Welcome to all of the new subscribers!
This is the "When I get a round tooit" Creation/Evolution newsletter from Ian Juby and the traveling Creation Science Museum of Canada.

If you do not see a header image above this text, you may have to turn on images in your email program, or you can click here to view it in your browser. 

In this newsletter:
1) Ross's claims on paluxy tracks and polystrate fossils
2) Doug's excellent question
3) Save big on coffee-cup coasters for your atheist friends - a great X-mas gift!
4) Clearly the Bible is wrong...
5) Quick update on the creation museum project


**********************************************************
1) Ross's claims on paluxy tracks and polystrate fossils.

Had a reader write in, asking about a video circulating on the internet.  The video is by "progressive creationist" (read: theistic evolutionist with a fancy new name) Hugh Ross, and was a segment of the Q&A session on one of his videos.
Now, I gotta be honest with yas here: Much as I would like to be respectful, it is exceedingly difficult in this case.  If I may make an analogy, it's like trying to respectfully disagree with someone who claimed that a bunny rabbit ate a moose whole.  How do you refute such a person without using the words that come to mind? Y'know - words like "lunatic," "out of his tree," and "you gotta be joking!"
Such is the case with Ross's claims in this video segment, which you can watch on their website so you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/tv-broadcasts-videocasts/video-podcasts
or on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRtNud5ReM

The Paluxy Tracks:
Ross starts off by addressing the fossil human footprints found amongst dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed, Glen Rose, Texas.  Of course, this happens to be one of my areas of expertise.  Now in defense of Ross, he simply repeated the mantra that has been running around the internet, the "research" of Glen Kuban.  You'll see shortly why I have "research" in quotes.

The knee-jerk reaction of most skeptics toward the Paluxy human tracks is "It's a carving!"  This simply does not hold water, as the majority of the human tracks were uncovered from underneath a hard layer of limestone, typically between 12 and 18 inches thick.  So the claim that they are carvings sets the hogwash-o-meter® on fire.

If they're not carvings, then what are they? Enter Kuban.
Kuban, like so many other evolutionists, is desperate to "prove" that they are not human footprints. After all, 'as we all know,' dinosaurs became extinct at least 60 million years before humans had evolved.  So finding human footprints together with dinosaur tracks would thoroughly destroy the theory of evolution, and would validate the literal reading of the young-earth creation account in Genesis.

The one trail most prominently in question is called the Taylor trail, a series of 14 dinosaur tracks in a right/left/right/left sequence, after which a human walked in the dinosaur's footprints.  These dinosaur tracks appear in displaced mud (now hardened into rock) as a red stain, appearing and fading in response to the acidity of the water or other environmental factors.  Kuban claims that the dinosaur tracks were made by a dinosaur walking on its heels, and thus the back of the dinosaur heel leaves an impression resembling a human heel. The mud surrounding the dinosaur's toe impressions collapses (without filling in the heel part), leaving a depression having a vague resemblance to a human footprint.  Then those silly creationists come along and mistakenly claim that the human-shaped depressions are actually fossil human footprints.

Read it yourself, straight from the Kuban's website.

There are so many problems with Kuban's theory it's difficult to know where to begin.  The dinosaur tracks of the Taylor trail have a clear halux visible, which makes a pointed heel - as seen in the cast of -3B track below, and not a rounded heel as depicted in Kuban's pretty (and misleading) drawing showing a dinosaur walking on its heel. (The Taylor trail tracks are assigned identifying numbers and letters; i.e., -3, -3b, -3a, -2, -1, 1, 2, etc...)



While I have no problem with the suggestion that a dinosaur walked on its heels (this is visible in dinosaur trackways elsewhere in the world), the Taylor trail dinosaur tracks themselves do not match the tracks of a dinosaur walking on its heels. 

Further to that, the human footprints change position within the dinosaur tracks as you go down the trail:

Outlines of sample tracks in the Taylor trail. Cross-hatched outline is the human footprint, dark outline marks the dinosaur track.
The human tracks change position in each of the dinosaur tracks as you go down the trail,
and therefore cannot be the heel impressions of the dinosaur tracks.

To claim that the human tracks were actually the heel impressions of the dinosaur would mean that the dinosaur's heel was dislocated, so that it changed position as it walked!  Then apparently (as you see when you get to the +6 human track) the dinosaur's heel fell off and made its own track in another trail!  Sometimes the human tracks overlap the dinosaur tracks...so much for the heel theory. 

Some of the human footprints have beautifully preserved toe impressions as well (like the -3B, shown above).  Did the dinosaur foot somehow, miraculously, produce beautiful, anatomically correct toe impresions in the human footprint?
If one continues on up the trail, eventually you get to the human track called the +6.  The +6 is also in a dinosaur track, but it's a dinosaur track from a different dinosaur and a different trail, going in the opposite direction. 

Dinosaur track from the Taylor trail marked in yellow on right, dinosaur track from the "Judkins trail"
on left into which the human stepped (marked in blue), making the +6 human track in the Taylor trail

Thus, the human heel is in the left toe of the JT dinosaur track, and the human toes are in the JT dinosaur heel impression.  Notice also that the JT dinosaur track does leave a rounded heel impression (it's from a different dinosaur), whereas the TT dinosaur track leaves a pointed heel, contrary to Kuban's assertion that the TT dinosaur tracks were from a dinosaur walking on its heels.  Some toe impressions are actually visible in the +6 human footprint.  So much for the dinosaur heel/human heel theory - the tracks are backwards to each other, and the human foot impression is in the left toe of the dinosaur track, not the center area as Kuban's theory suggests.  To boot, the dino track containing the +6 is the only that track in JT dinosaur trail (tentatively named the Judkins trail after Dr. Aaron Judkins) that has a human footprint in it!

So what did he see?
This brings us to some very serious questions.  For someone like Kuban, who has spent oodles of time specifically studying the red stain of the TT dinosaur tracks, and making such a fuss of the red stains, one has to wonder: Did Kuban not see the red stain of the JT dinosaur track that the +6 is in?  If he didn't see something so obvious, what other pieces of critical evidence did he miss?  If he did see it, then why did he not document it and tell his readers about it? 
Look at his website for yourself, his map marks the +6 human track, but his drawing does not even resemble what the human track actually looks like, it does include the toe impressions of the JT dinosaur track in question (leading me to conclude that he also indeed knows the facts I'm sharing here), and does not include the trail of dinosaur tracks into which the +6 has stepped. 
The +6 track alone completely destroys Kuban's theory.  But this is the typical quality of claims and "research."  His attempts at explaining away the Zuiyo Maru cryptid (an apparently plesiasaur-like carcass caught by a japanese fishing trawler), were just as outlandish, and I dealt with these in part 9 of the Complete Creation video series.

Over and over again, I have seen how Kuban's "research" simply cannot be trusted, yet he continues to parrot these (and many other) "just so" stories, to the joy of many an anti-creationist, and in this case, to the purposes of Ross who really needs to do his homework.

But let's not stop there, because the claim that the human tracks are actually strangely eroded dinosaur tracks is also repeated at dinosaur valley state park, with the very cynical cartoon displayed on one of their interpretive plaques:

Evolutionist's best explanation for dinosaur tracks and human tracks found together.

Anyone who has spent any time in the Paluxy will note that the human tracks erode differently than the dinosaur tracks.  For instance, on the trail known as the Upper Taylor Platform, the +4 track is a beautiful human footprint, complete with impressions of all five toes, the ball, arch and heel of the human footprint, overstepping the heel of another dinosaur track.  The rock in the dinosaur track is harder than that of the human track, and thus erosion over time has eroded the human footprint into a depression, while raising the dinosaur track.  This differential erosion proves quite conclusively that the human and dinosaur tracks are indeed separate.

The Upper Taylor Platform, +4 track, overlay shows dino
track highlighted in yellow, human track in blue
Photo courtesy Dr. Don Patton, bible.ca/tracks


Dinosaur track raised by differential erosion in the paluxy river bed, near the Taylor trail location.
The human tracks are not "strangely eroded dinosaur tracks."

