Jonathan Falwell, the late Jerry Falwell’s son, said in his e-mail newsletter of August 10, 2007 that “…the world was created by God in six literal days”.

There is an “ultra-literal” position, a “young earth” theory, that calculates back 4004 years BC for Adam and Eve in the Garden from the ages of individuals specified in the Bible, and then says the prior year nothing existed except God who we, those that do believe in God, all accept as eternally existing. [The emphasis is shown on what is ultra literal.]

Young Mr. Falwell is giving a “black eye” to all Bible believing Christians if he is, in fact, holding to that ultra literal position.

The more reasonable “literal” position is that in the beginning, God created all matter at once from nothing with a “Big Bang”. It is a fact that science has traced all the movements of the various heavenly bodies (stars, galaxies, etc.) to a single spot in space and have developed a theory called, “The Big Bang Theory”.

Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” To my mind this says God and science agree in the basic time frame of the creation of the universe. Everything was created at one time in one place and “hurled” through space.

On the third day God created vegetation. Now here we need to talk more about the word “literal”. To me it means that it literally took less than a day for the creation act to occur but it was not necessarily the third “consecutive” day.

It could very well be describing a number of days of creation which were not consecutive but were in fact separate acts of creation. Perhaps there were millions and millions of years between the specified days and not necessarily the same amount of time between each “creation day”.

Another equally valid literal interpretation could have the creation day be significantly longer than 24 hours, even a thousand years. St. Peter writes:

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” [I Peter 3:8]

If we look closer at the word describing the creation of the vegetation:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” [Genesis 1:11-12]

Notice the wording used here how God did the creation. God said “Let the earth bring forth…” This more implies a gradual development or, if you excuse the word, an evolving of the vegetation.

But however God did it, there was a start and a conclusion. The conclusion comes with the phrase “after its kind”. When we grow corn, the pollen does not get mixed up with the roses. The corn makes new corn and the roses make new roses. There are variations in the “kind” but no matter how you try, you may get red, white, and blue roses, but you wont get an ear of corn on the rose bush.

So looking back through fossil records, do we not find there is a time when there was no vegetation and then there was vegetation? Does anyone claim there was animal life before vegetation?

Now what is meant by the creation act of day four? This talks about the sun during the days and the moon and stars at night. What ever it means, vegetation was here before whatever happened on creation day four.

Day five uses “bring forth” for fish and birds and also uses the word “created”. This also was completed with “after their kind”.

Day six uses “bring forth”, “created”, and “God made” in reference to the rest of the animals.

But day six also includes the creation of man different from the animals.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [Genesis 1:26-27]

Now the difference between man and the animals is that God created man, both male and female, in God’s own image and God gave man, again both male and female, dominion over all life; fish, birds, and animals.

Now I am not going to comment on just what “God’s image” means nor the “dominion” concept in this document. That is left for another discussion.

What I have done it to give a literal interpretation of creation that does not contradict any obvious scientific evidence and is diametrically opposite to the “young earth” theory.

I agree with the late Jerry Falwell and now his son on most issues. But this ultra literal position is a “fly in the ointment”. I strongly suggest that Mr. Falwell should rethink what he is promulgating and accept the possibility that other literalist could be correct.

Doug Johnson has been writing and online publishing Christian articles since the 1990’s on http://www.independentchristian.org/

Doug has been a Bible believing Evangelical Christian since childhood. He has been received into fellowship with the Evangelical Free Church, the Plymouth Brethern, the Assembly of God, the American Baptist, and the Southern Baptist.

In the early 2000’s, he was received into full communion with the Catholic Church after careful study of the Catholic Catechism and the Bible. He believes Catholics and Bible believing Protestants should build on what they have in common rather than looking at what is different.

He is presently helping to establish the Independent Christian On-Line Academy at: http://www.ICOLA.us

Doug has an online retail wallpaper business, http://www.wallpaperpirate.com/

Doug is available as a consultant and or speaker.

Click Here To Pass This Article Along To Your Friends

Popularity: 25% [?]

Bookmark to:
         

If you're new here, you may first want to get a copy of my information and resources jam packed handbook on your right. Thanks for visiting!

Homology and Bio-Chemical Similarities

Do biological and bio-chemical similarities necessarily mean common ancestors? What else could it mean?

Homology and bio-chemical similarities are really the same argument. Both allege that similar features in different organisms are due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use a number of studies to identify matching traits.

Homology examines similarities of bone structures from different animals. DNA hybridization evaluates the closeness of species relationship by how many DNA strands from different species can be matched.

Electrophoritic analysis show the degree of similarity of proteins from different species. And protein sequencing measures the closeness of relationship by the amount of DNA coding change which is needed to produce the slightly different proteins of different species. One protein sequencing study, for instance, shows there is only one percent difference between chimpanzees and humans.

Forelimbs are the most widely cited example of homology. You may have seen the drawings in school. A human arm is compared bone by bone with forelimbs of whales, dogs, bats, and sometimes a bird wing. After noting how closely they correspond, evolutionists conclude these limbs are based on the same pattern because they evolved from a common ancestor.

More recently, measurable protein and DNA similarities have added more of a scientific punch to the claim. But the argument remains as before. The more similar the form, the closer it is related, and the more recent is the common ancestor.

Based on proteins and DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn’t separate until six or seven million years ago. At any rate, that is what microbiologists believe.

The question is, does similarity necessarily mean relationship? A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities?

But are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man.

When the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, they didn’t start from scratch. Engines already existed, seats already existed, and baling wire already existed. Orville and Wilbur did not need to reinvent the wheel. They used all the technology on hand to help build their plane. By the same token, why would we expect the Creator to start from scratch every time he designs a new plant, animal, or human? His proven bio-chemical technology was already at hand.

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. We agree. But that doesn’t prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It’s just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both.

Many General Motors’ cars have a similar look and very similar, often identical, parts under the hood. Certainly, no one claims they descended from a common ancestor. You and I know those cars are so much alike because they originated in the minds of the same designers. It may well be that chimpanzees and man have a lot in common because they too originated in the mind of the same designer.

Embryology

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his “fundamental biogenetic law.” It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.

According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.

Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It’s a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.

What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.

Vestigial Organs

Gill slits are just one example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.

Lost Functions

Certainly, organs can lose their functions. Wingless insects show up on isolated islands., large flightless birds turn up in Africa, and blind fish and amphibians are found in deep caves. But it is difficult to see any evolutionary gain in the loss of a function. True, the loss of a function does make them different. They are oddities. Their chance of survival cannot be enhanced by the loss. If anything, the blind or flightless creatures are one step closer to extinction.

Bone structures, proteins, and DNA sequences all reveal similarities and differences between species. But none prove evolution anymore than they prove creation. Bear in mind, the same Creator could produce different types of creatures using many of the same biological parts and much of the same bio-chemical technology. Why would he do otherwise?

Embryology was based in a combination of superficial resemblances and faked evidence. What did it prove? Not much, other than at least one nineteenth-century evolutionist was dishonest, and many others were gullible. Human embryos do not have gills; they have pouches which look somewhat like fish gills. Embryology does not prove evolution.

Vestigial organs have steadily diminished over the years. Evolutionists no longer rely on them to support their theory, although they still occasionally turn up in textbooks. Of the original 180 vestigial organs listed, 174 were later found to have functions.

What’s the bottom line? Bottom line is: neither evolution nor creationism can be proved by biological similarities, embryology, vestigial organs, or lost functions.

Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.

Click Here To Pass This Article Along To Your Friends

Popularity: 16% [?]

Bookmark to:
         

What are the 39 types of sharks known to harm humans? Well, as soon as you read this question, your mind probably started racing, your heartbeat became more rapid and your throat dried out. The question that probably consumes your thoughts right now is: “Are there that many dangerous species of sharks out there?”

Well, calm down. Yes there are 39 types of sharks known to have harmed humans but only three species were actually involved in unprovoked shark attacks. No, “Jaws” itself, better known as a Great White shark was not one of these species. Surprised? In fact, out of 1190 shark attacks between 1580 and 2005, there were only 3 provoked shark attacks, one being fatal. Each of the following species was involved in one shark attack: the Hammerhead shark, the Blue shark and the Shortfin Mako shark. The fatal attack was done by the Hammerhead shark.

So according to the ISAF (International Shark Attack File) between 1580 and 2005, there were 1187 unprovoked shark attacks done by 36 types of sharks. In fact, 17 of the 36 species involved in unprovoked shark attacks were responsible for 5 shark attacks or less. These types of sharks are: the Galapagos shark, the Tope shark, the Silvertip shark, the Spiny Dogfish shark, the Tresher shark, The Bignose shark, the Smooth Dogfish shark, the Basking shark, the Horn shark, the Sixgill shark, the Whale shark, the Greenland shark, the Whitetip Reef shark, the Porbeagle shark, the Leopard shark, the Mako shark and the Great Hammerhead shark.

Of the remaining 19 types of sharks known to harm humans, 6 types of sharks are responsible for 6 to 9 unprovoked shark attacks. These are the following species: the Grey Reef shark, the Oceanic Whitetip shark, the Sandbar shark, the Sevengill shark, the Dusky shark and the Silky shark.

Of the 13 types of sharks that are left, 3 species are responsible for 14 to 19 unprovoked shark attacks. These are the following types of sharks: the Spinner shark, the Blacktip Reef shark and the Bronze Whaler shark.

Of the 10 types of sharks that have been involved in 23 to 27 unprovoked shark attacks on humans, you have the 3 following shark species: the Lemon shark, the Caribbean Reef shark and the Wobbegong shark.

Now you have the top ten sharks that have been known to attack humans, 7 species are responsible for unprovoked shark attacks while 3 species that were mentioned earlier on this page have been involved in provoked shark attacks. The 7 species are: the Great White shark, the Tiger shark, the Bull shark, the Sand Tiger shark, the Requiem shark, the Nurse shark and the Blacktip shark.

The top 10 species are: the Great White shark (#1), the Tiger shark (#2), the Bull shark (#3), the Sand Tiger shark (#4), the Requiem shark (#5), the Nurse shark (#6), the Shortfin Mako (#7), the Blacktip shark (#8), the Hammerhead shark (#9) and the Blue shark (#10). The numbers of shark attacks done by these species vary between 36 and 410.

As you can see, the 20% types of sharks involved in shark attacks may seem impressive but not as alarming as you may have thought at first.

My name is Sylvie Leochko. My fascination with sharks encouraged me to research the various types of sharks that roam in our oceans and seas. Amongst these species, I was amazed to discover that the largest fish in the world is not only a shark, known as the whale shark, but it also is feeding on plankton but is still on this list for unprovoked attacks on humans. Interested to find out more information about types of sharks? Then I strongly suggest that you follow this link: http://sharks.findoutnow.org/types-of-sharks.html .

Click Here To Pass This Article Along To Your Friends

Popularity: 17% [?]

Bookmark to:
         

The standard microscope is a fixture in millions of school, medical, and research laboratories around the world. It is used by grammar school kids and Ph.D. researchers alike, and most of us have at least a rudimentary understanding of how it works.

But there’s another sort of microscope with which most of us are unfamiliar, simply because it is found only in the fiber optics industry. A fiber optic microscope is as specialized as the field in which it is used, and can only be used successfully by those who have been trained to do so.

Fiber optic microscopes are capable of achieving between one hundred and four hundred degrees of magnification, and the level of magnification will depend of the needs of the user. Fiber optic microscopes, because of their specialized nature, are not available from the same sources which provide regular or digital microscopes, and are usually bought by companies instead of individuals.

Kinds Of Fiber Optic Microscopes

Fiber optic microscopes come in several varieties; the simplest of them have eyepieces similar to those on compound microscopes through which their users look. A more sophisticated model of fiber optic microscope has its own video screen; this is the preferred technology for those who use a fiber optic microscope on a regular basis.

A fiber optic microscope is used to provide images of the endfaces of fiber optic connector ferrules, so that any problems with their transmission performance can be seen. The microscope will let its operator detect any dirt, debris, or scratches which may be interfering with the transmission. Most fiber optic microscopes are handheld units, operating for up to forty hours on three or four AAA batteries.

Features Of Fiber Optic Microscopes

If you’re thinking about buying a fiber optic microscope should look for models which include connectors to secure the fiber optic cables; otherwise you’ll find yourself having to struggle to hold the cable steady with one hand and hold the microscope still with the other. The microscopes with cable holders will cost more than those without them, but the time you’ll save inspecting the cables will more than make up for the difference in cost.

There are both optical and electronic fiber optic microscopes; and some of the more expensive models will display the image of the cables on a monitor to spare you from having to look at it through an eyepiece. They are capable of magnifying a three millimeter cable to tennis ball dimensions.

One fiber optic microscope from Prior Scientific is actually software controlled. Because the software is programmed to search for certain characteristics in the microscopic image and pass or fail the cable based on them.

You can also find more info on Digital Microscope and Digital Microscope Camera. Microscopesreview.com is a comprehensive resource to know about Microscopes.

Click Here To Pass This Article Along To Your Friends

Popularity: 13% [?]

Bookmark to: