Crusader37

 First Dinosaur Skeleton:
There many earlier finds of dinosaur bones, "in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a 'giant,' but was probably from a dinosaur." 8 Other finds may have lead to tales of dragons in China and to Greek and Roman ogre and griffin legends, but "modern paleontology -- the science of studying dinosaur fossils -- began in earnest in 1858 with the discovery of the first nearly-complete skeleton of a dinosaur in Haddonfield, New Jersey. ... This was the find that included enough bones of the same animal to scientifically prove dinosaurs had really existed." 6 | 7   The word dinosaur was coined (1841). 3

Some possibilities:

Really Big Birds :

Some (mostly those supporting the creationist view) point to human tracks "now being assigned by mainstream geologists to the lower Cretaceous period, some 5,000 years ago," as evidence.

Ancient Continents, Maps

According to J. J. Benitez, Plaza & Janes' 'Existio Otra Humanidad'

"There were a series of tablets dedicated to the ancient continents of our world, and two matched circular stones showing the eastern and the western hemispheres of this planet at that time; hemispheres that showed the earth's geography thousands of years ago. These hemispheric maps showed continents that no longer exist today, such as the mythical Atantis and Mu, and even others."

Comets are coming

According to some, among the tablets is also a story of a great evacuation from Earth. On stones of great weight the civilization engraved the story of the departure from Earth of the elite scientists and professionals, to a physical planet that today would be considered a part of the Pleiades.

Ancient Library
What would you expect to find in a library of knowledge from an advanced ancient race? Very few close up pictures of the stones exist on the web. The stones should, for the benefit of all, be located, photographed and studied. The worst case would be some wasted time if they were a hoax. The best case is that we could learn how to get off of this rock before it is once again attacked by space junk. "There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes. ... Just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with ... requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times ... " (- Plato, 347 B.C. )

 

 

 

  

Natural Laws and Sciences in the Bible
The Bible is full of references to natural laws and processes. Furthermore, there are many branches of modern science that are touched on in Scripture long before their discovery by modern science. Examples include:

Astronomy.

Before the discovery of the telescope, references such as Jeremiah 33:22 (As the host of heaven can not be numbered) and Genesis 22:17 (which compares the stars of the heaven to the sand of the sea in multitude), must have seemed like serious mistakes. Men had always been fascinated by the stars and many had tried to count them. Ptolemy came up with 1,056. Tycho Brahe counted 777, while Johannes found 1,005. The maximum number of stars visible to the naked eye is around 4,000, if one counts every star that is visible from every point on the globe. [1] All would agree that 4000 is certainly not an "innumerable" number, and certainly not a number to be compared to the number of sand grains on the sea shore! However, with the discovery of the telescope, came the discovery of countless more stars. Scientists now estimate that the universe contains at least 1026 stars, which is a number that reflects the same order of magnitude as the number of sand grains on the earth. [2] The universe itself is implied to be immeasurable in Jeremiah 31:37. Even today, with our sophisticated telescopes, this Biblical statement is still true. Another interesting verse is I Corinthians 15:41 that tells us that "one star differeth from another star in glory." Although at one time this may have seemed like a mistake, we now know that no two stars are alike. As far as our solar system is concerned, some Biblical references such as Psalm 19:6 are claimed to be scientifically inaccurate since they seem to describe the sun as revolving around the earth. However, we must keep in mind that even in our modern, scientific culture we use the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset", without being accused of scientific inaccuracies. They are simply everyday expressions that everyone understands. Furthermore, we now know that our sun is no more fixed in space than the earth is. It is revolving around an unknown center of the Milky Way galaxy. Therefore, all motion is relative motion anyway, and the best way to describe it is to arbitrarily select a point of assumed zero velocities and measure all velocities relative to that point. [3] So, once again, in relation to astronomy the Bible is found to be accurate.

Biology.

The circulation of blood was not discovered until 1616. Yet thousands of years previous to William Harvey's great discovery, the Bible said in Leviticus 17:11 that "the life of the flesh is in the blood." Only recently has science grasped the full impact of this verse. We now know that life does depend upon the blood to supply the food, water, and oxygen that cells of the body must have to survive. Another significant aspect of Biblical biology is the origin of life itself, as described in Genesis 1-2. This will be discussed briefly in the next chapter.

Geology.

Only a few centuries ago most scientists believed in a flat earth. Today, many critics still believe that the Bible teaches such a concept. However, it is fascinating to note that not one verse of Scripture teaches such a concept even though the Bible was written thousands of years before Columbus' discoveries. As a matter of fact in Isaiah 40:22, the Bible describes God as sitting "upon the circle of the earth". This verse definitely seems to imply the sphericity of the earth. An even more fascinating verse is found in Job 26:7, where God is said to hang the earth "upon nothing". Even today, scientists do not know why gravitational forces work as they do. They can explain how it acts but not why! Thousands of years before Newton discovered gravity, however, the Bible describes the earth as resting on nothing (also see Job 38:6). Another reference to Biblical geology is Job 14:18-19 where rock erosion is described. The most significant aspect of Biblical geology, however, is the account of Noah's flood. If this account is accurate, then it must necessarily be the cause of nearly all the major geological formations and layers that we witness today. In addition it would be the cause of the fossil record, as well as our coal and oil reserves. It is significant to note that in II Peter 3:4-6 we have God's condemnation of the modern, evolutionary theory of uniformitarian geology. This will be discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter.

