Subj: More Light NOT! Area: BIOGENESIS Date: 93/09/10 During my recent visit to the ICR, I

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: LARRY SITES To: ALL Subj: More Light - NOT! Area: BIOGENESIS Date: 93/09/10 During my recent visit to the ICR, I purchased several pamplets from the Science, Scripture, & Salvation radio series. This post conserns the one titled The Book of Beginnings which covers programs 19-21 by Henry M. Morris. In the 1st program, The Foundational Importance of Genesis, he talks about many things but never provides a convincing reason why it is important. He makes much ado about Genesis being quoted in the new testament more often than other old testament books. He says on page 5 "Jesus also said in John 5 that if they wouldn't believe Moses, they would not believe Him. And so he urged them to believe the books of Moses...". And goes on "it [Genesis] is true, and the factual record of the beginning events of human history. And it does fit with all the facts of science." I assume he is refering to: ------------- John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Notice that Jesus does not refer to the creation story. Neither does Jesus EVER in any of the gospels refer to creation as being literally true or as a belief required for salvation. Jesus likewise never refers to the Genesis account of mankinds fall via Adam and Eve nor to that being the reason for his comming. As an interesting aside, Morris says he is not suggesting that Genesis be taught in public schools and gives this reason. He doesn't believe that the word of God should be taught by people who don't believe that the bible is the word of God. I guess we should use the same logic to insure that science is taught only by people that "believe" in science! (grin) Morris then on page 5 calls science into question by using Fred Hoyle. Quoting Morris "Hoyle (a great astrophysicist who ... has now also rejected the big bang theory) has written an article entitled, 'Was there Really a Big Bang?' He [Hoyle] says in this article : 'A sickly pall hangs over the big bang theory.' It has so many difficulties with it that it is going to be rejected." Then on page 6, Morris quotes Harold Jeffreys, geophysicist, 'As far as we can tell from the scientific evidence, the solar system is impossible. It could not exist.' Morris then says that Genesis explains the origin and says quote "And there is not a single fact of astronomy or cosmology or any other science that can refute the simple straightforward statement of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. The big bang theory and all the rest contradict these basic laws [Thermodynamics] of science. And these laws of science point to the necessary truth of an initial special creation of all things." Morris then says that Moses was the editor of Genesis but that Adam, Noah, etc actually wrote down the events as they took place because they "signed" their respective writting by concluding it with "This is the book of the generations of" and their name. He uses this to prove that "we have the actual record of those who were there" page 10. For some strange reason, Morris neglected to identify the eyewitness recorder of the events before Adam's creation. But by his logic we can know that those events are recorded in the heavens and earth as they are the subject of Genesis 2:4 "these are the generations of" verse. So Morris has unknowingly shown us that the actual geophysical structure of the universe is to be believed over bibolating human speculation. Now, to the point of this post, the second program titled "What Genesis Teaches about Creation." After poo-pooing the day age and gap theories, Morris argues that the creation days are literal 24 hour days from day 1 on. Now dear readers prepair yourselves for Morris' explaination of the "light before the sun" paradox! On page 16, Morris says "Now initially there was only light energy created. It is the Hebrew word, 'or'. He said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light, coming, I suppose, from different points of space, and the earth began to rotate on its axis, so that the light was seperated from the darkness, and the day from the night. There was Day 1, then Day 2, and Day 3. On Day 4, then, God says, 'Let there be lights.' That is the Hebrew 'maor'. At this time He created light bearers, or light generators, to be the sources for the light energy which would continue to function thereafter." Now I ask you all, has Morris, who claims that Genesis "is true" and "does fit with all the facts of science" and there "is not a single fact of astronomy or cosmology or any other science" that can refute it and that "these laws of science point to the necessary truth of an initial special creation" explained where the light before the sun came from? He "supposes" that it came from "different points of space" yet the stars were not yet formed. What law, fact, or observation of any field of science allows for light without a source? And even if there were one, is there any reason to "suppose" that these "different points of space" would be grouped together so that they would light only one side of the earth and result in day and night as the earth rotated? The "facts" say that light on earth before the sun and stars as described in Genesis is false not true. The description of creation does not fit with the "facts" of science. The laws of science do not point to the necessary truth of creation, they disprove it. It is interesting to note that the only "facts" of science that allow for anything like light without a source are the theoritical description of the big bang. Here the start of the universe is the source for the energy which was originally radiant light before transforming into the matter of the universe. In that respect, Genesis is correct, there was light before the sun and stars, unforunatly that light also preceded the formination of the earth. As Morris suggests, we should believe these facts as recorded in the generations of the heavens and earth and now "read" for us by science. Peace, Larry * Wave Rider 1.10 [NR] *


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank