by James Thomas Lee, Jr. 12/01/01 Copyrighted 2001 by James Thomas Lee, Jr. Copyright Number: TXu xxx-xxx
Chapter 3. Creation {169 words}
a. Accepting the Big Bang Theory {1,453 words}
b. Accepting the Theory of Evolution {1,438 words}
c. Accepting an Infinite Universe {186 words}
d. Accepting the Genesis Account {1,193 words}
e. What I Believe About Creation {274 words}
Chapter 3. Creation {169 words}
Understanding everything about Creation is not possible unless a person makes certain assumptions. A person cannot accept something like the Big Bang Theory unless he or she first accepts the mysterious pre-existence of the mass that exploded outwardly. A person cannot accept the Theory of Evolution unless he or she first accepts the mysterious pre-existence of the prebiotic soup mixture from which life could have been generated. A person cannot believe in an infinite universe unless he or she first accepts that this universe has always existed. A person cannot accept the biblical account of Creation unless he or she first accepts the existence of God. From where did all or any of these things come? No one knows for certain, and no one ever will until they get to the other side of the grave. In a consideration of Creation, each person must begin with his or her own set of assumptions, often called presuppositions, collect whatever facts are available, and then, go from there.
The Big Bang Theory maintains that the whole universe once existed in a tiny mass about the size of a pencil point. Within that mass was a great amount of concentrated energy, and when the mass reached a certain temperature, it exploded outwardly. Many scientists would say that the moment of that explosion was the birth of our universe, and since then, our universe has continued to expand outwardly at an ever-increasing rate [1].
Many scientists would say that the moment of that explosion was the birth of our universe, and since then, our universe has continued to expand outwardly at an ever-increasing rate.
Evidence for the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory is supported by evidence gathered during the 1920s by Dr. Edward Hubble, as he observed the rapid rate at which the stars were moving away from earth [2]. In thinking about an explosion, one would quickly acknowledge that fragments of the original object would be thrown off in all directions with a great amount of force, and this is what theorists say about the big bang. The stars that one sees in the sky are literally believed to be the fragments from the original explosion, and their moving away from the earth at an ever-increasing rate is supposed to be due to the force that still exerts itself as a result of the original explosion. Many cosmologists believe that the outward force will diminish at some point in the future and that the universe will, then, collapse back onto itself just like a giant rubber band that has been stretched to its limit. According to them, this latter phenomenon, called the Big Crunch, if it does occur, will destroy the universe just as the big bang is said to have created it [3].
Though the Big Bang Theory is usually presented as fact, there is not much genuine evidence to really support it. No one knows, for instance, how the original mass of immense energy came into existence, and no one knows how the original mass reached the temperature required for the explosion to occur. Did God create the mass, heat it to the desired temperature, and then back away to allow the natural forces of science to prevail? No one really knows. What is known, however, is that the pattern of the stars in the sky is not consistent with the idea of a big bang explosion several billion years ago [4]. If the mass had exploded in the manner suggested by the theory, then an equal amount of force would have been applied outwardly to all parts of the mass in every direction, and the fragments would have expanded uniformly in all directions throughout Space. One would expect to gaze into the night sky and see all the stars in a clear, uniform pattern, with each star being about the same distance away from all the other stars around it. But that has not been the case.
The Discovery of Superclusters. In the 1970s, Astrophysicists Dr. Brent Tully and Mr. J. R. Fischer discovered that many of the stars are organized into five superclusters and that those superclusters do not exhibit the expected uniformity of a big bang explosion [5]. This phenomenon, called the Homogeneity problem, describes a situation in which some parts of the sky seem to contain billions and billions of stars while other parts seem to have only a few.
|
Problems with the Big Bang Theory 1. The Homogeneity problem - the superclusters do not exhibit the expected uniformity of a big bang explosion. 2. The existence of the superclusters shows that the apparent age of the universe is much, much greater than the estimated age |
Further analysis of the superclusters also revealed a conflict concerning the age of the universe. How long ago did the big bang happen, if indeed it ever did happen? In their book, The Conscious Universe, Mr. Menas Kafatos and Mr. Robert Nadeau point out that the existence of the superclusters shows that the apparent age of the universe is much, much greater than the estimated age, especially if the superclusters were formed by gravity alone. Therefore, Mr. Kafatos and Mr. Nadeau have said that the existence of the superclusters contradicts the whole idea of the Big Bang Theory [6].
