Word of the Day… September 5, 2014….

Persistence, Part Twoby Charles R. SwindollThen He said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’  I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.Luke 11:5-8
Yesterday, we focused on Philippians 1:6, noting that God “who began a good work … will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” And, since we are to be “imitators of God” (Ephesians 5:1), it seems to me we oughta be about the business of persistence. It sure is easy to bail out theologically. You know, the age-old sovereignty cop-out. “If God wants such-and-such to happen, He’s gonna have to do it all. I’m unable in myself.” Now there may be a few occasions where that is an appropriate game plan; but by and large, His Spirit is willing, but our flesh is weak—-dare I say lazy and indifferent? Unlike our Father, we tend to fade in the stretch.
May I get painfully personal? A proper, nutritional diet and a realistic program of exercise. Most folks I know have lost hundreds of pounds in their lifetime, only to put ‘em on again. They all started well … but just about the time persistence was paying off, they quit. Believe me, I understand. That was the story of my life for about twenty years. But one day—-one eventful, life-changing day—-I stopped all the excuses (glands, stress, travel, reward for hard work, expensive wardrobe, not as heavy as a rhino, my wife Cynthia’s good cooking, etc.) and began a sensible process of taking off and keeping off fifty-five unwanted and unhealthy pounds of fat.
People didn’t help much. Can’t remember the number of times they warned me about being too thin, that I shouldn’t take such “risks.” I was “looking ill.” A rumor spread that I had cancer. Some thought I’d died. Would you believe that my wife got several sympathy cards expressing sorrow over my death? But I stayed at it. By the grace and power of Almighty God, I persisted.
All because of a simple, personal decision. Simple, yes … but easy? You gotta be kidding. Perhaps the single toughest decision of my adult life. Personal, yes … but automatic? It’s still an everyday battle—-no, three-times-a-day battle. And my relentless commitment to conditioning gets tougher every month, I openly confess. But with every mile I pound out in my sneakers, I cast another vote for persistence.
Enough about me—-you’ve got the next season stretching out in front of you. Think of these weeks as a time framework for your own investment. Choose an objective carefully, state it clearly in writing, then, with the persistence of an athlete training for the next Olympiad, go for the goal!
Trust me; when this season gives way to the next, you’ll be so glad you did. And by then, you’ll have a new two-word motto:Persistence pays.  I loved this!!!  I hope that you have a Simply Heavenly day!!!  God bless you!!! http://dlvr.it/6qLx7C

Word of the Day… September 4, 2014….


Persistence, Part One

by Charles R. Swindoll

Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. James 1:12

Persistence pays.

It’s a costly investment, no question about it. But the dividends are so much greater than the original outlay that you’ll almost forget the price. And if the final benefits are really significant, you’ll wonder why you ever hesitated to begin with.

A primary reason we are tempted to give up is other people … you know, the less than 20 percent whose major role it is in life to encourage others to toss in the towel. For whatever reason. Those white-flag specialists never run out of excuses you and I ought to use for quitting. The world’s full of “why-sweat-it” experts.

I’m sure Anne Mansfield Sullivan had a host of folks telling her that the blind, 7-year-old brat wasn’t worth it. But Anne persisted—-in spite of temper tantrums, physical abuse, mealtime madness, and even thankless parents. In her heart she knew it was worth all the pain. Was it ever! Within two years her pupil, Helen Keller, was able to read and write in braille. She ultimately graduated cum laude from Radcliffe College (where Miss Sullivan had “spelled” each lecture into her hand), and Helen Keller devoted the rest of her life to aiding the deaf and the blind.

Want another for instance? Well, this particular man was told that if he hadn’t written a book by age thirty-five, chances were good he never would. He was almost forty, I should add. There were others who reminded him that for every book published, ninety-five became dust-collecting manuscripts. But he persisted. Even though he was warned that stories like he wanted to write weren’t popular. Nor were they considered worthy of top prizes in the literary field (his work later won the Pulitzer). Hollywood hotshots also told him such a book certainly held no dramatic possibilities. But James Michener hung tough. He refused to wash the desire out of his hair as he persisted. And he presented to the public Tales of the South Pacific. Oh, by the way, the Broadway critics had warned, “It’ll never make a musical.”

How many military battles would never have been won without persistence? How many men and women would never have graduated from school … or changed careers in midstream … or stayed together in marriage … or reared a mentally disabled child? Think of the criminal cases that would never have been solved without the relentless persistence of detectives. How about the great music that would never have been finished, the grand pieces of art that would never have graced museums, cathedrals, and monuments the world over? Back behind the impeccable beauty of each work is a dream that wouldn’t die mixed with the dogged determination of a genius of whom this indifferent world is not worthy.

Think also of the speeches, the sermons, the books that have shaped thinking, infused new hope, prompted fresh faith, and aroused the will to win. For long and lonely hours away from the applause—-even the awareness—-of the public, the one preparing that verbal missile persisted all alone with such mundane materials as dictionary, thesaurus, historical volumes, biographical data, and a desk full of other research works. The same could be said of those who labor to find cures for diseases. And how about those who experiment with inventions?

I once heard about a couple of men who were working alongside the inventor Thomas Edison. Weary to the point of exasperation, one man sighed, “What a waste! We have tried no less than seven hundred experiments and nothing has worked. We are not a bit better off than when we started.”
With an optimistic twinkle in his eye, Edison quipped, “Oh, yes, we are! We now know seven hundred things that won’t work. We’re closer than we’ve ever been before.” With that, he rolled up his sleeves and plunged back in.

If necessity is the mother of invention, persistence is certainly the father.

God honors it. Maybe because He models it so well. His love for His people, the Jews, persists to this very day, even though they have disobeyed Him more often than they have loved Him in return. And just think of His patient persistence in continually reaching out to the lost, “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And how about His persistence with us? You and I can recall one time after another when He could have (and should have!) wiped us out of the human race, but He didn’t. Why? The answer is in Philippians 1:6:
He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (NIV)The One who began will continue right up to the end. Being the original finisher, He will persist. I’m comforted to know He won’t be talked out of a plan that has to do with developing me. I need help! Don’t you?  This spoke to me!!!  I hope you have a Simply Heavenly day!!!  God bless you!!!


I really enjoyed this message from Pastor Jack Hibbs. This message is a recent review of current events through the lens of Biblical Prophecy. The motivating issue is the US defeat in Iraq to the ISIS militants. I hope that you enjoyed it as much as I did. Maranatha!!! 

Your Love Guard Me Through The Night….

TONIGHT I PRAY That you do not get discouraged when you have difficulty focusing on the Lord.  I believe that He knows that you truly want to have a closer walk with Him and be aware of His Presence in your life at all times. I pray that you do not let the feelings of failure weigh you down and take your focus off of HIM. Through HIS Word and Prayer I pray that you begin to see yourself as HE does and feel His love surround you even in the hardest of times!!!   I pray that when you feel your mind beginning to wander that you are not surprised, we live in a world that has been rigged to distract you away from the Lord Jesus.  When you notice that your mind is wandering call out his name.  “Jesus help me to focus on YOU” When you do this, rejoice for the enemy has already lost.   You have victory through Jesus!!! Praise the Lord in these triumphs, and they will increase and you will walk in the light of our Lord!!!  In Jesus name I Pray, Amen and Amen!  I Love You All!!!  God Bless you!!!  http://dlvr.it/6jBJnx

Women as Pastors…..

There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation. I love being a woman of God. I think that we have it better than the men do. The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority.

There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church to men. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions Pastor in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them. I believe that it has to do a lot with the duties of the wife in the home. She brings life into the world. She teaches the children and runs her household and I can tell you from personal experience to do the job you are on call 24/7. That leaves little to no time to run a church. Remember that in the family of God there is no confusion and that is why I believe that the Lord set it up this way.

The Lord allows us to be the ones that bring life into the world and nurture and teach and train them up in the way of the Lord. I love the way a woman is portrayed in Proverbs 31:
Description of a Worthy Woman

10 An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.

11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.

12 She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.

13 She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.

14 She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.

15 She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens.

16 She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17 She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.

18 She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.

19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.

20 She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.

25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.

26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:

29 “Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all.”

30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.

I think any woman who thinks that a Christian woman doesn’t have a mighty place in the community needs to read this verse every day. She runs everything. It says from her earnings she buys a field and plants a vineyard. She makes linen garments and belts and sells them. She has her own business here right out of her home. This is a woman to be reckoned with.

She is a woman of God who loves her husband and loves her place in his life. I believe he asks her opinions on everything and is proud of what she has brought into their family and home. I think that he delights in her and treats her like his queen. It says that she wears robes of purple and that is the color of royalty. She lives her witness to the Lord.
As a woman I believe that we have it much better than men do. We can travel the world as an evangelist preaching the Gospel, we can lead music and worship ministry and we can teach children and women. We have all of the best of ministry without all of the headaches. The Lord is not now nor has He ever claimed to be “Politically Correct” He is God. The bible tells us: “Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?” – Job 40:2

I always have people ask me about Beth Moore and Anne Graham Lotz and the many women who are out there preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. They are not pastors they are evangelists.

Word of the Day… August 18, 2014….


Sunday Listening,

 Part Two

by Charles R. Swindoll

The Lord Speaks to SamuelMeanwhile, the boy Samuel served the Lord by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the Lord were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.One night Eli, who was almost blind by now, had gone to bed. The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Tabernacle* near the Ark of God. Suddenly the Lord called out, “Samuel!”“Yes?” Samuel replied. “What is it?” He got up and ran to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”“I didn’t call you,” Eli replied. “Go back to bed.” So he did.Then the Lord called out again, “Samuel!”Again Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”“I didn’t call you, my son,” Eli said. “Go back to bed.”Samuel did not yet know the Lord because he had never had a message from the Lord before. So the Lord called a third time, and once more Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”Then Eli realized it was the Lord who was calling the boy. So he said to Samuel, “Go and lie down again, and if someone calls again, say, ‘Speak, Lord, your servant is listening.’ ” So Samuel went back to bed.And the Lord came and called as before, “Samuel! Samuel!”And Samuel replied, “Speak, your servant is listening.”  1 Samuel 3:1–10

We’ve been talking about the essential skill of listening, particularly as it relates to Sunday sermons. I asked you to come up with some ideas on what can be done by the listener (not the preacher) to keep the sermon interesting. Let’s consider together how we could improve our listening skills. I’m indebted to Haddon Robinson, a Ph.D. in the field of communication, for these four “don’ts” that are worth remembering.
Don’t assume the subject is dull. When the topic is announced, avoid the habit of thinking, I’ve heard that before or This doesn’t apply to me. Good listeners believe they can learn something from everyone. Any message will have a fresh insight or a helpful illustration. A keen ear will listen for such.

Don’t criticize before hearing out the speaker. All speakers have faults. If you focus on them, you will miss some profitable points being made. Those who listen well refuse to waste valuable time concentrating on the negatives. They also refuse to jump to conclusions until the entire talk is complete.

Don’t let your prejudices close your mind. Some subjects are charged with intense emotions. Effective listeners keep an open mind, restraining the tendency to argue or agree until they fully understand the speaker’s position in light of what the Scriptures teach.
Don’t waste the advantage which thought has over speech. Remember what we learned yesterday about the gap between speech-speed and thought-speed? Diligent listeners practice four skills as they mentally occupy themselves:

First, they try to guess the next point.Second, they challenge supporting evidence.Third, they mentally summarize what they have heard.Fourth, they apply the Scripture at each point.Writing down the outline and a few thoughts during the sermon also keeps the mind from drifting off course.

Young Samuel took the advice of Eli the priest, and as a result, he heard what God wanted him to learn. The message was riveted into Samuel’s head so permanently, he never forgot it. And it all started with:
“Speak, LORD, for Your servant is listening” (1 Samuel 3:9).Try that next Sunday. A few seconds before the sermon begins, pray that prayer. You will be amazed how much more you hear when you work hard to listen well.

 Good listeners believe they can learn something from everyone.  I hope that you have a Simply Heavenly day!!!  God bless you!!!


SCIENCE PROVING THE BIBLE TRUE…. Archaeological Finds Seven Compelling Evidences….

Archaeologists once boasted that the Bible was full of errors because no independent, historic evidence had been found to confirm the Bible’s claims. But a slew of astounding discoveries has put a damper on their boasting.

Archaeology provides us with fascinating and amazing affirmations of Scripture’s accuracy and trustworthiness. Indeed, it is one of the most effective ways to open a conversation with your friends about the Bible.

After two hundred years of archaeological excavation and discovery, we have a powerful arsenal of important finds that will leave the most adamant skeptics of the Bible pondering! As you talk to people about these discoveries, help them to clear away their doubts and the lies they have heard—and maybe even come to believe—about the Bible.

Here are a series of astounding discoveries that you can share with those who question the Bible’s veracity. This list covers approximately one thousand years of biblical history from the time of King David down to the time of Jesus. As you read this list, note how the accounts of so many key events and people of the Bible are confirmed by these amazing archaeological finds. It would be well worth your time to study and memorize these important findings.

The Tel Dan Stele (900–850 BC)

A stele is an upright stone that is inscribed and used as a monument of an important event or achievement. Rulers and peoples from Egypt, Israel, and across Mesopotamia used these steles to commemorate great victories and accomplishments. This particular stele is extraordinary because carved on its stone face is the expression, “House of David.” This stele affirms that the United Monarchy under King David existed in history and flatly contradicts the long-held opinions of skeptics who denied that David ever existed.

Tel Dan Stele

©2011 Zev Radovan, www.BibleLandPictures.com

The Meesha Stele (846 BC)

Popularly known as the Moabite Stone, it records the revolt of Meesha, King of Moab, against Israel. This incredible stele mentions Omri, King of Israel, and David of the United Monarchy. It even refers to Yahweh, the unique name of the God of Israel! Together with the testimony from the Tel Dan Stele, we have a powerful external witness that the Bible records the true history of the kings of Israel and their interactions with foreign kings.

Meesha Stele

BiblePlaces.com/Musée du Louvre, Paris, France

The Nabonidus Cylinder (550 BC)

King Nabonidus of Babylonia left a magnificent cuneiform cylinder (wedge-shaped letters inscribed on a clay cylinder) mentioning his elder son, Belshazzar by name. Critics of the Bible had claimed for many years that the account in the book of Daniel was wrong; they said Belshazzar was never a king in Babylon and that Nabonidus was not his father. The discovery of this cylinder clearly showed that these scholars were dead wrong. Indeed, we can now understand the meaning of Daniel 5:16 more precisely where it says, “Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom” (italics added for emphasis).

This text now makes perfect sense because Nabonidus was in a coregency with his son Belshazzar, who was the crown prince of Babylon. So that would make Daniel the “third ruler in the kingdom.”

Nabonidus Cylinder

©2011 The British Museum

Caiaphas Ossuary

An ossuary was a box constructed to hold the bones of the dead after decomposition. In 1990 a startling discovery was made that shook biblical scholars and archaeologists alike. In the Peace Forest section of Jerusalem was discovered a burial cave containing twelve ossuaries, one of them being none other than that of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided at the trial of Jesus. This amazing discovery provides us with a powerful historical connection to the events described in the Gospels.

Caiaphas Ossuary

©2011 Zev Radovan, www.BibleLandPictures.com

Pilate Dedication Stone

In June 1961 an inscription on a limestone block, found at a Roman amphitheater in Caesarea Maritima, rocked the scholarly world. The block, which was once used as a dedication stone of a nearby temple and now reused for seating at the local amphitheater, had an extraordinary inscription. It read: “Tiberieum, (Pon)tius Pilatus, (Praef)ectus Iuda(eae).” Those scholars who questioned Pilate’s existence (and the gospel accounts generally) were silenced with this amazing discovery!

Pilate Dedication Stone

©2011 Zev Radovan, www.BibleLandPictures.com

Many more archaeological discoveries wait to be uncovered and shared with your friends. If someone raises a question about some biblical claim that has not been independently verified, you can share some of these examples to show that “silence” is not evidence against Scripture.

I also hope that this brief list will inspire you to dig deeper and use archaeology as a powerful tool in contending for the Word of God and the faith that has been entrusted to us!

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

 on September 6, 2012; last featured October 2, 2012

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.

Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe.

Despite this wealth of evidence, it is important to understand that, from the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young (or old) the universe is. Only one dating method is absolutely reliable—a witness who doesn’t lie, who has all evidence, and who can reveal to us when the universe began!

And we do have such a witness—the God of the Bible! He has given us a specific history, beginning with the six days of Creation and followed by detailed genealogies that allow us to determine when the universe began. Based on this history, the beginning was only about six thousand years ago (about four thousand years from Creation to Christ).

In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific “evidences,” it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?

The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called “evidences” must be interpreted. Facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.

Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.


That’s why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.

The Bible is that starting point. This is the revealed Word of the almighty, faithful, and true Creator, who was present to observe all events of earth history and who gave mankind an infallible record of key events in the past.

The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13).

