ENG

Deutschland online bookmaker http://artbetting.de/bet365/ 100% Bonus.

In Papers
Christian Center for Science And Apologetics
Commonwealth International University 
International Conference

The Impact of Darwinian Ideology on the Sciences, Education and Society

Yalta, October 15–17, 2009

PROGRAM

Session OneOctober 15, 2009, 3:00–6:00 pm

    Conference Opening

Bruce Little (USA), Ph.D. (Philosophy of Religion), D.Min., Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. Science, Darwin and Christianity.

Igor Savich (St. Petersburg, Russia), Ph.D. (Biology), President of “Concordia” Foundation. The Semblance of Reality or Nine Key Arguments of the Evolutionary Worldview.

Vladislav Olkhovsky (Kiev), D.Sc. (Physics & Mathematics), Professor, M.Div., Nuclear Physics Laboratory Chief at the Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. On How Scientific the Two Biological Doctrines are.

Richard Carhart (USA), Ph.D. (Elementary Particle Physics), Professor. DarwinismFact or Speculative Theory?

Protopope Konstantin Bufeyev (Moscow, Russia), Ph.D. (Geology and Mineralogy), member of the International Academy of Sciences, Leader of Missionary and Educational Centre “Shestodnev” (Six Days of Creation), Rector of the Temple of the Dormition of Our Most Holy Theotokos in Arkhangelskoye-Tyurikovo. Darwinism as Anti-Christian Teaching: How the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church Viewed It.

    Discussion of Papers

Session Two. October 16, 2009, 10 am – 1:00 pm

Ivan Klimishin (Ivano-Frankovsk), Ph.D (Physics and Mathematics), Theoretical Physics Department Chairman at the University of the Carpathian Region, Professor at the Theological Academy of the Byzantine-rite Catholic Church of Ukraine in Ivano-Frankovsk. How Darwinists Evade Discussion.

Steve Woodward (USA), Ph.D. (History), Professor at Texas Christian University. Darwinism and the American Eugenics Movement.

Yuriy Bodrov (Kursk, Russia), Psychiatrist, Substance Abuse Doctor, Psychotherapist. Darwinism Through A Psychiatrist’s Eyes.

Rayisa Kanevets (Kiev), Engineer (Hydrogeologist), Employee at the “Institute for Issues of Origins and Evolution of the Universe and Life.” Darwinism as a Challenge to God and Its Impact on Society.

Blythe Robinson (USA), Ph. D. (Clinical Psychology),  Ph.D., Psy.D., Medical Hypnotherapist. The Psychological Uniqueness of Man: A Rebuttal to Darwinism

Aleksander Poberezhny (Kursk, Russia), Ph.D. (Philosophy), Professor of Philosophy at Kursk State Academy of Agriculture. Evolution Theory and the Ideas of Radical Constructivism.

    Discussion of Papers

Session Three. October 16, 2009, 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm

Valentin Zhalko-Titarenko (Kiev), M.D., Senior Researcher at the Institute of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Comparing the Darwinist Phenotypic Approach to Evolution With the Informational and Genetic Approach.

Rostislav Ogirko (Kiev), Ph.D. (Law); Professor at the National Dragomanov University of Pedagogy. Member of the Board of the “Institute for Issues of Origins and Evolution of the Universe and Life.” How Can Darwinian Monopoly Be Eliminated From the Educational System?

Wilson Turner (USA), Ph.D. (Electric Engineering), Professor of Engineering Science. Truth in a Postmodern Age?

Bogdan Rudyi (Kiev), M.Eng. (Microelectronics), Co-Founder and Executive Director at “Institute for Issues of Origins and Evolution of the Universe and Life.”Darwinized Science As A Theory Pit.

Stanislav Atanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan), B.A. (Theological and Christian Education). The Evolution of an Apostates Worldview.

Aleksandr Shpak (Kiev), student at International Solomon University, member of the “Institute for Issues of Origins and Evolution of the Universe and Life.” The Poison of EvolutionWhy Evolutionism Is Non-scientific and How it Contributes to Social Decay.

    Discussion of Papers

Session Four. October 17, 2009, 10:00 am – 1:00 pm

Oleg Trifonov (Minsk, Belarus), Ph.D. (Biology), Senior Researcher at the Scientific Research Laboratory of the State University of Byelorussia. Science, Darwinism and Faith in God.

Rick Deighton (USA), B.A., Entrepreneur, Church Minister. Catastrophic Consequences of Darwinism.

Yelena Lubinitskaya (Simferopol), B.A. (Germanic Languages), Project Manager at Christian Center for Science and Apologetics. Darwin Awards: Axiological Tragicomedy.  

Pyotr Pavlyuk (Odessa), D.Min., M.A. (Psychology), B.A. (Theology), Professor, President of the Institute of Humanities and Theology.  Charles Darwin’s Monstrous Fraud.

Georges Carillet (USA & Simferopol), Ed.D, D.Min., President of Commonwealth International University, Director of the Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Founder of International Association for Education “Man and the Christian Worldview.” Darwinian Ideology: a Worldview Lens Without Bounds.

    Discussion of Papers
    Conference Closing

In Papers
(A Year-and-a-Half Later, or Round II)
"... We challenge all with intellectual integrity to search for the truth, to search for an answer that they can live with, and to be willing to always reexamine the evidence in light of all the information available. Certainly, the personal, practical importance of the question demands it!" Terry L. Miethe

There is a great variety of living organisms: plants, animals, mushrooms, viruses... Where do they come from? There are two views.

According to the first point of view, all present-day species - bacteria, mushrooms, green plants or animals are related to each other. They originate from one common ancestor - the first living being, which was formed by itself from inorganic substances. All the variety of species we know and their different structures appeared as a result of the evolution - a developmental process that took hundreds of millions years. In the course of this evolution, a differentiation of living organisms took place, in accordance with the currently existing classes, orders and species.

According to the other point of view, all that exists (and ever did) originated from the "main types" of living beings that were created supernaturally. The created species originally were organized in an amazing way and could vary, with some limitations.

On May 24, 2002, in Kiev, the second round of scientific debates was hosted by the International Solomon University and the Kiev Bible Institute and supported by Institute for Zoology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU), Christian Center for Science and Apologetics (Simferopol) and Creation Science Society (Moscow). The topic for discussion was: "Macroevolution and progressive evolution - are they real?". The first round of the debates "Creationism and Evolutionism: Coexistence of the Two Paradigms Phenomena" took place in Kiev on December, 2000.

At the debate the evolutionists presented following reports:

Empirical Foundations of the Macroevolution Theory
Puchkov P. V. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)
Dzeverin I. I. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)
Dovgal I. V. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)

How Cladistics Helps Creationists, and How Real Macroevolution Processes Work
Radchenko V. G. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)

Some Methodological Principles of Studying Evolution
Kornjushin A. V. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)

Comparing the Vertebrates Structure with Other Types of Animals
Zagorodnjuk I. V. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)
Koroleva D. S. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)

Some Comments on Some Questions
Akulenko N. (Kiev) - Candidate of Biological Sciences (Zoology Institute, NASU)

The creationists presented the following reports:

Spontaneous Macroevolution of the Increasing Complexity or Intelligent Design (What Does the Science Say?)
Olkhovski V. S. (Kiev) - Doctor of Science (Physics)

Life Matrix: a Non-Traditional Approach to the Traditional Issues
Khomenko A. S. (Moscow) - MSc (Biology), Moscow State University

Molecular Similarity of Pseudogenes: Evidence of Evolution?
Paul Gibson (Dnepropetrovsk) - Professor of Genetics, Selection and Biometrics

Theory of Predestinal Systems
Zhalko-Titarenko V. P. (Kiev) - Doctor of Medical Sciences, Microbiologist

The Geological Age of the Earth in the Light of the Contemporary Catastrophism: Is Macroevolution Real from the Contemporary Geology's Point of View?
Lalomov A. V. (Moscow) - Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences

Before the debates started, Dr. V. P. Turov, the chairman, suggested that the two parties briefly describe their positions and specify some definitions. In particular, microevolution was defined as variability within population, and macroevolution - as a process of formation of new species with an increasing degree of genetic complexity. This eliminated some part of the confusion about terminology and helped avoid deflections from the set frame of questions.

The round table discussion followed the presentation of the reports, and the representatives of both parties had another opportunity to speak.

The goals of the debates were declared as following:
  • To present the pros and cons on macroevolution.
  • To differentiate between the presented arguments according to: their support by science, logical validity, and correspondence to faith.
  • To define the common ground and the problem areas.

For a number of reasons, the course of the debates often deviated from the set framework. The macroevolution advocates tried to prove it using a model of intraspecific variability (microevolution). The creationism advocates also switched the subject to the questions of the origins of life. So, the chairman had to remind the main topic of the debates.