Hydrology.

The field of hydrology ("science of water") has many Biblical references. For example the water cycle (the process by which water vapor is condensed and precipitated as rain or snow, drained off the land through a system of streams, rivers, etc. until it eventually reaches the sea, and is finally returned to the skies through evaporation) is mentioned in both Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 and Isaiah 55:10. This is significant because the water cycle was not demonstrated scientifically until recent times. Evaporation itself is alluded to in Psalm 135:7 and Jeremiah 10:13.

Thermodynamics.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are two of the most basic and established laws of science. The first law, which can be referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, states that the total quantity of mass/energy in the universe is always constant. It can neither be created nor destroyed. This law is hinted at in many Scriptures including Nehemiah 9:6, II Peter 3:7, Colossians 1:17, and Hebrews 1:3. The second law states that the amount of unavailable energy or "entropy" is always increasing. In other words, the universe is running down and constantly becoming more disorderly. This principle is taught in Psalm 102:25-27 and Romans 8:20-22, among other places. It is interesting to note that these fundamental laws of science harmonize very nicely with the creation/fall of man account in Genesis 1-3. In contrast, they render the theory of evolution, which must have the creation of matter/energy out of nothing and increasing order without the help of any outside intelligence, totally infeasible and unscientific.

Supernatural Events in the Bible (Miracles)

Many critics will argue that the Bible is necessarily unscientific because of all the miracles that are recorded in its pages. They will argue that since miracles are scientifically impossible, they simply cannot occur. Therefore the Bible must be unscientific and full of errors. Fortunately this argument is easily answered because it simply begs the question. By definition, a miracle is a supernatural event that cannot be explained by the laws of science. It is not an antinatural event, which would necessitate a contradiction, but rather a supernatural event, which necessitates the intervention of a supernatural cause. In other words a miracle is not an assertion that the same causes produce different results (in contradiction to scientific principles) but that a new cause has intervened (i.e., God) to produce a new and different result. The real question at issue then is not science but theism! If a theistic God exists, then certainly miracles must be possible. In an atheistic, deistic, or pantheistic world view miracles are indeed impossible. Therefore, any investigation into the validity of a miracle must be a historical one not a scientific or philosophical one. In other words one should ask did the miracle occur, not could it occur, and based upon the reliability of the Bible (as studied in lesson 4) we have no valid reason to doubt the reality of the recorded Biblical miracles. If one assumes that miracles cannot occur then he has started with an a priori assumption that there is no God (refer to lesson 1 for arguments on the existence of God). In the Bible there are basically two types of miracles. They are:

Miracles of creation.

These types of miracles can be defined as occasions "when God has seen fit to set aside even His basic laws of conservation and decay, and to perform special acts of creation of matter or energy (in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics) or special acts of instant increases of order in closed systems (in contradiction to the second law)." [4] These miracles could be classified as "Grade A" miracles. One author has counted 89 of these "Grade A" miracles in the Bible. [5] Examples would include the raising of the dead, Jesus feeding the 5000, Jesus walking on the water, and the blind men whose sight was restored by Christ.

Miracles of providence.

These type of miracles are "accomplished strictly within the framework of the two basic laws but involves special control or adjustment of one or more natural processes for a specific purpose at a particular time." [6] In other words these miracles can be explained using natural laws. They are statistically possible but statistically improbable. Such unusual events can be classified as "miracles" if they can be best explained by "invoking the supernatural". [7] In other words, based on the moral and theological contexts, would there be a good reason for God to cause this "miracle" to occur at this particular time. One author has counted 127 of these "Grade B" miracles of providence in the Bible. [8] Examples include the plagues of Egypt, the three and a half year drought and subsequent rain in the days of Elijah, the Philippian earthquake, and the abnormal catch of fish by the disciples.

In one final note, we must always be leery of extra-Biblical miracles. Although God is certainly able to perform miracles today, we must be on guard against accepting every miraculous claim as from God. First of all, we must realize that Satan and his demons are powerful creatures capable of minor miracles and major deception. Secondly, we must realize that miracles can be counterfeited by human agency (as with the magicians in Exodus 7). Therefore we must examine all miracles with two tests. First, are the witnesses trustworthy and reliable and, second, does the alleged miracle support the clear teaching of Scriptures? We can be sure that any miracle professed to verify false teaching or that is associated with immoral conduct is not from God.

Conclusion: From this study we can conclude that the Bible and true science do not contradict. Certainly the Bible does contradict the man-made pseudo-scientific theories of origins and organic evolution. These matters, however, will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 7. For now, however, let it suffice to say that science, like archaeology, has proven to be an external confirmation of the reliability of the Biblical record.

Having studied "Science and the Bible" in a previous lesson, we will specifically examine how the Biblical account of origins, as contained in the book of Genesis, measures up to legitimate science. This is obviously important if we want to defend the faith, for if the Bible is scientifically inaccurate in Genesis, how do we know that it is theologically accurate in Genesis or any other portion? Thus, in this lesson we will examine the scientific evidences that support special creation as opposed to the Darwinian theory of evolution. First, however, we will examine two different philosophies regarding the current creation/evolution debate.

First, there is the humanistic philosophy which states "Evolution is science, but creation is religion." This statement has been used over and over again by the evolutionary establishment, but unfortunately for them it can easily be shown that creation is at least as scientific as evolution and evolution is at least as religious as creation. Note the definition of science as given in the Oxford Dictionary:

A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
Evolution cannot be "demonstrated", "observed" or tested by the scientific method; therefore, it cannot properly be called a science. Note the following admissions from a non-creationist and an evolutionist.

By its very nature, evolution cannot be substantiated in the way that is usual in science by experiment and direct observation. Neither Darwin or any subsequent biologist has ever witnessed the evolution of one new species as it actually occurs. [1]
Our theory of evolution has become as Popper [Sir Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science] described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. [2]

Note the use of the word "dogma" in describing evolution. Does this sound like science or religion? One of the tests of a good scientific theory is potential falsifiability, for if it is impossible to falsify it, then it is also impossible to confirm it. In other words, a good scientific theory will be one in which experiments can be conceived to test the validity of the theory. This simply cannot be done with the general concepts of creation or evolution. Both are non-falsifiable theories since the events associated with origins were unique and unrepeatable. There were no human witnesses to these events and they cannot be simulated in the laboratory.

Evolution can be defined as a belief about the past based on the words of scientists who don't know everything, who were not there, and who are trying to explain how the evidence, which only exists in the present, got there. (Ken Ham, Creation Scientist)
In addition both concepts can be modified to accommodate new facts. Therefore, it is simply folly to assert that evolution is more scientific than creation. The only basis for this statement is that creation must evoke the supernatural and is, therefore, outside the boundaries of legitimate science. This argument, however, is simply begging the question because it makes an a priori assumption that there is no God or supernatural. This does indeed rule out creation from a pre-conceived philosophical viewpoint, but certainly not from a scientific one!

This brings us to our next point, namely the religious nature of evolution. Consider the following quotes from evolutionists.

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. [3]
It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held and holds men's minds...The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. [4]
As further proof, consider the first two affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto:

"Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."
"Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process." [5]
Evolution is obviously a vital part of the religion of humanism. Likewise, the rapidly growing New Age Movement, a man-centered religion, rests upon the evolutionary foundation. Therefore, to argue that evolution is pure science without religious implications is also pure folly.

Now let us consider the creationist philosophy with regards to the creation/evolution debate. This philosophy states that the creation model and the evolution model should be compared scientifically to determine which offers the best explanations of origins. As mentioned earlier, both theories can be modified to accommodate new facts and neither can be proven by the scientific method. However, both theories, before modification, do postulate certain evidences that should be observable in our world today, and these evidences are radically different (for instance abundant intermediate links in the fossil record versus no intermediate links in the fossil record). Therefore, we can weigh the current scientific evidence and determine which theory is more plausible based on the facts, not pre-conceived philosophy.

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. [6]
Neither of the 2 fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory-the concept of continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process-have been validated by one empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. [7]
Let us now examine some of the scientific evidence

favoring the creation model of origins over the evolution model of origins.

Evidence from Thermodynamics
[The First and Second Laws]
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are two of the most established and Fundamental Laws of science. The First Law (Law of conservation of energy) states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is always constant - it can neither be created or destroyed. The Second Law states that the amount of unavailable energy or "entropy" is always increasing. In other words, the universe is running down and constantly becoming more disorderly. Famous evolutionist Isaac Asimov stated:

As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down. [8]
We can see the Second Law all around us today. A room left to itself will become dusty and dingy. A car that is not properly maintained will eventually run down. Scientists tell us that even our sun will eventually run down. The Second Law contradicts evolutionary cosmogonies (theories of origins) because matter does not naturally become more orderly. In fact, the universe is running down. In addition, since the universe is not dead yet, it must have had a beginning. Therefore, the Second Law proves that the universe must have been created. The first law stipulates that it could not have created itself. Therefore, there must have been a creator (Genesis 1:1)! All evolutionary cosmogonies, however, including the Big-Bang theory, break the First and Second laws. The Big-Bang theory postulates that in unobservable time matter/energy evolved out of nothing into an organized "cosmic egg" before the beginning of our present order. For some unknown reason this "cosmic egg" exploded, eventually resulting in our present universe. The biological theory of evolution also violates the Second Law because it requires organic matter to become more complex and organized without the intervention of any outside intelligence. This applies to both open and closed systems.

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems...there is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not propagate itself. [9]
Contrary to what many evolutionists postulate, an outside energy source in an open system, such as the sun, does not solve this problem. Such an energy source is a necessary condition to break the Second Law, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Raw unconverted energy from the sun, like a bull in a china shop, would do much more harm than good. Some type of conversion system, such as photosynthesis, must first be in place in order to convert the raw energy into useful energy. Secondly a control system must be in place to direct the energy in a progressive, constructive direction (such as the genetic code on a DNA molecule). Intelligence is the key to increasing complexity, not energy!

Evidence from Microbiology [The Impossibility of Spontaneous Generation and The Complexity of Life]
The statistical impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life has always represented one of the greatest problems for the theory of evolution. Evolutionists have traditionally taught that organic molecules, such as amino acids, arose from a "primordial soup" of complex chemicals. These organic molecules subsequently evolved into simple proteins which eventually evolved into organisms capable of reproduction. However, as one well-known scientist has stated:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' [10]
The reason for a statement such as this is simply the incredible complexity of life at the microbiological level. For example, Michael Denton, a non-Christian molecular biologist, writes:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man in the presence of twentieth-century technology. [11]
A Boeing 747 is a collection of 4.5 million non-flying parts, arranged in an intricate design such that it can fly. A typical cell contains several billion non-living molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA all arranged in intricate design. According to Denton a typical cell contains ten million million atoms. Its life depends on the integrated activity of ten or even hundreds of thousands of different proteins.

In addition, the genetic code found in the DNA molecule is unbelievably complex. The DNA molecule, which is the molecule of heredity, is necessary to code for proteins, the molecules of structure and function. Amino acids must be arranged in certain exact sequences, just like letters in a sentence, to form protein molecules. Without DNA molecules to provide instructions, amino acids would never join together to form proteins. However, the opposite is also true. DNA is not built without protein machinery (specifically enzymes). Therefore our dilemma is which came first, the DNA or the proteins? Both are necessary for reproduction and an organism not capable of reproduction would obviously not survive.

The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. [12]
Statistically, spontaneous generation is impossible. For example:

Dr. Duane Gish (Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Cal. Berkeley) states that the probability of a protein of only 50 amino acids forming (The simplest "living" organism would have at least 400 amino acids [13]) would be 1 in 1065. [14]

Sir Fred Hoyle states:

Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trials assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000. [15]
As a result of such calculations as these, Hoyle and some other evolutionary scientists (including Francis Crick, who shared a Noble Prize for the discovery of DNA's structure) have felt it necessary to postulate that life must have arisen somewhere in space and was subsequently translated to earth! Let us remember once again that even the simplest of cells contains billions of proteins, DNA, RNA, and other complex structures all arranged in an intricate design. Yet the evolutionist will insist that it takes faith to believe in creation! Evolutionist Richard Dawkins states:

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. [16]
Evidence from Biology [The Improbability/Impossibility of Evolution by Random Mutations and Natural Selection]
Another of the many problems for the evolutionist is the mechanism of the theory of biological evolution. In other words, how does it work? The standard answer is random mutations and natural selection. But is this standard answer a legitimate answer?

To answer this question we must first distinguish between microevolution, which is an established fact of science, and macroevolution, which is an untestable and unverifiable theory (albeit referred to as fact by nearly every major science periodical and museum in the world). Microevolution refers to change within a given "kind" (i.e., Genesis 1:12; 21; 24-25) while macroevolution (i.e., Darwinism) refers to a change from one "kind" to another. We see the evidences of microevolution all round us. For instance, consider the many different types and varieties of dogs and cats (canines and felines if you prefer) in the world today. It is significant, however, that we see no "dats", "cogs", or any other transitionary forms in our world today, for if we did we would evidence an example of macroevolution. It has long been known that natural selection (i.e., the survival of the fittest) can account for changes within a species. For instance consider the oft-cited example of the peppered moth of England. The dark colored moths were able to survive in the smoke-filled environments of the industrial revolution far better than the light ones. Although the number of dark-colored moths as opposed to light-colored moths increased drastically, the moths were, nonetheless, still peppered moths. Therefore, microevolutional changes within a species should not be used as a proof of macroevolutional changes from one species to another. Unfortunately, this is what many evolutionists do. Darwin, himself, was influenced greatly by microevolutional changes evidenced in the varieties of finches he observed on the Galapagos Islands. Honest evolutionists, however, will admit that microevolutional changes are irrelevant when it comes to evidence for macroevolution. For instance, Marjorie Grene, a leading philosopher and historian of science at the University of California, Davis, states:

That the color of moths and snails or the bloom on the castor bean steam are `explained' by mutation and natural selection is very likely; but how from single-celled (and for that matter from inanimate) ancestors there came to be castor beans and moths and snails, and how from these there emerged llamas and hedgehogs and lions and apes and men that is a question which neo-Darwinian theory simply leaves unasked. [17]
Furthermore, natural selection itself is nothing more than a tautology (a circular argument in which the conclusion restates the premise). Natural selection is in essence "the survival of the fittest". If one were to ask, "What survives?", the answer would be "The fittest survive." However, when one asks, "What are the fittest?", the answer is "Those who produce the most offspring." In other words, "Those who survive." Therefore, natural selection tells us nothing more than "survivors survive." [18]

Obviously natural selection cannot be used to explain the mechanism of biological evolution. Honest evolutionists will admit this:

Natural Selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and, you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring, and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution - which is how do you come to have horses and tigers and things - is outside the mathematical theory. [19]
Natural selection is actually a conserving mechanism. It can't create more information. It simply preserves what is already there. Varieties within species today actually represent a loss of genetic information, and macroevolution requires an increase.

If natural selection can't create more information, what does? The argument that mutations are the mechanism for evolution is equally void of scientific evidence. First of all mutations are relatively rare and, more importantly, when they do occur they are almost always harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Famous French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse puts it this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder... [20]
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. [21]
Information theory teaches us that when information is transmitted it either stays the same or gets more random.

Illustrations: Randomly changing the letters of a book or repeatedly copying an audio tape.

Besides all this, the incredible complexity of life leaves evolution by natural selection and random mutations statistically impossible. Michael Denton writes:

Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of an entirely blind random process - a giant lottery. [22]
The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always been a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. [23]
It is simply unthinkable to assume that blind chance formed the human brain with its 12 billion brain cells and its 10^15 connections, which according to Isaac Asimov was the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. [24]

Darwin himself realized that complex organs such as the eye presented tremendous difficulties to his theory.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. [25]
The eye, like so many other complex organs is an integrated system that functions as a whole. Five percent of an eye does not equal 5% vision, it equals 0% vision. What good would a hole in front of the eye which allows light to pass through do, if there are no cells in the back of the eye to receive the light. What use is a lens that forms an image if there is no nervous system to interpret the image. How could a visual nervous system have evolved without an eye to give it information.

Finally, we see no examples of new forms evolving in our world today as a result of natural selection and random mutations. We do see many varieties being formed within existing species both naturally and artificially, but again this is due to a loss of genetic information (For example when a small percentage of a parent population is isolated from the original population). Clearly, however, we see no examples of transitionary forms in our world today. The only logical alternative to evolution by natural selection and random mutations is, of course, special creation.

Evidence from Paleontology [The Fossil Record]
Since biology shows us no examples of transitionary forms today we must look at the fossil record (the history of life in the past) to see if there are any transitionary forms or "missing links" in man's "family tree".

As we examine the fossil record, however, we discover that the missing links are still missing! Although the evolutionists are reluctant to admit this, in moments of honesty they will confess that the fossil record is full of gaps.

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little way in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. [26]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. [27]
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. [28]
For instance, one of the most distressing problems the fossil record poses for the evolutionist is the "Cambrian Explosion" of life. Fossils of such complex forms as sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, sea worms, etc. appear suddenly in the Cambrian rocks without any traces of their evolutionary ancestors. Yet there should be an incredible number of intermediary forms between single-celled organisms (now said to be found in Pre-Cambrian rocks) and these creatures.

In addition there is no trace of the evolutionary links between the invertebrates and the vertebrates (i.e., fishes). Again, there should be multiple intermediate forms. Neither is their any fossil evidence for the evolution from fish to amphibians. For instance, no forms with part feet and part fins have ever been found (except, of course, for artists' renderings found in text books and museums all over the world!)

Since the fossil record provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved... [29]
The next step in man's evolutionary development should be from reptile to mammal. Once again, we find no missing links in the fossil record.

Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have been forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of tooth morphology. [30]
From small mammals primates supposedly evolved but we have no trace of this development either.

...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transitions is by inference from living forms. [31]
Finally, in the evolutionary scheme we have the transition from ape to man. Let's look at the fossil evidence for a few of the well-known hominids [32] (a pre-human form in the line leading to man), beginning with two that the evolutionists would like to forget because they illustrate the obvious bias and pre-conceived notions involved with evolutionary anthropology and paleontology.

Piltdown Man was nothing more than a deliberate hoax. Someone took the jaw of an ape, filed the teeth down to resemble those of a human, added a human skull, chemically treated them to give the appearance of age and then buried them in a gravel bed where it was discovered by a team of anthropologists. The sad part was not that someone would pull a stunt like that, but that it fooled the world's greatest experts in anthropology and paleontology for 41 years!
The famous Nebraska man, used as evidence in the Scopes Trial, was constructed from a single tooth! From this one tooth pictures were drawn of an ape-man, family and all. In addition, the 13th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica recognized it as a legitimate human fossil. [33] As it turned out, further study revealed the tooth came from an extinct pig!
Now lets look at some more of the well-known "hominids."

Cro-Magnon Man: essentially identical to modern man with an average brain capacity that is actually greater than the average for modern man.

Neanderthal Man: today universally classified as fully human. In the past, however, these men were pictured as stooped over, semi-erect, sub-human cave men. This was due to the fact that the first specimen found was crippled with arthritis, and therefore evolutionists assumed that the stooped over appearance of the fossil was normal. Furthermore it has been discovered that these people suffered from rickets which causes bone softening and malformation. Today, however, it is known that these people walked fully erect and had an average brain capacity greater than modern man. [34]

Java Man: An ape-like skull cap was found in 1891 by Dutch physician Eugene Dubois in a gravel bed. A year later and 50 feet away he found an essentially human femur. He also added a few teeth to the collection and announced to the world that he had found the missing link. Before he died, however, he admitted that he had also found human skulls (the Wadjak skulls) nearby at approximately the same level, meaning that Java Man could not have been man's ancestor.

Ramapithecus: originally judged to be a hominid on the basis of a few teeth and a few fragments of a jaw. Yet, once again, this conclusion was based on insufficient and misinterpreted information, and has now been rejected based on more complete fossil fragments. Modern conclusions are that Ramapithecus was only an ape.

Australopithecus: These creatures are currently the best candidate for man's ancestor in evolutionary circles. They are associated with the work of the Leakey family and Donald Johanson (the discoverer of "Lucy"; the best specimen but still only 40% complete) in Africa. These fossils are very ape-like with a cranial capacity in the range of a modern gorilla, yet the Leakey's and Johanson insist that they walked upright based on very limited pelvic and limb fossils. However, even if these creatures did walk upright (and scientists by no means agree that they did [35]), this is not relevant since the modern pygmy chimpanzee (the "bonobo") spends much of its time walking upright. As a matter of fact, the pygmy chimp appears to be strikingly similar to "Lucy" in appearance and size as well. [36]

Most significantly, creationists believe that these creatures are simply extinct apes, while evolutionary anthropologists and paleontologists are by no means in agreement as to their identity. Two notable evolutionary scientists who have thoroughly studied the Australopithecine fossils and concluded that they are not missing links are Lord Solly Zuckerman (famous British anatomist), and Dr. Charles Oxnard (former Professor of Anatomy and Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, now Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia). Zuckerman concludes that they were apes, Oxnard, an extinct species that resembles an orangutan more than any other living form. [37]

