The Feelings That Drive Us

In studying forgiveness this week, we delved in to Luke 17:

3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you,[b] saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”
5 And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.”

6 So the Lord said, “If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you. 7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? 8 But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. 10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”

The interesting thing about forgiveness is that here Christ commands it, as a duty, which is especially noteworthy in a society that cultivates self-gratification, the fulfilling of emotional desire, and the alleviation of consequence from duty or action. The pleas for help against the strength of emotion are not merely a product of today, but of the weaknesses of all mankind, and is illustrated here by the apostles themselves, when they ask Jesus for increased faith. They wish for a greater faith to overcome the emotions set against forgiving others. It is as if they are saying, “no one can forgive someone over and over on their own!”

Jesus’ response? It is your duty. Don’t hem and haw and finally decide to forgive, so that you may then turn around and ask for praise and adulation for simply doing what is commanded. If you follow me, if you love me, then you will forgive, because that is what I have done for you. It is your duty.

Society will absolve guilt and duty with phrases and mantras such as:

“You shouldn’t have to apologize for your feelings,”

“We can’t control our emotions,”

or even

“We should allow for our feelings to guide us in our decisions.”

I admittedly am an emotional person, given to highs and lows, and do struggle with the discipline of not letting un-caged emotion drive my decisions. However, we must remember that we are Christians because it is true, and there is hope in truth. Yes it is emotional, but God has also provided a great many evidences, not the least of which is the reality of a resurrected messiah.

John MacArthur has said, “Pertaining to the bible, its prophecies are fulfilled. Its miracles are true and attested to. It is scientifically flawless and accurate. Its history and archaeology are verifiable to the smallest detail.”

He goes on to assert, “The basic task of the church is to teach sound doctrine. It is not to give one pastor’s opinion, to recite tear-jerking illustrations that play on emotions, to raise funds, to present programs and entertainment, or to give weekly devotionals.”

When it comes to forgiveness, it is described as a duty that should supersede emotional qualms. This also implies that forgiveness is not waiting on the emotion to join the intent, but instead is action taken despite emotion. But what action?

Forgiveness is simply releasing the right for revenge. The action of not disparaging a person who sins against you. To not gossip about them. To even speak well of them. To not seek or hope for their demise, or punishment, or just desserts. These are actions. These can rise above emotion.

Put another way, the act of forgiveness can be carried out as a duty until the emotions match the actions. If however, we wait on the emotion, the weakness of our flesh, to entice us to follow God’s command, would it ever happen?

Another instance of an emotionally driven construct of today is the transgenderism issue, a delicate one, and one that not only defies God’s will for us based on emotion, but also defies very real and understandable science and genetics. Scientifically stated, there is no such thing as transgenderism. It is  a construct of our society. We see similar psychological disorders with anorexia and the like, a person who perceives reality and the biology of their body differently than what is real. Consider this denial in who you are, this rebellion against how you were made, total denial in the identity of yourself. This is akin to suicide, the end of your life as what you were designed to be. Couple that with the mutilation of one’s body to fulfill the emotional desire to not be oneself, and you have not only physically harmed the body, but have harmed chances of a marriage, of having your children with a spouse, to connect with people of the same and opposite sexes on a meaningful level in many ways. This is why those in the transgender world are 19 times more likely to commit suicide than other people groups. A group forever forced to adopt the persona of what they are not.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, is the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, and is the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles. He states that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” Regarding his willingness to reassign gender through surgery, he said this: “And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

We could go on and on with this subject, discussing an “everything is normal sex education”, child abuse, etc. But the point here and of this article is, we must be aware that truth and morality are objective things. They are verifiable things, and therefore, we must make a choice not to fall into the tempting pattern of blaming and cultivating emotions not anchored to truth, in order to absolve ourselves from reality.

Especially with the support of society, it can be easy to simply blame emotion for all of the situations we find ourselves in, but those not squarely rooted in God’s will tend to leave people in tumult, whether it be in anger, or anxiety, or depression. As we mature in Christ, it should become clearer that the discipline of our actions define who we are. Galatians lists fruits of the spirit in chapter 5, one of which is self-control. Ephesians 4:14 says, “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.” We must ask ourselves, when society plays on feelings and emotions to convince us that reality is false, do we consult the word for truth, or succumb to the continued and pervasive relativity of popular opinion and PC pressure. If we allow our emotions to be victorious over reason, what do we gain? What do we lose?

Infighting: Young vs Old Earth

Subject Article: Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth. 

One of my favorite apologists is Frank Turek. I have really grown to love and respect him, and his methods. He is intelligent, articulate, and charismatic, and it is clear he loves the Lord, and does so with great courage. Frank has written a couple books that I have read and enjoyed, and would highly recommend.

Stealing from God, and Not Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

They are both thought provoking and amazing, and the concepts are very helpful.

Frank also runs www.crossexamined.org, a terrific apologist site. It seems as though everyone involved with this ministry is quite brilliant, and quite talented, and it is with trepidation that I butt heads with them on any issue, simply because I am quite outmatched, both intellectually, and regarding resources.

That being said, I have watched Frank’s responses to the young earth creation theory  very closely during his question and answer sessions, and have just recently read  Jonathan McLatchie’s article again from 2011, Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth.  Based on these, I continue to find myself at odds with their conclusions. I do however agree that though this issue should continue to be examined and explored, it should not cause division among Christians. 

I say this humbly, and from experience, because due to my passion for the subject, I have certainly allowed what I believe is the truth of God’s word to cause rifts, heated debate, and even anger between me and other christians. The intentions of my interactions are always out of love, and out of a desire to illustrate the amazing truths we can find in the word, thereby teaching how trustworthy the word of God is. How we are completely justified in our faith as Christians. But of course, the very human, and very fleshy part of me will often surface, and cause me to have less grace than I should, usually to the detriment of the conversation, and I am afraid, also to the detriment of people’s general view of me as a person and a christian. This is something I continue to try and work on in my own life.

I also acknowledge McLatchie’s conclusion in the subject article that the bible does indeed allow for a more literal interpretation for the Genesis days, though he does go on to say it doesn’t demand it. I have addressed this issue several times and in several ways. For more of what I have written, please click here:

“Why do we care?”

“Satan’s Fall”

“Total Opposite”

I have heard Frank state in his answer sessions that he does not believe in macro-evolution, based on evidence, and has therefore stipulated in his answer sessions that man was created in his present form (barring micro-evolutionary changes, or natural selection over time). I agree.

Yet, in another answer session, he will go on to stipulate that he believes based on the laws of physics and the Big Bang’s apparent reality (I disagree, but again, am not a scientist), the universe is/could-be very old.

If we examine the article in question, McLatchie further complicates matters by stating the myth that it could have been a local flood in Noah’s day, which is not only refuted by a simple reading of the biblical text, but also a simple surveying of the millions of drown fossils buried all over the earth among other obvious geological evidences. Genesis 7 assures us “all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” Being fans of science, I would challenge any apologist

2016-6-18-bill-j
pic from answersingenesis.org

 to explain how water rose 15 feet above all the highest hills, and somehow remained “local”. 2 Peter 3:5-6 continues to support the global event; “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” We can see from the many examples of great sea fossils buried upon the dry land of every continent that this was so. Andrew Snelling has done great work examining this.images (1).jpg

In regards to the days of Genesis 1, these have been addressed by YEC time and time again. But I would at least quickly point out that the day itself is literally defined in the verse as “there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.” Since it is the first one, God goes ahead and describes it for us, a daylight portion and a nighttime portion seem to make up a day. Literally defined. I would also ask, how many “first days” are there?

We are (or should be) familiar with day-age and gap theory, but specifically the gap theory seems to be the one Frank refers to in his answers, though he does so quite tactfully (and I don’t want to presume to speak for him), as he mentions the space potentially between verse one and two of Genesis. For reference, Thomas Chalmers invented the Gap Theory in 1814, saying that great time could exist in the beginning verses. He was a Scottish minister, professor of theology, political economist, and a leader of the Church of Scotland and of the Free Church of Scotland. He has been called “Scotland’s greatest nineteenth-century churchman”. Unfortunately, he was also reacting to the pressure of man’s idea of uniformitarian theory, and the “great chain of being” theory, which are the precursors of evolutionary thinking.

McLatchie says in his  article, that “… as a scientist, the arguments for an ancient earth seem to be very compelling (needless to say, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is a very different story).” So it would appear that both he and Frank are convinced the earth is quite old, yet are also both convinced that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “on its heels right now,” as Mr. Turek had stated. This would mean, unless I am misunderstanding, that both of these  men believe that it is possible, if not probable, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is potentially 4 billion years old, and that mankind was created less than 100,000  years ago (Frank’s date) in his present form.

This would mean that man, whom God made in His image, to subdue the earth, and rule it, has lived here 0.00073% of the time the universe has existed, and during only .0022% of the earth’s history. This would also mean that Jesus lied when He said God made them male and female in the beginning, being off by 99.9988%. So for reasons unknown, time would have been invented unnecessarily, for no one, to run on for ages upon ages without anyone but God to observe it’s passing, which would beg the question, why invent it?

It would further require a theory, since Darwinian molecules-to-man is not stipulated by either apologist, about when the rest of the animals were created. If it was long before man to account for an ancient fossil record, then we are now moving away from a Gap Theory, and trying to mold it in to a day-age theory, where each day is theoretically millions or billions of years. This throws day six into great confusion.

Confusion also arises when  the article addresses the “planting of the garden” taking longer than a day. If someone stipulates that God created light, and stars, and the sun from nothing, and then tries to convince me that planting a garden would take this person great time, it doesn’t sit right with me logically. In fact, Frank himself states; “The greatest miracle in the Bible is recorded in the first verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If that miracle is true, then every miracle in the Bible is at least possible.” I would emphatically agree.

Another factor addressed by McLatchie is the death before sin problem. He states that the first few verses do not definitively say there was no death prior. However, our bible does say: “The wages of sin is death” – Rom 6:23

and

Rom 5: 12 ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one…”

If one were to make the case that animals can’t sin, and therefore their deaths for millions of years are irrelevant, you still have to deal with the thorns, cancers, tumors, and various curse-caused issues of the fossil record, a written punishment of Genesis following the fall.

McLatchie tries to use some assumptions about carnivores causing animal deaths here, and goes so far as to mention the lion’s obvious “violence” – the very animal the bible uses to prove that when the curse is lifted, shall be so gentle, a child can lead them:

Isaiah 11:6 – “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

Since undoing the curse that took place is the theme and scope of the bible entire -Revelations 22:3, And there shall be no more curse –  I feel it is safe to assume the lion could easily be imagined as non-violent in the garden of Eden, since we have a promise it will be so again in the future.

So much internal evidence is thrown askew when the bible is forced to fit man’s theories (e.g. the theory of molecules to man evolution, or cosmic evolution). I would point out that in doing so, we are, like our christian brother Mr. Chalmers did, bending to the will of those who campaign furiously against God, and the redeeming power of Jesus Christ.

In the words of Luther, and despite my shortcomings, “I can do no other.” I will have to continue to support YEC, as I feel it is backed by scripture, and is quite readily corroborated by observable science. But I will also agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Turek that the Lord will not be caring about what we believe the age of the earth is when we arrive to meet him in heaven, but will instead be examining our hearts regarding Jesus instead. It is paramount. My fear though, is that with the bible’s foundation thrown into a confusing obscurity, will it damage the faith of others? I fear it already has.

All this aside, I agree with Mr. Frank Turek and his team of apologists on nearly everything else, and will continue to look to them as a wonderful resource for me, my family, and my church, and recommend them to anyone who finds this article. Since I am so small, and he is out there crushing it, it is unlikely that he or Mr. McLatchie will ever come across this small little blog page. But if that ever happens, I look forward to getting absolutely toasted by a scientist and a doctor. But in closing I will say that it is a blessing to have the education, and the printed bible in my language at all, that would even allow Mr. Turek and I to form opposite opinions on some theology points. There was a time when the word was kept from being studied by all but the clergy,  and someone like me would not have had the privilege to ever read it in my own language, much less the freedom to disagree with my superiors. For this I am grateful. As Tyndale said, “…if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” With that purpose having been achieved, we all now have the blessing of studying these mysteries for ourselves, and determining our own salvation… as well we should… with fear and trembling.

 

Don’t need God, Just Add Time…

One of the arguments apologists make is called the teleological argument, or simply stated, the argument from design. The old adage goes, if I were to come upon a pocket watch laying on a  beach,  I would quickly observe the dials, the polished metal, the small bits of assembly required to make it run. It would be clear to me that it had a designer. In much the same way, we can observe the infinitely more complex information, and organization of nature and confidently say it has a designer as well. DNA language, irreducible complexity, biodiversity. These are things we instinctively realize are not accidental, though some may hope them to be. As Romans 1:20 says,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

rustic_wood_look_planks_large_clock-r7e0ef10db0d34208b51758b252490b09_fup13_8byvr_324But since Sir Charles Lyell’s book, the Principles of Geology, where he imagined the geologic column, and perpetuated the idea that the world was much older than the bible chronology reported, we have been adding great amounts of time to the theory of molecules-to-man evolution. Sir Charles Lyell who wished to “save the sciences from Moses”, and was a contemporary and major influence on Darwin,  proposed that the world was at least 35,000 years old after his trip to Niagara Falls in 1841.

The story goes that upon his visit, with the firm desire to “prove” the world was older than the bible said, he visited the falls to test the erosion rate. Rather than wait and measure, he asked the locals their opinion on how quickly the falls eroded per year. A collection of reports from locals that had lived near the falls for years stated that the erosion rate was probably about 3 feet per year. Measuring back to Lake Ontario at this rate only gave him a date of around 12,000-15,000 years. Lyell, needing the dates to be much older, assumed this was an exaggeration, and when he ended up back in England to write down his “research”, he felt the more likely rate of erosion was 1 foot per year. The seven miles from its beginning therefore allowed him to assume it had taken the falls 35,000 years to reach its present position.

As it turns out, the actual median erosion rate of the falls is 5 feet per year, which by that measure would have brought the date to only about 9000 years old, or even younger when you figure the beginnings of that erosion were caused by the fast moving drainage of Noah’s flood. But Lyell had a uniformitarian view to prop up, and it was his hatred of the bible that motivated it. Incidentally, by the end of his career, Lyell presumed the beginning of life was 200 million years.

This idea of long time didn’t start with Lyell, though he was the one that popularized it. James Hutton, who was died the year Lyell was born, suggested a long time frame and wrote that the present was the key to the past, which of course led to uniformitarian viewpoints. Before him was Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, who first proposed broad scale mutability of species. In Epoques de la Nature, he suggested the Earth was torn from the sun 75,000 years ago.

As we know now, the assumed time for the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years. The more fossils that were found, and the slower it seemed evolution took place, so slow in fact that evidence for it was non-existent, the dates of life’s beginning moved from Lyell’s 35,000 years to 2.1 billion years. This is the time frame that evolutionists believe is necessary to evolve humans from a one celled organism. So slow in fact, that evidence for it is completely un-observable. Sounds a lot like faith, doesn’t it?

Dr. George Wald, a Professor of Biology at Harvard University, and Nobel Laureate wrote “The origin of life”, and article in Scientific American, August 1954. In it he states, “However improbable we regard this event [origin of life], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.” He goes on to say, “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”

Sound like faith?

You see, time itself is the miracle worker in evolutionary theory, not God. Time can do the impossible. Time fixes all the issues, the lack of evidence, the problem of entropy. Time, with no purpose, intelligence, or reason, has somehow created all we see, and done so opposite of the laws we observe today. If you add enough of it, that shouldn’t matter, as long as we have replaced faith in God with faith in something else.

Why? I will let Dr. Richard Charles Lewontin, from Columbia University, an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator answer that question:

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.

Or perhaps Nagel, Thomas could give you extra insight as to why:

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 …. [I]t 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.” – The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997. Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

So the premise maintained by the goo-to-you believers is that given enough time, disorder, without any intelligence guiding it, will become order, opposite the Laws of Thermodynamics, Motion, etc. The opposite of entropy.

To conclude, I will give you the example Dr. Ron Carlson gave during one of his lectures. He says, go up in a plane to 5000 ft above the Space Center Complex, take some neatly stacked index cards and toss them out. You must do this over and over until they land in the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex parking lot so that they spell out “Welcome to the Kennedy Space Center”. (This simple phrase of only 30 letters should be easy, as compared with the perfectly ordered 3 billion letters of our genetic code).

We observe at 5000 ft that these cards are not organizing, but instead ending up all over the place. So in order to produce more of a chance to organize in a way that makes sense, we will now follow the theory of evolution’s assertion and give these cards MORE TIME.

We will now take the plane up to 25,000 ft, so they have more time to fall, take our neatly stacked cards, and toss them out.  With all this extra time to fall, we must conclude that eventually they will organize into a proper sentence, or word, or even one letter. We have added the magic of time like evolutionists!

But wait –  the cards are now spreading out in an even more disorganized radius of chaos, some landing even 10’s of miles from where the plane dropped them!

How then, my friends, do we explain the beauty and exactitude of nature with this process? The answer is, we cannot. It is impossible.

I submit to you that this scientific experiment will provide us with more truth about our reality than any of the postulating, question-begging, circular reasoning, and assumption of our evolutionist friends, who like Dr. Nagel, hopes there is no God.

 

 

 

Why do we care: Young Earth vs Old Earth inconsistencies (abstract)

We have explored the fact that Jesus Christ believed mankind was created at the beginning of time. We have discussed the references from Paul, John, David, Peter, indicating that they firmly supported the testimony of early patriarchs, and the Genesis account, specifically the actuality of a global deluge. For example:

2 Peter 2:5:

“if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly”

Matthew 24:37–39

“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

Hebrews 11:7

“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

2 Peter 3:5–6

“For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”

I was teaching the other day at church, and someone asked (believers in molecules-to-man evolution have asked several times as well) why does it matter how old the Earth is? In other words, why must this be a node that our faith hinges on? Or maybe more to the point, why am I so passionate about exploring it?

I will repeat this point to start, that being saved by the propitiation of Christ does NOT hinge upon origin beliefs. You can absolutely be saved by faith in Christ and still believe the Big Bang theory created everything from nothing, and that spontaneous matter flew through the empty vacuum of space evolving into massive stars, which then exploded into more stars creating heavier elements, which eventually coalesced into orderly solar systems upon which billions of years affected its habitability so that abiogenesis could take place, which led to the slow development of continually more complex organisms despite observable entropy, until eventually man sprouted from the animal kingdom evolved enough to begin understanding a God that set it all in motion. Yes, you can believe this (despite the lack of evidence, and the fact that it was invented to escape the reality of God 200 years ago), and be saved. But at what point will a logical student, who is learning this as a world view in college, start to realize that if this is true, then the bible must not be?

What do I mean? Consider the amount of death that took place in order to bring about mankind within the evolutionary model. Billions of dead animals, and man-like creatures eventually rising to an evolved enough state to proclaim that there is a God. Not only death, but  thorns, cancer, disease, arthritis, abscesses, tumors, rickets, syphilis, all before man and the fall in fossil record.
Then we read,

“Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.””

And later, a messiah who shall lift this curse:

Colossians 1:20  – and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross
Revelations 21:4  – And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away
Revelations 22:3 – And there shall be no more curse.

At what point will the student realize school is teaching him or her that

a) this was all by accident instead

b) death is not the unnatural enemy and curse of mankind, but a means of creation via mutation

c) if it took millions of years of evolution, at what point did God impart souls to people? or are there no souls in reality?

d) if what we see in geology is not the result of an obvious flood, but instead of millions of years of erosion, then Christ, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, John and others were all lying or just story telling (Nearly every book in the bible refers to Genesis (over 200 times in NT alone))

e) if my parents asked me to believe all this in Genesis, and it isn’t true, and they also asked me to believe in a virgin birth, miracles, the death and resurrection of Christ, them why should I believe it?

f) religion must be man made…

This is perhaps the reason that 75% of church going students who go off to college drop away from the church, and from their faith in the Good News of Christ. As with the parable of Christ, the world is not fertile ground, but is instead hard ground and thorns which will not allow faith to grow.

But, when Paul relays the gospel to us, what phrase is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4:

“that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures

According to the scriptures! This means we should expect them to be accurate! If we consider the scriptures, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies (uncanny proof of their veracity), if we consider the geography presented – even skeptic archaeologists use the exactitude of the bible to uncover ancient discoveries in the Middle East, places like Ur and Nineveh, which date back to before Abraham – if we consider the eye-witness testimony, we should very easily be able to apply it to our world view with no problem. And we can!  Abraham is in Genesis, and from Abraham on, we have abundant evidence that things happened just as was stated by eye-witnesses, and recorded by Moses. It was then verified by prophets and historians for centuries, and backed with prophecy, and miracles, not the least of which involves an empty tomb, also verified by history.

This is played out similarly in the word, when it says in 1 Corinthians 1:23:

“but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”

Why foolishness to the Gentiles? Because they have no frame of reference with which to believe such a story. They do not accept the concept of sin, or God, of God’s law, or the fall of man, and therefore do not even acknowledge their need for salvation. This was addressed also in Acts by Paul, who had to explain who God was when he preached to non-Jews. He was not preaching to people who were waiting for a messiah. He was preaching to a people who had no idea they needed one!