These observations about the superclusters, made at different times by different scientists and confirmed by many others, show that the Big Bang Theory suffers from at least two unexplainable problems. The existence of the superclusters are not consistent with the uniformity expected among the stars, and the estimated age of the universe is not consistent with the number of years needed for the superclusters to form. But scientists have not sat back and done nothing as all of these various problems have been identified.
Working Through the Contradictions. No one knows the exact reason for this supercluster anomaly, but scientists and cosmologists have tried diligently to explain away the apparent theoretical contradiction. Many cosmologists have theorized that the stars might be organized uniformly in the sky but that people on earth are not able to observe that uniformity because of something called "dark matter", which is literally blocking their view [7]. Another possibility, according to them, is that this so-called dark matter actually affected the formation of the galaxies during the very early years of the universe so that now the distribution of the stars really is different than the uniformity that one might have originally expected. In order to perpetuate this idea of dark matter and also to make the Big Bang Theory more acceptable, scientists and cosmologists have guessed that the sky might be cluttered throughout with as much as ninety to ninety-nine percent dark matter. But they do not have any genuine evidence to back up this outrageous claim [8].
Scientists have not sat back and done nothing as all of these various problems have been identified. Scientists and cosmologists have guessed that the sky might be cluttered throughout with as much as ninety to ninety-nine percent dark matter.
Most or even all of the research conducted on galaxy formations, dark matter, and the big bang, in general, is done through computer simulation models rather than by actual observation. In the 12/8/2000 issue of Science magazine, Mr. Martin Rees provided some relatively current information about these topics in an article entitled, "Piecing Together the Biggest Puzzle of All" [9]. In that article, he indicated that dark matter is still a mystery. He, then, suggested that the mystery might be solved if scientists could directly observe dark matter, if they could understand more about particle physics in the ultra early universe, or if their computer model simulations of dark matter would more closely match real galaxies. In other words, Mr. Rees is admitting that the idea of dark matter has been around for a few decades but that scientists still have not pieced together what it is, that it even exists, or how it works given that it does exist.
Inventing Dark Matter. In the 3/23/2001 issue of Science magazine, Mr. Mark Sincell wrote, "Astronomers deal in light, so dark matter drives them a little crazy. For decades they have watched as the gravitational pull of an invisible hand twirls stars and gas around the fringes of galaxies like a ball on a string. And for decades they have failed to identify the source of the excess galactic gravity. With little to guide them, astronomers have fashioned dark matter candidates out of everything from underweight failed stars to massive subatomic particles that currently exist only in a theorist's imagination" [10]. Mr. Sincell's article, then, indicates that a team of international astronomers claims to have discovered a source for three percent of all the dark matter in the universe. Of course, whether that turns out to be correct or not is anyone's guess.
In the 6/25/2001 issue of Time magazine, Mr. Michael Lemonick wrote that astrophysicists now think that the universe is composed of five percent ordinary matter, thirty-five percent exotic dark matter, and sixty percent dark energy [11]. Is this estimate correct or even close? The truth is that no one knows for sure. The Hubble Spacecraft was launched into Space to search for some of this dark matter, but so far, nothing of significance has been found.
During the 1980s, they threw another wrinkle into the equation when they theorized that the original big bang had had an initial explosion rate that dramatically slowed down after about 300,000 years.
Coming up with the Idea of an Inflationary Big Bang. Over the years, cosmologists have invented dark matter as their way to accommodate the lack of uniformity among the stars, to account for the age discrepancy of the universe, and to make the Big Bang Theory more plausible. During the 1980s, they threw another wrinkle into the equation when they theorized that the original big bang had had an initial explosion rate that dramatically slowed down after about 300,000 years. As with the invention of dark matter, this dramatic change in speed, called the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang, was also introduced into their theory as a way to help accommodate all the data that does not fit the original model [12]. Since the inception of this theory, cosmologists have devoted an inordinate amount of time to trying to solve all the mysteries of the Big Bang Theory. But today, those mysteries remain, and they continue to look for ways to make their theory work, even though they actually have very little genuine scientific evidence to support it.
