John Calvin was a young earth six day creationist.

[Cal]

John Calvin was a young earth six day creationist. He wrote:

“They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

Calvin defending 6 day creation against instantaneous creationists (such as Augustine)

‘Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men. ’ Calvin, J., Genesis

‘I have said above that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works.’ Calvin Genesis

Calvin defending the creation of Adam and Eve directly and immediately:

‘… [Moses] distinguishes between our first parents and the rest of mankind, because God had brought them into life by a singular method, whereas others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents.’ Calvin Genesis

There are many websites on this subject but I like AIG's the best.

[Irishcat922]

I have been surprised over the years the various disagreements over the first few chapters of Genesis, it is almost like trying to get an opinion on the book of Revelation. There are a lot of good reformed men who hold to a day-age theory which I find interesting but not valid. You can do a quick search and the scientific evidence for a young earth is staggering. Primarily I believe the Word of God teaches a six literal day creation and a relatively young earth.

[cygnusx1]

I have been surprised over the years the various disagreements over the first few chapters of Genesis, it is almost like trying to get an opinion on the book of Revelation. There are a lot of good reformed men who hold to a day-age theory which I find interesting but not valid. You can do a quick search and the scientific evidence for a young earth is staggering. Primarily I believe the Word of God teaches a six literal day creation and a relatively young earth.


I agree absolutely Irishcat, too many are fearfull of public opinion and scientific interpretation, then they attempt to fit it into the Bible. :doh:

[rmwilliamsll]

we would not have expected otherwise as the first scientific evidence for a geology that consisted of long periods of time did not begin to emerge until the early 1700's. Calvin was a theologican and a pastor not a clairvoyant able to see almost 200 years into the future.

although many of those geologists were his intellectual descendents as are many of the TE's today like Howard Van Till, for reformed theology puts an accent on thinking and evidence vs a fideism that finds its home elsewhere than in the minds of Calvin's offspring.

[BallRmDChamp]

rm, I really agree with you and must strongly object to the idea that there is "staggering" scientific evidence for a young earth. It just doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and Genesis doesn't stand or fall on the the age of creation. The theory I find most satisfying is a rather unique one in Alan Hayward's book Creation And Evolution, but offhand I can't remember what it's called and I can't find the book! However, I highly recommend it. It's very good for attacking evolution and disspelling the "young earth" errors.

[Cal]

we would not have expected otherwise as the first scientific evidence for a geology that consisted of long periods of time did not begin to emerge until the early 1700's. Calvin was a theologican and a pastor not a clairvoyant able to see almost 200 years into the future.But that is like saying we know better than Moses, David, the Prophets and the Apostles because we live in the 21st century.

The point here is that Calvin believed the Word of God with it's plain teaching of a six day creation and taught why would anyone want to "twist it" to mean anything else?

Old Earth assumptions and Evolution were born in Greek pagan thought and Calvin and the reformers knew it all too well and that they were false.

There is absolutely no evidence for old earth, only assumptions built upon assumptions that seem to unravel almost on a monthly basis. But on the flip-side there is evidence for a Young Earth that seems to be discovered on an almost mothly basis that can not be refuted.

Instead of refuting the Young Earth evidence the evolutionists have attempted to sensor, outlaw and even persecute these scientists. It reminds me of the Catholic Church's sensoring and persecution of Galileo.

[rmwilliamsll]

We are wiser because we live in the 21st century?




Probably not, but we do know a lot more about the universe we live in.
and that is my point, we know things, lots of things about the 'book of nature' that Calvin had no idea about.

[Cal]

We are wiser because we live in the 21st century?
Probably not, but we do know a lot more about the universe we live in.
and that is my point, we know things, lots of things about the 'book of nature' that Calvin had no idea about.
Like Evolution, UFO's, the Big Bang, the error's of Scripture and the impossibilty of; miracles, Noah's Flood, the resurrection?

This type of "knowledge" has been around since the garden.

Calvin believed in two books; the book of Scripture and the book of nature. That is why the reformers gathered in support of Galileo against the Catholic Church and why the founders refer to nature and nature's laws and God's Laws's in our founding documents, they learned them from their Calvinist fathers.

PRO 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

[Irishcat922]

As I said there is a lot of debate over the creation account but I have to go with scripture alone on this one. Sciencs is always subserviant to the Word of God. As already stated Pro. 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Whether we are dealing with Science, Philosphy, or Theology, Let God be true and every man a liar. Rom3:4

[BallRmDChamp]

Like Evolution, UFO's, the Big Bang, the error's of Scripture and the impossibilty of; miracles, Noah's Flood, the resurrection?

This type of "knowledge" has been around since the garden.I don't think that's what he was implying, do you? Besides, possibly excepting the Big Bang, which, it might be argued, was the first step in God's creative activity, one can believe in an old creation and reject all these other ideas. For example, I'm an ancient creationist and believe in "succession", but not evolution, aliens, errors in Scripture or the impossibility of miracles and the resurrection. If you accept the one doesn't mean you have to accept all or any of the others.

Calvin believed in two books; the book of Scripture and the book of nature. That is why the reformers gathered in support of Galileo against the Catholic Church and why the founders refer to nature and nature's laws and God's Laws's in our founding documents, they learned them from their Calvinist fathers.Book of Nature, what's that? There is no tangible "book of nature". There is no "natural law", only revealed law and that made up by man, which unfortunately is what the Founders were confused about and why we have a lot of these problems now. I assure you, Calvinism was not in vogue among them.

[rmwilliamsll]

Calvin believed in two books; the book of Scripture and the book of nature


i would dearly love a reference to this. the earliest i can trace the terms is to the 1620's.
(either book of words or book of works or book of nature)

[Cal]

i would dearly love a reference to this. the earliest i can trace the terms is to the 1620's.
(either book of words or book of works or book of nature) Book of Nature, what's that? There is no tangible "book of nature". There is no "natural law", only revealed law and that made up by man, which unfortunately is what the Founders were confused about and why we have a lot of these problems now. I assure you, Calvinism was not in vogue among them.Calvin believed in and taught about the two books referred to in Scipture :

Now the great Genevan saw it as "evident that the Law of God which we call 'Moral' _ is nothing else than the testimony of Natural Law and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men.... The whole of this equity of which we now speak, is prescribed in it. Hence _ it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws." (Ib. IV:20:16) For this 'Moral Law of Nature' _ argues John Calvin _ proceeds "from the Source of rectitude Himself, and from the natural feelings implanted in us by Him." For "it flows from the Fountain of Nature itself, and is founded on the general principle of all laws." (Calvin's Comment. on Lev. 18:6, in his Harmony of the Pentateuch, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1968f, III, p 100.)

Explains Calvin: (Institutes II:2:13-15) "Since man is by nature a social animal [alias a gregarious 'enspirited creature'], he is disposed from natural instinct to cherish and preserve society.... So, we see that the minds of all men have impressions of civil order and honesty. Hence it is that every individual understands how human societies must be regulated by laws -- and [every individual] also is able to comprehend the principles of these laws. Hence the universal agreement with regard to such subjects _ both among nations and individuals _ the seeds of them being implanted in the breasts of all....”

ROM 2:14-15 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” Here, Calvin comments ([i]Comm. Rom. 2:14-15), that "ignorance is offered in vain as an excuse by the Gentiles _ since they declare by their own deeds that they do have some rule of righteousness. There is no nation so opposed to everything that is human, that it does not keep within the confines of some laws.... "All nations are disposed to make laws...which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men.... The Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of The Law by which the Jews are taught...."All the Gentiles alike institute religious rites; make laws to punish adultery, theft, and murder; and commend good faith in commercial transactions and contracts. In this way, they demonstrate their acknowledgment that God is to be worshipped; that adultery, theft and murder are evils; and that honesty is to be esteemed....”

States Calvin Institutes II:2:22) "If the Gentiles have the righteousness of The Law naturally engraven on their minds _ we certainly cannot say they are altogether blind as to the Rule of Life! Nothing indeed is more common _ than for man to be sufficiently instructed in a right course of conduct by Natural Law, of which the Apostle here speaks.... The end of Natural Law, therefore, is to render man inexcusable." ‘Natural Law’ -- says Calvin -- thus "may be not improperly defined: 'the judgment of conscience distinguishing sufficiently between just and unjust'.... By convicting men on their own testimony, [it keeps on] depriving them of all pretext for ignorance."

Geesh all this in the 16th century?

[rmwilliamsll]

I understand Calvin's interest in and fundamental denial of RC natural theology. I am asking a far more narrow question:

do you know who first used the metaphor of the two books of God?

I have never seen it in Calvin, the first reference i have seen is early 1600 in Puritan writings. Francis Bacon is usually attributed to its wide spread usage, i am just curious on whom he drew for the metaphor.

[Cal]

I understand Calvin's interest in and fundamental denial of RC natural theology. I am asking a far more narrow question:

do you know who first used the metaphor of the two books of God?

I have never seen it in Calvin, the first reference i have seen is early 1600 in Puritan writings. Francis Bacon is usually attributed to its wide spread usage, i am just curious on whom he drew for the metaphor.Calvin is probably the first one in modern history to refer to God's general revelation in nature as a book when he wrote in 1536 (25 years before Bacon was born):

"Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if you recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. I Ch. VI Sec. 1)—The year 1536

Of course the calvinistic Belgic Confession copied Calvin when published in 1561, the year Francis Bacon was born, in Article 2 stating:

“We know him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God … Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.”

Francis Bacon was raised under Calvinism by his deeply Calvinistic mother and her father the great Calvinist and Puritan Arthur Cooke who was also the tudor to the young and devoutly Reformed Protestant King Edward VI. Bacon studied Calvin and had Calvin’s books in his library. Bacon was so reformed and knowledgable about science that he became known as "The Reformer of Science." Bacon saw no conflict between his faith and his work as a scientist and he only reiterated John Calvin, the Belgic Confession, Psalm 19 and Romans 2, all of which he had directly studied, when he wrote:

There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.

Roland Mushat Frye is a Professor of English Literature at the University of Pennsylvania. The author of several works in his field, he is a member of the Editorial Council of THEOLOGY TODAY and has recently been appointed as a resident fellow for at the newly established Center of Theological Inquiry at Princeton.

Frye agrees with this assesment when he wrote;

“Calvin and Bacon thus both insisted that the Bible and nature were the two books of God, crafted for two different ends and to be studied by us with two different methodologies. To round out the application of the distinction between the two books of God in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, let me add to the words of the leading theologian of the Reformed tradition and its leading scientific philosopher, the words of its greatest poet, John Milton. In Paradise Lost, Milton has the archangel Raphael say to Adam:

‘To ask or search I blame thee not, for Heav'n
Is as the Book of God before thee set,
Wherein to read his wond'rous works….’

In the history of education and of learned inquiry, Francis Bacon's eloquent arguments for the advancement of science had a profound influence, as did John Calvin's brilliant arguments for the separate integrity of science and theology. In important ways, these two great thinkers implemented the development of modern education. John Milton and many other Puritan leaders of the English seventeenth century adopted that ancient homiletical metaphor of the two books of God, and urged the systematic study not only of the book of the Bible but also the book of nature.”

[rmwilliamsll]

Cal

Thank you very much, i got it into my Calvin notes at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson4_essay.html

I used the spectacle metaphor and the 2-books analogy extensively in the class and this quote helps greatly.

[Cal]

Cal

Thank you very much, i got it into my Calvin notes at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson4_essay.html

I used the spectacle metaphor and the 2-books analogy extensively in the class and this quote helps greatly.IB High School students have to do a paper in their senior year on their Theory of Knowledge (epistemology). My son will be an IB senior this year and his "theory," which we as Christians "know" to be true, is God's Two Books. With the first book, general revelation in nature, being what the Apostle say's God wrote in our hearts and minds and has hidden in creation for our discovery and the second book, special revelation, being the Word of God.

It's funny how us dullards in western civilization took 1500 years to discover what the Hebrew Republic knew 4000 years ago. And we think we are so smart.....^_^ By the way, Samuel Rutherford taught this same concept to John Locke who, as you know, taught Jefferson amongst others.

rm,

On a much more important note and to get back to the subject of this post, I implore you to re-think TE. There is absolutely no evidence for TE, it is made up of a bunch of assumptions that when summerized can not even properly be classified as a theory.

When calvinism supported Galileo with it's "accommodation" interpretation of Scripture that Calvin taught in understanding biblical phrases such as "the moon being a lesser light," and "the sun standing still," it and he never intended it to apply to the plain teachings of Scripture. Every time the word "day" is used in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day.

There were sceptics in Calvin's day about the literalness of the Genesis day as there are today. Calvin rightly taught that the word day used in Genesis by the Holy Spirit had to mean 24 hour literal days and there was no reason for us to twist it to mean anything else.

To twist the word day to have some other definition, that is never used in Scripture, does much damage to the credibility of Scripture, to your witness to unbelievers and to you as a "teacher."

Please carefully re-think your stand against this "plain" teaching of Scripture.

[Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT]

Cal,

If by "TE" you mean theistic evolution, I agree with you it's bogus and there's no evidence for it. However, I think there's plenty of evidence for an ancient creation, and I know of very few commentators who make the claim that "every time the word "day" is used in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day." As far as I'm aware, that is not the case.

[rmwilliamsll]

On a much more important note and to get back to the subject of this post, I implore you to re-think TE. There is absolutely no evidence for TE, it is made up of a bunch of assumptions that when summerized can not even properly be classified as a theory.

When calvinism supported Galileo with it's "accommodation" interpretation of Scripture that Calvin taught in understanding biblical phrases such as "the moon being a lesser light," and "the sun standing still," it and he never intended it to apply to the plain teachings of Scripture. Every time the word "day" is used in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day.



it's a big issue that i have been working on for over two years.
see:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

for much of my study.
i am reluctant to discuss it here, as it is outside both the confession and the PCA creation report.

[Cal]

it's a big issue that i have been working on for over two years.
see:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

for much of my study.
i am reluctant to discuss it here, as it is outside both the confession and the PCA creation report.
Pls just carefully consider the plain teaching of Scripture on this point. There are many PhD's and scientists that work for Answers In Genesis, which is a great Young Earth Creationist organization, that can answer many of your questions.

Pls let me know if I can help as well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Cal]

Cal,

If by "TE" you mean theistic evolution, I agree with you it's bogus and there's no evidence for it. However, I think there's plenty of evidence for an ancient creation, and I know of very few commentators who make the claim that "every time the word "day" is used in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day." As far as I'm aware, that is not the case.There are numerous commentators, biblical scholars and other scholars who not only make this claim, they prove it. Pls let me know if you want me to start listing them.

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, every time yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.

This is just a fact!

Everytime, 100% without exception, yôm (day) is used with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) or with the words 'evening and morning' in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day.

[Gabriel]

There are numerous commentators, biblical scholars and other scholars who not only make this claim, they prove it. Pls let me know if you want me to start listing them.

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, every time yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.

This is just a fact!

Everytime, 100% without exception, yôm (day) is used with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) or with the words 'evening and morning' in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day.
I was going to post almost the exact same thing. Not to mention, the creation days are directly tied to the Sabbath. God didn't need to rest. This was a model for us.

[rmwilliamsll]

There are numerous commentators, biblical scholars and other scholars who not only make this claim, they prove it. Pls let me know if you want me to start listing them.

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, every time yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.

This is just a fact!

Everytime, 100% without exception, yôm (day) is used with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) or with the words 'evening and morning' in Scripture it means a literal 24 hour day.


Kline's framework interpretation of Genesis is fully orthodox and Reformed , furthermore is allowable under the PCA creation report for ordination exams and as an allowable exception to the WCF subscription for PCA teaching elders. The issue of the length of the days is a non-issue (imho) for this reason. Literary framework accepts the plain literal meaning of yom in the same way as the most literal minded YEC. If the discussion deals primarily on this point it simply misses the really big principles at stake in the CED debate.

[Cal]

Kline's framework interpretation of Genesis is fully orthodox and Reformed , furthermore is allowable under the PCA creation report for ordination exams and as an allowable exception to the WCF subscription for PCA teaching elders. The issue of the length of the days is a non-issue (imho) for this reason. Literary framework accepts the plain literal meaning of yom in the same way as the most literal minded YEC. If the discussion deals primarily on this point it simply misses the really big principles at stake in the CED debate.But, it is a main point of interpretation error for many people such as Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT whose question I am answering.

[Irishcat922]

I found this particularly interesting in regards to creation and the age of the earth especially the population math. It seems that an ancient creation or an earth older than 40,000 years doesn't quite work out. Either way it is good ammo against evolutionists.


EVIDENCE FOR CREATION
1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103



http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html)