Kristianslund Lederartikler
Partiets formål
Partiets grunnvoll
Partiets lover
Ledelse sentralt
Ledelse lokalt
Hvordan bli medlem?
Politisk program
Søk i nyhetsarkivet
Resultat: Side 2 av 9
Neste Side: 1 (2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mandag, Oktober 03, 2016

På grunn av flere strukturelle forandringer i Den norske kirke i eksil, er ledelsen blitt enig med Ivar Kristianslund (Master of Arts, Biblical and Theological studies) om at arbeidet på Ås utskilles som en fri og uavhengig enhet med sistnevnte som prest og leder. Navnet på den nye enheten blir Den bibel-troende norske kirke (Dbnk). Denne kirken vil ha nattverdfellesskap med Den norske kirke i eksil, selv om den er helt uavhengig av sistnevnte. Begge kirker er blitt opprettet fordi de avviser vranglæren som mer og mer har tatt overhånd i Den norske kirke.

Dbnk er en evangelisk-luthersk kirke. Den har nøyaktig samme bekjennelse som Den norske kirke er forpliktet på - og har vært forpliktet på i mer enn 300 år. (Se Christian den femtes norske lov av 1687). Det betyr at Bibelens 66 bøker er den øverste, uforanderlige og ufravikelige norm for tro, lære, bekjennelse og liv. De fem øvrige, tolkende, bekjennelsesskriftene er de tre old-kirkelige bekjennelser, Den Augsburgske bekjennelse av 1530 og Luthers lille katekisme.

Dbnk har regelmessige gudstjenester 2. hver uke på Holstad Grendehus. Disse er åpne for absolutt alle som vil komme. I tillegg til Kristianslund vil ledelsen bestå av to eldstebrødre. Leder-stilen er helt åpen med mottakelighet for forslag, fortløpende orienteringer og samtaler på gudstjenestedagene, og årlige åpne årsmøter med regnskap og årsmelding.

Tune 02.10.2016
Ivar Kristianslund
Telefon 90957002

Torsdag, Oktober 13, 2005

Klipp fra Loving the Bible to death
Creation Archive > Volume 27 Issue 4 > Loving the Bible to death

First published:
Creation 27(4):6
September 2005
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Creation Magazine

Loving the Bible to death
by Jonathan Sarfati

That atheists loathe creation ministries should surprise no-one. As Oxford evolutionist and antitheist Richard Dawkins claimed, it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist before Darwin. And since Darwin’s theory was proposed to allegedly explain life without God, undermining Darwin would undermine the atheist’s faith.

So it is mystifying that many conservative Christian Bible colleges and seminaries also seem to loathe creationists. But for those among them which are genuinely conservative, rather than liberals in conservative clothing, the answer may come from a well-meaning love for the Bible (trying to protect it from being ‘falsified by science’) that ends up undermining it.

Understanding Genesis
As our interview with Hebrew scholar Dr Ting Wang (pp. 48–51 [of this issue]) shows, the Hebrew of Genesis is clear about creation in six consecutive normal-length days, a global Flood, and that death and suffering came in with Adam’s sin. This was also the overwhelming view of the Church Fathers and Reformers.1

But around 1800, anti-Christians began teaching that the world was much older than the Bible taught. The Church responded in various ways.

A number of theological liberals (‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’) were only too happy to accept this fledgling new ‘science’.

But they fully agreed with their forebears (and today’s liberals) about what the Bible intended to say; they merely regarded the Bible’s clear statements as being disproven by science.

But the conservatives loved the Bible, and (rightly) believed that it was completely accurate. However, many were intimidated by the new long-age ‘science’, and invented ways of ‘reinterpreting’ what the Bible said, to allegedly harmonize with ‘science’. This was the origin of such ideas as the day-age notion, the gap theory, the framework hypothesis and ‘theistic evolution’.

Others, called the Scriptural Geologists, refused to ‘pretzelize’ the Bible, and challenged the assumptions of long-age geology. But most in the church found it easier to appease the long-age anti-Christians, so the Scriptural Geologists were largely ignored2 (although not refuted).

Consequence of appeasement
Far from such appeasement on Genesis history protecting the credibility of the Bible, the reverse happened. The whole Bible, with its faith and morality, came under attack. And these critics are being consistent—if the first book of the Bible needs to be twisted to fit ‘science’, why not everything else? As Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ If Jesus was wrong about earthly things (such as a recent creation (Mark 10:6–9) and a global flood (Luke 17:26–27)), was He also wrong about a heavenly thing like John 3:16, only four verses later? If not, why not?

It is no accident that churches and institutions which start rejecting Genesis history generally move on to rejecting other vital doctrines. Many churches that started by rejecting biblical authority in ‘science’ areas now have ministers who actually reject the Resurrection and Virginal Conception of Christ. After all, ‘science’ says that dead men don’t rise and virgins don’t conceive.

Reclaiming the ground
Creation magazine seeks to recover biblical authority in a number of ways. The first is to show the importance of Genesis creation. As shown on p. 43, creation is not in the same category as end-times debates and other disputes such as baptism, the Sabbath, or church governance. While important, these debates presuppose biblical authority and disagree only about its meaning. But the creation issue is about whether the Bible or ‘science’ is the authority.

True science backs the Bible, as well-qualified scientists, such as bird expert Dr Mike Tarburton (pp. 14–17), attest. The amazing design in creation defies evolutionary explanations, such as the spider’s spectacular sticky feet (pp. 54–55). And observational evidence of catastrophic burial (pp. 10–12) is consistent with the biblical Flood and an enigma for slow-and-gradual theories.

It’s no accident that God has used Creation magazine to bring many people to salvation. Why not make a subscription a Christmas gift to your friends and family?

Recommended Resources
Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, ch. 3, 2004.
Until recently—see Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, 2004.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Mandag, August 08, 2005

Should All Christians Unite with Catholics? - By Mike Gendron
Since the dawn of the new millennium we are witnessing the greatest push toward ecumenical unity the world has ever seen. The Roman Catholic Church is fervently building bridges to all Christian denominations. Through the dedicated efforts of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is urging all professing Christians to return home to Rome. Dialogues and accords have been initiated and created to seek unity through common beliefs. An example of this is the 1999 Lutheran-Roman Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." In the declaration, Rome uses equivocal and ambiguous words to affirm agreement on the doctrine of "justification by faith alone." but, at the same time, continues the anathema’s on all whom believe this doctrine. We must not be misled. Rome has not changed its position on things that really matter! Instead they continue to take advantage of professing Christians who lack discernment or who are unwilling to contend for "the faith."
The key to the success of this unity effort has been a commitment to "love one another and tolerate one another’s beliefs." The proposal for all Christians to ignore their doctrinal differences for the sake of unity completely overlooks the fact that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant churches preach a false gospel that denies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and His finished work of redemption.

This ecumenical movement has provided fertile ground to rebuild the religious tower of Babel. Multitudes are being influenced by perverted gospels, doctrines of demons and false teachers. Many more are being persuaded by highly visible evangelicals to join the crusade. It is no surprise the Roman Catholic Church has been the driving force behind this ecumenical movement. Since the close of Vatican Council II in 1965 Rome has been courting those she once called "heretics" by renaming them "separated brethren." No longer able to force people to submit to its popes under the threat of death and persecution, the Vatican has changed its strategy to win the world. Wearing a new face of love and concern for these "separated brethren," she is now offering them the "fullness of salvation" upon their return to the "one true church."

With so many professing Christians jumping on the ecumenical bandwagon, there is evidence of the spirit of Antichrist at work building his one-world religion. Propelling the movement are church leaders who fail to warn their congregations of the great apostasy and increased deception during the last days. Instead of church leaders hating everything false, many are tolerating false doctrines and counterfeit gospels (Psalm 119:104, 128). Instead of church leaders exposing the prevailing doctrines and agents of compromise, many are enduring them.

Tragically, many pulpits are also incredibly silent regarding the numerous scriptural warnings against being yoked with unbelievers. As under-shepherds of the flocks entrusted to them, pastors must warn their sheep of the dangers of ecumenical unity. Jesus and His disciples never tolerated unity without the foundation of biblical truth. Time after time zealous religious leaders, with their own agendas, were strongly rebuked:

• Jesus did not join hands with the religious leaders who shut off the kingdom of heaven from men (Matt. 23:13).

• Paul did not unite with the Judaizers who only wanted to add circumcision to the Gospel (Gal. 1).

• Jude refused to cooperate with those who crept in unaware to pervert the grace of God (Jude 4).

• John did not seek to establish unity with those "who went out from us because they were never really of us" (1 John 2:19).

• Peter never joined hands with the false teachers who had forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15).

• The writer to the Hebrews never united with those who would ignore such a great salvation (Hebrews 2:3).

In light of the "cloud of witnesses set before us" one must wonder why some evangelicals ignore the lessons of Scripture by embracing the false gospel of Roman Catholicism. Surely they are not ignorant of their numerous anathemas that condemn born again Christians! Surely they are not ignorant of the many additional requirements Rome has added to the gospel of salvation. Could they be so easily persuaded by the Catholic Church’s worldly influence, incredible wealth, one billion followers and a leader that is so loved by the world?

How are Christians to protect themselves in the midst of the religious deception so prevalent in the world today? The Bible exhorts us to test every teaching. We are warned not to believe every spirit because many false prophets have gone out into the world. It is only by God’s Word that we can know the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1,6).

We are to be like the Bereans who examined the Scriptures daily to verify the truthfulness of the Apostle Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11). If Paul, who wrote over half the New Testament was tested, it stands to reason that every priest, pope, prophet, or preacher should also be examined in light of God’s Holy Word.

So what are we to do with the false teachers within Christendom? We are not to partake in their endeavors but to expose their false teachings (Eph. 5:6,11). With gentleness, we are to correct those who are in error in hopes that God may grant them repentance leading to the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). Those who "profess to know God but by their deeds they deny Him" must be exposed and silenced so others will not be deceived. (Titus 1:9-16). Those who do not listen to apostolic teaching are not from God. We are commanded to separate from those who persist in false teaching (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10). For some, this may mean finding another church; for others, it may mean withholding support from ministries that continue to compromise the Gospel.

As end time deception increases and more and more people are led into apostasy, we must contend fervently for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude v. 3). As more Christian leaders seek the approval of men rather than God, the way of truth will become more narrow and less traveled. Those who remain faithful will be persecuted for refusing to compromise (2 Tim. 2:12). They will be accused of being intolerant, unloving and narrow minded. But we must always be mindful of the warnings of the apostles—if we do not separate from false teachers we could be disqualified for service (2 Tim. 2:20), become identified with them and their error (2 John 10-11), or risk being partakers of their fate. (Jude vv. 11-13).

As church leaders continue to teach partial truths and tolerate doctrinal error the body of Christ must take action. We must avoid the rebuke Paul gave to the Corinthian church. He wrote: "I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough" (2 Cor. 11:3-4). As the ecumenical movement grows in popularity within the church, we must accept the fact that contending for doctrinal purity will be an unpopular position to pursue. Yet it is indeed what we are called to do! By pointing out false doctrine and practices, we will be good servants of Christ Jesus as we are nourished by His word and sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6). Upholding truth can, and will be divisive within the church, but division is sometimes good for the church. Occasionally it is necessary to show which ones are approved of God (1 Cor. 11:19).

Those who contend for the purity of the Gospel are often criticized for quibbling over things that don’t appear to be that significant. However, contenders for the faith realize that the most dangerous lie is the lie which most closely resembles the truth. Conversely, ecumenists consider anything that appears close to the truth as an opportunity for unity. Thus they embrace the false gospel of Catholicism because it is the most clever of all counterfeits.

In these days of apostasy, the body of Christ needs to boldly and courageously proclaim the whole counsel of God and expose as error everything that opposes it. May God give all His servants the grace, power, discernment and courage to be contenders for the faith.

The author of this article is a former Roman Catholic. Bill

Onsdag, Juni 08, 2005

Klipp fra Be ready, be equipped … to give an answer to a skeptical world
Be ready, be equipped … to give an answer to a skeptical world
Don’t miss the 2005 Creation Mega Conference

by Angela Franulovich, Liberty University student

May 31, 2005

What do you get when 25 of the world’s top creation researchers and apologists converge to equip Christians to defend the truth of God’s Word in a culture saturated with naturalism and marred by compromise?

“History in-the-making,” said Answers in Genesis president, Ken Ham.

The 2005 Creation Mega Conference, scheduled for July 17–22 at Liberty University, is an “important event in Church history—in the history of this nation—at a time when even the secular world is recognizing that creation/evolution is at the heart of the culture wars,” Ham said.

Every major newspaper in the country has covered the origins controversy during the past six months, spurred by court battles over textbook stickers, state science curricula revisions, and recently the decision of several IMAX theaters to refuse to air documentaries that allude to evolution.

The Washington Post reported in March that policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution.

“If Americans would take a vocal, uncompromised stand on creation, it would change the entire nation—you’d see people come to the Lord like never before. It would affect the whole world,” Ham explained.

Quoting the prophet Hosea, Ham said that God’s people suffer from a “lack of knowledge.” And knowledge, imparted by some of the best-known creation apologists in the world, is what the conference is slated to provide.

The five-day series, which is co-sponsored by Answers in Genesis and Liberty University, in conjunction with the Creation Research Society, Master Books, the International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, and The Old Schoolhouse magazine boasts two tracks within a comprehensive array of scientific disciplines. A basic track will be provided for ages 12 and up, making it easy for the entire family to attend, while an advanced track will offer more in-depth lectures.

Dr. David DeWitt, director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University, said of the conference speakers: “These are the world’s leading experts. I don’t think there has ever been a more impressive line-up … so I’m humbled to be included among the speakers.”

Among the lecturers will be Dr. John Whitcomb, whose book The Genesis Flood is considered by many to have ignited the modern creationist movement, as well as scientists who have authored the mainstay of modern creation apologia, such as The Answers Book, Refuting Evolution, In the Beginning Was Information, Stones and Bones, and One Blood.

Also slated for the conference is Dr. Russell Humphreys whose proposed cosmology, outlined in the book Starlight and Time, is considered by many to be “ground-breaking,” as well as Buddy Davis, whose team documented unfossilized dinosaur bones in Alaska.

Now more than ever, Christians need to be equipped to defend their faith by providing answers to life’s toughest questions. In today’s secular world, it’s important that Christians know how to recognize and reject scientific-sounding arguments and biblical reinterpretations that undermine the authority of God’s Word.

“It comes down to this,” DeWitt said. “If you can’t trust the Bible’s history—what’s your basis for John 3:16?”

So, how do you reach a world that has given up believing the Bible’s history? By being informed, equipped, and ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15) in this skeptical age. And that is exactly what the 2005 Creation Mega Conference is designed to do. You won’t want to miss this life-changing event!

Register by June 10 for an opportunity to win the new Answers Academy teaching resource (13-part DVD-based curriculum). Special rates are available for students, pastors and groups of 10 or more. The regular rates are as follows:

Single – $150

Couple – $250

Family – $350

All evening sessions during the event are free and open to the public.

For more information, or to register for the conference, visit the 2005 Creation MEGA Conference webpage at

Good News About us Contact us Privacy policy

Home Get Answers Store Events Creation Education Media Radio Creation Museum Support

Chinese Danish French German Greek Hungarian Italian Japanese Korean Russian Spanish

Copyright © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Onsdag, Mai 25, 2005

Klipp fra Radiometric dating breakthroughs
Creation Archive > Volume 26 Issue 2 > Radiometric dating breakthroughs

First published:
Creation 26(2):42–44
March 2004
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Creation Magazine

Radiometric dating breakthroughs
by Carl Wieland, Australia

A few years ago, some leading creationist geologists and physicists began a detailed research project into Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth (RATE). This RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society of USA (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG).1

With the release of key peer-reviewed papers at the 2003 ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites
When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.

Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.

By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)

However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.

Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.

The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

More surprises on radiocarbon
Another dramatic breakthrough concerns radiocarbon. It’s long been known that radiocarbon (i.e. carbon-14, or 14C) keeps popping up reliably in samples (of coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. However, with the short half-life of 14C it should decay to zero in only some tens of thousands of years at the most.5 For instance, AiG has, over the years, commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. samples with Jurassic fossils, samples inside Triassic sandstone, and samples burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and TJ—the in-depth journal of creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. 14C was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate 14C further, building on the literature reviews of creationist physician Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.6 The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable 14C levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years. (When one takes into account the probability that before the Flood the ratio of radioactive to ‘normal’ carbon was much lower,7 the calculated age comes right down into the biblical ‘ballpark’.)

Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have 14C present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of 14C. This suggests that some 14C was primordial (existing from the very beginning), and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.

This appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent five diamonds to be analyzed for 14C. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—14C was present. The diamonds, formed deep inside the earth, are assumed by evolutionists to be over a billion years old. Nevertheless they contained radioactive carbon, even though, if the billion-year age were correct, they ‘shouldn’t have’.

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably strong lattice bonds (that’s why it’s the hardest substance known), so subsequent atmospheric or biological contamination should not find its way into the interior.

The diamonds’ carbon-dated ‘age’ of about 58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. Again, this is entirely consistent with helium diffusion results reported above, which indicate the upper limit is in fact substantially less.8,9

14C workers have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have 14C. Labelling this detectable 14C with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The 14C is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old!

The 14C results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results. It looks like 2003 was a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.

References and notes
AiG’s contribution was mostly providing the expertise of geologist Dr Andrew Snelling; however, when he commenced work with ICR, the project rightly reverted to a joint project of ICR/CRS.
Snelling, A.A., The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia, TJ 9(1):71–92, 1995.
Walker, T., The Somerset Dam igneous complex, south-east Queensland, Honours thesis [1st class Honours or Summa cum laude awarded], Department of Earth Sciences, University of Queensland, 1998.
Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, , 16 October 2003.
Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of 14C should be present after 250,000 years.
Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, , 16 October 2003.
Factors which would lower the ratio: (1) more 12C in the biosphere due to the much greater amount of plant and animal life on the planet, (2) possibly less 14C production due to stronger magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays better, (3) 14C formed by cosmic rays started building up at creation, and in only 1,600 years before the Flood would not have reached equilibrium.
Chaffin, E., Accelerated decay: Theoretical models, in: Ivey, R.L., Jr., Ed., Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 3–15, August 2003; , 16 October 2003.
This burst of accelerated decay would be expected to have a greater effect, proportionately, the longer the half-life. Compared to the effect on a uranium isotope with a half-life of billions of years, the effect of speeded-up decay on 14C, with its half-life of the order of 5,000 years, would be much less, which would explain why there is still some of this primordial 14C left. Other papers by RATE scientists at the 2003 ICC dealt with theoretical grounds for accelerated decay and also gave further supportive evidence from isochron dates for this varying effect. I.e. ‘good’ isochrons obtained for different decay chains within the same rock sample, which should have all registered the same ‘date’, varied from one another indicating a greater effect on longer half-life isotopes. See Snelling, A.A. et al., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method, in: Ivey, R.L., Jr., Ed., Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 269–284, August 2003; .

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Mandag, Mai 23, 2005

Klipp fra Feedback for the week of May 16, 2005. What’s the problem with theistic evolution? Klikk på overskriften.
Feedback for the week of May 16, 2005

What’s the problem with theistic evolution?

Your arguments in the section on theistic evolution are muddled, but I am open to learning more. In my view, evolution is a highly visible aspect of creation. According to the vast majority of biologists, evolutionary theory is absolutely central to biology’s understanding of the miracle of physical life. But evolutionary theory does no disrespect to God, and the spirit of inquiry that bore it is a divine gift. The physical world must be as it is because God wanted it that way, whether or not God did most of His work of creation all at once or over a much longer haul. Far be it from me to tell Him how to do His work.

Modern biology explains quite a lot, but its explanations only go so far. Science only attempts describe and explain those observable phenomena that it can describe and explain, and the rest is left to God. That leaves God at the helm, hardly in the gaps. The beauty of quantum physics is that it suggests how God could be there, everywhere, all the time, within the things we can’t see or measure. Yet miraculously the physical world behaves with striking consistency and predictability, as if God established physical laws so that they could operate without continuous divine intervention, if He ever so desired. Science is only about testing concepts that are testable.

What’s the big problem if a day in Genesis was longer than 24 hours? A day is merely how long it takes for the earth to rotate. God’s schedule might be different from ours. Mistranslations from ancient to modern languages occurred frequently. What language did God use when he dictated the Bible? What’s the problem if creation unfolded gradually or if creation’s consciousness of itself, morality, God and Divine purpose evolved slowly. What is so frightening about trusting in God by living with some uncertainty in these areas? The unquestioning devotion to a single, rigid interpretation of scripture seems like a sign of weak faith, and plainly has caused much intolerance and persecution throughout history. Can God be reduced to words? If God was clever enough to challenge us by creating a universe with the physical appearance of expanding over eons, then why not allow that He could have placed hidden or indirect meanings in scripture? The Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, so why couldn’t it be wrong about other aspects of the physical world, as well?

G.N., MD


Your arguments in the section on theistic evolution are muddled,
Is there any particular argument you have in mind, and why?

but I am open to learning more.
A good place to start is actually to study what you’re criticizing.

In my view, evolution is a highly visible aspect of creation. According to the vast majority of biologists, evolutionary theory is absolutely central to biology’s understanding of the miracle of physical life.
First, truth is not decided by majority vote. Secondly, while the vast majority may pay lip service to the importance of evolution (that’s if they are really talking about goo-to-you transformism as opposed to mere change), in reality most of them conduct their research without any mention of it. See this admission from an evolutionist and the articles Evolution and practical science and Is evolution really necessary for medical advances?

But evolutionary theory does no disrespect to God, and the spirit of inquiry that bore it is a divine gift.
This newfound respect for ‘God’ seems disingenuous after G.N.’s previous diatribe against ‘religiosity’. This is aside from what we pointed out about the self-refuting characteristic of ascribing the origin of beliefs to Darwinian mechanisms (i.e. it means his belief in Darwinism is likewise due to mutation and selection for survival, not because it necessarily corresponded to reality).

However, we are seeing more and more of this disingenuity. E.g. the rabid anti-theist Richard Dawkins is infamous for saying that Darwinian evolution made it “possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”, and had utter contempt for those who claimed that god might be behind evolution. But recently he has urged evolutionists to team up with bishops who support evolution. Of course, Dawkins realizes that a god being somehow behind evolution differs in no practical way from evolution working by itself. See also the parable of the horse and the tractor.

Dr William Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University reinforced this:

‘… belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’ [in ‘No free will’; in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999.]

(Of course, if there is no free will, in the sense of voluntarily initiating thought, then it follows that Provine really couldn’t help believing this! Rather, his beliefs are fully determined by deterministic laws of brain chemistry.)

Another atheistic anti-creationist, Eugenie Scott, who has won humanist awards for her campaigns, has also said

‘I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist. I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!’ [Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology]

However, Christians should not be surprised at such disingenuity from atheists. They are being consistent with their belief that our sense of morality has merely evolved for some sort of survival advantage, rather than because there is objective right and wrong. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) puts in the mouth of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, “Without God, everything is permissible; crime is inevitable.” So when Christians debate atheists, we should heed the warning of the 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men” [meant inclusively in those days] (Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 249). And please check Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation for what we are saying about atheists and morality to understand the moral argument—we don’t claim that atheists can’t be moral, but that they have no objective basis for their moral claims.

The physical world must be as it is because God wanted it that way, whether or not God did most of His work of creation all at once or over a much longer haul. Far be it from me to tell Him how to do His work.
This sounds very pious, but true piety involves actually believing what God has told us—He did his work (creation) in six days. See Did God really take six days? and ‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’

Modern biology explains quite a lot, but its explanations only go so far. Science only attempts describe and explain those observable phenomena that it can describe and explain, and the rest is left to God. That leaves God at the helm, hardly in the gaps.
The ‘God of the gaps’ view is a straw man. As creationists we never seek miraculous intervention in the gaps in normal ‘operation science’. Rather, we use the basic scientific principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Note that this is not based on a lack of knowledge, but squarely on what we do know about complex specified information and the laws of chemistry that refute chemical evolutionary ideas of origin of life.

The beauty of quantum physics is that it suggests how God could be there, everywhere, all the time, within the things we can’t see or measure.
Is this now the ‘god of the quantum gaps’ advocated by the theistic anti-creationist Kenneth Miller? I actually wonder whether Miller or this critic actually understand quantum physics (an important part of my own Ph.D. research).

Yet miraculously the physical world behaves with striking consistency and predictability, as if God established physical laws so that they could operate without continuous divine intervention, if He ever so desired. Science is only about testing concepts that are testable.
Once again, this misunderstands the difference between origin and operational science which we have explained in detail. We have also cited the succinct thoughts of philosopher and apologist J.P. Moreland:

‘But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don’t understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God’s usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.’ [Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226, 1989.]

What’s the big problem if a day in Genesis was longer than 24 hours?
Quite simple—it denies the time length that God told us He took, not only in Genesis but in Exodus 20:8–11 with the giving of the Ten Commandments. And God inspired the Bible to teach us (2 Timothy 3:15–17), but if words in a certain context don’t have a definite meaning, then how can we learn what He wants? Dr Marcus Dods, a liberal theologian and Hebrew expert, said

‘If the word “day” in this chapter [Genesis 1] does not mean a period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless’ (see Did God really take six days?).

A day is merely how long it takes for the earth to rotate.
Now you have the right idea! So it does not mean billions of years in the context of Genesis 1 (with evening and morning plus a numeric)—did the earth take billions of years to rotate once on its axis some time in the past?

God’s schedule might be different from ours.
I’d like to thank you for the May 6 Feeback Response. When frequenting Internet message boards, it is not uncommon to come across individuals posting in a manner similar to that of the writer of that particular submission. Responding to such missives is often an exercise in frustration, as it is difficult to separate the personal attacks and unpleasant tone from the actual (usually scattershot) content. The update writer handled himself with a great deal of restraint and responded with precision to each charge leveled against both God as well as the church. Thank you for showing me it can be done.

David Ruic

Again, how could God teach us if words didn’t mean the same to God and man? A reductio ad absurdum of this idea is to consider any other word in Scripture. Perhaps what God meant by ‘steal’ or ‘murder’ in the Decalogue isn’t what man means either? After all, this was a ‘special case’ where God wrote with His own finger. And since Jesus is God and He was in the grave for three days, were these days not literal either? This whole approach is existentialist nonsense.

Also, God doesn’t even need a schedule, because He is outside time! Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from our perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time.

Mistranslations from ancient to modern languages occurred frequently.
Then please inform us of some examples (even one?), demonstrating this from the original languages? After all, it’s illogical to claim that a mistranslation has occurred unless you can show what the correct translation should be.

What language did God use when he dictated the Bible?
Dictation is a straw man. Rather, we have cited theologians who pointed out

‘… inspiration is … God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.’ [Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Moody Press, Chicago, p. 38, 1972.]

In answer to your presumed question, God inspired the Old Testament in Hebrew (with a few Aramaic parts) and the New Testament in Greek. And these languages have been very well studied.

What’s the problem if creation unfolded gradually
The problem, as we have often pointed out, is that this is not what God told us He did. And we have also pointed out the atheistic Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod said

‘[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms … The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.’ [The Secret of Life, broadcast interview, 10 June 1978.]

See also Some questions for theistic evolutionists—as you should have already checked according to our feedback rules.

or if creation’s consciousness of itself, morality, God and Divine purpose evolved slowly.
This is a false panentheistic ‘god’ of your own making, not the Sovereign Creator of biblical Christianity.

What is so frightening about trusting in God by living with some uncertainty in these areas?
It is illogical to prefer uncertainty to certainty. Would you cross a bridge if the engineer was uncertain whether it could hold your weight? Fortunately, there are no relativists in engineering!

The unquestioning devotion to a single, rigid interpretation of scripture
But this is absurd. A single, rigid (as you put it) interpretation is essential for communication. Perhaps as an MD, when you prescribe 30 units of insulin for a diabetic, it would be OK for him not to hold to a single, rigid interpretation of your prescription. Instead, should he be free to interpret insulin as ibuprofen, or 30 units as 3,000 units?

seems like a sign of weak faith,
Au contraire, it is a strong faith to trust what God has revealed and oppose the majority opinion of one’s fellows.

and plainly has caused much intolerance and persecution throughout history.
This is a revisionist view of history and also a revisionist meaning of “intolerance”. Tolerance really means being civil to someone you disagree with. But this presupposes that there are different viewpoints, and that some things are objectively right and others wrong—for a start, that toleration is right and intolerance wrong!

But now ‘tolerance’ has been twisted to mean that all views are equally valid. Of course, this is except the view that some views are right and other views are wrong—this must not be tolerated because all views must be tolerated (liberal advocates of the new ‘tolerance’ don’t exactly have logic as a strong suit).

Also note the persecution that has come from the evolutionary Nazi and Communist régimes last century, far outweighing all the religious persecution from all centuries combined.

Can God be reduced to words?
It would be better to propose an actual argument rather than resort to cheap slogans. How can we know what God is like, except from the words He has used to reveal His attributes? How do you propose separating God’s Word from who He is, without making him a liar? The Creator Jesus is the Word (John 1:1-3), and He said, ‘the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ (John 6:63). And He said

‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’ (Luke 9:23).

Of course that does not mean that words are fully adequate to reveal the glory of God in all its majesty, but that is because of our limited ability to understand as mere mortals, not because God has not communicated accurately.

If God was clever enough to challenge us by creating a universe with the physical appearance of expanding over eons,
This is begging the question—assuming something that requires demonstration. God has done no such thing—these eons are the result of interpreting certain physical data under a naturalistic paradigm that rejects what He has told us plainly. See also The earth: how old does it look? and the Parable of the Candle.

then why not allow that He could have placed hidden or indirect meanings in scripture?
Because He inspired the words of the Bible to teach us, not trick us. That’s why Jesus repeatedly said, ‘It is written’, not ‘it is encoded’. You might also like to consider the following passages that indicate that God generally wrote Scripture with straightforward meanings:

2 Corinthians 4:2
‘Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.’

In context the ‘truth’ is God’s Word and Jesus confirms it is in John 17:17.

Proverbs 8:8–9
‘All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.’

The Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, so why couldn’t it be wrong about other aspects of the physical world, as well?
Actually, this is more revisionism as we explain in Q&A: Galileo. In short, you are claiming that the church should adopt the scientific consensus today (on evolution and long ages). But you castigate the church of four centuries ago for adopting the scientific consensus of its day, i.e. Aristotelian/Ptolemaic astronomy. Note that Galileo’s main opposition came from the scientists at the universities, while he and the other pioneers of geokinetic astronomy—Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, were all young-earth creationists!

G.N., MD

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Brisbane, Australia

Onsdag, Mai 11, 2005

KLIPP FRA We’ve invaded their “temple”! Humanists are on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!
We’ve invaded their “temple”!
Humanists are on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!

by Ken Ham, president AiG–USA

First published in
Answers Update–USA
May 2005

Almost every time there’s news in the secular press about Answers in Genesis, the reporter will mock the fact that we believe dinosaurs and humans have lived at the same time.

Indeed, evolutionists absolutely hate it when AiG uses dinosaurs to proclaim the falsity of the idea of evolution and the truth of the history in Genesis. Nearly every secular reporter who visits the AiG Creation Museum (under construction west of Cincinnati) seems perplexed as to why we’re including dinosaurs—and they often express amazement that we would even dare to do so. And so when their TV or newspaper report comes out, there it is again: a mocking statement about dinosaurs and humans together.

Children and adults alike are fascinated by these creatures. Unfortunately, most people equate dinosaurs with millions of years and the evolution belief system. Dinosaurs have become almost icons for evolutionary teaching—they’re treated as sacred “gods” that belong only to evolutionists for their purpose of indoctrinating generations in secular humanism.

This has occurred because the church—by and large—handed dinosaurs over to the “world” when they abandoned the literal history so clearly communicated in Genesis and allowed belief in millions of years and evolutionary ideas (like the big bang) to be taught to generations.

Well, we want to put the evolutionary secular humanists on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!

For example, when you walk into the future Creation Museum, you’ll see animatronic dinosaurs and children together—you’ll find dinosaurs throughout the early segments of the museum’s walk-through biblical history—and you’ll see them in books found in our museum gift store.

To the humanists: we have invaded your evolutionary temples, and we have gone into your “holy of holies.” We have captured the dinosaurs … and we’re taking them back to give them their rightful place in history! They don’t belong to you!

And no, it’s not ridiculous to believe dinosaurs and people lived at the same time (as the Bible makes very clear)—it’s ridiculous and illogical not to! Consider the two signs pictured from one of Australia’s wildlife sanctuaries.

Think about it: according to evolutionary time, crocodiles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs1—and yet, humans live with crocodiles today. So why is it ridiculous to think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time?

But it’s not just crocodiles—there are many other examples. On AiG’s website, there’s an article that quotes a leading evolutionist who said that finding a certain tree in Australia was like finding a “live dinosaur” (see Sensational Australian tree … like “finding a live dinosaur”). The article explained

This is because the tree, nicknamed the Wollemi pine, is known from fossils classed as so-called Jurassic age around 150 million years ago, but not from fossils in rocks of later periods.

Humans and the Wollemi pine tree live today, and yet from an evolutionary perspective, the Wollemi pine dates back to the “time of the dinosaurs.” That’s why the evolutionist called it the “dinosaur tree.”

While we don’t find fossils of the Wollemi pine tree and humans together, we do know they live together—because both are alive today.

In another AiG web article, Dr. David Catchpoole states

A recent New Scientist article ponders an enigma to evolutionists—“living fossils.” These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilized forms, believed to have lived “millions of years ago.” Examples include … crocodiles (140 million years).2

Why then would it be so ridiculous to think that dinosaurs also lived beside humans but have died out in recent times? Even the news in March 2005 of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is consistent with this (see Still soft and stretchy).

And of course there’s a lot of other interesting evidence, such as dragon legends, the description of Behemoth in Job 40, Indian petroglyphs that look like dinosaurs3 and so on.

Nothing in observational science contradicts the obvious conclusion based on the Bible’s history:

Dinosaurs were created alongside man around 6,000 years ago.

Representative kinds of them were on Noah’s Ark.

Most dinosaur fossils are from the Flood (about 4,500 years ago).

Dinosaurs lived beside man after the Flood, but like lots of other animals and plants, have become extinct since that time.

No, as we will proclaim in our Creation Museum, it’s not ridiculous to believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. In fact, it’s the most logical belief based upon the Scriptures and the fossils!

More and more ground is being captured every day. Yes, we’re reclaiming what rightfully belongs to the God of creation!

Fossils shed light on sea turtle evolution, Animal Planet News,, Feb. 24, 2005. Return to text.
Catchpoole, D., “Living fossils” enigma, Creation 22(2):56, March 2000. Return to text.
Swift, D., Messages on stone, Creation 19(2):20–23, March 1997. Return to text.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Onsdag, Februar 09, 2005

Klipp fra Telegraphing the wrong message
Telegraphing the wrong message
by Ken Ham, president, AiG–USA

February 5, 2005

As the world’s largest apologetics organization, Answers in Genesis is frequently interviewed by secular reporters. In fact, there has been an international reporting frenzy as a result of a recent federal court case on how evolution and alternative theories should be taught in public schools. Even though we had nothing to do with the case, the media have been calling us.

We often grimace when we see the secular media’s final reports. While some just report the facts and manage to get it right, most either come with an agenda that is overtly biased against Christians (See Jonathan Sarfati’s article, Time and Newsweek blatantly attack Christian doctrine) or they just don’t understand what we believe.

Recently an article appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, “In the beginning … Adam walked with dinosaurs,” that was probably one of the worst pieces of journalism we’ve seen in a while. This reporter either didn’t hear what we were saying or had an agenda. The article also shows you the confusion that’s out there concerning creationist beliefs.

Here is Ken’s point-by-point critique of the article (the article is indented):

With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America’s newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park.
I wouldn’t really call the museum a tourist attraction. I believe it will attract people and tourists, but it’s really a teaching center. It’s meant to engage the culture and engage the society. The museum teaches … it’s got a message ... it’s a walk through history. There will be some entertaining aspects to it, but it’s primarily a place to teach people a very important message and to challenge them.

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky,
We call it a Creation Museum, which is really just the name. It not only has the account of creation, but it also has the whole history of the world, as recorded in Genesis, leading up to the message of the Cross.

They said the museum would open this spring. But what I told them was that we are hopeful the whole museum will open in the spring 2007 and that, by mid-year of 2005, we should be able to open the planetarium, lobby, bookstore and café.

will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.
The museum is meant to be an outreach to both Christians and non-Christians. It’s an outreach to the whole culture—to challenge non-Christians with the message that the Bible’s history is true and therefore it’s message of the gospel and morality is true. The museum is meant to challenge Christians who have compromised with millions of years and evolutionary ideas. It’s also to teach and equip Christians to defend their faith in today’s secular world.

It aims to promote the view that man was created in his present shape by God, as the Bible states,
Now wait a minute—I didn’t say that! The whole universe is suffering from 6,000 years of sin and the Curse. We get diseases—we get old and die. We weren’t created like this. We were created perfect originally, but we’re suffering from 6,000 years of the Curse.

rather than by a Darwinian process of evolution, as scientists insist.
Note the phrase “as scientists insist.” What this person is trying to do here is to say, “If you believe in evolution, that’s science,” and “if you believe in what these people believe, that’s not science.” But that’s not true. We have real scientists, like Dr. Jason Lisle, on staff. He was granted his Ph.D. in astrophysics by evolutionists at a well-known secular university. They agreed—he did real science.

There are many scientists who believe that God created the universe in six literal days, six thousand years ago. In fact, we have a number of scientists on staff in the U.S., Australia, and England, and many in the secular world, who agree with us. We’re going to teach lots of real science throughout the museum—the science of genetics, natural selection, information, geology and so on. I tried to explain to this reporter that it’s not science versus the Bible. We all believe the same operational science in the present. It’s a debate between two beliefs about origins, and scientists who believe the Bible can show how science confirms the Bible’s history.

Even when you explain this to reporters, they either don’t understand or don’t want to understand because they already have an agenda.

The centerpiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs,
Although the dinosaur models will certainly be a spectacular part of the museum, I wouldn’t call the model dinosaurs “the centerpiece.” Not all the dinosaurs will be huge, either. The life-size model dinosaurs will be all sorts of different sizes—from the size of a sheep to 40 feet long.

built by the former head of design at Universal Studios,
The dinosaurs were not built by the former head of design at Universal Studios—they were built by Buddy Davis. Patrick Marsh, the design director for the Creation Museum, was not the former head of design at Universal Studios. He was the art director who did the scenic design for “Jaws” and “King Kong” at Universal Studios in Florida, USA.

which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.
Here it is again—if you believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, that’s science. Obviously, the reporter has a bias and an agenda. But who was there millions of years ago to see these things? That’s one of the things I tried to explain to him—the difference between operational science (what you can observe, repeat, and test in the present) and your beliefs concerning the past.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah’s Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.
These aren’t just images—they’re actual sculptures of Adam and Eve. We’ll have more than just a model of Noah’s Ark. We’re going to show all sorts of phases of the Ark’s construction.

The planetarium is going to show much more than just how God created the universe, including the Earth, in six days. It’s going to have a variety of programs on the stars and the universe, including powerful arguments against billions of years and the big bang theory. It will also show the glory of God as we look at the universe.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million
Our budget for the Creation Museum is $25 million, including the building and all its exhibits. Our exhibits (over 42 major exhibit spaces) will cost about $10 million. Actually, $25 million is not much when you consider other museums and theme parks that would spend millions on just one exhibit.

For instance, the budget for the “Jaws attraction” at Universal Studios in Florida, USA cost $22 million in 1999. The Spiderman attraction at Universal Studios recently cost over $100 million.

A little closer to home is the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their total costs came to $110 million for the 158,000-square-foot-complex. And their exhibit area is actually not that much different from ours. But we’re going to have some unique elements, such as animated dinosaurs and waterfalls. We are actually able to keep our costs down through our volunteers and doing things in-house. Our budget for the whole museum is extraordinary low for the quality and number of exhibits.

will be the world’s first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory.
Of course, I can understand the secular world calling it a theory, but we would say it’s devoted to biblical history and true operational science.

It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America’s most prominent creationist organizations.
Answers in Genesis hasn’t been set up by me. Certainly, I’ve had the vision for this, but it’s all the people who have come to be a part of the organization that are making this happen.

I’m not an evangelist—I was teacher in Australia. While I’m certainly the CEO of Answers in Genesis, it’s actually run by a leadership team that includes Mark Looy, Mike Zovath, Kathy Ellis, Carl Kerby, Jim Hatton, John Pence, and Dale Mason. We also have a board of directors that meets several times a year.

He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park’s striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.
I don’t understand how he could say that the Creation Museum is a theme park when I have never called it a theme park nor would I ever.

The statement about converting people to the view that God created dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is somewhat misleading. I explained to him that the most important thing we’re doing is helping people understand the credibility of the Bible. If its history in Genesis is true, then the rest is true.

There is an emphasis by the secular world (and I find this a lot) to look at us and say, “These are the people that believe God created in six days, 6,000 years ago.” We believe these things, but that’s not what I said is the aim of the museum. I said the primary aim is to convert people to Christianity.

“We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs,” said Mr. Ham.
What I said was that, when people come into the lobby, they will immediately be confronted with dinosaurs and people together, a challenge to their evolutionary assumptions.

“It’s going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by the professionalism of this place. It is not going to be done in an amateurish way. We are making a statement.”
The statement we are making is that the Bible is true—you can trust it. And they did actually get it right that it will be a “first class experience.”

The museum’s main building was completed recently, and work on the entrance exhibit starts this week. The first phase of the museum, which lies on a 47-acre site 10 miles from Cincinnati on the border of Kentucky and Ohio, will open in the spring.
I told them we trust the museum will open in the spring of 2007 and that we hope to open the planetarium, lobby, and café in the middle of this year (2005).

Market research companies hired by the museum are predicting at least 300,000 visitors in the first year, who will pay $10 each.
Our market research certainly indicated that. We actually believe there could be as many as 600,000 or more visitors in the first year, based on the support and interest we see in the museum.

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will “gape” at the bones of dinosaurs that “hint of a terrible catastrophe,” according to the museum’s publicity.
Saying Grand Canyon was formed by swirling waters of the Great Flood is misrepresenting what the creationists believe. (See A canyon in six days!) Also, dinosaur bones are not associated with the Grand Canyon.

Mr. Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah’s Ark. “You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming,” he said.
The reporter asked me to go through and describe the museum, and I said at one stage that we’re going to have a walk through of Noah’s Ark. The plans for that exhibit have since changed to something more spectacular. When I said that you might hear screams of people, it wasn’t meant, in any way, to say, “Ha, they died.” It was meant to say that this was a serious event. I think he has misinterpreted my comments to imply that I’m proud of the fact that all these people died. Well, that’s not true at all.

Our message today is that we have an Ark of salvation. You need to come into the Ark—the Lord Jesus Christ. The whole reason we were planning that kind of display was to warn people. People need to come into the Ark of salvation because there is a final judgment coming. It’s not a feeling of pride—it’s a heart-wrenching message that we have to give to people.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind’s sin.
He did get this part right in that it’s not God’s fault, it’s our sin which explains why there is death and disease in the world.

Mr. Ham’s Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
This is one area where I find, over and over again, that secular reporters don’t want to understand or don’t listen. We have never blamed the Columbine High School massacre on evolutionist’s teaching, and we don’t blame abortion or gay marriage on evolution.

We do point out that most students today go through a government school system where they are left with the impression that there is no God, they’re just an animal, and they can do whatever they want. Then who decides right and wrong?

What we’re saying is that aborting babies or shooting people is only consistent with what they believe. Evolution’s not to blame—the ultimate blame is sin. They reject God and the Bible, and construct a morality in accord with their foundation that there’s no God. Evolution is most likely a supposed justification for saying there is no God. Just like the Israelites in the book of Judges, who had no king to tell them what to do, they do what is right in their own eyes.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for AIDS. In a “Bible Authority Room” visitors are warned: “Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah’s flood – is ‘willfully’ ignorant.”
I don’t know where he got this from. There’s no exhibit that is going to talk about AIDS in the museum. And we don’t blame homosexuals for AIDS at all. That’s preposterous. We might say that, if you are disobedient to God’s rules for marriage, then you can spread diseases. But the bottom line is that if you don’t have God’s rules in regards to marriage, then there are consequences. (See our Q&A on morality—the section on homosexuality.)

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room visitors will see a Tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. “That’s the real terror that Adam’s sin unleashed,” visitors will be warned.
We’re going to have a T. rex, but we never said he’s going to be pursuing Adam and Eve!

We are going to show that everything changed after the Fall—some animals became carnivorous and violence filled the earth.

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and “unravel the origin of so-called races”, while the final section will show the life of Christ, as an animated angel proclaims the coming of the Savior and a 3D depiction of the crucifixion.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to “breathe in the fresh air of God’s creation”, and a shop “crammed” with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

He asked me if there was going to be a souvenir shop. What I told him is that the emphasis is going to be on resources: books, DVDs, tapes, etc. I told him we want people to go away with a message—to be equipped. I said there might be some things like T-shirts there but the major part of the bookstore is resources to instruct people. With over 700 items on our resources list (books and DVDs), there’s not going to be a lot of room for souvenirs.

The museum’s opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the U.S., which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.
It’s interesting to me how, because President Bush was re-elected and he’s a Christian and many Christians voted for him (a lot of non-Christians also voted for him), the secular media seem almost upset that Christians are having an influence in America. It’s almost as if Christians aren’t allowed to have an influence but non-Christians are.

What AiG is all about is disseminating information, telling people the Bible is true and seeing people converted to Christ. We are not a politically motivated organization.

Followers of creationism
What does he mean by followers of creationism? We aren’t a sect. We are Christians who believe the Bible. Followers of God’s Word is the way I would put it.

have been pushing for their theories to be reintegrated into American schoolroom teaching ever since the celebrated 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial”, when U.S. courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory.
We’ve never been a political movement. We’ve never tried to get creationism taught in schools. We believe there has to be a change in people’s hearts. These secular people are antagonistic to Christians because they reject the Christian faith. They are secularists, and they want their worldview to dominate. Are Christians not allowed to have a view? How inconsistent can they get?

A lot of people misunderstand the Scopes trial. Hollywood has misrepresented and even perverted the trial through the movie Inherit the Wind. It bears hardly any resemblance to the truth. It was really a movie done to denigrate Christians.

One of our speakers, Dr. David Menton, has written an analysis of the movie in Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis.

The statement that “U.S. courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory” is absolutely amazing because it is 100 percent untrue. The reporter needs to actually read the transcript of the Scopes trial and find out what really happened. (You can obtain this from the AiG bookstore, it’s called The World’s Most Famous Court Trial.)

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.
This is not an accurate statement, and it’s not the first time the media has misreported on this. The law actually says that competing theories of origins can be taught in public schools as long as no particular religion was being established. (See “Hunting for truth” in the secular media!)

This is the reason that people are now trying to get evolution disclaimer stickers in textbooks and intelligent design taught in school—they are saying it has a secular intent and doesn’t mention God. Thus it would conform to the Supreme Courts ruling.

Since then, however, many schools–particularly in America’s religious Deep South–have got around the ban by teaching the theory of “intelligent design”, which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

“Since President Bush’s re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,’’ said Mr. Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles. “The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call.”

What I told him is that we received more memberships than we had expected. I didn’t mention President Bush’s re-election. He added that.

Sometimes I shake my head and sigh when I see what the secular reporter said compared to what really happened! Oh, how I look forward to seeing an article that reports what we actually say, rather than a reporter’s modifying our words to tell readers what we “really meant to say!” Perhaps, if we had more time to decontaminate journalists from their years of evolutionary brainwashing, their reporting would be a little more balanced.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Onsdag, Februar 02, 2005

Klipp fra Vaccines and Genesis
Vaccines and Genesis
Questions and Answers on Vaccinations and the Immune System

by Carl Wieland

4 November 2002

Answers in Genesis regularly receives questions on topics ranging from the Biblical viewpoint on stem cells to the Biblical perspective on ‘life in outer space’. Recently, someone e-mailed us with questions on vaccinations and the human immune system. We thought the answers (by Dr Carl Wieland, a former medical doctor, now CEO of AiG-Australia) were such that they would be beneficial to others. The email is reprinted below with Dr Wieland’s reply interspersed.

My husband and I have declined to have our 4 children vaccinated. We believe that vaccines are neither safe or effective.
[Carl Wieland (CW)]: Although AiG has no official stance on this, my personal view is that, while there are indeed safety issues, there is also a danger in not vaccinating, and that the balance tips in favour of vaccinating.

What is (if any) AiG’s stance on serum taken from monkeys being added to some vaccines?
[CW]: You may wish to clarify your source of the information. I doubt whether this is accurate information, but it may have some basis in fact.

For example, antitoxins, like tetanus antitoxin, are made by injecting horses with a small amount of the toxin so that the animal produces the antibodies. This is extracted from the animal and then purified. However, allergic reactions sometimes still occur in the human recipient of the antitoxin. Note that an antitoxin or antivenene is different from a vaccine. A vaccine stimulates your own body to produce its own antibodies naturally; it would not be used to treat a person who was sick with the disease in question. An antitoxin, on the other hand, uses antibodies produced in and by another organism (ideally a person, but often this is not feasible for commercial quantities) to attack the poison.

For all the above reasons, I would not think that adding the actual raw serum from an animal to a vaccine (which is different from an antivenene, or an antitoxin) would have any benefit. And by adding foreign proteins, it would cause a potential problem.

