Let's engage in one final intellectual exercise. For various reasons, Christians who accept the Biblical account of the Great Flood are considered naive. Let's take a look at just a few of those reasons and see what the facts really reveal. Some people say that the Ark was to small to hold all those animals. However, when using even the smallest definition of what a cubit was, the Ark contained approximately 1,396,000 cubic feet of space, was divided into 3 decks, and displaced about 20,000 tons of water. (see Gen.6:1-16) All told, it is estimated that Noah would have had to accommodate about 17,000 pairs of animals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians on board the Ark. Keep in mind that there was no requirement that the elephants, giraffes, hippopotami, and yes, probably even the dinosaurs, had to be adult in size; only that they had to be male and female. Even if they were all adults, the average size of the combined population would be approximately that of a sheep. In that case they would all fit into the space found in 146 two-tiered stock transport cars. Since the Ark was large enough to hold 522 such stock cars, the amount of supplies they had room to carry would be an amount equal to that which could be carried in 376 such cars. So much for the inadequate space argument. # 1 

Others have argued that the flood was only a local inundation. However, such an assertion does not fit with the Biblical account which specifically says that the waters covered the tops of the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. That statement alone makes it world-wide in scope, but then so do those found in II Pe.3:6, Heb.11:7, I Pe.3:20, and Jesus' own, words in Lk.17:27. Those who believe in only a local deluge also ignore the fact that while details may be different, every culture which can be traced back to the approximate time of the flood, mentions a worldwide flood. These cultures were themselves formed by the descendants of Noah and were scattered throughout the earth after their languages were confused at the Tower of Babal. As each culture drifted further and further away from worshipping the one true God who created us all, their versions of the flood likewise drifted further and further from the true account as contained in Genesis. 

Still other people have said that not enough water would have been available to cover the whole earth. However, since 71% of the earth's surface is currently covered with water to an average depth of 12,500 feet, and there is a great deal of water stored in the polar ice caps (which weren't always frozen), and the waters came up from the deep and down from the atmosphere, there would have been more than enough water to cover the world. 

Two things need to be noted in this regard. First, the atmosphere may well have contained much more water than it does now in the form of a vapor mist canopy. Secondly, the mountain ranges may well have been lower prior to the flood than they are now. Therefore, less water would have been needed to cover the tops of the mountains in the predeluvian age. (See the Scripture references following point #5 below) 

Finally, many people have wondered how the animals would have overcome their natural fear of man and voluntarily come to Noah. The answer is found in Genesis 9:2 which tells us that animals did not have a 'natural' fear of man until after the flood. We also need to bear in mind that the rest of Genesis tells us that God led the animals to Noah. 

So much for some of the more prominent objections which are raised by skeptics. Now, let's take a quick look at merely a few of the geological and paleontological problems which the evolutionists cannot answer, but which are answered by the Genesis account of the flood. 

1) The flood would explain the sudden disappearance of hundreds of species which failed to adapt to the great climatic changes which occurred after the flood. (The dinosaurs would of course be a prime example of this.) 

2) The disappearance of the vapor-mist canopy, which previously provided a natural greenhouse effect on the Earth, would explain the geological evidence of a tropical climate which was universal until after the flood. 

3) The flood would explain the size of the otherwise inexplicably huge fossil beds found in Africa, Sicily, and numerous other locations. 

4) The weight of all that extra water on the earth's surface could easily account for the vertical drops measured in miles, previously mentioned by Dr. Landes. 

5) The geologic upheaval which took place during the flood, and shortly thereafter as the world settled down, would serve as a logical explanation for the location of marine fossils on mountain tops, the apparent young age of many mountain ranges, and the unbroken wave pattern which appears in many rock layers. This pattern could not have been formed in 'solid' rock unless the rock layers in which these patterns appear were in a liquid, gel-like or pliable condition when the layers moved, which is the state they would have been in immediately after the flood. Remember, 75% of the rock found on the continents is sedimentary rock, which is rock that has been laid down by water. 

Concerning the mountain building which took place during or immediately after the flood, note Psalm 104:8 as translated in either the RSV, NAS, LB, or ML translations. (While not directly related to the flood, please note also, that the 'continental drift' need not have taken hundreds of millions of years to accomplish, but may well have occurred either during the life of Peleg "...because in his time the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25),or as a direct result of the geologic upheaval associated with the upsurge of the fountains of the deep.) 

6) The suddenness of the climatic change after the flood would explain the quick frozen condition of the Siberian Mammoths - something no ice age theory has satisfactorily accounted for. 