The Theory of Evolution does not involve the creation of the universe. But it does concern the creation of humanity, and it does deserve some consideration. To adequately address this theory, one must examine both general types of evolution, which are atheistic and theistic evolution, as well as another approach to the creation of humanity that is called progressive creationism.
A Summary of the Types of Evolution Theory. Atheistic evolution, also referred to as naturalistic evolution [13], maintains that Creation occurred without being influenced by a Creator, that life originated in a special prebiotic soup, and that that life evolved into a variety of higher and lower-level life forms. Theistic evolution assumes that Creation involved a Creator, up to a point, and that that Creator simply let all forms of life evolve on their own through natural processes by interacting with each other [14]. In a broad sense, both of these kinds of evolution rely heavily on the concepts of two ideas that were discussed in the previous chapter, namely, macroevolution and microevolution. Recall that macroevolution pertains to new species being evolved from existing species and that microevolution pertains to the evolution that might occur within a given species. The former is inter-species, and the latter in intra-species.
|
The Types of Evolution 1. Macroevolution pertains to new species being evolved from existing species. 2. Microevolution pertains to the evolution that might occur within a given species. 3. Progressive Creationism assumes that Creation involved a Creator, that the Creator created each species, and that He might, then, have allowed those species to evolve on their own through natural processes. |
The third theory about the creation of humanity is called progressive creationism, and this theory is different than the other two. It assumes that Creation involved a Creator, that the Creator created each species, and that He might, then, have allowed those species to evolve on their own through natural processes. The distinction between the two types of evolution and progressive creationism is that progressive creationism allows for microevolution but not for macroevolution, whereas the two types of evolution allow for both.
Mr. Charles Darwin's Two Theories. According to Dr. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor, Mr. Charles Darwin thought that all evolution was an extension of microevolution [15]. In his book, Origin of the Species, Mr. Darwin presented two main evolutionary theories. His first, sometimes called the "special theory", proposed that new races and species could arise in nature through natural selection. His second belief, called the "general theory", proposed that his special theory applied to all forms of life [16]. Mr. Darwin's special theory is very closely related to microevolution, and his general theory is very closely related to macroevolution. Hence, both theories are types of atheistic evolution.
Because it leaves God completely out of the whole Creation process, though, Mr. Darwin's macroevolution-based general theory has always been a problem for biblical theologians. His general theory has also been a problem for the scientific community. According to Dr. Denton, Mr. Darwin formulated many of his ideas about evolution while voyaging on the "Beagle" and while studying the animal life of the Galapagos Archipelago islands. However, Dr. Denton indicates that nothing witnessed by Darwin on that voyage supported the macroevolution processes that he advocated in his general theory [17]. At the present time, there are a number of significant problems with Mr. Darwin's general theory of evolution, and the number seems to be growing.
At the present time, there are a number of significant problems with Mr. Darwin's general theory of evolution, and the number seems to be growing.
Problems with Mr. Darwin's General Theory. One of the first problems is the lack of evidence for the early existence of the so-called prebiotic soup. Dr. James P. Moreland writes that no geological evidence exists to support the existence of the needed concentrated organic pools in the early earth and that the lack of this evidence casts serious doubts on the whole existence of such a soup. Dr. Moreland also points out that the early earth had too much oxygen for the required chemical organic reactions to have occurred and that the evolution of life from non-life sources runs into even more difficulties because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics [18].
A second problem with Mr. Darwin's general theory pertains to the amount of time needed for a large-scale macro-level evolution to occur. Many theologians favor a young earth where the six days of Creation were six literal, twenty-four hour periods and where the earth, or at least life on the earth, is only about six thousand years old. However, Dr. Denton indicates that several thousand million years would have been necessary for the first forms of life to evolve from the prebiotic soup. According to him, geologists have found some rocks that they say are that old, but they still do not have any evidence of the prebiotic soup [19]. Even if this special Creation soup mixture had existed, though, the development of the necessary amino acids in just the right order at just the right time to initiate life would have only had a very small probability of success [20]. Recall from Chapter Two that Sir Hoyle and Mr. Wickramasinghe had reported the extremely small chance of success as one in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power.
