actually observed this background radiation, which was measured at 2.725 degrees Kelvin.

    Perhaps the reason you’re attributing this to Hawking is that he has commented that the cosmic microwave background was “the final nail in the coffin of the steady state theory”, although he had little or nothing to do with these discoveries.

    This example is a perfect demonstration of the power of a good scientific theory: it makes predictions which are later confirmed through observation. Many creationists groups continually claim that “origins” can not be tested. This is an easy to understand example of why that is patently false. We can model a theory (big bang), predict what we should find if it’s true (low energy radiation permeating the universe) and test to see if our prediction is found. Had we not found this low energy radiation, the big bang theory would probably still be being hotly debated today. It is true that we cannot observe the big bang (or the evolution of dinosaurs) directly, but we can certainly observe the effects and outcomes if those theories are correct.

    Jay

  15. Stephen Holshouser October 26, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    Alfred RW

    You said, “[The Bible is] a fable written by men to claim power over others.”

    True Christianity is not forced on anyone. Anyone is free to leave a church anytime they wish. You, obviously, are ignorant of Christianity and/or have never even looked at the lives of the men that were used by God to write the Bible. They lived and died in service to others… not to “claim power over others.”

    Our Master and King, the Lord Jesus Christ even washed the feet of His disciples and taught us that “he that will be greatest among you, let him be servant of all.”

    Your hatred for God, His people, and His Word is illogical and unjustifiable. Jesus is a kind and good Master, as opposed to Satan who cruelly leads people around in darkness, by their own lusts, for his own twisted purposes, and to their destruction.

  16. andy humphrey October 26, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    Alfred Russell Wallace. All of the BIBLE doesn’t make sense to me either, but I still belive every word of it. I’m going to pray for you with my hand own my BIBLE that if your not SAVED that JESUS will knock on your door and you may let HIM into your heart.You can say a child like prayer admitting your a sinner and that HE died for you and ask him to save you. May you come to know the LORD. AMEN

  17. Stephen Holshouser October 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    Jennifer,

    You responded further, “…Christianity is not based on whether or not you believe in Genesis. It is based on whether or not you believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe Jesus rose from the dead and took our sins for us. I don’t have to believe in a literal 6 day creation to go to heaven.”

    I don’t think you have to believe in 6-day creation to be saved, nor did I suggest it. I questioned you because you said that you believed in Jesus WAY BEFORE you ever actually believed in God (based on science). Your statement is not logical. What is the point of trusting Christ except to deliver you from your sin and reconcile you to GOD, your Creator? That’s what Jesus and the Gospel is… it is Jesus being the mediator between GOD and man and bringing us back into a right relationship with Him. If you didn’t believe in God, you had no reason to believe in Jesus. Do you see the point I am making? You said that you believed in the Son of God, but not God Himself??
    A simple head knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection does not save anyone… Satan and the demons believe He died and rose for sins, but that doesn’t help them any (James 2:19). Jesus said, in Matt 7:22-23 “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Actually knowing Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and only Savior and resting in what He has done for you is far more important than finding the HB particle.

    Do you still to profess to have believed in Jesus long before you actually believed in God, or do you retract that statement?

    I am NOT saying that you aren’t a true, born-again believer– I can’t see your heart. I am just concerned for your eternal well-being and that of others. Your statements give reason to doubt that you know the basic teaching of the Bible, which says that Jesus Christ, who is the Creator and Son of God, stepped into time, became a man, was born of a virgin, lived a totally blameless life doing only good, then took all the punishment that was due to sinners, died, was buried and rose again, and is now at the right hand of God with will all authority and power. We would have all justly perished without His intercession.
    Anyone that turns from their sin and comes to God for forgiveness based entirely on the merits of Jesus Christ will be justfied (declared righteous) in the sight of God and destined to be with Him in the new heaven and earth wherein dwells only righteousness… I hope to meet you there someday- what a blessing!

    Also, I don’t question your skill and knowledge in physics… you obviously know ALOT more than I do about physics and such (though my education included several college physics courses, which I enjoyed). I just want to help you and others see the serious problems with their beloved assumptions, on which they build their conclusions.

    May the Lord greatly bless you Jennifer!