An excellent book, recently released as a second edition, is available.  "Texas tracks and artifacts" is an exhaustive review of the evidence by Helfinstine & Roth, I highly recommend it.

Leviathan and Behemoth?
Of course Ross then has to explain away the apparent references to dinosaurs alive at the time of Job, Behemoth and Leviathan (Job chapters 40 & 41).  Sadly, Ross's exegesis (reading of the scriptures and interpreting it by the scriptures) is always pretty bad.  Again, I'm not trying to be mean, rude or disrespectful, it's just that there really is no nice way to say it.  He essentially claims that Job 40 & 41 are allegorical, and that these creatures were only the hippopotomus and the crocodile.  A point worth noting is that he mentions the number of times allegorical statements are made, using words such as "like."  However, read the chapters yourself.
The Lord is not making an allegory here.  The Hippopotomus does not have a tail "like" a cedar tree.  The description is clearly that of a large, dinosaur-like creature.
Leviathan is clearly a fire-breathing creature - again this was not allegory, read it yourself.  Crocodiles do not shoot out sparks, make the sea boil, etc...  The creature is an unknown one, dinosaur like, but certainly not a crocodile.  And yes, it is possible that one of the dinosaurs could breath something like fire.  The bombadier beetle can shoot sparks when it fires its "canon" in self defense, so why not a dinosaur?  I'll save that for another day though, as you all can do a search on the internet and find loads of info on the bombadier beetle.  I gotta keep this short and deal with the discussion at hand.

An excellent page dealing with these issues in more detail:  http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/dayage/levithan.htm

Polystrate trees & Mythbusters®
Ross then ventures into another one of my areas of expertise: Polystrate fossils - namely, polystrate trees.  The term "polystrate" comes from poly (for many) and Strate (for strata of rock layers); the tree goes through many rock layers.  I've studied polystrate trees first hand all over Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Colorado and New Mexico, Tennessee and Wyoming.  I've also been able to study the documentation of multiple other polystrate tree sites such as those in the Alaskan coal mines and Axel Heiberg Island of the Canadian high arctic (of which I have some wood samples in my museum collection).

Ross then goes out on a limb to claim that these fossil trees weren't buried upright in a catastrophic flow or flood, but instead proposes an out-of-this-world theory that a meteor impact drove the fossilized trees up through the rock layers.  (ACK!)  He makes an analogy to straw being driven through tree trunks by tornados.
Well, first of all, Ross needs to watch more Mythbusters®.  Specifically, episode 61, "Deadly straw," where they busted the myth that a straw can go through a tree trunk.  It is possible that a tornado can drive straw into a piece of wood far enough that it can stick, but the incidents of straw going through a tree has to do with the bending and twisting of a tree trunk, which splits it temporarily, the straw gets blown through the split, and the tree bends/twists back, thereby closing the split and giving the appearance that the straw went through the tree.
This is very rare, but I have heard rumours of this happening.

Even if the myth had been proven true, this has nothing to do with a fossil tree being driven up through layers!  I cannot express in words (at least not politely) my shock and awe that Ross would make such an out-of-this-world suggestion.  Ross has evidently never seen a single polystrate fossil tree in his life - otherwise he would know better than to make such crazy suggestions.  First off, most of the polystrate fossil "trees" are not trees at all, but giant, hollow reeds!  The trunk of these trees consists of a tube of woody material, with walls typically on the order of two centimeters thick or less, and a tube diameter of up to a meter.
Now how would you drive said fossil tree trunk up through rock layers without utterly destroying it?  And you would have to drive that trunk up through over 7 meters of rock layers, as is seen in this image of one polystrate lycopod trunk at Joggins, Nova Scotia. (Photo right, click on the image to see the full-resolution picture)

Further to that, many of these trunks have intact root systems.  How did these trunks get driven up through rock layers without stripping off the roots?  (see this picture here)  Also, visible within those cross cut layers are features called VISS's (Vegetation Induced Sedimentary Structures).  This is acknowledged even in the evolutionary literature.  Basically, as the flow of water went around the tree, it changed how the dirt was deposited around the tree.  For example (photo below), at Tennessee, you can see how the layers appear to "bend" uphill and thicken.  This is from the flow of water (right to left) which accelerates as it splits to go around the tree, thus picking up the dirt on the right side.  As the water comes back together on the left side, it slows down, and drops it dirt, thus making a thicker layer on the left side of the tree.

