March 1981

Only one pair?

Dear Sirs,

There are a number of questions relating to the early chapters of Genesis that you might be able to comment upon. Perhaps they don’t relate directly to the fact of Creation, but arise when one reads the passages.

Firstly, if we believe that God made only one man and one woman—did he make only one pair also of the other forms of life? The oft repeated statement “be fruitful and multiply” seems to support this view.

Following this then, what are we to conclude about plants and trees etc? Do we believe that God clothed the whole planet with grass and trees, or did everything spread from the “garden that God planted in Eden”?

Do we assume that God made great huge trees already full grown with an “appearance of age,” as we believe about Adam, or did God perhaps begin all these things with seeds? (refer Gen. 2:5, 9).

If we assume that God clothed the whole planet with full grown plants and trees than what is special about the garden that He planted in Eden?

Finally, if we take the view that the ¹⁴carbon producing rays were not able to penetrate the atmosphere prior to the Flood then the huge forests, that we presume would have grown by that time, and which, through the Flood, became our coal, would not have absorbed any ¹⁴carbon and therefore appear to be older than 50,000 years. More importantly would it not follow that after the Flood the level of ¹⁴carbon in the atmosphere would be so low that trees at that time would absorb very little and therefore show greatly distorted ¹⁴carbon “ages”? Wouldn’t this then lead to the belief that only post-flood fossils should show any ¹⁴carbon aging at all?

L.K. Appleton,
Woodridge, Brisbane.

Dear Editor,

As a recently converted Christian, and one studying geology full-time at university, my access to creation-scientific books and articles has been somewhat limited, both because of limited time to read the material and limited amounts of material to read. The result is that I’ve had to do much of my own thinking on the topic of Creation; usually while lectures are in progress and while I am trying to separate fact from evolutionist assumption.

The accompanying paper arises from some of my own thinking on the subjects of radioactive decay and plate tectonics in relation to the Genesis record. Some or all of what I’ve written may be wide of the mark when it comes to deciphering from the evidence what happened during Creation Week and the Flood.

Consequently you may or may not choose to print what I’ve written. In either case I would appreciate comments on the ideas from the Creation Science team.

Angus Shaw,
Armidale.

Ed. Note: Keep up the good work, Angus.

Dear Sir,

Just a note to express my concern too for a T.V. program on Creation. Why should David Attenborough be allowed to present such a false concept to the public on Creation. Please accept our contribution from our family towards a program which will present the truth to a public who so badly need it.

W.K. Fraser,
Port Lincoln, S.A.

Ed. Note: The first part of this massive undertaking is underway. One weeks preliminary research & photography in the Brown Coal of Victoria has already been done. Did you know that these deposits consist largely of pine trees and pine trees don’t grow in swamps? The evolutionary theory of coal forming slowly in a swamp over millions of years just couldn’t be further from the truth concerning these Brown Coal deposits.

This and much, much more concerning these flood deposited coals, needs to be captured in full color.

Don’t just sit there and say “Great!” . . . join us with prayers and dollars and you’ll see that T.V. program on Creation which is so much needed.