Supra-Intellectual Faith

1. Supra-Intellectual Faith Believing God in an Intellectualized Culture Part 2

2. Supra-Intellectual Faith Believing God in an Intellectualized Culture Part 2 A culture strongly influenced by elite naturalists whose a priori belief is that there is no God. — Foolish intellectuals. — Psalms 14:1 and 53:1

3. What is Evolution? • Explaining the Universe without God • The idea that the Universe is self-originating • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213 • Evolution can take many forms, of which Darwinism is only one.

4. What is Evolution? • “The essential attribute of an evolutionary concept is that it identifies ultimate reality with the universe of matter, space, and time, rather than with the transcendent Creator of that universe.” • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.207

5. Isn’t Evolution a Modern Idea? Not at all! • One form of Pre-Darwinian Evolution was known as “The Great Chain Of Being.” • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.38 • Long ages have long been a belief of pagan religions. • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.46 • Even in Christ’s day, Greek Stoics and Epicureans believed “everything on the earth evolved directly from the earth material itself.” • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.212 • The Gnostics had similar beliefs against whom Paul wrote: • “Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.” -Romans 1:25 • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.213

6. Evolution IS Atheism Since Evolution was devised to explain our existence without God, Evolution… is fundamentally an atheistic teaching. A Christian must NOT believe in Evolution!

7. Evolution IS Atheism Evolutionist Richard Lewontin: ‘We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity…, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the…unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior…commitment to materialism. …[W]e cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ • Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons,' The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

8. What About Science? What is Science? • Study of observable, repeatable processes and events in the present. • What about the past? • We can’t observe the past. • We can only make conjecture and speculation about the past, based on experiments in the present.

9. How old is the Earth? Approximately 6000 years old • What about millions of years? • Who says? Science? No. Evolutionists! • Based on assumptions! • Appearance of age? • “But, it looks old!” • It is old! It’s 6000 years old!

10. How old is the Earth? • “No, I mean it looks millions of years old!” • How do you know what millions of years looks like? • Can you tell the difference between a six thousand year-old rock and a six million year-old rock? • Not really. We don’t have the proper frame of reference to do so.

11. How old is the Earth? Did God make the Earth look old? • No. God told us how old everything is. • If we presume it looks older than God said it is, that’s our own misinterpretation. • How can we know? (A multiple choice test:) • Perceptions and inference? • Conjecture based on interpretation? • Take the word of someone who was there. Of course, take the word of someone who was there.

12. How old is the Earth? Who was there? GOD

13. How old is the Earth? Evolutionists keep increasing the age of the earth. Since 1900, evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the earth by 100 times! Why? The more they discover, the more they realize there is not enough time to explain the implications of their hypothesis —Evolution.

14. Evolution is a Fact! Isn’t it? What about all the evidence for Evolution? Evolution • Has never been observed • Has no mechanism to make it work • Has no transitional forms We see degeneration and extinction… Not evolution.

15. Evolution is a Fact? One Evolutionist said • “‘Today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is ... nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself.’” • Keith S. Thompson (Biology professor @ Yale), “The Meanings of Evolution,”American Scientist 70, 1982 p.529, as quoted by The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24 This was 100 years after Darwin’s book that supposedly solved the problem! • It makes you wonder “…why evolutionary Biologists persist in believing in evolution at all. Where’s the evidence?” • The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p.24

16. Evolution is a Fact? • Natural Selection* • Adds no information • Evolution requires a way to add new information • Mutations (errors, corruption of what was) • Loss of information • Most are harmful, a few are neutral, no known good • Downhill process • It gets rid of information. • The only way to get the information back is to breed the species with a variety that still has the genetic information. • Evolution demonstrated today? • Simple variation of traits within existing populations • “New species” are a reduction in the gene pool *Creation Magazine, 23(3) Jun-Aug 2001 p.28-29

17. Evidence for Creation What Scientific Evidence is there for Creation? • We live in the same world as evolutionists • We have the same animals • We have the same fossils • We have the same Science • We share the same facts!

18. Evidence for Creation All facts must be interpreted! • Your interpretation will depend on your world-view. • You take your world view to the fact and come up with a story about the fact. • Creationists don’t disagree with evolutionists on science or the facts, • We disagree on the history.

19. Evidence Dating Methods • Most dating methods indicate a young earth • Fossils – contain unfossilized bone, blood cells, and sometimes soft tissue • Decay of Earth’s magnetic field • Helium in the atmosphere • If earth is as old as evolutionists say, there should be a million times more helium atoms. Helium atoms rarely escape the atmosphere. • Moon’s recession from Earth • Salt in the sea • Erosion of continents • Meteoritic dust – High in nickel, the crust should have an abundance • Many more! Evolutionists downplay these dating methods.

20. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods • C14, K-Ar, Ru-Sr, U-Pb • Date estimates by comparing element ratios • Three assumptions: • Known initial quantities • Constant decay rates • No contamination of quantities or outside influences • These assumptions cannot be known • Radiometric analysis—even from the same sample—produce inconsistent results

21. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods How does Radiometric Dating Work? Lets examine the one most people have heard about: The Carbon-14 dating method. Normal carbon is Carbon-12. It is not radioactive. In our atmosphere, there is a small, but measurable, amount of Carbon-14. It is radioactive. Carbon-14 is believed to be in a rather constant percentage to Carbon-12 in our atmosphere. Over time, the Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14.

22. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods Plants and animals absorb this carbon into themselves, and since the ratio is presumed to be constant in the atmosphere, it is presumed this ratio is the same in the organism while the organism is alive. When the organism dies, it is no longer absorbing carbon. As the Carbon-14 decays, the amount of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 gets smaller.

23. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods Scientists measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the dead organism, and by “knowing” how long it takes for the Carbon-14 to decay into Nitrogen-14, and determining how much is left, they estimate how long the organism has been dead.

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

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

26. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods When the cow dies however, it stops absorbing carbon. No more Carbon-14 gets taken into the cow. The Carbon-14 starts to decay into Nitrogen-14.

27. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods Lab researchers measure the remaining amount of Carbon-14. “Knowing” how fast Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14, they make an estimate of how long the cow has been dead.

28. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods • Remember, there are a minimum of three assumptions: • Known initial quantities: • That the ratio of the elements were the same when the sample was formed as they are today. • Constant decay rates: • That the rate of decay from one element to another was the same now as it is today. • No contamination of quantities or outside influences: • That nothing added or depleted any of the elements after the sample was formed. • These assumptions cannot be known • In a flood scenario, all three of these assumptions are questionable.

29. Evidence Radiometric Dating Methods • The Parable of the Candle http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp

30. Evidence The Fossil Record • Huge gaps between every major life form • Non-living to single cell • Single-cell to multi-cell • Invertebrate to vertebrate • Sea creatures to amphibians • Amphibians to reptiles • Reptiles to mammals • Mammals to man • And more!

31. Evidence The Fossil Record • Abrupt appearance • Fully formed • No transitions • Many living creatures identical to fossils • Creatures/plants once thought extinct are found alive • Coelacanth • Diatonyds (“extinct” rodents) • Wollemai pine • Evidence of dinosaurs contemporary with man

32. Evidence The Fossil Record • Out of place embedded rocks (Brown, 7th ed., fig.93, p.145) • Trees crossing multiple strata (Brown, 7th ed., fig.11, p.10) • Geologic column (Brown, 7th ed., #69, p.29, #69, p.77) • Non-existent over much of the earth • Not complete anywhere • Strata often incorrectly sequenced

33. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy • Comets • Should not exist. Oldest no more than 10,000 years (Brown, 7th ed., #89, p.33) • No hyperbolic orbits (Brown, 7th ed., fig.125, p.195) • Presumption of an “Oort cloud” • Completely undetectable (Brown, 7th ed., fig.125, p.195)

34. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy This is not bad science… it’s not science at all!

35. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy • Where did comets come from? • Earth! More on that in another talk Fountains of the great deep — Genesis 7:11

36. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy • Recession of the Moon • Has to be relatively “new” or • The Moon should have been long gone from Earth (Brown, 7th ed., Technical notes, pp.302-306) • Dust on the Moon • 4.6BY should have resulted in the accumulation of at least 50 feet of dust – up to nearly 600 feet – but it’s only 3/4 of an inch deep indicating a maximum age of only 7000 years. [Evolutionists have done some serious back peddling on this by revising their hypothesis on space dust to greatly reduce the expected accumulation.](Brown, 7th ed., #86, p.33)

37. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy • Sun • Faint young sun and the earth. Even 25% less heat makes a permanent deep-freeze. (Brown, 7th ed., #49, p.23) • No indication that the sun evolved or has ever been significantly different from what we see today. • Earth • Meteoritic dust should be everywhere (Brown, 7th ed.,#82, p.32) • Decay of magnetic field 50% every 1400 years. (Brown, 7th ed., #83, p.32)

38. Evidence Near-Earth Astronomy • Planets • Rotations different (some retrograde), orbits off plane. (Brown, 7th ed., #43, p.21)

39. Evidence Distant Astronomy • Supernova in 1987: SN1987a • blue dwarf* & red giant as a binary system. • Evolutionary theory would have predicted the Red Giant to collapse into itself and nova, but the blue dwarf went supernova instead. • The wrong star blew up! *Originally, the pair was described as a blue dwarf and a red giant. Since the event, they have revised the description of the one that blew up to be a “blue giant”— an unknown star type before the event.

40. Evidence Distant Astronomy • Supernova in 1987: SN1987a • Some quotes immediately after the event: • “This completely contradicts everything we have believed about stellar evolution.” • “We’ll have to start all over on our paradigm of stellar evolution.” • “All existing theories of stellar evolution are now disproved.” (ACC Astronomy course, 1987) • They have since re-written their interpretation of the facts of the event to fit their pre-existing theory.

41. Evidence Distant Astronomy • Stars and Starlight • God Stretched out the heavens • Isaiah 42.5; Isaiah 44.24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15 • Creation has no more problem with starlight than Evolution does. Let’s consider…

42. Evidence The Big BangTheory • A “red-shift” detected in stellar elements • Attributed to be similar to the Doppler effect • However, the red-shift is quantized.That is inconsistent with the hypothesis • However, God’s stretching of the heavens may explain this quantization

43. Evidence The Big BangTheory • Cosmic Background Radiation • In front of some galaxies • Predicted temperature (30°K) not found (3°K instead) • Eddington already calculated 3°K in 1926 as the temperature of space due to starlight. • Other problems (Brown, 7th ed., #55, p.70-72) • Heavy hydrogen –not mixed, comets 2x, oceans 10x (Brown, 7th ed., #27 p.27) • Order from chaos (hot gas has no information) (Brown, 7th ed., #16d, p.49) • Universe speeding up and slowing down • Rate of expansion increases with distance • Matter is clumped even on large scale • Galaxies shouldn’t exist • No Population III stars exist (hydrogen and helium)

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

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

46. Evidence The Big BangTheory “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. The strong tendency is to replace a need for more facts by conformity.” • Hoyle, et al., Nature 346:807-812, Aug.30, 1990 In other words, Big Bang is a desolate theory, and in the absence of facts about stellar evolution, the orthodoxy imposes its beliefs on researchers.

47. Evidence The Big BangTheory • The farthest galaxies, 11 billion light years away, should show us what the early universe looked like. • The light would have taken 11 BY to get here, so these distant galaxies should look young to us. • Many of the farthest galaxies still look billions of years old (by evolutionary description)! • The universe is supposedly only 13 BY old. • How did these galaxies become so “old” at a time when the universe itself was only 2 BY old?

48. Evidence Biology • [Mathematician] Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000. (1040,000 ) • Evolution from Space, 1981, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe • The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at only 10 to the 80. He called the evolution of life on earth “nonsense of a high order.” • Hoyle, F., “The Big Bang in Astronomy”, New Scientist, Nov.19, 1981 • Sir Fredrick Hoyle originated the 'Tornado through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747' example, saying that believing in evolution is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747. • Hoyle, Nature, 294(5837):105, Nov.12,1981 www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp#f3

49. Evidence Biology Did Sir Fredrick Hoyle’s conclusions lead him to believe in God? No. Sadly, he concluded life came… from outer-space!

50. Evidence Biology • In Darwin’s day people viewed living cells to be about as complex as a ping-pong ball. • Today we know that a living cell is practically a universe in itself.