  18. Stephen Holshouser October 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    Jennifer,

    You responded to me, “What you are saying is ignore everything and believe 100% of the Bible without question.”

    I don’t recall saying that… if you go back and look, I just asked you 3 straight-forward, logical questions, none of which you answered. Test, observe, demonstrate, and experiment until your heart is content, but if human conclusions that are based on human ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be tested, demonstrated, or observed conflict with what the Bible plainly teaches (and you admit that it does teach a literal 6-day creation), then you better look at the flaws in your ASSUPMTIONS as opposed to ASSUMING that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says or is wrong. You’ll be able to figure the universe out quicker this way. Good experiments and observations don’t guarantee correct conclusions.

    For instance the speed of light; As far as we know, it is now constant in a vacuum. You seem to base much of your theory about the origin of the universe on it. Has it always been constant?? You cannot prove that — you assume it. You have stated that your “Big Bang” was not a bang at all, but an “expansion of time and space” and that the universe continues to expand (btw, yec’s have no problem with this occuring… God did stretch out the universe). You have also admitted that time varies based on the size of nearby objects. Now, what is the measurement for the speed of light? Meters (a measurement of space) per Second (a measurement of time). So you freely admit that both space and time have and do change, yet this “constant” that you rest on is measured by these 2 variable untis, which is also a part of E = mc^2.
    Now do you see the problem here? Was a meter during the initial expanse the same as a meter now? Was a second at that time the same as a second now? Was it all expanding through a vacuum, something else, or nothing at all? Let me put the answers into the form of an equation; [Stephen Hawking] x 10^5 = [Still no way of testing, demonstrating, observing, or knowing the answer to that].

    At the final conclusion, you will ultimately see that God did not use anything we can see or test in nature to create the world (Heb 11:3). The creation event was, if you will, unnatural. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet here it is! God and His works are beyond our comprehension, would you agree? (Rom 11:33-36, Isaiah 55:9)

  19. Jay Liemowitz October 26, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    Steven replied to Jennifer “You have also admitted that time varies based on the size of nearby objects. Now, what is the measurement for the speed of light? Meters (a measurement of space) per Second (a measurement of time). So you freely admit that both space and time have and do change, yet this “constant” that you rest on is measured by these 2 variable untis,
    which is also a part of E = mc^2.”

    This is an understandable question as the conclusions of Einsteins theories are so counter-intuitive and so hostile to our everyday experiences that it’s very difficult to wrap your brain around them.

    The concern you express arises from a limitation in our ability to succinctly describe the nature of special relativity in a manner in which we can easily relate. We often describe the speed of light as being a sort of speed limit on how fast an object can travel through space, but this is not a terribly accurate description. A better description would be that no matter his frame of reference, an observer will always perceive the speed of light as the same rate. Examples are always helpful.

    According to our classical understanding and everyday experiences, if you and I were both traveling towards each other at 100 Mph, our speed relative to one another would be 200 Mph, combining our speed since we’re moving in opposite directions. In the relatively slow speeds that we experience, this is accurate enough to appear correct, but special relativity tells us that it is not. At very high speeds, like those experienced in the Large Hadron Collider that Jennifer has mentioned, the “speed limit” of c becomes more apparent. If the above example were modified so that you and I were traveling directly towards each other, both at 99.9% the speed of light, then classical understand tells us that relative to each other, we should measure each other’s velocity as nearly double the speed of light, but this doesn’t occur. Instead, due to time dilation (time slowing for both of us), we would only measure our relative velocity at about 99.98% the speed of light. 100% the speed of light, in any frame of reference, is simply not observable in any object that has mass, all due to the fact that time slows down the faster an object travels through space. The key to understanding here is not “c is constant” but “time slows with speed, thus, the speed of light is always measured as c regardless of ones own velocity”.

    Another example: According to classical thinking, if I were traveling 99% the speed of light, directly next to a beam of light traveling in the same direction, we should measure the speed of that beam at only 1% of c. But special relativity (and observations) tell us we wouldn’t, we would still measure it at the full 100% the speed of light.

    This strange property is the result of the relationship between space and time. According to the theory, and in order for E=mc^2 to have any meaning, Einstein proposed that space and time are not distinct entities; they a inextricably linked into the 4 dimensional space-time. Imagine that every particle in the universe contains the same amount of energy. This energy is used to propel it through space-time, but the catch is that whatever energy is used to travel through space, robs from the energy used to travel through time, so time is experienced at a slower rate for that particle.

    These conclusions are not just assumptions. The effects of time and space dilation have been observed. In particle accelerators, particles that decay at known rates have been speed up to speeds so close to the speed of light that they decay at many times slower rates than they would under normal conditions.

  20. Mark James October 27, 2010 at 3:44 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    I don’t know about parallel universes but 10 or 11 dimensions would certainly leave plenty of room for the ‘things which are not seen (that) are eternal.’

    The interesting thing about your interpretation of the theory is that many atheists would take the same reasoning, twist it around and use it as justification for belief in evolution, i.e. the fact that it has happened is proof that, no matter how improbable it is, it will happen given enough time.

    Too far away to even feel the earthquake but my sister was not far from the epicentre and had a rollercoaster ride.

  21. Mark James October 27, 2010 at 4:57 am #

    Hi Alfred,

    If the Bible was written by men, please explain the following remarkable coincidence:

    The mathematical constants pi, and e (the base of natural logarithms) do not have units of measurement, so both always have the same sequence of digits.

    There are two verses in the Bible starting with “In the beginning”

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, originally written in Hebrew, and, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1, originally written in Greek. The Hebrew and Greek alphabets are unique in that each letter is also assigned a numerical value.

    Now, using Genesis 1:1, take the numerical value of each of the Hebrew letters, and the numerical value of the words and put them in the following formula:

    (Number of letters) x (Product of the letters) / (Number of words) x (Product of the words)

    The first five digits are 31416, which are the digits of the value of pi to four decimal places (3.1416). Interesting…

    Now try John 1:1. Take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters and the numerical value of the words, and put them in the same formula.

    The first five digits this time are 27183, which are the digits of the value of e to four decimal places (2.7183).

    Don’t ask me why it’s only to four decimal places (and I don’t have a clue why the decimal place is not in the correct place) but to me this points to design far beyond the minds of men, especially when you consider that both these constants were discovered long after the Bible was written.

    Oh, and once you’ve explained this coincidence, there are many, many more for you to work on (if you’d like).

  22. Alfred Russell Wallace October 27, 2010 at 7:59 am #

    >>>True Christianity is not forced on anyone. Anyone is free to leave a church anytime they wish. You, obviously, are ignorant of Christianity and/or have never even looked at the lives of the men that were used by God to write the Bible.

    Invented in the agriculture era, Christianity claims power over women. Women are subordinate in the abrahamic and Islamic faiths.

    It is pressed on young children to scare them with the abhorrent notion of hell.

    Jesus once said, “you should beat some slaves harder than others.”

    Oh yes, it’s such a GOOD book.

  23. Jennifer Preston October 27, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Jay Liemowitz

    You are of course right. About everything. As much as I try, my mind works in equations, not words or facts. I prefer to work things out. But yes, Relativity does disagree with steady state theory.

    Stephen Holshouser wrote

    “1. Was Jesus confused when He said, “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” ? (Mark 10:6)

    2. Was Jesus the One that created them? (Colossians 1:16-20)

    3. Was there death before man fell into sin? (Romans 5:12-21)”

    1. Jesus doesn’t say Genesis was the begining in that statement. All he says is the creation, but doesn’t give a time scale. Nor does he give a time scale in the next 4 verses. Nor does he say anything more for the next chapter.
    2. Well Jesus is God so Yes. But God could’ve made science happen. i.e. Big Bang. First thing in the Bible. “In the beginning God created the Earth and the Sky”. Doesn’t say how he did it. He could’ve made a Big Bang. Also, “sky” could include the Sun and the moon and the stars. You have to define sky. Does it stop at our atmosphere?
    3. Well that really all depends on whether you believe animals have souls. If animals don’t have souls, then nothing is really dying before humans came into the world. Then you have to decide who in our history is the first human being. Maybe death started with the first human because before that there were only soul-less animals so really nothing could die.

    The thing is, I start with Jesus, because that is what the whole Christian faith is based on. I prefer to focus my Bible studies on the new testament, not the old. I decided Jesus is God since I believe he rose from the dead to take all our sins. That is what the Bible says, therefore the God of the Bible is the right one. But I believe Genesis is there to emphasise that God created the world, not to say how he did it.