Polystrate lycopod in Tennessee showing VISS and crossbedding,
both caused by flows from right to left in photo


Out of this world
Again, I'm sorry - I don't want to be disrespectful, but you can begin to see why I struggle so with writing this response.  How can I write it politely?  All of these suggestions, intended to explain away powerful young-earth evidence, are preposterous.  I respectfully disagree sirs: a bunny rabbit most certainly did not eat a moose whole.  The paluxy tracks line up with the Biblical account that dinosaurs lived with humans, refutes the evolutionary dogma, and demonstrates that the earth is young.  Polystrate fossils are a powerful line of evidence that the rock layers we see around the world do not represent deep time, but a catastrophe known as Noah's flood.


***********************************************************
2) Doug's excellent question

One kind skeptic wrote in from Calgary with a most excellent question. (see? I have no problem with a skeptic - I'm a skeptic.  I have a problem with anti-creationists - there is a difference)  It was such a good question, that I am simply reposting his email (with his permission):
God created the world and everything in it in six days, right?  So, everything: ants, giraffes, humans, monkeys, etc.  Then he decides that the world is overrun with sin and slaughters everything except for the creatures saved on the ark.  That means that everything that God created (except for sea creatures) had to end up on that boat for it to still exist in the modern world.  It’s kind of like saying, “If it exists today, it at one point was on the ark” because evolution is false and species can’t evolve from one species to another.  Right?  Right.  Here’s the question:

Where on the Ark did Noah keep the AIDS virus, the Ebola virus, smallpox, polio and (because it’s in vogue) the H1N1 Virus?  They all had to have been on that boat because God created everything in six days and species can’t evolve into other species.  Did he keep them in stasis?  In hermetically sealed test tubes and petri dishes?  Did he have a hazardous materials lab on board?  Did he keep them in cryogenic sleep?  You can’t say that they came from humans that came into contact with aquatic life because H1N1 is from pigs and not, say, salmon.  There were plenty of pigs on board, I’m assuming.

AIDS notwithstanding, if Noah had the Ebola, smallpox, polio and the H1N1 viruses on the boat, they would have infected almost everybody (especially H1N1).  It was a closed environment with limited food, waste disposal, room, etc.  There were no antibiotics or vaccines.  How did Noah’s family survive?

So that’s my question.  If God created everything and everything had to have been on that boat to be in the modern world, then where were these viruses?  (Again, evolution is false and species don’t evolve into other species, so the common cold couldn’t have evolved into something more lethal).   Also, where was the bubonic plague?  It had to have been on the boat somewhere and we know it’s highly contagious because it wiped out a third of Europe.

I’d love to hear your answer on this one.  J

Best wishes,
Doug

While I had my own opinions on the matter, I must acknowledge the insight of CRSnet (Creation Research Society network - a world-wide network of creationary thinkers and researchers) as I posed the questions to them as well.  There are several geneticists in the group, as well as baraminologists (creationists who study "species"), etc...  Their comments certainly enlightened the subject even more.  So without further ado...

Define "species"
First of all, it is important to note that there is no set definition for "species."  As I write this, it's ironic that this is the second time today I've written about this.  For every definition of "species" put forth, there are exceptions.  This is referred to as the "species problem" and even wikipedia acknowledges this (as reliable as wikipedia can be).  Incidentally, the word "species" was coined by Carl Von Linne, a creationist, who chose that word because he believed the different kinds were SPECIally created.

Secondly, creationists have no problem with variation within a species.  In short, creationists believe that a large cat kind gave rise to all the large cats, a horse kind gave rise to the horses, a dog kind gave rise to all the kinds of dogs, etc...  All the artificial selection (read: breeding) and natural selection will never cause a dog to give rise to anything other than a kind of dog.  Interestingly, it is known that horses and people can have variations in rib count and vertebrae (spine bone) count. This is no way makes them a non-horse or a non-human now, does it?

