Jesus, the Creationist

While in church this Sunday, we were studying Mark chapter 10, which contains one of the many instances where a person in scripture refers to the history of Genesis. In this case, it was Jesus Christ, God Himself, who stated in Mark 10:6

 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.”

This is Jesus talking, the savior. Often times during debates, or listening to testimonies, I hear that people have come across pastors, elders and the like who have dismissed the Genesis account as ‘just a story’. I’m sure everyone reading this has had experience with that; how they just teach us lessons; how it isn’t the main focus; how it doesn’t matter, as long as you believe Christ.

So, you are telling someone who is searching for reasonable, legitimate hope in this crazy world, no don’t believe this over here, but you have to believe this over here. And then that journeymen comes across Mark chapter 10 and what happens? Christ says, in the beginning God made them male and female.

In evolution theory, the beginning of life begins with one celled organisms around 4 billion years ago, the unfathomable magic of time to influence students that given enough of it, the physically impossible can take place. But sexual reproduction does not evolve until 1.1 billion years. That isn’t people, mind you. It is simply the first sexual reproductive event. Man and woman, well they arrive on the scene much later, between 1 and 5 million years ago, depending on who you ask.

But Christ said they were male and female at the beginning. This is a rather large disparagement, wouldn’t you say? A difference of about 3,995,000,000 years between when Man and Woman appear and the “beginning”. So clearly Christ was lying, yes? Clearly He also was just telling stories? No, I’m afraid not. Christ was pointing to the historicity of the Genesis account, and based on that actual history, was applying it to our lives today. It is clear from Christ here, along with many other verses, that the New testament writers fully respected the historical accuracy of the venerated Torah, Moses’ account of the beginning.

Keep in mind that Christianity has many theories on how to conform with man’s proposed timeline, ways to compromise the biblical account in order to acquiesce to evolutionary theory. There is theistic evolution, gap theory, day-age creation, and several others. But as we have learned in Timothy All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. And taken as a whole, every one of these bible-compromising theories falls short. Does your salvation depend on it? No. But you’d better be able to explain the inconsistencies when you approach a non-believer who is searching. Because if they don’t believe the beginning, there is really no reason for them to believe the rest.

And in the case of Mark chapter 10, you either have an All Powerful Creator God who disagrees with materialism’s theory of molecules to man, or you have a very confused deity, who likes to speak in fables, and folktales, to issue his opinion on how best to live; who is flummoxed by real science, real history, and has chosen to deceive His followers in order to make a point. He didn’t know man would eventually find out the truth, and that he would be 4 billion years off in His assessments about time. He chose to take old testament patriarchs at their word,  and either didn’t know or didn’t care that His views would eventually be outdated religious ramblings.

Christ never allowed for the compromising of the Word. Ever. He fulfilled it. It is a sword. The watered down, take-parts-you-like version of the word of God is not intellectually honest, and atheists know it. We must stand with conviction and courage on the word of God. If they disagree with part of it, make them disagree with all of it. But if Christ didn’t allow for the compromising of scripture, then we shouldn’t either. If you allow for the beginning to be false, you inadvertently throw all of its doctrines into question, and that is thorny ground.

http://www.facebook.com/cooper.author

 

Gray Fossil Museum

IMG_6304

Visited the Fossil Museum in Gray TN this afternoon. There is a dig on site from which students and paleontologists are pulling out some amazing fossils. I want to preface this article by stating that I am very proud of the community for honoring the scientific find by dedicating resources to the site, as well as moving the direction of the highway in order to accommodate the dig. There are a plethora of fossil samples being pulled from the ground, two of which have been classified as new species. The exhibits are classy looking, and beautiful, and the facility, labs included, appear to be top notch.

This unfortunately is where my admiration for the project ends, as the whole site is absolutely dedicated to forcing evolutionary propaganda down each guest’s throat at every turn, and on every wall. It was egregious how prevalent the indoctrination was. Granted, I was expecting to encounter the millions-of-years mantra several times, but from the beginning 15 ft 4.5 billion year time line on the wall  at step one, to the ode to Charles Darwin hallway at the end, it dripped with the insatiable need to reinforce the religion of humanism, naturalism, and evolution.

It was never presented exactly how the dates were determined for the dig (between 4 million and 7 million years ago), but it could be deduced by both typical evolutionary presupposition and normal modus operandi that pre-determined index fossils dated the rocks, and of course the rocks date the fossils (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

In a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: “How do you date fossils?” His reply: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found.” Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, “Of course, how else are you going to do it?” (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”—*J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of science, January 1976.

“The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.”—*David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.”—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

 

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”—*J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

Furthermore, if you will notice the picture I took of one of their displays IMG_6303(sorry about the glare), it states another hard-nosed take on how evolutionists practice science. Let me paraphrase the sign for the laypeople that pass by it. “We here at the Gray Fossil Museum already know that these fossils are as old as we were taught in school, therefore we know we don’t have to use a test that may prove it wrong, despite the fact that C-14 has been found in everything from dinosaurs, to coal, to diamonds (see link here on Carbon dating), and may in fact be found here, which would ruin all of our predetermined expensive exhibits. We would not be able to handle reaching conclusions such as a fossil known to be 4.5 million years old with a C-14 result of 12,000 years for example, and if these conclusions were determined, we would of course throw them out based on the obvious reasoning of either contaminated specimens, leaching, our faulty testing, without once considering a change in our presuppositional position that was determined without any observable, demonstrable, repeatable testing whatsoever.”

This type of “science” has unfortunately become more normal, but is intellectually dishonest. I would be willing to bet C-14 was quite prevalent in these fossils, if one of the local scientists had the integrity and courage to test for it. But as you can see from the picture, they have already informed the public that it is wholly unnecessary.

A final note about the Gray Museum is in regards to the story they present about how these fossils got here. According to their “experts”, water leaked into a cavern under the surface, creating a sinkhole which eventually became deep, and then was filled with trapped wild life from tapirs to snakes to bear, and was then fossilized slowly over time. This conjecture makes me want to take everyone involved and set them on the rim of a sinkhole, toss in hundreds of animal carcasses, and make them camp and watch how quickly nature recycles dead flesh. (Don’t mind the smell, that’s just the rotting away of all your theories). I reiterate what science knows already, which is that fossil formation today is exceedingly rare. Is this sinkhole trap an anomaly that explains the possible thousands of trapped animals? What about the billions of other fossils all over the earth? Perhaps the earth was covered with sink holes? Ridiculous. Fossils are made when organisms are buried quickly by mud and water, and the world is filled with organisms that have been buried quickly by mud and water. Sorry Gray Fossil Museum, but it’s time to take Darwin the racist, incestuous philosopher off your wall, and start to practice real science.

What does Geology’s lean towards Catastrophism mean?

When debating for the authority of God’s word, you get berated with broad sweeping statements about how evolution is an undeniable fact, a premise I take pleasure in battling, not only to edify Christians struggling against a hopeless humanistic view of the world, but also because it is absurd in every field of science. Today we explore the field of Geology, which is experiencing a paradigm shift within its walls that it is not quite ready for. Imagine the daunting task of re-evaluating 150 years of presupposition that has influenced historical geology, but has not come to bear in recent years as scientists in the field apply the actual scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and modification of the original hypothesis. 1.The system is so unwilling to address it that the corporate response to various geological societies has been censorship, and policy statements that disparage views other than the accepted narrative.

Let me explain what I mean. The idea of deep time came from a philosophy over 150 years ago, and during a time when there was a shortage of good data, and only conjecture that was aimed at explaining all things through slow gradual processes – the term became known as uniformitarianism. It was the goal of Charles Lyell and others to save science from the biblical model, and the works in question dripped with vitriol towards God’s word. We discussed in my last article some debate fallacies; well geology started with a big one, called “Begging the Question”. This fallacy states that the conclusion is already true. With the premise firmly planted as a presupposition from which all data must be interpreted, it was easy to see how bones in the rocks became slowly buried over time, how layers were laid down slowly, and how gradual processes were the cause of all geological features, such as diamonds, oil, and stalactites.

But geologists began to notice a great many anomalies as time went on, facts that didn’t fit the framework. For example, the fossil record, a record of billions of organisms buried in the earth, despite the fact that fossilization is a very rare occurrence, and cannot explain the plethora of examples. A fish dies and what happens? it floats, rots, and is devoured by the ecosystem around it. But they still teach the gradual process of a fish floating down to the sand, and slowly being covered (preserved somehow) until it is buried and mineralized. Many of the larger fossils (dinosaurs, birds) have been found in death throws from drowning, and eddies exist called fossil graveyards where hundreds of animals were covered with water and mud. What gradual natural phenomenon would explain this? Also found within the fossil records are soft bodied animals such as jellyfish, previously thought to be an impossibility, since it was a certainty that the lack of rigidity wouldn’t allow for fossilization.

You may recall in school being taught that petrification, stalactites, coal, diamonds  all took eons to form. This is no longer the case. We have examples of modern man-made objects being petrified, we have embarrassed cave guides telling us the great time it takes for stalactites to form while standing on a metal staircase with stalactites forming off of them, we have found Carbon 14 in everything from dinosaur bones, to coal, to diamonds which shouldn’t be there (see link above), and we have been able to create in labs everything from diamonds, to oil, to opals in days.

Another great challenge to the narrative came in the form of polystrate fossils, as uncovered by the geology professor at the University College of Swansea, D Ager. He was of course trained to believe uniformitarianism, but came to realize it did not account for many things he was seeing. Specifically these polystrate fossils, trees passing through multiple layers of rock layers, sometimes through coal, then rock, then coal again. This covering of polystate fossils would be impossible at slow speeds, because the top would rot long before the hundreds of thousands of years it would take to cover it. Many geologists recognize these features as a product of catastrophe.

The detailed lists of geological problems go on and on, from the study of created granite, problems with dating methods, to river deltas, to folded rock formations devoid of fracturing, to continent-wide deposits of sediment, to quick geological sorting as evidenced by a study at Mount Saint Helen’s, which quite frankly, made a mockery of deep time when it was observed in 1980. It has become obvious that Lyell’s approach to geology wasn’t holding water, and slowly within field, more and more geologists have gravitated to the obvious conclusion, that geological features were affected by catastrophe. This is now known as catastrophism, or actualism, which stipulates that many features had to have been made very quickly. These are still evolutionists, mind you, and a large percentage will still deny intelligent design, which of course requires the continued paradigm of billions of years. However, the amusing trouble with the conclusion is that if we can observe catastrophe, but must still believe in deep time, we then have no choice but to insert the great eons of time between the layers… WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!

It is interesting to note that each field, with its major setbacks concerning evolution, tends to depend on other fields to bolster the theory. And since each field knows which direction it must point, to change a paradigm is to go against all of academia. The dirty little secret however, is that these holes in evolutionary theory are demoralizing many fields at once from genetics, to taxonomy, to anthropology, to cosmology; and when deep time is taken away as the default, many men and women of science will be left to ponder what the alternative must be.

 

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” – (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.” – (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” – (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…”

(Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” – (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral, people such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in “The Worlds of Wallace Pratt,” The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

“Evolution is faith, a religion.” – (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, “The emperor has no clothes.” – (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

 

 

 

  1. – Dr, Tasman Walker, PhD, “Evolution’s Achilles Heel”

“Evolution is Fact!” But The Debate Persists…

I have had two very spirited debates as of late, and like others, am noticing a trend of debate mistakes that reoccur, understandably so, because of the emotional nature of the topic. Though one must ask, if your default position is atheism, why adopt the aggressive freedom fighter mentality that usually decays in to insults and personal attacks. I stipulate that both sides do this often, but I suppose I can understand religious fervor to save one’s soul more than a fervor to prove Christians ignorant, fact-denying, brainwashed pseudoscience following imbeciles. I suppose it boils down to what’s at stake. If God and the bible are real, then that means a real creator, real sin, real judgement, and a real way to inherit that kingdom that was denied by said atheist. If Christians can be bullied into submission despite facts to the contrary, I suppose payoff for the atheist is obvious, a life that is consequence free.

During the debate, no evidence was put forth to diminish the word of God, and no evidence was put forth to bolster evolution, nor undermine the creation model. Statements were made such as:

“Christians and Americans are reaaaally good at spreading misinformation, because they don’t understand history”

“countless scientific facts that disprove so many statements and ideas in the bible”

“Believing the words of the bible is no different than believing the earth is flat”

“It is one of the most factually incorrect group of texts ever collected, outside of accepted fiction”

“[The bible} is entirely false. Christian scientists are amazed at their own ability to twist facts to fit their beliefs, but that’s about it.”

“most people who grow up in religious families … choose the much easier path of disbelieving overwhelming evidence and fact”

“Simply, you don’t know what you’re talking about”

“Christians would still stick their heads in the sand and keep believing all the incorrect, illogical, contradictory nonsense written in the bible. Keep believing what suits you, to the detriment of future generations”

Notice anything about these statements? Who was being attacked? Any scientist who is Christian or believes in intelligent design; Christians who are unlearned; religious families; anyone who does not fit with the debater’s presuppositions. I remind you that no evidence was given to support these claims; these were just brazen arrows shot across the proverbial debate table. This brings us to our first debate error, the ad hominem personal attack, and more specifically the ‘Guilt by Association’ technique, which states you must be wrong because you are part of a certain group. Both of these are fallacies, and attack the person for being who they are, which is not a valid reason for giving into that person’s position.

Secondly we find the ‘Hero-Busting’ argument, in this case levied towards Christianity as a whole, stating that because of certain faults, crimes, or errors in the past, the group itself must be wrong on all accounts. Essentially, there are no heroes, and since your hero is wrong, then you obviously are too.

Finally we have two other fallacies utilized often against the creation model, and thosee who espouse them. They are related. One is called ‘TINA’ (There Is No Alternative), and the other is ‘Essentializing’. TINA is stating this is the way it is, so get over it, basically squashing any alternate ideas as ludicrous and a waste of time. This is a bullying tactic, that eliminates all other positions without having to defend them. Essentializing, is also called a ‘default bias’, and just means, something is what it is, and there is no point in discussing it further. This position doesn’t allow for growth in knowledge, or in solutions, and minimizes the efforts of the other position as pointless.

All of these were used on me during my last few debates, and weeding through them on the fly is a challenge. As an example to those reading, the statement was made that  Christians don’t practice actual science, they twist facts, practice pseudoscience, and ignore the “actual scientific process”.  My response was as follows:

“To dismiss the education of a people based on faith is to be ignorant of how many doctors and scientists are at present Christian, and or believe in intelligent design. For example CMI (Christian ministries International) employs more doctors than any other ministry the world over, all of which believe in a literal six day creation, and the authenticity of scripture… To simply negate all christians who are scientists as pseudo-scientists, and bad at science is an ad hominem attack that cannot stand up to genuine scrutiny, for many of the the fathers of science were believers.”

There are many examples, and I have in the past posted an extensive list of Christians who were not only the fathers of science, but who made vast contributions to many fields. This illustrates that the previous emotional statements are not true; that in fact some scientists who are believers do practice real science. This point was unfortunately never conceded to, and on went the denigration of anyone who claimed to practice science but actually believed in intelligent design. This is not an intellectually honest position to have, as one example would crumble the hypothesis.

Since anger was blocking any ability of mine to make headway, I chose to thank him for the spirited debate, and can only hope and pray that God will set learned and strong Christians in his path until his heart is changed. I would count myself blessed to be part of that chain of salvation. I would reiterate to everyone, I know it isn’t facts that change a heart, but God does use the word, sharper than any sword and a conviction to mankind, to change people’s hearts. But sometimes we need to be able to understand that it is possible to rely on the authority of scripture, even though the world does all it can to make it seem foolish. Sometimes just being confident in it can throw others for a loop, and I don’t think that is a bad thing, if it helps others ask questions.

 

Mammals ate Dinosaurs!

774px-Timeline_evolution_of_life.svgAs we know from years of evolutionary indoctrination, the deep-time model has dinosaurs (dragons) living from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years when through all manner of conjecture ranging from meteors to flatulence (I’m not kidding) the dinosaurs became extinct, making way for the prosperity of mammals. What I am about to tell you was discovered in 2005, but if you google or research the chronology of evolution, you will still find the narrative has remained stubbornly constant. Above is a standard evolutionary timeline, showing data will not affect the paradigm, a philosophy clung to at all costs.

Published with the aid of scientists at New York’s Natural History Museum, there was a discovery announced in 2005 about a fossil. It was found by a farmer in northeastern China, and was dated at 130 million years old. It was a mammal.

This mammal is listed as Repenomamus Robustus, and is akin to a large possum, or shrew, that is simply called Repe. Bear in mind, the creation model has no issue with heavy duty animals larger than today’s due to pre-flood conditions (air pressure, oxygen content, magnetism), so this could very well be a larger than modern day possum, as several over-sized mammals have been found in the fossil record. But there is more damning evidence for the evolutionist’s model to consider.

ig25_Repenomamus_rob_02After examining the fossil, scientists first thought it had been pregnant at the time of burial. Turns out that’s not the case. This specimen was buried so quickly that preserved in it’s stomach was its last meal, the chewed up body of a baby dinosaur, the psittacosaur. The mammal had last eaten a dinosaur before being quickly buried in water, and mud, leaving no time for digestion before fossilization. Admitting the tantalizing find  proved that there was a”major player” within the ecosystem of what science has dubbed the Mesozoic period, previously reserved for dinosaurs and since stubborn discoveries like these, a begrudgingly  admitted spectrum of smaller mammals. There was no discussion of the conundrum it left evolutionists with. 

The scientist, Jin Meng, said “This is the first direct evidence that mammals fed on dinosaurs.” Comments abounded regarding how dinosaurs must be tasty, and mammalian species were getting payback. But no where within the frivolous conversation were obvious conclusions considered, such as, ‘perhaps we need to rethink our time-line, or dating methods, or postulate a model that has more mammals and dinosaurs living at the same time and, within the same ecosystem, and consider how that could be, since it would necessitate the evolution of mammals much earlier. None of these questions were addressed by secularists.

I will keep pointing out that evidence continues to support, and fall within the young earth, deluge model, and evolutionists will of course continue to push back, touting their faith in evolution as fact we must accept. Our friend the Repe is just another one of many finds that not only shows a world that was buried quickly in a catastrophe like Noah’s flood, but that all known animals were around at the same time, including man. Using the bible, we can clearly infer that ancestors of  the Repe and the psittacosaur were made on day 6, and can see that played out within the wonderful observable earth sciences.

Over all there have been 432 mammals found within the rock layers of dinosaurs, but as we keep pointing out, these specimens are not publicized or taught. That may not seem like a lot of samples, but consider this; there have only been 1200 full dinosaur skeletons found. Out of the millions of fossils found, only 0.0125% of them are vertebrates.

Again, for fun you can google “how old are mammals” and get information on the discovery of 165 million year old mammals, while at the same time googling a time line for evolution that still teaches small mammals arising at 60 million years regardless of how it flies in the face of known discoveries (such as a large mammal eating dinosaurs 130 million years ago). 

[From livescience.com -meet your mama-

These new findings also suggest this forerunner of most mammals appeared shortly after the catastrophe that ended the age of dinosaurs, scientists added.

“Species like rodents and primates did not share the Earth with nonavian dinosaurs, but arose from a common ancestor — a small, insect-eating, scampering animal — shortly after the dinosaurs’ demise,” said researcher Maureen O’Leary at Stony Brook University in New York.]

I reiterate, this is not science but a philosophy, clung to with all of the fervor of any other religion, and indifferent to that which is observable. They have their doctrines, and will not be dissuaded. My fervent prayer is that the house of cards that is evolutionary theory will soon collapse under the weight of its own failure. But until that day, consider the words of our Lord Jesus from John 3:12: “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

If you cannot understand what you see here on earth, how can you understand what God has in store?

Let’s Be Clear… It’s a Young Earth

I have debated many agnostics and atheists over the years, over a myriad of issues, and against both hostile and kind opponents. I appreciate each one, because more often than not it highlights areas of apologetics that I need to brush up on, or better teaches me how to present biblical truth with love, rather than some misguided sense of superiority. Let us never forget as apologists that our sole purpose is to guide others lovingly to the cross. Not to berate or belittle those who lack a relationship with Christ.

But often a discussion will beat around the bush in regards to specifics of the creation model, or not address it at all if it isn’t within the scope of a contested topic, leaving sometimes months of ambiguity about certain positions. This may leave the opponent, or those following along, with unanswered queries that usually are dismissed, no doubt forsaken for a more comfortable choice. When smacked in the face with a glaring challenge to a long understood paradigm, the reaction towards me can be intense. Perhaps I seem dense, ignorant, or even stupid to the debater, and the inevitable response is to pretend it wasn’t said, or to forever think slightly less of me. I have had people throw my bible across a room, I have been told to shut up, and that I know nothing about science, and am met with dumbfounded questions like, “Have you ever even been to a natural history museum?”

So to boldly state it, so there is no room for dismissal or confusion, we will address the elephant in the room. I am a biblicist, young earth creationist who believes the earth, and for that matter the universe, is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have seen science agree with the bible time and time again, and consider deep time science to be filled with assumption, circular reasoning, and un-testable hypothesis. This means dinosaurs and man have always lived together, which concurs with the book of Job. This means languages were confused at Babel, which fits with the science of linguistics, and current understanding of population growth charts. It means archaeology attests consistently to old testament historicity, regarding geography, ancient kings, unearthed cities, and numerous artifacts such as cuniform and bulae. It means we observe limiting factors in cosmology such as volcanic moons on Jupiter which should have long since cooled off, the moon pulling away from the earth in its orbit limiting its age, the impossibility of comets being older than 10,000 years due to the loss of material as it moves, the drifting out of Saturn’s rings and much more. It means we look to a literal world wide deluge about 4500 years ago to explain not only the fossil record, but also the unique and extraordinary geological features we find world wide. This includes explanation of biomass becoming fossil fuels, the Grand Canyon, the ice age, millions of tons of sediment burying pre-flood animals all over the world, like sharks teeth in a South Dakota farmer’s field, petrified clams on Mount Everest, and fossil graveyards that collected thousands of carcasses from varied species in post-flood eddies. It explains how we find man-made objects in coal seems, signs of civilization near the edges of the continental shelf, and evidence of malnourished, nomadic man with primitive tools during a post-flood world. It means we can account for the over 300 flood legends from almost every ancient civilization. It corroborates taxonomy and genetics, and allows for the splendor of natural variety within animal kinds without assuming un-demonstrable macro-evolution. It embraces the natural laws of physics, and does not assume a constant, yet un-observable, violation of these laws in order to add complexity to a closed system.

The creation does not claim to answer every mystery, but it does begin with a basic pre-supposition that the bible, in all of its uniqueness, is an eye-witness account of the history of our world, and so far is the only text proven to consistently get it right.

Without even discussing the over 1800 prophecies fulfilled without error as a mode of proof, let us consider that the bible discussed the cities of Nineveh, Ur, Jericho, and the City of David before they were unearthed in modern times; that it clued us into pathways/currents in the ocean as well as fountains from under the sea floor before man knew they were there; that it told us the earth hung in space on nothing back when men still fought over whether it rested on the shoulders of a god or on the shell of a large turtle.

In the simple telling of truthful history over a  4000 year period of writing from over 40 authors, the bible as a simple matter-of-fact revealed concise details that only later could be verified, and its accuracy continues to astound, causing skeptics to blare from a position of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or “absence of evidence”. At every turn, and within every field of scientific study, a logical position can be taken and defended that stands on the authority of scripture. I encourage questions and curiosities as always, but let us not be scared to proclaim the truth without compromise. And let us not remain ignorant of the fact that evolution is purely faith based. The only difference is the bible offers us veracity as well as hope, where as evolution offers only conjecture and insignificance.

But carbon dating puts it at 65 million years B.C??

I watched Transformers, Age of Extinction last night. A suspension of disbelief requires the viewer to accept evolution in many Hollywood films including this one, and although it makes me cringe, I still try to see past it and enjoy the movie. Hollywood has basically adopted evolution as a setting platform with which to launch ideas. This is certainly part of the constant barrage we and our kids endure in regards to evolution being forced down our throat. The flippant position that we are just a higher form of evolved animal is a mere matter-of-fact when presented by numerous books, shows, movies.  Many times without consideration, the phrase millions-of-years is flung about like a carelessly un-safetied weapon. The opening mention of the Cambrian explosion in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (with research, one clearly sees the so-called explosion is a great evolutionary weakness, as it contains every phyla already fully formed), Jurassic Park series, certainly anything with aliens, all bombard us with the notion that millions of years is fact.  But I find it laughable when the writers don’t at least do a minimal amount of research.

I have written a fiction that is full of apologetics, archaeology, and history, (will be published in spring-summer) and spent countless hours reading and studying in order to make it as truthfully accurate as possible. I believe the reader deserves that effort, and though I’m sure there are mistakes, it could hardly be said that I approached the material flippantly. So when I heard this quote in Age of Extinction, I jumped up to hit pause and blurted out an arm-flailing rant of disappointment that my poor wife had to sit through before being able to continue the movie.

“But carbon dating puts it at 65 million years B.C.” WHAT! Carbon dating what!

If you know nothing yet about carbon dating, or this doesn’t strike you as glaringly absurd, please see my article on Diamonds have Carbon to learn more.

Did the writer even try to come up with something intelligent to say here, to somehow connect the transformers with  a supposed dinosaur age? The answer is  an emphatic ‘NO’.

First, carbon is not used to date metal, as it is postulated in the movie.

Secondly, carbon dating becomes highly inaccurate after  a couple thousand years, and is only capable of dating things up to 50,000 or 60,000 years at the utmost (100,000 some say, but it’s suspect). Even if we presume a 100,000 year possibility for this dating method, they have made a 65,000% error.

Thirdly, if we are discussing 65,000,000 years in the past, why on God’s green earth are we referring to B.C.? Is it crucial to point out that the accuracy of the carbon dating that cannot detect anything over 60,000 years has placed this metal at a technical 65,002,016? As if adding the B.C. can now allow us to really get specific here?

And the line is delivered around top scientific minds in the movie, at an advanced research facility. And I watched closely, but at no time after this epic failure of scientific understanding was delivered did any of the surrounding genius lab-techs zoom in from stage left with the appropriately corrective flying slap to the face.