    The reason the speed of light has always been constant is because photons, particles of light, are massless. Therefore they have to travel at the speed of light. Having any kind of mass slows you down. But being massless you have to travel fast. It’s just there’s a cosmic speed limit on it. But if these photons are slowing down, they would need mass to do that, but they are massless. i.e to study the speed of light, study what light is made of first. Photons. I can suggest you try reading a bit of richard feynman, maybe something on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

    So the correct question to ask is not Has light always been constant, but have photons always been massless?

    Well, anything with mass, when it loses it’s mass, it will fail to exist. But photons exist and are massless. Therefore if they ever had mass in the past, they wouldn’t exist.

    Basically Relativity makes two assumptions.
    Basically:
    1. The laws are the same everywhere in the universe and
    2. That the speed of light is constant. But as I’ve explained light is massless. Richard Feynman came after Einstein.

    As for 1, I seem to remember in one of the “Proving God” videos, it might have been part 2 Logic, on this site, it said that the Bible teaches consistency across the universe. I had trouble understanding that video.

    First it said that the Bible teaches athe assumption of consistenct across the universe, then it said that science does the same but science cannot be right becuase it doesn’t get the assumption from the Bible. But they both have the same assumption anyway regardless of where they came from. From that video I got A equals B does not equal A. This is where my head explodes coz I don’t get it. At least that was my understanding of it.

  24. Geno Castagnoli October 27, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    Alfred Russell Wallace wrote:
    Women are subordinate in the abrahamic and Islamic faiths.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Islam is an Abrahamic faith. Judism, Christianity and Islam all worship the God of Abraham.

  25. David McCrea October 27, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    Alfred seems an intelligent fellow. He has heard the gospel many times I am sure. He continues to mock and scoff, which he can do.

    As for Christians, I think we’re at the “reprobate mind,” “casting pearls” stage with some of the dedicated atheistic posters on the CSE blog.

    God’s Word is very clear what to do now. So maybe we should start obeying God’s Word?

    Continued Grace to all those who believe.

    Dave McCrea

  26. Alfred Russell Wallace October 27, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    >>>>The first five digits are 31416, which are the digits of the value of pi to four decimal places (3.1416). Interesting

    It’s sad when people go looking for “proofs” that fit their pet religion. If the Qur’an had that same randomly thoughtful sequence of numbers would you give up faith in Christ? No? Okay, then don’t use useless messages.

    Why did it not give the digits 3.1415926535…? Does God’s calculator only have 5 digits?

    Looking through your Bible for hidden messages is the equivalent to reading the entrails of a chicken.

    A broken clock is right twice a day.

  27. Alfred Russell Wallace October 27, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    >>>All of the BIBLE doesn’t make sense to me either, but I still belive every word of it.

    You’re knowingly ignorant, yet this does not stop you. This is a frightening statement if I ever heard one.

    I suppose you will stone to death any person who works on the Sabbath?

    Will you kill your child for cursing your name?

    Will you commit genocide if the lord demands it?

    Are you willing to kill your child to please a disgusting dictator?

    Religion is a venom. You can pray for me if you like, in return I’ll think for you.

  28. Duane October 28, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    @ Mark James.

    Seriously? Numerological coincidences? Did you know that if you take the date Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed (June 12, 1994) and add up the digits (6 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 9 + 4 = 32) you come up with 32, which was O.J. Simpson’s jersey number! You can manipulate numbers to come up with anything you want. It’s interesting, but ultimately worthless. What significance do those numbers have to the Bible? What is the significance of adding the numbers up in that particular way? Answer to both is nothing. I bet you could take some verse somewhere in the Bible, add up the digits in a particular way and come up with your telephone number or social security number.

  29. David McCrea October 28, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    Proverbs 9:7-8
    7 He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself,
    And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.
    8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
    Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.

    Matthew 15:14
    “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

  30. Jennifer Preston October 28, 2010 at 8:50 am #

    Sorry when I said “facts” above, I meant historical facts such as who attacked who in WW2 etc. Just incase anyone interprets that wrong.

  31. beatlefreak9 October 28, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Are you all so extreme that you believe that your brand of Christianity is better than others? How about you just accept that you all believe in one god and move on? “A house divided cannot stand.”
    This bickering is almost more infuriating than your anti-“evolutionist” arguments.