Another problem with Mr. Darwin's general theory of evolution is the lack of a fossil record of the intermediary life forms that should exist. If macroevolution were true, then one would expect to find fossil representations of cross species attempts and other intermediate forms of life as species had mutated into newer, more advanced species. But none of these fossils have been found. To counter this lack of evidence, some evolutionists have suggested that seventy-five percent of the entire evolutionary process had already occurred by the time that the first fossils were deposited [21]. Other evolutionists, according to the 2/13/1997 issue of ScienceNOW magazine, have even begun to say that all of these unexplainable parts of evolution occurred in outer Space in the distant past and that they were somehow transported to earth by a meteor [22]. However, there is not any evidence to support either of these hypotheses.
|
Major Problems With The Theory of Evolution 1. One of the first problems is the lack of evidence for the early existence of the so-called prebiotic soup. 2. A second problem with Mr. Darwin's general theory pertains to the amount of time needed for a large-scale macro-level evolution to occur. 3. Another problem with Mr. Darwin's general theory of evolution is the lack of a fossil record of the intermediary life forms that should exist. |
Regardless of how one examines macroevolution, the concept of inter-species evolution is on very shaky ground. That means that atheistic evolution and Mr. Darwin's general theory are also on very shaky ground. With the prebiotic soup problem, the complexity of everything happening at just the right time and in just the right order, and the lack of a fossil record, Dr. Denton has said that macroevolution is in too much trouble to even be salvageable [23]. Dr. Moreland has added to that sentiment by indicating that Christians can accept microevolution but that they can never accept macroevolution [24]. Therefore, with the validity of atheistic evolution in question, what can one say about theistic evolution? The answer is that theistic evolution relies too much on macroevolution, too.
Problems with Theistic Evolution. In defining theistic evolution, Dr. Millard J. Erickson wrote that God brought the first organism to life and that He, then, continued working internally toward the final goal of Creation. Dr. Erickson went on to say that God, by definition, would have created the human soul but that man's physical nature would have still been a product of evolution [25]. Dr. Hugh Ross, also in trying to explain the idea of theistic evolution, indicated that God would have worked in Creation, but only through his control of the natural processes [26]. While neither of these men embraced theistic evolution, their definitions suggest that God only got things started and then exited the scene. Their definitions further suggest that theistic evolution would allow for evolution between species, which is macroevolution, as well as for evolution within species, which is microevolution. Because of the lack of supporting evidence for macroevolution, which was expressed above, theistic evolution must be rejected just as atheistic evolution.
Because of the lack of supporting evidence for macroevolution, which was expressed above, theistic evolution must be rejected just as atheistic evolution.
A More Reasonable Alternative. The final view for the creation of humanity is progressive creationism, and this view comes closest to satisfying both biblical teaching and scientific finding [27]. Atheistic evolution says that life evolved completely on its own without any help from God. Theistic evolution says that God created the first organism, then stepped back, and let the principles of evolution take over. By contrast, progressive creationism says that God created the first kinds of "all" animal and plant life and that He, then, after having done that, let the different kinds of life evolve on their own within the limitations of their respective species. The opening chapter of Genesis, Chapter One, comes pretty close to supporting this latter belief in that it repeatedly says "according to their kinds". The implication is that God created the first of each species "according to their kinds" and then left those species alone to further develop "according to their kinds." Progressive creationism also distinguishes between human beings and animal life, whereas atheistic evolution and theistic evolution do not. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, progressive creationism makes the most sense.
From a Christian perspective, progressive creationism makes the most sense.
The Steady State theory was developed in the first half of the Twentieth Century by Sir Hoyle, Mr. Thomas Gold, and Mr. H. Bondi as a way to refute the Big Bang Theory [28]. This theory maintains that the universe is infinite, that matter is perpetually being created, and that "new galaxies continuously develop to replace their fading predecessors" [29]. However, not many people still support this idea of a steady state infinite universe.
Recall Olbers' Paradox from Chapter Two, where German astronomer Heinrich Olbers, in 1823, and Dr. P. W. Adkins, in 1992, said that an infinite universe would have cluttered the sky with so many stars that we would never have any darkness. Most scientists have agreed with their conclusion, and this is the same as saying that the universe had a beginning and is not infinite. According to Mr. John D. Barrow and Mr. Joseph Silk, in their book, The Left of Creation, cosmologists started moving away from the idea of an infinite universe with the discovery of the receding galaxies and expanding universe by Dr. Hubble [30].
