Follow by Email

The First in the Deck Series

Our most recent DIY experience through the process.

Out With The Old, In With The New

Gotta love a new beginning, right?

Peppermint Shortage

Just a funny afternoon.

Coffeyville, KS

I loved this experience so much that I had to write about it. Then, through e-mails it spread to Coffeyville itself.

Photo Restoration

I had a lot of fun with this "old school" photo. It turned out too cool to not blog about it.

Kitchen Remodel (part one)

This is the first of a nine-part series documenting the remodel of our 50-year-old kitchen in our 100-year-old home!

Theistic Evolution Reexamined

You may recall that in three blogs back, Shaky Foundations, I wrote about how we were all taught some things about the world's history and beginning that were just wrong.  I promised at the end of that blog to write some follow-up blogs to support my position.  So, if you forgot about or skipped over my promise, have noticed a reoccurring theme, and are wondering why I've been on a creation soapbox lately, that is why.  I promised to be.

The reason I feel that it's so important can be summed up in the blog I wrote that preceded the one with the promise, The Power of a Worldview.  And, just as the name would suggest, it's the power that our worldview holds over our thinking that should be a matter of grave concern for us all.  If we are harboring false information and believe it to be true, all of our present and future decisions will be based upon this incorrect standpoint.

I've heard people in the church, even pastoral staff, shrug off this concern as if beliefs about the world's origin have nothing to do with our relationship with God.  I've heard non-Christians who already don't believe in God specifically say how they can't believe in God or the Bible because it goes against everything they know about "science".  Unfortunately, due to knowing very little about biblical theology and even less about geography, anthropology, astrology, etc., the church has largely taken the position of either ignoring the findings of the scientific community or worse, trying to insert them into the biblical text.  This compromised gospel has confused professing Christians where they mostly attempt to avoid the subject, while also becoming a stumbling block to potential converts.

I've even personally experienced being a Christian and running into my own beliefs that were based on false information that caused serious doubts about God and the reliability of the Christian worldview.  I was confused for so long, in fact, that I was afraid to have someone breach any one of a variety of subjects.  I knew that I could not articulate the Christian position.  I knew that I would not be convincing, after all, I was not convinced myself.  I knew that I was to tell people about the good news, but my internal intellectual struggle with the inconsistencies of my beliefs caused me to be ashamed and useless to God and Christianity.  I believed in God, the Bible, and the gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ... but I couldn't tell you why I believed it.  I was in direct violation of 1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you."  The hope was in me, I just wasn't prepared to explain the reason I had for it.

God created all things and just like all creators, He is outside of the things He created.  He is not governed by the things He created.  That would be backwards.  He is only governed by His own promises since He is truth.  He created time, therefore He is outside of it.  He created the natural laws, therefore He is supernatural.  Since He is not governed by natural laws, He can and does act supernaturally.

The atheist has no logical explanation for the existence of natural laws nor can he explain the reason for the existence of universal physical constants such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the elementary charge, etc.  There are tons of known constants that allow us to "know" anything.  Without these constants, there could be no way to understand anything.  You couldn't calculate anything because even mathematics wouldn't exist because there would be no rules to govern the consistency of outcomes.  The atheist cannot explain the natural formation of these constants because he must attempt to break one of them in order to explain it.  Information does not form itself, information only comes from information.  Suggesting otherwise breaks the laws of logic.  Furthermore, it's circular reasoning to postulate that natural laws could come about naturally.  Since nature would not yet exist, there would be no way for it to form by the laws of nature that didn't yet exist.  If the atheist alludes to the preexistence of these universal constants before material existence, then he is simply inferring the existence of transcendent intelligence which equates to an admission of the existence of God just by a different name.

The Bible-believing Christian would expect these constants to exist.  Colossians 1:17 states "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."  Hebrews 1 says "...He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."  So, we would expect to find universal constants.  Materialism, on the other hand, wouldn't expect to find nor can explain their known existence.

It's not illogical to believe in the Bible.  Quite the contrary, it's the only worldview that can make total sense of our universe.