In one sense, God’s testimony is all we need; but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). So it is also important to conduct scientific research (that is part of taking dominion of the earth, as Adam was told to do in Genesis 1:28). With this research we can challenge those who reject God’s clear Word and defend the biblical worldview.

Indeed, God’s testimony must have such a central role in our thinking that it seems demeaning even to call it the “best” evidence of a young earth. It is, in truth, the only foundation upon which all other evidences can be correctly understood!

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

"Locked" articles (indicated by the red padlock icons below) can be opened by magazine subscribers. Simply enter secret code from page four of your copy of this issue!

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

For Additional Information:

#2 Bent Rock Layers

For Additional Information:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

For Additional Information:

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

For Additional Information:

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

For Additional Information:

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

For Additional Information:

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

For Additional Information:

#8 Short-Lived Comets

For Additional Information:

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

For Additional Information:

Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments
      ” from 
Earth’s Catastrophic Past8

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

For Additional Information:

View an excerpt from the DVD Nuclear Strength Apologetics, which shows how to use scientific evidence properly when you defend your faith.

Get the Flash Player to see this video.

Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?

by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 4, 2010

The Lord certainly understands how this universe works; after all, He made it. So His Word, the Bible, gives us the foundation for understanding the universe.

The Bible is the history book of the universe. It tells us how the universe began and how it came to be the way it is today.

The Bible is much more than just a history book, however; it was written by inspiration of God. The Lord certainly understands how this universe works; after all, He made it. So His Word, the Bible, gives us the foundation for understanding the universe.

It has been said that the Bible is not a science textbook. This is true, of course, and it’s actually a good thing. After all, our science textbooks are based on the ideas of human beings who do not know everything and who often make mistakes. That’s why science textbooks change from time to time, as people discover new evidence and realize that they were wrong about certain things.

The Bible, though, never changes because it never needs to. God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right. When the Bible talks about geology, it’s correct. When Scripture addresses biology or anthropology, it’s also right.

What does the Bible teach about astronomy? Let’s take a look at some of the things the Bible has to say about the universe. We will see that the Bible is absolutely correct when it deals with astronomy.

The Earth Is Round

The Earth

The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the “circle of the earth.” From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.

Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.

The Earth Floats in Space

  • The Hindus believe the earth to be supported on the backs of four elephants, which stand on the shell of a gigantic tortoise floating on the surface of the world’s waters.
  • The earth of the Vedic priests was set on 12 solid pillars; its upper side was its only habitable side.
  • The Altaic people of Northern Siberia affirm that their mighty Ulgen created the earth on the waters and placed under it three great fish to support it.
  • The Tartars and many of the other tribes of Eurasia believe the earth to be supported by a great bull.

A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.

The Expansion of the Universe

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.

Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.

I wonder if any Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.

Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.

You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.

It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

The Age of the Universe

Scripture also addresses the age of the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six days (Exodus 20:11). We know from the genealogies and other events recorded in Scripture that this creation happened about 6,000 years ago.

Yet, this is quite different from what most schools teach. Most secular scientists believe that the universe is many billions of years old, and they usually hold to the big bang theory. The big bang is a secular speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible’s teaching. The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God (see the next chapter, “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?”).

People who believe in the big bang usually interpret the evidence according to their already-existing belief in the big bang. In other words, they just assume that the big bang is true; they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs. Of course, the Bible can also be used to interpret the evidence. And since the Bible records the true history of the universe, we see that it makes a lot more sense of the evidence than the big bang does.

Now let’s look at some facts about the universe regarding its age. We will see that the evidence is consistent with 6,000 years but doesn’t make sense if we hold to the big bang.

Of course, big bang supporters can always reinterpret the evidence by adding extra assumptions. So the following facts are not intended to “prove” that the Bible is right about the age of the universe. The Bible is right in all matters because it is the Word of God. However, when we understand the scientific evidence, we will find that it agrees with what the Bible teaches. The evidence is certainly consistent with a young universe.

Recession of the Moon

The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. As the moon orbits the earth, its gravity pulls on the earth’s oceans, which causes tides. The tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, causing the moon to gradually spiral outward. So the moon moves about an inch and a half away from the earth every year. That means that the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past.

Recession of the Moon

For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.

Magnetic Fields of the Planets

Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth’s magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.

Spiral Galaxies

A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.

Spiral Galaxy



Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible’s history.

Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can’t last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they’ve invented the idea of an “Oort cloud.” This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a “new” comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there’s no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.

Supernatural Creation

Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God’s creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered “extrasolar” planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational “tug” they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good “operational science,” the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.

These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it’s not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.


We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn’t be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.

In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.1

We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.

Homo erectus to Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?

by Bill Mehlert on April 1, 1994


An interesting change is taking place in creationist circles in respect of the status of the taxon Homo erectus and its relationship to Homo sapiens sapiens. This development is paralleled by a similar change of direction in evolutionary thinking, and in both cases it seems likely that the impetus is being largely propelled by the discovery of the erectus specimen KNM - WT 15000 in Africa in 1984. This attitudinal shift has connotations for the whole topic of alleged evolution of human beings. In this brief paper it is proposed to track these amended attitudes and the implications for the creation-evolution controversy.


With the discovery of Java and Peking Homo erectus fossils (the former was previously called Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking Man was originally named Sinanthropus pekinensis), in 1891-1893 and 1927-1937 respectively, evolutionary theory received a considerable and much-needed boost. Until Dubois” Java discoveries, the only alleged link between man and the apes had been a few Neanderthal specimens. The Piltdown hoax of 1912- 1914 was not uncovered until 1953, by which time it had played a considerable part in the early skepticism by most authorities toward the Taung-child australopithecine discovery in South Africa in 1924.

With the appearance of the Javan and Peking fossils it seemed that evolutionary theory had been vindicated to a sizeable degree, and Pithecanthropus (ape-man) became a common term in public as well as in palaeoanthropological circles.

After the Piltdown fraud was exposed, the australopithecines came into favour as a transitional form linking an ape-like common-ancestor to human beings, and this link was further strengthened by later finds of both erectus and australopithecine fossils, mainly in East and South. Africa. By the early 1970s, more finds including australopithecus-like material classified as Homo habilis, made it appear that there was now a fairly substantial chain of progressive evolution from a bipedal chimp-like ancestor right through to modern man - A. afarensis, H. habilis, H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, Neanderthal man and finally Cro-Magnon or modern man. With the rise of the post-World War II creationist movement, largely sparked by the epic work of Whitcomb and Morris in 1961,1 one of the most urgent tasks involved was how to respond to this apparent chain of evolutionary progression. In the intervening years since then, creation-oriented scientists have made a number of attacks on the validity of most of these forms, some of them being of high technical quality, others a little less well-informed.

The central feature of this paper mostly involves the so-called erectus section of the chain, where a quite noticeable change of direction is well underway, both in the creationist and the evolutionist camps. Far from dismissing erectusforms as being only large extinct apes or frauds, the pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectusspecimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid.

In evolutionary circles it is becoming increasingly common to argue that although H. erectus forms are still on the “road” from ape to human, the morphological distinctions between all human-type forms are insufficient to justify a separate species classification for erectus - that is, that all post-habiline forms (erectus, archaic and modern sapiens plus the Neanderthals), could be subsumed into a single species -H. sapiens, with a subspecific distinction at most.

(The times and ages mentioned here are those commonly used in evolutionary scientific literature and are used for ease of identification only. I do not accept an earth history of millions of years.

Australopithecines and Habilines

In a recent paper I argued at length that neither of these forms are human ancestors but are simply extinct varieties of extremely chimp-like pongids,2 and much the same view is taken by Gish,3 by Lubenow,4 and by Beasley,5 although Lubenow regards Homo habilis as an invalid taxon, being represented by a mixture of Homo sapien fossils and ape-like fossils.6 A strong creationist case exists in respect of the australopithecines and the so-called habilines, and the weight of evidence now seems to point away from any connection with humans and towards the strong likelihood that they were nothing more than extinct apes. Indeed evolution authorities Cherfas and Gribbin believe that a strong case can be made that the gracile forms are little more than varieties of extinct pygmy chimpanzees, while the robust forms are varieties of gorillas.7

Figure 1. Skull profile of Peking man. Note the brow ridges, sloping forehead, and prognathus face. These features are also in evidence in Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and in some modern skulls such as Kow Swamp. (See also Figure 5.)

Homo Erectus -Man, Ape, or Ape-man?

The Javan and Peking forms of erectus in particular came under considerable attack by creationists in the 1970s and 1980s.8-10 The thrust of these critiques was that all erectus forms were extremely ape-like and even possibly fraudulent. A great deal was made of the fact that almost every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing to work on but casts (see Figure 1).11 Java Man was also regarded as suspect, on account of its discoverer Dubois having allegedly hidden two fully human Javan skulls for many years in order to strengthen his claims for the “Pithecanthropus” or erectus specimen known as Java Man (see Figure 2).12 These so-called Wadjak skulls are variously reported as from nearby river gravels or from cave deposits many kilometres away. In any case, evolutionist Loring Brace claims that Dubois did make some preliminary reports about these skulls.13 Further doubt was raised because the fully modern femur of Dubois” Java Man was found in the following year 15 metres away from where the skull cap was located.14 Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that “Curiously, Dubois waited until the 1920s to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area where his Pithecanthropus material had been discovered.” (Emphasis added.)15

(Actually the Wadjak skulls were discovered in river gravels nearby, but their age has always been a matter of some dispute.)

Figure 2. Skull-cap profile of Java Man found by DuBois in 1891 - 1893. Note the general similarity to Peking Man of Figure 1.

The Turkana ‘Boy’, KHM-WT 15000

However, with the Leakey/Walker 1984 find of the above specimen, it became clear that there was more to Homo erectus than Java and Peking Man. WT 15000 consists of almost a complete skeleton (see Figure 3).16Only the hands and feet are missing.

Figure 3. Skeleton of the Turkana “Boy” - WT 15000, a Homo erectus specimen dating from 1.6 mya. This skeleton is fully human with only very minor differences from some modern humans.

The resemblances between WT 15000 and the two controversial Asian erectus forms are clear and decisive. The Turkana Boy possessed the same heavy supraorbital ridges, the same type of receding forehead, and other cranial features as Java and Peking. With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. Radiodated at about 1.6 mya (million years ago), this lad stood and walked as fully erect as do humans today.17,18 Although the brain capacity is rather small, it is still larger than some juvenile and adult humans of today.

As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV of WT 15000 would be no more than about 1000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc.19 On the same page Jue points out that a brain capacity of 1400cc applies to the Vertesszöllos erectus specimen which is dated at around 350kya (kiloyears ago = thousands of years ). Beasley cites Broderick who reported a measurement as low as 830cc for a modern Wedda pygmy in Sri Lanka.20

At a height of five feet four inches or 1.6 metres, it is likely that WT 15000 was getting close to full adult height at the time of his death - this could have been anywhere between five feet five inches to maybe six feet; there is no possible way to establish final height with certainty, although a figure closer to six feet is more probable. In my high school days, I had a friend of age 15 who was short - around five feet two inches, yet by age 19 he had mushroomed to six feet. At the same age, another of my school friends was about five feet five inches yet in adulthood he had gained only another two inches. One cannot always successfully extrapolate in these matters. In all vital respects WT 15000 was as human as you or I.

Another interesting erectus specimen is skull KNM- ER 3733 dating from about 1.7 mya. It also possesses, along with other “ancient” erectus forms, much the same type of cranial morphology as did Java, Peking and WT 15000, and has an ECV of approximately 850 - 900cc.21,22 (See Figure 4.)23 ER 3733’s cranium is dolichocephalic, a feature also found in many Neanderthals, and it is thick, as are most erectus and Neanderthal specimens. The four erectus specimens so far mentioned are the main subject of this paper. According to Lubenow, the entire ECV range of known erectus forms runs from 700cc for a Javan infant to 1200cc - the largest Peking skull.24 However, the capacity of the previously-mentioned Vertesszöllos fragment from Hungary and dated at about 350,000ya, is estimated at about 1400cc, which is high for anerectus specimen.25

Figure 4. Skull profile of erectus specimen KNM-ER 3733. This fossil human is of similar geological age to WT 15000.

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material is available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. Further, their affinities with both archaic sapiens and Neanderthal sapiens are so strong that it can hardly be denied that all are closely related human beings.

The question of course is - are erectus forms proof of an evolutionary progression from the apes, or are they simply temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of human beings?


Naturally, one of the most important questions is that of time. If the standard geological time-scale is correct, then the very slight changes in erectus morphology over a period of 1.3 million years of existence may carry a little more weight. Yet we must also remember that this type had displayed a remarkable degree of structural stasis over the whole period from c.1.7mya to about 350kya. The morphology of the earliest specimens such as WT 15000 differs insignificantly from the much later specimens such as the Peking and Javan examples, the only significant difference being restricted to the endocranial volume. At full adulthood, the Turkana Boy would have possessed a capacity of about 1000-1050cc, compared to later Chinese examples which were as high as 1200cc.26

According to Molnar, the modern human range runs from about 700cc to 2200cc,27 and this puts every adult erectusspecimen comfortably into the range of modern humans, and this range also covers every adult example of archaicsapiens, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man.

Writing in 1985, Pellegrino conceded that the differences between H. erectus and modern man are merely superficial.28On the same page he even discusses the probability that H. erectus and H. sapiens are one and the same species.

Now obviously if the distinctions between erectus and modern humans are merely superficial as Pellegrino admitted, then the differences between the earliest and the latest erectus specimens, and between erectus and archaic and Neanderthal sapiens are even more superficial; that is, there is a great probability that all erectus, Neanderthal and H. sapiens are closely related, with genetic, dietary, climatic, and other environmental diversity in evidence.

As Beasley29 and Lubenow30 have recently published excellent papers on the question of the archaic H. sapiens, it is not my intention to go into that question in any great detail.

There are literally thousands of hominid fossils in existence and of these, over 300 are classified as either Neanderthal or erectus.31 We have a large enough sample to be certain about the accuracy of the diagnostic features of all groups. Admittedly taxonomic names count for less than the actual morphological structures of the various human races, past and present; but from an evolutionary viewpoint the small degree of change in erectus populations over an alleged period of one and a quarter million years must be disappointing, especially if the cranial capacities of the earliest and latest examples all lie within the modern range of humans. Pellegrino wrote in 1985- “(Between the first and the lasterectus specimens), there are no major morphological excursions; merely a thicker brow ridge here, a subtle variation of tooth structure there, and not much else. It looks as if a substantial stretch of human evolution was characterized not by change, but by stasis.” (Emphasis added.)32

In actual fact, there are some examples of erectus which display quite a large ECV, such as Vertesszöllos.33 To make matters even more interesting, there are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.

These skulls are dated from less than 15,000 years to around 35,000 years BP.34 Attwood and Edwards found it - “… a conundrum” that the Kow Swamp people with their more-erectus features lived later than the Lake Mungo people of New South Wales which were more “modern” in appearance, and which date from around 35,000 BP.35 (See Figure 5.)36

Figure 5. Outline of a Kow Swamp skull dating from very recent time - less than 15,000 years ago. The affinities with very early erectus specimens are obvious - only in brain capacity is there any significant distinction.

Evolutionists Groves and Thorne have had a heated argument about the Kow Swamp puzzle,37 but neither seems to come up with a real answer as to how an erectus form persisted so late in time, and according to Chris Stringer, the presence of erectus forms in Australia - “… is especially perplexing, because it seems to contradict the global trend toward a more gracile skull“.38 This therefore contradicts the standard paradigm because very “modern” human fossils are well known back to and beyond c.100,000 BP.39 The Australian Cossack skull, mandible and limb fragments which are dated at only 13,000 years or less, is another example of a sapiens/erectus of modern day. The widely distributed Australian fossils include an extremely robust individual, Willandra Lakes hominid 50, which is so “primitive” that Thorne says, “… this skull is so robust it makes the Kow Swamp ones look gracile!40 On the same page Flood acknowledges that all of these robust or “primitive” people are definitely Homo sapiens, despite their possession of so many archaic features. (See also Lubenow.41)

How do evolutionist authorities reconcile the presence in Australia of both modern sapiens types and erectus types all within the last 35,000 years? One explanation given is that the erectus fossils are only late-surviving relicts of H. erectus, but this seems very doubtful seeing that erectus elsewhere in the world is supposed to have died out around 300kya. That is a long time in which no change was evident except for the larger brain size of Kow Swamp and Cossack. Rhys-Jones believes that this “… extraordinary situation” is due to Kow Swamp people being a - “… relict group of the original occupants of Australia …41 Thorne believes the two distinct Australian groups (’modern” Mungo and “primitive” Kow Swamp) had separate ancestries -one from Java and the other from ancient China.43

Whatever explanation is offered, the stubborn fact remains that these erectus traits have persisted so long, which seems to conflict with the alleged global tendency to more gracile forms. In addition, Lubenow points out that there are 106 fossil individuals with erectus morphology which are dated by authorities more recently than 300kya, and of these at least 62 date as recent as 12,000 BP, including Cossack, Kow Swamp and Solo Man from Java.44

Because of the alleged time factor, all these erectus - like individuals are obviously classified as Homo sapiens. Lubenow lists 16 erectus characteristics, and almost all, including brain size, are found in the above individuals. As he says, ‘ … (erectus ) is truly a man for all seasons.45 If these fossils dated from say 300kya, they would undoubtedly be assigned to the taxon Homo erectus.

On the other hand, if creationists are right in believing that earth has only a short history (measured in millennia, rather than millions of years), then there would be no argument - all forms of Homo (except the phantom-like H. habilis), would form just a single contemporary species.

The growing creationist (and evolutionist) view is gathering strength - that H. erectus and all H. sapiens forms should be considered not as separate species but as a single human species encompassing a range of genetic and phenotypic diversity. In the creationist view there was no evolution from the apes,46-48 nor was there any phylogenetic, “ascent” from an inferior type of human to a more advanced type.

There are a number of possible, even probable, non-evolutionary explanations for this diversity in the human species, and these are succinctly outlined in the works of Lubenow and Beasley.49,50

Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called “primitive” erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the “primitive” facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become “set in concrete” as adult characters.

Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features. Custance’s works should be compulsory reading for all anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist.


Over the years it has been generally assumed that A. afarensis gave rise to A. africanus and/or Homo habilis, which in turn evolved into H. erectus. About 300-400kya it is then believed that archaic sapiens forms arose from an erectus population (see Figure 6).53

Figure 6. The evolution of human phylogeny since 1955. The 1980 model is far from being unanimously approved by various authorities. The Black Skull and OH 62 discoveries in the mid-1980s have further confused the alleged human line - see text

All “archaic” forms display varying degrees of facial prognathism, brow ridges and brain capacity. The three best-known examples are Swanscombe (England), Steinheim (Germany) and Broken Hill (Rhodesian Man, Africa). All three also possessed flattish foreheads and ECV’s in the 1200-1300cc range. This raises questions about the origin of Neanderthals and modern man which evolutionist authorities have so far been unable to satisfactorily solve. The matter of the origin of the archaic sapiens themselves is also unresolved. The modern Omo specimens were found close together and have identical ages; yet Omo II has noticeable erectus features, while Omo I is as modern as people of today. Wood says that if the two were found in separate locations they would have been put in different groups. This demonstrates the large range of variability in a contemporary human population.54

The fact that these forms arose well before the first Neanderthals, although many of them were allegedly more “progressive” than these, is a widely-debated problem, as is the fact that the more “progressive” Neanderthals with a steeper forehead appear in the evolutionary fossil record before the classic or more “primitive” European Neanderthal forms, thus indicating that the former did not evolve from the latter as the morphology might otherwise suggest.

The patterns differ according to continent. The earliest archaic sapiens appear in Europe (Germany and Greece) around 600-700kya (Petralona and Mauer, Heidelberg), around 350kya in France (Arago 21) and Germany (Steinheim). The earliest African archaic forms are Ndutu, Tanzania (at 450 kya) and Saldanha, South Africa (at about 300kya). The Swanscombe female archaic skull from England dates from about 300 kya. All of these bear erectus-type as well as more modern-type cranial features.

There are no unambiguous archaic sapiens in Asia but two recently-discovered skulls from China seem to have the flattened erectus-type foreheads, yet their ECV’s are apparently close to the modern human average and their faces are flatter than the usual erectus specimens. The dating is a little uncertain but the generally agreed date is around 250-300kya. This date and the dolichocephalic configuration (narrow and oblong viewed from the top) of the skulls has led researchers to classify them both as H. erectus.55-57

Bunney reported in 1986 that a human skeleton dating from c.280kya in China antedates an erectus skull from Zhoukoudian (the Peking Man site) near Beijing by 50,000 years. The earlier skull is typical erectus in its morphology, yet has a rounded occiput and a brain case of about 1390cc. Authorities are thus in a fix -the date says H. erectus, but the brain size is modern Homo sapiens.58 The Vertesszöllos erectus from Hungary is a very similar case.

Lubenow gives a pen-picture of the main archaic sapiens diagnostics:-

  1. Low, sloping forehead,
  2. Cranial capacity from 1100-1300c,
  3. Heavy supraorbital ridges,
  4. Facial prognathism, and
  5. Modem post-cranial skeleton.59

He considers that by “making up” this category called “archaic sapiens“, evolutionists wish to portray them as transitionals between erectus and Neanderthals and modern man. It is not my belief that they intend to deceive at all; this taxon could be said to represent a convenient classification for the purposes of discussion and reference, even though the overall differences are so slight. These specimens do certainly pose problems for evolutionary theory but the mix of modern and erectus characters is real enough. The main conundrum appears to be how and why so many advanced or derived characters are present so long before either Neanderthals or modern humans appear in the fossil record, and Lubenow is correct in attacking the picture by referring to the dates.60 Also, why should Neanderthal forms of less than 100,000 years ago display so many “primitive” features if it was merely a matter of straight- forward progression from erectus to archaics and Neanderthal?

Until recently there has been little sign of Neanderthals much before about 120kya in evolutionary time, yet during the alleged period from 90,000-35,000 years BP, they undoubtedly were contemporaneous with modern men and women. The two sub-species are both found in Würm glacial deposits of the Upper Pleistocene coexisting in caves in Palestine (Skhül, Qafzeh, Tabun, Kebara), for up to 40,000 years of geological time.61 Late reports have been published which alter the picture. Richards reports from Madrid that a cave in Spain (Sierra de Atapuerca) has yielded a number of Neanderthal finds. He notes that despite these skulls being much older than any previous finds, they are indisputably Neanderthals. The finds date from well beyond 300,000 years ago- a time when Neanderthals were simply not thought to have existed - and the degree of variability in this single group of fossils, is a surprise to palaeontologists. The presence of modern features in this cave group so early, and so long before the classic type appeared only adds to the puzzle.62

Another report is by Dorozynski in Science, where it is stated that some of the skeletal features at Altamura in Italy vary enough to argue they must have belonged to at least two species, one of which led to Neanderthals, while, the other led to Homo sapiens sapiens. Yet because they all belong to one group, others claim that these variations are relatively insignificant, and the hominids all belong to one lineage.63

A skull from Tabun is classic Neanderthal, yet in nearby Skhül a number of skulls are intermediate between classic Neanderthals and modern humans. According to Waechter, the Skhül population may be the hybrids of Neanderthals and true modern sapiens who were already in existence.64 A gracile Qafzeh skull is quite modern with a high forehead and short braincase, whereas a Tabun skull nearby is classic Neanderthal with occipital bun; yet both had the brain capacity of fully modern humans.65 (See Figure 7.)66 While these questions pose problems for strict evolutionary progression, much of the difficulty lies in the assumption of evolution in the first place.

Figure 7. Human specimens from Qafza (left) and Tabun. These examples lived contemporaneously less than 100kya, yet the robust Tabun skull (right) features typical Neanderthal characters such as the occipital “bun’. Both had brains as large as those of people alive today.

Lubenow’s book is the best general creationist expose of human evolution so far published, although I disagree strongly with his willingness to accept the KNM-ER 1470 skull (classified as Homo habilis) as probably human. This skull has far too many australopithecine features to be anything else than a large-brained africanus. In addition, a new reconstruction has recently been made, and an examination of the meatus angle (the pitch of the face onto the cranium) for example, shows the following: common chimpanzee 49°, A. africanus 47-53°, P. boisei 53°, and H. habilis (including KNM-ER 1470) 52-53°. The erectus skull ER 3733 shows a marked jump up to 66°, indicating that all the previous ancestors had ape-faces and no progression is seen through the australopithecines and “habilis.” The angle of two habiline specimens is exactly the same as that of africanus and boisei. The craniofacial index (facial area versus cranial area) of all “habilines’, including 1470 falls within the australopithecine range and outside the human range including erectus.67,68

As for our putative ape-man “ancestor” A. afarensis, Peter Schmid of Zurich’s Anthropological Institute recently revealed his surprise when he first examined Lucy’s skeleton (as cited by Leakey and Lewin in Origins Reconsidered). In addition to all her other ape features, it now turns out that even her rib-cage is pure ape. Schmid then turned his attention to Lucy’s entire upper body -”The shoulders were high, and, combined with the funnel- shaped chest would have made arm swinging improbable in the human sense… The abdomen was potbellied, and there was no waist… . In other words, Lucy and other australopithecines were bipedal, but they weren’t humans, at least in their ability to run.”69 On pages 194-196 of Origins Reconsidered we find that Aiello in London also found discrepancies -”No doubt about it“, she states. “Australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved … ” On page 195 a diagram shows clearly some of the major differences between australopithecines and humans. The reference to bipedality can be taken with a grain of salt because some previous studies have shown that it is highly likely that if Lucy did walk upright on occasions it was in the same manner as modern-day chimpanzees.70 Incidentally, computerized tomography carried out by Conroy and Vannier of the University of Washington confirms that the teeth of the Taung child (A. africanus) were developing in a distinctly ape-like manner.71

Bromage points out that the first reconstruction of ER 1470 was erroneous by giving it a flat face, but - “… recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus“.72 This finding is one of a number which suggest that the species Homo habilis never existed. In reality all “habiline” forms display unmistakable australopithecine traits.

Lubenow’s discussion of the australopithecine, habiline, erectus and Neanderthal specimens is an excellent exposition of the creationist view that the first are extinct chimp- or gorilla-like forms, and the “habilines” are nothing more than variants of australopithecines, while erectus/Neanderthal/modern man are simply varieties of a single human species.

Neanderthals - So-called

The scientific treatment of Neanderthals over most of the past century has been nothing short of scandalous. Marcellin Boule, the prominent French palaeontologist of the early 20th century, produced a very faulty reconstruction and description of a Neanderthal- an error which was to persist until after World War II.73

Lubenow cites a number of authorities who finally have acknowledged the full humanity of Neanderthal people,74 and he also claims that a Neanderthal skull has been recovered in Israel (Amud 1), which appears to date at only about 6,000 years old, although this date is controversial, as a fission-tracks test has produced an age of 28kya.75 On pages 75-77, Lubenow cites evolutionists Klein, Geist, Angel and Wright who have all produced non-evolutionary theories which explain Neanderthal features and which are very similar to Custance’s hypothesis mentioned earlier.76 (It appears that what evolutionists see as “primitive” or ape-like features are nothing more than climatic, dietary or other pathological effects on individuals of a population, allowing also for some degree of racial or genetic variation. These explanations can account for all four groups -erectus, archaic, Neanderthal and the “modern” erectus forms such as Kow Swamp.)

The question of the archaic sapiens from a creationist viewpoint has been dealt with superbly by Beasley,77 who offers a cogent, reasonable and well-researched case that the archaic sapiens are our post-Flood ancestors with variable morphological features due to such influences as prolongation of skeletal maturation and greater longevity potential; environmental; and dietary/pathological pressures within a post-Deluge framework. Beasley’s paper is a land- mark in creationist research on this subject, and every Christian should possess a copy with which to question materialist-minded educators.

Trends In Secular Literature

The elevation of Neanderthal man to his rightful and proper place as a full human being was recently endorsed whole-heartedly by Rensberger. In a detailed summary, this well-known evolutionist has come to the only conclusion possible -that far from being a mixture of brute and human, Neanderthals were as human as you and I, and he is very critical of the earlier misguided and inexcusable approach which denigrated them as sub-human. Rensberger’s work should be a salutary lesson for those who are inclined to accept scientific pronouncements uncritically as being gospel truth.78

With respect to Homo erectus, movement in evolutionary circles to upgrade his status is also gathering momentum. Peter Andrews discusses the Middle Pleistocene specimens from Java and China, and earlier Pleistocene forms ER 3733 and 3883 from Africa, and the later European and African forms such as Arago, Heidelberg and Broken Hill (Rhodesian Man).79 He claims the African specimens may represent different species or a separate lineage from Asian forms giving rise to separate populations of H. sapiens in the later Pleistocene -that is, Solo Man from Java may be directly ancestral to the controversial Kow Swamp and Cossack erectus/sapiens populations in Australia about 6,000-13,000 years ago. In Europe he speculates that the Neanderthal forms may be ancestral to modern man, and finally in Africa, a line from Ternifine through Broken Hill and Omo. (Omo I is virtually identical to modern man and dates from c.115- 130kya).80

If so, then H. sapiens is either polyphyletic (three independent lineages), or evolved gradually on a broad geographical front between 400-200kya. The implication is clear- “… that H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same species which is changing gradually through time.” (Emphasis added.)81 I agree that they are one and the same species -exhibiting variability in the early centuries after the Flood.

On page 25 Andrews also discusses the possibility that Homo sapiens evolved only once in Africa and spread into Europe twice, once giving rise to the Neanderthals, and later via Skühl and Qafzeh populations, to Homo sapiens in Europe. Yet on the same page he says- ‘ … it has been demonstrated that the European hominid sequence could be viewed as a single lineage… culminating in the classic Neanderthals of the last ice age.” (Emphasis added).

To the informed creationist, most of this is meaningless and irrelevant. The morphological differences within all erectusspecimens and between erectus, Neanderthal, and all Homo sapiens are so small that there is not the slightest reason to doubt that every form should be classified in a single human species, as we have already seen advocated.

It is not generally known to the lay-person that there are a number of modern humans who display the sameerectus/Neanderthal features in addition to the Kow Swamp and Cossack examples. Taylor has published a photo of an Indian woman who clearly exhibits very large supraorbital tori.82 On the next page he gives another example of a living human who was closely examined in the Philippines in 1908. The man had massive brow ridges, a poorly defined chin, and a large lower jaw. I personally have seen and conversed with two East European immigrants where very large brow ridges and a flattened forehead were clearly visible, yet both, who incidentally were squat and heavily built, were normal individuals.

The human skull is very plastic in early childhood and I believe Custance’s theory of dietary/climatic effects may account for some erectus/Neanderthal features very well, while racial/genetic variability is also to be considered. Evolution from animal ancestors is not involved.

It used to be popular years ago to stress the distinctions between Neanderthal Mousterian tools and those of early modern man, but Wood83 admits that recent evidence indicates that these differences are not at all clear cut. Mousterian tools are found with modem skulls at Jebel Irhoud and it is therefore misleading to associate Mousterian tools solely with Neanderthal Man.84 It is also clear that not all erectus/Neanderthal specimens possessed all of these so-called primitive features, such as the Teshik- Tash 10-year-old and the Krapina “A” juvenile. These were both youngsters but the 18 year-old youth Ehringsdorf “F” fossil possessed both a steep forehead and a fairly high cranial vault, a moderate torus and thinner bones.85 Two Neanderthal mandibles, Ehringsdorf “F” and “G’, an adult and a juvenile, had well -developed chins.86 In view of these by-no-means-rare cases, any evolutionary “progression” simply does not fit the bill.

As Beasley points out,87 a lack of dietary vitamin D alone can account for some, but not necessarily all of the so-called “primitive” features of Homo erectus and Neanderthal Man. Beasley also notes that some primitive features are still to be found in various extant racial groups.88

Wolpoff and his colleagues of the University of Michigan, because they believe the five main human races - Negroid, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aborigines and southern African bushmen -began their evolutionary divergence well before becoming anatomically modern Homo sapiens, totally reject the “out of Africa” hypothesis, whereby all modern people owe their ancestry to Africa only -the Noah’s Ark theory.89

Wolpoff is supported by Alan Thorne of the Australian National University.90 According to Shipman, Wolpoff and others are now - “… proposing nothing less than the complete abolition of Homo erectus on the grounds that the species isinsufficiently distinct from Homo sapiensAll fossil specimens of Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens (including Neanderthals), … should be reclassified into a single speciesHomo sapiens, that is, subdivided only into races.” (Emphasis added throughout.)91

Under the Wolpoff/Thorne scheme the new definition of Homo sapiens would include all human ancestors with brain sizes from 850 - 2000+cc. Of course this would totally exclude the australopithecines and the phantom “habilis” - a position which creationists would thoroughly endorse. Wolpoff and Thorne argue (correctly) that H. habilis is too morphologically distinct from both erectus and sapiens and therefore should be excluded from the genus Homo.92 John Reader has also outlined many of the problems facing “habilis“, and concludes - “… more than twenty years of accumulating evidence and discussion have left Homo habilis more insecure than it ever was.”93 Creationists again would agree because it seems obvious that “habilis” is only an australopithecine ape. Wolpoff and Thorne cannot find any consistent anatomical markers which separate erectus from sapiens. They point to the mix of sapiens and erectus features in the two recently discovered Chinese fossil skulls which virtually proves that erectus and sapiens are members of the same species and the taxon Homo erectus should be laid to rest.94

Other authorities such as Rightmire disagree, claiming that the minor distinctions which Wolpoff et al. consider as merely racial variations, are sufficient to keep separate species classifications.95 On these same pages, Shipman points out the difficulties in identifying meaningful points for measuring skull vault thickness for example. The variation, individual to individual, is considerable and this is exactly one of the points which I am attempting to make- “evolution” has nothing to do with it. The differences between the various forms of archaic Homo sapiens relates, at least in part, to a combination of climatic, dietary, maturational and longevity-driven factors. In a short article in 1990, Maslen cites Dr Thorne as saying -

… the fossil record reveals that the features possessed by the early hominids who lived in Europe, Asia and Africa, have exactly the same sort of range as those we see in modern people.”96

I have made no attempt to enter the molecular debate and the Noah’s Ark controversy. This subject has been covered by creationist authorities.97,98 Michael Denton, a non-creationist, has already indicated the non-reliability of the molecular clock.99

Dr Carl Wieland has drawn attention to articles published in Germany, and sent to Australia in November 1992. According to these reports a well preserved erectus-type skull has been uncovered in a gravel pit near Reilingen. Although originally discovered in 1978 its significance was only realized several years later. If the dating is correct, this erectus specimen must have coexisted with modern (quasi-archaic) sapiens; the age corresponds with that of Steinheim and Swanscombe. Another article from Die Welt of September 27, 1986 refers to this “Homo erectus reilingensis” and another erectus fossil from Bilzingsleben allegedly dating from about 300kya, and there is evidence of stone tools and implements made out of elephant bone and antlers. The details of the Reilingen skull portions indicate a mix of erectusand more modern features, thus confirming the hypothesis set forth in this paper.100


In a previous article101 I demonstrated the lack of suitable primitive ancestors for the australopithecines, for “habilis” and for Homo erectus. In this paper I hope to have shown that the erectus-archaic-Neanderthal-modern man “chain” isnon-evolutionary; that is, that all these forms are simply varieties of human beings (see Figure 8).102 The question of time is irrelevant - it makes no difference whether the time involved is millions of years or only a few thousand. The morphological distinctions are very much insufficient to warrant placing these forms in separate categories which only serves the purpose of evolution - a theory to which so many scientists are committed as dogma. Once evolution is accepted as dogma, all evidence is interpreted in a subjective, rather than objective, manner. Creationists will continue to expose the weaknesses in the theory and to encourage further research and study into the origins of man. It is not simply a matter of blind adherence to religion; the evidence is available to all who honestly wish to study and evaluate it.

Figure 8. Skull outline of a “progressive” Neanderthal. Authorities find it paradoxical that the more “primitive” or classic forms appear in the fossil record before the more modern, “progressive” types such as above.

The actual facts of the fossil record, that is the fossil materials themselves as against evolutionary interpretations of these materials, show indisputably that contrary to expectation the “earliest” erectusskeleton (WT 15000 or the Turkana “Boy’) proves by its very existence that this human being was large like modern humans, and not small and ape-like. On the other hand fossil OH 62 proves that “habilis“, far from being Homo-like, was small and ape-like - these cases were the very opposite of what evolution theory predicted and expected.103 Even though the brain size of WT 15000 was smaller than most modern humans, it was still larger than quite a few people living today.

As for time and geology, all known facts are subject to somebody’s interpretation. Some are reasonable, others are not. It is reasonable for example to interpret an inferior rock layer as having been deposited earlier in time than the layer above, but when it comes to the question of how much earlier all estimates must necessarily be based on a number of assumptions, and this also applies to all radiometric and geological dating methods. The estimates made may be correct, partially correct, or totally wrong, and therefore almost all of geology, time and fossils are exposed to subjectivity, no matter how carefully the experts tackle their tasks. Once evolution is accepted as dogma all evidence is interpreted in that light.

Nobody can be totally certain by scientific methods alone, as to the reason why fossils are often found in certain patterns - was it by natural causes of slow deposition over long time periods as life-forms evolved, or by equally natural causes over a short time-frame such as by a global flood (and/or subsequent residual catastrophes) depositing the life-forms which were biogeographically zoned? No scientist was there to observe what happened, but others (Noah and his family) were eye-witnesses and have given us an account of the Flood.104,105

Lay-persons reading popular science books, magazines or newspaper articles will assume that the picture of human evolution presented therein is a depiction of established fact. This view is totally erroneous - the scientists have a scanty, but in places reasonable, selection of past life-forms - 50 or 60 pages of a book of unknown length, and if (as usual) they are already believers in evolution, these representatives of past life will inevitably always be interpreted in the light of the theory.

Other alternatives such as presented here and in various creationist works are equally valid, but it is emphasized that neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven.

After careful study of hundreds of scientific descriptions, and photographs of scores of fossil humans, it is clear to me that all shades of intergrading exist between “ancient” erectus and modern humans, but the chronological patterns of appearance, even using the evolutionists” own dating methods, do not match the predictions of the theory. In view of the clear-cut and unmistakeable morphological gap between apes and humans, I believe that human fossil study provides strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the theistic view of origins as outlined in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, as against the current view that random or chance genetic accidents were responsible.


The drawings on which the figures are based were prepared by my son Gary Mehlert.


  1. Whitcomb, J. and Morris, H., 1961. The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  2. Mehlert, A W., 1992. A review of the present status of some alleged early hominids. CEN Tech. J.6(1):10-41.
  3. Gish, D. T., 1985. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, California, pp. 140-180.
  4. Lubenow, M.,1992. Bones of Contention, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 50-57, 157-168, 172-179.
  5. Beasley, G. J., 1990. Pre-Flood giantism: a key to the interpretation of fossil hominids and hominoids. EN Tech. J.,4:5-55.
  6. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 127.
  7. Cberfas, J. and Gribbin, J., 1981. Descent of man or ascent of ape? New Scientist, 91(1269):594-595.
  8. Gish, Ref. 3, pp. 180-203.
  9. Bowden, M., 1977. Ape-Man: Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, Bromley, Kent, pp. 78-148.
  10. Johnson, W., 1982. The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, Queensland Binding Service, Brisbane, pp 40-45.
  11. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 135.
  12. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 91.
  13. Fezer, K. D., 1993. Creation’s incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution, 33:5-21 (p. 12).
  14. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 86.
  15. Brace, C. L. and Montagu, A., 1977. Human Evolution, Second Edition, Chicago University Press, pp. 204-205.
  16. Leakey, R. and Walker, A., 1985. Homo erectus unearthed. National Geographic168(5):624-629.
  17. Leakey, R. and Lewin, R., 1992. Origins Reconsidered, Abacus Books, London, pp. 58-64.
  18. Leakey and Walker, Ref. 16, pp. 624-629.
  19. Jue, D. S., 1990. Cranial capacity and endocranial casts. EN Tech. J.4:56-65.
  20. Broderick, A H.,1971. Man and His Ancestors, Hutchinson and Co., London, p. 84.
  21. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 123, 128.
  22. Beasley, G. J., 1992. Pre-Flood giantism: a key to the interpretation of fossil hominids and hominoids. Unpublished manuscript (original Version), p. 71.
  23. Beasley, Ref. 22, p. 71.
  24. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 138.
  25. Jue, Ref. 19, p. 57.
  26. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 138.
  27. Molnar, S., 1975. Races, Types and Ethnic Groups, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 57.
  28. Pellegrino, C. R., 1985. Time-Gate, Hurtling Backward Through Time, TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, p. 120.
  29. Beasley, G. I., 1992. A possible creationist explanation of archaic fossil human remains. CEN Tech. J.6(2):138-167.
  30. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 78-85.
  31. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 29-30.
  32. Pellegrino, Ref. 28, p. 124.
  33. Campbell, B. G., 1988. Humankind Emerging, Fifth Edition, Time-Life Books, Harper ColIim, New York. pp. 287-288.
  34. Attwood, A., and Edwards, K., 1987. Footprints of early man. Time Australia, 2(13):28-41 (supplementary map).
  35. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, p. 37.
  36. Wolpoff, M. and Thorne, A., 1991. The Case against Eve. New Scientist130(1774):35.
  37. Groves, C. and Thorne, A., 1991. Brawl about Eve. The Australian Magazine, February 16-17, p. 28.
  38. Stringer, C., 1990. The emergence of modern humans. Scientific American263(6):74.
  39. Wood, B., 1976. The Evolution of Early Man, Cassell Australia, Sydney, pp. 98-100.
  40. Flood, J., 1990. The Riches of Ancient Australia, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 20.
  41. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 133.
  42. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, pp. 37-39.
  43. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, pp. 37-39.
  44. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 131-132.
  45. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 132-133.
  46. Mehlert, Ref. 2, pp. 33-38.
  47. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 134-143.
  48. Beasley, Ref. 5, pp. 31-55.
  49. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 149-156.
  50. Beasley, Ref. 5, pp. 5-55.
  51. Custance A., 1975. Genesis and early man. The Doorway Papers, Volume II. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 183-184, 208- 211.
  52. Custance, Ref. 51, p. 184.
  53. Campbell, Ref. 33, pp. 200-201.
  54. Wood, Ref. 39, p.99.
  55. Gibbons, A., 1992. An about-face for modem human origim. Science256:1521.
  56. Shipman, P., 1993. On the origin of races. New Scientist137(1856):36.
  57. Tianyuan, L., and Etler, D.A., 1992. New Middle Pleistocene hominid crania from Yunxian in China. Nature,357:404-407.
  58. Bunney, S., 1986. Chinese fossil could alter the course of evolution in China. New Scientist111(1520):25.
  59. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 80.
  60. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 78-85.
  61. Waechter, J., 1976. Man Before History, Elsevier International Publishing Co., Oxford, p. 64.
  62. Richards, M., 1993. Caveman shows his face. The Courier Mail, Brisbane, November 8, p. 9.
  63. Dorozynski, A., 1993. Possible neandertal ancestor found. Science262:991.
  64. Waechter, Ref. 61, p. 63.
  65. Bar-Yosef, O. and Vandermeersch, B., 1992. Modem humans in the Levant. Scientific American268(4):68.
  66. Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, Ref. 65, p. 68.
  67. Bromage, T., 1992. Faces from the past. New Scientist133(1803):32- 35.
  68. Hummer, C. C., 1977. A plea for caution about skull1470. Creation Research Society Quarterly14(3):171.
  69. Leakey and Lewin, Ref. 17, pp. 193-194.
  70. Cherfas, J.,1983. Trees have made man upright. New Scientist, 97:172- 178.
  71. Bromage, Ref. 67, p.33.
  72. Bromage, Ref. 67, p. 35.
  73. Campbell, Ref. 33, pp. 378-379.
  74. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 61-64, 76-77.
  75. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 73-74.
  76. Custance, Ref. 51, pp. 183-184, 208-211.
  77. Beasley, Ref. 29, pp. 138-167.
  78. Rensberger, B., 1981. Facing the past. Science “81,2(9):41-50.
  79. Andrews, P., 1984. The descent of man. New Scientist102:24-25.
  80. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 99.
  81. Andrews, Ref. 79, pp. 24-25.
  82. Taylor, I.,1987. In the Minds of Men, IFE Publishing Co., Toronto, p.214.
  83. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 108.
  84. 84. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 108.
  85. Beasley, Ref. 29, pp. 144-145.
  86. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 145.
  87. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 143.
  88. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 163.
  89. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 34.
  90. Wolpoff and Thome, Ref. 36, pp. 33-37.
  91. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 34.
  92. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 36.
  93. Reader, J., 1990. Missing Links, Penguin Books, London, p. 189.
  94. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 36.
  95. Shipman, Ref. 56, pp. 36-37.
  96. Maslen, G., 1990. Man or ape? The Sunday Mail, Brisbane, May 20, p.11.
  97. Wieland, C., 1992. No bones about Eve. Creation Ex Nihilo13(4):20-23.
  98. Beasley, G. J., 1992. Is the African “Eve” misconceived? CEN-Tech. J.,6(1):42-48.
  99. Denton, M., 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 233-307.
  100. Wieland, C., 1993. Personal communication.
  101. Mehlert, Ref. 2, pp. 10-41.
  102. Campbell, Ref. 33, p. 388.
  103. Reader, Ref. 93, pp. 188-189.
  104. Woodmorappe, J.,1983. A diluviological treatise on the stratigraphic separation of fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly20(3):133-185.
  105. Whitcomb and Morris, Ref. 1.
Originally published in Journal of Creation 8(1):105-116, April 1994

Word of the Day… August 16, 2014…..


Reflections on a Rainbow

By Alistair Begg

The bow is seen in the clouds.   Genesis 9:14

The rainbow, the symbol of the covenant with Noah, foreshadows our Lord Jesus, who is the Lord’s witness to the people. When may we expect to see the token of the covenant? The rainbow is only to be seen painted upon a cloud. When the sinner’s conscience is dark with clouds, when he remembers his past sin and mourns and laments before God, Jesus Christ is revealed to him as the covenant Rainbow, displaying all the glorious hues of the divine character and declaring peace. To the believer, when his trials and temptations surround him, it is sweet to behold the person of our Lord Jesus Christ—to see Him bleeding, living, rising, and pleading for us. God’s rainbow is hung over the cloud of our sins, our sorrows, and our woes, to prophesy deliverance. By itself a cloud does not give a rainbow; there must be the crystal drops to reflect the light of the sun.

So, our sorrows must not only threaten, but they must really fall upon us. There would have been no Christ for us if the vengeance of God had been merely a threatening cloud: Punishment must fall in terrible drops upon Him. Until there is a real anguish in the sinner’s conscience, there is no Christ for him; until the chastisement that he feels becomes grievous, he cannot see Jesus. But there must also be a sun; for clouds and drops of rain do not make rainbows unless the sun shines. Beloved, our God, who is as the sun to us, always shines, but we do not always see Him—clouds hide His face; but no matter what drops may be falling or what clouds may be threatening, if He shines there will be a rainbow at once.

It is said that when we see the rainbow, the shower is over. It is certain that when Christ comes, our troubles withdraw; when we look on Jesus, our sins vanish, and our doubts and fears subside. When Jesus walks upon the waters of the sea, how profound the calm!  Have a Simply Heavenly Day!!!  God bless you!!!


Word Of The Day… August 15, 2014…


Sunday Listening,

Part Two

by Charles R. Swindoll

The Lord Speaks to SamuelMeanwhile, the boy Samuel served the Lord by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the Lord were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.One night Eli, who was almost blind by now, had gone to bed. The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Tabernacle* near the Ark of God. Suddenly the Lord called out, “Samuel!”“Yes?” Samuel replied. “What is it?” He got up and ran to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”“I didn’t call you,” Eli replied. “Go back to bed.” So he did.Then the Lord called out again, “Samuel!”Again Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”“I didn’t call you, my son,” Eli said. “Go back to bed.”Samuel did not yet know the Lord because he had never had a message from the Lord before. So the Lord called a third time, and once more Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”Then Eli realized it was the Lord who was calling the boy. So he said to Samuel, “Go and lie down again, and if someone calls again, say, ‘Speak, Lord, your servant is listening.’ ” So Samuel went back to bed.And the Lord came and called as before, “Samuel! Samuel!”And Samuel replied, “Speak, your servant is listening.”  1 Samuel 3:1–10

We’ve been talking about the essential skill of listening, particularly as it relates to Sunday sermons. I asked you to come up with some ideas on what can be done by the listener (not the preacher) to keep the sermon interesting. Let’s consider together how we could improve our listening skills. I’m indebted to Haddon Robinson, a Ph.D. in the field of communication, for these four “don’ts” that are worth remembering.

Don’t assume the subject is dull. When the topic is announced, avoid the habit of thinking, I’ve heard that before or This doesn’t apply to me. Good listeners believe they can learn something from everyone. Any message will have a fresh insight or a helpful illustration. A keen ear will listen for such.

Don’t criticize before hearing out the speaker. All speakers have faults. If you focus on them, you will miss some profitable points being made. Those who listen well refuse to waste valuable time concentrating on the negatives. They also refuse to jump to conclusions until the entire talk is complete.

Don’t let your prejudices close your mind. Some subjects are charged with intense emotions. Effective listeners keep an open mind, restraining the tendency to argue or agree until they fully understand the speaker’s position in light of what the Scriptures teach.

Don’t waste the advantage which thought has over speech. Remember what we learned yesterday about the gap between speech-speed and thought-speed? Diligent listeners practice four skills as they mentally occupy themselves:

First, they try to guess the next point.Second, they challenge supporting evidence.Third, they mentally summarize what they have heard.Fourth, they apply the Scripture at each point.Writing down the outline and a few thoughts during the sermon also keeps the mind from drifting off course.

Young Samuel took the advice of Eli the priest, and as a result, he heard what God wanted him to learn. The message was riveted into Samuel’s head so permanently, he never forgot it. And it all started with:
“Speak, LORD, for Your servant is listening” (1 Samuel 3:9).Try that next Sunday. A few seconds before the sermon begins, pray that prayer. You will be amazed how much more you hear when you work hard to listen well.

 Good listeners believe they can learn something from everyone. —Chuck Swindoll


Connect With Me:


Facebook Group:


body piercings
day of worship
end times
false prophet
Holy Spirit
idol worship
new age
ouija board
premarital sex
self harm
video games
witch craft