[CS-FSLUG] [OT] Re: Interesting picture, creation vs. evolution

Chris Brault gginorio at sbcglobal.net
Sat Dec 3 13:34:35 CST 2005


> The dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, it is believed they died off 
> during the flood in Genesis. Carbon dating is at best very unreliable, 
> and can easily be doctored.

Levithian, mentioned in Job, is an obvious example of a dinosaur. I 
should note that Noah probably had baby dinosaurs on the ark (since they 
were land animals). That said, the average size of a dinosaur was under 
4 feet tall. The few huge monsters, as I said, probably had baby 
representatives on the ark. What does that mean? There were dinosaurs 
after the flood. Just that, as the earth cooled into the post-deluvian 
iceage, the dinosaurs couldn't survive the climate change ... atleast 
not well. I suspect that man killed off the rest.


> There are also not  even half-complete fossils of an evolving human 
> being, the only one scientists even believed they had was little more 
> than a skull and a hand as I recall and most of the parts didn't even 
> come from the same continents. Basically they fitted different bones 
> together in a way that looked like they could be fitted together. It's 
> no better than claiming that people evolved from rocks because rocks 
> can be placed together to make human-like figures (inukshuits, stone 
> statues having human figures used by the inuit).

The problem is with interpretation. Most "amazing" fossil finds of 
"human ancestors" consist of bones usually gathered from an area 
covering several square miles. In other words, a bone is found, then 
another 3 miles away, then another 3 miles in the other direction. This 
mismosh is slapped together and voila ... a human ancestor and years of 
additional university funding (hey, everyone's gotta eat).

In my personal view, I think the Nephilim had alot to do with the 
Neanderthal (larger, stronger, smarter and more flexible than regular 
humans). And since human facial bones don't stop growing, if people 
lived 500 or 600 years, imagine what their brow ridges would look like, 
or how their skulls might be shaped.

One of my favorite discoveries was the recent "soggy bones". The 
discoverer claimed them to be another species of man. When photographs 
of the people, who had become extinct some time ago, surfaced and showed 
them to be completely human, he suddenly revised his thinking.

In short, human anthropologists looking for university funding need to 
find sensational discoveries to survive. They also believe that human 
ancestors, of a certain type, were definately in their research area. 
When they find some bones that aren't an exact match for standard, 
modern humans it must be a human ancestor. If it turns out otherwise, 
who cares, their bills are paid for the next 3 years.


> I think the true facts are being as muffled as possible, if not 
> completely muted by governments and other organizations who think that 
> if they can push God under the rug they've effectively escaped him.

The fact that people are brainwashed into evolution by the schools does 
not, and did not, create a society in which naturalistic evolution 
became the majority opinion of it's citizens. You can't expect followers 
of evolution to act in a way that is against their own self interest. An 
idea can only be battled by another idea ... and there is plenty of 
evidence on our side ... but perhaps the greatest thing on our side is 
the truth and it's mouthpiece, the bible.


> The rest may already be answered in other people's replies, which I 
> intend to read since I don't know enough myself to argue all of your 
> points.

No worries. Just take a gander at AIG now and again. Read one Q&A 
article a week. You'll quickly discover the simple and plain nature of 
the truth.


> One main thing to keep in mind is that Christian research is kept out 
> of the media as much as possible, while anything having to do with 
> evolution, even if it's some guy claiming that his goldfish is 
> evolving because it survived 2 minutes more than average outside of 
> water, gets into several science magazines, TV shows, and sometimes 
> even the news as the latest undeniable proof of evolution.

Correct. Universities will make major announcements (read: psuedoevents) 
in order to garner support. Researchers will likewise do the same 
(remember: publish or perish).

The reason Creation research is kept out of major, peer reviewed 
journals, is because they have a policy against "religious" views. 
Keeping in mind that the views expressed in their journal are already 
religious (atheistic), it seems more likely that they are, once again, 
acting is their own self-interest to protect their "followers" from 
"christian" contamination. Seems strange that Christians can spend 12 
years being taught evolution  and survive, while evolution can't seem to 
stand up against the slightest rebuttal.

In responce to this exclusivity on the part of journal editors, 
accepting only views supporting their own "religion" of atheism, 
creationists have begun a number of quality, peer-reviewed, technical 
journals of their own. The most notable is "TJ" from Answers in Genesis 
and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). I used to live in San 
Diego and I am familiar with Christian Heritage College, Shadow Mountain 
Communtiy Church and ICR (all of which once shared the same campus and 
are still affiliated to this day).

The most notable project as of late was the RATE project in which 
several PhD researchers and their associates dated the Grand Canyon 
sedimentry layers and did several blind dating tests. This included 
radio halos in granite and helium in diamonds. In other words, although 
there are many Christian's working in secular labs, there are also many 
Christian's working in Christian labs as well.

No worries. God is always right.

More information about the Christiansource mailing list