Now, a lot of Christians profess belief in the Bible being truth and attempt to say that modern scientific theory isn't necessarily incompatible to the biblical narrative.  They think that God could have taken billions of years to create and that He could have used evolution in His creation method.  They say that it doesn't matter how God created.  Well, I think this isn't just a dangerous position because it's some slippery slope, it's dangerous because it's not what the Bible says.  The question isn't what God could have done, it's what God said was done.  And, the issue is whether we are prepared to believe Him or not.  And, make no mistake, it is an issue of the reliability of the Gospel.  Some of you are like, "Wait, wait, wait... How is Genesis tied to the Gospel?"  And, I'm glad you asked.  Let me show you in as few words as possible.

If there were billions of years worth of creatures living and dying before Adam and Eve, then death existed before sin.  If death existed before sin, then it was not sin that ushered in death and death couldn't have been a penalty for sin.  Therefore, Jesus' death on the cross was meaningless and didn't pay for our sin... because there was no paying for it.  God could not save us.

Also, if death existed prior to Adam and Eve, then the portrayal of God gets incredibly sadistic.  After all, "God looked at all He had made and saw that it was good." Mind you, this was before the fall of man.  But, if there was already death, then how could any of it be good in God's eyes unless He is in to that sort of suffering.  This philosophy is the cause for so many people blaming God for all the bad things that happen.  They look to God only to assign blame.

No, God created all things, told us exactly how He did it and how long it took Him, provided the timeline through genealogies so we could know how long ago it was, explained to us why the earth is now how it is (sin), provided us a path to salvation, told us all about it, and has kept His word alive, relevant, and available to us ever since despite efforts to eradicate it in virtually every generation of the history of mankind.

Don't be fooled.  Your position on this subject is a foundation for all the rest of your beliefs.  Don't get it wrong because you fear man's scorn more than you fear God's.  God said 6 days.  Will you believe Him?

In the beginning ...

I accidentally touched on this subject in the last blog.  But, I figure that I can still go in deeper on the subject for this one.

The subject is addressing the question: "Where did all life come from?"  It's clear that the majority of the scientific community does not agree with the Bible on answering this question.  
How do you answer this question?  Do you side with "science"?  Do you side with the Bible?  Do you try and marry the two so that you agree with everyone?

Let's look at it.  There's no denying that life itself is unfathomably complex and pretty mind-blowing when you actually begin to think about it.  The human body is a walking, talking, thinking, problem-solving mystery.  We have just the perfect amount of sensors so that we can interact with our environments.  We see with our eyes because light is captured and lens-focused to our retinas that process the images of light and convert the images to electrical information that is passed to our brains through an optical nerve.  The brain then interprets this information to produce an image in our mind.  We don't see in our eyes.  We see in our brain.  Likewise, we don't feel in our hands, feet, elbows, or face.  We feel in our brain.  We don't taste in our tongue, we taste in our brain.  I think you see the pattern here, but do you get the point?  When our body gets injured, it heals itself.  When it's attacked by bacteria, viruses, etc., it defends itself.  It is constantly reproducing itself and metabolizing the old parts.  It has an endless data bank of built-in safety features to protect itself in almost any situation whether it be falling into freezing water, getting a foreign particle in your eye, getting trapped in an oxygen-deprived place, or being exposed to cold temperatures for a long period of time.  Regardless of the situation, our bodies have an emergency plan that they will follow to ensure the best chance of survival.

Humans are pretty awesome.  But, we're not alone.  Animals are pretty awesome, too.  And, fish are amazing.  And, birds.  Let's not forget plants.  My point is simple: Life is beautiful.  We all know it.  Since television was invented, shows have profited from displaying the beauty of the world's life and generations of people can't get enough of it.  When it comes to the life in our world, there is an infinite sea of interesting information to discuss, from the electric eel to a porcupine's quills to the owl's neck bone structure.

The generally accepted standpoint in the scientific community is that all of this happened by pure happenstance.  There was no intelligence directing any of it.  But that isn't very sensible.  What we observe in nature with an absence of intelligence interfering is destruction not construction.  We see things break down, deteriorate, etc.  Only with an intelligence present do we ever see the addition of information.  It doesn't take too long on the Internet to find debates on the subject and what you will typically find is that the defenders of "science" will obfuscate their arguments discussing genetic variation and erroneously attempting to pass off genetic variation with genetic information addition.  Variation does not equate to the addition of information.  Nor does it account for the introduction of the initial information.

DNA is really interesting.  It's where the biological information is stored that conducts your body's processes like a well-tuned orchestra.  It's not hard for us to tune out when we start getting told about the vast amount of information in a single DNA strand.  We can't wrap our minds around it.  So, it's easy for people to tell us and for us to accept that this vast bank of information could mix with another's vast bank of information (reproduction) and create some new information.  So, to dumb it down for us all, it's much easier to think about the commonly told origin of life.  It says there was no information and then suddenly there was.  What's more is that they postulate that from there more information just came about to produce more and more complexity.  The vehicle that supposedly drove this was the production of random variation, the survival of the variations that had advantageous mutations, and the death of variations that were at a disadvantage.  Since only the advantageous ones survived, they were the only ones that reproduced.  Life gets more and more complex and eventually evolves into you.  However, EVEN IF the first life, a very simple single-celled organism, were to have somehow happened into existence, it would have had information that makes it up.  But, why would it have replicated itself.  Or how?  Not only that, but we're being told that it replicated itself randomly to create variation so that future generations could have a better chance of survival.  Why would it do that?  Why would it care to survive?  Not to mention, how would information to produce something produce something different than the information it had to produce?

I wrote about it in my last blog so I'll only say it briefly here.  The odds are insurmountable against anything coming to life even under perfect circumstances and with all the pieces readily available. That should be enough to doubt.  Yet one can go further with it.  Nothing is ever said about the insurmountable odds against this newly created life having the ability and will to replicate itself to continue living and reproducing offspring.  Nor is anything ever postulated about why it would do such a thing.  Darwinism speaks tons about survival but it doesn't even attempt to explain the purpose of survival.  Why must all these things survive?  Why is it our will to survive?  Why is evolving into something else beneficial?  For that matter, what is a benefit?  Wouldn't it be logical to state that the benefit in death is that no more striving to survive is inherently gained?  The premise that all life sprung from a random and unintelligent source is irrational because it would have died from the lack of intelligence to recreate itself.  Perhaps only someone who knows nothing about the splitting of a cell or the splitting of DNA can say with any confidence that life could have recreated itself just because.  Even just the recreation of a single DNA strand is complex and requires several biological tools to perform the function without a slightest error.

Slightly off point, this reminds me of a movie I once watched, The Happening, written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan in the height of his success.  Warning: The rest of this paragraph is a spoiler.  The plot of the movie is that people start seemingly mindlessly killing themselves by any means they can quickly find.  This epidemic spreads as fast as the wind blows.  It started in multiple cities around the world and spread outwards.  The movie follows a high school teacher who struggles to survive the ordeal while also trying to figure out the cause.  The culprit winds up being the trees.  This is Hollywood so bear with me, but the trees supposedly have an intelligence, a will to survive, a collective conscience, and the ability to produce a spore or something like it that can be made to go airborne that alters the chemistry of humans and causes their will to survive to be suppressed.  This immediately makes the affected humans mindless, incoherent, suicide machines.  I mentioned this because I like the illustration of what would happen if our will to survive was suppressed.

So, then, the real question is where did our will to survive originate?  Interestingly enough, I can't seem to find any results on the Internet concerning the subject.  The Bible provides an answer to the question in Genesis 1.  After creating living creatures God said "Be fruitful and increase in number".  There you have it.  An intelligent designer that programmed in a will to survive.  See?  Whether you believe in God or not, the existence of a will to survive in all living creatures speaks volumes to the existence of an intelligence that both precedes life and is directly involved with the creation of said life.

Now, for the record, the word 'science' in the English language comes from the Latin word 'scientia' meaning knowledge.  This being the case, you may take notice of me being reluctant to speak against science itself. I may disagree with the scientific community, the science textbooks, or sometimes I'll just put the word science in quotes to denote that I'm referring to so-called science.  But, truth be told, I am a scientist.  So are you if you are seeking knowledge, studying our world, and working to gain an accurate understanding of the world we live in.  So, to be clear, this isn't a debate between the Bible and science.  The clash is between the Bible and a generation of people who have accepted the generally-accepted beliefs of so-called science.  What I am finding on my quest to develop a worldview that is logical, reasonable, sensible and truthful is that the Bible is where all science should begin.  The Bible even says this in Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."  'Fear' in the sense of reverence, or understanding and paying proper respect to God's law. The Bible also mentions to steer clear of the so-called science I mentioned above in 1 Timothy 6:20-21 "Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered away from the faith."  Take notice that not only does this verse specifically call out so-called science (knowledge) it mentions that this so-called science is full of opposing ideas (contradicting theories) and godless chatter (atheistic speak).

This battle for the truth is not a new one.  There have been people who denied the existence of God and denied His creative power ever since Paul wrote that letter to Timothy.  Undoubtedly, even long before that.  Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."  He created all things gloriously so that we could easily see and understand His glory.  We are truly without excuse.

God created the world.  Furthermore, He told us how long it took Him to do it.  He wasn't being poetic about the six days.  It wasn't spoken in metaphors.  He said six days and six days is what He meant.

6,000 Years +/-

The age of the earth is a tough topic.  Most people believe that the earth is billions of years old.  They believe this not necessarily because they have extensively studied it themselves, but more than likely because they've been told in ridiculous repetition that it's old.  Even in my adulthood, I can't hardly go a week without hearing it said or reading it in print somewhere.  The news can't get enough of every study they can get their hands on that tells us something about our "distant" past.  Countless children's books and shows on public broadcasting channels start right out of the gate with "Millions of years ago..." almost completely replacing the phrase "Once upon a time."  I certainly can't blame a person for thinking that it's old.  Nor can I blame them for not doing any of their own research.  Why should they waste their time determining something that the "experts" have already accepted as a given?

Broaching the subject gets even harder for a Christian.  We're torn between all that we've heard and been taught by our secular educations and what we read in the Bible, assuming we read our Bibles.  Genesis presents a creation week that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh.  Our educations, on the other hand, tell us that everything sort of happened on its own over the course of billions of years.  Christians who would rather fit in both crowds (like me for most of my adult life) postulate that God did create everything over the course of billions of years, a sort of God-directed evolution, if you will.  And, while that sounds good and seems to promote an "everybody's correct on the subject" platform which is awfully popular, it has a major flaw for the Christian: The Bible doesn't say billions of years; it says six days.

I'll touch on that in a moment, though.  Maybe you, the person reading this, are not a Christian, and you don't really care what the Bible says on the subject because you don't view the Bible as an authority on the subject of the age of the earth.  I get that.  You're being consistent with your beliefs and I can admire that.  So, let's first just look at the secular side of it.

I wrote about uniformitarianism in my last blog and explained how even scientists themselves must admit that it's nothing more than a belief and yet it is continued to be used as a platform from which to build all scientific theory.  In short, uniformitarianism is the belief that the rates at which things happen today (which can be observed) are the same as they have always been in the past (which cannot be observed).  This assumption is being used in geology, biology, astronomy, virtually all modern sciences.  But, it's not science.  It's a belief about the past that is not testable, not observable, and not provable.  So, rather than start with assumptions of ages, let's start with a clean slate and examine some evidence ourselves and apply some logic and reason.

Let's look at biology, more specifically, yourself, for example. Unless there is something abnormal with your biology, if you engaged in well-timed procreation activities with the opposite sex you could expect to successfully reproduce offspring.  But, what would you reproduce?  A human, right?  How do you know?  You know because you observe, as do all of us, that all creatures on this planet produce only their own kind.  No human has ever nor will ever produce a puppy.

Science textbooks allow this widely-known fact to go unmentioned while they instead teach that all life came from the same source.  However, this inherently means that creatures do not always produce only their own kind.  Rather, the textbooks teach us that we produce ever-so-slightly different creatures with every generation.

Genesis 1:20-25, on the other hand, accounts for this as it says that when God created all creatures they would produce after their own kind.  The textbooks would have you believe differently from both what God said and from what you know to be true through your own observations.

The textbook's take on the matter leaves much to be desired in regards to sensibility.  In fact, it raises more questions than it answers.  If all life has a common ancestor, the first living thing, how and why did it have the ability and will to reproduce itself?  Don't just speed read through this, please think about it.  It's truly unfathomable when you really weigh it mentally.  Assuming that life could be spawned by accident, a perfect storm of the right conditions, they guess, how did it know to reproduce to maintain life?  Why didn't it just die?  We're expected to believe that NOT ONLY did such an incredible event take place that initially spawned the first life despite a veritable zero chance of possibility but that the first life ALSO knew to keep this new-fangled thing called life going by unfailingly reproducing itself.  Really?  Statistically speaking, that belief is laughable.

Let's explore genetics a bit, as well.  Ever wonder where all the different people groups came from?  Science books, and unfortunately our culture, call them 'races' of people, but let's look into this a bit from an historical perspective.  Before the popularization of the theories of evolution and a singular common ancestor, everyone understood the obvious which is that humans are humans.  They all look different whether from different continents or even from parents to children.  To some degree, we are all unique from others, our own immediate families included.  Yes, we can be lumped together based upon our skin pigment, hair color, eye shape, etc.  But regardless of our differences, it was well understood that we were all of one kind, species, race, whatever you want to call it.  However, since these theories have spread and have been taught to generations, new ideas have arisen concerning the human race.  To explain the visual differences in humans from different geographical locations, it was suggested that different people groups evolved at different rates.  Is this ringing bells from your childhood education?  I hope it's sounding an alarm.  Here's why.  The problem with such an idea is that it inherently means that some humans are more advanced in evolution than others.  Swallowing hook, line, and sinker that the textbooks are correct on this subject, justifies the belief that some people groups are more like their "ape-like" ancestors than others.  It's a racist philosophy.

Many people think that the case is closed on the subject of race.  They are completely unaware of the ongoing and heated scientific debate that has been boiling since Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species.  In 1995 it was announced by several biologists that "race has no biological basis."  Instead, they claimed that 'race' was completely a social construct.  Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, argued in 1972 that, since there was greater genetic variation within any given race than between races, the very concept of race was not a useful way to understand genetic variation in humans.  Did you catch that?  There is more genetic variation within a so-called race than there is variation between different so called races.  Furthermore, the visual differences we see between people from different geographic areas make up a mere fraction of a percent in the human genome.  In fact, in terms of organ transplants, a person is statistically more likely to find a viable match from someone in a different people group than from someone in their own group.

Once again, if one were to take the Bible's word for it concerning the subject, what geneticists and biologists are finding makes much more sense.  In contrast, the theory of evolution is complicating the subject with juxtapositions being made fueling a debate that cannot be settled sense the observable science does not support the evolutionary worldview held by the majority.  It's clear that these academics are not allowing themselves to be led to the conclusion that the evidence would lead them.  This is a rejection of the scientific method.

How does all this biology talk play into the age of the earth, you ask?  Well, it sort of doesn't directly.  Sorry about that.  But, I will show you how it does indirectly.  Due to the astonishingly low .1 percent difference in the human genome (total amount of human DNA) it would suggest that we haven't had very much time to establish much genetic variation.  It would also suggest that all humans therefore came from a single source of human DNA.  Combining genetic variation and mathematics, the evidence supports that human DNA has only been around thousands of years, not hundreds of thousands of years and descended from other primates millions of years ago.  And, if humans are "young" then the science used that claims they are "old" is flawed.  The Bible's written account is supported while the model provided by evolutionists contradicts what is found in genetics.  If you apply these mistaken ages to other sciences and their "findings" then everything on earth gets much younger.  It's becoming more clear that the billions-year-old-earth standpoint is inconsistent with the findings of genetics.

I realize that I have really over-typed your patience, but I'm hoping that you're reading this and seeing some good evidence to make you start to question what you've been taught.  I believe that there is probably less than 1 percent of people who have actually done their own research to form their conclusions on their beliefs.  The vast majority are taught what to believe and they've never questioned it.  There is a famous saying that I learned in public school attributed to Isaac Newton that states "If I see further it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants."  It's obviously referring to a person being able to pick up where others left off and build upon what they've already done.  But, there is a terrible error looming here.  What if someone was wrong?  What if they veered off the path of logical pursuit and into the territory of agenda-driven philosophy?  Wouldn't all who "stood on their shoulders" be prone to making the same mistakes?