This stemming from the theory that human beings and monkeys being so ‘closely related’.
[CW]: Let’s assume for the moment that something is being done with monkeys (e.g. being used in medical research) based on that false theory [our alleged relationship with them]. If we simply change the rationale, i.e. we say that the reason we experiment on monkeys is because they are more similar in their created design, then we have the same practical outcome, but a different philosophical framework. Just because something is inspired by evolutionary thinking doesn’t mean that thing should be rejected automatically. In logic, that is known as committing the ‘genetic fallacy’. It’s an easy trap to fall into, though. Some diets, for instance, are justified on evolutionary grounds, but if the diets work, should we reject them? I would suggest that if they work in keeping us healthier than otherwise would be the case, then there is a better creationist justification available, by definition, because the history in the Bible is true.

Or what view do you take on any vaccines that are supposed to improve on the natural immune response that God gave us?
[CW]: I believe that man was given dominion before the Fall, as Genesis teaches, and we can see that nowhere in the Bible was this dominion taken away. Much of medicine and healing efforts are attempts to counteract the Curse, and Scripture continually praises the sorts of actions that are local and temporary attempts to overcome the Curse’s effects. The Curse brought man into conflict with man—yet ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew 5:9). The Curse brought disease and suffering—yet alleviating suffering is not only consistent with Scripture, it follows Christ’s healing example. I.e. it is blessed to seek to improve on our natural healing when we apply a bandage, or an ointment, and is certainly not acting against God or His will (see also Reshaping People).

An approach that said we should not do anything to assist our ‘natural’ defenses, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean we should watch passively as a child died from infection, and not give him an antibiotic, because an antibiotic is supposed to improve on the germ-fighting ‘natural’ defenses which God has given us.

In fact, vaccination is much more passive and ‘homeopathic’ than an antibiotic. Vaccination is meant to totally utilize the natural God-given immune response, and it does so by giving the body a ‘taste’ of a little bit of an infection. The next time the body sees the same invader, it will have been ’trained’ to recognize that invader and produce a more rapid response than if it had been untrained. This is actually the same mechanism as is responsible for the fact that if you have had measles in childhood, you generally won’t get it again. Both are ‘natural’ immune responses, the difference is that one was triggered by the actual measles virus, the other was triggered by something only ‘pretending’ to be the measles virus. A few final comments:

Being ‘natural’ is not necessarily good. That is because we are in a fallen world. The measles virus is totally ‘natural’, but it is not ‘good’.
Where man’s manipulations in medicine (using our dominion mandate over the natural world) do good in healing, they are justified ethically and Biblically, but this does not mean that they are infallible. E.g. looking for/developing, and then applying, an antibiotic to save a child’s life is justified; but that same antibiotic may kill some people from allergic reactions. That does not make all antibiotics bad.
And was this immune system only needed after the fall?
[CW]: This is an interesting question. I suggest that since God foreknew the Fall (see chapter 6 of the new Answers Book) He certainly would have known that the immune system was needed soon anyway, so it may be a non-question. However, the immune system does not only protect against disease, it also helps the body to distinguish between self and non-self. It helps, for instance, to keep the ‘normal’ bacteria in our colon from spreading into the bloodstream, where instead of being helpful, they will be harmful. Since such helpful bacteria would have existed before the Fall, I think it is likely that our immune system played some role in shepherding them in this way.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Onsdag, Januar 26, 2005

KLIPP FRA AiG scientist refutes atheistic evolutionist in Wellington’s (New Zealand) major newspaper January 24, 2005
AiG scientist refutes atheistic evolutionist in Wellington’s (New Zealand) major newspaper
January 24, 2005

AiG receives many requests to write a response to the media. Sadly, we don’t have the resources or staff to answer every single anti-biblical article in the media. But if the article is particularly significant, we may respond on the website, as with a recent Time and Newsweek attack on the Virginal Conception of Christ (see Time and Newsweek attack Christianity, which also lists other successful web responses).

For articles or letters to the editor, normally a response is most likely to be published from a member of the general public than from a creationist organisation. However, if you think that a response from AiG would be most effective, we ask that you contact the editor for an undertaking that it would be published (as long as it obeys their letters rules, of course). Otherwise we could spend lots of time for nothing, which could have been better spent on other work.

A good recent example was Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s response to the atheistic skeptic Bob Brockie in Wellington’s Dominion Post, January 20, 2005. He wrote two columns defending evolution and attacking creation, but the gist was, “See how snakes have evolved smaller mouths—how can creationists still deny evolution when it’s happening all around us?” One supporter contacted the Features Editor of this newspaper and asked if they would publish a response, and gave him the background on the academic and publishing career of Dr Sarfati, himself an ex-Wellingtonian. The editor agreed that the paper should provide balance, and published the article practically unchanged on the centre main page facing the editorial in the Features section. It would be great if creationists could show their appreciation to the paper.

Dr Sarfati’s letter is reproduced below.

Critics should learn what creationists believe.
By Jonathan Sarfati

(Published under the heading “From goo to you via the zoo pooh-poohed” in The Dominion Post Thursday, January 20, 2005, p. B5.)

Bob Brockie has tried to justify his belief in evolution from goo to you via the zoo, but is clearly completely unfamiliar with what leading creationists actually claim. Of course, they don’t deny that living things change, and even form new “species”—this is just a straw man. Nor is the main issue about the size of the change. Rather, the changes he invokes are simply in the wrong direction to turn bacteria into Brockie—i.e. the type that increases genetic information.

Since bacteria don’t have the genetic information to make blood, eyes, bones, etc. evolution must explain how this information arose. Brockie can give as many examples of change as he likes; if it is not this type of information-increasing change, it is no evidence for evolution whatever.

Microbe-to-man evolution must be in trouble if the best evidence he could produce is snakes developing smaller mouths. Presumably, snakes with already existing genes for small mouths survived, while those with genes for bigger mouths were eliminated because they were poisoned on toads. Sure, this is natural selection, a concept invented by the creationist Edward Blyth 25 years pre-Darwin. But it removes information, while evolution requires an increase of information.

When insects develop pesticide resistance, the resistance was already there, so nothing new arose. Antibiotic resistance is usually the same. Some bacteria revived after being frozen before antibiotics were developed were already resistant. In some other cases, bacteria pass on their resistance genes to other bacteria—information, already there, was simply passed on.

The only game in town for evolutionists is mutations (genetic copying mistakes). But such mistakes corrupt information. This is so even when the mutation is beneficial, or helpful for the organism. For example, bacteria have complex cell pumps, yet they may also mistakenly pump in an antibiotic, its own executioner. But if a mutation disables the pump, the bacterium will be resistant. The disabled germ can’t compete with the normal ones outside the hospital.

When we can observe the source of new information, we find it is intelligence. So it is perfectly scientific to propose an intelligent origin for information when we have not observed the source.

Brockie is also misinformed about the chemistry of the Miller–Urey gas-discharge experiments, which produced amino acids but were irrelevant to the origin of life. First, the gases are now rejected as components of Earth’s atmosphere. Second, the products are far too contaminated and dilute to be able to combine into the complex molecules of life. Third, life requires uniquely “left-handed” forms, while Miller could only produce a 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms. The origin of life is an intractable problem for evolution: if evolution can’t even get started, then it can’t proceed at all.

And finally, Brockie deserves thanks for admitting his atheistic religion. Far too often, it is the creationists who are castigated for mixing religion with science, while the anti-God biases of the leading evolutionists are ignored.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati earned a Ph.D. in chemistry from Victoria University. He is the author of Refuting Evolution, Refuting Evolution 2 and Refuting Compromise.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Resultat: Side 2 av 9
Neste Side:
1 (2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9