7) The mysterious fossil finds of Leakey and others would suggest the very sudden burial in a substance other than hot lava or ash, of many soft-bodied creatures, and hence their remarkable state of preservation. 

8) The flood would also explain the massive simultaneous burial of the billions of tons of vegetation necessary to account for the coal, and the simultaneous burial of the billions of animals necessary to account for the oil which is found in the earth today. Note, it doesn't take millions of years for coal to form. It has been formed in laboratories in a few minutes.# 2 Oil has been produced from organic material in less than 6 years under controlled conditions, # 3 and is acknowledged by modern geologists to have occurred naturally in as little as a few thousand years. # 4 

9) The massive geological formations such as the Decca Plateau of India, could most reasonably be explained by the major upheaval of such a catastrophic flood. 

The list goes on and on. # 5 The point is, the Genesis account of the flood provides us with sensible answers to questions which hadn't even been asked when the Bible was written; whereas, evolutionist's cannot yet provide answers to the questions they themselves have asked. All the philosophy of evolution can do is give conflicting answers to some, ignore others, and call the remainder of them 'mysteries' Now I ask you, "Which is the intellectual approach?" 

At this point you may be saying to yourself, "Ok, ok, I get what you are saying, but can you name one modern day reputable scientist who not only believes in the Genesis account of the flood, but actually has a scientifically based model which could explain how it occurred?" Actually I can. His name is Dr. John Baumgardner of the Los Alomos National Laboratory. As to his credentials, he has been described as "...the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates."#6
Even those of his colleagues who disagree with his conclusions, such as Dr. Brad Hager of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr.Gerald Schubert of the University of California - Los Angeles Department of Earth and Space Sciences, acknowledge that Baumgardner is "one of the world's leaders in numerical models of mantle convection," and "a world class scientists."#7

Dr Baumgardner developed a computer model known as Terra. Simply put, Terra uses an idea in physics known as runaway subduction. This concept brings into play gravity's affect on the earth's crust. As the oceanic plates are pulled into the hotter mantle of silicate rock immediately beneath them, the plates are pulled further apart thereby allowing a giant bubble of molten mantle to shoot up through these ridges. This bubble of mantle displaces the oceans which creates "...a huge flood" #8  When this program is run in a manner which takes into consideration the fact that different radiometric dating methods provide vastly different ages for the same rocks (which is something most evolutionists are not willing to acknowledge) and the fact that the geological record is filled with evidence of catastrophic events "you can watch Noah's flood take place before your eyes..."#9

At this point I believe that it is important to note here that for several years after he had earned his Ph.D in geophysics from UCLA, Dr. Baumgarnder was an agnostic who had been "...well indoctrinated in evolutionary theory." #10 In fact, it was not until almost 5 years after he had accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior that he began to question the validity of his evolutionary mindset. And it was his study of the Bible which led him to acknowledge, and then seriously question all of the scientific inconsistencies of the theory of evolution which have been presented to you the reader in the past 8 chapters of this book.#11

Intellectually speaking, the integrity, uniformity, and accuracy of the Bible is better established than any book found in the entire collection of books which is collectively known as "The Great Books of the Western World." The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years, with God using more than 40 writers coming from all walks of life. He used a king and a shepherd, a general and a fisherman, statesman and servant, a tent making Rabbi and a gentile doctor, and a prophet and a tax collector. It was written in three languages on three continents, during times of war and during times of peace; yet, its uniformity, when dealing with the most controversial subjects ever to face mankind is unparalleled by any book, philosophy, or science ever devised by man. 

Some professors who are considered intellectual, readily accept the authorship, philosophical content, and in some cases the literal historical accuracy of Homer's Illiad yet scoff at the integrity of the Bible. But consider this. The Illiad was written in 900 B.C., with the earliest known copy of it coming from 400 B.C. This means that of the more than 643 earliest copies or portions of copies of the Illiad which exist today, none were made earlier than 500 years after the original was penned by Homer himself. On the other hand, the books which comprise the New Testament were written between, 40 AD and 100 AD, with the earliest copies or fragments of copies in existence today, coming from 124 A.D. That gives us a span of only 25 years from the original to the existing copies as compared to 500 years for the Illiad Now I ask you, "Which one has the greatest chance of containing transcription error?" 

Furthermore, there are over 24,000 ancient copies or portions thereof of the New Testament as opposed to only 643 copies or portions thereof of the Illiad. Yet the Illiad is considered to be the most authenticated piece of ancient literature (aside from the Bible) that was ever written. Remember Lucretius, the Roman poet/philosopher who was cited approvingly by the evolutionist Gavin deBeer? His writings are verifiable from only 2 known early manuscripts, and the earliest of these is a copy made 1,000 years after he died. In spite of these facts, the 'intellectual evolutionists' give more credence to the works of Lucretius than they do to the Word of God. 

To the truth seeking open minded individual who accepts the theory of evolution I ask this favor. Before you give any more credence to those who dismiss the Bible as nothing more than the wisdom of a near eastern culture thousands of years removed from modern man, read a book entitled Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowel. I have no association with Mr. McDowel whatsoever. However, I refer to his book because of the depth of research and easily verifiable references contained therein. Of course, I would rather have you refer directly to the Bible, but if you do not feel that you can intellectually do so until after you have verified it to a greater extent than any book ever written has been verified, read McDowell's book. 

I Cor.2:14 tells us that, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." While the things of God are indeed foolishness to the man who denies God's existence, the "...wisdom of such a man is foolishness to God" (I Cor.3:19) Allow me to point out one other example of the foolish statements made by evolutionists. In one breath they say they accept the moral principles found in the Bible, yet by denying the Genesis account of creation, they are calling the author of those principles a liar! 

To any proponent of the theory of evolution who has read this far, I would like to say that this book has not been written to attack any person, but rather an idea. The Apostle Paul asked this question in Gal. 4:16, "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" It is not my desire that you and I be enemies. It is however my desire for you to know the truth. In this case, the truth is crystal clear. The idea of Darwinian evolution is diametrically opposed to God's Word, and it has as its prime purpose the elimination from your mind of your need for a personal Savior. As we have already seen, it is doing this by deceiving you into thinking that you are getting better and better. It is telling you that you can overcome all things solely by looking deep within yourself, and then drawing upon that which is in you and all mankind. However, unless that which is in you is Jesus Christ, you will eventually fail. 

The Theory of Evolution is merely the 'natural outcome' of the religion/ philosophy of Secular Humanism. Philosophies themselves are the direct result of our sense knowledge's failure to find true reality to life. Since these philosophies deny the existence of the God of creation, whom they can neither see, feel, taste, hear, or smell, they came up with their own explanations for life's purpose, functions, goals, and origins. Yet, they all contradict each other. 

What's more regrettable for those who cling to them though, is the fact that they have all failed to give true - lasting meaning to life. The evolutionist/humanist philosopher is like the undertaker who covers the casket with flowers to hid that which is concealed within. Evolutionists seek to hide their failure to give purpose to life, let alone explain its origins, by using flowery language. But as is true with the undertaker, once you get past all the pretty flowers and look closely at what is really there, all you find is death. And it could well be your soul that is lying there. Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, is the way, the truth, and the life. (John 3:18 & 14:6) 

I ask you to consider this. If you are right and I am wrong in my assertion that there not only is a creator God, but that this creator is the One True God as recorded in Genesis, then as both you and I stand together facing eternity, we will do so on an equal footing. However, if you are wrong and I am indeed correct, then we will still face eternity together, but we will no longer be on an equal footing. The very God whom you denied will say to me "Well done thy good and faithful servant." (Matt. 25:21 KJV) But because He is the God of Truth and Justice, as well as the God of Creation, He will say to you who denied Him, "Depart from Me, for I know you not." (Lk. 13:41). 

Please do not tell me that a really loving God would not do that. Such a statement comes from taking only part of what the Bible tells us about God and ignoring the rest. You see, He is the God of Love, but He is also just. He showed His love for all men by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. He has said that salvation is available to all who come to Him through Jesus. Therefore, since He is Just and does not lie, that is the ONLY way to salvation. (see John 14:6, John 8:24, Acts 4:12, I John 5:12 and John 3:18) Are you now willing to stake the well being of your soul upon a theory which is as changing as the shifting sand? I shall pray that you are not so inclined. I do so not from any position of self righteousness or arrogance, but from a sincere desire that you and I will indeed face eternity together standing on the rock of Jesus Christ. That desire comes not from within myself, but from the very God who created you and me. 

If you are a deistic evolutionist who accepts the theory that there is a God who, at the very outset, created that initial particle of matter from which the whole universe arose, you are now faced with this question, "Who is this God?" You may have done so in the past, but you cannot now ignore that question and remain intellectual. No religion on earth allows you that option except Secular Humanism which says that man is his own god, and we both know that neither you nor I created that initial particle. 

Islam, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, to name merely a few, all accept Jesus Christ as either a prophet, divine teacher, a god (with a little "g"), one of many gods (again with a little "g"), or a great man; but they each deny that He is, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the one True God. However, that is exactly who He said He was. (see John 5:18, Matt.1:23 and 28:19, John 10:33 & 30, John 17:11, Col.2:9, John 1:1, Rev.1:17 with Isaiah 44:6, and Rev.2:23 with Jer.17:10) Therefore, since the aforementioned religions deny that He is who He said He was, they are calling Him a 'liar'. At the same time however they accept Him as either a prophet, divine teacher, god, one of many gods, or a great man. They say he is not God; yet He says He is, but they still pay Him a great deal of homage. Now, I ask you, "Can you accept a belief system which gives such great honor to a man which it claims is a liar?" Both the intelligent answer and the Biblical answer has to be "No." You see, the truly intelligent answer, and the Biblical answer are never at odds with each other. That does not mean that the Biblical answer is always the obvious answer, but than neither is the intelligent one either. 

You are now face to face with the issue that those other religions attempt to side step by relegating Jesus to a role other than the one which is rightfully His. (Col.1:17) You must either accept Him for what He is, or call Him a liar. In addition to being the Savior whom the Father sent to die for our sins, Jesus claims to be the Creator. And He claims that He did it in exactly the same way that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 tell us that He did. If you deny that, then you have placed yourself in the same position as that of an atheistic evolutionist; namely, you have denied God by calling Him a liar. 

I would therefore ask you what I earlier asked the evolutionist to consider. "Are you willing to stake your soul upon the theory of evolution?" For you that would be an even less intelligent choice than it was for the evolutionist because you already know there is a God. All that is left for you to decide is "Who is the One True God?" Because we have already eliminated all those systems which pay homage to someone they in reality believe to be a liar, you are again left standing at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ. 

I ask you to do the only intelligent thing. Reach out for the gift of eternal life which the Just but Loving God of Creation freely offers you when you accept Jesus as your personal Savior. While that may not be considered intellectual by any evolutionist who insists that this country's future is dependent upon his version of science ( which in reality is nothing more than atheistic humanism masquerading as science), I wish to remind you that this country was not discovered by an evolutionist/humanist, but by a man who said: 

... for the Glory of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith. (Mayflower Compact) # 14

The first written constitution in America, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, recognized in 1639 that: 

Allow me to point out that the Rhode Island Charter of 1683 began with these words: 

In 1695, John Locke expressed the following sentiment which, along with the knowledge gained from Witherspoon, formed the basis of Madison's philosophy of government, 

I wish to remind you that in 1892, in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court acknowledged that: 

Eldredge tells us that "freedom to practice religion - any religion - is one of the dearest rights Americans have. Such pluralistic tolerance can only be had in a secular society where the state has no vested interest in any single religious view." (emphasis added) # 24 While this statement sounds great, like the entire theory of evolution itself, it can only be believed if the volume of evidence which proves it false is ignored. 

First of all, every single quote from either the foundational documents or great men of America's history which you have just read, as well as those which were presented in the preceding chapter, all point to but one inescapable conclusion. While it is true that no single denomination was to be given preference over any other denomination within the framework of our Federal government, the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible, served as the very foundation upon which that government was based. Were Mr.Eldredge to examine the 15,000 or so documents and essays written by our founding fathers during that period in American history he would find that 34% of all direct quotes found in those writings were taken from a single source - the Holy Bible!!! As Calvin Coolidge so aptly noted, it would be difficult to support this government if in fact a majority of its citizens ceased to believe in those teachings, or rejected the moral values and principles of self restraint they entail. 

Abraham Lincoln said it about as well as anybody could have when he said, "... those nations only are blessed, whose God is the Lord." # 25 Lincoln recognized a very basic truth which seems to have eluded many evolutionistic humanists. That truth is this: this country has a vested interest in the Christian religion, for without it we cannot endure as a nation. Even Thomas Jefferson, who is considered by many to be merely a deist, made this observation: 

  The greatest amount of religious freedom ever guaranteed by any government throughout history is found in the United States; but not because our system is rooted in secular humanism, which it obviously is not, or even because it is rooted merely in religious beliefs. After all, Islamic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, or even, Saudi Arabia do not practice pluralistic tolerance. Governmentally sanctioned religious intolerance is also the rule and not the exception in many Buddhist and Hindu countries as well. Our religious freedom exists solely because of our uniquely Christian heritage. 

The freedom to practice religion found in our Constitution was placed there not by secular humanists, but by committed Christians. The society in which these men lived was not founded upon the situational ethics of atheistic humanism, but was anchored to the rock of Jesus Christ. The educational system which molded the thoughts of these men was not shaped by the philosophy of evolutionistic humanism, but was based upon the principle that true knowledge begins with an understanding of the fundamental truths of the Bible, which includes Genesis chapters 1 & 2. 

