Truth VS. Science -
By -- Pastor Scott
Chapter One - First Things First
But You Have Some!
Now, some might say, "But you (me) have a bunch of degrees!"
"Yes, I do. And I intend on remaining just as plain as I've always
been." God permitted me the opportunity to earn these degrees and I had a
reason for obtaining them. However, they have in NO way affected my belief in or
about the Bible, accept to make me believe it more. After having to read so much
materials to gain these "academic" degrees, I have come to appreciate
God and His Word more than ever. It is hard for me to believe there are so many
meatheads in this world. I want the Book to change me, not the other way around.
Why Laugh At The Evolutionist?
We laughed at evolution for years because it is such a brutish theory. But the
students of this mindless teaching continued on and on in their search for the
"truth." When they couldn't find it, they invented names like
Pre-Cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. If that wasn't enough they then
divided each of these "dream" ages or era's, into such periods as
Ordovician, Devonian, Pennsylvanian, Triassic, Jurassic, etc. Then they found a
jaw bone, (Which turned ought to be that of an "ass." How
appropriate!) and skulls, and finger and toe bones, etc. and finally constructed
a "dinosaur." Of course they still haven't found the missing link, but
I'm sure if they keep jerking on the chain of mindlessness, they'll eventually
find the "kink" in the link!
Charles Robert Darwin (1731-1802) seems to be the man who gets the credit for this teaching (evolution). Perhaps he was the first one to proclaim it publicly. This teaching has had thousands of years root before he started with it. Romans 1:21-23 says,
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.What do you suppose would make men take such a position as these men have taken? I really don't know that I can say for sure. I believe it comes mostly from the fact that since they don't believe the Bible, they have to come up with something to justify what they can't explain. The mind set of the modern scholar is that you must understand everything and have an answer for everything. Now, I do believe the Bible has the answers, but I just do not confess to know where they all can be found, at least not without some serious study.
Yes, They Did Exist!
So, all things being what they are, while I am convinced that these creatures
did live at sometime or another, I cannot accept a "theory" about
dinosaurs being on the Ark just because I cannot explain some tracks in a river
bed, or because I cannot explain a bunch of bones found in a digging.
Besides, we have pictures of a Plesiosaur (Remember where the names came from.) taken on a beach in California in 1925. This particular "dinosaur" had a neck measuring 20 feet long. How about the Lock Ness "monster," Nessie? We have a very clear picture of a long necked something taken by Sandi Mansi in 1977. Then there is the Plesiosaur (?) caught in the net of some Japanese fisherman just of the coast of New Zealand in 1977. It wasn't a big one, and it looked to have been dead a couple of weeks. On November 16, 1970 a strange looking beast of some sort washed a shore in Massachusetts. However, before it could be taken by the authorities, we are told that it as taken apart by sight seers and its contents removed.
Besides, who is it that ALWAYS dates these bones and tells us how old they are? Why evolutionists, of course. And the dating system are based on whose figuring? Why evolutionists, of course. If they lied about the dates, and they lied about bones, what makes you think they are telling the truth about anything else? The "Christian" scientist are all in a hurry to try and beat the evolutionist to a point of truth. However, the problem is that the many of the "Christian" scientist have never had a point of truth!
So, Why The Theory?
The theory of evolution supposes that there is a missing link between men and
beasts and the supporters of this fairy tale (tail!!) have been struggling to
find that link. While the Christian scientist haven't agreed to any missing
link, they have now supplied a "link" as to how they
"theorize" the dinosaurs got here and how they got passed the flood.
(Which one?) They don't believe that the evolutionist have any proof that this
animals existed 190,000,000 years ago, so we get a couple from the book of Job,
so they can be "ahead" of the evolutionist. These "beasts"
in Job 40 and 41 are not dinosaurs any more than the men supporting that
teaching are related to the monkey.(Uh, I retain the right to change my position
if needs be!!!) However, the Bible scholars will ignore the truth about who
these "beasts" really are, and make them dinosaurs so that they can
say that they now know MORE than the evolutionist. See, since they needed an
answer they invented a story (theory) just like the evolutionists invented their
theory. All you have to do is get some education, find a following, write some
material, and the rest will follow.
Now, before you get all upset and start yelling, "Well, I suppose you know where they came from?" Let me say this, my "theory" will not change verses and words in the Bible to prove what I believe about these "creatures."
Chapter Two - Triassic Park!
If one studies the names of these creatures they will discover that they are nothing more than combined forms of Latin and Greek words, suffixes and prefixes. Dinosaur means; terrible (dino) and lizard (saur). This name, by the way, came about in the year 1842 (April) by a man named Sir Richard Owen(1804-92). In July of 1841 he gave a lecture concerning some "large lizards," but it wasn't until his published report, almost a year later, that the word "dinosaur" was used to describe them.
The Park's Residence
There are said to be 500 to 700 distinct classes or kinds of these creatures,
depending on who you read, so you know that I'm not going to take time to list
all the names and define them for you. I'll list just a few so you can see how
they are described by their cartoon creators. Outside of a few of the
"fish" type that have been washed ashore (See previous chapter.) most
of these beast are reconstructed from the imagination of scientists.
Ornithomimus
This name means bird (ornitho) and actor or imitator (mimus). The first part of
the word is also said to mean "Ostrich." So, we have an Ostrich
dinosaur! Of course you are aware that evolutionists believe the Ostrich is
related to the dinosaur. [This dinosaur was a member of the actor's guild until
he was upstaged by the Flintstones!] This"bird" was carnivorous
or a "meat" eater.
Allosauras
The prefix "Allo" implies that which is not normal and you know what
"sauras" means. What this means is that he was a "strange
lizard!!" He loves to eat small "dinosaurs" or other smaller
animals. Webster's New World Dictionary tells us that this name, is an
Americanism. That is, it was "coined" on our continent.
Tyrannosaurs
The first part of this word is not difficult to figure out. If you drop the
second "n" and add a "t" you have the word
"tyrant." So this huge beast is a "tyrant lizard." He has
been dubbed "Rex" meaning KING. His name matches his described
character. He, like the previous two lizards, loved meat! It is said to be in
the neighborhood of 40 feet long, 20 foot high and stood 10 feet at the hips and
could weigh anywhere between 6 and 8 tons. Some evolutionist say that they could
have weighed up to 10 tons. He is considered the largest of his kind that lived
during the Cretaceous period.
Brontosaurus
Bronto = "thunder." This giant then, is a "thunder lizard, he ate
grass, etc., which made him, an herbivorous." He was estimated to weigh
anywhere from 30 to 35 tons and his length was 80 to 85 feet. He is now known as
Apatosaurus
Diplodocus
This dinosaurs name was derived at in the United States. As a matter-of-fact
this name was given to this "creature" by Mr. O.C. Marsh in 1878. The
prefix, Diplo means "two or double" and the suffix means main
supporting beam. I don't know what this is I just gave you the meanings! This
beast was believed to weigh nearly 20 tons and could grow to a length of 85
feet. One skeleton is said to be 87.5 feet in length.
Brachiosaurs
The suffix on this name means "arm." So I guess he is "lizard
arms!!" He could weigh up to nearly 85 tons! That is 170,000 pounds. He is
said to have stood nearly 45 feet high and could have been a 100 feet long.
Seismosaurs
This dinosaur was first discovered, around 1991, in New Mexico (Dead, of
course!). These beast were said to have weighed up to 80,000 pounds, and when
measured by the skeletal remains, were up to 130 feet long. His name means
"earthquake, or earth shaker lizard."
Trachodon
This fellow was also known as "duckbill." Now they tell us that this
name is "doubtful." Of course, they use Latin and say nomen dubius,
because you have to impress the educated folks you know. The actual meaning of
the name is "rough tooth." [He should have visited his dentist.] He is
believed to be between 30 and 40 foot long and weighed several tons.
Ultrasaurs
The name of this dinosaur ought to give you an idea of his size. The word
"ultra" implies, excessive, extreme in size, bigger than normal. In
plain words, this is a gigantic lizard. His remains were discovered in Western
Colorado in a bone deposit. He was said to weigh up to 130 tons and get as long
as 98 feet. He was a plant eater, not a meat eater.
Ankylosauria
This "cute" fellow was built for defense. He stood around 4 foot tall
and was 2 foot wider than his height. He could grow to a length of around 20
feet. He had two rows of bony like plates that ran down the middle of his back
to the tip of his tail. He is said to have weighed around 4 tons.
Triceratops
This name is not real difficult. Tri = three and cerato = horn. This fellow was
supposedly built like a rhinoceros with three horns that stuck straight out of
his head toward his nose. He could grow to around 20 foot in length, stand as
high as 8 foot and weigh between 6 to 7 tons.
Enough Is Enough, Already!
Well, enough is enough. Keep in mind that the 500 to 700 different genera does
not take into account the species under this genera. If there were only 2
species, that would make for 1,000 to 1,400 different kinds of dinosaurs. You
realize, of course, that this includes the birds as well. Yes! paleontologist
include the birds as a dinosaur! (Hey, why not. If you think man came from a
monkey why not birds from dinosaurs?)
As it appears, something existed of a very large size. Whether we call them "terrible lizards" or not is irrelevant to the point. Where did they come from? What were they really? There are certainly lots of questions, and I will tell you right now, 90% or better will probably never be answered. At least not this side of eternity.
Chapter Three - Theory Or Fact?
Why Did The Fittest Not Survive?
Whatever happened to the theory that the "fittest survived?" After
all, these "beasts" were surely the biggest and meanest of all beast
created. How come they didn't kill the elephants, giraffes, Tigers, etc.?
The modern scientist, Christian or otherwise, admits
that the disappearance of these creatures remains a mystery. The following are
some of the reasons given for their "sudden" disappearance:
- They ate themselves out of existence.
- A sudden climate change took place and they couldn't survive.
- We cannot be positive about the disappearance of these magnificent animals, but perhaps a meteorite destroyed them.
- It is possible that some plague caused them all to die.
- When they came out of the Ark their food was all
gone, the climate was different and so forth.
How about a catastrophe of some sort? How about the earth being submerged in water? No, no, I don't mean the flood! Theory? Who told you that? See what I mean! You'll believe anyone but God.
How About This Theory?
The following verses are taken from II Peter 3. Usually when you find these
verses quoted you will not find verse 5 listed. Notice how they read.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:In verse 5 you have an "old" earth standing in the water and out of the water. Some would "theorize" that this is speaking of the flood waters "prior" to the complete coverage of the earth! Then what are you going to do with the "earth which is now?" Two different times! Besides, the ability to read will clarify that Genesis 1 and 2 are not the original creation. Sure, just look at Genesis 1:28. God told man to "replenish" the earth. Someone was here, wouldn't you say so? Then why the word replenish? The folks on the NIV committee thought the same, they MADE the passage read, "Be fruitful and increase in number..." The folks on the NKJV committee didn't believe it either. They FORCED God to say, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.." The numskulls on the CEV committee blew a gasket when they came to this verse and pretended God had Alzheimer's and made Him say, "Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people..." The Jehovah Witness (AKA:Jehovah's liars) make their two gods (See John 1:1 in the NWT or the footnote in the NASV.),(Who must have been arguing over what to do.) say, "Be fruitful and become many." Need we go any further?
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
As I said earlier, it always amazes me how people can accept something for any thing other than what it was intended. There are several scripture verses in the Bible that indicate that there was something around and going on BEFORE Genesis chapter one, and yet if you show people the verses you are either teaching "What another man taught," or you have invented a "theory." However, if the accuser teaches what "they" learned at their school of learning that is to be accepted as truth!