Even more revealing than the truth about the individual "hominids", is a glance at a composite fossil chart showing all the supposed hominid fossils and their corresponding evolutionary ages (creationists do not accept these evolutionary dates due to many flaws, inconsistencies, and presuppositions involved in evolutionary dating methods). [38]

Such a chart will reveal that according to the evolutionists' dates, modern Homo Sapien fossil material (indistinguishable from modern humans) appears in the fossil record before the Australopithecines and the "hominids" in the genus Homo (Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis). Australopithecine authority Charles Oxnard writes:

The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus, thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage. [39]
Not only do true humans appear in the fossil record before any of the "hominids" but they are contemporary with them throughout their history! Obviously these "hominids" had nothing to do with human origins. It is significant that composite fossil charts will not be found in evolutionary journals and/or text books. It is simply too revealing! Furthermore, a thorough study of the different fossils in the genus Homo will reveal that according to evolutionary dating methods Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus all lived as contemporaries and none of them show any evidence of evolving from one form to another. (Many believe that Homo Habilis is a flawed taxon and that each of the fossils ascribed to it should be ascribed to other taxons. Regardless of the classification, these fossils are still contemporary with other Homo fossils.) In addition, it is significant to note that human fossils are often found in the same location and at the same level that, according to their morphology, should be in different evolutionary categories. [40]

This obviously prohibits the possibility that one of these forms involved into another. The fossil record definitely seems to indicate that the Australopithecines were apes, and that Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo Erectus were all different varieties of humans, capable of inter-breeding and living contemporaneously. What, then, can we conclude about the missing-links in man's family tree? One evolutionist states:

The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! [41]
Not to worry, however, evolutionists will continue to come up with new candidates for missing links as the former ones are discredited. In the 1980's, for instance, both a dolphin's rib and a donkey's skull were mistaken for hominid fossils! [42]

The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. [43]
The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which tries to explain the absence of intermediate links by the explanation that evolution occurred in "spurts" is unconvincing since it is only an argument from silence. It starts with the assumption that evolution has occurred and then interprets the fossil record in light of that initial assumption.

Evidence from Geology
[Evidences for the "Genesis Flood"]
Just as there is a creation versus evolution debate in biology, there is a catastrophism versus uniformitarianism debate in modern geology. Uniformitarianism, which must be true if evolution is true, was founded in the 18th Century by men such as Charles Lyell (a lawyer) and James Hutton (an agriculturist with medical training). Their theory can be defined as the belief that the present is the key to the past. In other words, uniformitarians believe that geological processes we see today operate in the same manner and at the same rate as past geological processes. In contrast, catastrophism, which must be true if the book of Genesis (see chapters 6- 8) is true, postulates that past processes were different than present processes, and therefore, the past cannot be explained by the present. Catastrophists will generally accept the Biblical account of the Genesis flood as found in Genesis 6-8 as scientifically and historically accurate. For this reason catastrophism can be referred to as "flood geology". Although neither "flood geology" or "uniformitarianism" (like creation and evolution) can be proven correct by the scientific method, the geological evidence we see today is explained far better by the "flood model". There are, in fact, several scientific evidences that point to catastrophism over uniformitarianism. As a matter of fact these evidences have led many geologists who wouldn't dare hold to catastrophism to adopt a neo-catastrophism that assumes geological features were formed in "spurts".

In order to understand some of these evidences we must first comment briefly on the geologic column. The column, which is only a trend in the first place, is seldom, if ever, found as it is pictured in text books. Two-thirds of the world's land surface has five or fewer of the 12 major geologic systems represented and one-fifth of the world's land surface has three or fewer systems represented. In light of this, what are some evidences for catastrophism within the supposed geologic column?

Most of the earth's surface being covered by sedimentary rocks. These rocks, by definition, have been formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water. It is obvious that all of the earth's present land surface has at one time or another been covered by water because of the worldwide presence of these fossil-bearing, water-deposited rocks. Furthermore, fossils of marine creatures are found world-wide, once again indicating that water once covered what is now the land surfaces of the earth.

There is no worldwide unconformity in the entire geological column except at its very base. (Henry Morris defines an unconformity as "an erosion surface interfacing between two formations whose strata are not conformable with one another. It, therefore, represents a gap in time of unknown duration, between the deposition of the formations below and above." [44]) Since unconformities represent time gaps between the geological layers, there is no worldwide time gap in the geologic column. Therefore, the whole geologic column, by deduction, represents a single, continuous depositional process. Such a process could only be explained by a worldwide hydraulic catastrophe.

The existence of fossil graveyards. Vast fossil beds of fish, dinosaurs, mammoths, and other creatures have been found all over the world. In order for any fossil to form, the organism must be rapidly buried and subsequently turned to rock. In addition, the size of many of these graveyards and the vast variety of fossil remains within them requires a catastrophe of immense scale.

The existence of polystrate fossils. These are fossils of large plants or animals, especially trees, that extend through several sedimentary layers (each layer should represent a vast period of time to the uniformitarian geologist). These sedimentary layers were obviously deposited rapidly.

