Answers to Readers

Dr. J responds to questions

Got a question? Ask Dr. J
Your Name:
Email Address:
Question:
His emails are like vitamins.
-IVCF campus minister Purdue U

You came to Ball State and you were awesome. I look forward to learning more from you.
-student email

I'm a Christian and believe in creationism and wanted to have some scientific evidence to back that up to refute evolution.
-Dewitt, student at Ball State University

Dr. J. was my teacher at Liberty... he was amazing - I would like the opportunity to keep up with what he is doing and pray
for his ministry.
-Liberty University Student

FCC Reporter 12-2-07

This past weekend I attended a lectureship on the campus of Southeast Missouri State University (SEMO). The speaker was Dr. Charles Jackson . the topic, creation. Dr. Jackson has a mission to take the truth of Genesis to the gates of Hell and knock.and wait.and knock again, and again until someone answers. Where does he find these gates? He finds them on every secular college campus in America (and, sadly, on some Bible college campuses). You see, our colleges and universities are the devil's playground.evolution is the game. So, Dr. Jackson takes his ball (creation science), bounces onto college campuses, and offers a challenge to professors of biology, physics, or any other discipline, by asking "Who wants to play?"

The evolutionist profs (or evo's as Dr. Jackson calls them) are sharp and condemning. One of the biology profs at SEMO sent him a disrespectful email stating that he should keep his narrow-minded views to himself. He basically, called Dr. Jackson and Creation science, unscientific. Unsurprisingly, that professor refused to debate or even attend one of the lectures. Posters for the event were torn down by suspecting evo's. Cowards!

I would think that if one were a true scientist who is honestly in search of the truth, then regardless of what you believe about evolution, the teaching of alternate theories that critique what you believe to be true can surely not be called unscientific . they, instead, should be welcomed! What is unscientific is not allowing a scientific model to be critiqued. Whatever happened to the testing and retesting of hypotheses?

All this goes to show that there is much more at stake with the teaching of evolution than the science per se. What is really at stake are people's worldviews, even more than that.the salvation of their souls. Let me explain. If you say, as evolutionist do, that God did not create Adam and Eve, then you can eliminate original sin; without original sin there's no punishment; no punishment . no eternal death; and no need for a Savior. Evolution is more than just poor science, it is a Godless worldview.

If any follower of Christ claims to be an evolutionist, then they have been utterly deceived by the father of all lies.
In His Grip,
Phil

11-28-07

Dr. Jay, I just wanted to personally thank you again for the work that you do. It's been a while since I got to see you last. I am now graduated from Cross Lanes Christian and am attending Marshall University with a Pre-med/Biomed major. I wanted to thank you for preparing me and countless others to deal with the attacks of Satan in the form of evolutionary teaching in the secular schools. I've never needed that training more than I do now. I hope to see you again soon. I will continue to keep you in my prayers. God bless you and your ministry.

In Christ alone,
Matt

After all, why can't trees survive the Flood? If no tree survived, would there be enough oxygen for Noah and his family to breathe? It would really be amazing and spectacular that those gargantuan trees would be uprooted in the raging seas, but I have doubts about that. So, can we prove that trees will be obliterated in a great flood? ... a dove saw an olive tree standing...  Zhong

With all species, no more than two individuals, had to survive the Flood to re-populate the world ... since there hadn't been enough time yet for mutations to build up to the dangerous levels we see now, 4353 years later.

A lot of oxygen would be consumed and carbon-dioxide released, by the rotting of dead animals and plants world-wide.  But ... most of the ocean algae would survive ... and they are the real producers of oxygen on this planet ... not so much the trees, despite what you may have heard.

A 700 MPH mile-high tsunami, actually could easily shear huge trees off at their roots ... and many petrified trees are indeed found as trunks without roots or roots without trunks. As far as individual trees surviving the Flood ... calmer eddys in the deluge might be expected, and some smaller bushes might cling tight and close to the ground without being uprooted ... surviving underwater, probably stripped of most of their leaves ... and could recouperate when the Flood was over... Dr J
Dr. Jackson, I was wondering... cuz you said the earth is only 5000yrs old so... how do we explain all the ice ages and things carbon dated back to millions of years ago... Why do you say the ice age only happened in the 3 centuries directly after the Flood? just wondering... Nick

Nick,

"Just wondering" is one of my favorite things, BTW.  Carbon-14 would be good only back to 110 thou yrs ago ... even if all the assumptions it's based on were true.  Evo's use other methods to date dinosaurs, and the Earth. They never check dino bones for C-14 ... but creationists have ... and found C-14 in every bone. This means they're only thousands, and not millions of years old ... not to mention the vein found in a t-rex bone 3/05.

As for the Ice Age ... if you flood an entire planet, you'll disrupt the climate patterns for some time. In the first three centuries after the Flood, there were probably tropical conditions all over the world near the oceans, but terrifically snowy weather farther inland, epsecially in the mountains. Creationary meteorologist Larry Vardiman (credited with one of the world's best computer sims of global warming) has led the way in this research.  I hope this helps. Dr J
Dr. J, Until recently, it has been reported that the oldest living thing on earth is the bristle cone pine tree found in California. Some say there are specimens as old as 4,700 years old; others say the oldest is just over 4,000 years. That would suggest that nothing that lives today predates the flood in Noah's day which probably occurred around 4,000 to 4,500 years ago. Now I see where many are claiming there are creosote bushes in the California desert that are as old as 11,700 years. What do you think of their claims for these bushes, and are their dates based upon good sound evidence? Thanks, Chris

Chris,

I haven't heard of the creosote bushes, but I've heard of bramble bushes in New England supposedly 14,000 years old. They're really fudging on these things. Here's what they do.

Since bush trunks aren't thick enough for a core of 6000 rings, like Bristlecone Pines, they try to trace the root connections to a series of supposedly "older" bushes, and then add up all the rings. You may have seen this kind of thing ... when you try to pull up one, its roots are connected to all the others nearby.  So, I'm figuring it's the same with the creosotes. They are probably doing some "guess-timation" on how old the colony really is.

I've heard some of the Bristlecones are 6000, but that's a max ... which could be some that survived the Flood. Evo's in conversation will tell you some Redwoods are 14,000 years old, but I have never seen any documentation for such ages.  'Hope this helps. Dr J

PS -- We'd welcome any further documented information on extreme plant ages.
Dr. J, I was actually kinda like questioning my science teacher... and he was talkin about how dinosaurs and everything were around way before humans and stuff and i was like i dont think so... n he was like well they've proved that.. and i was wondering how do we prove that wrong? i read something about dinosaurs with muscle still attached... or some how they were preserved.. could you tell me where i can find info like that, because i told my teacher about that to and he wanted me to show him it. thnx Dr. J, Nick

Well Nick,

You were right to bring up the "preserved material" evidence, to your teacher. Let me give you all the ammo you need to show him that he needs to re-arrange some of his thinking.

Science News, 3/26/2005, page 195, vol 167

T-rex bone found with flexible vein in it.  Sci News says this is "the first report of flexible material from a fossil." Paleo-evo from U of Western Ontario comments this is "improbable but obviously not impossible." Wow ... they're having to go against logic an awful lot to ignore what this evidence means.

Washington Post, 7/28/2000 (just above obituaries column)

Santanaraptor found with soft tissue. Evo-prof at U of Rio de Janeiro says "this marks the first time that tissue itself has been discovered." I thought 2005 was the "first report." Hmm.

Earth, June 1997, p 55-7

Red blood cells found in t-rex bone.  "Finding remains of dinosaur red blood cells would have astounding implications" says Mary Schweitzer of NC State.

The kicker ... Schweitzer is ... the same one who discovered the t-rex vein in 2005. If anyone on the planet knew it was not the "first report" she would! So why did Science News say the 2005 find was a "first"?

Think about that. Dr J

These sources should be extremely easy for your teacher to find.

You yourself can probably find the Sci News March 26, 2005 issue in your school library, yourself. Remember the message of 1st Peter 3:15-17 before you go to your teacher. Amen
Dr. Jackson,

Recently I have been wrestling with an issue that seems to keep coming. People who call themselves Catholic tell me that they are not only taught evolution in their classes, but that their [Catholic school] teachers REALLY believe it! Do you know if this is a true belief for Catholicism, that they teach that the Bible is allegorical. They will say that Jesus DID live and his story is true. When do you say that one story is real and one isn't? It seems to make Catholicism not Christianity at all. - Matt

Matt,

In 1996, the Catholic Pope announced that evolution was "compatible with Christian belief." But don't forget, I was fired from a Baptist college for not believing in Darwin. Does this make Baptist "not Christianity at all"? Maybe ... some Baptists?

Unlike Baptists, however, "Theistic Evolution" does seem to be the most common Catholic stand. Can you be a Christian evolutionist?  Henry Morris once answered, "Yes, and you can also be a Christian thief." My personal opinion is, no one can know the full joy and power of Christ's salvation, if they take the Bible as ... mere allegory. Dr J

On the bright side, just this month, an Archbishop has gotten in trouble ... for criticizing evolution. Here's the link: http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjopinion/283900943974285.shtml

Another post will soon address this, and Pres Bush's comments on evolution.
Hey Dr. J

I was reading about the Hawaiian and Samoan hot spots recently in a magazine, and it got me thinking. The way that they are always explained would require a long, long period of time for the volcano to build an island, lay dormant a while as the plate moves, build another island, and so on. What is your take, as a young-earther, on how hot spots work? - Jason

 

Hi Jason

"The way they are always explained" is the key passage in your email.

These "long, long periods of time" stories ... just ain't necessary. Back in the 1960's, a volcano burped-up the entire island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland ... in just a matter of months. Unlike old-earth evolutionary events (which require imagination), young-earth creationary-type events can actually be observed. - Dr J
Hey Dr J, I've been reading a lot of literature from the Romantic period in England lately, and I've come across (on multiple occasions) the little assertion that every creature (including man) as an embryo, goes through the form of every "inferior" life form "before it" (in a kind of recapitulation of all the "evolution" that creature's been busy doing over the past eons) and I was wondering where this theory stands today. I know about Haeckel's embryo drawings that were proven to be FAKES and yet still find find their way into today's Biology text books; I was just curious if this old idea is comparable to those counterfeit drawings and if evo's are still using it. You're the man Dr. J! Thanks! Alex

Hey Alex, nice to hear from you again. The theory that embryos go through stages that show their evolution, is called Embryonic Recapitulation. Research trashed it decades ago, but evo's still use it (like Haeckel's drawings) all the time!  Carl Sagan used it in 1977 ("Dragons of Eden" p57-8). World-famous evo Stephen J. Gould condemned it in 1980 (Natural History, April, vol 89, p144). Evo-author Kenneth Miller said he'd remove Haeckel from his textbooks in 1998, but he just took out the captions and left in the drawings for their "visceral appeal" (gut-level appeal). To answer your question, Alex ... embryo recap was toasted long since the Romantic Period. But guess what? Your evo-profs will still teach it to you as a fact; as a proof of evolution.&n! bsp; 'Saddest thing? ... they just don't know any better! Dr J

(BTW guys, I just saw the movie "Sky High." It was all about teenagers trying to figure out their super-powers and how to use them. So I loved it, of course. Hey Len, grow in your gifts.  And hey, Antonio (and Drew) ... the movie says Sidekicks are Heroes, too! )
Dr. J, this statement was in our local newspaper. Thought you would find it interesting.

"If you have ever been around a farm or ranch you know if you breed a donkey with a donkey, you get a donkey. If you breed a horse with a horse, you get a horse; but if you breed a donkey with a horse you get a mule. That is evolution staring you squarely in the face."  Bryan

Bryan, evo's are never so wrong ... as when they think they're so right!  Ha ... this one's easy!  (My job is so much fun!) How is the donkey-horse hybrid ... "evolution staring you squarely in the face"... when anyone who's "ever been around a farm" knows ... a mule ... is ...  sterile??!  Sterile! Doesn't "evolution" have a bit of an ... er ... problem ... if every "new species" it creates ... can't even make babies??! That kinda puts a screechin' halt to evolution ... doesn't it? I'm screamin' here ... ha ... I'm laughin' ... ha! ... these guys are so lame-o. Don't let'em scare you Bryan my brother. 'Truth is ... they got nuthin!  Have nice day, says Doctor J. 
Dr. Jackson,

One of my guy friends is insisting that the Bible contradicts itself ... like how it says in Genisis that everything was created at the same time, then why did the dinosaurs live when the humans did not? It's like I know what I believe, but ... well, just get back to me and I will appreciate it greatly! Mollie (a high schooler)

 Dear Mollie,

    They teach you Darwin in school, and then Bible in church. It sure gets confusing. But the only contradiction on this point is between Darwin and the Bible. The Bible never says there was a time when dinos lived and humans did not. That's what Darwin says! That's wrong.

In Job 40:15 God says, "Behold now behemoth (a dinosaur) which I made with thee ...". Here, the Bible says that man and dino were created at the same time.  God also tells Job to "check out this dinosaur I made" in the rest of Job 40. That means dinos lived in Job's time, too. Your friend is putting words in God's mouth ... then telling you God's contradicting Himself. Is that fair argument? Keep thinking. Dr J
Dr. Jackson,

I have been discussing creation / evolution with someone. His response seems to be that since [the DNA coda of] all life is made of the same four bases (ACGT) and that all that is needed for new genes is the addition, subtraction, or re-arrangment of these bases, then there is never any need for "new" information for evolution. 

He states that since all four bases already exist, then they can be added through nature and are, by default, not "new" information arising out of nowhere at all. How would you suggest I respond to this? Thank you! Sincerely, Nick M

Nick,

This is exactly like saying ... since the letters in alphabet soup exist ... they can be "added through nature" into words that spell out the "Gettysburg Address" just by stirring the soup.  Then he says this "by default" is not new information?? He merely declares that a new species ... doesn't need new information.  But then, he cannot tell us how this can be true.

What ... do individual letters already contain info? No, of course not.

    Bases (or letters) may become arranged so that they contain information. But letters didn't become the "Gettysburg Address" ... until the intelligent mind of a President organized them that way. Letters (or base molecules) are not information. The sequencing of letters ... contains info. But they'd have to be sequenced by someone.

"Nature" is powerless to organize a group of DNA bases ... into info-containing sequences. Smart-sounding weasel-terms like "by default" just aren't enough to transform illogical error ... into logical truth! Dr J