IS YOUR GRANDMOTHER A FISH? – DR. GEORGIA PURDOM

http://creationtruthorthodoxy.wordpress.com

CREATION TRUTH ORTHODOXY

a04b5b6cae29a90688186c565fc63ff0

Is your grandmother a fish?

By

Dr. Georgia Purdom

 

According to a soon-to-be published book for young children, a fish and many other animals are your “grandmothers.” The subtitle for the book is “a child’s first book of Evolution.” While the author and illustrator do a good job of simplifying evolution through words and pictures and using terminology that is kid-friendly, it is exactly those points that make the book so deceptive.

Starting with the Familiar

Rather than starting at the beginning of the evolutionary tree of life with a single-celled organism, the author starts with a fish likely because this would be more familiar to young children. The author chose not to use the terminology of “millions of years” but rather states “a long, long, long, long, long time ago” probably because young children don’t have a good understanding of time. In addition, the author uses the term “grandmother” to refer to each animal (i.e., grandmother fish, reptile, mammal) since children would know what a grandmother is but not an ancestor.

Confusing the Issue of Intelligent Behavior

The book compares animal behavior to human behavior for each of the animal grandmothers. This seduces children into thinking because they can do the same types of things they must be related to the animals. For example, “She [Grandmother Fish] could wiggle and swim fast. Can you wiggle?” Well, certainly children can wiggle (every parent can attest to this!), but that doesn’t mean humans are related to fish. It’s no secret that humans and animals have some similar behaviors, but as we have reported many, many times before this isn’t because of shared ancestry. Instead, God designed animals to beintelligent, but their intelligence pales in comparison to that of humans who are made in the image of God.

Missing Evolutionary Transitions

Following the comparative animal-human behaviors for each “grandmother,” children are presented with a small evolutionary tree showing lines connecting that grandmother to the next one. The book connects fish to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to apes, and, of course, apes to humans. While visually simple, it discounts the millions of mutations that would have to occur by random chance for these transitions to be possible (and the fact that transitional fossils between these organisms are absent).

Following the conclusion of the book is a parent’s guide giving more detailed information about each evolutionary transition presented in the book. For example, grandmother mammal is said to cuddle and parents are told, “They evolved cuddling as part of nursing our young. Both of these behaviors are governed by the ‘cuddle hormone,’ oxytocin.” It seems the author didn’t stop with simplifying evolution for kids; he also wanted to absurdly simplify it for their parents as well.

How Evolution Supposedly Happens

Also in the parent’s guide are explanations of three major points related to evolution: descent with modification, artificial selection, and natural selection. Dogs are used for artificial selection to show that people have bred dogs to achieve dogs with specific traits (of course, traits that already existed in dogs). They conclude this section with, “All the different kinds of dogs come from one kind of dog that lived a long time ago.” Finally, something I can agree with in the book! All dogs did come from the original dog kind created by God on Day Six of Creation Week, approximately 6,000 years ago. I found it interesting that their point about artificial selection is that it results in variation within a certain group of animals (dogs) and yet somehow a similar type of mechanism (natural selection) is supposed to achieve molecules-to-man evolution with one kind of animal evolving into a completely different kind of animal! I honestly hope parents reading the guide will see the obvious problem this creates for evolution and how natural selection cannot be a mechanism.

As with many books on evolution, time is presented as the key. Evolution can do anything and everything with enough time. But it is this simplification presented to both children and parents in this book that is so problematic. As a professional geneticist, I can attest to the fact that time is not the key but rather what is needed is a genetic mechanism that adds new and novel information so that organisms can evolve from fish to humans. The problem is that with all the thousands of papers published on mutations, no such mechanism has ever been observed. Mutations only alter (and many times detrimentally) genetic information that is already present—they don’t add new and novel information of the type that will change one kind of organism into another. All the time in the world is useless if there is no genetic mechanism to add what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution.

Teaching Our Kids the Truth About Our Origins

With its engaging text and illustrations, I’m sure this book will find its way into many public libraries and even school libraries. I challenge parents and others to suggest to their local librarian an alternative book from AiG’s vast resources for children. One of my personal favorites is Dinosaurs for Kids. I always say it should be called “Dinosaurs for Everyone,” because it is a book that will keep the attention of both children and parents and equip them to answer common questions about dinosaurs. Also, be sure to visit the Creation Museum and take advantage of our “Kids Free in 2014.”

While it is sad to see evolutionary resources like this book for children, it is very encouraging to see the many children’s resources (including Answers Bible Curriculum andAnswers VBS) available through AiG that help us teach our kids that the truth about our origins can only be found in the truth of God’s Word.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

SOURCE:

Source:

https://answersingenesis.org

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2014/07/10/is-your-grandmother-a-fish/

ANSWERS IN GENESIS

ლამაზი შექმნის ღმერთი ╰⊰¸¸.•¨* ვიდეო – Video – Georgian

http://saintninageorgiaofmyheart.wordpress.com

წმინდა ნინოს და საქართველოს ჩემს გულში

SAINT NINA & GEORGIA OF MY HEART

_DNE3819-1

ლამაზი შექმნის ღმერთი

“GOD CAN CREATE BEAUTY FROM COMPLETE DESOLATION” – ST OLGA OF ALASKA, USA (+1979)

http://alaskaofmyheart.wordpress.com

http://creationtruthorthodoxy.wordpress.com

CREATION TRUTH ORTHODOXY

ALASKA OF MY HEART

WhyAlaska-bg-3
Alaska

olga

“God can create beauty from complete desolation”

Saint Olga of Alaska, USA, +1979

BIBLICAL FORECASTS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES – BY DR. HUGH ROSS, ASTROPHYSICIST, CANADA

http://usaofmyheart.wordpress.com

http://creationtruthorthodoxy.wordpress.com

CREATION TRUTH ORTHODOXY

USA OF MY HEART

white-sands-camping-james-brandon

Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries

By Dr. Hugh Ross, Astrophysicist, Canada

January 1, 1976

Source:

http://www.reasons.org

http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblical-forecasts-of-scientific-discoveries

REASONS TO BELIEVE

Not only is the Bible filled with the fundamentals of science, but it is as much as 3,000 years ahead of its time. The Bible’s statements in most cases directly contradicted the science of the day in which they were made. When modern scientific knowledge approaches reality, the divine accuracy of the scriptures is substantiated. For example:

Biblical Statement Science Then Science Now
Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). Earth’s a flat disk. Earth is a sphere
Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22). Number of stars totals 1,100 Number of stars exceeds a billion
Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41). All stars are the same. Every star is different.
Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). Light is fixed in place. Light is in motion.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). Air is weightless. Air has weight.
Winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Winds blow straight. Winds blow in cyclones.
Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). Sick people must bled. Blood is a source of life and healing.

For centuries the conjectures of science also were at odds with Genesis 1 concerning the origin and development of Earth and of life on Earth. However, science has progressed beyond these conjectures and now agrees with Genesis 1 in the initial conditions of Earth, the description of subsequent events, and in the order of these events. The probability that Moses, writing more than 3,400 years ago, would have guessed all these details is less than one in trillions. Below is a partial list of other fundamentals of science explained in the Bible:

  • conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).
  • water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).
  • gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).
  • Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.
  • effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24; Prov. 17:22).
  • control of contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546).
  • importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13). control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19).

In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct. No other book, ancient or modem, can make this claim; but then, no other book has been written (through men) by God.

Copyright 1976, Reasons To Believe

Subjects: Creation Passages, General Apologetics , Two Books

Dr. Hugh Ross

Reasons to Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. Read more about Dr. Hugh Ross.

GENESIS CONTRADICTIONS? – BY DON BATTEN

http://creationtruthorthodoxy.wordpress.com

CREATION TRUTH ORTHODOXY

748460c2-db93-4bdf-9703-ff691d0891af

Genesis contradictions?

In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?

by Don Batten

Source:

http://creation.com

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

CREATION

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in (Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview, the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heavens’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:1a).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female he created them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

Reference and notes:

The NIV. Return to text.

Charles Taylor, Who wrote Genesis? Are the toledoths colophons? Journal of Creation 8(2):204–211, 1994.

IF A ROMAN CATHOLIC OR A PROTESTANT WANTS TO CONVERT TO ORTHODOXY (EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH), WHAT ARE THE STEPS? – Q&A IN “SIMPLY ORTHODOX”

http://paintingleaves.blogspot.com

http://heartquestionsandanswers.wordpress.com

HEART QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

PAINTING LEAVES

20dc6b7ea597e90ea334c5c7ea9273d4

5926225460_61f4be3bec

If a Roman Catholic or a Protestant wants to convert to

Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Church), what are the steps?

╰⊰¸¸.•¨*

Questions & Answers

in

SIMPLY ORTHODOX

3315964349_1cde131347_m

http://simplyorthodox.tumblr.com

Here is the original question:

SIMPLY ORTHODOX

Hello,

The best is first to be willing to spend the time to really understand the commonalities and differences between Roman Catholicism or Protestantism and Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Church).

In most cases, a person begins the process of conversion by speaking with a local Orthodox priest, who gives instructions (or catechism) on the teachings and beliefs of the Orthodox Church. These beliefs and doctrines have continued unchanged for over 2000 years, since the time of Jesus and the Twelve Apostles. This process of catechism could take many months. Once you have learned about the faith and teachings of the church, you would then be ready to be baptized as a member of the Orthodox Church, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (ie. the Holy Trinity). Baptism is by triple immersion in water. At the same time, you would be Chrismated, which means receiving the Holy Oil and the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your message! If you need anything, I am here 🙂

I thank God that the truth of the Orthodox Church is being revealed to all over the world!!!

PS. Some very useful sites are:

http://simplyorthodox.tumblr.com – SIMPLY ORTHODOX

http://romancatholicsmetorthodoxy.wordpress.com – ROMAN CATHOLICS MET ORTHODOXY

http://gkiouzelis.wordpress.com – ORTHODOX HEART SITES

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com – JOURNEY TO ORTHODOXY

WHY MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS OLD – BELIEFS FOSTER FURTHER BELIEFS ╰⊰¸¸.•¨* BY RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH. D. CREATIONIST PHYSICIST

http://creationtruthorthodoxy.wordpress.com

http://creationlifetruth.wordpress.com

http://earthage1000yearsold.wordpress.com

CREATION TRUTH ORTHODOXY

CREATION LIFE TRUTH

EARTH AGE 10,000 YEARS OLD

Per Aspera ad Astra - Nicholas Roemmelt Photography www.nicholas-roemmelt-photography.com

russell_humphries

Why most scientists believe the world is old1 

Beliefs foster further beliefs

by Russell Humphreys, USA

http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

Published: 1 April 2010(GMT+10)

Source:

http://creation.com

http://creation.com/why-most-scientists-believe-the-world-is-old

CREATION

There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists— the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data.2 Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: “If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?” The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe mostother scientists believe the earth is old!

Going round in circles

6685earth
There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.

They trust in what’s called ‘circular reasoning’, not data. I once encountered such a clear example of this misplaced trust, that I made detailed notes immediately. It happened when I spoke with a young (in his early thirties, career-ambitious, and upwardly mobile) geochemist at Sandia National Laboratories, where I then worked as a physicist. I presented him with one piece of evidence for a young world, the rapid accumulation of sodium in the ocean. It was ideal, since much of geochemistry deals with chemicals in the ocean.

I wanted to see how he explained possible ways for sodium to get out of the sea fast enough to balance the rapid input of sodium to the sea. Creationist geologist Steve Austin and I wanted the information in order to complete a scientific paper on the topic.3 We went around and around the issue for an hour, but he finally admitted he knew of no way to remove sodium from the sea fast enough. That would mean the sea could not be billions of years old. Realizing that, he said, “Since we know from other sciences that the ocean is billions of years old, such a removal process must exist.”

I questioned whether we ‘know’ that at all and started to mention some of the other evidence for a young world. He interrupted me, agreeing that he probably didn’t know even one percent of such data, since the science journals he depended on had not pointed it out as being important. But he did not want to examine the evidence for himself, because, he said, “People I trust don’t accept creation!”

Celestial Existence  by  Scott Smorra
“… he did not want to examine the evidence for himself, because, he said, ‘People I trust don’t accept creation!”

Faith, not science

I asked him which people he was relying upon. His answer was, “I trust Steven Jay Gould!” (At that time Gould, a paleontologist, was still alive and considered the world’s most prominent evolutionist.) Thus the geochemist revealed his main reason for thinking the earth is old:“people I trust” i.e., scientific authorities, had declared it. I was surprised that he didn’t see the logical inconsistency of his own position. He trusted Gould and other authorities but ignored highly relevant data!

Perhaps the geochemist thought it so unlikely the earth is young that he wasn’t going to waste time investigating the possibility himself. But if that were the case, then it shows another way the old-world myth perpetuates itself—by intellectual inertia.

I remember having similar attitudes when I was a grad student in physics, while I was still an evolutionist. I was wondering about a seeming inconsistency in biological evolutionism. But, I told myself, surely the experts know the answer, and I’ve got my dissertation research to do. I had no idea that (a) the experts had no answer for it, and (b) the implications were extremely important, affecting my entire worldview.

Before I became a Christian, I resisted evidence for a recent creation because of its spiritual implications. The geochemist might also be resisting such implications, and was merely using scientific authority as a convenient excuse.

4290d309-b12d-4bd5-9c66-8e2cc0dd290d
“Many scientists are not the independent seekers of truth the public imagines, so the public should not trust them blindly”

The bottom line

Many scientists are not the independent seekers of truth the public imagines, so the public should not trust them blindly. For a variety of reasons, scientists depend on other scientists to be correct, even when they themselves have some reason for doubt. Unfortunately, as most creationist scientists can tell you, the young geochemist’s reaction is not at all exceptional. Many scientists, without serious questioning, trust the opinions of their own ‘experts’. However, I’m happy to report that others, when presented with creationist data, have become very interested and have investigated it. Many have become creationists that way, as I did.

Your support of this ministry helps turn people’s thinking around. It did mine, so, thank you for your continued prayers and support. It does make a difference.

Related Articles

References

  1. First appeared in a CMI newsletter, December 2008.Return to text.
  2. Humphreys, D. R. Evidence for a young world, ICRImpact  384, June 2005. Archived at icr.org/article/1842. Return to text.
  3. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists,Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), Pittsburgh, pp. 17–33, order from http://creationicc.org. Archived at <http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html&gt;. See also a simplified article on this research—Salty seas: Evidence for a young earthReturn to text.

(Also available in Albanian and Czech)