IT'S A BIRD! IT'S A PLANE! NO, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

[ignorant bastard]

<
World-famous conspiracy terrorist Ed Conrad (rear)
is shown with his vicious albino wolf, Blue.
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/EdnBlue.JPG
<
================================
<
http://www.travisredding.com/bush-911-jetfuel-wtc-laff.jpg
<
A peer-reviewed scientific paper on the discovery of nano-thermites in
the dust of the World Trade Center has been published.
<
Now, officially, we know for sure 911 WAS a government conspiracy.
<
Of course, you undoubtedly haven't read -- or heard -- a word of this
CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY in the major media. Everyone -- and I mean
EVERYONE -- is afraid of exposing the truth.
<
The presence of the highly explosive thermitic material is clear-cut
physical evidence that the administration of George W. Bush and Dick
Cheney planned and carried out the attack against their own citizens
on Sept. 11, 2001.
<
And it also proves that the list of co-conspirators in the
premeditated mass murder would fill the nation's largest prison to
overflowing.
<
It means, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Twin Towers as well as
Building 7 all were brought down by controlled demolition.
<
It also means that many, many tons of the explosive material had been
brought into the skyscrapers days or weeks, maybe months, before Sept.
11.
<
The end result was the perpetration of a colossal government hoax that
"foreign terrorists" were responsible for 911, which then allowed
Bush, Cheney and their lackies to convince gutless, corrupt
politicians as well as unknowledgeable Americans to allow the
unlawful
invasion of Afghanistan, then Iraq, and turn the entire Middle East to
horror and turmoil.
<
< "OH, THE INHUMANITY!"
<
http://www.foxnews.com/images/162544/0_22_450_baby.jpg
http://whatreallyhappened.com/TheTruth11_files/slide0028_image029.jpg
<
http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/DC/casket08.jpg
<
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ejv1Q4dqj2Mc/610x.jpg
==================================
<
EXPLOSIVES FOUND IN WTC DUST
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Niels+Harrit&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
<
http://cipshare.com/NielsHarrit_org/
<
http://vodpod.com/watch/1883072-nano-thermite-took-down-the-wtc
<
THE BOMBSHELL CONCLUSION
<
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
From 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”
<
The scientific paper ends with this statement:
<
“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the
red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted
thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly
energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
<
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
<
ANOTHER SOURCE
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
<
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429
<
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20609
<
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19999
<
===================================
<
Yet this startling bombshell news by independent scientific teams
concerning the documentation of the use of thermitic material to cause
the nuildings to collapse is certainly not NEW. Actually, these
revelations had been made months ago but the major media wouldn't
touch it with a 14-foot pole.
<
That's why many of you are reading it here for the very first time.
<
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal
oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite
reaction.
<
"Thermitic material" is a trademark used for a welding and incendiary
mixture of fine aluminum powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron,
that when ignited yields an intense heat.
<
The authors of the scientific paper are Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey
Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel
Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R Larsen.
<
This is their conclusion:
<
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we
have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World
Trade Center.
<
"Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites,
is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked
similarities in all four samples.
<
"One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about 10 minutes
after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a
fourth about a week later.
<
"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical
microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC).
<
"The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which
are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-
like sructures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone
demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present.
<
"The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red
material.
<
When ignited in a DSC device, the chips exhibit large but narrow
exotherms occurring at approximately 430 degrees C, far below the
normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-
rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the
ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips.
<
"The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic
material and highly energetic."
<
It means the Bush administration, which undoubtedly was quarterbacked
by Dick Cheney (since Bush had trouble tying his shoes), is gulity of
the mass murder of more than 3,000 persons on our own soil.
<
It was done in order to open the door to the invasions of both
Afghanistan and Iraq which had led to the death of some 4,000 American
troops; the serious, debilitating injuries of perhaps four times that
many; and the murder of more than a million poor souls, including
children, in the Middle East.
<
http://informedvoters.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/iraq-war.jpg
<
==============================
<
Phone your Senator or Congressman (woman) immediately and ask why, as
a reprentative of the PEOPLE, they are totalling ignoring the physical
evidence that the BUsh-Cheney administration was responsible for 911.
<
Simply put, an overwhelming amount of physical evidence indicates that
Cheney and Bush are indeed traitors and war criminals and dozens upon
dozens of others in their administration were directly involved.
<
Justice MUST be served and they should not be permitted to get away
with murder.
<
< SMOKING GUNS
<
Some articles, photos or videos (below) may be outdated or have been
removed by the Gestapo, But those that still exist should tickle your
fancy/)
<
http://www.911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
<
http://whatreallyhappened.com/TheTruth11_files/slide0028_image029.jpg
<
http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/DC/casket08.jpg
<
http://www.darkgovernment.com/images/soldiers-casket.jpg
<
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ejv1Q4dqj2Mc/610x.jpg
<
http://www.foxnews.com/images/162544/0_22_450_baby.jpg
===================================
<
THE MONUMENTAL COVER-UP
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
<
==============================
<
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=89
<
http://www.911truth.org
<
http://www.LooseChange911.com
<
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm
<
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html
<
http://webfairy.org
<
Scott Forbes
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
Rosalee Grable:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
Scott Loughrey
http://www.rense.com/general50/amy.htm
Alex Jones
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
Col. Donn de Grand Pre
http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/nohijackers.htm
Mike Ruppert:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
Jared Israel:
http://www.tenc.net
Eric Hufschmid
http://www.erichufschmid.net/
Andreas von Buelow
http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report.html
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDh_pvv1tUM
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
<
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy
<
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N36mnRh2Hro
<
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jiDX6UQl2no&feature=related
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=related
<
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=5211
<
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_conspiracy.html
<
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN PUTS IT ALL IN A NUTSHELL
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJStSNaVHHI
< (See Parts 2 and 3)
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSTip84eIfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lMh3LkcNvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q01bV8APzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Sc37zsW-g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/results?
http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis.html
www.letsrollforums.com
<
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911.html
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/
http://www.whale.to/b/911.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623
http://www.conspiracy911.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4
<
< LEST WE FORGET . . .
<
(Some of these URLs no longer work or are outdated.)
<
Michael Meacher
http://truthout.org/docs_03/090703A.shtml
Thierry Meyssan
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/23/29196.html
Dick Eastman
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
A.K. Dewdney
http://physics911.org/
Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Jeff King:
http://911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml
Bill Manning: http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm
Jerry Russell
http://www.911-strike.com/
Ken Vardon:
http://www.apfn.org/
Peter Meyer:
http://www.serendipity.li/
Paul Thompson: http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/
Mark Elsis
http://www.911timeline.net/
Carol Valentine:
http://www.public-action.com/
Ralph Omholt
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
Jon Carlson
http://www.rense.com/general54/flight93crashwitnesses.htm
Gerard Holmgren
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/holmgren2.htm
Woody Box
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Nico Haupt
http://ny911truth.org/articles/stop_coverup.htm
Michael Kane
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=387
Barbara Honegger
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=641
Phil Jayhan
http://www.letsroll911.org/
John Judge:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/fake_opposition.htm
Daniel Hopsicker
http://www.madcowprod.com/
A.K. Dewdney
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
Riley von Kleist:
http://www.thepowermall.com/
Michael Elliott:
http://911review.org/
Jim Hoffman:
http://911review.com/
<
Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
<
OTHER CONSPIRACIES THAT ED CONRAD SOLVED
<
JFK ASSASSINATION
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&q=jfk+as#K
<
<
CANCER CURE CONSPIRACY
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.ed-conrad/msg/378673ee9e66b22a
<
CANCER CURE CONSPIRACY CON JOB
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.cancer/msg/987813f7f23c9570
<
PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Miracle.jpg
http://edconrad.com/lifeafterdeath
<
EXISTENCE OF EXTRATERRESTRIALS
http://www.billymeier.com/
<
CORRUPT GOSPELS
http://www.avilabooks.com/Jmmanuel.htm
http://www.tjresearch.info/
<
FIRST MAN ON THE MOON
mhttp://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_GzwzaJuwY
<
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconrad.com
<
> EVOLUTION -- GREATEST COVER-UP
> IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY
<
HUMAN REMAINS BETWEEN COAL VEINS
CONFIRM EVOLUTIONISTS FULL OF IT
<
An Evolutionist Caught With His Pants Down
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TightFit.jpg
<
Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
<
===============================
<
PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND SOFT ORGANS
(SOME HUMAN) FOUND BETWEEN COAL VEINS
<
(What We'll Probably Look Like on Dec. 22, 2012)
http://www.december212012.com/
<
IT HAPPENED BEFORE AND IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN
< (The Aftermath of a Castrophy)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z8femur.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/FOSSILS08/HumanFemur.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanBrain.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skully,jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg
<
Petrified human skull embedded in boulder is shown
while on display at an international exhibit in Switzerland.
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SwitzerlandExhibit1.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/zedjaw.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder1.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladdery.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg

[Rev. 11D Meow!]

The Definition Of Pier Review

Friday, 07 March 2008 - 02:06 UTC
Pier Review

If you haven�t seen any of the discussions about �double-blind� peer
review then you�re probably living under a rock (and not reading this,
anyway).

I happen to disagree with the philosophy that says that the methods of
doing research should be published according to those same methods �
not least because actually, most of the stuff I do is not double- (or
even single-) blinded.

My own take on the matter is that refereeing should be totally
nonymous: in other words, the journals should tell the authors to whom
they are sending the article for review, and the reviewer�s names be
published along with the paper.

That is complete transparency, and would possibly make reviewers take
responsibility for their comments.
(�Pier review�. Yes, Henry; intentional. The end of a long walk)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, Ed Conrad!!!

The Earth is only 6,500 Years!!!

All your phony fossils are put there by GOD to fool us all...

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
August 1999 - 19[8]:57-63

The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

[EDITOR�S NOTE: Part II of this three-part series appeared in the
September issue. Part III appeared in the October issue.]

In the current controversy over creation and evolution, it is a rare
event indeed to find something on which those in both camps agree
wholeheartedly. Generally speaking, the two world views are
light-years apart from start to finish. There is one thing, however,
on which creationists and evolutionists do agree: evolution is
impossible if the Earth is young (with an age measured in thousands,
not billions, of years). R.L. Wysong addressed this point in his book,
The Creation-Evolution Controversy, when he wrote:

Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an
impossibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old. There
probably is no statement that could be made on the topic of origins
which would meet with so much agreement from both sides. Setting aside
the question of whether vast time is competent to propel evolution, we
must query if vast time is indeed available (1976, p. 144).
It may be somewhat ironic that so much discussion has resulted from
something on which both sides agree, but it should not be at all
surprising. Apart from the most basic issue of the controversy
itself�i.e., whether creation or evolution is the correct view of
origins�the single most serious area of conflict between those who
accept the biblical account of creation and those who accept the
theory of organic evolution (in whole or in part) is the chronological
framework of history�viz., the age of the Earth. And, of course, this
subject is of intense interest not only to those who promulgate
atheistic evolution, but to those who are sympathetic with certain
portions of that theory as well. While a young Earth/Universe presents
no problem whatsoever for creationists who accept the biblical account
at face value, it is the death knell to almost every variety of the
evolutionary scenario.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates
that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
Standing in firm opposition to that view is the suggestion of
atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive
creationists, and so-called �old-Earth creationists� that the current
age of the Universe can be set at roughly 8-12 billion years, and that
the Earth itself is almost 5 billion years old. Further complicating
matters is the fact that the biblical record plainly indicates that
living things were placed on the newly created Earth even before the
end of the six-day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day
three). The evolutionary scenario, however, postulates that early life
evolved from nonliving chemicals roughly 3.5-4.0 billion years ago,
and that all other life forms gradually developed during the alleged
�geologic ages� (with man arriving on the scene, in one form or
another, approximately 1-2 million years ago).

Even to a casual observer, it is apparent that the time difference
involved in the two models of origins is significant. Much of the
controversy today between creationists, atheistic evolutionists,
theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and old-Earth
creationists centers on the age of the Earth. The magnitude of the
controversy is multiplied by three factors. First, atheistic evolution
itself is impossible to defend if the Earth is young. Second, the
concepts mentioned above that are its �theistic cousins� likewise are
impossible to defend if the Bible is correct in its straightforward
teachings and obvious implications about the age of the Earth. Third,
there is no possible compromise that will permit the
old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the
biblical and evolutionary views in this particular area simply is too
large. As Henry Morris correctly observed:

Thus the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the
evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter,
and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to
resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of
our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can
be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very
integrity of scriptural theology (1984, p. 115).
In the earlier quote from Dr. Wysong, it was suggested that �we must
query if vast time is indeed available.� That is exactly what I intend
to do in this series of articles. Indeed, a million-fold mistake is no
small matter. How old is the Earth according to God�s Word?

THE AGE OF THE EARTH��WAIT AND SEE�

As I begin this investigation into the age of the Earth, I first would
like to define the scope of the inquiry. The title under which I am
writing is �The Bible and the Age of the Earth.� It is not my
intention, at present, to examine or refute the scientific evidences
that allegedly establish an ancient Earth. There are a number of books
available that provide such information (see, for example: Ackerman,
1986; Jackson, 1989; Kautz, 1988; Henry Morris, 1974, 1989; John
Morris, 1994; Morris and Parker, 1987; Wysong; 1976). Rather, I intend
to limit my discussion to what God�s Word has to say on this subject.

Obviously, then, I am not writing with the atheistic evolutionist in
mind. I am well aware that my arguments would carry no weight
whatsoever with the person who falls into that category. Rather, this
discussion is intended for those who: (a) believe in the God of the
Bible; (b) claim to accept the Bible as His inspired, authoritative
Word; and (c) are convinced that what God has said can be understood.
For such a person, the Bible is the recognized, final authority on any
subject that it addresses. The renowned biblical scholar, Edward J.
Young, forcefully expressed this point when he wrote:

It is of course true that the Bible is not a textbook of science, but
all too often, it would seem, this fact is made a pretext for treating
lightly the content of Genesis one. Inasmuch as the Bible is the Word
of God, whenever it speaks on any subject, whatever that subject may
be, it is accurate in what it says (1964, p. 43).
The question then becomes: �Does the Bible address the age of the
Earth?� Yes, it does. But before we delve into what it says, there are
two popular, prevailing attitudes that need to be discussed.

First, I acknowledge that some regard this as a question that simply
cannot be answered at present. We are urged to �wait and see� or to
�reserve judgment.� Jack Wood Sears, former chairman of the biology
department at Harding University, wrote:

When conflicts do occur, the part of wisdom is to withhold judgment
until the facts are all in. For example, there is difficulty with the
age of life on the earth. Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed
to indicate that the life has been here much longer than we have
generally interpreted the Bible to indicate. However, scientific
determination of the ages of geological strata is not absolute and is
subject to much difficulty and uncertainty. The Bible, as we have
shown, does not date creation, and the intimations it seems to present
may not be properly understood. Since I hold science to be a valid
approach to reality, and since I have concluded upon much and
sufficient evidence, that the Bible is inspired and therefore true,
the only rational recourse, it seems to me, is to withhold judgment
about a seeming contradiction. Wait and see (1969, p. 97, emp. added).
Four years later, J. Frank Cassel wrote in a similar vein.

The thoughtful person respects present knowledge in both areas
(science and Biblical research) and keeps searching for new
information and insight. In the meantime he must reserve judgment,
saying simply �I don�t know where the proper synthesis lies.� The
tension remains as the search continues (1973, pp. 251-252, emp.
added).
While at first glance such an attitude may appear laudable, I would
like to suggest that it is nothing but a ruse. Authors of such
sentiments no doubt want others to adhere to their advice, but they
themselves have absolutely no intention of doing so.

Cassel, for example, has written frequently about the accuracy of the
so-called geologic timetable and is a well-known apologist for the
old-Earth world view. Further, in November 1983 I met Dr. Sears in
public debate on the topic of the age of the Earth. I affirmed the
proposition that the Bible does not allow for an ancient Earth; Dr.
Sears affirmed the proposition that it does. The debate occurred some
14 years after Dr. Sears penned his �wait and see� statement. Had he
discovered information during those years that no longer made it
necessary to wait and see? Apparently not, since during the debate he
told the audience that he was �still waiting� (an exact quote from the
debate transcript) for information that would allow him to make a
decision about the age of the Earth. If he was still waiting, why,
then, was he willing to engage in a public debate to defend the
proposition that the Bible allows for an ancient Earth? Where is the
consistency in such a position?

In reality, what these writers mean when they say that �we� should
�wait and see,� or that �we� should �reserve judgment� is that all
those who believe in a young Earth should wait and see or reserve
judgment. In the meantime, they will continue to advocate publicly
their position that an ancient Earth is wholly consistent with the
biblical record.

Second, there are some in the religious community who suggest that the
Bible is conspicuously silent on the topic of the age of the Earth. It
is not uncommon to hear statements suggesting that since the Bible
does not address this matter, a person is free to believe whatever he
or she wishes in this regard. Typical of such a mind-set are these
statements by Donald England and John Clayton.

However, nowhere does a Biblical writer give us an age for earth or an
age for life on earth.... Inasmuch as Scripture does not state how old
the earth is or how long life has existed on earth, one is free to
accept, if he wishes, the conclusions of science (England, 1983, pp.
155-156).

Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. No time element is given and no
details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could have
taken place in no time at all, or God may have used eons of time to
accomplish his objectives (Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148).
This, of course, is but another ruse. Beware when a writer or speaker
suggests that the Bible is �silent� on the topic of the age of the
Earth or that a person is free to accept the varied �conclusions of
science.� What those who make such statements really mean is that they
are free to accept the conclusions, not of science, but of
uniformitarian geology, and in so doing to defend the same old-Earth
position as their evolutionist colleagues. Both England and Clayton,
for example, are on record as defending an ancient Earth (see:
England, 1972, pp. 103-106; Clayton as documented in Jackson and
Thompson, 1992, pp. 99-110).

CHRONOLOGY AND THE BIBLE

The truth of the matter is that the Bible, being a book grounded in
history, is filled with chronological data that may be used to
establish a relative age for the Earth. It is not �silent� on this
topic, and thus there is no need to �wait and see� or to �reserve
judgment.� Professor Edwin Thiele, the man who unlocked much of the
mystery of Old Testament chronology, declared:

We know that God regards chronology as important, for He has put so
much of it into His Word. We find chronology not only in the
historical books of the Bible, but also in the prophetic books, in the
Gospels, and in the writings of Paul (1977, p. 7).
The Bible, for example, provides exact chronological data from Adam to
Solomon. Combining information from the Assyrian Eponym Lists and the
Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has been determined to be 853-852
B.C. (Packer, et al., 1980, p. 48) and therefore the reign of Solomon
(some 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42) can be dated at 971-931 B.C. (Merrill,
1978, p. 97; Packer, et al., 1980, p. 50; Brantley, 1993, p. 83).
According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years before Solomon�s fourth year of
reign (967-966 B.C.), Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The
date of the Exodus is 1446/ 1445 B.C. (Unger, 1973, pp. 140-152;
Archer, 1970, pp. 212-222; Packer, et al., 1980, p. 51; Jackson, 1981,
p. 38; 1990, p. 17).