  32. Stephen Holshouser October 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    David McCrea,

    brother, that is exactly the conclusion I came to about Alfred RW. I had another response I had written to him and then just deleted it. I was going back and forth between Proverbs 26 verses 4 & 5 and decided verse 4 was the proper choice in this case. great advice! SH

  33. Stephen Holshouser October 28, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Jennifer,

    Thank you for the response.

    My question was this;

    1. Was Jesus confused when He said, “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” ? (Mark 10:6)

    Your answer;
    1. “Jesus doesn’t say Genesis was the begining in that statement. All he says is the creation, but doesn’t give a time scale. Nor does he give a time scale in the next 4 verses. Nor does he say anything more for the next chapter.”

    The point is this; Jesus says that mankind, as male and female, has been here from the beginning of time. He COMPLETELY DECIMATES evolution or millions of years as an option by this statement. Evolution / Big Bang theory says man and woman came billions of years after the beginning!!Now the question is; Do you, Jennifer, believe Stephen Hawking, a God denier, or Jesus Christ, God in the flesh?

    Also; Of course He is referencing Genesis. If you look at the corresponding passage in Matthew 19:4 Jesus says “Have ye not read (meaning, in Genesis of the Old Testament), that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”?”

    Regarding the speed of light;
    I may have not made my question clear. Based on the fact that time and space have varied, and since meters and seconds are the measurements of the speed of light, At the moment of creation as God stretched out the universe (or His Big Bang, if you like), were meters and seconds then, the same as today? If so, how can you test, demonstrate, or observe it?

    Maybe it was still 299,792,458 meters per second, but was its unit of measurement (m/s) the same as ours today? Was it expanding through a vacuum or a different medium that would facilitate a much higher propagation rate of light, like complete nothingness?

    My point is that no one is able to test, demonstrate, observe, or know any of these answers, so just believe Jesus… He did it 6000 years ago… He is trustworthy… I PROMISE!! If you can trust Him with your eternal soul, you can trust Him about this too!

    thanks again, SH

  34. Stephen Holshouser October 28, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    Jay L,

    thank you for the effort…

    “These conclusions are not just assumptions…”

    You are right.. they aren’t; However, mixed in with the good science are the unverifiable assumptions that are the pillars upon which the Big Bad Bang, atheistic evolution and other wrong conclusions rest.

    PS. what do you need to hear to believe on Jesus Christ as your Savior and Creator?

  35. Stephen Holshouser October 28, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Jennifer,

    Here is the scripture Jesus quotes from Genesis;

    Matthew 19:4-5
    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    Genesis 2:23-24
    And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

  36. David McCrea October 29, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    Hey Dr. Hovind and Eric:

    The regular, dependable scoffers and mockers on the CSE blog are trampling all over God’s Word. They have clearly rejected the truth of Christ and the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit.

    Any chance you could post information to our fellow believers what our responsibilites are in response to those who constantly use this blog as a means to demean and belittle Christ?

    I think information coming from you would be much more powerful and effective and would be far better received by believers.

    God bless you both.

    Dave McCrea

  37. David McCrea October 29, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    Dr. Hovind:

    Peace and blessing to you from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

    Just a quick note that I am from South Dakota and know several of the farm and ranch folks you met during your visit to Union Center some years ago.

    To those who watch Dr. Hovind’s CSE tapes, Union Center is the place he references that is so small it’s not even printed on SD’s map!

    I am blessed to call many of them my friends.

    Thank you for all your hard work and commitment to God’s service.

    Dave McCrea

  38. Mark James October 29, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    Alfred and Duane,

    A few years ago I would have agreed with you and probably would have been just as quick to ridicule. When it was first suggested to me that there were multiple numerical structures underlying the Biblical text I was skeptical, to say the least but I decided to check it out for myself and, believe me, the example in my last post doesn’t even scratch the surface. If you want to investigate further I would suggest you start by Googling Evidence for Design: Beloved Numerologist.

    For me, these numerical structures demonstrate an intricacy of design that testifies to a supernatural origin. And, because one letter out of place would render the numerics useless, I also believe they are strong evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been preserved exactly as God intended them to be.