Consider The Following
Let's take the following for an example. In Genesis 1:1,2 we read,
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.One school of thought is that there is a period of time between verses one and two. This period is referred to as the "Gap Theory." Another school of thought teaches that this is just not true. They teach that this is a man made doctrine. Of course, they are of the same school that teaches the "theory" that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark!
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Let's face it, God is not going to create a "mess" and that is just exactly what you are reading in verse two. If you don't chose to call it a "gap" then what would you call it? A title won't change the fact that something happened from the time God created, in verse one, and the earth became a dark place with out form in verse two.
We all know that this earth is going to go through a vast change in the future (Isaiah 24) so why couldn't it have gone through such a chance previous to this? Can you prove it didn't? We know that man has inhabited the earth for nearly 6,000 years, but to the actual age of the earth, you can't be sure. "In the beginning" could certainly be a lot further back than your computer is able to calculate.
Consider that "if" these huge beast (Dinosaurs as we know them.) were living prior to Genesis 1:2, then they would have been drown in the waters as the earth "passed" through them. This would certainly account for all the bone deposits. And, if there were some "being" here prior to the event, then it would also explain the footprints in the same strata.
It's All Hypothetical
Some might say, "But that is all hypothetical!" True, but it's more
Biblical than the Noah's Ark ride. As I see it, these "beast",
whatever they were, certainly were here. God put them out of circulation, for
whatever reason, before He "recreated" the earth and put man on it. IF
a few of them, of the amphibian class, survived that would explain a few of the
findings we explained in Chapter One. My argument is not with the existence of
these beasts (dinosaurs), so much, as it is with the "Christian"
scientist's explanation of how Noah gave them a ride and then ignore Scriptures
that are clear about the existence of something prior to the creation of man and
the fact that God flooded this earth prior to Noah's flood.
Someone Here Before?
We've already discussed, to some extent, the word "replenish." Adam
(Genesis 1:28) and Noah (Genesis 9:1) were both given this "order"
from God. It is not hard to figure out how that Noah was going to
"replenish" what Adam had started. However, it is a bit more difficult
to figure out how Adam, the first created man as given in the Bible, was to
"replenish" the earth. God expected him (Adam) to "restock"
or "to fill up again" something that had been here once before.
Do I have the answer? Outside of the Bible, no! But, neither does the "other side." However, I believe that what I am going to show you is more believable than their "story." According to Job, there were some "sons of God" here before we took their place. (Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:1-8) These "beings" showed up AGAIN before Noah's flood (Genesis 6:1-6) and brought corruption to the race of beings (humans) that God had created. This certainly could explain the "foot prints" in the same strata!
These "sons of God" become the "gods" of the people. Read Psalms 82 and you will see that these "gods" were like men and yet they were "children of the most high."(vs.6). No, I can not explain all of this, but I do believe what the Scriptures teach and say about it. David was NOT a worshipper of idols and yet in Psalms 138:1 he states that he would "praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee." I don't have to be able to explain it all just believe it.
Acts 14:11 shows us that the people KNEW of these gods and worshipped them. Have you read John 1:12; Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15 and I John 3:1,2 lately? Do you know who takes the place of these "fallen" sons of God? Listen, there is more in your Bible than you are being taught.
While I am sure there is more to be said, I believe I have said enough at this point. This material is not the theme of this book, just supporting evidence.
If someone like us were here before, then it is quite possible that these beings lived during their time, and were drown out when this earth "passed" through the "great deep." Surely this "theory" is as valid as the ideal that Noah took them on the Ark.
Isn't it interesting that the average Christian will more readily believe the "findings" of the archeologist than they will the facts in the Scriptures. Question. Why is it, when truth is shown it's "your opinion" or "the teaching of some man or school" and yet, if scientist says that dinosaurs rode with Noah and the proof, from the Scriptures, is a few verses interpreted THEIR way, it is accepted?
Isn't that putting archeology and paleontology above the Bible? Yes, I know, they are reconciling their findings with the Bible. If that is so, then why make the Bible say something is doesn't just to fit your theory?