To this date is added the time of the sojourn in Egypt (430 years,
Exodus 12:40), thereby producing the date of 1876 B.C. as the year
Jacob went to Egypt (Packer, et al., 1980, p. 50). Interestingly, the
Bible records Pharaoh�s query of Jacob�s age (and Jacob�s answer�130
years) in Genesis 47:9, which would make the year of Jacob�s birth
2006 B.C. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old when he begat
Isaac, giving the date of 2166 B.C. for Abraham�s birth (Genesis 21:5;
Packer, et al., 1980, p. 54). The chronology from Abraham to Adam is
recorded very carefully in two separate chronological tables�Genesis 5
and 11. According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was 75 when he left Haran,
presumably after Terah died at 205 years; thus, Abraham was born when
Terah was 130 years old, albeit he is mentioned first by importance
when Terah began having sons at the age of 70 (Genesis 11:27; 12:4;
Acts 7:4).

Having established the birth date of Abraham at 2166 B.C. (Archer,
1970, pp. 203-204), it is possible to work from the time of Adam�s
creation to Abraham in order to discern the chronology of �the
beginning.� The time from the creation of Adam to Seth was 130 years
(Genesis 5:3), the time from Adam to Noah was 1056 years (Packer, et
al., 1980, pp. 56-57), and the time from Noah�s birth to the Flood was
600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 A.A. (After Adam). It appears that
Shem was about 100 years old at the time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32;
11:10) and begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood (the Earth was not
dry for more than a year; cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis
11:10) in approximately 1659 A.A.

Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36
complements the chronological table of Genesis 11 with the insertion
of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates that likely
Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward, one observes
that Terah was born in 1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years later (in
the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic�2166 B.C. added to 2009
A.A.�would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The
Great Flood, then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656
A.A.).

Numerous objections have been leveled at the literal and consecutive
chronological interpretation of Scripture. For example, some have
suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 are neither literal nor
consecutive. Yet five of the Patriarchs clearly were the literal
fathers of their respective sons: Adam named Seth (Genesis 4:25), Seth
named Enos (4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29), Noah�s sons were Shem,
Ham and Japheth (cf. 5:32 with 9:18), and Terah fathered Abraham
directly (11:27,31). Jude�s record in the New Testament counts Enoch
as �the seventh from Adam� (Jude 1:14), thereby acknowledging the
genealogical tables as literal and consecutive. Moreover, how better
could Moses have expressed a literal and consecutive genealogy than by
using the terms �lived...and begat...begat...after he begat...all the
days... and he died�? Without question, Moses noted that the first
three individuals (Adam, Seth, and Enos) were consecutive, and Jude
stated by inspiration that the first seven (to Enoch) were
consecutive. Enoch�s son, Methuselah, died the year of the Flood, and
so by three steps the chronology of Adam to Noah is literal and
consecutive, producing a trustworthy genealogy/chronology.

There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is
concerned with providing information on the age of the Earth and
humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the Bible
prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very
concerned about giving man exact chronological data and, in fact, was
so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back
to Abraham, plus two tables�with ages�from Abraham to Adam. The
ancient Jewish historians (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) and the New Testament
writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as
literal and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God
created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam and
his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning and the ending
of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14).

Still others have suggested that the two tables somehow are symbolic.
But the use (or even repetitive use) of a �unique� number does not
necessitate a symbolical interpretation. Special numbers (such as
7,10,12,40, etc.) employed in Scripture may be understood as literal
despite the frequency with which they are used. Are there not three
literal members of the Godhead? Did not Sceva have seven literal sons?
Were there not ten literal commandments? Did Jesus not choose twelve
literal apostles? Was Christ�s fast in the wilderness not forty
literal days? Moreover, those who study history routinely recognize
that it abounds with numerical �coincidences.� To say that the tables
of Genesis 5 and 11 are �symbolic� of long periods of time flies in
the face of the remainder of the biblical record.

Those who believe that the Bible is unconcerned with chronology would
do well to spend some time studying the lineages of the Hebrew kings
in the Old Testament. James Jordan has explained:

Chronology is of concern to the writers of the Bible. From this
perspective we should be surprised if the Bible did not include
chronological data regarding the period from Creation to Abraham,
especially since such data can now be obtained from no other source.
That chronology is of concern to the Bible (and to its Author) can
also be seen from the often difficult and confusing chronology of the
Kings of Israel. Thus, we find that it is the intention of the Bible
to provide us with chronology from Abraham to the Exile. Some of that
chronology is given in summary statements...but some is also given
interspersed in the histories of the Kings. Is it therefore surprising
or unreasonable that some should be given along with genealogies as
well? (1979/1980, p. 21, emp. in orig.).
While it is true that genealogies (and chronologies) serve various
functions in Scripture, one of their main purposes is to show the
historical connection of great men to the unfolding of Jehovah�s
redemptive plan. These lists, therefore, are a link from the earliest
days of humanity to the completion of God�s salvation system. In order
to have any evidential value, they must be substantially complete.

