Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth
Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of ‘billions of years’ of Earth history.

But look at the problems this concept involves:

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.

This should be a lesson for those today who teach that Christians should compromise the plain meaning of the Bible to fit with ‘science’. Aside from placing fallible human opinion as an authority above the infallible Word of God, it just doesn’t work and paves the way for more departure from Scripture.

This still doesn't answer why books put out in the last 5-10 years still contain supposed evidence for evolution that was thrown out over a century ago. It makes Wells problem small and insignificant in comparison to what Evolutionists are doing in the educational system ith their lies and deception.

I wonder if this is the reason that there is no issue with Creation in Britain, there are no acredited British scientists that accept creation as even a plausability!

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

Chickens are amazingly complex creatures, with their hollow bones, intricate feathers, four-chambered heart, continuous air intake, high metabolism, complex brain, good hearing, superb color vision, etc. Everything about a chicken suggests careful design.
— John Morris, Ph.D. | (4611 views)

The Scriptures indicate very clearly that sea dragons were part of the original creation and are mentioned as being alive and flourishing even after the time of Noah's flood. For instance, in Psalm 74:13 we read, "Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters."

What an opportune time to use the wealth of materials now available to teach children the TRUTH about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs did NOT live millions of years ago; they DID live beside people; they DID go on Noah's Ark; they ARE mentioned in the Bible; they DID live after the Flood (Job 40:15-24). There is MUCH evidence that they have lived up until quite recently. God CREATED all animal types. Dinosaurs did NOT evolve, and there is really NO mystery about what happened to them.

In chapter 19 of the Charig book, A New Look at the Dinosaurs, the author discusses what may have happened to the dinosaurs. He lists many of the dozens and dozens of theories people have come up with. For example: They may have eaten too much and died of overeating; the meat eating dinosaurs ate all the plant-eaters and then themselves died of hunger; gradual warming of the earth led to premature cataracts in the eyes of the dinosaurs—they became blind and perished before they were old enough to reproduce.

In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." .

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.

So what it essentially seems to mean is that nobody can question what you say about evolution on this thread.

I also disagree with the idea that there is no useful information to be gained about a subject from someone who does not know about the subject.

talk about how many of the evolution textbooks are teaching the children about 100+ year old hoaxes by evolutionists.

If that is the case then your school system is fcuked... OK so lets clean up the books. Give your schools more money so they can buy current books.

Reading this book with a background in biology, I find that Johnson either profoundly misunderstands or seriously misrepresents not only the theory of evolution (which is actually a very complex web of theories, but Johnson has a knack for oversimplifying) but the way science itself operates. Johnson appeals to the layman's misunderstanding and mistrust of evolution, and of science in general, but is still unable to explain why the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as fact, even the ones who are not atheists. In the course of his attack, he uses misdirection, innuendo, and misrepresentation and omission of evidence.
Johnson rests his case on two rather shaky assumptions: first, that absence of evidence is evidence is absence, and second, that the fossil record truly has an appalling absence of evidence for evolution. Not only has the fossil evidence always been better than Johnson leads the reader to believe, but the evidence continues to be found, not only in paleontology, but also in the fields of genetics, developmental biology, and molecular biology.

Johnson is remarkably unimaginative when it comes to ways to test evolutionary theory, aside from pointing to gaps in the fossil record. Johnson goes into detail about the origin of mammals from reptiles as the "best" evidence of major transitions in the fossil record, yet there is abundant evidence from other groups, much of it published and available in the literature long before Johnson's book. One has to wonder how Johnson deals with the truly startling recent fossil discoveries in China.

Evolution is tested by each new fossil discovery. Yet Johnson dismisses the existing evidence while neglecting to explain why new evidence keeps turning up. Amazingly, Johnson ridicules the discoverers of a whale fossil with hind leg bones for using standard scientific wording, then uses this wording to imply the leg bones they found might not even belong to the whale fossil in the first place! Johnson attempts to discredit physical evidence, such as the transition from reptiles to mammals, so that he can concentrate heavily on biological systems, such as the eye, which by their very nature cannot be studied in the fossil record. He often asks questions like "how did a bacterium become a bird?" but doesn't ask "how did a jaw bone become an ear bone?" presumably because this can (and has been) studied and documented. Johnson will grudgingly concede a certain amount of speciation or "macroevolution." Johnson's actual claim is that evolution and natural selection are incapable of explaining the origins of higher-level groups like phyla, classes, and genera. Here Johnson makes the twin mistakes of assuming that phyla and other major groups evolve, and that the boundaries between higher level taxa are easily defined. Species evolve; higher groupings are artificial and the recognition of discrete groups with large gaps between them is in large part an artifact of taxonomic classification.

As do all creationists, Johnson completely overlooks plant evolution. Johnson is not entirely at fault here, since plant evolution has been woefully neglected by the popularizers of evolutionary biology like Dawkins and Gould, and Johnson himself admits that general and popular publications have been among his primary sources of information. In particular, I wonder how Johnson would deal with the huge number of plants that are fully capable of hybridization--both between species in the same genus, and between species of different genera, often wildly different in morphology, yet in many cases producing fully fertile hybrid offspring. Johnson further makes the mistake of assuming that species are both easy to recognize and to define. Such basic concepts as "species" and "speciation" are incredibly problematic in botany, precisely because evolution is an ongoing process and there are many populations representing the full spectrum from fully interbreeding through incapable of interbreeding--in other words, at every point along the road to speciating.

In the end, it's hard to know exactly what Johnson DOES believe, and he gives precious few clues as to what evidence he WOULD accept as convincing that evolution has occurred. I suppose it's progress that Johnson does not claim a literal interpretation of Genesis, or that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old. Although he takes pains to distance himself from the young-earth creationists, Johnson takes very personally the anti-creationism, pro-evolution, and occasionally anti-religious writings of many biologists that have been aimed precisely at the rightly-ridiculed "scientific" claims of the young-earth creationists. One wonders why Johnson gives credence to geologists--after all, nobody actually SAW the sedimentary layers being laid down millions of years ago--yet treats the science of biologists with such disdain.

This book is yet another case of a creationist (Johnson broadens the definition to include pretty much everybody who believes in God) pointing out errors, flaws, and weaknesses in evolutionary theory that biologists have made no effort to hide--yet failing to stem the tide of evidence that continues to unfold for evolution. In the end, Johnson's attitude seems to be that, since biologists themselves can't agree on all of the details of evolution, the theory itself must be wrong. Yet all biologists accept (1) that life has a long history on the earth, (2) that living things have changed over time, and (3) that living things have diverged from a common ancestry.

One final note: in the "epilogue" in the paperbook edition, Johnson complains about his treatment at the hands of evolutionary biologists. In particular, he complains bitterly about a book review by Stephen Jay Gould, in which Gould criticized both the style as well as the scientific content of the book. In other words, Johnson is complaining that a book reviewer is acting like a book reviewer, precisely as he had previously criticized a scientist for acting like a scientist.