Also, very slow progress was made in finding common definitions of the challenging issues (although some of the participants doubted it from the very beginning of the debates). The debates in most cases resembled a "strike exchange", and sometimes the arguments of the opposite party were just ignored. At the end of the debates, the parties made some compromise and "figures exchange". The evolutionists admitted that they do not have ultimate and reliable scientific evidence of macroevolution, and the creationists recognized that the fossil patterns in the sequence of geological layers of the Earth have a number of features that are difficult to explain within the framework of the Flood geology.

But later on, in the informal setting, the possibility of compromise became clear. So in the future, one can expect that, even if the opponents' positions do not become closer to each other, they will be mutually understood, and the participants will recognize their own problem areas.

What made it different from the previous round of the debates is that this time, the creationists did not only criticize their opponents' position, but offered their own constructive model that explains the variety in living nature (A. S. Homenkov's report).

At the end of the debates, the creationists formed the opinion that the evolutionists had practically no reliable scientific evidence of the macroevolution with the increasing genetic complexity. The evolutionists suggested some facts that were expected to indicate new species allegedly appearing (in the family of bees and in the family of bears). It turned out that those facts have never been supported by the genetic analysis, and gave no proof at all of an increasing genetic complexity.

However, it is quite possible that the opponents were also fully confident of their victory, as they left the debates. After all, one could hardly expect immediate and essential changes in the participants' positions. Much more important is the fact that some visitors in the audience for the first time in their lives heard a reasonable scientific arguments for the creation. Now that they know the evidence suggested by the both parties, they can choose for themselves the position with a better foundation.

It was encouraging to have some reports of the first round of debates (that took place on December, 2000) published. The planning committee of the debates is also going to publish some reports presented at the current round of the debates, and carry on a tradition of holding such meetings. The next debates will probably take place in December, 2002, and the topic will be "The Catastrophic Reorganization of Biocenosises in the Earth History".

Very soon we are going to post on the Internet some reports presented by both parties. See the Web-site of the Creation Science Society: www.creation.webzone.ru

A. V. Lalomov
Candidate of Geological Sciences
Supervisor of the ARKTUR Laboratory for Science and Research 

Andrey Goryainov

       Despite the extensive growth of the ecological movement in modern society, the question of its content and meaning is unclear today more than ever before. Different ecological schools offer diametrically opposite points of view in regard to changes in the environment, if that change is threatening to the human organism. In other words, does humanity have the right to live if its activity leads to destruction of the biosphere?
        In trying to answer these questions one should choose the starting point, that is the position from which one makes sense out of life, which thus will affect the answer. For this purpose one should have a clear understanding of a human kind, his future and why he exists. Depending on the answer, the environmental movement will be directed either at self-preservation of Homo Sapiens or at protection of other species from human influence. In both cases the main method of applied ecology will be to prevent the interaction of various populations of species, which is absurd in terms of ecology itself - a science which studies objective laws of interaction between those very populations.
        What is ecology today? In order to answer this question let us briefly examine the history of its origin and development. During the last quarter of the twentieth century rapid development of industry and agriculture brought about what later was called environmental ecological crisis. Already in the 1960s or 70s the degradation of the biosphere as the result of human influence became so obvious that it brought into existence a number of large environmentalist organizations. Originally the main motive for the formation of such organizations was the natural human desire of self-preservation1. Ecology was "chosen" as the scientific basis for the environmentalist movement.
        As a science ecology was developed under the influence of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and specifically his work Origin of Species... (1859), which speaks of the necessity of studying the "struggle for survival" and its mechanisms. The organism's interaction with the environment was interpreted as the driving mechanism of evolutionary development In 1866 German zoologist E. Haeckel, suggested the term "ecology" (from Greek oikos - house, place and logos - teaching, word) and defined it as a science which examined the interaction of organisms with their environment.
        Ecology originally inherited the whole set of contradictions which are characteristic of the evolutionary theory. For example, calculation of the ecological valence's parameters is linked to the concept of an organism's adaptation. According to definition, adaptation is a mechanism appearing as a result of evolution which enables organisms to adapt to changes of environment. But the changes themselves are considered to be the driving mechanism of evolution. Therefore, organisms should have perished in the very beginning of biogenetic evolution, because they had no adaptation mechanism which could have been formed much later as a result of the changes of the environment.
        With the accumulation of contradictions evolutionary ecology split into two principal trends - deep ecology (in the terms of a bio- and cosmocentric version) and anthropocentric social ecology (including the humanistic "green" movement), where evolutionary theory has undergone insignificant changes. As a rule, those changes concern philosophic conceptions of the evolutionary mechanism - its driving factor. Nevertheless, there is no clear differentiation between them and in practice we can observe syncretistic combinations of all trends at the same time. Partially it is connected with general problems of evolutionary theory which are equally insoluble for representatives of any ecological trend.
        Even the evolutionary conceptions of the origin and development of life on Earth, when being thoroughly examined, put ecologists before serious problem. From the perspective of supporters of evolution, if we could have influenced the development of events which took place long ago, by regulating the population of flora and fauna we could have preserved the world like it was millions of years ago. But then probably we would never have had a chance to see Homo Sapiens. That is why an attempt to suspend environmental changes is illogical according to the evolutionary approach.
        On the other hand, instead of suspending evolution we could have guided it into the direction necessary for man. In this regard a new term appeared in ecology - "control of evolution." But then, after ecologists had proclaimed the principal of anthropocentrism (which is absolutely unacceptable to the trend of deep ecology), it started to follow concepts which are indefinable from the point of view of science, and became an obvious philosophic-religious speculation2. Besides, in order to control and direct the course of evolution it would be good to know what actually is its driving mechanism (under the term, of course, that such a thing as evolution ever existed). So far, however, the real reasons of evolution are yet unknown3.
        It is possible that "direction of evolution" means planning the number of organisms, which have a negative impact on the biosphere's state. And since a human does not have any special value in relation to other organisms according to the definition of deep ecology, the population of Homo Sapiens is especially "guilty" before nature and should be controlled first of all and regulated by means of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, etc.
        In any event, in spite of their mutual antagonism, syncretism of deep and "social" perspectives on ecology is not uncommon. Despite the ecological revolution's global programs, the goal of which is to suspend the further degradation of the biosphere, the majority of ecologists (regardless of the trend they belong to) consider that the changing of the biosphere is fatal, and the present ecological crisis will unavoidably grow into ecological catastrophe4. The destruction of Earth's nature is inevitable, and a human is nothing but a "dying" species, whose morphophisiological and behavioral peculiarities do not meet the conditions of the environment. So, in essence ecology is artificially reproducing a dying species which, as you know, does not bring long-lasting success but only postpones the time of death4. Thus, the scientist's contribution to the progress of human knowledge; the doctor's struggle for relief from pain and sufferings; the diplomat's efforts to establish peace on the Earth; the sacrifices of people of good will for the benefit of the whole humanity - all this becomes useless. Ultimately none of them changes not even one iota. They cannot dispel the darkness and irretrievability of non-existence which all of us will have to experience. That is why our life does not have any ultimate deep meaning and anything we do is equally meaningless5. The conclusion of the inevitable end and meaninglessness of human existence to which scientists materialists came after examining our world turned out to be so frightening that for "human benefit" it was decided to not publicize the pictures of depreciated existence, because they deprive people of perspective6.
        As a result of the obvious "absurdity" of existence, typical pagan beliefs started to revive in ecology; they introduce the same outward appearance of meaning into nonsense. For example, in the biosphere the presence of special "informational" principals leading to the formation of order started to be perceived7. Many scientists denied the predominance of chance and the fatal pressure of environment, and saw purposeful streams of special energy which lead to unlimited perfection8. After erasing the qualitative boundary between animate and inanimate9, scientists started to discern in nature its creative sphere (natura naturans) and aggregate of forms of existence which exist in it (natura naturata). Thus, B. Spinosa's static pantheism was revived and became the basic doctrine of neoecology. In post-communist society these ideas received the home-made name Russian cosmism. The universe allegedly finally got an ultimate purpose, including our existence10, and problems of an evolutionary paradigm of the world's development seemed to be not that insoluble.
        Indeed, the viewpoint on the origin of life called "philosophy of life power" or "creative evolution" is at least more logical than Darwinian evolution. C. S. Lewis, a famous Christian apologist, wrote: People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a life-force. When people say this we must ask them whether by life-force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the life-force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you...11
       We see the question of a more logical position grows into a question of morality. Even if we suppose that the universe was created (but not by a Person), then such concepts like honesty, compassion, love are just illusions. Shirley McLaine, one of the founders of New Age, a movement with an analogous worldview, said: We are not limited by anything. We are just not aware of this12. The opinion of Linn White, one of the followers and theorist of environmentalism is even more categorical: We will keep facing the worsening of ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom according to which nature exists to serve humans13.
        Christian morals that formed European civilization began to be substituted by "morals" of ancient pagan religions - from worshipping the spirit (spirits) of nature (animals, plants, features of the landscape, etc.) to the cult of earth-goddess Gaea. The process of such re-orientation is accelerated by the general propaganda of ideas of neoecology, and thus - a new worldview. A reader can learn what these ideas imply in the handbook Well Body, Well Earth published by the famous environmentalist society Sierra Club. It suggests that readers should turn to Buddhist meditations and Native American Hopi rituals in order to reaffirm our bond with the spirit of living earth14. Besides, neoecology intends to exercise direct influence on human minds in the process of initial formation of personality and further in order to create (necessary) socio-psychological precepts15. This is already taking place in a number of schools.
        Unfortunately, not every legislative system has anything like the "Hatch Amendment" which forbids teachers to bring pressure on students in the area of psychology, politics, sex and religion. Under the guise of a good idea neopaganism easily finds its way to a de-Christianized educational system, functioning as a mild substitute for the discredited doctrine of atheism. With such a background it is natural that there is a growing interest in horoscopes, psychic phenomena, clairvoyance, spiritism and other elements of ancient cults; like ecology they clothe themselves in quasi-scientific terminology which is appealing to the "modern ear." The problem is also aggravated by the fact that neither students nor teachers have an elementary religious education; that is why they can neither distinguish the pantheistic nature of neoecology ideas nor resist them. Society keeps moving towards continuous demoralization.
        The Bible teaches that human responsibility towards nature is based on faith in the Creator of the world and everything that fills it, in Him who loves His creation and sustains it. A man who is created in God's image is God's fellow worker in the world (1 Cor. 3:9). Like his Prototype, man should love nature and take care of its orderliness, cleanness and well-being. This means that human authority over nature presupposes knowledge of it (science) and also sets forth some control over it (technology). But all this does not mean that man was given the right to abuse the "fruits of nature" and moreover to destroy it13. The Bible says that once the world was different, and every creature of God was good (1 Tim. 4:4). But man, who had free will to choose the way of life or way of death - the way to God or away from God, abused his free will (used his free will for evil). Since that time the creation was subjected to futility..., and the whole creation groans and suffers... until now (Rom. 8:20,22). We disobeyed our Creator when we thought that we ourselves could do and know everything. What happened with the world around us is a graphic example of where our self-confidence leads us. The only real alternative is to repent and accept the redeeming sacrifice of Christ. Only then the creation itself also will be set free from slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). What choice will man make now: the choice to come back to the Father or to deny Him forever?

1. Reymerse, N., Protection of Nature and human Environment. - Moscow: Prosveshcenie, 1992. - p.85
2. Laptev, A., Protection and Optimization of Environment. - Kiev: Lybid, 1990. - p.236.
3. G. Osborne. Science, #77, 1991. - p.1933. /Trans. from Russian
4. Reymerse, N., - p.28-29.
5. Craig, W., The Very Beginning. - Chicago: SGP, 1992. - 80 p. /Trans. from Russian
6. Reymerse, N., - p.168.
7. Glaser, R., Biology in the New Light. - Moscow: 1978. - p.154.
8. Antamonov, Y., Meditation About the Evolution of Matter. - Moscow: 1976. - p.168.
9. Aygen, M., Self-organization of Matter and the Evolution of the Biological Micromolecules. -Moscow: 1973.
10. Davies, P., Superforce. - New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984. - p.266.
11. Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity. - Chocago: SGP, 1990.- p.33.
12. Boa, K., Cults, World Religions and the Occult. - SGP, 1992. - p.228. /Trans. from Russian.
13. Orthodox Russia. July 15/28, 1992. - p.2
14. Kjos, B., Under the Spell of Mother Earth. - Whiton: Victor Books, 1992. - 224 p.
15. Reymerse, N., - p.37.

Pamphlet #11 (English). Translated from Russian by Inga Chistyakova
Published by: Christian Center for Science and Apologetics, 1996

Reprinting of this tract is allowed on the condition that a reference to the source is included

Rev.Timofei Alferov, Sergei Golovin, Dmitri Pobersky

       When Jesus in Cana Galilee turned water into wine, He repeated in a wink a great wonder of transformation that takes place every year all over the world since the days of Creation. An amazing mechanism in the grape vine absorbs water with its roots and sunlight with its leaves and then turns them into grape juice. Until recently (when pasteurization, preservation and refrigerators were invented) wine-making was the only way of storing drinks. As a rule it was a simple wine that was obtained by means of natural fermentation and had a strength around 12% vol.
        Given the method of preserving drink, it is no wonder that Noah after the Flood began to be an husbandman and planted a vineyard. But that fact has led to some unfortunate results for the whole human history:       

"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without... And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

(Genesis 9:21-25)

       From the description given above we can get an impression that the effect of taking wine was very unexpected both to Noah (we know "Noah was a just man and perfect", and that in every kind of society this means moderation and temperance) and to his family - only this assumption can explain such an inappropriate reaction of his younger son, for he already had children of his own. More than that, this trouble with Noah was the first registered evidence of alcoholic intoxication.
        Let's try to find some reasonable explanation of this fact. First we shall consider a mechanism of alcoholic (ethanolic) influence on a living organism.
        All effects that occur in the human organism as a result of ethanolic influence to great extent depend on the degree of acetaldehyde accumulation that occurs when ethanol is oxidized 1.
        We can show metabolism of ethanol in such scheme:
alf1


        Acetaldehyde is a very toxic substance and thus the grade of alcoholic intoxication as a rule is measured by the ethanolic concentration in blood, namely the acetaldehyde quantity in blood and the rate of its utilization can show us a clinical picture of alcoholic intoxication. An organism strives to get rid of free acetaldehyde as soon as possible through the oxidizing reaction with the resulting production of acet acid. This reaction requires ferment aldehyddehydrogenase as a part, which uses NAD+ (nicotinamid adenin dinucleotide):

drink
        NAD+ receives electrons from oxidized substrata (in particular, from acetaldehyde) and by means of a number of carriers transfers them to oxygen accompanied with generation of energy stored as ATP (adenosine triphosphate) 2. The process called biooxidation takes place in the cells' muthohondrias. Carriers of electrons are: NADFAD (flavic ferment), coferment Q (ubiquinone), citochromes bc1c and a.
        Oxygen is a final acceptor of electrons. When oxygen is insufficient (for instance, when its partial pressure in taking in air is reduced), the whole fermental system of biooxidation does not work at full strength. And a result is the moving of the reaction's (1) equilibrium leftwards with further accumulation of acetaldehyde in the organism and the developing of the effects peculiar for alcoholic intoxication, which are even stronger than with the normal quantity of oxygen.
        Lots of tourists visited the highlands of the Southern Caucasus and have personally experienced the burden of native "hospitality." Natives often involve them in a kind of a game that has became nearly an element of their culture. When you reject the invitation to accompany them in matching their drinking of wine, they call it disrespect for ancient folk traditions. The final aim of the fun is to drink the guest under the table, to get him to pass out in order to demonstrate the superiority of highlanders in comparison with lowland weaklings. The hosts, whose organisms are adapted to highland conditions, subconsciously use the effects of hypooxygen influence on alcoholic metabolism that appear when the atmospheric pressure decreases due to an increase in elevation of around two thousand meters.
        How did natural conditions change during the Flood? The majority of experts share the point of view that antediluvian Earth's atmosphere (which is called "firmament" in Genesis 1:7) was covered with a vapor canopy equal to 12 meters' layer of liquid water. Consequently, the collapse of that vapor canopy caused the rain to fall upon the earth for forty days and forty nights during the Flood 3. Due to the waters which were above the firmament that caused the greenhouse effect, atmospheric pressure was 1.14 atmospheres higher than it is today - more than twice as high! So before the Flood the alcoholic effect of dry wine may not have been any stronger than the effect of common milk fermentation products of today.
        The collapse of the vapor canopy surrounding antediluvian Earth's atmosphere caused the reduction of atmospheric pressure (and the partial pressure of oxygen dropped as well) more than twice. That certainly had an effect on alcoholic metabolism. So, alcoholic intoxication would have been at least a great surprise to Noah, if not the first such experience for all mankind. This is another indirect evidence of the Genesis record's credibility.

1 Rubin E., Cederbaum A.I. Effects of chronic ethanol feeding and acetaldehyde on mitochondrial functions and the transfer of reducing equivalents. - In: Alcohol and aldehyde metabolizing systems. New York, 1974. P.435-455.
2 Checkman I.S. Biochemical farmacodynamics. Kiev: Zdorovie, 1991. 200 p.
3 Dillow J. The Waters Above. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. 470 p.


Published by: Christian Scientific Center "Parthenit", 1995
Pamphlet #5. WHY DID NOAH GET DRUNK (English).
Rev.Timofei Alferov, Sergei Golovin, Dmitri Pobersky
Translated from Russian by Helen Booklersky

Reprinting of this tract is allowed on the condition that a reference to the source is included

Page 1 of 6

Download Template Joomla 3.0 free theme.