For example, the inspired writer of Hebrews, in contending for the
heavenly nature of Christ�s priesthood, argued that the Savior could
not have functioned as a priest while He was living upon the Earth
since God had in place a levitical priesthood to accomplish that need
(Hebrews 8:4). Jesus did not qualify for the levitical priesthood
because �it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah�
(Hebrews 7:14, emp. added). How could it have been �evident� that
Jesus Christ was from the tribe of Judah�unless there were accurate
genealogical records by which such a statement could be verified? The
writer of Hebrews based his argument on the fact that the readers of
his epistle would not be able to dispute the ancestry of Christ due to
the reliable nature of the Jewish documentation available�i.e., the
genealogies.

It has been argued that secular history is considerably older than
4000 B.C. But ponder this. When the studies of various Egyptologists
are examined, no two give the same time period for the Old Kingdom
(III-VI Dynasties). Breasted (1912) gave the date as 2980-2475 B.C.,
Baikie (1929) dated the period as 3190-2631 B.C., White (1970)
suggested 2778-2300 B.C., Aling (1981) dated it at 2800-2200 B.C., and
Rohl (1995) offered 2650-2152 B.C. With such variability in the last
�sure� period in Egypt�s history, how can dogmatism prevail for the
predynastic period? Scientists and historians influence Christendom
with their �established limits� of history. Theologians influence
Christianity with evolution-based bias as well. For instance, Gleason
Archer has stated:

The problems attending this method of computation are compounded by
the quite conclusive archaeological evidence that Egyptian Dynasty I
went back to 3100 B.C., with a long period of divided kingdoms in the
Nile valley before that. These could hardly have arisen until long
after the Flood had occurred and the human race had multiplied
considerably (cf. Genesis 10). It therefore seems necessary to
interpret the figures of Genesis 5 and 11 differently, especially in
view of the gaps in other biblical genealogical tables (1979, 1:361).
Obviously Archer is completely willing to override Scripture with the
�scientific� message of archaeology. This mind-set�which requires the
Bible to submit to science (geology, paleontology, etc.)�undermines
the authority of the Word of God. In one prominent example from a few
years back, the then-editor of Christianity Today stated:

But one fact is clear: the genealogies of Genesis will not permit us
to set any exact limit on the age of man. Of that we must remain
ignorant unless the sciences of geology and historical anthropology
give us data from which we may draw tentative scientific conclusions
(Kantzer, 1982, p. 25, emp. added).
The truth of the matter is that both scientists and theologians should
be concerned with fitting the scientific data to the truth�God�s
Word�not with molding God�s Word to fit current scientific theories
(which, in a few short years may change�e.g., in Charles Darwin�s day
the Earth had been �proven� scientifically to be 20 million years old,
while today it has been �proven� scientifically to be 4.6 billion
years old).

Furthermore, archaeologists often use speculative (and inaccurate)
techniques such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology (tree-ring
analysis), and pottery dating schemes. Yet each of these methods is
beset with serious flaws, not the least of which are the basic
assumptions upon which they are constructed. In two timely,
well-researched articles (�Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon &
Tree-Ring Dating� and �Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical
Credibility�), Trevor J. Major (1993, 13:74-77) and Garry K. Brantley
(1993, 13:81-85) explained the workings of these various methods and
exposed the faulty assumptions upon which each is based. After listing
and discussing five important problem areas associated with carbon-14
dating, and after discussing the problems associated with obtaining
accurate tree-ring growth rates, Major wrote:

Radiocarbon dating assumes that the carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio has
stayed the same for at least the last hundred thousand years or so.
However, the difference between production and decay rates, and the
systematic discrepancy between radiocarbon and tree-ring dates, refute
this assumption.... Similarly, we should not accept the claims for
dendrochronology at face value. Bristlecones may add more than one
growth ring per year, and the �art� of cross dating living and dead
trees may be a considerable source of error. Both radiocarbon dating
and dendrochronology face technical problems, and are loaded with old
Earth ideas. They assume that nature works today the same as it has
worked for millions of years, yet the facts do not support this
contention. Neither method should give us cause to abandon the facts
of biblical history (1993, 13:77, emp. added).
In his article, Brantley addressed the problems associated with
subjectivism in archaeological chronology in general and pottery
dating in particular. He then drew the following conclusions:

...we must recognize that archaeological evidence is fragmentary and,
therefore, greatly limited. Despite the amount of potsherds, bones,
ornaments, or tools collected from a given site, the evidence reflects
only a paltry fraction of what existed in antiquity (Brandfon, 1988,
14[1]:54). Unearthed data often are insufficient, inconclusive, and
subject to biased interpretation....

...the paucity of archaeological evidence provides fertile soil for
imaginative�and often contradictory�conclusions. We must not overlook
the matter of subjectivity in interpretations.... Finally, archaeology
is an imprecise science, and should not serve as the judge of biblical
historicity. The pottery dating scheme, for example, has proved to be
most helpful in determining relative dates in a tell. But, at best,
pottery can place one only within the �chronological ball park.� John
Laughlin, a seasoned archaeologist, recognized the importance of
potsherds in dating strata, but offered two warnings: (1) a standard
pottery type might have had many variants; and (2) similar ceramic
types might not date to the same era�some types may have survived
longer than others, and different manufacturing techniques and styles
might have been introduced at different times in different locales.
Further, he mentioned the fact of subjectivity in determining pottery
: �...in addition to its observable traits, pottery has a �feel� to
it� (1992, 18[5]:72). Therefore, we must recognize archaeology for
what it is�an inexact science with the innate capacity for mistakes
(1993, 13:84-85, emp. added).
Wayne Jackson accurately summarized the importance of biblical
chronology when he observed:

The purpose of biblical chronology is to determine the correct dates
of events and persons recorded in the Bible as accurately as possible,
in order that we may better understand their role in the great plan of
Jehovah.... The Bible is the inspired Word of God (II Tim. 3:16). Its
testimony is, therefore, always reliable. Whenever it speaks with
reference to chronological matters, one may be sure that it is right!
No chronology is thus to be trusted which contradicts plain
historical/chronological data in the sacred text, or which requires a
manipulation of factual Bible information (such as is frequently done
by compromisers who have been romanced by the chronological
absurdities of the theory of evolution) [1981, 1:37, emp. and
parentheses in orig.].
Was chronology of importance to the biblical writers? Indeed it was.
Does the Bible speak, then, in any sense, concerning the age of the
Earth or the age of humanity on the Earth? Indeed it does. I am not
suggesting, of course, that one can settle on an exact date for the
age of the Earth (as did John Lightfoot [1602-1675], the famed
Hebraist and vice-chancellor of Cambridge University who contended
that creation occurred the week of October 18 to 24, 4004 B.C., and
that Adam and Eve were created on October 23 at 9:00 A.M., forty-fifth
meridian time [see Ramm, 1954, p. 121]). I do contend, however, that
the Bible gives a chronological framework that establishes a relative
age for the Earth�an age confined to a span of only a few thousand
years. The material that follows presents the evidence to substantiate
such a conclusion.

WHY DO WE NEED AN OLD EARTH?

In his book, Creation or Evolution?, D.D. Riegle observed: �It is
amazing that men will accept long, complicated, imaginative theories
and reject the truth given to Moses by the Creator Himself � (1962, p.
24). Why is this the case? Even proponents of the old-Earth view admit
that a straightforward reading of the biblical text �seems to present�
a young Earth. Jack W. Sears, quoted earlier, has admitted concerning
the biblical record that �the intimations it seems to present may not
be properly understood� (1969, p. 97, emp. added). These �intimations�
of a young Earth have not escaped those who opt for an old Earth. In
1972, Donald England wrote in A Christian View of Origins:

But why do some people insist that the earth is relatively recent in
origin? First, I feel that it is because one gets the general
impression from the Bible that the earth is young.... It is true that
Biblical chronology leaves one with the general impression of a
relatively recent origin for man... (p. 109, emp. added).
Eleven years later, when Dr. England authored A Scientist Examines
Faith and Evidence, apparently his views had not changed.

A reading of the first few chapters of Genesis leaves one with the
very definite general impression that life has existed on earth for,
at the most, a few thousand years (1983, p. 155, emp. added).
Both Sears and England admit that the Bible �intimates� a young Earth,
and that a reading of the first chapters of Genesis �leaves one with
the general impression� of a young Earth. Do these two men then accept
a youthful planet? They do not. Why? If a simple, plain,
straightforward reading of the biblical text indicates a young Earth,
what reason(s) do they give for not accepting what the Bible says?
Here is Dr. England�s 1983 quotation again, but this time reproduced
with his introductory and concluding statements:

Third, it is not recommended that one should allow a general
impression gained from the reading of Scripture to crystallize in his
mind as absolute revealed truth. A reading of the first few chapters
of Genesis leaves one with the very definite impression that life has
existed on earth for, at the most, a few thousand years. That
conclusion is in conflict with the conclusions of modern science that
the earth is ancient (1983, p. 155, emp. added).
In his 1972 volume, England had stated: �From the many scientific
dating methods one gets the very strong general impression that the
earth is quite ancient� (p. 103, emp. added). Dr. Sears wrote:
�Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that life has
been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to
indicate� (1969, p. 97, emp. added). The professors� point, explained
in detail in their writings, is this: uniformitarian dating methods
take precedence over the Bible! Thus, scientific theory has become the
father of biblical exegesis. The decisive factor no longer is �What
does God�s Word say?,� but rather �What do evolutionary dating methods
indicate?�

One of the most important questions, then, in the controversy over the
age of the Earth is this: If the Earth is ancient, where in the
biblical record can the time be placed to guarantee such antiquity?
There are but three options. The time needed to ensure an old Earth
might be placed: (a) during the creation week; (b) before the creation
week; or (c) after the creation week. If the time cannot be inserted
into one of these three places, then it quickly becomes obvious that
an old-Earth view is unscriptural.

In order to force the Bible to accommodate geologic time, defenders of
these dating methods do indeed find it necessary to invent �long,
complicated, and imaginative� theories. The attempt to place the eons
of time necessary for an ancient Earth during the creation week is
known as the Day-Age Theory�a view which suggests that the days of
Genesis 1 were not literal, 24-hour days, but rather lengthy periods
or eons of time. I have provided in-depth examinations and refutations
of this false concept in past issues of Reason & Revelation, and
therefore will not repeat that material here. Readers who are
interested may refer to those issues (see Thompson, 1981a; 1994a) or
to my book, Creation Compromises (the longest chapter of which deals
with the Day-Age Theory; see Thompson, 1995, pp. 125-155).

The attempt to place the eons of time necessary for an ancient Earth
before the creation week is known as the Gap Theory�a view which
suggests that billions of years of geologic time may be inserted into
an alleged �gap� between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I have provided
in-depth examinations and refutations of this false concept in past
issues of Reason & Revelation as well, and therefore will not repeat
the material here. Interested readers may refer to those specific
issues (see Thompson, 1981b; 1994b), or to my book, Creation
Compromises (see Thompson, 1995, pp. 157-171).

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Paul (1986), It�s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).

Aling, C. (1981), Egypt and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI Baker).

Archer, Gleason L. (1970), Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL:
Moody).

Archer, Gleason L. (1979), �The Chronology of the Old Testament,� The
Expositor�s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Baikie, James (1929), A History of Egypt (London: A&C Black).

Brantley, Garry K. (1993), �Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to
Biblical Credibility,� Reason & Revelation, 13:82-85, November.

Breasted, James (1912), History of Egypt (New York, Charles Scribner�s
Sons).

Cassel, J. Frank (1973), �Biology,� Christ and the Modern Mind, ed.
Robert W. Smith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Clayton, John N. (1976), The Source (South Bend, IN: Privately
published by author).

England, Donald (1972), A Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).

England, Donald (1983), A Scientist Examines Faith and Evidence
(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Jackson, Wayne (1981), �The Chronology of the Old Testament in the
Light of Archaeology,� Reason & Revelation, 1:37-39, October.

Jackson, Wayne (1989), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth
(Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Jackson, Wayne (1990), �The Saga of Ancient Jericho� Reason &
Revelation, 10:17-19, April.

Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin: A
Review of the Teachings of John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL:
Apologetics Press).

Jordan, James (1979), �The Biblical Chronology Question�[Part I]�
Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15, Winter.

Jordan, James (1980), �The Biblical Chronology Question�[Part II]�
Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 2[3]:17-26, Spring.
Kantzer, Kenneth (1982), �Guideposts for the Current Debate over
Origins,� Christianity Today, pp. 23-25, October 8.

Kautz, Darrel (1988), The Origin of Living Things (Milwaukee, WI:
Privately published by author).

Major, Trevor (1993), �Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and
Tree-Ring Dating,� Reason & Revelation, 13:74-77, October.

Merrill, E.H., (1978), An Historical Survey of the Old Testament
(Phillipsburg, N: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Morris, Henry M. (1974), Scientific Creationism (San Diego, CA:
Creation-Life Publishers).

Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker).

Morris, Henry M. (1989), The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker (1987), What Is Creation Science?
(San Diego, CA: Master Books), second edition.

Morris, John D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master
Books).

Packer, J.I., Merrill C. Tenney, and William White Jr. (1980), The
Bible Almanac (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Riegle, D.D. (1962), Creation or Evolution? (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan).

Rohl, David M. (1995), Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York:
Crown).

Sears, Jack Wood (1969), Conflict and Harmony in Science and the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Thiele, Edwin (1977), A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan).

Thompson, Bert (1982a), �The Day-Age Theory: Another False Compromise
of the Genesis Account of Creation,� Reason & Revelation, 2:29-32,
July.

Thompson, Bert (1982b), �The Gap Theory: Still Another False
Compromise of the Genesis Account of Creation,� Reason & Revelation,
2:45-48, November.

Thompson, Bert (1994a), �Popular Compromises of Creation�The Day-Age
Theory,� Reason & Revelation, 14:42-44,46-47, June.

Thompson, Bert (1994b), �Popular Compromises of Creation�The Gap
Theory,� Reason & Revelation, 14:49-56, July.

Thompson, Bert (1995), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL:
Apologetics Press).

Unger, Merrill (1973), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI, Zondervan).

White, J.E.M. (1970), Ancient Egypt (New York: Dover).

Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lansing,
MI: Inquiry Press).

Young, Edward J. (1964), Studies in Genesis One (Nutley, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1999 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be
republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be
used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations
are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original
publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be
noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the
article must be included with any written reproduction of the article;
(4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some
illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the
intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be
reproduced from our site without consent from the person or
organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6)
serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several
parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made
available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7)
articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included
in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in
electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited
or altered from their original written content and that credit is
given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the
articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without
source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of
the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org