Species variation is not evolution
Of course, some ardent evolutionists might object and say that we creationists believe in a form of hyper-evolution.  After all, "you silly creationists have all the dog kinds evolving from one pair of dog kinds a mere 4,500 years ago aboard the ark of Noah!"  Actually, most of the dog kinds have arisen within the past few centuries with the advent of dog breeding!
This is not evolution - evolution has pond scum giving rise to the horses, dogs, and large cats.  Notice the stark difference?  If you want to call variation "evolution," well fine then - but don't muddy the waters and say that small changes (variation) add up to big changes (pond scum turning into horses).  Unfortunately, this "muddying of the waters" is precisely what has happened, and I think it was done deliberately.  This variation within the species was labeled "microevolution" and suddenly we're all told that little changes can add up to big changes (macroevolution, pond scum turning into a horse).  In short, NO, small changes cannot add up to big changes.

The Kentucky Derby limit
You very quickly run into what is referred to as "the Kentucky Derby limit," so called because no matter how much you breed your horses, you can still only breed a horse that can go so fast.  ....and it's still a horse or course!  There is one fairly easy-to-read article here by Dr. Jean Lightner on the whole idea of variation.
I have even heard one evolutionist object to the term "microevolution" (as do I) as he said "That's like asking if I believe in microgravity or macrogravity."  I agree with this gentleman, and this is why I refuse to use the term microevolution except to explain why it shouldn't be used!
So whenever you hear me speak of, or write about, "evolution," it is always in reference to the "molecules to man," "pond scum turning into a horse" theory of evolution, not variation within a species.  Yes, I'm aware that it was supposed to have taken millions of years and an infinite number of small steps, but evolution still has a frog turning into a prince and pond scum turning into a horse.

Evolution of superbugs
As previously reported, some "superbacteria" have been around all along - click here and read part 3 "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's superbacteria!". So if these "superbacteria" which are resistant to antibiotics have been around so long, why did they not kill us off a long time ago? Why are we so panicked over them? 
Further to this, yes, the common cold can mutate into something more lethal - which has nothing to do with evolution.  In fact, I think it's safe to say that most evolutionists believe that deadly viruses are of a recent origin.  Or, our susceptibility to them is recent.  Why?  Because we as the human race are deteriorating in all aspects, including health and immunity.

Douglas specifically mentioned the bubonic plague, which is caused by a bacteria called Yersinia, which is closely related to E. coli.  E. coli is a beneficial bacteria that resides in our intestines and helps us digest our food.  It is quite possible that Yersinia and E. coli both came from the same parent bacteria, with Yersinia becoming pathogenic sometime after the flood, possibly due to a mutation in the bacteria.  But again - change does not equal evolution.
Further to this, many bacteria (and some viruses) are amazing at surviving the harshest of conditions, so yes - they could have survived outside of the ark.

Another excellent article by Dr. Allen Gillen specifically discusses "super bacteria":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/genesis-of-mrsa


Super viruses (aka, "which came first...?")
It should be noted that a virus can hardly be called a "species."  In fact, it blows me away that some natural history museums, high school textbooks, and even university textbooks claim that the first "life" on earth was viruses.  Uh.... viruses can't reproduce - isn't that is one of the basics of the definition of "life" guys?  Viruses must hijack the reproductive systems of a living cell (so much for the virus being the first life) to reproduce other copies of the virus.  The cell gets destroyed in the process, which is why you get sick when you get a virus.  The cell is destroyed by the immune system and needs to be replaced.

There is a very important point to be made: it is possible for people to carry a dangerous virus / bacteria with no symptoms.  For example, the herpes virus can be carried with the bearer having no symptoms.
The Polio virus is a particularly nasty one, however, before the vaccine was invented, most people had been exposed to it....aaand just got over it!  It is only certain persons that had experienced permanent effects from the polio virus, and there appears to be a connection between those who experienced permanent effects from polio and those who had their tonsils and adenoids removed. Isn't it interesting how evolutionary belief that the tonsils and adenoids were "evolutionary leftovers" we didn't need anymore, which led to the removal of these organs, which led to people who got polio afterwards being affected for life.  Seems to me that creationary beliefs are the ones that would say that everything has a purpose, and thus we shouldn't remove organs unless we absolutely had to.

