@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as …

Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.

@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!

Bob Helm Also Commented

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: Just a few more thoughts. Accelerated nuclear decay would destroy the earth with heat and radiation – unless God worked a gigantic and unnecessary miracle that would tend to confuse scientific data. And it would require a second gigantic and unnecessary miracle to accelerate long term isotope decay but not short term isotope decay. Yet without such a miracle, if the half life of uranium 238 dropped to a few thousand years, the half life of carbon 14 would drop to a few months or less. That’s utterly absurd! Now I believe in a God of miracles, but God never works miracles that serve no useful purpose. Nor do I believe that God deliberately tries to deceive us by planting confusing scientific data. That’s not the God I know as my Lord and Savior and Friend! Modern volcanism results from plate tectonics, and the more widespread volcanism during the flood and soon after probably resulted from catastrophic plate tectonics.

As far as events on the 4th day of creation week are concerned, the verb “made” in Gen 1:16 is a traditional translation much like the placement of the comma before “today” in Luke 23:43 is a traditional translation. But traditional translations are not always correct! In the case of Gen 1:16, we are dealing with an imperfect form of the Hebrew verb “asah,” which is an extremely fluid word. A quick look at any good Hebrew lexicon will reveal that this verb has many shades of meaning. It can mean “made,” but there are many other options as well. In Gen 1:16, I believe that “established” is actually a better translation of “asah” than “made,” because the luminaries were established in their role as time keepers on the 4th day. But it is totally contrary to Hebrew grammar to insist that “asah” always implies creation ex nihilo. IT DOES NOT!

Also I believe that God created H2O, but this compound was first called “sea” (Hebrew “yam”) on the third day of creation week. See Gen 1:10. Prior to creation week, the universal ocean was called “the deep” (Hebrew “tehom”). See Gen 1:2. This is further evidence that Ex 20:11 is referring to the preparation of our planet for habitation that occurred during creation week instead of the ex nihilo creation of planet earth itself.


Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?

I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”