Review of Christian Race Realism

Review of Christian Race Realism

Thomas Allen

Below is a review of Christian Race Realism (Sacra Press, 2025) by Michael Spangler. I found this book to be a disappointment primarily because of its weak Scriptural arguments. Yes, he shows that the human races are real and important. However, beyond that, he mostly agrees with the Christian racial nihilists. My review of this book is posted on Amazon. 

The Achilles heel of all race realists, whether they claim to be evolutionists or, especially, creationists, is monogenesis: All humans are descendants from the same set of parents, i.e., Adam and Eve or their evolutionary equivalent. Until they abandon monogenesis for polygenesis, which the Scriptures support, they are doomed to fail.

Spangler is a monogenist and an evolutionist who disguises himself as a creationist.  Although he shows that the human races are real, he claims that they change over time. Consequently, they are only temporarily real; eventually, they will transition into another race. That is, today’s Aryan (White) and Negro (Black) races will morph into a different race within a few centuries or so. Likewise, the other races will change into different races. Accordingly, human races are malleable, which conflicts with Jeremiah 13:23 (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). By claiming that today’s Negroes are descendants of Ham, who was an Aryan, he supports the mutability of the races, which is evolution. (To fit the typical biblical theory of the advocates of a young-earth and universal flood, like Spangler, Ham’s descendants have had to have evolved into Negroes within a few generations. If their theory is true, why have we not witnessed one race changing into another race during the last several millennia?) Thus, he is an evolutionist, although he asserts that he is a creationist.

One of the several errors that Spangler makes concerns Ruth. He claims that she was a Moabite by ethnicity. She was not. She was ethnically an Israelite who was born in Moab (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different ‘‘races” arise (from Noah’s family)?’” by Thomas Allen.).

Although he opposes interracial marriages, he does not consider miscegenation a sin (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Claiming that miscegenation is not a sin is another one of his errors. However, he does claim that using poor judgment is a sin, and marrying outside of one’s race is using poor judgment.

Review

Spangler argues that the various human races are real, hence race realism. The primary target of his argument is the Christian race nihilist (my term, not his). Christian race nihilists believe that human races are social constructs and, therefore, do not exist biologically, or that human races do exist but are irrelevant. 

Spangler supports his argument with Scripture, nature (physical attributes, language, culture, morality, religion, intelligence, and location), and history. He does a much better job of supporting his position with nature and history than with Scripture, which is pathetic. Nevertheless, he does show that the Scriptures treat the races as real and important.

Since Spangler’s arguments promoting race realism are directed primarily at Christian race nihilists, his Scriptural arguments should have been extremely strong, but, alas, they are weak and often agree with the Christian race nihilist. Like Christian race nihilists, Spangler is a creationist-evolutionist (to use an oxymoron), i.e., kind after different kind, like beget unlike. Also, like them, he is somewhat of a Lamarckian. One of his major problems is that he cannot free himself from the orthodoxy of all humans having a common ancestry. 

Additionally, Spangler discusses the confusion caused by the term “race.”  Among other things, it can mean all mankind, one of the major biological divisions of humans, an ethnicity, or a nationality. Thus, “race” is an almost useless term. At times, he seems to succumb to this confusion.

Spangler discusses interracial marriages in some depth, but he avoids the Scriptural condemnation of miscegenation. Instead, like Christian race nihilists, he does not consider miscegenation a sin. Nevertheless, he shows that God is a segregationist and is not an egalitarian.

Furthermore, Spangler gives an excellent explanation of the difference between civil rights and natural rights. Most civil rights granted in the last several decades have been detrimental to the common good.

Also, Spangler explains that discrimination and prejudice are not inherently sinful. He urges praising and protecting racial differences.

Spangler offers several recommendations. (1) Race realists should read books and articles on race. (2) Race realists should defend race realism; he provides advice about how to do it. (3) He calls for completely destroying the idol of egalitarianism and repenting of the notion that races are not real and unimportant, etc. (he provides a long list of things for which Blacks and Whites need to repent). (4) People should honor their extended family, i.e., their race (the fifth commandment). (5) People should not marry outside of their extended family. He explains why. (6) Children should be taught race realism, its importance, and the importance of segregation. (7) He offers advice on several political issues: immigration, crime, segregation, employment, suffrage, and self-defense. (8) Ministers and the church should teach race realism.

Although Spangler is a race realist, he seems to want to compromise with the Christian race nihilists. Unnecessarily, he concedes many points to them rather than rebuke them.

Nevertheless, Spangler is right about one thing: Race realists must be telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, why do they cause race nihilists, especially Christian race nihilists, to go into hysterics? After all, race realists have no power or influence in the church or government.

In conclusion, Spangler does show that the various human races are real rather than social constructs. They are important in the eyes of God, and, therefore, should be important in the eyes of man. Unfortunately, he does a mediocre job of proving that Christian nihilists are incorrect Scripturally.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Religious Thoughts

Some ReligiousThoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the wisdom of John, “person” as used in the Trinity Doctrine, “kind” meaning “species,” and the Catholic Church as a cult.

More Wisdom of John

I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do not recall, and who died in 2012. He was a lay clergyman. He made two observations about people who claimed that God told them to do something. First, if any of these individuals ever heard God speak to them, they would likely be overwhelmed and drop dead from the shock and awe. Second, if God really was telling these people to do the things that they claimed He told them to do, then God must be suffering from schizophrenia (informal, figurative usage). He tells one person to do X and another person to do anti-X. That is, He tells one person to do one thing and another person to do the opposite. More than one clergyman has said, “One should be skeptical of people who claim that God told them to do something.” Many clergymen note that God ceased giving revelations in the first century AD; therefore, anyone who claims that God revealed something to him should be viewed with suspicion. (For more on the wisdom of John, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

Person

Trinitarians use the word “person” in a technical sense instead of its common, everyday sense. To them, the Godhead is three “persons” yet one “person.” That is, they used “person” to mean one entity (or God) and three entities. To say that the three persons are manifestations of one person is Modalism. To say that the three persons are independent is tritheism.

Common sense and logic dictate that three persons (such as Peter, Paul, and Mary) are three distinct individuals or entities; they are not one person or entity. However, adherents of the Trinity Doctrine call common sense and logic heretics because three persons are one person.

When a Trinitarian explains the Trinity Doctrine, he must tread carefully between Scylla and Charybdis to keep from crashing on the rock of Modalism and being swept away by the whirlpool of tritheism.

Kind

Some “creationists” claim that the term “kind” in the Bible  corresponds to what modern taxonomists refer to as “family.” It does not mean species. 

These creationists advocate the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. They deny the immutability of a species, i.e., “according to its kind” or “after its kind” — like begets like.

However, the Bible uses the term “kind” to refer to what modern taxonomists define  as “species.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 4327, “kind” means “species.”

Is the Catholic Church a Cult?

In “Revival of Early Christian Heresies: A Comparative Study of Early Christian Heresies and Mormonism,” Christian Jeo N. Talaguit gives two attributes of a cult: (1) "[a] cult . . . harbors an authoritative leader or governing body that can demand obedience from its followers due to its claims as divinely ordained” and (2) “[a cult advocates] the continuous revelation from God and mankind.”

The Pope is the authoritative leader who can demand obedience from his followers. Also, through the Pope and ecumenical councils, God continues to reveal doctrines that are not taught in the New Testament. Thus, God revealed the doctrines of the infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and purgatory, among others. Since Protestants reject these Catholic doctrines, they are obviously heretics.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Christians and Creationism

Christians and Creationism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The addendum was added in 2025.]

The discussion below shows that many Christians who claim to be creationists support Darwinism, that the breed-of-dog analogy fails to support the argument of all humans descending from Adam and Eve, and that the only living thing that Eve can be the mother of the Adamites, Aryans, or Whites, if Darwinism is false.

Are Christians Really Creationists?
Are Christians true creationists or are they Darwinists? Whether a Christian is a creationist or a Darwinist, i.e., an evolutionist, can be discovered by simply asking him if all the races (species) of men are descended from Adam and Eve. If his answer is yes, he is a Darwinist. If it is no, he is a creationist.
Today, most taxonomists are lumpers. That is, if two otherwise different animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they should be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the dog (Canis familiaris), the gray wolf (C. lupus), and the dingo (C. dingo) used to be considered different species. However, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, taxonomists have lumped them together as Canis lupus. The coyote and jackal have not yet become part of C. lupus. (However, a dog can also breed with a jackal [C. aureus] and a coyote [C. latrans] and produce fertile offspring. Likewise, a wolf can breed with a coyote and a jackal and produce fertile offspring.)
Some other species that can mate and produce fertile offspring are the gaur or Indian bison (Bos gaurus) and the gayal (Bos frontalis), the American bison (Bison bison) and the yak (Bos grunniens), the American bison (Bison bison) and the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus), the American bison (Bison bison) and the domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and the Przewalski's horse or Mongolian wild horse (Equus przewalskii), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and llama (Lama glama), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the lion (Panthera leo) and the leopard (Panthera pardus), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Several of these interbreeding species are of different genera. Most likely, the Clymene dolphin, formerly called the short-snouted spinner dolphin  (Stenella clymene), is a hybrid species of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Another possible example is the red wolf  (Canis rufus) and the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon). Some zoologists believe that the red wolf and eastern wolf are really hybrids of the gray wolf and the coyote. If the red wolf becomes a hybrid, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. (A true creationist would argue that the reason the red wolf appears to be a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote is that God created the red wolf using DNA similar to that which He used in creating the gray wolf and the coyote.)
Another example of two species mating and producing fertile offspring is the Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The Cuban crocodile has become an extremely endangered species, partly because the American crocodile and the Cuban-American crocodile hybrid are breeding it out of existence. (We are seeing a similar scenario being set up to exterminate the White race. In the United States, the American Negro has been a chief weapon in this destruction. However, the American Negro is being destroyed by being used to destroy the White race. Nevertheless, the death of the American Negro is acceptable collateral damage to rid the universe of an evil far greater than Satan: the Aryan race.)
Some creationists admit that different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. According to them, such interbreeding is how new species or kinds, as they like to say, came into being. For example, Anas poecilorhyncha and A. platyrhynchos are two species of ducks that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although these two species do not normally come into contact with each other, when they do, they interbreed. Their offspring is so viable that it is recognized as an independent species, A. oustaleti.
Many Christians believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings. These angelic beings interbred with human women (Adamites) and produced fertile beings, the Nephilim. Many non-Christians and New Agers also believe that angelic beings mated with humans. Since the Nephilim were alive centuries later at the time of Moses, two things are proven: The Noachian Flood was not global, and the Nephilim were fertile. Thus, angelic beings of the spiritual realm mated with human beings of the physical realm and produced fertile offspring. According to the lumper’s primary criterion for defining a species, angels and humans are of the same species.
This absurdity shows that the ability to produce offspring should not be the primary criterion for determining a species. Contrariwise, the inability to produce fertile offspring should be used to disqualify creatures from being classified as the same species, instead of the ability to produce fertile offspring being used to classify them as the same species.
Likewise, the same is true of DNA. (Do spiritual beings have DNA?) DNA should be used to exclude rather than to include. If two similar groups have similar DNA, it is because the Creator used similar DNA in making similar groups, i.e., species or kinds as many creationists prefer to use. Therefore, because Aryans, Turanians, Melanochroi, Negroes, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians have similar DNA and can produce fertile offsprings when they interbreed does not make them the same species. (Have Khoisans and Indo-Australians ever interbred and produced fertile offspring?)
One interesting aspect about using DNA to determine species is the water buffalo or domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). This species consists of two subspecies: the river buffalo with 50 chromosomes and the swamp buffalo with 48 chromosomes. These two subspecies can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with 49 chromosomes.
Like orthodox evolutionists, creationist Darwinists reject the notion of the fixity of species. Both orthodox evolutionists and creationist Darwinists believe in the mutability of species. Their primary disagreement is the starting point and time required for one species (or kind) to change to another species (or kind). Another major difference is that orthodox evolutionists believe that life began by some kind of spontaneous generation, while creationist Darwinists believe that life began by some kind of divine creative act.

Breeds of Dogs
Many creationist Darwinists point to the more than 300 breeds of dogs to support their claim that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Most contend that all the species of Canis (the gray wolf, including the domestic dog and dingo, the coyote, African golden wolf, Ethiopian wolf, Eurasian golden jackal, Asiatic wild dog, African wild dog, black back jackal, and side-striped jackal) descended from a common pair of parents. Some claim that all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyote descended from common ancestors; that is, all the species of the Canidae family have a common pair of initial parents. Thus, these so-called creationists resort to Darwinism to expand the origins of species. God merely created the initial parents from whom these species evolved (developed, as these creationist Darwinists like to say). If true, their assertion that all humans descended from Adam and Eve easily supports that the biological races of men are different species: They evolved (or developed) into different species from common parents.
As for the breed of dogs, they are artificial creations. With perhaps a few exceptions, they do not occur naturally. Breeders have developed them by breeding dogs with traits that they want. Breeders keep the offspring that have the desired traits and cull the rest. They keep breeding the offspring until the offspring breed true with the desired traits. Where is the evidence of such an authoritarian program in the development of the various human species, races, and breeds? If the dog breeder analogy is accurate or has merit, then God would have selected offspring from Adam and Eve and bred them to produce the desired racial traits and would have destroyed those who did not have the desired traits.
If Occam’s razor (“simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones”) is applied, the simplest solution is having God creating the parents of each race. That is, each biological human race is descended from a different pair of parents. Fewer assumptions are involved in this explanation of the species of men than the evolutionism offered by creation Darwinism. Moreover, it is more Biblical.
In the nineteenth century, before political correctness gained control of science, anthropologists and others could discuss the races of men and their hybrids with an honesty and frankness that cannot occur today. Some anthropologists concluded that some human hybrids lack fecundity to survive for more than a few generations, if that long. That is, if the hybrids did not breed with one of the parent stock, they would die out within a few generations. In On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo (edited by C. Carter Blake; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, Paternoster Row,1864), Dr. Paul Broca summaries some of these studies. He comments (page 61):

Zoologists have, in each of the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognised several types which they denominate species.
The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species. In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

Eve: Mother of All Living
In Genesis 3:20, the Bible calls Eve the mother of all living. From this statement, most creationists infer that all species of men are descended from Adam and Eve. (According to the “two seed” theory, only some humans are descended from Adam and Eve; the remainder is descended from Satan and Eve.)
If the passage that Eve is the mother of all living is literally true, and it has to be literally true if all species of men descended from Eve, then evolution (or perhaps devolution) is proven, and Chapter 1 of Genesis is wrong. If Eve is the mother of all living, then all animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, bacteria, and archaea are descended from her. The passage does not limit “all living” to only humans: That is merely an unsupported inference. Thus, evolution is not from a primitive single-cell creature toward the complex human. It is the opposite, i.e., from the complex human to the most primitive single-cell creature, which is more correctly devolution. (Consequently, the theory held by many creationists that life on earth is degrading or devolving is supported.) To avoid this absurdity that all living things descended from Eve and the contradiction of Chapter 1 of Genesis, the most appropriate interpretation of this passage is that all Adamites, Aryans, or Whites are descended from Adam and Eve — and nothing more.

Addendum

The following are additional species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

1. A goat (Capra hircus) bred with a sheep (Ovis aries), an ibex (Capra ibex), or an aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) produces fertile offspring. 

2. A domestic sheep (O. aries) bred with an Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), mouflon (O. musimon), or big horn sheep (O. canadensis) produces fertile offspring.

3. A mouflon  (O. musimon) bred with a big horn sheep (O. canadensis) or a urial (O. vignei) produces fertile offspring.

4. Two species of mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus, can produce fertile offspring when mated.

5. Two other species of mice, P. leucopus and P. gossypinus, can also produce fertile offspring when crossed.

6. A llama (Lama glama) bred with an alpaca (L. pacos) produces fertile offspring.

7. Two species of barking deer, Muntiacus reevesi and M. muntjak, can produce fecund offspring.

8.  Two species of chinchillas, Chinchilla brevicaudata and C. laniger, produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. 

9. Guinea pigs, Cavia aperca and C. porcellus, produce fertile offspring.

10. Two species of chimpanzees, Pan satyrus and P. schweinfurthii, can interbreed and produce fecund offspring. 

11. Two species of leaf monkeys, Pithecus chrysomelas and P. cruciger, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

12. A slate-colored junco (Junco hyemalis) bred with white-winged junco (J. aikeni), Oregon junco (J. oregonus), and gray-headed junco (J. caniceps) produces fertile offspring.

13. A pig (Sus domesticus) can breed with a wild boar (S. scrofa) or banded pig (S. vittatus) and produce fertile offspring.

14. A domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus), red jungle fowl (G. gallus or G. bankiva), Ceylon jungle fowl (G. lafayette), gray jungle fowl (G. sonnerati), and Javan jungle fowl (G. varius) can all interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. 

Copyright © 2019, 2025, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Strata.[10] Moreover, the orderliness of the sedimentary strata testifies against a violent global flood. The strata are not homogeneous. They consist of successive layers that differ widely in their contents and character. They are not a jumbled confusion. Land animals are not found in the same strata as fishes. Neither are extinct species found with present species. They lie methodically, each in its own successive sedimentary deposition. If the fossil record was caused by a global flood, one would expect to encounter a jumble of animals: Land animals mixed with fishes; freshwater creatures mixed with saltwater creatures. The orderliness of the fossil record does not support a global flood.
    The thickness of the sedimentary strata ranges up to 10 miles or more. They give the appearance of gradual accumulation over a long time. Each stratum contains organic remains that differ from the previous strata.
    Grand Canyon.[11] The Grand Canyon argues against the young-earth-global-flood theory. According to this theory all the layers above the crystalline basement, the Vishnu Schist, formed as a result of the Flood. This theory also contends that each layer formed rapidly and was followed rapidly by another layer. By explaining the formation of a single layer, many young-earth creationists assume that they have explained the deposit of all the layers.
    According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Tapeats Sandstone is the first layer of the Grand Canyon deposited by the Flood. This sandstone shows ripple marks. Thus, the water causing the ripples must have been less than 5.5 feet per second (3.75 miles per hour). According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the minimum velocity of the flood waters was 131 feet per second (89 miles per hour). Therefore, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Tapeats Sandstone.
    Just above the Tapeats Sandstone is the Bright Angel Shale. This layer consists of alternating layers of sandstone and sandy limestone. According to conventional geology, a fluctuating dispositional environment with changing current speeds is needed for this type of formation. It results from the low water currents of a changing shoreline. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, flood waters grew deeper at the beginning of the Flood; therefore, at this point of the Flood, fluctuating shorelines would not have occurred. Thus, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Bright Angel Shale.
    The Temple Butte Limestone also presents a problem for the young-earth-global-flood theory. The eastern part of the limestone is composed of freshwater limestone. It contains fossil remains that belong only to freshwater fish. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, freshwater should not have existed at this point of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flooding theory cannot account for the Redwall Limestone. Limestone needs calm waters to form. The global-flood theory calls for turbulent flood waters. Also, this layer is up to 535 feet thick, which suggests an extremely long period of calm water.
    The Hermit Shale resulted from a swampy environment. It is soft and easily eroded. The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to predict a swamp on top of 2000 feet of sediment in the middle of the Flood. Above the Hermit Shale is another 2000 plus feet of sediment.
    Most of the other formations in the Grand Canyon also present problems for the young-earth-global-flood theory. Many of these formations suggest a shoreline environment of advancing and retreating water. They do not suggest steadily increasing water depths as the young-earth-global-flooding theory predicts.
    Moreover, the fossil record in some of these formations contradicts the global-flood theory. Fossils of land animals are found in layers where they should not occur if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct. (The Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone are discussed above.)
    If a single flood event had formed the Grand Canyon, one would expect to find the upper layers made of fine material and the lower layers made of coarse material. Yet layers of coarse material lie on top of layers of fine material.
    Also, the Grand Canyon contains layers of limestone. Limestone strata have never been found in flood deposits of any magnitude.
    Moreover, as the first deposited laid by the Flood, fossils of mammals and dinosaurs would be expected to be found in this sandstone. They are not. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, then fossils of dinosaurs, mammals, and other land animals and plants should occur near the beginning of the Flood and be found in the lower layers. They are not. They occur above 2000 feet. Furthermore, fossils of dinosaurs and mammals have not been found in the Grand Canyon, although fossils of reptiles and plants have.
    Igneous Petrology.[12] Igneous petrology also argues against a global flood. Igneous petrology is the branch of geology that deals with the development, emplacement, and crystallization of molten rock material, magma, within or on the surface of the Earth.
    Many examples of magma intruding between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock and crystallizing into igneous rock can be cited. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood. Thus, these intrusions occurred during or after the Flood. The massive granitic batholiths of California, Idaho, and British Columbia illustrate the fallacy of the young-earth-global-flood theory. These magma intrusions were so massive that they required hundreds of thousands or even a million years to cool. Such rocks rule out a global flood of a few thousand years of age. They also argue against a young earth of no more than 12,000 years old.
    Volcanoes.[13] The remains of many volcanoes argue against a global flood several thousand years ago. Volcanoes exist that are older than the Flood. They show no evidence of being subjected to a highly erosive flood a few thousand years ago.
    In Southern France, cones of ancient volcanoes remain. These cones are composed of loose, light material. They show no signs of ever being exposed to rushing or even moderate flood waters.
    Fossilized Record.[14] Dinosaur tracks have been found in lacustrine deposits. If the Flood accounts for the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock, how could dinosaurs have left their footprints? Were they walking around in the water so torrent that it could move blocks of material weighing thousands of tons? Why were not these tracks washed away by the highly turbulent flood waters?
    For example, dinosaur tracks have been found in the Kayenta Formation in Zion National Park, Utah. They were left in sand and silt deposited in slow-moving, intermittent stream beds. These tracks were not left by dinosaurs in the middle of the Noachian Flood.
    Likewise, fossil tracks of scorpions, millipedes, isopods, and spiders have been found in the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon. Young-earth-global-flood proponents claim that the Noachian Flood made all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary sandstone deposits. However, studies have shown that many of these footprints could only have been made on dry sand.
    Furthermore, fossilized flowering plants argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossilized flowering plants. This formation rests on top of more than 10,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. How could such plants have survived so long in a turbulent global flood? How could they survive so much sediment? Why do fossils of flowering plants not appear in the Grand Canyon, where deposits predate the Cedar Mountain Formation? This formation also contains fossils of dinosaurs. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Cedar Mountain Formation formed toward the end of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flood theory predicts that both plant spores and pollen should be dispersed throughout the geological strata. They are not. They are found in distinct layers in succession. Pollen only appears in the upper, younger, layers of rock. Pollen from nonflowering plants, like pines, appears before pollen from flowering plants, like oaks. Only spores of ferns, mosses, and similar plants appear in the lower, older, layers of rock. Thus, the lower strata contain only spores. The higher strata contain spores and pollen from both flowering and nonflowering (gymnosperm) plants. In between, the strata contain spores and gymnosperm pollen. Furthermore, spores of many extinct plants appear only in the lower layers of the fossil record. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, they should also be found in the higher levels. Spores of similar size and shapes as those of these extinct species are found in the upper layers.
    Young earth creationists claim that the Noachian Flood created most, if not all, of the fossil record. The  Karoo Supergroup in South Africa is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrates. The fossilized animals range in size from a small lizard to a cow with an average size being about the size of a fox. If all these animals were alive at once, an average of 21 of them would inhabit every acre of land on earth. If the Karoo Supergroup contains 1 percent of the fossilized land vertebrates, then at least 2100 living vertebrates must have inhabited each acre on earth on the eve of the Flood.
    Moreover, the quantity of shellfish on earth just before the Flood would have conservatively covered the earth to a depth of at least one to five feet. Chalk is mostly made of fossilized shellfish. High quantities of shellfish fossils are also found in many limestones. Chalk, limestone, and similar rock account for about 20 percent of the sedimentary rock.
    Also, fossils arrange themselves in well-defined zones. They are sorted by type instead of size and density as the global flood theory predicts. That is, trilobites, both small and large, are found in one layer. Nautiloids and ammonoids are found in another layer. Their shells have buoyancy chambers, which makes them very light. However, they are never found in the upper layers of the strata as the global-flood theory would predict. Conversely, turtles, which are large and dense, are found only in the middle and upper layers; they are never found in the lower layers as the global-flood theory predicts.
    Another argument against the young-earth-global-flood theory is fossilized charcoal or fusain. They could not have been formed during the Flood because fire cannot burn under water.
    Yellowstone Fossil Forests.[15] A stratum in Yellowstone Park disproves the global flood theory. The stratum at Specimen Ridge contains 27 successive forests destroyed by lava and ash. Enough time was needed for each forest to mature and then be covered by lava and ash. Time was needed for the lava and ash to weather into soil before the next forest could grow. Moreover, the deposit containing these trees is 3400 feet thick. At least 20,000 years are needed for these events to occur. At most only one of these forests could have been destroyed during the Flood. Even this is doubtful. Trees uprooted by a flood are usually stripped of their roots and buried on their sides. The trees in these fossilized forests stand upright and have complete root systems. Furthermore, these forests are set on top of several thousand feet of fossil-bearing rock.
    Ice Core.[16] Ice cores argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. By counting annual layers, scientists have dated ice cores from Greenland to be more than 40,000 years old. If a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago, one would expect to find signs of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, and other evidence of a catastrophic global flood. Such evidence is not found.
    The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to provide a satisfactory answer for fossil coral reefs, evaporite deposits, lacustrine deposits, fossilized eolian deserts, chalk beds, conglomerates, ancient volcanoes, igneous intrusions, and the fossil record. These geological facts are difficult for the advocates of a global flood to explain away. Other geological facts are impossible to explain away. These geological facts also argue against a young earth, and many of them could not have taken place within the time allocated by the young earth theory.
    The above discussion is not intended to preclude catastrophic events that have global effects. Ample evidence exists that shows the occurrence of such catastrophic events. Many, perhaps most, large fossil deposits may have resulted from such catastrophes. Catastrophes may also explain many geological anomalies. Such an event probably occurred around 3200 B.C. although it was not a global flood like the one described by the young earth creationists. The geological record shows that such a flood could not have occurred so recently. Moreover, much of this evidence shows that the earth must be much older than 12,000 years.
    A major problem that many young-earth creationists seem to have is difficulty in distinguishing geology from biology. They seem to believe that if the earth is more than 10,000 or 12,000 years old, evolution is proven. (Ironically, when describing the origin of human races, many creationists resort to Darwinism. Also, many young-earth creationists support the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. Unlike conventional evolutionists, who believe that many generations are required for one kind to become another kind, these creationists believe that only a few generations are needed. Thus the primary disagreement between the two is not one of the basic principles so much as it is about starting point and the time required for a new species to evolve.) Evolution can be disproved biologically independent of geology.
    If the reader wants more detailed discussions of the above geological evidence against a young earth and a global flood a few thousand years ago, he should consult the references in the endnotes.

Endnotes
10. Smith, pp. 211-212.

11. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 2,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy2.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter.

12. Hayward. Isaak. David A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 177-185.

 13. Smith, p. 265.

14. Burky. Hayward. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 1,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals – Creation Magazine, The Coconino Sands (Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood),” Jan. 24, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/coconino.htm, Dec. 18, 2014. Senter. Smith, pp. 211-212. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 88.

15. Hayward. Weber. Greg Neyman, “Yellowstone Petrified Forests,” March 6, 2003, www.answersincreation.org/yellowstone.htm.

16. Isaak.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More religious articles.

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    The most popular creationist theory maintains that God created the earth and universe about 6000 to 12000 years ago. This theory is commonly called the young-earth or young-earth-global-flood theory. Also, this theory claims that a global flood, the Noachian Flood, occurred about 2100 to 8000 B.C.[1] with an average of about 3200 B.C. According to this theory, all, or at least most, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock resulted from this Flood.
    Below some geological evidence is examined to see if it is compatible with the young-earth-global-flood theory.
    Coral Reefs.[2] Coral reefs argue against a global flood. Coral reefs are structures that are built up slowly. Slow growth rates would be incompatible with reef formation during a brief period of the Flood year. Reefs generally grow only a few centimeters per year under ideal conditions.
    Advocates of a global flood claim that the fossil reefs were antediluvian reefs that were eroded and redeposited during the Flood. They claim that enough time has elapsed since the Flood to allow the formation of the currently existing reefs. However, this position is untenable.
    Could a reef that is almost 1000 feet thick and several miles in diameter be a redeposited antediluvian reef? Could any kind of flood dislodge and transport such a large structure without smashing it to pieces? Hardly. Yet the cataclysmic global-flood theory demands such action, for all ancient fossil-containing rock is, according to this theory, the result of a global flood.
    Furthermore, in the Midwest, these gigantic reefs lie on top of other carbonate rocks, which in turn lie on top of sandstone that is 300 feet thick. These reefs would have had either to remain suspended while the carbonate rocks and sandstone were deposited, or else to be transported to and deposited on top of these rocks by a force powerful enough to move these gigantic reefs, but gentle enough not to disturb the sediment, which would not have had enough time to solidify within a few weeks or months of continuous violent rushing water. A flood powerful enough to move these reefs would certainly have disturbed the sediment. Moreover, could a flood violent enough to keep such a gigantic reef suspended allow material that was of much finer grain and of a lower density to be deposited under it? Floods generally deposit larger objects before they deposit smaller ones. Smaller objects tend to remain suspended longer.
    Another piece of evidence that these reefs were not redeposited is that none are upside down. If a violent flood had transported these reefs, surely at least one of them would have been deposited upside down. All the evidence shows that these reefs grew in place over an already deposited carbonate sediment.
    Reefs grow only in lightly agitated warm water. They do not grow under turbulent conditions such as floods. Violent conditions, such as hurricanes, destroy them. The flood described by advocates of a cataclysmic global flood would have been much more violent than any hurricane and would have utterly destroyed these reefs.
    Furthermore, cemented coral reefs grow only a few millimeters per year. Coral atolls, e.g., Eniwetok atoll, and barrier reefs, e.g., the fossil Rainbow Lake reef in western Canada, are formed from cemented coral and require tens of thousands of years to reach their present size. Conventional geologists estimate that the Rainbow Lake reef required 160,000 years to grow to its present size.
    Evaporite Deposits.[3] Evaporite deposits argue against a global flood that occurred a few thousand years ago. Evaporite deposits contain minerals that are soluble in water, such as halite (sodium chloride or table salt), sylvite (potassium chloride), calcite (calcium carbonate), limestone (calcium carbonate), gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), potash (potassium carbonate), borax (sodium tetracarbonate) and Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate). According to the generally accepted theory, these deposits are formed slowly by gradual and repeated evaporation of salt water. Such deposits can occur when an arm of a sea is cut off from the ocean.  The water evaporates, and then the depression refills with water from the ocean. This cycle is repeated several times.  The typical deposit of evaporites requires the evaporation of thousands of cubic miles of seawater.
    Some examples of evaporite deposits that required thousands of years to form are the Castilian evaporites (8000 sq. mi.) in Texas, the Zectstein evaporites in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, and the Gulf of Mexico evaporites. According to conventional geology, the Castilian and Zectstein required hundreds of thousands of years to form. For the Castilian evaporites to form during the year of the Flood would have required the varves of calcite and anhydride to be deposited 260.000 times in one year. Most likely, about 260,000 years were needed to form the Castilian evaporates.
    Another example of a large evaporite is the Mediterranean basin. In the distant past (six to eight million years ago, according to conventional geology), the Mediterranean dried up several times. As it dried, it formed evaporites — calcite at the rim and rock salt at the deepest points. Successive drying produced evaporite deposits a thousand feet or more thick. Sediment now covers much of the evaporites. However, the weight of the sediment has forced the evaporites up in places to form salt domes. Some of these domes are a few miles across and thousands of feet deep. A global flood a few thousand years ago cannot account for this phenomenon.    
    If a violent global flood happened, it most likely would have dissolved these most soluble salts. A turbulent flood should have mixed these soluble minerals with clastic sediments. Unfortunately for the young-earth-global-flood theory, clastic minerals are usually not found in evaporites. Further, pieces of evaporites are not found in clastic sedimentary deposits above or below evaporite deposits. If the global-flood theory were valid, evaporite fragments should be found in these sedimentary layers.
    Moreover, evaporite deposits could not have been formed as a result of the flood waters evaporating and leaving behind a precipitate of salts. Evaporites are found buried under thick clastic sediments not on the surface. Evaporites simply cannot be accounted for by a rapid, one-year process. The great thicknesses involved suggest slow deposition over considerable time.
    Sedimentary Rock.[4] The sedimentary rock record argues against a global flood. Although many examples of sedimentary rock formations show evidence of having been formed by moving water, many examples of deposits also show that they could not have formed at all in surging flood waters.  These include sedimentary deposits that were evidently formed in lacustrine (lake) and desert environments.
    Moreover, the volume of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock argues against a recent global flood. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing rock resulted from the Noachian Flood. The volume of fossil-bearing rock is 157 cubic miles as compared with 336 cubic miles of water on Earth. Such a mixture would result in a thick, creamy mixture of mud in which no fish could survive.
    An example of a sedimentary rock formation that could not have formed during the Noachian Flood is the Raymond Formation. It is less than a mile thick, but it contains more than 30,000 alternating layers of sandstone and shale. (Shale is formed from clay, and sandstone, from sand.) Turbulent flood waters keep clay suspended, yet it had to deposit clay during the Flood to form this formation. (Clay only settles in very calm water.) During the Flood, alternating layers of sand and clay had to be deposited within minutes. This process had to be repeated 15,000 times. Such action is an impossibility under the conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Limestone.[5] Limestone argues against a young earth and a recent global flood. Limestone is made of the skeletons of microscopic sea animals. About 1.5 pentagrams (1.7 billion tons) of limestone are deposited annually in the oceans. If ten times this amount were deposited for 5000 years, it would account for less than 0.02 percent of the limestone deposits.
    Chalk Beds.[6] Chalk beds like the 1329 feet of chalk at the cliffs of Dover, England, argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. Chalk is a calcium carbonate formed from residues of amorphous shell deposited from ocean oozes. It is a soft powdery limestone consisting mostly of fossil shells of Foraminifera.
    Conventional geologists claim that millions of years are needed for the formation of deep chalk beds like the one at Dover. However, according to some geologists, chalk deposits generally form at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year. Thus, at least 4050 to 40,500 years are needed to form the Dover chalk bed. Even at this rate, much more time than the 371 days of the Noachian Flood is needed. Using the most rapid formation calculations and assumptions, young earth creationists have lowered this time to 75 years — still more than 371 days.
    Whatever the time required for chalk beds to form, they could not form during the Noachian Flood. According to the young earth creationists, the flood current ranged between 89 and 179 miles per hour. Chalk forms in calm, shallow water. It cannot form under flood conditions. The particles are too small to settle at the speeds estimated for the Noachian Flood and would remain suspended and would eventually dissolve. Thus, if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, chalk beds should not exist.
    For example, the Niobrara Chalk of North America contains more than 100 bentonite beds. Thus, 100 periods of deposition during calm periods are needed to form these beds. Such calm periods could not have occurred under the catastrophic conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Conglomerates.[7] Conglomerates argue against a global flood a few thousand years ago. Conglomerate is a sedimentary rock containing rounded pebbles of various sizes up to the size of boulders cemented with fine-grain rocks like sand.
    Large deposits of conglomerate are found on top of sandstone and other fine-grain sedimentary rock of thicknesses up to several miles. An example of such a conglomerate is the sea cliffs near Marseilles, which contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. Under flood conditions, conglomerates are deposited before sand and other fine-grain material.
    Moreover, a sharp boundary is often found between a conglomerate and the underlying sandstone. Thus, the sand must have hardened into sandstone before the conglomerate deposited on top of it. How could a flood deposit both layers in quick succession?
    Lacustrine Deposits.[8] Supporters of a global flood claim that lacustrine deposits occurred during the waning stage of the Flood. The gradual upheaval of the surrounding terrain formed vast sedimentary basins. Shallow turbidity currents carried soft sediment and organic slime into basins to form laminated sediments. This explanation may explain some lacustrine deposits, but not all. Some lacustrine deposits are covered by thick unconsolidated sediments, which would suggest that the Flood was still active in these areas long after it ceased to be active in others.
    An example of a lacustrine deposit is the Green River Formation at Flaming Gorge, Utah. A million thin layers of varves make up this formation. Deposits from several different contemporary lakes make up the Green River Formation. If the varves at Green River formed at the same rate as that of the Swiss lake example used by young earth creationists, 1.2 million years are needed to form the Green River Formation.
    Fossilized Eolian Deserts.[9] Fossilized eolian deserts argue against a recent global flood. Eolian deserts are sand dune deserts. They are composed predominately of quartz sand. The sand is well-rounded with a frosted surface. Clay and mica are usually absent. A good deal of time is required to erode bedrock to sand and to blow it into dunes. Moreover, desert deposits require dry land to form. Thus, the Flood could not have formed them.
    Examples of ancient fossilized deserts are the Old Red Sandstone that stretches from the British Isle to the White Sea in Russia and parts of the Grand Canyon (the Coconino Sandstone, see below). These sandy deserts could not have formed during a global flood. Also, some of these sites contain evaporites.
    A fossil desert in southern Utah, the Navajo Sandstone, which is between 1600 and 2000 feet thick, was formed from windblown sand. It is not mixed with the mud that lies beneath it. Thus, the Flood could not have formed it; a desert could not have formed in the middle of a global flood.
    Furthermore, the Navajo Sandstone and the strata above it contain fossils. According to young earth creationists, the Navajo Sandstone formed during the middle of the Noachian Flood. Unfortunately for them, dinosaur footprints have been found in the sandstone — at a time when all dinosaurs and all other land animals that were not on the ark should have been drowned.
    Also, above the Navajo Sandstone are the Entrada Sandstone, which contains desert dune sandstone, and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is a marine deposit about 200 feet deep. Next comes the thin Summerville Formation, a siltstone formed in a lake or lagoon environment. Then comes the Morrison Formation followed by the Dakota Sandstone, which resulted from a beach environment, and the Mancoa, which formed from a shallow marine environment. As all these deposits are above the Navajo Sandstone, they were deposited after the Navajo. Moreover, the Navajo Sandstone is above all the layers of the Grand Canyon.
    The Morrison Formation is known for its dinosaur fossils and footprints. This formation sits above 11,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. That is, it is 11,000 feet above the first horizontal layer of the Grand Canyon, which according to the young earth creationists, was the first layer laid down by the Flood. At the time that this formation was formed, no dinosaurs should have been alive according to young earth creationists.
    Another desert-created sandstone is the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. The Coconino is 315 feet thick and was created in a desert environment from wind-blown sand dunes. This sandstone contains fossils. According to the young earth theory, the Noachian Flood formed the Coconino Sandstone. Above the Coconino Sandstone are two fossil-bearing rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and Kaibab Limestone.
    For these three strata to occur according to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the waters would have had to recede to form the sandstone. Then it would have had to return to form the layers of limestone. However, according to the Biblical account, the waters rose and then receded. The account does not suggest cycles of water rising and then receding. The desert formation of the Coconino Sandstone argues against its formation during a flood and against a young earth.
    In Mongolia, dinosaur fossils are found in eolian sandstone. Thus, those dinosaurs died in a sandstorm instead of drowning in a flood. The young-earth-global-flood theory would predict them to have died of drowning.

Endnotes
1. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1988), pp. 171-174.

2. Christopher Gregory Weber, “The Fatal Flaws of Rood Geology," Creation Evolution Journal, 1, no. 1 (1980) http://ncse.eom/cej/l/l/fatal-flaws-flood-geology, Dec. 18, 2015. Davis A. Young, Christianity & the Age of the Earth (Thousand Oaks, California: Artisan Sales, 1988), pp. 84-86.

3. Richard Burky, “Are Geologic Strata the Result of the Biblical Flood?” Grace Communion International, 1990, https://www.gci.org/science/burkyl, Dec. 18, 2016. Mark Isaak, “Problems with a Global Flood” (2nd ed., 1998), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord, Dec. 18, 2015. Weber. Young, Christianity, pp. 86-87.

4. Alan Hayward, “Flood Geology and Related Fallacies,” https://www.gci.org/science/hayward8, Dec. 18, 2015. Isaak. John Pye Smith, The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London: Henry G. Bolin, 1854), p. 77. Young, Christianity, pp. 87.

5.  Isaak.

6. Isaac. Greg Neyman “Creation Science Rebuttals – Can Noah’s Flood Make Any Chalk Beds?,” Jan. 28, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/nochalk.htm. Dec. 18, 2015. Phil Senter, “The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The Ironic Demonstration That There Is No Trace of the Genesis Flood in the Geologic Record,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31.3 (May-June 2011), 1.1-1.14.

7. Hayward.

8.  Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 5,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy5.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Young, Christianity, p. 88-89.

9. Burky. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – The Desert Problem,” Feb. 2, 2003  http://www.oldearth.org/desertproblem.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals Technical Journal (TJ) – The Navajo Sandstone,” Dec. 29, 2005,    http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/vl8/TJ18_navajo_san..., Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 3,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy3.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 4,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy4.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 91.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles