The Apple Of God's Eye

September 11, 2011

Reconciling Evolution, History And the Bible

Filed under: Bible,History,Ice Ages — melchia @ 1:04 am
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Where do the so-called “Ice Ages” fit in Bible history? Why  did so many forms of animal and human life disappear at the close of  the geologic period labeled “Pleistocene” by scientists?

Most people do not know how a geologist reaches his conclusions. A geologist, of course, is one who makes a study of earth history. He investigates the rock structure of the surface of the earth. Working in the field, he discovers strata of sandstone, or limestone, or silt. Perhaps in them are fossils. He wants to know when the strata were deposited. How does he decide? The answer is: HE DOESN’T!

Being a very careful man — a scientific man — he will go to a paleontologist for the answer. And who is a paleontologist? He is a scientist who makes a special study of fossils. It is his function to explain to the geologist the apparent age of the fossils. And how does the paleontologist know the apparent age of the fossils? From geology? No! How can he learn it from geology when even the geologist does not know the age of fossil strata until he goes to the paleontologist who studies the fossils!! Then how does the paleontologist discover how old fossils are? Simple! He turns to the evolution theory!

Life, the paleontologist tells the geologist, developed from the very simplest cell into the varied complex creatures that inhabit the earth today. “But what is the age of the fossils?” asks the geologist.

“Let me explain that,” replies the paleontologist. “Evolution is a very slow process. It may take millions of years for one species of life to slowly develop into another totally different species. The age of your strata are determined by how long we think it took that particular species of fossils to develop. Of course, we paleontologists don’t all agree on these details. You might get a different answer from another paleontologist! After all, even though we all believe evolution is a fact, we do not know exactly how it occurs — or even the exact order in which various species of life evolved.”

And that, in simple language, is what happens! The age of the fossils is guessed at by the paleontologist. The source of his knowledge (or misknowledge) is not geology, but the evolution theory. He takes it for granted. He assumes the theory is a fact — or reasons as if it were a fact. The geologist then deduces the age of the strata from the assumed age of the fossils. (more…)

June 13, 2011

Hypotheses, Intellectual Curiosity And Controversy = Scientific Truth?

Never has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of scientific information is pouring down on us and few can keep up with the torrent of new knowledge. But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge?

Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of new ignorance — new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable clothes of Scientific Knowledge?

It would seem this ought to be the wisest, most knowledgeable generation that has ever lived. But it is not! And there is a reason. Never in the history of the world have so many been speculating so much. Speculation, hypothesizing, intellectual guessing have become the lifeblood of the sciences — especially the social sciences. The result is an age typified by a chaos of ideas.

The reason? Only those facts which fit an hypothesis are concerned! The purpose of hypothesis is not eternal truth — only intellectual curiosity to see whether the hypothesis be so! No wonder the scholarly world is in confusion? That the genuine history of man has been rejected and forgotten. That Scripture is labeled “unscientific” and “myth”


Scientific and historical journals are filled with “learned” conflicts and controversies. These conflicts are not due to a lack of factual material. There are often “too many” facts. Controversies in philosophy, in science, in education are the direct result of hypothesizing. Theories and hypotheses by their very nature breed controversy. What is needed is a true view of the factual material already available. Present material is more than sufficient to solve every one of the primary questions regarding Man, his origin in time, and the record of his experiences.

Can the facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible be reconciled? Not if the method of study now in vogue in the educational world is used! Crowning the heap of discarded theories with another hypothesis will not resolve the problems.

Yet a solution is possible. The facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible are reconcilable. It is the hypotheses and theories of Science and Theology that are not! No one, caught up in the vicious cycle of intellectual guessing, finds it easy to divorce facts from hypotheses. But once one is willing to do that, the gnawing questions of science and history find answers.

Why haven’t men been willing to face facts, and forget hypothesizing? The answer is simple. Facts do not automatically organize themselves into clear and unmistakable answers. There is always the need of some kind of yardstick, some standard, to guide man in organizing the myriads of facts lying mutely before him.

A geological stratum by itself does not answer when? or why? A potsherd by itself does not reveal who? or when? Even a written record by itself often fails to convey motive, proof of accuracy, or history of transmission.

Scholars and scientists must of necessity resort to some external framework or yardstick by which the recovered facts may be judged. Only two choices are available — hypothesis or Divine Revelation. The educated world has chosen the former. It has, without proof, rejected the latter. Hypotheses appeal to human vanity, to intellectual curiosity, to the desire to hear of something new. Divine Revelation requires acknowledgement of a Higher Power, the subjection of human reason to the revealed Mind of the Creator. But human reason revels in its own superiority. By nature it opposes and exalts itself against Higher Authority.

No wonder educators take for granted that the facts of geology, of archaeology, or human history contradict the Bible. Not until human beings are willing to acknowledge God, to acknowledge His Authority, His Revelation, will they ever come to a satisfactory — and satisfying — explanation of Man and the Universe. Not until human reason is conquered will the scholarly world enjoy the privilege of understanding the meaning of geology, of archaeology, of history and the Bible.

Why don’t today’s educators know the answers to these problems? Because they have discarded the key that would unlock the answers. That key is God’s revelation of essential knowledge for man — the Bible. But men don’t want God telling them anything authoritatively. They therefore refuse even to test whether the Bible is authoritative.

Source: Compendium Of World History, Volume 2, by Dr. Herman Hoeh

Ice Ages And The Sin Of Cain

Where do the so-called “Ice Ages” fit in Bible history? Scientific and historical journals are filled with “learned” conflicts and controversies. These conflicts are not due to a lack of factual material. There are often “too many” facts.

Controversies in philosophy, in science, in education are the direct result of hypothesizing. Theories and hypotheses by their very nature breed controversy. What is needed is a true view of the factual
material already available. Present material is more than sufficient to solve every one of the primary questions regarding man, his origin in time, and the record of his experiences.

Why don’t today’s educators know the answers to these problems? Because they have discarded the key that would unlock the answers. That key is God’s revelation of essential knowledge for man — the Bible. But men don’t want God telling them anything authoritatively. They therefore refuse even to test whether the Bible is authoritative.

Cain, History And Geology

Cain is an important figure in theology. He is equally important to history and geology. As a result of the sin of Cain the entire history of human society — and the earth’s surface — changed. Notice the Biblical record:

“And now art thou cursed from the earth … when thou tillest the ground”

Cain, says Josephus, sought to gain his livelihood by farming methods which depleted the soil:

“It shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (or wanderer) and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth” (Gen. 4:11-12).

God put a stop to Cain’s way — the way of getting. If Cain and his heirs had been allowed to continue their agricultural pursuits, soils all over the world would long ago have been rendered unfit for
cultivation. Human life might well have been snuffed out by mass starvation.

The geological record tells us what God did to save the soil from utter depletion. Mountain chains arose where there were none before. Seas dried up. The balmy semi-tropical climate of the world rapidly shifted into torrid and frigid zones. Wherever Cain wandered his agricultural pursuits came to naught. When it should have rained, the weather turned dry. Just as he was about to reap the ripening crop, a storm blew in. Nothing turned out right. Cain was forced to turn to hunting and gathering the sparse wild fruits and berries. He and the generations who followed him eked out a wretched living. All this is recorded in geology and archaeology. (more…)

March 28, 2011

Geology Reveals: Two Creations, Two Worldwide Floods

Here is startling proof — from the Bible and geology — demonstrating not only two widely separated creations, but two world-wide destructions! Few have understood this astonishing truth!

Contrary to what millions have been led to believe — the true facts of science and the truth of your Bible agree! Theologians have long kept hidden this surprising truth. It conflicts with their theology. Atheistic professors have suppressed it. Science has refused to believe it.

Only a few understand where the key which unlocks the amazing geologic history of the earth is. It has been in the FIRST TWO VERSES OF YOUR BIBLE all these years — and you probably never noticed it.

The FOUNDATION of Knowledge

The very first truth revealed in your Bible is: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). This earth was created so perfect, so beautiful, that “the morning stars {the angels — Rev. 1:20} sang for joy” (Job 38:7).

Yet the very next inspired verse of your Bible reveals that this perfect earth was destroyed by a terrible catastrophe! Genesis 1:2 reveals, “And the earth was without form, and void.”

The original Hebrew word, which the King James translators translated “was” in verse two, ought to be translated “became.” It is so translated in Genesis 19:26, in Genesis 2:7, and in many other verses of the Bible. Turn to the example in Genesis 19:26. In this verse the same Hebrew word which is INCORRECTLY translated “WAS” in Genesis 1:2 is here CORRECTLY translated “BECAME.”

Notice, God warned Lot and his wife not to look behind as they escaped from the burning city of Sodom. Lot’s wife disobeyed this command and looked back longingly at the wicked city of Sodom, “She BECAME a pillar of salt” (v. 26).

Obviously, Lot’s wife had not always been a pillar of salt! But when she sinned, she became a pillar of salt.

In like manner, the earth wasn’t originally created a waste and in confusion! The correct translation of Genesis 1:2 from the original inspired Hebrew makes clear: “The earth BECAME without form, and void.”

This truth is further brought out when we note in Genesis 1:2 that the English “without form” was translated from the original Hebrew word “tohu,” which means “desolation” or “confusion.” Is God the author of confusion?

The Apostle Paul was inspired to write: “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33).

Isaiah said, “He {God} created it {the earth} NOT IN VAIN {“tohu” in Hebrew — that is, not in chaos and confusion} (Isa. 45:18). It BECAME that way! (more…)

August 11, 2009

The Origin Of Life: Debunking First Fossils As Primitive!

Have scientists found evidence that life evolved from dead matter? Are the first fossils simple and primitive as the theory of evolution demands?

You and I are supposedly end products of an evolutionary process. This concept is taught as truth in almost all of our educational institutions today. But where is the proof? A single simple one-celled animal, it is said, happened into existence millions of years ago. Then, slowly, gradually evolution produced our present-day life.

Spontaneous generation plus evolution supposedly produced the myriad of complex living forms of today’s world. Dead matter became living matter; then living matter evolved. Proof is supposed to be found in geology. A study of the fossil strata, they say, reveals that in the “earliest” fossil deposits simple, primitive life is found.

“Later” strata contain increasingly complex life till we come to the uppermost layers in which are deposited man and present day forms of life. The proof of this theory is rather elusive as we shall see. We ought to examine the evidence before drawing any conclusion. Just how did life originate?

A Course Entitled “The Origin of Life”

One of the outstanding large universities of the Los Angeles area made the error of labeling a geology course, “The Origin of Life.” I say error, for when the topic came up in class, the professor expressed openly the wish that the course had been given a different name. Speaking frankly, this professor, a qualified scientist, said there was LITTLE OR NOTHING KNOWN ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. This fact is important. The educators who labeled the course believed their professors capable of teaching a course on how life came into being. Yet the professor assigned to the course indicated that little or nothing could be said concerning the origin of life.

Will the conclusions of scientists concerning the origin of life disagree with the scripture?

Three Alternatives

Life does exist. No one questions this fact. Just where, when and how did it come into being? Let us examine the problem from a standpoint of hard, cold logic and apart from Biblical revelation. Evolutionists do not accept the Scriptural explanation.

To answer them properly, we must ex- amine their own conclusions and the facts upon which they are based. Present day theories will be considered one by one in the light of fact and logic alone. Error will be discarded. Will the pure science remaining agree with God’s revelation? We shall soon see.

Concerning the origin and existence OF LIFE on this planet three alternatives present themselves:

1 ) “Life has always existed.” This idea, scientists admit, is the weakest of the three. It is untenable because the earth has not always existed! In their estimation it has not been fit for life but for a portion of its estimated 3 to 5 billion-year existence. Some have suggested, “Perhaps life came to the earth from outer space, from the explosion of another planet in the remote regions of space. Spores of this primitive life might have been pushed along by radiation pressure from starlight or sunlight. Arriving on the earth they found an ideal place to propagate and evolve.”

Thinking logically, it is very unlikely that life could have come from another planet or from outer space. The chance of such an occurrence and possibility of life surviving such an ordeal is extremely remote. This idea does not answer the question of the origin of life. It merely attempts to avoid facing the question by putting it beyond the reach of investigation. The real question of the origin of life remains unanswered.

Since the material universe is admittedly not eternal, life had to come into being at some definite date in the past. Previously scientists had believed the earth to be young, the universe old. These last few decades have seen that idea discarded. The earth in their conclusion is now as old as the universe. Is it strange that that should agree with Genesis 1:1? “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

2 ) “Life came into being by some slow natural process.” This is the favorite belief of the “educated” man of today. Scientists comment that this idea “can be presented plausibly” and that the arguments are “very convincing.” Yet the universal opinion of all scientists familiar with the field is that there is “no evidence that this has ever taken place or does at this time.”

Plausible presentations and very convincing arguments do not constitute proof. The truth of a matter cannot be determined by the cleverness or eloquence of the orator. Facts and logic (and, if they would accept it, revealed knowledge) alone constitute the basis of all material science.

3) “Life was suddenly created.” This of course implies a Creator. Since neither life nor the material creation has eternally existed, this Great First Cause would of necessity have existed from eternity. This theory thus postulates the creation of life forms by an eternally existing God who had life inherent in Himself.

Could men of science consider this as a possibility in their search for the origin of life? They have, and here are a few of their comments: “The idea is as good as any.” “Whether you care to accept the idea depends upon personal taste.” “It disposes of the very great difficulty of creating living matter out of inorganic {dead} matter.” “Much of our culture is based upon such a belief.”

Yes, our scientists do consider the possibility of life having been created. Re-Examine These Alternatives Consider these three alternatives again. The first is untenable. The second is COMPLETELY LACKING IN EVIDENCE. The third is listed by science as a possibility. To accept the third is to believe in a Creator. But atheists (men with a remarkable faith that there is no God) prefer the second. Not because of evidence of spontaneous generation of life but solely because they prefer the “no God” idea. To accept this second alternative is to have blind faith that there is no Creator.

The facts and logic are inescapable. An atheist is a man with false faith that his Creator does not exist. He has absolutely no evidence upon which to base his faith. The atheist “hopes” to find that evidence.

So far we have considered only how the first bits of life may have come into being. Have evolutionists erred in assuming that the first life to exist was primitive, one-celled animal life? Here is evidence and logic apart from Biblical revelation using only accepted facts and sound reasoning to test the theories presented in books on science.

We are going to search for evidence of these few, small, simple, primitive fossil specimens which supposedly are to be found in the first fossil stata. We are going to examine the foundation of the evolutionary theory. If the foundation is hypothetical the whole structure of historical geology based upon evolution will crumble.

The First Fossil Remains

Have evolutionists erred in assuming that the first life to exist was a primitive, one-celled type? The theory OF EVOLUTION would REQUIRE that in the earliest layer simple forms would be found, few in number, gradually developing step by step into present day forms. The evidence in this first fossil layer will have a great bearing on whether you may logically believe that God created bits of life and then spent millions of years watching them evolve into present day life. “Theìstic” evolutionists have apparently never considered these facts.

Here is the evidence from the first fossil layer, the Cambrian strata:

1) Instead of few forms of life, 455 different species are found. There are 100 genera of trìlobites alone. Of the 13 phyla (divisions) into which all animals are classified, various authorities state that 9, 12 or all 13 are represented. Thus instead of a few forms of life, evolutionists are forced to admit “a remarkable assemblage of animal remains.” The Cambrian layer is “just teeming with all kinds of fossils,” to use their own words.

2 ) Instead of simple forms of life as the theory of evolution would require, this first fossil layer contains such complex life as the chambered mollusks and the highly developed trilobite which has one set of legs for walking on the ocean bottom and another set for swimming.

” It is very interesting to observe that a complex mechanism, the compound eye like that of crustaceans and insects of the present day, was already developed even in the earliest Primordial times.” (Elements of Geology by Joseph Le Conte).

3) Instead of small specimens these so called “early” forms were often giants compared to “later” forms. The “ancient” trilobite, for instance, attained a length of 27 inches. Close modern representatives in appearance are the pill or sow bugs so common today where decaying vegetation is found. The trilobite, however, was an ocean dwelling creature.

4) Instead of “primitive” types a considerable number of them have identical or almost identical living representatives today. Perhaps the most widely known example of this is the muscular-jointed finfish called the crossopterygian found only in Devonian strata {3 “ages” later than the Cambrian) but also found alive today. Specimens have been caught in the waters off Africa much to the consternation of the proponents of evolution.

Rather than admit that something is radically wrong with their faith, they cover up by publishing detailed studies on the structure of the fish, showing how it (supposedly) became the ancestor of land life by changing its fins to the jointed condition and then to legs. The missing link between the fish and land animals is thus supposedly found alive in the ocean today. These first fossils are certainly not primitive.

5 ) Instead of natural deposition such as might occur along beaches or deltas today, the fossils of this Cambrian strata show evidence of having been buried alive by some sudden catastrophe. The “ages” required for a certain strata to form thus become a myth. It is obvious that these first fossils do not fit the “few, simple and primitive” pattern demanded by the evolutionary theory. But the proponents of evolution are not through yet. Hope springs eternal in the human heart and for the evolutionist there is always the “hope” that he may find his “proof.”

Pre-Cambrian Rocks

Suppose we follow the thinking of evolutionists one more step. They rationalize: Since evolution is true, the first life must be simple, and since Cambrian life is not simple, it cannot be the first life. The pre-Cambrian rocks, they contend, must hold the answer to the origin of life.

A thorough search of the pre-Cambrian rocks reveals the following facts: IN ALL ROCKS TERMED PRE-CAMBRIAN, the SUIT) total of fossils found amounts to a few worm burrows, one or two broken shells which may be brachiopods, some algae, fragments of sponge spicules and A LOT OF WISHFUL THINKING. The wishful thinking is that of evolutionists and the expression that of an evolutionist. How they wish they could find a fossil layer with a “few, simple, primitive” forms of life to establish their dogged faith in evolution. The pre-Cambrian layer fails to give them evidence.

The list of fossils for this layer is probably incorrect. Another source just as reliable, yet just as anxious to prove evolution, thought the term “The Agnostizoic” (meaning “we don’t know whether there was life during it”) would be quite fitting for this pre-Cambrian layer. In his opinion, the sample of algae he passed around to his class may or may not have been algae and he Spoke of the “NEARLY INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM of the sudden appearance of complex life IN THE CAMBRIAN ROCKS.”

The conclusion from these facts ought to be easy. In the Cambrian layer is complex life; in a supposedly earlier layer, a few fragments of the same thing or perhaps nothing. (Remember also that a layer is identified by the fossils in it and thus these fragments might be Cambrian. )

This complex life of the Cambrian layer were deposited over a long period of time, then life must have been suddenly created near the  beginning of the period, deposited quickly, a creation of complex life is still implied and a destruction by a flood is a certainty. But men of science struggle on without the scriptures to guide them.

The Lost Interval

Retreating from the facts, the evolutionist must now resort to theory to preserve his religion. We have come this far, we may as well continue in pursuit. All reason is dropped and rationalization takes over completely.

The evolutionist comes up with an idea. Since no life is found in some layers, which they therefore term pre-Cambrian, and complex life is found in the simplest layer they have discovered, supposedly an enormous period of time between these two layers existed. Names like “The Lost Interval” and “The Lipalion Interval” are given to make the case seem more authentic. The DESTRUCTION of the supposed RECORD of these intervals is termed the Kilameyen Revolution or the Penokeenan Revolution.

A perfect crime has been committed

The first fossil remains are in many instances IDENTICAL TO LIVING FORMS. In many cases these creatures were buried alive as if by some great catastrophe. Instead of a few simple primitive forms, myriads of complex creatures are found at the very bottom of the Cambrian strata. In the pre-Cambrian below, nothing or next to nothing is to be found. The few fragments found, even after the most thorough world-wide search, are identical with Cambrian fossils. They could more properly be called Cambrian fossils.

The problem for the evolutionist remains: Why has it been impossible to find a fossil layer -with but a few simple primitive organisms? An immense period of time is suggested between the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata. The “supposed” record is supposedly destroyed. But complex life forms appear suddenly in this Cambrian strata all over the world.

Was there ever an earlier record? How could such a world-wide record be destroyed? Think about it!

Source: Ambassador College, 1956

June 23, 2009

How Old Is Mankind – 6000 Years Or 600,000?

mankindRemove from a library shelf any volume on ancient man. Examine its opening chapter. What will you find? Expressions as: “it is thought,” “there appears to be some basis for believing,” “it has been suggested,” “it may be presumed,” “one may safely assume,” and “others are of the opinion” — just to mention a few.

What do all these carefully chosen expressions really signify? Just this: Science has no demonstrable evidence for accepting as fact what has been written in the book. The conclusions are mere speculation!

Never Safe to Assume

Just how old is Man? Is there any AUTHORITY who can tell us? Several modern writers, relying only on geological inferences, place the appearance of man about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago. Others suggest the period is no less than 100,000 years ago. No small number of scholars assume it may be 500,000 years ago. And there are a few who place it several hundred thousand years earlier. Do any of these men really KNOW?

And how could intelligent, able men arrive at such absurdly varying figures for the origin of man and the beginnings of ancient history? They all have access, remember, to the same geological and archaeological sources of information. They all have the same facts — but they don’t have the same answers! Why?

The answer is, they are all interpreting geologic and archaeological evidence in accordance with their private theories. They are only guessing. They have no way of knowing.

One well-known writer phrased it this way: “We know that there is no absolute knowledge, that there are only theories; but we forget this. The better educated we are the harder we believe in axioms” (Lincoln Steffens “Autobiography”, page 816). (more…)

May 31, 2009

The Universe: Evolution Or The Work Of God’s Fingers?

Whenever we read about evolution, it’s usually preceded by the word theory. A theory, according to Webster’s, is described as “speculation, an idea, hypothesis or a scheme.” A theory then is an unproven statement.

Darwin’s theory of evolution teaches that the first life upon the earth came by “spontaneous generation,” or by “electrochemical action,” or some unknown process millions of years ago in the warm ocean slime. Thus it is the theory of evolution that life sprang out of dead matter, or that the living came from the non-living.

Now probability is the mathematics of chance, and therefore probability should have a great deal to do with evolution.
Given a monkey, a typewriter and a stack of paper, by chance alone, words, sentences, even whole books could be written, right? This is a doctrine deemed holy by a not-insignificant number of educated men in the biological and geological sciences today. (more…)

Create a free website or blog at