Tag: Evolution

“All you need to do is find a single fossil out of place!”

Once again, I recently received an unsolicited pelting of questions by an evolutionist online, in a Biblical Apologetics group no less. The descent into tension, as per usual, begins pleasant enough, where questions regarding my opinion are disguised as genuine interest, and after cautiously answering, and wishing the best of luck in further studies, trying to disengage peaceably, there are always follow-ups, and it becomes clear that no amount of either answering questions directly, or encouraging the other to keep studying, will redirect the vendetta that has now formed in their head; a personal mission to take on the stupidity of the bumbling, misinformed Christian.

The temptation is always to fire back; to ensure the opponent there are indeed answers; that good science can be attained, and understood, and that evolution’s theoretical, absurd processes propped up by goal-post moving and fudge factors casts very reasonable doubt. But as anyone on either side of the argument knows, answering back simply begets a follow-up attack, and at some point, hopefully before rising tensions, someone just stops answering. That voice inside tells you they must feel victorious if you quit the debate, but you also tell yourself, I am a grown man, spending my Sunday arguing with someone on line who has no desire whatsoever to actually learn what my opinion is, seems silly. He wishes to prove how dumb I am, so that he can feel superior in his belief. Why? Well same reason as me; it feels good to bolster your understanding of the world, gain faith by withstanding the onslaught of counter-points. And let’s face it, it serves the ego, does it not? But Darwinian evolution has, since its inception, always served a more sinister purpose; providing intellectual ammunition for those those who desire greatly to deny God. Charles Lyell, the inventor of the geologic column, wished to save the sciences from Moses, after all. And many scientists admit the absurdity of evolution, the missing transition fossils, the circular reasoning.

In this particular case, the debate was left when the evolutionist said, “All you need to do it find a single fossil out of place. Nobody has ever done that. This is your chance: just find a fossil that has life from two different geological periods in it. That would disprove evolution.
But nobody has ever found such a fossil. You believe this to be a lie, so . . . show me the evidence that it is a lie.”

Before this, I was stating the obvious facts of geology, that the geologic column exists truncated, out of order, and in no way resembles the geologic column so artfully cartooned in text books the world over. Furthermore, that fossils are found up and down, scattered this way and that, and are out of order all the time! Clearly, and as most geologists are coming around to, the layers we see were formed through catastrophe. Of course most still believe in millions of years, but with no erosion between layers, evidence of animals being buried suddenly, soft animal fossils, and geological sorting, catastrophe is now a staple of geologic observation. So where do they put the millions of years? In between the layers! Where there is no evidence!

Why? Because in the the scientific world’s mind, evolution is a naturalist foregone conclusion, the only acceptable explanation of how we came to be, even among believers in that field, and they have been taught that it is an immutable fact of science. Furthermore, each field of science is parceled off in particular areas of expertise. The biologists “knows” the paleontologist has proof, they in turn “know” the geologist does. The geologist trusts the anthropologist has proof, and so on… so every observation is cemented into an undeniable belief that Darwinian evolution is fact.

But no transitions exist when there should logically be MILLIONS! Think about it; slow gradual change through eons of time would produce animals in droves hardly discernable from one another. How is taxonomy even possible? Well, it would seem when we find an animal in the dirt, like soft bodied jellyfish, bats, or whales, they are always the fully formed version of itself, not what Darwin was expecting. To counter this obvious fact, many began promoting various versions of punctuated equilibrium; providing through mutation, great leaps forward in evolution to explain away the lack of evidence. Keep in mind, finding no evidence doesn’t make them question the veracity of evolution. It merely causes them to double down on a previously absurd and long denied process, but recycled in some new way, giving more power to time, and mutation then has ever been observed.

So why can an evolutionist spout confidently about there having been no out of placed fossils ever found? For one, Bill Nye, in his famous debate with Ken Ham, blurted this nonsense amidst the back and forth, and it was never one of the points specifically countered. It was then pounced on as some death knell to be wielded triumphantly over the moronic creationists. But secondly, and most importantly, evolutionists, under the guise of adjusting the evolutionary model to a growing knowledge base, have taken any out of order anomaly, and either denied it, quietly acknowledged it while as little fanfare as possible, or adjusted the model to explain away the observation in a way that could not hurt the theory. The greatest part about evolution is that any number of things could have happened 100 million years ago, and no out of order fact could possibly sink the faith in this religion. So unlike good science, evolution is not making accurate predictions about what we will find (it has failed miserably in this regard), but rather, because “we already know it is true” anything we find can be adjusted to fit into it without compromising the overall belief. Then it just becomes scientists arguing for the best order of things in an echo chamber, while doubters of Darwin stare in disbelief at the utter lack of cohesiveness.

An example, you say? Well, I am glad you asked. It is not surprising that fossils are being found in the “wrong place” all the time!

  1. We find them on the surface all the time. Just laying there, getting stepped over, millions of years, in rock that can be designated to the proper geologic level depending on what fossil is in it. “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.” J.D O’Rourke.
  2. “If there were a column of sediments … Unfortunately no such column exists.”
    Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Earth Science 1989, p. 326
  3. Even some of the most devout evolutionists are honest when confronting misplaced fossils; highly respected coauthor of the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Dr. Niles Eldredge, Curator, Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, since 1969, has written that the fossils cannot be used to date the rocks that they are found in. One reason for this is that we now know that all animal and plant kinds are found all the way “back” to the beginning of Cambrian layers.
  4. Cambrian layers we now know contain even vertibrates, the most complex forms of life, which it most certainly should not, but also contains every phylum we have a classification for, that appeared in full form, and vastly different than all the others. Imagine going from bacteria to a starfish, sponge, flatworm, crab, mollusk, and vertebrate, all at once! That is some powerful evolutionary magic right there.
  5. would the wrong place include living fossils? Animals found alive after being extinct for millions of years? Horseshoe crabs. Coelacanth. What about finding a living Wollemi pine that went extinct in the fossil recorrd 150 million years ago? Would that be considered the wrong place?
  6. To correct for finds that don’t fit, columns are corrected upwards, and downwards. The Nucha vancouverensis sponge, found in Canada, in a layer 220 million years old, was found across the world in a 500 million years layer with none between, and was corrected for.
  7. Grasses were not to have been formed until way after dinosaurs, but dinosaur dung was found to have grass in it. So it was corrected.
  8. Mammals were supposed to have evolved well after dinosaurs. But a large rodent was found with dinosaur babies in its digestive tract.
  9. Dinosaurs were supposed to have evolved into birds, a recent but latched onto theory, yet birds were found in wrong layers putting them together.
  10. Guadalupe woman and her modern burial site found in a layer 28 million years old certainly provides for a misplaced set of bones.

It takes very little effort to find sharks teeth in North Dakota, whale fossils in the desert, petrified closed clams on mount Everest, and a myriad of other finds that did not hit the expected targets of evolutionary thinking. This is to say nothing of carbon found in coal, diamonds, dinosaurs, which should not be there if millions of years old. A great testimony to good science was when carbon dating was first discovered, science kept a journal that accredited scientists could add to when things were dated, and a bunch of dinosaurs, and extinct animals made it in, before the concerted effort to not publish more than half of the results, once they realized the dates were compromising the theory.

Is it worth arguing back and forth with someone who is so sure nothing has ever been found out of place the world over that would topple the evolutionary house of cards? We know full well that every result will be crammed into some reorganized version, dismissed for the larger picture, taught in compulsory schooling with the drum beat of certainty, regardless of every prediction having fallen short. Evolution is a golden calf that, despite no evidence combating abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, the language of DNA and simultaneous ability for cells to read it, no transitions, and a dating set that has no solidarity whatsoever, will not die. Because as they have admitted, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons – JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]”
― Richard C. Lewontin

Language

Ignoring observations of flood features, and population growth, and DNA complexity, and the myriad of other science that can easily be interpreted to point to created complexity, we can take a brief aside, and consider language for a moment. The spoken word, beautiful in its complexity, freedom, and innovation, allows mankind an additional unique place above the animal kingdom.

As a Christian who believes in the authority of scripture, it is simple enough to consider man created in God’s image on day 6, and immediately engaging the Lord in conversation. The animals were named, the creation account was communicated, in order to be passed down, whether verbally, or in writing. We even see phrasing from Adam that he is utilizing language far beyond simple communication, and adding flair and poetry to his thoughts:

Gen 2:23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.”

Evolutionists, of course, must take the unenviable position that somehow animalistic grunts and noises, grew in complexity and became language, the record of which goes back the expected 5000 years of a biblical world view. Furthermore, the evolutionist must contend with the fact that it seems language is MORE complex the farther back you go, rather than less. In English, we can easily point to the 1600’s writing of Shakespeare, a study deemed so difficult that it has been all but abandoned by public schools, and is not even required reading for some English Literature majors in college. Even going back a century or two, and cracking open some classic literature, realizing they did not have google, or dictionaries, or thesauruses, and to witness the colorful and beautiful command of language that is being written, even an intelligent person of today can appreciate how elevated it used to be.

Beyond this though, language experts concede that Sanskrit, and other ancient languages, are more complex in their grammar, than our modern ones, though this fact is hardly publicized. The Société de Linguistique de Paris literally banned discussion on language origin, which lasted more than a century, because it conflicted with Darwin’s gradual processes, and was so filled with speculation.

The evolution of linguistics is an idea only, and has no evidence. And to further complicate matters, linguistic experts concede that multiple ancient languages arose unrelated to each other. Akkadian, Semitic, Sanskrit, Sumerian, and others; regardless of how you break it down, not only are they severely different, but they are all complex, and complete.

So the evolutionist, while denying that a creator had split tribes through language, must concede that multiple and different complex languages emerged within different people groups all over the world. This is to say nothing of the fact that within the ancient people groups, similar flood stories exist, indicating they all share the same history. There are over 270 ancient flood legends and traditions recorded in ancient history, 80% of them mention a large vessel saving the human race. 88% involve a favored family. In 70%, survival was due to the boat. In 95%, the flood was responsible for the death of mankind.

Again, I find myself in the pleasurable comfort of knowing the authority of God’s word matches easily with what I observe. Hopefully, this is a small building block of support and faith for you as well.

Stegosaurus

Let us consider the Stegosaurus.

This 8 to 10 ton reptile is worth considering as a fascinating piece of biological history, unique and fantastic. With two sets of bone plates extending vertically along the ridge of the backbone, and 4 large tail spikes, it possesses features no other creature has. Aside from how neat the reality of these are, we can also consider the implications in the fossil record.

Of course, evolutionists fully expected that some transitional forms would be found showing the gradual development of plates, and spikes. But like the dismal truth of all specialized creatures in the fossil record, no such transitions exist. After over a century of searching, in every case the animals appear abruptly, and in perfect form. We know this instinctively, of course, and yet are forced to continue considering the unfounded assertion of molecules to man evolution despite no evidence.

The absence of transitional fossils the world over was a problem for Darwin, and continues to be a problem for paleontologists today. But to add to the Stegosaurus observations, we will take a brief look at the magnificent jungle temples of Cambodia, produced by the Khmer civilization. Beginning as early as the eighth and extending through the fourteenth century A.D. one of, if not the greatest monarch and monument builder of this empire was Jayavarman VII, from 1181.

The relief carvings along the temple wall show various animals.

https://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

A monkey, parrot, lizard, water buffalo, swan, and of course this famous picture of the stegosaurus. Is it though?

Well, that would be the obvious conclusion from anyone who knew what a stegosaurus looked like, and happened upon the temple. Clearly this is a large lizard with plates along its back, and clearly there would not be many animals to choose from. Furthermore, none of the relief carvings are made up animals. But the temple was built in the 12th century, we are certainly not allowed to conclude that they actually saw one.

This is one of many ancient examples around the world of dinosaurs being depicted on pottery, tapestries, coffins, and walls all over the globe, all of which must somehow be dismissed and explained away. This one of course is no different, and the Smithsonian takes their shot at it in the 2009 article Stegosaurus, Rhinoceros, or Hoax?

In the article that can only be described as dripping with animosity against creationists, the author asserts that it cannot be a stegosaurus, and is more likely an animal surrounded by leaves, like it is in a jungle. Either that, or it must have been added later as a hoax. And to further back their claim that it MUST be something other than what it looks like, Creationists are described as those who “twist Biblical passages to support their view,” and “distort nature to fit a narrow theological view.” But calling it a bear with leaves, or saying it was carved as a joke with no evidence doesn’t sound like the creationist twisting and distorting to me.

To further back their disparagement of concluding the obvious, they invoke the evolutionary champion, Carl Sagan, and his quote: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” then further claim that evidence of dinosaurs living with man just doesn’t exist. Again I would reiterate that this is just one example of many all over the globe of every dinosaur we have a classification for being depicted in ancient art. But it is certainly ironic that they used Sagan, because the very same late evolutionist, Dr Carl Sagan, famous host of the Cosmos TV series, squarely faced the conundrum that dragon stories/art pose for evolutionists. Namely, that such stories and artifacts are found in cultures all across the globe (the strikingly realistic-looking brass behemoths adorning a 15th century cleric’s tomb in a UK cathedral, Icca stones T-Rex, and others), and that they are amazingly like several types of dinosaurs—which no one is supposed to have seen! Recognizing it quite properly as a puzzle to be solved for long-agers, he wrote a book about it, The Dragons of Eden. In this he proposed that somehow one part of our brain (the one that was inherited from whichever of our alleged reptile ancestors, in the evolutionist scenario, were living at the same time as dinosaurs) had retained its memories of what those ancestors had seen.

Did you catch that? The great Carl Sagan said that the art appears because our brains inherited the memories and images through our DNA through millions and millions of years and countless generations, from when we were just animals living alongside such creatures. So picture it now… as you are carving your wall, and forming a monkey, a parrot, a water buffalo, things you see each day, you add the exact form of one of the most unique animals known to man, with some of the most striking features along its back imaginable, because deep in your mind you were once a reptile that saw one. This passes for science? This evolutionist is held in high esteem while at every turn, the Christian who stands on the foundation of the word of God, and who can easily observe the evidence of its truth throughout nature, is being told that we are twisting and distorting facts?!

No where in the article is there any reasonable allowance whatsoever for the obvious reality, that it is what it looks like. Occam’s Razor, attributed to William of Ockham, is a principle that suggests the simplest explanation is often the correct one. The simplest, and most direct conclusion, based on observation, is that it is what it looks like. And so are the sauropods on the coffin in England. And so are the dinosaurs on the pottery in Peru. And on the Sant Jordi Tapestry, Plaza Sant Jaume, in Spain. And what’s more, Sagan knew this, and knew it so well that he felt compelled to address it. If the Smithsonian was being intellectually honest, it would acknowledge that, and perhaps spend its time coming up with a better explanation than us having the memories of when we were reptiles 60 million years ago, rather than berating Christians for accepting obvious observable data.

Should Creationists Be scared of Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics is an innovative physics field, the math of which is certainly beyond my expertise, and that has merit as a study of how sub-atomic particles behave and interact. But despite physicists’ insistence, specifically those dedicated to evolutionary processes, it concerns operational sciences rather than origins. And what we run into is the lesson told many years ago by Socrates, that the smartest of us often think themselves wisest because of expertise in one subject they deem most important. This is born out in the poor philosophical conclusions of Hawking, and others, in my opinion, and since they were wise in one area, and share a world-view with main stream scientists, their perceived intelligence and respected reputations prevented critical examination of their philosophical conclusions.

So much so that Hawking gets a pass when he says “because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing.” When he makes the truth claim that “free will is an illusion” without realizing he is admitting we have no reason to trust his own truth claims, including that one!

Or how no one bats an eye when Biologist, Richard Dawkins has to remind us to ignore the appearance of design during his never-ending campaign against a designer: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Without evidence of any kind, Dawkins appeals to faith-based occurrences beyond nature while in the same book, (God Delusion) smugly attacking Christians for doing the same: “There are probably ‘superhuman’ alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe.” “There may well be a plethora of universes.”

He is not rebuked for obvious circular reasoning: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us.” Brilliant. (insert eye-roll emoji.)

According to Socrates (and Plato) it is okay to be ignorant, because you can remedy it by learning. What is a dangerous enemy of knowledge is being caught in the illusion of knowledge while in fact being ignorant, because of pride.

In the age of google warriors, and misinformation, it is often those who are smart at one subject who have the strongest opinions about many others, especially that which they don’t know much about. (The fact that atheists and scientists would levy this same charge at me is not lost on me. I am a student of many things, but do certainly attempt to hang my world-view on an authority higher than my own whenever possible. That being said, I would stipulate that I am not immune to that criticism either).

Since Max Planck’s Nobel prize in 1919, Quantum Mechanics has been a tangent from classical physics (Newton) and was furthered by guys like Heisenberg, Einstein, and Bohr. The math supports the theories, and it solved problems that classical physics could not.

But here is where the practicality and the problems lie. When you examine the functions, the math shows that wave functions exist as a superposition of all possible states. In this way, we can describe the characteristics of a particle. This makes all positions true simultaneously, and each position inevitable. Extrapolated to the absurd, this acceptance that all possibilities are true is one of the reasons for atheist/evolutionary appeals to a multi-verse, yet another unprovable fudge factor needed to explain the Big Bang Model in naturalistic terms, due to how impossibly finely tuned our universe is. (Stephen Hawking tinkered with this idea late in his life).

It is already well documented in many works the dedication modern scientists have to materialism, evolution, and the anathema of Intelligent Design within the halls of academia; accept anything to prevent a “divine foot in the door”, even that which is absurd, by their own admission. This leads of course to faith in the impossible, the unprovable, the unobservable, and faith in these things, they persist, is supported by QM, because all possibilities exist at once.

In this New Age, or post-modern age, this leads to a morally relativistic view of QM, that reality should be taken as subjective, or based on the observer. Both Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism known as “the observer collapses the wave function,” and even the Schrödinger’s Cat experiment, a now famous pop-culture reference from the Big Bang Theory show, was actually a purposeful reduction to the absurd, as Schrödinger relied more on the law of non-contradiction, rather than relativism.

The basic, true laws of nature and logic, like causality, identity, non-contradiction, were not abandoned by the fathers of QM theorists, but has been popularized today as more and more appeals to a Godless universe meet headlong with direct observable facts that keep proving the Big Bang theory is poor science. Hence the need for faith based beliefs and fudge factors, such as dark matter, dark energy, the Inflaton, the multiverse, etc. You will notice, all of these fudge factors, the physicist and cosmologist must have “faith” in to keep hoping that the universe is Godless. But they do not attribute it to faith, as they lean on the crutch of relativity that QM provides for them. Since it is their specialized, elite field they hold in high esteem above the average plebian’s paltry understanding, they fall into the trap of valuing their elegant math-based conclusions over obvious empirical observations we see and understand every day. They surmise in their own minds every possibility is inevitable without God, as long as they don’t have to observe those conclusions today in real time. This appeal to deep time, or enough time, is the magic elixir poured into each opinion to add credence, and is done so with impunity, since this pillar of evolution is automatically ensconced in the public’s mind as “fact.” In this manner, they can criticize the Christian as ignorant, stupid, or insane (Richard Dawkins) while employing the same tactics themselves, faith being the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

When we speak in laymen’s terms, it boils down to very smart scientists and mathematicians being so hyper focused on the minutia of QM, that they miss the forest for the trees. This is of course coupled with utter dedication to the presupposition that inorganic evolution is true, as it must be if we are to believe that directionless, purposeless, unthinking inorganic material somehow create intelligent order. We are once again faced with this persistent axiom, Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Again, this is simply because all possibilities exist simultaneously, including one where there is perfect order.

Doctor of Physical Chemistry, Jonathan Sarfati, a respecter of Newton, science, and a creationist, states it this way: “It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory.”

Bottom line, QM works, has strong support, and is not a threat to creationism. In fact, some studies highlight its usefulness in nature, (sense of smell, photosynthesis, bird navigation). But with presuppositions on both sides, what we see is the confusing of QM with interpretations of QM. Luckily we have observable reality to rely on, and in that reality, we know how nature reacts unmanipulated by intelligence, and no amount of insistence that explosions create perfect order naturally will change that.

School Shootings

As Christians watching the events of the America, we sit back and wonder how henious acts of evil can be carried out by the youth of our country time and time again. We’d rather not face it, don’t really want to contemplate it; we offer prayers and try to move on, thankful that the blood was shed far from our kids, or are home, if in fact it was. We watched Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sante Fe, and others….now Oxford. And even if in our own minds, we have to develop a philosophy or reasoning behind the events. How come young men by the dozens who hunted with their dads back in the 60’s could pull up to a public school with rifles on the gunrack in the back of their pick up truck, and no threat was percieved, and no violent action resulted?

Aftermath of Oxford school shooting: Kids think they're going to die

As Christians watching the events of the America, we sit back and wonder how henious acts of evil can be carried out by the youth of our country time and time again. We’d rather not face it, don’t really want to contemplate it; we offer prayers and try to move on, thankful that the blood was shed far from our kids, or are home, if in fact it was.

PHOTO: Deadly Mass School Shootings Since Columbine

We watched Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sante Fe, and others….now Oxford. And even if in our own minds, we have to develop a philosophy or reasoning behind the events. How come young men by the dozens who hunted with their dads back in the 60’s could pull up to a public school with rifles on the gunrack in the back of their pick up truck, and no threat was perceived, and no violent action resulted?

As a Christian, I observe history, and trends, and the unfortunate results, and want to take this time to plainly state what I see. A country that committed to teaching evolution in 1959, during the space race, so that American students didn’t fall behind. That slowly moved from biological evolution as a way to explain man’s chance origins, to a universe described as completely materialistic, needing no designer, no creator, a cosmic accident. Academia insists with zeal that at no stage in the 14 billion year long accident to get from stardust to you as an individual, no one loved you, cared for you, wished you to be alive, or will care when you are gone. We teach children, inadvertently, but inescapably, that there is no purpose, no ultimate meaning.

Don’t believe me? Read the conclusions of prominent atheists after spending a career committed to materialism, and secularism:

William Provine says, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there any absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.”

Richard Dawkins recounts this in regards to a reaction to his book, The God Delusion: “A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism”. He also states, “Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos…”

Atheist chemist Peter Atkins says, “At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.”

Thomas Nagel: “It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now.”

Jon Casimir: “Here’s what I think. There is no meaning of life. The whole thing is a gyp, a never-ending corridor to nowhere. What is passed off as an all-important search is basically just a bunch of philosophers scrabbling about on their knees, trying to find a lost sock in the cosmic laundromat.”

Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre: “I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe… I was just thinking… that here we are, all of us, eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence and there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing.”

Can we not say that this world view is more prominent now than in 1959? Furthermore, in 1959, parents were involved, religious, engaged in this conversation. A generation later, maybe two, children were still being brought up in church, having the judgement of morality explained, taught not just right and wrong, but that wrong had far reaching, even eternal consequences.

An atheist today might say, I don’t believe in God, but I don’t want to blow off life, count it all as useless, hurt others. Generally though, this normal response to hurting others would be expected in most cases, as morality is written on our hearts, and seems to be objectively obvious. But I’d also point out that those same people are adults that chose to not believe, but in many cases had parents who took them to church, and exposed them to the possibility of eternal judgement, to a biblical God of the universe that may have to be faced; or at least to the reality of morals and empathy.

Today, we have a larger and larger group of young people in school who now may be 2 or even 3 generations removed from any biblical or moral foundation whatsoever, having never been exposed to the bible, or if so, only in ridicule as an archaic outdated myth which has no bearing on our life or actions. These thoughts will be fortified by the schools, and colleges, and parents who were indoctrinated by the same treatment. Furthermore, it is likely that these same children are surrounded by others who share or encourage this philosophy of moral relativism, maybe not for the same purposes, but who are more accepting of a godless worldview.

The reaction to atheistic conclusions will be varied, certainly. But being thus separated from a Godly worldview, many will believe to their very bones that their life is a chance cosmic accident. Reiterated by a publicly sanctioned, secular world view, this will in many instances determine how they behave. For some, it might mean hedonistic pleasure. For some, the only hope would be developing close relationships, often a boyfriend or girlfriend giving one all of their validation, and in many shooting instances, the cause of unrecoverable grief when it goes awry. And unfortunately for some, it may mean drawing the logical conclusion that no one is important, nothing matters, and no life is special or valuable. So in the interest of living big, claiming their place in a useless history, proving anarchy is as achievable as order, and showing the world just how purposeless and hopeless everything is, more and more are deciding to murder as a means of giving up.

Disagree? Too bleak? Note, that the Columbine shooting took place on Hitler’s birthday on purpose. One student was told he did not deserve the jaw that evolution gave him. One student was executed for admitting a belief in God. How many years can we choose to collectively teach young minds that no God exists, that you are nothing more than and evolved mammal that came from scum, and fish, that your offspring are no better than those of a frog, or a rat, that you are not special in any way, that nothing happens when you die, and that ultimately any morality you choose is relative, subjective, and inexorably unimportant. Why then would one choose to be a good steward of the earth? Why treat others with dignity and respect? Why value life? Why choose good over selfish pleasure, or fame, or power? Why in a 14 billion year old accidental, godless universe is killing and rape even wrong? There is no standard, and no basis for teaching one.

And in the end, when the Christian community tries to fight for Christian recognition in a public forum, society inevitably doubles down, pushes for freedom from exposure to any religion, and ignores the dire consequence of their world view. This is why we must repent… Maybe because this word has been made fun of, we don’t use it enough; but maybe it’s time…. Repent. Repent and Believe. And remember the difference it would make if everyone adhered to this universal truth:

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 5

ME 89326. (pictured here) ME 89326

This title, ME 89326 is the name given to classify this ancient relic, dated 2300 BC. It is also known as the Temptation Seal, and is an impression of a carving off a cylindrical seal of the Akkadian Empire. The Akkadian Empire was an ancient Mesopotamian Civilization, spawned in and around the city the Bible calls Akkad.

This piece is currently held at the British History Museum and was discovered in 1846. As we continue our study on the truth of creation, we look to pieces such as this to verify that yes indeed, the Adam and Eve story was circulating within different cultures, as reflected here in the artwork of an ancient people who were not Hebrews.

Of course, a secular museum would not encourage such beliefs, being of the presupposition that the story is certainly not real, and that the beginning of the Bible is not true history. As we have seen, and will continue to see, evolutionary presupposition will dictate what must and must not be, including what an obvious piece like this cannot represent. The notes at the British Museum accompanying this relic state: “…the seal belongs to the well known Akkadian periods 2300 BC, the dated palm and the snake may have fertility significance, there is no reason to connect them to the Adam and Eve Story.”

The insistence that this is not the Adam and Eve story being depicted is quite telling. Notice that these forensic scientists don’t even allow for that possibility, and want visitors to know that they would be undoubtedly in error to assume such a thing, since the museum knows for sure that it just can’t be about that.

So let us look at the picture. The museum suggests that the figure is a man (left) seated in front of a god (right, with headdress), and that some offering is taking place. The plant offering is to worship divine fertility.

The problem: Historically in this period, neither male nor female worshipers are ever shown seated before a god. They are always shown standing with arms up, praising. Another important difference is the worshiper is always depicted smaller in size than the god being worshiped.

Now, if we look at it from a biblical perspective, we have the oral narrative of mankind’s beginnings, which must have been passed down to every and all people from Noah’s family of 8, up until the tower of Babel. Afterwards, oral, written, and artistic depictions of these same narratives, flood legends, creation, and the fall are recorded. In this case, in Mesopotamia, we have a simple enough depiction which was more than likely carved on a cylinder only 300-400 years after the flood took place.

Two human beings, a male and a female, of equal stature, and having a familiar relationship, sit across from one another to eat a fruit. They both eat of the fruit, and behind the woman, as if to tempt her, is a serpent. Further extrapolation might note that the tree is of great importance, central to the depiction, and has seven branches, the number of God and divinity.

It is hard to imagine the events of Adam and Eve being depicted more concisely then this.

Survey 4

Survey 3

Survey 2

Survey 1

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 4

The Torah, the first five books of the bible is written as a historical narrative. Often referred to as The Law, the Pentateuch, it sets the foundation of not only the beginning of the line of Christ, but also the beginnings of mankind, giving us insight into many things we can observe today, such as languages, genetics, geology, and the fossil record. But who wrote it?

Many critics of the bible assert that Genesis was written long after Moses, and Abraham, that it was written by the Jews in the 5th and 6th centuries BC, when The Jews went back after captivity to rebuild the temple. This would discredit the rich history, and mean that the Jews somehow borrowed and fabricated the narrative we see.

Let’s see what the bible has to say?

Luke 24

27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

John 5

46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 7

19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

Acts 3

22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you

Does the bible clearly indicate who wrote the Law? If not Moses, who would you be disagreeing with?

What does it say within the Torah itself?

Exodus 17

4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

24:4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

34:27 And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

It would appear that according to the law itself, Moses was asked to write these things down, and as we saw before, these writings were corroborated by Christ Himself. Does the rest of the Old Testament refer to the Law as well? Let’s see:

Joshua 1:8 (1405 BC) This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

1 Kings 2: 1-3 (971 BC) When David’s time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, 2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, 3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn,

2 Kings 14: 1-6 (Amaziah Reigned 796-767 BC) In the second year of Joash the son of Joahaz, king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. 3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not like David his father. He did in all things as Joash his father had done. 4 But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. 5 And as soon as the royal power was firmly in his hand, he struck down his servants who had struck down the king his father. 6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

As we can clearly see from a quick scan of the word, going back to the patriarchs of Jewish history, they had referred to the Law. If the minor prophets made it up later,  how would it makes sense that they were referring back to a Law that they were making up on the fly? Were they inventing a Law, and a history, that they were simultaneously struggling to keep? And what about Joshua, referring to it as far back as 1400 BC.

The minor prophets mention Moses and the Law many times:

Isaiah 12 times
Jeremiah 12 times
Ezekiel 6 times
Daniel 4 times
Malachi 5 times
Hosea 3 times
Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah all mention it once.

The point of this stage of the lesson is this; if we disagree with the authorship of the Genesis account, we might as well disagree with the historicity of the entire collection of God’s word. But to do that, logically, we dismiss it’s many truths, fulfilled prophecies, eye witness details, archaeological supports, and many other facts which point to its veracity. They verify each other. Furthermore, the authorship of all 66 books spans a 1400 year period, so these are not co-conspirators. We presupposed the bible as truth in the first lesson, but obviously this puts firmly in your mind the position all the authors took in regards to the Torah. To dismiss the first five books as fable, or made-up would be folly. Plain and simple.

 

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 3

The scientific credentials that come with the name Stephen Hawking are great indeed. One of the greatest theoretical physicists of our time, cosmologist, a medical miracle in his own right, and accomplished author, and no one would question his intelligence. But does even he succumb to the pitfalls of of presupposition?

We have discussed in these blogs how alien life is assumed by many evolutionists, both as a form of creating life on this planet (panspermia), as well as a form of “just-so” science, because we “know evolution is true, and therefore it must also have happened elsewhere. Hawking had stated before he passed away that he felt mankind should be looking to escape the Earth, to find a way to leave it, and colonize elsewhere. This is caused by a world view quite different then that of a Christian theist.

Furthermore, Stephen Hawking wrote The Grand Design, and in it, agrees Universe appears to be highly fine tuned for life, had a beginning. In this book he states this: “This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism which implies… that there are no miracles or exceptions to the laws of nature.” – pg 34, The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking.

We should listen, yes? Because he is a brilliant scientist? What is the problem here?

This is a philosophical assertion! Not at all a scientific one. You cannot determine this as a fact by way of a scientific experiment. How do we know, then? Because he said it. It is just so. Scientific Determinism is true, there are no miracles, therefore atheism must be true. Because he stated it.

Interestingly, his book also says, ““Free will is just an illusion.” – pg 32. This is reminiscent of his opinion in 1990 when Hawking determined we are not free, we are totally determined. If you are pre-wired to think the way you do,how can you make any truth claim? You don’t have the free will, according to Hawking himself, to make a truth claim, only produce a result caused by how stimulus is processed through a random brain. So based on his own philosophy, how could anyone trust any of his thoughts on truth at all? Is he not simply pre-wired to think the way he does?

The moment you make a truth claim, you violate determinism.

As much as they would like to deny it, materialists are forced to use philosophy, even as they deny using it. Philosophy always buries its undertakers. To deny it IS to use it. Science is Bound to philosophy and cannot be done without it. Assumptions must be made, and those can dramatically affect conclusions.

We must remember as Dr, Frank Turek says, science doesn’t actually say anything; SCIENTISTS DO! All data must be interpreted.

Let us look at an example of how we must interpret data. The Eiffel tower has demonstrable, testable attributes. Some of these are:

1,063 ft tall
Wrought Iron Lattice Tower
Weight is 10,100 tons
Located on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France

If one were inclined, one could test and re-test for the accuracy of any of these statements. But what about these facts?

Engineer was Gustave Eiffel
Finished in 1889

How do we know these are correct? We must conclude them from trusted sources, yes? This means that we must find those historic, written sources to be accurate, not tampered with, and found to fit the proper historical context. No one questions these two facts, but it brings about an interesting point. The facts in this case must be believed; they are not testable, and repeatable. They are forensic in nature.

All history is this way, including Biblical history, Cryptology, Archeology, Criminal forensics, Geology, Paleontology, and Cosmology. We must collect data, and interpret it based on our pre-suppositions. Ken Ham, the creationist, pointed this out while teaching.

As a teacher, he found that whenever he taught the students what he thought were the “facts” for creation, then their other teacher would just reinterpret the facts. The students would then come back to him saying, “Well sir, you need to try again.”

Conversely, when he learned to teach his students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 2

in-principio-genesis-15-15-part-15-defending-genesis-the-earth-was-without-form-and-voidGod uses natural causes, to be sure, but can they explain everything? A materialist atheist, and a Christian both believe in natural causes. Of course we can find causality through natural means. But what about things that are forensic in nature, meaning, those things that are not repeatable in a lab, or observable on any level, and more to the point, contradict what we DO observe! Such as the creation of matter? Life from non-life? Creation of new elements?

Things that cannot be explained by science. – aesthetics, ethics, mathematics and logic, metaphysical truths (like there are other minds then my own).

In the 1700’s, David Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Hume’s assertion was that things were only actually meaningful if, and only if: The truth claim is of abstract reasoning, such as 2+2=4, or all triangles have three sides; and the truth claim can be verified by the 5 senses. Norman Geisler defeated this by simply observing,  “The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1. those that are true by definition, and 2. those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability is neither true by definition, nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.” A slick idea met with the swift and brutal simplicity of logic.
Kant, another skeptic, said that you can’t know the real world. Of course, then how do you know that about the real world?

The theme here is that much of what we use to interpret and understand about life, the universe, creation, is based on our faith, and our presuppositions. An example:

“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. it is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist” – Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997. Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

I posed this question to the class; does it appear that this person’s conclusions would be influenced by his presuppositions?

Another fantastic example is from Dr. Steven Stanley, (Bioscience, vol. 36 (Dec 1986) p. 725. paleontologist and evolutionary biologist), who specialized in punctuated equilibrium. This is the reaction to lack of evidence within Darwinism. Many scientists proposed that punctuated equilibrium explained things that could not be seen by evidence, namely, that animals mutated quickly into other species, thereby leaving no evidence within the fossil record. He said, “Evolution happens rapidly in small, localized populations, so we’re not likely to see it in the fossil record.” Now, we ask again, is this conclusion based on science? He is literally claiming evolutionary change has occurred between the rock layers, where we find no evidence! Safe to say that Stanley had already made up his mind that evolution was true, and since he “knows” this, has proposed a non-scientific model to explain it.

Lastly, for this portion of the lesson, we will look at a notorious quote from Dr. Richard Charles Lewontin, Columbia University is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ”

Posing the same question, do we honestly think an unbiased look at evidence would be likely here? Stated another way, if the truth did rest in the fact that God was a cause, could this type of “science” ever discover the truth?

More on Creation in part 3.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 1

I am teaching through a series on Genesis at my church, as an 8 week course. After the classes, I will be posting the same lessons in article form on here, so anyone may follow along as we continue forward in our study of Genesis, its authenticity, and the historicity of Creation as recorded in our bibles.

This series will be predicated upon certain presuppositions from the outset. The examination of these presuppositions has been addressed in many previous writings.

The first presupposition for the class is that truth is knowable. This means that we have done away, as far as this series is concerned, with debate from the post-modernist or relativist agenda. A simple refutation lies in the answer to the common assertion: “there is no absolute truth!”

To which  someone should answer, “Is that absolutely true?” We turn the question on itself, and realize the self-defeating nature of relative truth very easily. Most post-modernist authors want to be exempt from their own conclusions.

C.S Lewis said, in regards to the philosophical first principles of truth, “These first principles of practical reason are fundamental to all knowledge and argument, to deny them is to deny knowledge itself.” In other words, if you deny truth exists, you can’t know anything, discover anything, determine anything. All knowledge would be rendered useless.

Secondly, we would stipulate that the Bible is the inspired word of God. There are many reasons for this of course, born out through history, testimony, archaeology. Although some supporting evidence may occur during the series, the focus is not to prove the Bible is God-breathed. We will stipulate that since it has already stood the tests of time and unrelenting scrutiny, the Bible, is

John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we would embark on the series looking at the world from a biblical world view.  What we believe determines how we behave. This means that if our presupposition is that atheism, or evolution is true, and the only possible creative mechanism, this determines how we see the world. If God is possible, even probable, making more logical sense in the end anyway, then this allows of the possibility that the bible is true history, miracles are possible, and that determinism cannot and will not explain the existence of time, space and matter.

Need we look at everything then, as religion vs science?

Absolutely not! Science is the search for causes, essentially. Observations in our natural world SHOULD line up with the word. This means that we do not commit the folly of excluding the possibility of God, by adhering to evolutionary presuppositions, and saying things are “just so”.“Just-So Science” example: We know that life arose from non-life because we know that it is so, because evolution is true.

If nature had a beginning, then how can the cause be something natural, since nature didn’t exist. Nature was the effect. Therefore the cause must be beyond nature, or supernatural.

I do not have all the answers, (another stipulation). Yes I have a passion for this material, and the study, but I’m not a scientist or a doctor. But it would be my heart’s desire for you to walk away from the series,  and be able to stand tall and say, I am a bible thumping Christian, I believe the bible from cover to cover, and make no apology for that. Hopefully a tool of discipleship. At the very least, perhaps it helps people think of things they had not considered before.

To be continued in part 2.