This may seem like a small deal to you, but what I see is an un-provable theory with vastly grave consequences that is proven to be so ingrained into the American psyche that a writer can espouse utter nonsense to support it with the full cooperation of the public. And as a child grows from age 5 to age 20, after the tens of thousands of references to it, he or she won’t know exactly why its true, or exactly how  its true, but they will be sure that evolution happened, a fact of life like water being wet. This means regardless of religion, we are only animals, that death brought about man, instead of man bringing death, and that the dying on the cross of a savior is of no consequence. This is the only conclusion, and it is why they will choose man over God in college, and will deny God, believing it is a waste of their time. Please don’t let these lines go unchallenged. There is no honor in being indoctrinated by ignorance.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 5

We have examined the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages. This is the final article. The other parts are linked below:

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

At this point, we have pulled the Big Bang train right up to the formation of stars, or stellar evolution; so for the final article, we will assume that despite science assuring it didn’t happen, we have somehow arrived at a first generation star, comprised of helium, hydrogen, and suspiciously absent of heavier elements. If you will recall, it took us 5 billion years to arrive here, so we must very quickly produce all other elements on the periodic chart, along with planets, moons, etc.

Scientists call the first generation stars ‘Protostars’. Since the creation of matter from nothing had to start with the simplest elements of helium and hydrogen, the theory goes that after the stars that can’t form were formed, somehow the 90 heavier elements or post-helium elements had to evolve via chemical evolution. The theory states that all these protostars repeatedly exploded; billions and billions of stars exploding for billions of years, and this volatility produces our heavier elements, second and third generation stars, and eventually the universe as we observe it today.

Problems:
1. Scientists call problem one the “helium mass 4 gap”. There are nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8, and they make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any heavier element. “Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5.”  The theory of chemical evolution, and therefore arriving at our current catalog of heavenly bodies is impossible using this process. This science fails to justify stellar evolution on any level. As usual when it comes to evolution, chemists think biology has the answer, biologists thing geology has the answer, and geologists think paleontology has the answer, and around we go. But in regards to this science, the mass gap cannot be overstated, and is a huge problem. This problem is proven by both hydrogen bombs, which cannot change to heavier elements, but stop at mass 5; and also by the sun, which if not for the gap at mass 5, would be shooting uranium at us.

2. Even at 15 billion years, there is not enough theoretical time for this process to produce heavier elements.

3. Science would have to explain how random explosions resulted in the intricate orbits and beauty of circling patterns we find in space. Order from disorder. Again a violation of the 2nd law. Explosions do not create order. Since there are no or very few first generation stars, it stipulates that almost every star exploded at least once, meaning the order we see must have come from explosions somehow.

4. There are not enough super novas to produce the heavier elements. Statistically the rareness of supernovas (which is needed to supposedly produce the heavier elements) are way too few to create all the heavier elements needed. The lack of supernovas in the night sky has long been a problem for evolutionists. (see problem 5).

5. Supernova recordings in history: 185AD, 1006AD, 1054AD (Crab Nebula), 1604AD, 1918 AD in Aquila, 1987AD in the veil nebula. If you add them all up including these major events, you can get up to about 16 supernovas in the last 2000 years. With only a few hundred total in the night sky, not only can’t we make the elements, but we can’t account for a 15 billion year time frame. If they occurred at a great enough rate to develop the universe with their explosions, would there not be millions visible? Statistically this amount is essentially zero. About 1 per 650 years on average. Simply not enough to create a universe. They are a rarity and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionist to attest to this.

6. Why did explosions mysteriously stop? We should be able to see continued activity that was originally creating the universe. Evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago explosions stopped. A theory proven wrong, but held onto.

7. Super novas DO NOT THROW OFF ENOUGH MATTER TO MAKE ADDITIONAL STARS. A supernova may throw off as much as 10% of its mass, but this is not sufficient to create a new star. In addition, what matter did get thrown off would be dispersed in every direction.We can conclude easily that with not enough mass to form a second generation star, and not enough explosions occurring not enough times, to create all matter and elements in the universe with this method is lunacy, and not worth teaching.

8. If you turn a spectroscope towards a supernova explosion, the conclusion is that it throws off…. get ready for it…. HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. The a fore mentioned Crab Nebula only shows H and He, no heavier elements. Once again, observable demonstrable repeatable science defeats the theory.

I would encourage anyone who reads to please share some or all of these, and/or to ask questions, and allow us to explore the truth together. Taken as a whole, my hope is that it is apparent one cannot just blindly believe that the Big Bang Theory and ensuing results are facts. Each stage falls desperately short of being possible, and with even minimal logic, one can expose it as false. This is a godless theory, attempting to explain the wonders of the universe with natural processes. Typically the failure of each stage is glossed over, or not reported, and what you have is cleverly animated persuasion along side an agreed upon curriculum. But it is my mission, as a writer and believer, to help arm Christians with the courage to stand on the word of God, rather than the word of man. So I hope this was helpful in refuting faith in a godless creation, and pray that when faced with persecution for not believing evolution, you can take comfort in the fact that you are indeed beautifuly and wonderfully made, whoever you are. I leave you with this encouragement:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 3

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Part three must now begin with the assumptions that an initial singularity explosion has taken place, and created outward racing particles. And as illustrated in part 2 of our series, we must assume that these outward racing particles have somehow violated the laws of physics, and have begun to change direction and swirl into gas clouds, so that they may develop into stars. These clouds must grow in density in the vacuum of space,  but simultaneously must be hurling through space to account for the vast expansion needed to explain seemingly infinite galaxies. We have learned that both of these prior situations are impossible based on reason and logic, regardless of the time variable, and furthermore require faith in something akin to the opposite of natural law. But in order to follow the process of the Big Bang theory, and consider what comes next, we will assume these steps somehow have taken place.

1. At this stage, there are a couple things to note:

a. Gas in outerspace is so rare, that it is more of a vacuum than any laboratory vacuum on earth.
b. There is no gas on the periodic table that clumps together! So, neither helium nor hydrogen would clump together. Gas always expands, pushes apart. Always.
c. This means the gas from the big bang would have been even less likely to clump together in outer-space. It is the universe’s great vacuum, and as such, provides the worst possible environment for gas clouds to gain any sort of density at all.

I can say with certainty, that the idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form a star is science fiction. It is like fog forming itself into tight patterns, except exceedingly more problematic. As an experiment, place a drop of food coloring in water. stir it up (or wait a minute, as it will disperse on its own),  to simulate the entropy of an outward explosion. Now wait, and stare at that glass of water, and time how long it takes for the food coloring dye to clump back together into a tight ball or drop again.

When that happens, try and imagine the same experiment in a vacuum… with air. You will then have some idea of how probable star formation is.

An existing star does have gravity, and can pull in other gases. However, forming one is the difficulty, not the fact that it exists. Natural processes cannot do this. Gas cannot build up enough mutual gravity to bring it together in any amount, much less those vast amounts needed for star formation. For perspective, keep in mind scientists think first generation stars were 800 to 1000 times larger than our sun.

2. Careful analysis reveals there is not enough matter within a gas cloud to produce a star. Again, me must respect how utterly massive stars are. Mass is key here, and clouds verses stars are like apples and oranges.

3. A more complex notion is that there isn’t enough time proposed. Evolutionists often scrutinize the creationist timeline as an impossibility, which never bothered us seeing as how our model includes the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logical explanation for what we see. But they don’t often publicly admit that their model contains its own time crunch, which calls into question everything about how to date the stars.  We have stars that based on a 400% red shift and a calculated distance from earth, should be approximately 15 billion years old. The theory calls for stars to form after the first 5 billion years. This means that the singularity and first explosion must have happened 5 billion before this, or our methods for dating stars is far off the mark. This is problematic in a 15 billion year timetable. This issue,  in conjunction with the need for random chance to cause order, is why the age of the universe continues to grow, as if the magic element of time will eventually solve the puzzle. The math is wrong, or the technique for dating is wrong.

This is not the only evolutionist time crunch problem. 1st generation stars are supposed to be big, burn bright, and die fast, creating new stars and new elements when going supernova. This theory is the supposed catalyst for chemical evolution, where we try to convince the world that the rest of the elements on the periodic table were formed from these supernova explosions from only hydrogen and helium. But we see supposed 1st generation stars still today. Evolutionists tout it as proof they were right about their existence, however, we must ask if they should be there at all?

But they are made new all the time, right? Good question, and I will answer by reminding or teaching the reader that we have never witnessed a star form. They do try to teach how it happens, again because they must push a theory. Consider these quotes: “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”—*Martin Harwit, “Books Reviews,” Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

4. Observation of gas clouds in space show them expanding. Gas clouds in space expand. They do not contract. With not enough matter, and expansion as a factor, this is not a recipe for success. Hence the devastating and truthful quotes above about the science of cosmology.

We will discuss more on stars later, but any one of these points would discredit the idea of stellar evolution. I will summarize the problem this way: The core of a star, in this case the first star, must generate a temperature to 10 million Kelvin degrees, to create nuclear fusion, at which point it can become stable. So,  from nothing a group of sub atomic particles must explode out, then coalesce, despite a tenancy to repel, and somehow clump to gain such heat and density as to generate nuclear fusion, so it can supernova, and create more stars as well as all elements in the periodic table. Tell me again how this is science and not faith?