By no means were these men perfect. Nor were they all strongly committed Christians. They were sinners like the rest of us, but they were the first to admit that fact. As such, as opposed to thinking that they were getting better and better, they knew that they needed to look someplace other than within themselves to find the answers to the questions which were facing them. They did exactly that. They looked to the Bible - found the teachings of Jesus Christ - then formed a government based upon those principles. 

To assume that a government based upon the premise of secular humanism is even capable of pluralistic religious tolerance is ludicrous. After all, the secular humanistic philosophy which now controls our public education system ( which has itself been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court, to be a religious belief # 28 ), has been shown to be totally intolerant of opposing opinions. Furthermore, the evolutionists are the ones who absolutely insist that their view, and their view alone, be taught exclusively in our science classrooms. Needless to say, that is not the position which you would expect academically tolerant people to take. 

All you need to do is examine the record of governments which either were in the immediate past, or are still today, totally secular in nature. There is no religious freedom in the secular societies of Mainland China, North Korea, Vietnam, or any other communist secular society. Under these systems many Christians face not only harassment, but imprisonment and torture. The reason for this is quite simple. By definition, secular humanism is atheistic in viewpoint. As such, it is diametrically opposed to any philosophy which calls upon or acknowledges the existence of any supernatural being. 

Should you be under the presupposition that American humanists are more tolerant than their overseas counterparts, I suggest that you examine the views of such humanists as Gloria Steinem who expressed her hope that "By the year 2000 we will …raise our children to believe in human potential, not God …..(emphasis added) # 29 Nor should we overlook those of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. who revealed his attitude with this statement, "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." (emphasis added) # 30 Paul Brandwein even went so far as to emphatically state that "Any child who believes in God is mentally ill." (emphasis added) # 31 

When you add to these supposedly 'tolerant' positions the fact that humanists consider belief in God a sign of weakness, and evolution maintains that only the strong will survive, you will arrive at only one conclusion. It is impossible for any government which maintains a totally secular position to be tolerant of anyone who believes that "In God We Trust." 

  Printer Friendly Version

1) Thomas F. Heinze, Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 106-113 

2) G.R. Hill, Chemical Technology, May 1972, p. 296 

3) Saxby, J.D., et al, "Petroleum Generation: Simulation Over Six Years of Hydrocarbon Formation From Torbanite and Brown Coal in a Subsiding Basin" Organic Geochemistry, Vol. 9(2) (1986) p.80. 

4) Simoneit, B.R.T. and Lonsdale, P.F. "Hydrothermal Petroleum in Mineralized Mounds at the Seabed of Guaymas Basin"; Nature, Vol. 295, (1982) pp. 198-202, see also Science Frontiers (July/August, 1991) , p.3 and New Scientist Vol 130 (1991) p. 19. 

5) Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol 90, (1982) pp. 67-78; also Baker, op cit. p. 12 

6)Chandler Burr, "The geophysics of God," U.S. News, (June 15, 1997)
    http:www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970616/16terr.htm   p.1of 6

7) ibid p.5

8) ibid p.3

9) ibid p.4

10) ibid p.3

11) Gary DeMar, God and Government, Vol 1 (Atlanta, GA: American Vision Press, 1982) p. 126 

12) Jamestown 350th Anniversary Commission, The Founding of Jamestown and the Church, (Jamestown,VA: Jamestown Commission, 1957) p.3 

13) ibid p. 126 

14) D. James Kennedy - The Spiritual State of the Union, 1987 (Ft.Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1987), p.4 

15) ibid p. 5 

16) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed Vol 13, p. 28 (); also Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910 ed Vol 17, p. 284 

17) Vera Hall, Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1975) p. XIII 

18) Kennedy - op cit. p. 6 

19) DeMar, op cit. p. 127 

20) ibid p. 164 

21) ibid p. 164 

22) ibid p. 164 

23) ibid p. 165 

24) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 142 

25) Flood, The Rebirth of America (St Davids, PA: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986) p.32 

26) John Whitehead, The Separation Illusion (Millford,MI: Mott Media, 1977) p. 21 

27) William Johnson - George Washington (Millford, MI:Mott Media, 1976) p. 112 

28) Francis Shaeffer - The Christian Manifesto (Westchester,IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 54 (citing to Torcase v. Watkins, 1961) 

29) Kennedy - op cit. p. 2 

30) ibid p. 2 

31) Roland Travis, "Should the Children of God Be Educated in the Temple of Baal, " Presbyterian Journal, (February 13, 1985) p.6