An excellent (albeit technical) from my good friend, Dr. Jerry Bergman is available on the web on the trueorigin website:
http://www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp

In short, viruses have a purpose and many benefits.  Pathogenic viruses (ones that make us ill) are actually evidence of something gone wrong.  Most viruses can be carried by a host with no ill effects - we only hear about the ones that cause ill effects.  I would suggest it's multiple things gone wrong: things gone wrong with the viruses, and with us - both of which are deteriorating over time.

Excellent question Douglas, thanks for writing in.

***********************************************************
3) Save big on coffee-cup coasters for your atheist friends - just in time for X-mas!

That's right - on sale until the December 25th non-religious holiday (or maybe new years if I forget to pull the sale off-line again), the perfect gift for your atheist/humanist friends -
The set of 12 "Complete Creation" coffee cup coasters!

(pie, plate, fork, glass, table, coffee, cup, table cloth, place matt, chair in the background not included)

Each coffee cup coaster comes in its own plastic-wrapped display box with a full-colour glossy sleeve - removable to be suitable for lining bird cages, or catching oil drips on the garage floor.  Get a set for your local atheists society!  Imagine the smile on their face when they come downstairs to see this beautiful set underneath the pagan fertility tree.

But wait - talk about multi-purpose! The coffee cup coasters are also playable in a DVD player and contain loads of useful information the atheists might find interesting (we are not held responsible if you put them in your DVD player after you use them for coffee cup coasters!) - heck, if they put the coasters in their DVD player, they might even come to the realization that there is a God, which may prompt them to wonder if they are in "hot water."  Just think - sit down for coffee one afternoon, and find the saving grace of Jesus Christ, the reason for the season!

Regularly $150 with shipping, now just $120, shipping included!
Order your gift set today at CompleteCreation.org!


 ***********************************************************
4) Clearly the Bible is wrong

One can predict that when the anti-creationists continually lose the battle in the sciences, that they will then aim their big guns at the Bible itself.  If you can't discredit the fact that there's a Creator, then at least make sure that the Creator isn't the God of the Bible!
So it seems as of late I've had a raft of questions about the Biblical account from friends and enemies alike.  It seems like I've spent more time in apologetics in this newsletter then in the sciences, but these were pretty important, so I hope you'll bear with me and gain some fruit from this discussion.

Genealogical contradictions?

One gentleman who called and harassed me on the phone claimed that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were contradictory.  How could the Bible be the authoritative word of God and contain such flagrant errors and contradictions? Well my experience has been consistent: Whenever there is a question about the Bible, there is an answer, and usually one does not have to dig very deep to find it. 
The skeptic claimed that Matthew and Luke gave a different name for the father of Joseph, the step father of Jesus. This was a 'clear contradiction' so, obviously the Bible had an error in it.
Well, after approximately 3 minutes of looking up the verses, praying about it and thinking about it (something too many atheists apparently shy away from), the answer was obvious.  First, Matthew does indeed give a different name for Joseph's father than Luke:

Matthew 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,..

One does not have to think very hard to figure out why there would be two different names given, and yet not at all a contradictory account. 
Think about it for a second: How many people do you know who have more than one dad?  I know of dozens off the top of my head, and in fact, there will be many who read these words who have two dads. 
They are called stepfathers.
In fact, if you pay close attention, you'll notice that Matthew said Jacob begat Joseph, whereas Luke simply said Joseph was Heli's son.  Notice the difference?
So this is easily explained even in our modern day context, and it makes even more sense within the context of the Jewish culture: The law of the land was that if a man died leaving no children, his surviving brother was to marry his wife to raise up children, so that the family name would be preserved.  The surviving brother was called the "kinsman redeemer" and the book of Ruth portrays this part of the culture beautifully.  Thus we can say that Heli was the first brother who died, and Jacob was Heli's brother who then married Heli's wife and had Joseph with her.  Consequently, it was common in that culture to (in this case) refer to Joseph as Heli's son.

Let me just encourage you readers that whenever you are faced with a "challenge," just simply pray and seek the answer!  I have yet to find a major "error" in the Bible, because every time I have someone hand me a challenge like this, it always turns out to be a non-problem.  Not to mention that often such "problems" turn out to be a real gem in the living word of God, the Bible.  The problem is, that the atheists tend to read the Bible more than Christians do.  But let us get to the second challenge that was handed to me this past week.  

A friend of mine wrote in from Cleveland:
RE: Creationism and Intelligent Design
Ian,

Love reading your updates and watching your Rants on YouTube.

Hey...
I was reading an article in a 4 year old copy of our school magazine written by a professor in a Religious Studies department.
Here is a snippet from the article (title of the article noted in the Subject line):

"Creationism says that the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 to 11 provides a reliable physical account of how the world began, a notion rejected by Jews, Roman Catholics, and mainline Protestants, but supported by fundamentalist Protestants. All biblical scholars teaching at accredited colleges and universities also reject it. Why? Because the Genesis creation account makes no sense physically since it contains internal contradictions and events that simply could not have happened. As with everything involved with the Bible, this can become very complex, but let me give you just a few examples of why the Genesis story of creation cannot be factually true.”
“Genesis 1 says that on the sixth (6th) day God created animals and then, as the summit of creation, the human race, but Genesis 2 tells us that Adam was lonely so God created the animals to keep him company. Either the animals came first or the humans did, but both did not, so this narrative contradicts itself.”

The article goes on to debunk Biblical creationism and then on to ID.

Is this pretty much the standard simplistic argument you hear?

Keep lookin’ up!
Bill

Ya, I do tend to hear overly simplistic arguments like this.  And sadly, many of these arguments come from 'Biblical scholars' who really need to study the Bible!

First of all, the Bible does not say that the "help meet" for Adam was the animals - God brought the animals to Adam to name them, and to make a point.  They were brought male and female, and in Genesis 2:20, "for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."  That was the point - to show Adam there was something missing.
So let's look at the alleged discrepency between Genesis 1 and 2.  Again, you can read both chapters for yourself first.

There's a couple of things you must understand about how the Hebrew writings worked.  Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are typical Hebrew narrative: Chapter one provides a chronological sequence of events, chapter two provides details, focusing on the creation of mankind.  They are not two separate creations, and they are in no way contradictory.  Chapter two assumes the chapter one account, and goes into details about the events of chapter one.  They are not contradictory, but rather complimentary. 

Further to this, the scriptures do not exclude God creating more animals after Adam.  However, as is noted in an excellent article on the Apologetics press website, the word for "created" can also mean "had created."  In other words, God brought the animals he had created to Adam to be named.

There is also another excellent article by Apologetics press located here which deals with the whole "documentary hypothesis" and the suggestion that chapters one and two of Genesis were authored by two different authors.
Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?


**************************************************************
5) Quick update on the museum project
Thank you so much to those of you who have chipped in to the Portable Creation Museum Project!  I'll have more of an update in the next newsletter, but I was on the road for the past month and haven't updated the website.  So far about $1,200 more has been raised - not yet enough to buy the first shipping container, at which point work will commence.  It also appears that a low-interest loan from some Christians may put it over the top to purchase the first container, so please continue to pray!

If you want to be one of the 750 people needed to donate $100, please visit the museum project page and sponsor.

**************************************************************

Subscribing and Unsubscribing:
If you received this email from a friend, and would like to subscribe yourself, click here and enter your email address into the "CSMC" subscribe box.  May I also suggest you sign up for the free "In 7 Days" crash course in creation.
If you are forwarding this email to friends, I'd suggest you strip off the unsubscribe link at the bottom here - otherwise someone else will unsubscribe YOU.  And thank you for sharing this newsletter!  It always pleases me to hear that a reader finds my humble writings worthy to be passed on to a friend of theirs.