This is the secular environment of the world today. Christianity seems like foolishness to the world, to America, to students on college campus. It doesn’t matter that the anti-god world view of those they look up to, learn from, and revere, has no evidence to support it. It is what they prefer, for in that world view, they need not ever humble themselves, and the world before them is a justified buffet of consequence-free pleasure, and power, for anyone strong enough to get it.

Often, an atheist will contemplate the meaning of life, as we all do, yet they do so with the naturalistic world view. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson stated, we are nothing but stardust.  Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre said,  “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.” If we are truly an accident, a blip, then the cold truth is, life has no meaning. It is a fleeting thing, and we are as worthless as the ant, the leaf, and the rock. Your feelings are happenstance, and your moral compass is random programming.

It is with this understanding that I consider the bible, and must logically conclude it must either teach truth, or all be a deranged hoax. This is a serious consideration, and if it is true, which I think it clearly is, then how could I not be passionate about the hope we have in Jesus Christ! How could I not also push for others to understand  that when the bible is taken as truth, the world very much makes sense within its framework. As well it should, for God created it! In it we have answers from archaeology, genetics, paleontology, geology, biology, and cosmology, just to name a few.

At what point could someone see all this, believe all this, verify all this, a God who wrote you a love letter, and a history of the world, over a 1400 year period, which has withheld critics for centuries and stood strong under the most extreme scrutiny, and then choose to believe all but the beginning, the very reason a messiah is needed, and the very reason that screams to us all how special a creation we are, thereby causing everyone in the rest of the book to be lying, or foolish. Not only that, but would instead chose to believe a team of men who set out specifically to concoct a theory that would disparage God’s word (and succeeded), the consequences of which cost 100’s of millions of lives.

And all this damage, this godless, twisted result, all of it so that a person can impose their will for a time before a meaningless death consumes them. Whether the life of an atheist is perceived as good or bad, it could not matter one iota, as the end must be the hopelessness of nothing, tantamount to never having been at all.

 

Our Amazing Moon

In studying Picture1and familiarizing myself with more “Goldilocks” factors, or factors necessary for life to exist on this planet, I am reminded of some basics, considerations I was amazed and entertained by in my youth, but have since forgotten or dismissed. I remember leafing through science books about oceans, and volcanoes, and animals, endlessly looking at pictures and enjoying all the wonders of nature. One of my favorite science books was the one on our solar system; our sun, our nine planets (Pluto wasn’t under the scrutiny it faces these days), and our amazing moon.

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There are so many studies we could do on Genesis chapter 1, but one interesting thing to note is that many critics of the bible levy a charge against it that it simply borrowed creation accounts from other ancient cultures, such as Babylonian. I recommend studying that charge, as it is pretty easy to debunk. But note that those other stories from other peoples use terms for the sun and moon.

Babylon names them Shamash (sun) and Sin (moon). If we go farther back, to the Sumerians, their references to the moon-god are Sin, and Nanna. The sun was Utu, and Venus was Iananna, and since these were moon worshipping cultures, the writings say that these two objects were the children of our moon.

Clearly these ideas could not have given rise to our Genesis account, and any attempt to accuse such can be dismissed with a simple reading of the text. But note that at this point in history, these objects in our sky had already been named. It is intriguing to me that in our account, it simply states, “a greater light” (maor gadol) and “a lesser light” (maor qaton). It states they are there, made, and simply describes them. Genesis does not name either the sun, or the moon, because when that portion of Genesis was written, they had not yet been given names!

The names of these celestial bodies were given long after, by the Sumerians post-flood. The bible does not use names for them until Genesis 15 -Shemesh, the Babylonian name- and Genesis 37 – Yareah, a Canaanite name. This is great literary evidence that the first chapter of Genesis was written long before the myths of pagan cultures.

Our moon is a compass, a clock, a calendar, and a nightlight. Its distance and size is designed perfectly to provide a gravity that interacts with Earth’s, and regulates her tilt. It also keeps our oceans healthy, and regulates biorhythms. It is easy to understand how such a wonderful creation could be misunderstood and idolized by primitive peoples. But as Romans 1:25 tells us, mankind still falls into this trap today:

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the created things more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

The moon is 238,900 miles from Earth, a particular distance that allows it, on its particular Picture2orbit to do something extraordinary, create eclipses. I say particular because typically satellites orbit around their planet’s equator. Since our earth is tilted at approximately 23.4 degrees, this would send the moon up and down rather than along the same plane as the sun. Instead, God had it orbit in perfect alignment with the earth’s orbit around the sun, regardless of the earth’s tilt.

It also has a particular size. The sun is 400 times larger than the moon, while the sun is exactly 400 times farther away! The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. Considering the enormity of these bodies, and trying to fathom their perfect timing, size, and placement, that allows us on earth to appreciate their splendor that much more, I would be a fool as a cosmologist to not believe in an all-powerful creator God.

Psalms 19:1
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands

Unfortunately though, that is precisely what many cosmologists are doing. The evolutionary mindset of many sciences has blinded them into thinking that despite all this perfect order, what they see is nothing more than blind chance, accidental, coincidental luck.

They cling to the dying theory of molecules-to-man evolution so faithfully that it forces the prevailing theories on the moon’s origin to be laughable. This is NASA’s theory as it stands today. This is literally what they believe, or try to believe, and condone teaching to students. This is what hoping there is no God looks like:

“The leading theory of the moon’s origin is that a Mars-sized body collided with Earth about 4.5 billion years ago. The resulting debris from both Earth and the impactor accumulated to form our natural satellite 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) away. The newly formed moon was in a molten state, but within about 100 million years, most of the global “magma ocean” had crystallized, with less-dense rocks floating upward and eventually forming the lunar crust. ” – NASA, (http://moon.nasa.gov/about.cfm)

Did you get that? A planet sized body collided with ours and formed a molten moon from the accumulating debris of an impact, in its perfect position, a perfect distance away, and didn’t destroy the earth in the process. And people laugh at my biblical beliefs!

Aside from the insurmountable ridiculousness of our leading cosmology theory, we run into another problem called lunar regression. It has been ascertained that the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. Now, if we consider this drift from the presupposition that the bible’s chronology is accurate, after 6000 years or so this equates to moving the moon only 250 meters. Not a big deal.

However if, like NASA is declaring, the moon was blasted out of the Earth and somehow ended up in orbit 4 billion years ago, was it drifting the whole time? If we reverse the 1.5 inch drift over a period of  only 1.5 billion years (I say only, due to the vast ages applied to evolutionary theory) we reach what scientists refer to as “Roche’s Limit”. This puts the moon only 11,500 miles from the Earth, at which point, Roche calculated that the gravity of the two bodies would rip each other apart. This does not bode well for the theory that the moon could survive being blasted off the side of our planet. It also does not bode well for the moon’s age, which is purported to be 4 billion years old. This limiting factor of 1.5 billion years continues to baffle those who hope our beautifully arranged solar system has come about by mere chance.

In addition to this Roche Limit, it was also calculated (to further complicate the scenario) that the closer the moon was to the Earth, the faster the lunar regression would be, due to the Earth’s gravitational pull and spin ‘flinging’ the moon away faster. This means that we now have to account for even more regression in the past, and two bodies that cannot be too close.

And one final consideration. If Lunar regression puts the moon insanely close to the Earth a billion years ago -95% closer! –  and somehow scientists can bypass the reality of Roche’s Limit, what would gravity do to the tides of the oceans? Would the moon’s gravity flood the earth twice a day via global catastrophic flooding in a constant, destructive, never-ending, muddy, violent, perpetual water event? We already know evolutionists don’t believe in a global flood, right? (snicker snicker). But we would somehow have to explain how life not only came about and survived in this harsh environment, but also how it continued to thrive and evolve into more and more complexity.

I am glad it is not my challenge to solve, as I comfortably rest on the truth of God’s word. I can look up at the night sky, and feel blessed to look upon the heavens, and our amazing moon, and know that despite my sin, He loved me anyways.

Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Goodnight Moon.

 

Answering critics – Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones

After more than one debate over the importance of Creation vs Evolution studies with one individual, and plumbing the depths of its veracity as a ministry, a simple comment about soft tissue and carbon 14  having been found in dinosaurs led  quickly from a cordial discussion to being accused of idol worship, being told to stop harmonizing the bible with science,  and assertion that the entire group of Christians, including many with advanced degrees the world over,  who happen to believe in the chronology presented in the Old Testament are wasting their time and resources.

Once cooler heads prevailed this question was presented, as a challenge that I accepted.

“Will you please address the issue of the misrepresentation of Mrs. Sweitzer’s data. I would like to ask you to study her findings and using google, a library, the bible, and your own research, refute those findings by backing it up with real tangible data.
Then tell me how that data or her data in any way lies in contradiction to the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator.”

It was worded well, and once asked, I felt it would be an opportunity to extrapolate on a few issues I have written about before.

Mrs. Sweitzer’s data came from this article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

and was copied and ker-plasted as a retort to my simple acknowledgement that soft tissue and Carbon 14 had indeed been found in dinosaur bones, and this was a problem (one of many) for evolutionists who cling to the molecules to man scenario.

Firstly we must declare off hand, and as I have taught many times on line and in person, that presupposition plays a rather large role in this debate, and as the article so adeptly googled and flung was from none other than the Smithsonian, not exactly a bastion of Christian thought and intellect, we can expect absolutely nothing from them but strong religious adherence to Darwinism, and the beating drum of millions of years. I have searched its archives dozens of times for artist renderings of hominids never found, and claims of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Since the challenge that was presented requested research to analyze the dumpster fire that is evolutionary theory, I’d like to point out this article from that very website answering  the difficult question, “How do we know the earth is 4.6 billion years old.”

Rather than admitting plainly that they don’t… they have instead presented – under “SMART NEWS” no less – that the reason is radiometric dating. As an example, they mention Carbon dating, which renders a sample ‘carbon dead’ after 80,000 years, uranium-lead dating, a measurement fraught with assumptions and bad data, and zircon of all things, which the RATE team, a group of 8 Christian doctors who studied radiometric dating in an 8 year long study, is presently using to show helium diffusion rates prove even these supposedly old rocks have way to much helium  to be old. This is the same group that published their findings of Carbon 14 in diamonds, a hardened carbon that evolutionists claim are billions of years in the making, and should have lost their carbon 10,000 times over.

You may ask, “but don’t they use these dating methods to date the fossils?”

The answer is no. They use the made up geologic column to date the fossils, and the made up fossil dates to date the rocks they are found in. Classic circular reasoning, and a thorn in the sides of evolutionists who dare to challenge the dogma. Don’t believe me? Don’t take my word for it:

If you look up Paleontology  in World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, 1978.) – p. 85 “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”
And then look up Fossils – p. 364 “Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.” These books were in every university in the country.

What about our biology text books?
“Often, the layers of rock can be dated by the types of fossils they contain…. Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils within the sedimentary rock layers.” (Glenco, Biology Textbook, 1994, pp. 306-307.)

But surely the atheist evolutionists who tout the importance of radiometric dating use it to date the rocks, no? Here are two such atheists:
“I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” (Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100, 1983, p. 425.)
“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53)

For more studies on dating issues, please see this post.

To the issue at hand. The article (not in its entirety because of length) is below in green. My comments from my creationist position will be in blue. Note, I was asked to “refute those findings”, which since it was her discovery, I won’t be doing, but will be addressing her conclusions. And also I was asked to speak on how her conclusions lie in contradiction to the creator God of the bible, which is the crux of the issue, and a wonderful question. Let’s get started:
After 68 million years in the ground,

This date was obtained based on the presupposed accuracy of the geologic column. We “know” how old T-rex’s are because of evolution, therefore if we find one, it is this old. Part of our Jurassic classification. Many times during my debate similar presuppositions were stated as definitive truth, such as “we know the rocks are billions of years old”. Two quotes from other atheists:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” –  Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitarianism,” Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.

“The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity.” – B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology,” Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.

 a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. 

This of course is also based on the presupposition that evolution is true. From the dates of the bible, Noah’s 600th year was approximately 4500 years ago, which is when all or close to all dinosaurs were buried and fossilized, along with explaining the earth’s plentiful biomass oil reserves from buried forests etc. This means anomalies such as soft tissue and carbon in diamonds doesn’t defeat, but supports the biblical timeline. We would expect to find all sorts of catastrophic evidence as well, which we do. Polystrate fossils are a notable one, one organism passing through different strata rock. Article

Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors.

“It has been well established that such biological structures and molecules should not last beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and could not possibly survive millions of years. So why are they there?” – Brian Thomas, M.S.  

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

It is also interesting to note that though Schweitzer’s T-rex is the most notable soft tissue sample, many other samples have been found as well. One in 2013 was the soft tissue in a triceratops, which Schweitzer had nothing to do with – Armitage, M.H., and K. L. Anderson. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica. Published online before print, February 13, 2013.

In almost all cases, including Schweitzer, scientists scrambled to disprove soft tissue genuinely that of the speciment itself. “One popular pushback asserts that the soft tissues are not from the dinosaurs at all, but from bacteria that somehow infiltrated their bones and built biofilms in the same shapes as dinosaur tissues and cells.” – Brian Thomas, M.S.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

I never met Schweitzer, but have no reason to doubt her salvation. Not once during my debate did I suggest evolutionists couldn’t be Christians. The person I was debating, before declaring it supremely unimportant, debated staunchly for evolution’s obviousness, then declared he was not an evolutionist, and then that he was a Christian evolutionist. The two are mutually exclusive. You do not need one to be the other, nor do I teach that, but I will say it causes biblical inconsistencies. More on that later.

 

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

They used to teach that it took millions of years to create a fossil. Then they taught at least 10,000 years (some sites still do). Now we have fossilized pallets, cowboy boots, a hat, a mason jar with a pickle in it, etc. Evolutionists have had to back off of this particular track, like many others due to observable science. Interestingly, scienceviews.com states, “Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind.” Water and mud. During my lectures, I show many examples of dinosaurs in death throes from asphyxiation due to being buried quickly in water and mud. Strangely, evolutionists postulate numerous un-provable ideas about how the dinosaurs became extinct (meteor, asteroid, global warming, flatulence (i wish that was a joke) global warming, etc) and yet we find them buried by water in mud all over the earth.

i.e. – World’s Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death, By Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor – “The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these Centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously. The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet.”

Drowned dinosaur eggs’ fossil remains reveal embryos grew fast, Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2013|By Amina Khan

Yellowstone National Park – Mammoth Site in South Dakota. Mammoths and other megafauna got trapped in a sinkhole and drown about 26,000 years ago

I just wish there was a book somewhere with eye-witness accounts of what happened so we could piece together how all these animals were buried simultaneously in water and mud all over the earth. Oh, wait?

In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world.

Just a point here. This guy saw something sticking out of a wall, and it was dated 68 million years. You know… cause its a T rex.Okay. Carry on…

 

Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives.

This is probably true, based again on presupposition that if evolution is true, and we have no reasonable theory for extinction, then macro-evolution theory must have turned dinosaurs in to feathered birds.

This means: heavy tail to feathered plumage; dense to hollow bones, cold to warm blooded in some cases, limbs to wings – these are serious physiological changes, and is absurd as it sounds. Fossils have been found that suggest dinosaurs with strange features, but creationists  view dinosaurs having woolly plumages and collagen fibers as –dinosaurs with woolly plumages and collagen fibers, nothing more.

This idea started with the find ‘Archaeopteryx’, a supposed transitional fossil, like many others jumped on publicly, and then backtracked privately and quietly, as it was simply an extinct type of flightless bird. This occurred with many supposed transitions, from Darwin to the present, and the fossil record remains strangely devoid of any transitions, just extinctions, and fully developed kinds, or baramin. They all appear suddenly, and no one teaches that if evolution were true, there should be billions of transitions found making taxonomy and classification impossible. 

Let’s take an aside, and hear just some quotes  (there are hundreds) from our evolutionary scientists about the fossil record:

“The majority of evolutionary movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival.”—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].

“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology.”—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

“Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”—*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1882), pp. 181-182.

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.”—*Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.

To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus.

Primitive, again based on presupposition of evolutionary theory. For creationists, these are just kinds of birds.

In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.

As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.

In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells….

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

You can say that again! In regards to the mammoth, we have here yet another soft tissue found to go with the many others. The scientific reaction to these tissues is “don’t understand decay.” Evolutionists are so ingrained in billions-of-years thinking, it would never occur to ask the more obvious question, perhaps these haven’t been decaying as long as we first thought. I am reminded of the Scientists in a lab that made coal in 6 hours. At a different time, in 1982 the British made oil in 10 minutes. Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University triumphantly stated, “We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.” This is yes another stellar example of our presuppositions determining our interpretations. Another, more obvious conclusion, if one were not blinded by evolutionary theory would be to instead triumphantly announce, “It doesn’t take nearly as long as we thought for coal and oil to form!”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says.

A shame and nothing I’d condone. I like healthy debate, and prefer to present logical material for consideration. It usually isn’t until the ad hominem attacks, accusations, and lies come in that I start getting snippy. 

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

The data is the data. What is observable is the geology of Hell Creek, the bones themselves, and where they were located, and the soft material inside. As a scientist, she is allowed to conclude as she wishes how to interpret this data, but it will be interpreted, no doubt, based on her world view, which in this case is evolution, and the fact that she “already knew” this site was 68 million years old. 

Another scientist who may believe in intelligent design is welcome to take these same facts, and look at them through the presupposition that 4500 years ago this animal was most likely a victim of a world wide catastrophic flood, and that part of it was preserved and didn’t fully fossilize. Forensic or historical sciences, such as archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, and forensics are historical sciences. In other words, results cannot be repeated in a lab. This animal cannot be buried again for all to see. Her emotions in this case are irrelevant. 

For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.

Breaks HER rules of science, and no doubt the rules of those who educated her. I am grateful she didn’t lose her faith like so many others, but this is a subjective opinion, not a scientific law. Conversely there exists the well known anthropic principle which states that the universe appears to be carefully designed for the well-being of mankind. This is quite recognized, and is in direct opposition to her approach and personal philosophy, since teleologically, we can observe a design and purpose, and therefore can conclude a designer.  

After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence.

Yes it is correct God asks for faith. No it is not correct that God doesn’t want you to use intellect, reason, and consider evidence. Or else He wouldn’t have gone to such great lengths to provide so many prophecies in the word (hundreds fulfilled, over three hundred by Christ alone). He would not have so meticulously recorded the history of the Jewish nation, the forming of their laws, kings, lineages, and travels. He would not have mentioned the cities founded and lived in that archeology has been using since to unravel the past accurately (for more on this please read Josh MacDowell’s New evidence that Demands a Verdict, and Cooper’s Authenticit of the Book of Genesis). Cities such as Nineveh, Ur, Jericho, all found. God used historians like Luke to record eye witness accounts and the history of the early church in Acts, precisely because evidence was so important. In Acts and John alone, over 140 eye witness details have been verified by scholars, because it WAS so important to be able to defend the scriptures. The miracles were actuallyseen, the prophecies  actually fulfilled, and the promise of His return hangs on these events occurring in real history, in real time. The bible implores us to study, and defend it over and over, not to believe blindly in it, and to them follow man’s theories:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give a defense to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

1 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord
Philippians 1:7 – in the defense and confirmation of the gospel
Philippians 1:17 – knowing I am appointed for the defense of the gospel

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

So we must ask, shall we apply it only to Christ’s life, or apply it to the bible as authoritative? More on that later when we discuss the second part of the question.

“If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Romans 1: 20 states, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” 

Psalms 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

We are without excuse if we do not see God in the wondrous creation He has made for us. A huge point of contention, because simply put, evolutionists must conclude that all this came about by accident. Matter created itself, slowly gave rise to order, to chemicals, to suns and systems, and eventually abiogenesis, life from non-life, another scientific impossibility. From there through millions of years of death, and change for survival, man developed from animals. We must then conclude that at some arbitrary point, after 4 billion years of using death to create mankind, a mere highly evolved animal, a God who started it all 14 billion years ago decided to impart souls, make up a mythology with specific years, and including a flood, and then “really began telling a redemption story” some time around Abraham?

It is clear that Schwietzer is “driven crazy” by people who disagree with her world view, and with her philosophy. But in her defense, they are not disagreeing with the forensic science she conducted. Not agreeing with creationists and thinking it’s kind of cool to not know God has no bearing whatsoever on what was found. And the simple fact remains, soft tissue cannot last 65 million years before breaking down. 

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown.

In my opinion, when they let go of the presupposition of evolution, much of what they observe in the field will fall in to place, like it already has with Dr. Snelling at the Grand Canyon, Dr. Sanford the geneticist who studied the genetic entropy of the human genome, and fifty others I could name (see in six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation). But let’s hear from more of our evolutionist friends about it:

“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.”—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

Paleontologist Alan Cheetham, a gradualist evolutionist, summed up decades of his own research: “I came reluctantly to the conclusion that I wasn’t finding evidence for gradualism.” Reported by R.A. Kerr in “Did Darwin Get It All Right?” Science 276:1421, 10 March 1995.

“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.”—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

“Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely.”—*B. Storehouse, “Introduction,” in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.

“To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,”

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”—*Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

I hope this is the case for all who discount the veracity of scripture.

 

The article can be read in full at the top of this page.

The second part of our question:  “Then tell me how that data or her data in any way lies in contradiction to the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator.”

Again, her data, the actual hard data does not lie in contradiction to anyone. They are simply hard facts. Bones. Certain testable content, location, etc. Evolutionists are adept however at blurring the lines between hard facts, and interpreted data, as well as always insisting they have a monopoly on the sciences. This is simply in gross error. I can’t count the times it has been suggested that Christians need to stop being anti-science, or that we hate or ignore science because of our bibles.

This same accusation was levied at me by this debater as well, and several times at that. But he also did say one thing I agreed with, and that is that the bible is not a science book. Of course it isn’t! Creationists do not claim it to be so, nor do they claim it to be a book on taxonomy or dinosaurs. The bible contains what it contains, and from it, we must derive conclusions based on what God told us. But in it creationists would expect, unlike Schweitzer, to find a Creator God who does speak sense when referring to the natural world, which is precisely what we find. i.e. the hydrological cycle, fountains of the deep, springs under water, pathways of the sea, curve of the earth, hanging it on nothing, etc. In all instances God’s word is correct regarding natural occurrences, and only varies during supernatural events, such as creation. This stands in contrast to all ancient mythology origin stories, and is logically what we’d expect from a God who is outside of space, time and matter.

Through studies, we can learn the culprits that brought us the evolutionary theory, and what their intent was. Lyell wanted to save the sciences from Moses, and from Buffon, to Lamarck, to Darwin, the enlightenment brought us the unsubstantiated theories about the decent of man that we teach today.

The result of these teachings? Rampant racism.

The Decent of Man – 1871 , Darwin – “At some future period… the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

Then, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” Huxley.

Then – “At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. ” Heckel, pre WWII, and major influence on Germany and Hitler.

These ideas permeated government, politics, and societies such as Japan, China, Russia, and Nazi Germany, and in the 20th century alone caused over 150 million deaths. This, the same theory that an evolutionist Christian may call harmless, and declare  a meaningless fight to teach and disciple people about the truth of our origins. From a creationist perspective, our origins are the same, a family of 8, 4500 years ago, a fact which is corroborated by population growth analysis, genetics, anthropology, and a study of flood legends the world over with similar details (over 300 flood legends exist today).

And what does the bible say about the tribes of the earth? Revelations 7:9-10:   After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

It states we will be standing shoulder to shoulder together.

Furthermore, these two opposing views cannot be married so easily, for as you will see, they are diametrically opposed in almost every way:

Billions of years – Life from non-life (violates law of causality)
All animals descended from common ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago
Animals change in to completely different animals, modifications are virtually unlimited, and additional information is always being added (never observed)
Fossils were laid down over time, slowly over millions of years
Death came before sin, before man
Sun before light
Sun before Earth
Sun before Plants
Creation took billions of years
Dinosaurs came before birds
Land came before oceans
Man just a slowly evolving animal
Man created God

Special 7 day creation – Life comes from life
Animals were created as distinct kinds
Changes within a kind of animal is due to design allowing changes, microevolution. Always due to a loss or rearranging of existing genetic material
Fossils were formed quickly due to a catastrophic flood all over the whole earth
Death Came after sin, and after the first Man
Light before sun
Earth before Sun
Plants before Sun
Creation took six days
Birds came before dinosaurs.
Oceans came before land
Mankind was highly intelligent from the beginning
God created Man

This is a lot of opposites!

And we would be wise to consider Christ’s words in Matthew: “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.”

Question?

If there is 3,845,000,000 years between mankind and the beginning, was Christ lying?

At what point did God think animals were “human enough” to impart souls to them?

When was the fall?

Did death bring man into the world, or man bring death into the world?

And if there is a curse that Christ came to undo, was it here for the full 4 billion years before man arrived and sinned?

Romans 5 : 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Make no mistake, in the victory of Christ, there will be a curse that is lifted: Colossians 1:20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross
Revelations 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away
Revelations 22:3 And there shall be no more curse

But if the fossil record is full of death, thorns, cancer, disease, arthritis, abscesses, tumors, rickets, syphilis all before man, and the fall in fossil record; if billions of years of chance and extinction occurred to arrive at us, does this not fully undermine the teaching on the full redemptive work of Christ?

There is much much more to this study, how day is literally defined in the bible as morning and evening, and how day “yom”  is used over 2300 times, and how we can easily conclude its meaning based on context. The particulars of the ark. Speciation vs baramins. How both Lamarkism and Neo-Darwinism fail on every level. And so much more. But perhaps the best way to end would be a warning from the bible itself. Read carefully this passage:

2 Peter 3 – Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

It is as if the bible literally predicted uniformitarian world view in the Last Days. Things continue as they were. This is the battle cry of evolution. Given enough time, anything can happen. But the logical conclusion of many a thinking person who has been indoctrinated by evolution is that if we evolved, than the bible is wrong, man made religion up along the way, and when you die you die. There was no fall, there is no curse, it is as it was from the beginning. This belief will determine behavior, as it has with the 20th century, and as it is doing with millennials in the 21st. They leave the church in droves, because the bible has been robbed of its authority.

 

 

 

 

Genetics and Evolution

With molecules to man evolution hanging on the possibility that despite the complexity of DNA, mutations must somehow add to the genetic make up of an organism over time, the theory is truly struggling. Genetics is NOT a friend to evolutionary theory. Ignoring the magic elixir of “time” that evolutionists add to the mix in order to devise an acceptable probability ratio, we must conclude firstly that enough mutations will slowly (or quickly) transform one kind of animal into another (I sometimes can’t even believe this still needs to be discussed).

A couple of short points: You have heard of a gene pool, yes? This is an invention, a constructed idea of early population geneticists who were dedicated to Darwinism. The problem they faced is that most genetic mutations aren’t catastrophic in nature. They instead degrade, and interact with other nucleotides, to create a long term minimal effect. Genes are poly-dimensional, working many different ways as a language. Imagine a book that could be read forwards, and backwards, and using every other word, and using a cipher. This is the type of complexity we encounter. It is well known in genetics that one nucleotide, since it doesn’t affect enough of the whole organism, would not be enough to be selected or mutated beneficially to bring about a change. Rather, we know that several nucleotides would have to be changed productively at once. The gene pool constructs a visual that sells well, promoting the idea that out of this “pool” nucleotides can be mutated to change the overall composition of the organism over time without consideration for those other nucleotides it affects.

In other words, the ripple effect from being a multi-purposeful nucleotide would create so much “noise” and would affect the overall organism so little, that there is almost no correlation between that one nucleotide changing, and the betterment of the animal as a whole. You are talking about an almost atomic level of change.

We must therefore conclude that large “chunks” must change to create any real progress. So we must analyze this possibility.

Mutations within the human genome have been scrutinized and analyzed, and it has been found that most of the mutations are not “noisy” enough by themselves (changing a letter in a DNA strand, like a typo in a book) to be selected by mother nature to pass on, whether good or bad. These mutations are neutral, or un-selectable, and therefore cannot occur with enough impact to change the organism, regardless of time. Geneticists realize that most are neutral, and that because of this there would be no reason for  this information to be passed on to further a species up the evolutionary chain.

Furthermore, if we consider the ratio of beneficial to non-beneficial mutations, the vast majority are on the negative side. One experiment reviewed 10,000 mutations, and could only list 4 beneficial ones, which later all proved to be a net loss of information. Any that are actually considered beneficial mutations are usually in the neutral range anyway! This even further reduces the chance of benefit occurring, and being passed down.

Remember, evolution requires a high rate of beneficial mutations over time to succeed. This is not observably the case on any level.

There is so much more we could discuss, but this is a blog, and I just want to offer a sense of the trouble actual genetic science delivers to the evolutionary theory. Two more final notes. One is that considering that all of these nucleotides are multi-functional, if you do actually come up with a beneficial mutation that helps the organism in one way, there is no possibility that that change has also somehow benefited the way it is used in all of its other ways. It would disrupt how the information was read in all of its other variable forms, and therefore would only be beneficial in one sense, but damaging in all others.

Secondly, genetics ignores in its models the very real, and very detrimental concept of “fitness valleys”. Consider this: If 99.9996% of all mutations are either bad, or neutral, and those are occurring all the time, can you suppose a timeline whereby the positive ones somehow surpass the overall effect of all the negative ones to essentially make the organism healthier and more complex?  Food for thought.

Total Opposite

The creation model, and therefore the model supported by biblical scripture, is opposite the deep-time model. People don’t often realize this. They assume that young earth creationists are fuzzy on some facts, but we all kind of agree on the basics. We just won’t let “real science” disturb our unqualified beliefs enough to move the time dial.

I am here to tell you that the disparity between the two models is huge, and stark, and contrasted. So as not to cover the same ground, feel free to read my article “Let’s be clear… It’s a Young Earth” at this link.

Is it a surprise that the world’s view would look so much different than the Biblical model for creation? To even be exactly opposite of what man has ordained as truth in our education system, and our universities? It does not surprise me, and in fact, it is the expected norm. The next paragraph contains some bible verses to consider, by no means complete, but a sampling of passages that illustrate this enmity.

The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.  If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Of course this diametric opposition pertains to many considerations, but today we focus in on that first moment of creation. I have gone over the laughable theory of the Big Bang, and protest to the highest degree that it is still taught when all of creation screams of design. But here are the opposites for you in plain view, and the reasons why these models will never be compatible, and are clearly believed based on a person’s starting point, a point Christians are willing to concede, but one evolutionists refuse to see.

Creation:

  • Life comes from life
  • Animals were created as distinct kinds
  • Changes within a kind of animal is due to design allowing changes, microevolution. Always due to a loss or rearranging of existing genetic material
  • Fossils were formed quickly due to a catastrophic flood all over the whole earth
  • Death Came after sin, and after the first Man
  • Light came before the sun
  • Creation took six days
  • Birds came before dinosaurs.
  • Water came before land
  • Mankind was highly intelligent from the beginning

 

Evolution:

  • Life spontaneously came from non-life (violates law of causality)
  • All animals descended from common ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago
  • Animals change in to completely different animals, modifications are virtually unlimited, and additional information is always being added (never observed)
  • Fossils were laid down over time, slowly over millions of years
  • Death came before sin, before man, along with disease, thorns, etc.
  • The sun came before light
  • Creation took billions of years
  • Dinosaurs came before birds (now proven false)
  • Land came before water
  • Man was just a slowly evolving animal who developed intelligence

 

As you can see, the viewpoint is tremendously different. There isn’t a lot of room for Christians to compromise without undermining the word. Now, for all of you science nerds out there, don’t panic. The word, and the creation model is perfectly compatible with science, and I dare say more so then the evolutionary model. What we observe, and can prove fits beautifully with the history the bible provides, and is demonstrable through almost every branch of science. That is why the number of believers in intelligent design is growing throughout academia. And it is why evolution, the big bang, and molecules-to-man theories are on their heels.

http://www.jrcooper.org

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

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”

Is it arrogance to think you’re special?

PaleBlueDot
Pale Blue Dot

Let me start by saying I don’t believe interpretation of facts will bring people to the Lord. I think that is a Holy Spirit thing. My hope is to grow a ministry that affords people the ability to stand fast in what I consider authoritative scripture. Today, we will address the chances of other earth like planets supporting life, as a follow up to my UFO’s and God article.

https://jrcooper.org/2016/01/20/ufos-and-god/

Several years back NASA published a famous picture of earth from space (shown here) showing just how not-special we were, a distant spec among millions of others. It was named ‘the pale blue dot’. Promoter of anti-creation sentiment Carl Sagan famously commented, “Consider again that dot [Earth]. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Well, of course the creationist community was in a scramble, trying to prove that this little blue marble wasn’t so matter-of-fact, and insignificant. After all, our bibles tell us we are a special creation, made in His image. Despite the many problems with the big bang, and the several brands of evolution that must exist to generate life

[Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”,
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds,
and  Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter]

the crux of Sagan’s criticism was that the odds of other planets like ours existing goes up exponentially with our understanding of the vastness of the universe. This would seem like reasonable logic, but I don’t mind telling you, this has been debunked, and very soundly at that.

Consider odds, since that is all this is based on, conjecture that it simply must be. First science began to determine what factors were needed to have a planet capable of supporting the diversity of life we find here. Abundant factors were apparent: We must be within a galactic habitable zone, be around the right type of star, protected by gas giants, distance from sun, nearly circular orbit, oxygen atmosphere, a terrestrial planet, large amounts of water, one moon the correct size (I could do an amazing write up on the extraordinary moon alone),correct mass, iron core for magnetism, proper thickness of earth’s crust, plate tectonics, heat within its interior, and on and on, and furthermore they are all factors that must be met at one place and at one time, or the possibility of life fails. Just to extrapolate a bit on one factor alone, we can consider the sun. It is technically classified as a spectral type G-2 dwarf main sequence star. If it were less massive, like 90% of the stars in our galaxy, the habitable zone would be smaller, and we’d have to be closer to remain within livable boundaries, but increased gravity would lock our planets rotation into synchronization to its orbit, forcing one side of the earth to continually face the sun, exposed to radiation and heat, while the other side would lay in a frozen state of perpetual ice. To say we existed within a delicate balance would be the scientific understatement of the century.

Of course, as one considers this, one could still say, “Yes it would be rare, but hey, we are talking about the whole universe here. Billions and billions of stars, right?” So we will consider actual odds. In an attempt to estimate the probability of attaining this perfect combination of factors, a conservative 1 in 10 chance was applied to each. Once you multiply the probabilities of 20 factors needed, you get 10 to the -15, or one one thousandth of one one trillionth. Some estimate there may be as many as 200 separate factors, but  I’ll let you do the math. Once those odds were overcome, we would have to then consider odds of random chance creating the order necessary to produce a complex living cell, which are even more tumultuous odds for evolutionists, as it is mathematically impossible. If you wish to read a short article to provide insight on that, here is a link by Dr. Henry Morris, an author and apologist.
http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

The bible says God stretched out the heavens, and further states, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.” Psalms 147:4. Space is vast, to be sure, which naturally fills us with awe and wonder. But depending on perspective, some look up at the night sky, and feel insignificant, like Mr. Sagan. Others look up and and feel blessed at how special they are, and can be nothing but grateful that the Lord placed us under all that glory, one of many ways He chose to love us.