One of the interesting things I've found about science is when I was reading about reification, a logical fallacy that is when something abstract is referred to as something concrete.  Referring to unprovable theories as fact would be a good example of this. I stumbled across this on Wikipedia when reading about reification:

The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science; it is used in many, if not most, areas of science. A construct is a hypothetical explanatory variable that is not directly observable.  The degree to which a construct is useful and accepted in the scientific community depends on empirical research that has demonstrated that a scientific construct has construct validity (especially, predictive validity).[9] Thus, if properly understood and empirically corroborated, the "reification fallacy" applied to scientific constructs is not a fallacy at all; it is one part of theory creation and evaluation in normal science.

So, did you catch that?  Science gets a free pass to tout fallacies as truth as long as they are measurable and can produce predictable results.  But, what's a predictable result on a fallacious test?  I'll tell you what it is.  It's receiving the results that you predicted you would get.  That's a fallacy in itself.  It's circular reasoning.  You got what you wanted because your criteria is set up to correlate to your desired result.  And they humorously call it "predictive validity".  The irony is that when tests are performed that contradict their desired results they simply ignore them as if they don't exist.  Such as, when diamonds thought to be 1-3 billion years old and related to earth's early history are tested for radiocarbon and shouldn't have any but do in fact have significant detectable levels that date them around 55,000 years old by their own standards, no one in the scientific community cries foul.  No one pulls the emergency brake to reexamine their assumptions.  They don't even attempt to fix what they say about diamonds.  They just go on claiming what they want to claim despite their inconsistencies.

In astronomy, one needs to look no further than our moon to find a huge problem with "old earth" philosophy.  Astronomers have found that the moon is slowly moving away from earth in its orbit.  So, in the past, the moon was closer to earth.  If the earth is only about 6,000 years old then there isn't a problem because in that time the moon would have only been about 800 feet closer to earth in its beginning.  However, astronomers also believe the moon to be 4 billion years old.  This poses a major problem since the moon would have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago.  I searched the Internet for an "old earth" response to this problem and the only thing that I could find was a comment on a Physics page where someone stated that this wasn't a problem at all because while the earth was still very young 4.5 billion years ago and still mostly liquid, another planet collided with it and all the pieces formed the moon.  There was more to the comment but I'm floored by how easy it is for people to believe such theories.  Why is it so much easier for them to make up "possible" scenarios and claim them to be fact.  Especially, since this doesn't deal with the problem at all.  It fails to answer the question and only raises more questions.

And lastly, how about anthropology?  The world's population is a fun one for me.  Why?  Because I like math.  And, I like Microsoft Excel.  Excel allows me to do complicated math formulas faster which is why I like it.  Subconsciously, I think I probably like it also for its grid.  It looks like graph paper, and I like graph paper.  But, back to what I was talking about before I started listing off all the nerdy things I like, the world's population is a great topic because anyone who can do basic math can see that something is amiss with an "old earth" philosophy.  Let's start with some obvious basics.  The world's human population is growing.  Duh, right?  But, we don't know what the earth's population is at any given moment.  It's estimated that the world's population is growing by 2 every second.  This means that more babies are being born than people are dying on average at any given moment.  Let's build a model to makes sense of world population growth.  For our model we will assume that the population doubles every 150 years.  That's a super conservative figure, by the way.  The US Census office estimates that it's closer to doubling every 40 years.  However, for the sake of argument, let's stick with a conservative figure.

Before I begin, though, I'd like to clear something up about exponential growth that most people don't think about in terms of graphs.  Look at the graph here.  Most people, myself included, see this graph on world population and take away from it that the world's population is growing at a rate leaps and bounds faster than it ever has.  They assume that this must be due to a combination of technology and modern medicine.  But, understand that this is what all exponential graphs look like.  This is why people don't get compounding interest.  There's a mathematical riddle, of sorts, that people are fond of that basically asks a person if they'd rather have a million dollars or a penny that gets doubled for thirty days straight.  Most people would go for the million, but are smart enough to know that there's a trick they aren't seeing and that they're probably choosing unwisely.  And, their hunch is right.  The penny doubling for 30 days winds up to be over ten million dollars.  You can check this out yourself with any basic calculator (.01 X 2, hit = 30 times).  So, understand this: it's true that the population is growing leaps and bounds in recent years compared to centuries past, however this is because there are more people to create more babies NOT because people are having more babies.  The RATE of growth surely changed but its unlikely it has changed much.

So, back to our model of world population, let's assume that the flood described in Genesis really happened.  So, afterwards, we have 8 people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) and a devastated planet with which to start over around 2500 BC.  If we assume the aforementioned conservative rate of doubling the population every 150 years and we start with the three sons and their wives, what we get is the graph you see here.  This calculates to just shy of 8.6 billion people in the year 2000, not too far off from the roughly 7 billion currently estimated, right?  Also, the graph appears to match the one we saw above, though as I mentioned before all exponential graphs will look like this.

According to Wikipedia, anatomically modern humans (known as Homo sapiens sapiens) began 200,000 years ago.  Luckily, Excel is awesome and I can quickly change my spreadsheet to graph out what just two first humans 200,000 years ago would have produced today using the same super-conservative population growth rate.  But, I ran into a problem.  My screen isn't large enough to show the whole number.  In fact, by the time it got to just 100,000 years ago, the world's population calculated to a number with 190 digits!  So, let's try again with an even MORE conservative growth rate.  Let's change the growth rate from doubling every 150 years to doubling every 1,000 years.  That's crazy slow.  Think about it.  In 1,000 years you can easily expect there to be 25 generations at a generation every 40 years.  25 generations and finally double?  But, even with these crazy numbers, the population today would be 61 digits long!  Don't forget that our present population only has 10 digits.

What's also wild to think about is that Wikipedia also claims that our supposedly most recent ancestor, the Neanderthals (or Homo sapiens) began 500,000 years ago.  What happened to all of them?  Did they all die?  Because, if they evolved, then my goodness, I don't even want to attempt that Excel spreadsheet.  But, if they all died (300,000 years worth of population growth, mind you), what killed them?

Evolution's only hope concerning this anthropological problem is that you can't do math.  What's truly ironic is that those who believe in an old earth and the evolution of mankind will argue with the math I have provided and say that I can't assume that the rate of population growth has remained constant and that there were times in mankind's past that natural disasters occurred that wiped out huge swaths of the global population.  The reason that it's ironic is because they would be being inconsistent.  Remember how I started out this blog mentioning uniformitarianism as an underlying fallacy that leads modern science astray?  It leads them astray because they don't account for natural disasters or unknown factors to have affected any of the evidence they are looking at.  So, the irony is that if they were at all consistent, they would have no explanation for the question 'Where are all the people?'  I've even thrown them a bone by only starting with 2 humans with their time frame.  They maintain it was more like 10,000 to 50,000.  But, no matter how you fudge the numbers, the math just doesn't work.

Hopefully, I have given you enough to chew on, enough to entice you to look further into what you believe and perhaps ask yourself why you believe what you do.  We shouldn't ever find ourselves ardently believing something without a viable explanation to back up those beliefs.  God doesn't ask us to do that.  He isn't scared of our questions and doesn't hold back information from us.  Rather, I believe that God gets excited the further out we look, the deeper in we look, and the harder we search for truth.  He's not unreachable nor unknowable.  He wants us to find Him.  He wants to show us the way.  But, too often, we're good just to be where we are.  We're content with just thinking we have it all figured out.

The Bible is correct.  The earth was created by God.  It was created just like His word tells us it was.  For those Christians who have always believed in an old earth, please take notice that Jesus knew the earth had a beginning and he placed man and woman at that beginning, not billions of years later (Matthew 19:4).

The science books have done us all a great disservice.  They have an atheistic worldview that removed God from His rightful glory of creating all things.  They would have you believe that you are an accident and that your life is utterly meaningless and that when you die there will be nothing more.  But, deep inside, we all know that none of that is true.  We all know that there is meaning, that we have purpose, that there is more than just the physical.  Everything in us speaks to it.  The Holy Spirit speaks it to us.  Don't continue to rob God of the glory that is His alone.

Like all my blogs, feel free to leave a comment if you have a question or a rebuttal or whatever.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More