Obvious Design

The Tablet Theory

2008-03-08T22:33:00.003-06:00

Author: Curt Sewell
Originally published by the archaeological magazine Bible and Spade, Winter 1994, Vol. 7, No. 1

Who Wrote Genesis?

We'll assume that most “good conservative Christians” probably agree that the Bible, at least in its original manuscript, was inspired by God, and is truth. The mechanics of this inspiration have been debated by many scholars, and we won’t go into them in this chapter, except to say that the basis for our belief that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God lies in this work of the Holy Spirit of God, not the personal knowledge of the human writers. The Bible is not just an ancient piece of human literature.

Having said that, the question that remains is “Who were the human authors? How did they know what to write? How did the little historical details get preserved?” Here we’ll restrict our discussion to the book of Genesis, which is the one most often criticised.

The first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are collectively called the Books of the Law, or the Torah, or the Books of Moses. Those last four books have many verses that attribute them directly to Moses. But he’s not even mentioned anywhere in the book of Genesis. Why is this?

We’ll try to show in this little chapter that there’s considerable internal evidence, and some archaeological evidence, that Genesis was actually first written in sections, most likely on clay tablets, by a number of different men who were eye-witnesses to the actions described. These men signed their names at the bottom of their respective tablets, and later Moses compiled these tablets into what we call the “book of Genesis.”

Why Religious Liberalism?

Why did so many theologians become critical of Biblical truth? Do they have any scientific basis for their doubts? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually. He said that primitive “cave-men” began a polytheistic worship of the things around them. Later, he said, higher concepts such as a supreme God evolved in people’s minds.

A quasi-scientific basis for retreat from Biblical authority took root when, in 1830, Charles Lyell published “Principles of Geology,” which first described the so-called “Geologic Column.” Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage for Charles Darwin’s publication, in 1859, of his famous “Origin of Species.” His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists.

There is no real technical basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Nowhere does the Biblical text mention anything that implies evolution, nor is there any Biblical incident that’s been proven definitely wrong. The only reason to doubt the clear text of the Bible is an attempt to compromise with secularism, and its rejection of God. But most evolutionist scientists object just as much to theistic evolution as they do to miraculous creation. And most theologians don’t really understand the principles of evolution—they don’t realize that you can’t just shove God into the secular theory. This compromise attempt doesn’t really work, and it’s a dangerous path to follow.

The Documetary Hypothesis

These theories all influenced Hegel’s student, the theologian K.H. Graf (1815-1868), and his student Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). From an idea first proposed by Jean Astruc (1684-1766) they developed the “JEDP Documentary Hypothesis” of higher criticism, which said that the early parts of the Old Testament couldn’t have been written during the times they described. They based this on the belief that writing had not evolved until about 1000 BC. Therefore they assumed wrongly that sagas, epics, poetry etc. which were later used to compile the Bible were passed down orally for millenia. The result was that the early books of the Bible were said to have been written by various unknown teachers during the Divided Kingdom era, beginning about 800 BC, and continued until after the Babylonian Exile.

These books are said to have been compiled or redacted from several stories, or documents, each of which could be distinguished by the name used for God. The J-Document used the name Jehovah, the E-Document used Elohim, while the D and P documents were named for Deuteronomic and Priestly. This teaching led many people to lose confidence in the Bible’s authenticity.

Archaeological Discoveries

Did Hegel, Graf, Wellhausen, etc. have any good basis for their JEDP theory? No, there has never been any trace of the “documents” they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly), and even in their day there had been some good archaeological finds that contradicted the very basis of their theory— that early writing was unknown. More recently, scholars and archaeologists have uncovered excellent proofs of the truth of the Bible’s historicity.

There have been complete libraries uncovered, and enough translations made to confirm Biblical events described in the lives of the patriarchs. Several of these libraries date from long before Abraham’s time. Excavations at Ebla, Mari, and Nuzi have all yielded much confirmation of Old Testament history. The Mari archives contained actual names used in the Bible—Peleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others. These cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters, but they do show that these names were in use in those early days. The Nuzi archive had some 20,000 clay tablets; many were legal documents describing laws and customs of the land. These explain a number of Biblical incidents that used to seem strange to us, but they were simply the normal customs of that era.

The Tablet Theory

During his tour of duty in Mesopotamia, where much of the earliest Bible activity took place, Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman became interested in the archaeology of that area, and especially in the many ancient clay tablets that had been dated to long before the time of Abraham. He recognized that they held the key to the original writings of the early Bible, and especially to the Book of Genesis. He published his book in 1936. More recently his son, Professor of Assyriology D.J. Wiseman, updated and revised his father’s book: P.J. Wiseman, “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis” (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985)

He found that most of the old clay tablets had “colophon phrases” at the end; these named the writer or owner of the tablet; they had words to identify the subject, and often some sort of dating phrase. If multiple tablets were involved, there were also “catch-lines” to connect a tablet to its next in sequence. Many of these old records related to family histories and origins, which were evidently highly important to those ancient people. Wiseman noticed the similarity of many of these to the sections of the book of Genesis.

Many scholars have noticed that Genesis is divided into sections, separated by phrases that are translated “These are the generations of ... ” The Hebrew word used for “generation” is toledoth, which means “history, especially family history ... the story of their origin.” Wiseman, op.cit., pg.62. Wiseman took this quotation from the pioneer Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius. Most scholars have recognized that these “toledoth phrases” must be important, but they have been misled by assuming incorrectly that these are the introduction to the text that follows. (Several modern translations have even garbled these phrases.) This has led to serious questions, because in several cases they don’t seem to fit. For example, Genesis 37:2 begins, “These are the generations of Jacob. ...” But from that spot on, the text describes Joseph and his brothers, and almost nothing about Jacob, who was the central character in the previous section.

However, Wiseman saw that the colophons in the ancient tablets always were at the end, not the beginning. He applied this idea to the toledoth phrases in Genesis, and found that in every case it suddenly made good sense. The text just before the phrase “These are the generations of ... ” contained information about events that the man named in that phrase would have known about. That person would have been the logical one to write that part. In other words, each toledoth phrase contains the name of the man who probably wrote the text preceding that phrase. Or, in still other words, the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses.

Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.

I’ve incorporated a few minor modifications into Wiseman’s original theory. These help to explain some remaining problems. For example, tablets #8 and #10 are shorter, and describe two sets of descendants that are outside of the Bible’s main-line. They’re also structured differently. I’ve called these Sub-Tablets.

Tablet Divisions

To illustrate how this all really works, let’s look at each of the tablets, and see how the theory makes sense.

Tablet	Starting Verse	Ending Verse	Owner or Writer
1	Genesis 1:1	Genesis 2:4a	God Himself (?)
2	Genesis 2:4b	Genesis 5:1a	Adam
3	Genesis 5:1b	Genesis 6:9a	Noah
4	Genesis 6:9b	Genesis 10:1a	Shem, Ham & Japheth
5	Genesis 10:1b	Genesis 11:10a	Shem
6	Genesis 11:10b	Genesis 11:27a	Terah
7	Genesis 11:27b	Genesis 25:19a	Isaac
8	Genesis 25:12	Genesis 25:18	Ishmael, through Isaac
9	Genesis 25:19b	Genesis 37:2a	Jacob
10	Genesis 36:1	Genesis 36:43	Esau, through Jacob
11	Genesis 37:2b	Exodus 1:6	Jacob’s 12 sons

Tablet #1

Tablet #1 begins with the first verse of Genesis, and ends with the toledoth phrase in Gen.2:4a, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.”

I should say here that the following discussion is based on a firm belief that the six days of creation are literal 24-hour days, as the clear phraseology of the Bible states.

In this first tablet, there’s no author’s name in that closing verse. Who could have personal knowledge of what was written there? Only the Creator Himself. God could have written this with His own fingers (like He wrote in Exodus 31:18). I think it’s just as possible that He orally dictated it to Adam. At that same time He might have been using this as a teaching tool, showing Adam how to write, and maybe this served as Adam’s “practice slate.” Whatever the mode, God was the personal author of that first tablet, the actual creation account.

The basic meaning of toledoth, according to Gesenius, is “family history ... or the story of their origins.” For Tablet #1, the “family” consists of the entire cosmos and its occupants. So this tablet might be thought of as “the family history of the entire cosmos and its plants and animals.”

Tablet #2

Tablet #2 begins with the next part of Gen.2:4b, “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ...” The closing toledoth is in Gen.5:1a, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.”

Many people have been confused at what they’ve been told were two different creation accounts in these first two chapters. But we can see that this isn’t correct. Chapter 1 is the only “creation account,” since it gives detailed listing and timing of the creative acts of God. Chapter 2 does not attempt to say “This happened and then that happened.” It’s just Adam’s own account of his own beginnings, written from his own viewpoint.

The confusion comes about because of peculiarities in words. It only shows up in some languages. The English language has definite past, present, and future tenses for its verbs, but Hebrew (the language of Genesis) does not. In Hebrew, the relative timing must be taken from the context, not the actual words themselves.

In Tablet #1 (Gen.1:1 - 2:4a), the timing is carefully told -- the creation of land animals and humans took place on the sixth day, and in the order stated (first the animals, then both man and woman). This tablet is written from the Creator’s viewpoint (on His tablet), and outlines the exact things He did.

But in Tablet #2 (Gen.2:4b - 5:1a), there are no timing statements. This tablet was written from a different viewpoint (I think by Adam himself), and describes events as he saw them. He first briefly described the area around him (in Gen.2:4b - 2:15), and the instructions and promise of a help-mate, that God had given him. He then told of the huge task that he had been given by God (naming the animals) and how he did that. These verses show that Adam must have been a very intelligent person and a knowledgeable taxonomist, not the ignorant “cave-man” that some people imagine.

The Hebrew words in Genesis 2:19 could have been translated, “And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast ...” (past tense). It seems to this writer that Adam simply put verses 19 and 20 (naming the animals) at this spot for his own convenience, not for indicating sequential action, so that he could then move on to the more important matter of the establishment of the human home, family, and population growth. In Gen.2:21 through 2:25 he used a literary flashback to describe the formation of his wife (which had happened previously on Day #6 of Creation Week), and then moved smoothly into telling of their activities together. Unfortunately, the first activity that he described involved the world’s first sin, and its terrible consequences.

If this explanation isn’t true, then we have to consider Chapter 2 as a sequential description that conflicts with Chapter 1. We’re faced with a hard-to-explain situation, as follows: In 2:18 God promised Adam a help-mate, then in 2:19-20 He created the animals, and told Adam to name them, sounding as if one of them might be that help-mate. When that didn’t work out right, only then did God create the woman. This sounds as if God didn’t really know what He was doing— an impossible accusation! It also changes the sequence of what God created on Day #6—saying that He first created man, then land animals, then woman. That violates the timing description in Genesis 1, in which the timing is definitely stated.

By now, someone is probably asking “Why does a tablet end in the middle of a verse, and the next tablet start in the middle of that same verse? Why not stop each tablet at the end of a verse?”

That’s a good question, and I think there’s a good answer. The original text was written simply with a string of paleoHebrew characters, with no punctuation, and that original text didn’t have chapter and verse divisions—those didn’t come along until the Geneva Bible was translated, in the 1500s A.D. Those translators didn’t understand the word “toledoth,” and didn’t recognize the tablet structure. It was only in the early 1900s that the ancient libraries at Nuzi yielded the key to that puzzle. It’s unfortunate that we have that confusing verse structure in our modern Bibles.

Tablet #3

Tablet #3 begins with Gen.5:1b, “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ...” Who wrote this? Look ahead to the next occurance of “... the generations of xxx.” That toledoth phrase is in Gen.6:9a, “These are the generations of Noah.” So this tablet, giving the geneology from Adam to Noah, and God’s first commands to Noah, were written by the logical man for that job—Noah himself.

Tablet #4

Now for Tablet #4, which begins in Gen.6:9b, “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, ...” We’ll see later that this was the opening verse of the combined diaries of Noah’s sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth. What better way for them to start their portion than by mentioning their father?

This is the section that describes the Great Flood, and their experience of riding the Ark for a year, with its strange load of animals. This portion has several spots that sound repetitious. Gen.6:11, Gen.6:12-13, and Gen.6:17 almost say the same thing—why is this? Also Gen.7:18, Gen.7:19, and Gen.7:20 are almost the same. That’s puzzled many people, but when we see that there were really three separate diaries that were combined by Moses, about 1000 years later, it makes perfect sense. This joint authorship is shown in the toledoth phrase, found in Gen.10:1a, “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth:”

Incidentally, these three sons are not named in the sequence of their ages. Gen.9:24 says that Ham was the youngest, and Gen.10:21 tells us that Japheth was the elder; Shem must have been in the middle.

Tablet #5

Next, Shem takes up the story by himself. Tablet #5 begins in Gen.10:1b, “Unto them were sons born after the flood.” Shem lived for about 500 years after the flood, and kept track of the heads of all the families that formed the post-flood world. This section tells the “Table of Nations,” and the scattering of the people at the Tower of Babel. His closing toledoth phrase is in Gen.11:10a, “These are the generations of Shem.”

Tablet #6

Tablet #6 begins in Gen.11:10b, “Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:” It lists a number of descendants down through Terah and his three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran. The closing toledoth phrase is in Gen.11:27a, “Now these are the generations of Terah:” So who was the author of this short tablet? It must have been Terah.

Tablet #7

Tablet #7 is much longer than those we’ve just discussed. It begins with Gen.11:27b, “Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, ...” The main protagonist of this section is Abraham, which has led many people to wonder “Why isn’t this tablet named for Abraham, rather than Isaac?” With this new understanding of tablets, we can see the simple answer is that Abraham didn’t write this part— his son Isaac did. Isaac’s name is in the toledoth phrase in Gen.25:19a, “And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son.”

Sub-Tablet #8

Sub-Tablet #8 (Gen.25:12 to 25:18) is structured differently than the others. It lists the sons of Ishmael, and where they lived. It seems to be inserted at the end of the much longer tablet written by his brother Isaac. And the “toledoth phrase” is placed at its beginning, rather than the end. How did Isaac get this information?

Look at Gen.25:8,9. We see that Abraham died, and his two sons Isaac and Ishmael got together and buried him. At that time, Isaac must have gotten Ishmael’s family information (either by copying from his diary, or by just asking questions and writing as Ishmael talked). He added that at the end of his own diary. This short section doesn’t have a toledoth, but simply an introductory phrase, in Gen.25:12.

Tablet #9

Jacob’s diary is the basis for Tablet #9, which begins in Gen.25:19b, “Abraham begat Isaac: And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, ...” We see that Jacob naturally began by mentioning his grandfather, then his father and mother. The bulk of Jacob’s diary tells a complicated tale of his own growth from being a deceptive sneak until he finally had a life-changing experience with God, and had his name changed to Israel—meaning “he struggles with God.” This section also describes the birth of his twelve sons—the “Sons of Israel.”

Sub-Tablet #10

Sub-Tablet #10 (occupying all of Gen.36) is a short tablet from Jacob’s brother Esau, merged into Jacob’s story. As described in the Sub-Tablet #8 paragraph above, the “toledoth phrase” is placed at the beginning, as a title rather than a closing colophon. This probably happened in a very similar way that we mentioned for Ishmael’s Sub-Tablet, above. Look at Gen.35:29. Isaac died, and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. This must have been the time when Jacob learned about all of his nephews. I can imagine the conversation, after the funeral—Jacob said, “Hey brother, tell me about your kids, and their kids. What’s been happening with you?” Jacob must have written rapidly, while Esau described his large family. Or, of course, Esau may have just given Jacob a copy of his list.

The toledoth phrase for Jacob’s Tablet #9 is in Gen.37:1,2, “And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan. These are the generations of Jacob.”

Tablet #11

The last tablet, Tablet #11, of Genesis begins in Gen.37:2b, “Joseph, being seventeen years old, ...” Many people have been confused at this Gen.37:2 verse. It begins by saying “These are the generations of Jacob,” and immediately starts discussing Joseph. Jacob is a very minor character for the next dozen chapters. But this is another case where the Tablet Theory clears up what has long been a big puzzle. That verse, Gen.37:2, should have been divided in its middle, to clarify that the first part was written by Jacob, and the second part was written by Joseph.

The contents of Joseph’s tablet are very important in the history of the Bible’s people. He was taken into slavery in Egypt and, in the course of a dozen years, rose to become the second most powerful man in Egypt. As events unfolded, his family was drawn into a move to Egypt also, and there they and their descendants were to spend several hundred years. The last portion of this tablet describes the death of his father Jacob. But the book of Genesis closes without telling of Joseph’s death, and there’s not any sort of toledoth phrase—why not?

This must be a conjecture, but I think that Exodus 1:6, “And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.” could form this closure. It may have been added by Moses, after he inherited all the tablets, and began to combine them. Those last chapters of Genesis must have been primarily written by Joseph, but of course he couldn’t have recorded his own death. These few verses may have been written by one of his surviving brothers.

R.K. Harrison suggests a different explanation for the Joseph portion of Genesis (which this writer thinks is possible but not most likely). He wrote: R.K. Harrison, Prof. of Old Testament, Wycliffe College, Univ. Toronto, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” Eerdsmans, 1969, pp. 542-553.

“The remainder of Genesis deals with the Joseph narratives (Gen. 37:2b - 50:26), the Egyptian background of which has been so well attested by scholars as to make further comment unnecessary. Most probably this material was still in oral form when Moses was alive, and it may be that it was he who reduced it to writing in magnificent literary Hebrew. Quite possibly Moses was responsible for substituting leather for the Amarna Age tablet-form vehicle of communication.”

However, Harrison does believe the earlier parts of Genesis were probably written on clay tablets in a style patterned after the Mesoptamian habit.

What Were the Tablet Materials?

All of the original tablets have been long and completely lost, so we don’t know anything about what they were like. All of what I’ve written above is from textual evidence, not from physical remains.

We know, from the ancient Nuzi library, that clay tablets were commonly used, at least as far back as Abraham’s time. These have lasted for over 4000 years, and are still legible, in museums today. Clay is certainly a likely material for the early Biblical tablets.

However, when Jacob’s descendants left Egypt, in the mid-1400s B.C., God inscribed the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone, on Mount Sinai. That’s also a possible material for the ones in Genesis. Most of our preserved information from early Egypt is carved on the stone of buildings (and thus is not at all portable). But stone is heavier, and harder to work.

Later, papyrus and vellum (thin sheepskin) were also used, in Egypt and elsewhere. Scrolls found in the Dead Sea caves in the mid-1900s were on these materials, so they’ve lasted for over 2000 years. But I don’t know of any proof that these came into use before the middle of the second millenium B.C.

There’s an ancient Jewish tradition that the Torah should always be written upon leather (vellum, or sheepskin), since this apparently was the original material vehicle of its transmission (this is from R.K. Harrison, cited above).

I think that probably Moses compiled all these tablets into one long record, scroll, or book during the 40-year wilderness experience, described in Exodus and Numbers. And I think that he probably used vellum to write on, since papyrus is rare in Sinai, and the Israelites had many sheep, thus vellum was easy to get.

The first five books of the Bible—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—are traditionally known as the Books of Moses, and he is quoted as the author of the last four. Nowhere does it say that Moses actually composed and wrote Genesis, but it is certainly a reasonable assumption that he was the compiler of that book.

Conclusion

The book of Genesis is an historical account, not an allegory. Its accuracy is assured by the inspirational guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think its details are best explained by this modified tablet theory, which offers a more satisfactory explanation of all the details, and doesn’t violate any known fact. It’s in good accord with Scripture, and adds the authenticity that Genesis was composed of eye-witness accounts. I believe that it’s true. We would do well to simply believe the exact teaching of the Bible, just as God inspired it. To do otherwise is an insult to its Author, our Creator God.

Evidence Supporting TMSA

2007-12-20T15:55:00.000-06:00

Theory of Multiple Separate Ancestries (TMSA)

Biological Support

Experimental selection shows limited variation in species. Nothing equivalent to a new type of organism, or a new organ, has ever been produced through experimental selection. Dogs are always dogs; variation may be impressive, but it is not progressive. The theory of separate ancestries can explain why there are so many different types of organisms, each with limited variability.
Different groups of organisms have their own system of gene interactions and embryological development. For example, reptiles, amphibians and birds follow quite different pathways of embryological development. Each group probably has some unique genes and gene interactions, although study of this topic is still in the early stages. Each group passes through a similar blastula stage in development. Why do different gene interactions produce temporarily similar morphological effects; yet, why are the adult stages so different? In contrast, similar genes may produce different results. For example, flies and humans have a similar gene that controls development of the eye, but their eyes have a radically different structure. These questions are easily answered by the TMSA, in which similar principles and materials were arranged in different ways in different "biosystems."
Many groups are separated by both quantitative and qualitative differences in genetic information. The exact genetic composition of living species is unknown, except for a very few simple organisms. However, it seems clear that some species possess genes that are not present in other species. For example, mammals have placental hormones that are apparently not present in other groups. There are probably thousands of other examples of genes that are unique to a particular group. The addition of genetic information by any means other than the activity of an intelligent creator requires a series of events that are so highly improbable that no other theory seems plausible.
Some groups have morphological structures not present in other groups. It is implausible to think that new morphological structures can grow from nothing. Living organisms possess many and varied types of morphological structures, which are restricted to certain groups of organisms. Each new organ requires genetic information for its own development and genetic information for coordination of its function with the rest of the body. Development of new morphological structures is not seen in laboratory experiments; nor is it seen in the fossil record. The only plausible method of developing new morphological structures is through the creative activity of an intelligent being.

Paleontological Support

The fossil record shows separate groups throughout. Fossil groups rarely if ever merge into common ancestry in the fossil record, except perhaps for a few examples at the lower taxonomic levels such as species and races. The larger groups, such as Phyla and Classes, maintain their separate identities right down to the lowest levels of the geologic column. This supports TMSA.
Additional groups of fossils show up abruptly throughout the geologic column. The famous "Cambrian Explosion" includes most Phyla and Classes of living organisms that have enough hard parts to produce fossils easily. Even if one believes that the fossil record represents long ages of time, the "Cambrian Explosion" indicates separate ancestries for at least the major groups of organisms. Other examples of abrupt appearance extend that conclusion to groups of lower taxonomic rank. Taxonomic categories are subjectively determined, so one cannot make a blanket generalization linking limits to change with specific taxonomic categories; each case requires separate consideration and testing.
Systematic gaps in taxonomy imply multiple separate ancestries. Relatively small, but significant, gaps appear between nearly all fossil species. Much larger gaps appear between higher taxa, such as Orders, Classes and Phyla. When viewed over time, gaps in the fossil record should be random. Instead, they are systematic. This is contrary to expectation. Although it is explained as an incomplete fossil record, it seems strange that the biggest gaps in the fossil record should occur where the greatest amounts of change are proposed. For example, there are many fossil mollusks and many fossil arthropods, but no fossils that show a reasonable link between the two groups.

Philosophical and Theological Support

Scripture describes separately created groups. Genesis 1 gives separate mention to the following groups: plants yielding seed; fruit trees (v. 11); sea monsters (whales?); aquatic creatures; birds (v 21); cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth (v 25); humans (v 27). The created groups are generally identified by habitat rather than group name. It seems clear from the reading that each group, e.g., "creeping things", consists of many distinct types, all created at the same time.
The Genesis story of TMSA explains the moral difference between humans and animals.

Author: Dr. Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute

Response to Philosophical Support

2007-12-20T15:51:00.000-06:00

Rebuttal against philosophical arguments for TUCA

Three philosophical arguments for TUCA were presented: a mechanism that can be studied; avoiding the necessity of postulating an evil god; and the ability of the single theory to explain so many observations. However, none of these arguments is compelling. The fact that a theory proposes a mechanism that can be studied says nothing about whether the theory is actually true. It only indicates whether it can provide employment opportunities for scientists.

The presence of evil does not require postulating an evil god; a good God may permit evil in order to preserve freedom, while assuring the eventual elimination of evil. The ability of the theory to explain many observations is a good point, but is weakened by the failure of the theory to explain many other observations. A theory that explains only part of the observations cannot be regarded as conclusive. This applies also to creationist theory. Neither theory can be conclusively demonstrated, and philosophical considerations are likely to be the most important factor determining which theory a person prefers.

Author: Dr. Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute

Response to Paleontological Evidence

2007-12-20T15:41:00.000-06:00

Rebuttal against paleontological evidence for TUCA

Two lines of paleontological evidence for TUCA were presented: increasing modernness, and morphological series. These two patterns in the fossil record are some of the most difficult patterns for creationists to explain. Yet it is important for creationists to address them. How would a creationist explain these patterns?

As noted above, creationists do not have a really satisfactory explanation for the increasing modernness of fossils. One suggestion (by Christians) is they might be the result of sequential destruction by the expanding flood. Those groups that were buried first by the flood would be least likely to have any survivors still living. Those groups that were last to be buried would be those with the greatest chance to survive the flood. This explanation would work well except for those groups saved in the ark. This explanation also ignores the claim that "all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, died" (Gen 7:22). Why then should the pattern seem to apply also to terrestrial vertebrates?

The answer to this is not clear, and creationists need to study this problem more to attempt to understand it. Various suggestions have been made. One is that post-flood survival of the terrestrial vertebrates depended survival of their food sources. Another is that the post-flood ecology favored those groups that lived at the highest elevations, which were last to be buried.

Certain fossils form morphological series that appear consistent with evolutionary theory. The synapsid ("mammal-like") reptiles are an example. Evolutionary theory provides a ready explanation for this sequence; creationist theory does not. Some discussion of this problem is given below. Before addressing this question, it should be noted that there are many groups that suddenly show up without identifiable ancestors. Examples include the sharks, bony fish, frogs, salamanders, dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, primates, rodents, bats, edentates, and many others. Abrupt appearance is a pervasive pattern in the fossil record.

A creationist could give a variety of responses to the questions regarding morphological series such as the synapsid reptiles. First, although the fossil series of mammal-like reptiles is impressive, there are numerous large morphological gaps among the synapsid reptiles and between them and modern mammals. None of them can be confidently identified as directly ancestral to any of the others.

It is sometimes claimed that an ancestor has been found for a particular group, such as birds or mammals or whales or humans. However, a close, critical examination of such claims invariably reveals that the fossil in question is not believed to be an actual ancestor of the group, but merely a representative of a group that included the actual ancestor. Such fossils can be interpreted instead as representatives of extinct groups that had nothing to do with the ancestry of the group in question. The lack of identifiable evolutionary ancestors, including forms within morphological series, is a significant problem for evolutionary theory, but is consistent with the theory of multiple separate ancestries.

A second creationist response is that the fossil sequence appears to be the result of the catastrophic destruction of the world, which was supernaturally directed, and most of which occurred in about a year. The problem for creationists is not so much that morphological series exists, but that we do not have a ready explanation as to why they came to be buried in that sequence.

This reflects our ignorance the of pre-Flood world and the sequence of events during the Flood. The burial sequence of the mammal-like reptiles might reflect an ecological sequence of flood destruction. Further study may shed additional light on this question. However, no one has any experience with world-wide catastrophes, and it is difficult to imagine what could or could not happen.

Finally, for the sake of argument, even if a few morphological series seem problematic for creationists, this still does not explain the origins of the other groups, especially those involved in the "Cambrian Explosion." There does not seem any reasonable way to avoid the necessity of an intelligent creator and multiple separate ancestries. If this is true, explanations that depend entirely on the absence of intelligent intervention should be evaluated with caution. Bias against a creator may cause one to miss the obvious.

Author: Dr. Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute

Response to Biological Evidence

2007-12-20T15:36:00.000-06:00

Rebuttal against biological evidence for TUCA

Four lines of biological evidence for TUCA were described above: experimental selection; homology; hierarchical taxonomy; and biogeography. Each one of these falls short of the support needed for TUCA.

Experimental selection has shown that species have an impressive capacity for change and variation. However, selection experiments have not resulted in any new morphological structures or new types of organisms. Change does not appear to be progressive, but is restricted to producing variations of existing characteristics. Multiple separate ancestries seem to be required to explain biodiversity.

The notion of "homology" actually presents severe problems for evolutionary theory. We can observe the similarities in the structural design of vertebrates, but the developmental stages are surprisingly different in the different vertebrate groups. This suggests substantial genetic differences in the processes controlling development in these groups. If the processes are so different, can we be certain the effects are truly homologous? In contrast, the eyes of insects and vertebrates have been interpreted as non-homologous.

It seems unlikely that such structurally different eyes could be derived from a common ancestor, and it seems unlikely that their supposed common ancestor would even have eyes at all. Yet the genetic switch controlling eye development appears to be highly similar in insects and vertebrates. If such similar developmental genes can produce eyes that perform the same function, but appear to have independent origins, where is the homology? Perhaps the term has no real biological meaning, but is simply a term for an idealized concept in evolutionary theory. Biodiversity can be explained as the result of multiple separate ancestries in which the Creator created a diversity of "biosystems", often using similar principles of design.

The hierarchical taxonomic pattern also has shortcomings. The actual data is full of inconsistencies, which are interpreted as evolutionary losses, reversals and parallelisms. Similarities and differences among organisms often show conflicting patterns. One characteristic may group species A with species B to the exclusion of species C. Yet a different characteristic may group species A with species C to the exclusion of species B. For example, birds have some features similar to reptiles, other features similar to mammals, and yet other features that are unique to birds. This problem increases with the number of groups included in the study. This pattern can be explained as the result of separate creative acts in which appropriate features were used in different groups as needed.

Geographical distributions indicate common ancestry only for lower taxonomic categories. Endemic groups are most common at the Family level or lower. Few Orders are endemic to a particular region. Thus common ancestry is suggested primarily among members of families and genera. For example, the sloth family is restricted to tropical America, and its members might well share a common ancestry. The Order Edentata (including the sloths, armadillos and anteaters) is one of the few living Orders with a geographically restricted distribution. All living members of the Order Edentata are restricted to tropical America (except one kind of armadillo that lives in the southern United States). However, a probable fossil edentate (an anteater) has been found in Germany, showing the group apparently has existed in other places. The existence of numerous distinct groups with worldwide distributions can be explained as the result of separate ancestries.

Author: Dr. Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute

Evidence Supporting TUCA

2007-12-20T15:27:00.000-06:00

Theory of Universal Common Ancestry (TUCA)

Biological Support

Experimental selection shows that species possess sufficient variability to permit significant change. Breeds of dogs vary as much as different genera of wild dogs. All species exhibit variation when studied closely.
Similarities in organisms, morphological and molecular, are explained by common ancestry. "Homology" refers to an inherited feature shared by two or more species, that has been modified in different ways in the species being compared. The vertebrate forelimb is an example of a homologous structure; it is modified into an arm in humans, a paddle in whales, a wing in bats, and a foreleg in horses. Similar molecular characteristics may also be regarded as homologous. The genetic code and molecular metabolism are common to virtually all organisms, and are thought to have been inherited from a common ancestor, hence homologous.
The hierarchical organization of taxonomy is explained by common ancestry. Recently diverged species form closely packed clusters; these clusters are more distantly spaced because they represent more ancient divergences. For example, cats, dogs and bears each include a group of similar species, thought to have diverged relatively recently. Each of these closely packed clusters of species can be clustered more loosely in the group carnivores. The different groups of carnivores are thought to have diverged from each other more anciently. This pattern applies to both morphology and to molecular sequences.
Restricted geographical distribution of groups of species is explained by common ancestry. Groups of similar species are often restricted to a particular geographic region; examples- kangaroos, sloths, lemurs, African antelope. Their presence together, and absence in other regions, is explained if they diversified in that region from a common ancestor.

Paleontological Support

The fossil record shows different species in successive layers, with more familiar types concentrated in the upper layers. Certain fossils are always found in the same sequential relationship, whenever they are found in the same region. This is explained if different species lived at different times, the former species being the ancestors of the later species.
The fossil record contains numerous examples of species that are arranged in a morphological sequence. One famous example involves the "mammal-like reptiles." A group of extinct reptile-like fossils is found, beginning near the top of the Paleozoic rocks. These fossils are known as synapsid reptiles. Their lower jaws have the structure of a reptilian jaw. In the lower Mesozoic layers, similar fossils are found, but with more mammal-like lower jaws. These are followed by fossils with completely mammal-like jaws. Evolutionary theory explains this sequence as showing the development of mammals from reptile-like ancestors.

Philosophical and Theological Support

The theory of universal common ancestry is based on a mechanism that can be studied scientifically. A testable explanation is considered superior to statements that explain an observation as caused by unspecified supernatural activity.
The theory of universal common ancestry through natural law can explain the existence of death and pain without invoking a creator god who is responsible for evil, either through design or through indifference.
The theory of evolution has strong explanatory power; it explains many different kinds of observations. The ability of the theory to explain so many observations makes the theory appear reliable.

Author: Dr. Jim Gibson, Geoscience Research Institute

Path of Least Resistance II

2007-12-19T13:55:00.002-06:00

The overall premise of my path of least resistance entry was that an "unguided process could not produce the complex living systems we observe in nature." I argued that a random process would at best take the path of least resistance, if it were able to take a path at all. And because extremely complex life forms exist, I concluded that atheism was not a logical mindset. Such improbable creatures must have required a Creator. However, some disagreed with me on this point, and argued that random mutations combined with natural selection could produce all the life forms we see on earth today.

Is the "sieve" of natural selection really capable of producing ALL of the systems on earth?

Before I get into the specifics of these "complex living systems" and why I believe they require an intelligent Creator, I want to discuss the process of natural selection.

To understand the theory of evolution via natural selection, you must understand the difference between the genotype and the phenotype.

Natural selection operates at the level of the phenotype. In other words, nature "selects" from an existing pool of traits. Phenotypes with the most "fitness" will go on to survive, and those with less fitness will go extinct. Thus, natural selection is a process of filtering and refining a population. Crocoduck provided a great illustration of this process by comparing it to a sieve.

But how can a process that works like a filter produce more complexity? Dr. Walter Veith states this question well:

The very name "selection" implies that you're choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favour of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them. So my problem with it was, "how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more"?

And:

The answer obviously is, it doesn't. That leaves chance mutations as the only source of the new information. You have to have all these new genes coding for new features, all interacting precisely with one another, continually arising as animals get more complex, by chance. To believe that, you have to have a lot of faith. It's certainly not something I see in my work as a zoologist.

So, the refining process of evolution is in "natural selection," which functions as a filter. Mutations create new genetic variants, and the beneficial variants stand the test of time by passing through the filter of natural selection. This is the theory of evolution in a nutshell.

So far, the term "information" has appeared only once. There has been some "confusion" over the term information. So let's take a look at this concept...because it is essential to understand "information" before we can discuss the likelihood of mutations adding complexity to the genome.

Enter the "simple" cell:

1. Nucleus
2. Nuclear envelope
3. Nucleolus
4. RNA and protiens
5. Nucleoli
6. Chromatin
7. DNA packaged in chromosomes
8. Rough endoplasmic reticulum
9. Ribosomes
10. Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
11. Mitochondria
12. Peroxisome
13. Centrioles
14. Golgi
15. Lysosomes
16. Cytoplasm
17. Cell membrane

"Roughly speaking," says Leslie Orgel, "the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure." The more complex a structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it.

A visualization of this cell in action:

[And if you like it spelled out, there is also a full version of this video.]

Clearly, the "information content" of this cell is vast, because it performs very complex functions and has a highly ordered structure. (Don't worry, I'm not getting into abiogenesis...I'm only discussing how "simple" living systems can evolve into more complex living systems.

As stated earlier, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions required to specify its structure. Therefore, the genome of a squid would contain more information content than an amoeba, because the biological structure of a squid is more complex than that of an amoeba. If you guys don't understand this concept, then I can't help you!

Animal Instinct

2007-12-19T13:55:00.001-06:00

There are so many layers of complexity in living systems. Not only does the atheist have to contend with the sheer improbability of physiological traits, but he also must consider the immaterial qualities that make life so amazing. For example, have you ever considered the improbability of certain instincts? In case you haven't, let me provide a short list (there are thousands more) of some amazing animal behavior:

Moths and butterflies "deposit their eggs in the precise substance, that of a cabbage for example, from which, not the butterfly herself, but the caterpillar which is to issue from her egg, draws its appropriate food. The butterfly cannot taste the cabbage--cabbage is no food for her, yet in the cabbage, not by chance, but studiously and electively, she lays her eggs...There is no opportunity either for instruction or imitation. The parent race is gone before the new brood is hatched." (Quoting William Paley)

The female wasp will provide grubs as food for her larvae ("worms") that will hatch from its eggs "and yet this wasp never saw an egg produce a worm--not ever saw a worm--nay, is to be dead long before the worm can be in existence--and moreover she never has in any way tasted or used these grubs, or used the hole she made, except for the prospective benefit of the unknown worm she is never to see. (Quoting Henry Lord Brougham)

The parasol ant carries pieces of freshly cut leaves into its nest. Why? To grow a specific kind of fungus that it uses to feed the entire colony, including the larvae. It will act much like a skilled gardener, "weeding out" and destroying any other type of fungus that begins to grow in its garden.

Certain animals demonstrate altruistic instinctual behavior, such as the vampire bat who regurgitates blood for an unsuccessful neighbor. Or a ground squirrel who emits an alarm call when it spots a predator. This warns the other squirrels, but draws more attention to the squirrel itself.

I was so interested in behavioral science, I ordered a textbook that was supposed to explain how these amazing instincts "evolved" without any divine intervention. But, I have found no satisfactory explanations...only highly improbable "possible" paths to these behaviors. In other words, I have to choose between a faith in highly improbable "natural causes," or faith in an unseen God. Well, I've made my choice.

In the book of Job, the LORD describes animal behavior and claims to be the Designer and Controller of instinct. He takes credit for various instincts, including the lion's ability to hunt prey, the raven's ability to feed its young, the ostriches lack of maternal care, the wild horse's fearlessness, the eagle's nest making ability, among others.

However, if there is no God, could we really expect these instincts to emerge? Could random processes instill wisdom/instinct into a lowly maggot or fruit fly?

Even if you attempt to explain the origin of certain beneficial behaviors, how can you explain the propagation of these behaviors? In other words, maybe one moth is born smart enough to lay her eggs in a decent food source, but how would that knowledge be passed on to her offspring? How would that instinct extend itself to the ENTIRE population of moths, so that not one moth is found foolishly depositing its eggs in the sand? Every single moth knows exactly where to deposit her eggs. Wow!

Things get really complicated when you consider group instinct in the animal kingdom.

Maybe you could ignore the improbability of a moth knowing where to deposit her eggs, but what about geese flying in v-formation?

In the case of the moth, only one hypothetical insect had to "discover" the benefit of an improbable act. Now you have to believe multiple geese "discovered" the benefit of flying in organized groups. Does this not multiply the improbability? Let's discuss this issue further:

Not only do migratory birds fly in organized groups, they fly in perfect formation. If you live in the Midwest, you've probably noticed Canadian geese.

The "v" frequently changes shape, and the formation will morph into a "check mark" when crosswinds are blowing. This allows the short side of the formation to take the brunt of the wind, while the long-side birds "honk" encouragement.

As wind currents shift, so will the formation; and when the lead geese grow weary, the others will assume their position in the front.

Where are they going? They can travel over 2,000 miles in continuous flight, and may reach 20,000 feet altitude. And they're all going together!

Could this instinct evolve?

This is just the tip of the iceberg...everywhere you look, animals are doing much more than is required to survive. The animal kingdom is an amazing testament to the creativity and power of God. If you choose to believe this all arose by chance, that is your prerogative. As for me, I will acknowledge the truth that "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [I am] without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Our Solar System

2007-12-19T13:54:00.000-06:00

Here are nine clips from the 2006 Creation Conference in Seattle. The lecturer is Spike Psarris. I challenge you to watch all nine of these videos (I realize it will take a while). To my atheist/evolutionist friends: please heed your own advice and consider all the evidence...don't ignore the facts because they disagree with your religious dogmas. Rebuttals are welcome, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Each video will open in a separate window:

Specified Complexity

2007-12-19T13:52:00.000-06:00

Check out these videos and pay attention to the intricate machinery. Notice how all the individual parts work in harmony with the others:

If this animated music machine was built, it would be obvious to everyone that it was designed. No one in their right mind would argue that it was not designed...it was clearly intended to function exactly as it does.

Would you agree that this "simple" cell contains more complexity than the elaborate music machine in the first video? Yet none of its parts need to be oiled or changed, and each part works in perfect tandem with all the others. How could anyone in their right mind say this cell was not designed? The most impressive manmade machines pale in comparison to this simple, living cell.

View the Full version of cell video for narration.

Common Objections to Christianity

2007-12-19T13:50:00.000-06:00

The God of the Bible is not worthy of my respect:

The God who 'created' nature is cruel
God practices genocide, and even endorses anti-Semitic writings in the New Testament (John, 1 Thess 2)
God is hypocritical in His orders, and in His ethics.
God must have created evil (1) and (2). He must be evil itself.
God is apparently insensitive to suffering, and natural evil.
God is either malevolent or impotent--He expects us to intervene in crime situations but He doesn't!
God must be cruel or insane to set us up for failure from the beginning.
God forces people to disobey Him, so He can punish them--both His friends (1),(2) and His enemies.
God unfairly condemns people who don't even know about Him.
And He even unfairly places people in specific cultures which will determine that they have a low chance of becoming a Christian.
God condones slavery and dishonors and devalues women.
God must not be all that loving, executing justice when He could just as easily forgive sins.
And then His 'solution' to it (substitutionary death of Jesus) is immoral and illegal!
God is even called "jealous", "vengeful", and "wrathful" by the bible itself!
His servants are cruel, too, even to butchering innocent women and children, more than once, and on a large scale, too.
God is a self-centered and insecure glory-hog, because He created an entire universe just to sit around and praise Him.
God knew that all this suffering and hell would befall us, but He was heartless/sadistic enough to go ahead with creation and history ANYWAY.
And He then offers me the "free choice" of "love me, or be tortured in hell for ever..."
Or so I THOUGHT it was a choice--but instead He predestined me to choose hell ANYWAY…according to St. Paul in Romans 9! (1),(2)…
And, this predestination was totally arbitrary, as if decided by a random set of dice…
Besides, God just created us just to meet His own, personal needs--He obviously is not 'healthy' enough without us!

Actually, the very concepts of "god" and "souls" are useless:

Humanity probably invented the concept.
Science has shown us that humans don't have "souls" anyway.
The concept of God is riddled with incoherence anyway.
Even if He/she/it/they DID exist, our finite language is inadequate to talk about God.
And God (if he/she/it/they did exist) is so far beyond our knowledge, we could never know God personally.

The OT/Tanaach that tells us about the God is not trustworthy

It makes false claims: it claims to be written by Moses, but it wasn't, and Daniel 'pretends' that its telling the future!
It is filled with historical errors (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
Archaeology has disproved it.
It is filled with contradictions (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
There is no extra-biblical data to support it.
And the extra-biblical data that does exist shows that it is merely a rip-off of earlier ANE literature!
It was corrupted in transmission to us.

I have no affirmative reason to believe such a God exists

God should give us concrete proof., and the Christian interpretation of the "evidence" has no compelling support for it.
We don't have any evidence of God's existence.
We don't have any reasons to believe in spirits or a 'supernatural dimension' anyway.
Christianity cannot be true, since it needs so much defending? And God doesn't make it very clear or obvious?
The complexity in the universe doesn't need a 'God' to explain it--complexity arises from simplicity all the time…
The supernatural elements in the gospels are not 'evidence', since the ancient world was teeming with fraudulent claims, aimed for the credulous masses.

Jesus didn't actually exist himself:

There are no extra-biblical records of Jesus.
He was probably just an amalgam of other savior myths.
He (and the bible itself) was probably concocted for power reasons, to control the populace.

The Jesus of the New Testament is not worthy of my respect (much less, worship or trust):

He was a hate-monger, and even anti-family.
He was dishonest and sacrilegious.
He was mean and insulting.
He prayed to a pagan god.
He was mistaken about His return.
Even His death contradicted the Law of God.
And He even tried to do away with (annul) the eternal, unchangeable Mosaic law!

The New Testament that tells us about this Jesus is not trustworthy:

The whole story about "Jesus the Messiah" cannot be true, because the Jews were not expecting a Messiah at all.
Instead, the early Christians twisted the OT into saying something it didn't, (even the Psalm 22 thing!) and they 'read Jesus back into' the OT.
But even then, Jesus didn't fulfill those messianic prophecies, he was a failure as a messiah to His people, and he didn't even fulfill the prophecies he was supposed to (so we would KNOW he was the messiah).
The NT itself was probably a hoax, written by people biased to the point of untruthfulness, perhaps victims of a group hallucination. And we know that some of the letters of the NT were frauds--written by someone 'borrowing' the name of a famous person to win their case...especially the so-called letters of Peter
These NT authors somehow felt it was okay to invent places and events, make up speeches/settings for Jesus (1), (2), plagiarize the OT, and borrow freely from pagan religions.
With all the problems associated with memory and memory recall, it is no wonder that, after the long, slow, hodge-podge collection, by warring factions within the early church, of oral traditions about Jesus, we find the NT accounts filled with contradictions about major events like the Resurrection and Ascension (1) (2), and countless other small details (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
Even the best historian in the NT (Luke) makes major, glaring historical errors (1), (2).--why should I trust the others, like the peasant John who was anti-Semitic, or Paul who completely mutates Jesus' religion into something totally different!
The evangelists/disciples even invented the miracles stories of Jesus, to "sell Him" to others, didn't they?
This whole myth construction was done so rapidly, and gained power so quickly, that those that knew the truth did not have time to speak up in time (1)(2), and the Christians somehow simply outlived those that knew the truth.
Thanks to the Jesus Seminar and the earliest gospel (the Gospel of Thomas), we know that the message of Jesus was 'embellished' by the early Christian communities, and the 'official version' of the NT we have today (and the doctrines of the Church) were not the original ones of the true original Christians--the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
The early church was so fragmented that they could not tell between 'authentic' books and 'inauthentic' books, and the process they used for deciding on what were 'official books' was corrupt and politically motivated (1), (2), (3).
And, by the time we get to Rome making Christianity the "state religion", it totally distorted the NT documents for political purposes, increasing the number of textual errors (further undermining our confidence in the NT).
And we even have reason to believe that the earliest church suppressed the truth and deceived people for reasons of power.

And even if it were all true:

How could I decide between all the competing world religions, all claiming to be true?
How would I know whether I had the right kind of faith or not?
How would I know how to deal with "faith vs. knowledge" issues?

(Retrieved from Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank)

The Cult of Liberalism

2007-12-19T13:47:00.001-06:00

I realize this video is 45 minutes long, and that you have better things to do than watch videos all day. But this man's speech is only about 30 minutes long, the last 15 is just Q&A. It will be 30 minutes well-spent if you watch this video:

I don't want to talk too much about this video right now. I would rather wait to hear some of your reactions, and open a dialogue about liberal philosophy. Is there a "cult of indiscriminateness" among liberals? Does the modern liberal unknowingly choose nihilism as his religion?

I love the logic Sayet uses when he explains the liberal view of good vs. evil. He says something to this effect: When you have been indoctrinated into this mindset of purposeful indiscriminateness, you can come to no other conclusion but that Good is evil and Evil is the victim of good.

For instance, you cannot use the word "terrorist" when describing islamic jihadists, because "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Who are we to employ critical, rational justice?

But, as a minimal standard, can't we at least agree that in order to be called a "freedom fighter" you have to be fighting for...freedom? Osama Bin Laden is not fighting for freedom! He has told us this. Unless we convert to his religion--what he's fighting for--we are all considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys. But we cannot use discrimination when we evaluate this war. No. because "who are we to enforce our moral beliefs on anyone? We are not the rulers of the world." But this mindset ignores the fact that THEY are attacking US, and when they aren't attacking us, they are planning to.

What do you think?

Evolution: The Path of Least Resistance?

2007-12-19T13:46:00.000-06:00

Have you ever considered what it means to "take the path of least resistance?" This is a very simple, yet profound observance in nature.

Water flows downhill because it complies with gravity. Electricity follows a circuit with the least electrical resistance. Storm systems follow a path through areas with the least barometric pressure. The natural order simply follows the path of least resistance...it does not fight to overcome odds. It takes no pride in accomplishing the improbable.

This concept is one that has perplexed me when I observe the world through an evolutionary lens. Believe it or not, I try to think like an atheist sometimes. I would like to understand how they view the world. Trying to rid my mind of all religiosity and supernaturalism, I attempt to think like a naturalist. However, I never make it very far, because I am forced into traps of logic that will not allow for wholly naturalistic explanations. Take the whale, for instance:

The whale shown above is a blue whale. It can grow to over 100 feet long, and can weigh up to 300,000 pounds. It's tongue alone can weigh more than a fully-grown elephant.

Sperm whales get to be over 70 feet long and dive at a rate of 550 feet a minute. Because there is an increase of one atmosphere of pressure every 12 feet, the whale has to deal with about five different amounts of pressure on its body at one time. The varying levels of pressure on the whale's blood vessels should cause its body to collapse. However, the whale has the ability to shut down parts of its circulatory system. By doing so, they can direct the pressure within their bodies to compensate for the multiple atmospheres of pressure on the outside.

The whale's blowhole has no connection to its mouth. The trachea and esophagus are not connected. This allows the whales to feed. Their enormous mouths take in a great deal of water, which creates extreme water pressure. This water pressure would cause the whale to suffocate if the trachea were not completely detached from the esophagus.

With this in mind, we should all agree that the whale is a cool animal. Evolutionists can certainly agree that sea mammals are amazing creatures. Thankfully, they have even explained how the whale evolved. It evolved from a wolf-like animal:

Now I understand the HOW (actually I find this progression to be laughable, but for the sake of this discussion I'll go along with it).

I do not understand the WHY. Why did the whale get so large? Why would it develop its unique circulatory control system? Why did it not simply take the path of least resistance? Certainly a 100-foot long, 300,000-pound whale did not take the path of least resistance!

This is just one example of the confounding complexity of life. When I look around, I see birds soaring through the air, I see seeds twirling off of trees; I see living things with immense variety. Not only do I observe all of this astounding variety, I see symbiotic relationships! The wide variety of life depends on its own variety for survival.

We have spent a great deal of time observing nature, and it has payed off. We are beginning to understand HOW it exists. But we have no idea WHY it exists. Why did all of these life forms fight the uphill battle, overcoming the path of least resistance? Wouldn't it be much easier if every life form was just a form of bacteria? Bacteria does just fine on its own. The path of least resistance would have made evolution unnecessary.

Random mutations caused asexual organisms to increase in complexity and eventually into sexual organisms. Why did they evolve into sexual creatures? Why on earth would they fight against the path of least resistance to develop male and female sexual reproductive systems? This defies logic. An unguided process does not take the most difficult path. It will instead take the path of least resistance.

I have tried to think like an atheist, but there are many fallacies of logic that get in the way. This is just one example of a natural concept that forces me to reject naturalism. Although, I suppose I could take the path of least resistance and not ponder these things at all.

The Global Warming Swindle

2007-12-19T13:45:00.000-06:00

Anybody else sick of seeing Al Gore's fat face? I know I am. Click on Gore to view the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." [opens in a new window]:

Al, get that finger out of my face.

Was Hitler a Christian?

2007-12-19T13:44:00.001-06:00

It's hard to believe, but some people are actually arguing that Hitler was a Christian. One of the few making this claim is a guy by the name of Jim Walker.

Although I realize it can be difficult to determine whether a person is a true Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus Christ), it seems to be an easier task to determine who IS NOT. And if you have been persuaded by any of Walker's claims, you might want to consider some of the facts he failed to share...that way you won't look like an ignoramus.

A good place to start your research would be on the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazis were charged with numerous counts of war crimes, including the persecution of Christian churches.

I suggest checking out "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches," documented on July 6, 1945.

And if the actual photocopies are not enough, I suggest reading this analysis, courtesy of Cornell Law Library (which holds the original copy).

The Office of Strategic Services received some considerable attention from the press, when they released these reports...you may have heard about it on the news. Back in 2002, Edward Colimore wrote an interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the topic of Christian persecution by the Nazis. He interviews one of the editors of the original 120-page report put out by the OSS. Here's an excerpt:

When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective," said Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year law student who is editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. "A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' . . .They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity.

Hitler was planning to eliminate Christianity? If this is true, what should we make of all the Nazi artifacts and photos? And why have I read quotes of Hitler claiming to be a Christian? Why would he say those things if he didn't mean them?

Anton Gil gives us an idea in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945:"

For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics.

Furthermore:

While [Hitler] was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn't beat the church in open warfare--so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it--how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later. (source)

The problem was that Hitler and the Nazis were killing way too many people to keep it hidden from the rest of the world. While his butt-kissing to the Catholic church may have minimized suspicion in the short run, his charade would soon come to an end.

Is it really a surprise that HITLER would talk out of both sides of his mouth? This is the guy who was said to be evil incarnate! On one occasion Hitler will claim to be a Christian, and on another he'll compare Christianity to a deadly plague: "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." Ouch.

If this doesn't cast some doubt for you regarding Hitler's Christianity, you should read some of his private thoughts on the matter: click here for some more quotes.

It's starting to look like Hitler didn't care for Christians very much. It's no wonder why historians like Paul Johnson conclude that "Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended 'to stamp out Christianity root and branch'." (source)

Those close to Hitler and those with close connections to the Nazis also confirm that Christians were a future Nazi target. One example is found in this UPI report on the Nazi/Christian conflict, written by Uwe Siemon-Netto:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14, 2002 (UPI) -- The daughter of Hitler's foremost German foe reacted with satisfaction Monday to the news that a Holocaust survivor's granddaughter has drawn attention to a rarely mentioned historical fact: The Nazis planned to destroy Christianity in Germany and beyond.

"This is what my father had been saying since 1937," exclaimed Marianne Meyer-Krahmer, daughter of Carl Goerdeler, who was hanged in early 1945 for his leading role in the attempt to overthrow Hitler's regime. His family, daughter Marianne included, wound up in a concentration camp and shackled to their beds every night, she recalled in a telephone call from Heidelberg. Goerdeler, the former mayor of Leipzig, would have become German chancellor in a democratic government, had one of the 30-odd coup attempts against the fuhrer succeeded.

Goerdeler, funded by Robert Bosch, traveled around the world before World War II trying to warn leaders of Hitler's intentions. His message was: Hitler wants to destroy three enemies -- first the Jews, then the Christians and ultimately, capitalism.

"Judaism has inflamed his hatred with its doctrine of the one God who affects man's entire life with his laws and commandments," Goerdeler confided to his Political Testament, which he deposited in New York before war broke out. "Next, his hatred will turn on the Christian religion. Humility and charity render him rabid ... Hitler puts himself in the place of Christ."

This flies of course in the face of what columnist Joel Miller of WorldNetDaily.com, an internet publication, calls the popular myth that the persecution of the Jews was fundamentally a Christian enterprise. Now, Julie Seltzer Mandel, a Rutgers University law student, published U.S. intelligence papers detailing the Nazi plan to destroy Christianity.

Sounding almost verbatim like Carl Goerdeler, the summary of these papers call this plan "an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest."
The first document published so far is a 108-page outline the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's precursor, had prepared for prosecutors at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1945... (Source)

I encourage you to read through the sources I have included thus far. The research is very easy to do...many books and articles have been written on the subject, and they are readily accessible on the internet. You should also check out some of the direct rebuttals to Walker's claims, including:

1) His bias revealed
2) His lack of information
3) His illogical arguments
4) His misstatements of fact
5) His selection of Nazi photos
6) His selection of Nazi artifacts
7) His ignorance of the Bible
8) His ignorance of Christianity

Additional reading: Was Adolf Hitler a Christian?, by Jerry Bergman

The Dawkins Delusion

2007-12-19T13:42:00.000-06:00

I don't expect liberals or atheists to see the humor in this. Oh well:

In a way, I admire the faith of people who still believe Richard Dawkins is real. I actually used to believe in Richard Dawkins myself. Of course, that was back when I was a complete ignoramus.

If you're interested in seeing the "real" Dawkins, check out the original video that was spoofed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54