Great Series on biblical Creationism & Intelligent Design from Dr. Walter Veith
(Very well done bridging Design to Creation)
Bottom-line: Intelligent Design + the Bible = Creationism
Though some supporters of ID and/or Creationism do not like having their names mixed with the other the bottom-line (coming from someone who has worked with both parties on a number of projects) is that they have much more in common than they like to admit. They both agree with the great weaknesses of naturalism/evolutionism and though most ID supporters are Christian, they do not necessitate that it much be the God of the Bible whereas groups such as Answers in Genesis do. The problem that groups such as AIG do not realize is that one must be a supporter of ID (and/or "God") before they can become a supporter of Creationism. Stephen Meyer does an incredible job bridging ID to Christian Creationism in the True-U series (I am also including some great series by Dr. Walter Veith on the subject) to be used in combination with the books/DVDs sent to you in your FREE package that you "should" have already requested):
Ken Ham and Hugh Ross (so you can see ALL perspectives):
In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features,...
Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of...
The fossil record is discussed and a catastrophic origin is constrasted with the standard paradigm of evolution over long time periods. Alternative models for the apparent order in the fossil record are presented together with evidence for the sudden appearance of all life forms during the...
In this lecture, the ice ages are discussed and reasons for mammalian distribution and appearance in the upper portion of the geological column are presented. The evolution of man and the time constraints in terms of recolonization of the post flood Earth are also discussed.
Darwinism and natural selection as models for the evolution of life are contrated with origin by design. Biochemical evolution, speciation, and the origin of variety are presented in full multimedia format. This fascinating lecture includes examples of irreducible complexity, discusses the core...
In this lecture, the transition from a perfect to a non-perfect world, the origin of death and carnivory, and the biochemical and morphological changes in animals are discussed in depth. Darwin considered parasites and carnivory as evidence for evolution. In this vide, the plausibility of an...
This video takes us on a fascinating walk through the ages. Archaeological evidence in support of Scripture is presented tracing evidence for the long-disputed stories of the Exodus and the existence of long-forgotten cities and archaeological finds such as the Ebla tablets.
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man�s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory�it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following questions were distributed to the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. (The videotaped debate is #6, $9.95.) Questions added since the debate remarked with an asterisk (*).
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it? 16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don�t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Arent you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn�t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.