The final major Creation theory, to be discussed in this book, is the biblical account presented in Genesis, Chapter One, and this approach to Creation is totally different than the others. In their normal course of business, scientists examine evidence found in the universe and then try to develop their own Creation theories to match the evidence. The big bang theorists, for example, have observed that the stars are moving away from the earth. So, they used reverse logic and concluded that everything had to have been packed together at some point in the very distant past. This made sense to them, so now we have their theory. Mr. Darwin studied animal development in the Galapagos Archipelago islands and rationalized that life had come about through the natural processes of evolution. So now, we have his theory.
The Theologian's Approach to Creation. Theologians, however, have approached Creation totally different than scientists. While scientists have tried to observe evidence and draw conclusions, theologians have simply acknowledged God as the Creator, based on the first chapter in the Book of Genesis. Even though many might scoff at this apparent laziness by theologians, their efforts have not been lazy, at all. It is just that they have always been more concerned with what the Bible says than with who or what created the universe.
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." How much more does a person need to know about how the universe came into existence?
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." How much more does a person need to know about how the universe came into existence? Many individuals hold the Bible in low regard. Many also have a low view of the Book of Genesis. Over time, people have questioned the intelligence level of the people who wrote the Bible. They have questioned how well the Bible has been copied and preserved through the years. Some have alluded to it as an old, outdated book. Others have said that the Book of Genesis reads like a fairy tale, and some have said that the various Bible translations cannot be trusted. The Bible has received numerous criticisms for a very long time by a very large number of critics. Yet, those critics have ignored an important truth when they fail to acknowledge the genuine brilliance of the author of Genesis, Chapter One.
Critics have ignored an important truth when they fail to acknowledge the genuine brilliance of the author of Genesis, Chapter One. When Moses wrote the first chapter in the Bible, he probably did not even know the significance of his own words.
The Writer of Genesis, Chapter One, was Brilliant. Before the middle-Nineteenth Century, no one repeatedly reading the words "according to their kinds" in Genesis, Chapter One, would have truly understood the significance of those words. Even someone like Dr. Martin Luther would have been at a loss when trying to understand how important those few words would become to later generatons. It took a man like Charles Darwin, with his radical Theory of Evolution, to show that the Bible has always been and will always be far ahead of its time.
When Moses wrote the first chapter in the Bible, he probably did not even know the significance of his own words. But God, the Creator of the universe and of humanity, knew exactly what He was saying, and to whom He was saying it. Those specific words only have meaning to those who have lived during the past one hundred or so years. But God knew that there would be a Charles Darwin and a Theory of Evolution long before He ever directed Moses to pen the first words of the Book of Genesis. In that very first chapter of the Bible, He gave all of us the answers that we need about Creation.
In that very first chapter of the Bible, He gave all of us the answers that we need about Creation.
This same reasoning also applies to the Big Bang Theory. God answered the questions about the validity of the Big Bang Theory in the very first verse of the Bible when He said that He created the heavens and the earth, and once again, Moses probably did not even understand why that single verse was so important. God did not inspire him to write that verse just for his time period. He inspired Moses to write those words for you, for me, and for all generations. The brightest minds in the world have been and still are hung up on stars that are traveling away from the earth. They are also stuck on a few bits of evidence that might support the idea of microevolution. Not too many of them would give much credence to the Bible, but no one need be surprised by that. In I Corinthians 1:17-18, the Apostle Paul wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Falling for the Deception. In one sense, watching this battle between scientists and theologians about Creation is much like watching a professional football game. The quarterback takes the snap. He fades back to pass, as the opposing defense swarms around him and moves in for the kill. Just about the time that they are ready to pounce on him, a member of the defense yells in a loud voice, "Draw play!", which means that the quarterback secretly handed the ball off to one of the running backs on his team. At that point, the befuddled defensive players stand in amazement as the running back scampers into the end zone with the ball for the touchdown.
Even if the Big Bang Theorists could prove beyond any doubt that their theory is true, they would still be at a loss to show from where the initial mass came or how it got hot enough to explode with so much force and energy. Even if the evolutionists could prove their theory beyond any doubt, they would still be at a loss to show how the prebiotic soup came into existence or why the fossil evidence is so weak. In short, scientists have been trying to run down the quarterback, but the running back has been the one with the ball.
Try to Understand Those Things that can be Understood. Rather than devote so much time and energy to trying to prove what really cannot be proven, scientists and everyone else, in general, would be far wiser if they devoted their time and energy to trying to understand what the Bible says. If the theologian is wrong about the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution, then there are not any negative consequences. He or she is simply wrong. But if the scientists and others are wrong about the Bible and if these people never internalize the important truths of Scripture, like John 3:16, then their loss and their consequences will be great. The Bible is not an outdated book. Actually, it is far ahead of its time. Also, while the opening chapters and verses of Genesis, Chapter One, might read like a fairy tale or even sound absurd, these criticisms alone do not make the teachings untrue or inaccurate in any way. Studying and understanding science can be fun and interesting, but studying and understanding the Bible is critical to one's wellbeing.
If the scientists and others are wrong about the Bible and if these people never internalize the important truths of Scripture, like John 3:16, then their loss and their consequences will be great.
None of the Creation theories answer all the questions about Creation, and all of them require an individual to accept some things that cannot be shown or proven. The Big Bang theorist, even if the theory can be proven, must still accept that something or someone created the initial mass. The evolutionist, even if the shortcomings of macroevolution can be resolved, must still accept that something or someone created the special prebiotic soup mixture from which life came. Even if the evolutionist can somehow tie the whole thing to some kind of evolution in Space theme, then he or she must still accept that something or someone created Space.
All Creation theories require a measure of faith, but my opinion is that a logical answer to this dilemma actually exists. Why would someone accept by faith that God created the initial mass from which a big bang could have created the whole universe and not just accept Genesis 1:1 that says that God created the universe? Why would someone accept by faith that God created the prebiotic soup necessary for evolution and not just accept that God created all species "according to their kinds" as is taught in Genesis, Chapter One? As we shall see in Chapter Seven of this book, the prince of this world would like to discredit Moses because that would mean that Jesus is discredited, too. All religions of the world are willing to embrace God, and even science is willing to acknowledge Him and give Him His due. But mention the name of Jesus, and the prince of this world goes crazy. He does not want you and me to know the truth about Him.
All religions of the world are willing to embrace God and even science is willing to acknowledge Him and give Him His due. But mention the name of Jesus, and the prince of this world goes crazy. He does not want you and me to know the truth about Him.
1. Colin A. Ronan, The Natural History of the Universe (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991), page 8.
2. Gribbin, page 5.
3. Lerner, pages 11-12.
4. Ibid, pages 22-24.
5. Ibid, pages 18-23.
6. Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, The Conscious Universe (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990), page 155.
7. John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pages 124-131.
8. Lerner, pages 32-39.
9. Martin J. Rees, "Piecing Together the Biggest Puzzle of All," Science (12-08-2000), pages 7-8.
10. Mark Sincell, "DARK MATTER: Astronomers Glimpse Galaxy's Heavy Halo," Science (03-23-2001), page 1.
11. Michael D. Lemonick, "The End Astrophysicists say that now they can finally tell us how the universe will expire--and it's not with a bang!," Time (06-25-2001), page 54.
12. Gribbin, pages 35-42.
13. Erickson, p. 478.
14. Ibid, p. 383.
15. Denton, p. 86.
16. Ibid, p. 44.
17. Ibid, p. 35.
18. Moreland, p. 220.
19. Denton, p. 262-263.
20. Ibid, p. 323.
21. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988), p. 45.
22. "Meteorite Reveals Amino Acid Preference", ScienceNOW (02-13-1997).
23. Denton, p. 342.
24. Moreland, p. 71.
25. Erickson, p. 481.
26. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 1994), p. 80.
27. Moreland, pp. 215-216.
28. Lerner, pages 144-146.
29. Barrow and Silk, page 5.
30. Ibid, page 6.
Chapter 4. Some of the Names of God
Send email to: tlee6040@aol.com