The existence of great coal deposits (one of the "fossil fuels"). These deposits were formed by enormous masses of vegetation that were swept together, buried, and subsequently carbonized by heat and pressure. We see no such coal formation going on today, so we can deduce that the coal beds were formed by some sort of past cataclysm. Furthermore, the fact that coal has been formed in the laboratory proves that long periods of time are not necessary for its formation. Further proof of this fact is the discovery of fossilized human artifacts and even a fossilized human skull in coal beds. [45]

The numerous examples when the geologic column (which is only a "trend" in the first place) is out of order. In other words "older" rocks are on top of "younger" rocks and "older" fossils are on top of "younger" fossils.

Other Evidences include: [46]

The presence of short-term surface features such as ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary layers.
The deficiency of bioturbation (evidence of living communities and thus significant periods of time) in sedimentary layers.
The lack of soil layers in the geologic column.
Soft-sediment deformation (sediments that were bent or broken while still in a soft, unconsolidated condition).
But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially) .

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists... [47]
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years. [48]

A few of the many evidences for a young earth outside the field of geology are:

The C-14/C-12 ratio in the earth system.
The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
The amount of atmospheric helium.
"Radio halos"
Short-period comets. [49]
In addition, consider what famous evolutionist and Harvard professor Steven J. Gould has said about uniformitarianism.

Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate...Lyell relied upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian view as the only true geology...The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. [50]
We see then that the geological theory of uniformitarianism has as little scientific evidence to support it as does the biological theory of evolution.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, let us consider the possibility of a compromise solution to this debate between creationists and evolutionists. Is it possible that both are right? Could God have used the vehicle of evolution in order to form the world? To answer this let us refer to the Scriptures themselves, which contain the only purely non-evolutionary cosmogony in existence, the book of Genesis. Scripture makes it very clear, in Genesis and throughout the Bible, that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Death and bloodshed came about as a result of man's sin (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21-22). This is the very reason Christ had to die on the cross; to pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 5:8; I Corinthians 15:3). If, however, death, bloodshed and the survival of the fittest came before sin as evolution, theistic evolution, the day-age theory, and the gap theory teach then death is simply a normal "fact of life" and Christ's death becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, many evolutionists recognize this better than some "Christians".

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. [51]
Although other theological arguments could be advanced against theistic evolution, time and space prohibit us from entering into further detail. Furthermore, the scientific evidence, as we have seen, points overwhelmingly towards creation and not evolution. What can we conclude from this? A non-Christian scientist who has honestly examined the evidence draws the following conclusion. Referring to the "design hypothesis" as opposed to the evolution hypothesis he states:

On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions. [52]
These "religious implications" are something that we must all come to grips with. If there is a Creator, then we are all accountable to Him. Furthermore, the only place we can find out about such a creator God should logically be the one and only book which describes His creation with scientific and historic accuracy-The Bible.

Archaeology supports story of Samson and Philistine temple

Archaeology has been found to support yet another biblical story—the account of mighty Samson and his death in a Philistine temple.

Samson, you may recall, was the Israelite hero whose strength was legendary among the Israelites and their enemies, the Philistines. Tricked, captured and blinded by the Philistines, he was put to work grinding grain as a beast of burden. The story of Samson concludes in Judges 16:23-30:

"Now the lords of the Philistines gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god, and to rejoice . . . So it happened, when their hearts were merry, that they said, 'Call for Samson, that he may perform for us.' So they called for Samson from the prison, and he performed for them. And they stationed him between the pillars . . .

"And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars which supported the temple, and he braced himself against them, one on his right and the other on his left. Then Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And he pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life."

Critics, of course, have doubted the story and called it a myth. They have argued that a Philistine temple would not have had two central pillars supporting the roof since this wasn't a typical architectural design of Middle Eastern temples.

But after the remains of two Philistine temples have been excavated, what do they reveal? Both had two main pillars supporting the roof.

One of the Philistine temples is at Tell Qasile, now part of the modern city of Tel Aviv. Archaeologist Amihai Mazar found the remains of a small Philistine temple in the 1970s, and sure enough, he discovered two column bases for a pair of central pillars supporting the roof. They were close enough together that a large man could reach both of them at once.

Some 20 miles away, at the Philistine site of ancient Ekron, archaeologist Trude Dothan discovered another temple in the 1990s with the same characteristics—two central pillars supporting a roof.

The city of Gath, where Samson's account takes place, has not been excavated, as a modern city has been built on top of the remains. Yet, being one of the main Philistine cities, it is reasonable to imagine that it would have had a much larger temple, holding many more people.

Archaeologist Bryant Wood explains the significance of the discoveries: "Two Philistine temples have been uncovered by archaeologists. . . Both temples share a unique design—the roof was supported by two central pillars!

"The pillars were made of wood and rested on stone support bases. With the pillars being about six feet apart, a strong man could dislodge them from their stone bases and bring the entire roof crashing down. The archaeological findings match the Biblical story perfectly and attest to the plausibility of the account . . .

"The Bible writer knew his facts. He knew that Philistine temples were supported by two pillars and that this was how Samson pulled the temple down. The report is that of an eye-witness, again demonstrating that indeed the Bible is the world's most accurate textbook" ("Samson and the Temple of Dagon," Bible and Spade, 1974, pp. 53-54).

Another fraudulent attack on the Bible doesn't hold water

Perhaps you've heard of the lawsuit filed against The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown, claiming he plagiarized much of his material from an earlier book titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and two others. Baigent lost the case, but that hasn't stopped him from again trying to cash in on the massive publicity generated by The Da Vinci Code.

Both books propose that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that she bore His child, and that Jesus' bloodline continued in Europe . These facts, they argue, were scrupulously covered up lest Christianity be exposed as a fraud.

Baigent is back again with a new book and a new twist on history. The Jesus Papers claims that papyrus documents exist—in Jesus' own handwriting, no less—proving that He didn't die when crucified, but was still alive in the flesh as late as A.D. 45. Further, Jesus supposedly said in these papers that He never claimed to be divine and that it was all essentially a misunderstanding.

Baigent makes a number of claims that are ludicrous for someone who claims to be a student of history. For example, he claims that the documents from which his book gets its title were excavated from under a house in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1961 by an Israeli man looking for artifacts.

But as anyone familiar with Middle Eastern archaeology knows, papyrus cannot be preserved longer than a few years in a climate like that of Jerusalem—it's simply too moist. Papyrus is preserved only in extremely dry desert climates. No ancient perishable documents have ever been found in or around Jerusalem—they've long since disintegrated.

Baigent is also quite sure of what the documents say—even though he cannot read Aramaic, the language in which he says they were written. Where are the documents today, and who has possession of them? Sorry, he can't share that information.

He makes other claims that are demonstrably false. For example, he says there is no extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion. Yet several notable historians and Roman officials, including Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Caius Suetonius Tranquillus and Pliny the Younger, all mention Jesus. Some give details of His crucifixion; others note that His followers considered Him divine.

Baigent also tries to have it both ways when it comes to the Gospels. On the one hand he dismisses them as fabrication when they contradict his ideas, but then he quotes them when he thinks they support his points.

The Jesus Papers is filled with other problems—rampant speculation masquerading as fact, no verifiable evidence to support his theory, and denial or misrepresentation of facts that contradict his theory.

Archaeology and the Bible
The science of archaeology has proven to be a very valuable tool in better understanding, confirming and illustrating the Bible. Before about 1800 very little was known about the events, background, and setting of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Therefore, it was nearly impossible to externally confirm the reliability of the Biblical record. You simply believed it or you didn't! As a result, it was very difficult to answer the critics' attacks on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Fortunately, in recent years archaeology has given us tremendous insight into the culture and lifestyles of ancient peoples. In addition our knowledge of ancient history, particularly relating to the Bible, has been greatly increased. This new information has served time and time again as an evidence of the reliability of the Bible. Quoting Nelson Gleuck, one of the greatest authorities in Biblical archaeology, "As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." [1]

Archeological Evidences for the Reliability of the Old Testament
First let's consider the following expert testimonies. William F. Albright, widely recognized in his day as the greatest authority on Biblical archaeology, wrote:

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. [2]
The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. [3]
Merrill Unger writes:

Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds. [4]
Sir Frederic Kenyon says:

It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. [5]
Regarding background information. Sometimes the value of archaeology is not in confirming a specific historic event but in confirming the setting and context of events portrayed in the Bible.

The great value of archaeology has been to show, over and over again, that the geography, technology, political and military movements, cultures, religious practices, social institutions, languages, customs, and other aspects of everyday life of Israel and other nations of antiquity were exactly as described in the Bible. [6]
Examples of this include:

The "Black Stele" -At one time, one of the "assured results of higher criticism" was that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses because writing was not yet in existence in Moses' day. The critics assured us that the first 5 books of the Bible were put together centuries later by a group of editors and were subsequently attributed to Moses (The Documentary Hypothesis). However, in 1901 the "black stele" was found which contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi's Code. The significant aspect of this find was that it was pre-Mosaic by at least three centuries. [7] Therefore, it proved that both writing and law codes were around centuries before Moses! Another archaeological find that confirms the existence of writing centuries before the time of Moses is the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in the 1960's. The Ebla kingdom was actually in existence approximately 1000 years before Moses (reaching its height around 2300 B.C.) [8]
The Nuzi Tablets -This group of around 4000 cuneiform tablets, written in Akkadian, were discovered in the ancient city of Nuzi in modern Iraq. They have been dated at around 1500-1400 B.C. which means that they probably originated sometime during the patriarchal period of the Bible. These tablets have long fascinated Bible scholars because many of the customs and situations found there greatly resemble customs and situations found in the Bible. For example, one Nuzi text recording the adoption of Sennima, the son of Zike, by his father-in-law, Surihi-ilu, has many similarities with the events in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. [9] In this text, Sennima is to become Surihi-ilu's heir if the latter dies without a son. This resembles the case of Abraham's servant Eliezer as recorded in Genesis 15. The text also states that if Surihi-ilu's daughter, Kelimninu, was childless then she was to find another wife for Sennima. Otherwise Sennima was not to take another wife. This has great similarities to Genesis 16, where Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham as a wife in order that she might bear Abraham children in Sarah's place. We also read that Rachel and Leah both gave their handmaids to Jacob for the purpose of bearing children in their place. Other Nuzi documents mention the legality of death-bed blessings, birthrights of the first-born, the possibility of selling birthrights, and many other items which help to confirm and illustrate the biblical record in Genesis.
Regarding historical people, places and events. In addition to providing helpful insight into background information of the Old Testament, archaeology has often confirmed the Old Testament record by providing secular testimony to Biblical people, places or events. For instance, consider the following examples.

The identity of Belshazzar -For years many historians denied the historical character of Belshazzar who is referred to as the king of Babylon in Daniel 5. Historians could.