Genesis Is Not A Poem

This recent offering from the "scientists" made major headlines in the UK's Guardian newspaper. The article goes on to say:

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim. Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain. This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Ian Sample, The Guardian’s science correspondent continued on his article to say that:

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the researchers write.

Applying the grammatical-historical approach to this article I came up with the following interpretation:


Hi, I’m a scientist. You can tell because I wear a long white coat with a pocket protector. I have the highly trained ability to impress you with big words. I also have a wildly speculative imagination, which is a tremendous asset to scientists who are unable to track down any empirical evidence or factual information. When I use my wildly speculative imagination I prefer to call it “research”. Governments give me money to do this “research” and if I entertain them enough with my research they give me even more money to do even more research.

It would seem that the general public is generally satisfied with the explanation “scientists say”. Furthermore, it would seem that many theologians in the world of academia are not only satisfied with the “scientists say” mantra, they also feel the need to capitulate to their “imposing research”.

In all fairness, there is a such thing as empirical science where tests are made, data is compiled, and conclusions are drawn. The law of gravity is derived from true empirical science hence it is called a law. It is testable, measurable, repeatable, and observable. On the other hand, Darwinian evolutionary theory and Big Bang cosmology are not empirically proven facts. They are not testable, measurable, repeatable, or observable. Yet the majority of “Christian academia” feel enormous pressure to accommodate these theories into the very first chapter of the Bible.

The first chapter of Genesis is a very straightforward read for the average man in the average pew. God gives a chronological account of the six days He took to create the world (and the universe). This literary style or genre is called narrative (the other genres being poetry, parables, prophecy, and epistles). Biblical narrative refers to the portions of Scripture that give an account of historic events. It is the most common genre in the entire Bible comprising more than 40 percent of the Old Testament and nearly 60 percent of the New Testament. Theologians desirous of accommodating the prevailing “scientific” views on origins into Scripture are faced with the options of either rejecting the first eleven chapters of Genesis altogether or changing the genre from narrative to something else.

While the first eleven chapters of Genesis provide no major hermeneutical challenges to any Bible interpreter, they do provide major problems for those who want to wear the “Christian label” without being laughed at by their friends in the long white coats with pocket protectors. The most popular default among “conservative scholars” has been to reclassify the creation account as poetry rather than narrative. These scholars will readily admit their belief that Genesis switches back to the narrative genre later on though they have not been forthcoming with where exactly that is and how they determined that particular line of demarcation.

Tragically, many of these scholars do not realize that their efforts to win over the scientific establishment have come at the cost of losing the gospel. Denying Adam as a literal historical figure, denying the fall and curse as a literal historical event, and allowing for death to occur prior to Adam all do severe violence to the exclusive biblical gospel. A gospel that requires a fall to introduce sin, sin to introduce a curse, a curse to introduce death, and a second Adam to defeat death.

The fact that the entire book of Genesis is a narrative would be a “no brainer” were it not for the external interpretive pressures coming from outside of the Bible itself. Every biblical instance of yom (the Hebrew word for day) with a numerical prefix refers to a literal day – hence six literal days of creation as the first chapter of the Bible clearly states. The common features of Hebrew poetry such as figurative language and parallelisms are also absent from the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Professor John Currid states:

There is no indication of figurative language in Genesis 1. If the narrative is to be considered imagery, one would expect to encounter many of the essentials of figurative language (eg. schema, metaphor, and other tropes), but there are none.

Professor Doug Kelly provides even more compelling evidence concerning the narrative genre of Genesis:

A further confirmation of the non-poetic, historical nature of the Genesis account of creation is found in the way the New Testament uses these early chapters. Certainly for those who take the New Testament seriously, and are committed to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as truth itself, the New Testament approach to Genesis will be of highest consequence. No amount of exegetical straining can find the slightest poetic view of Genesis 1-11 in the books of the New Testament. One can disagree with the new Testament’s literal, historical usage of Genesis 1-11, but one cannot honestly find in its pages anything less than a straightforward reading of these chapters as literal, relevant facts (Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change Page 39).

Although the primary purpose of this lesson is to highlight principles for interpreting biblical narrative, the battle for Genesis highlights the importance of this issue and brings some of these interpretive principles to the surface. Some of the major principles of interpreting biblical narrative include:

1. God alone is the hero of every story – biblical narratives contain stories about people who lived during biblical times, but they are primarily about the God Who works in, through, for, and against these people. Adherence to this principle is a great remedy for the modern propensity of preachers to moralize biblical narratives.

2. Narratives are descriptive and not prescriptive – while it may be tempting to try and interpret a narrative as an example, or advice, for how Christians should live, we need to remember that narratives do not attempt to show us how we should live but merely describe events as they happened.

3. Narrative must be interpreted in the light of its broader literary context – all biblical passages of narrative must be located within their larger theological framework. For example, when reading the books that chronicle the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah, the reader is expected to be familiar with the Pentateuch in order to grasp the laws and customs dealt with in these books.

4. Narrative must be interpreted in the light of the book in which it is found – the interpreter must consider the purpose and themes of the book in which the narrative is located and consider how this narrative contributes to the greater purpose of the book.

5. The interpreter should immerse himself in the historical and cultural setting of the narrative – repeatedly reading the narrative will bring the interpreter more and more into the world of the author and audience.

6. The pinnacle of interpreting biblical narrative is to determine the theological purpose of the passage – narrative may be historical but its purpose is theological. In uncovering the theological purpose the interpreter must pay close attention to four features of the narrative: the selection of material; the use of repetition, the use of editorial comments, and the use of summary statements.

These principles provide an excellent framework for the interpretation of biblical narrative. It is to our peril when our efforts to find something between the lines negate what is clearly written on the lines. When God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses He engraved these words in stone as a perpetual reminder as to why He commanded Israel to observe the Sabbath: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11a). Somehow I doubt God would engrave a poem in stone and call it a commandment!

Closing Remarks - Evolution Debate (Part 12)

Here is a video from an honest evolutionist.



Summary of implications of modern evolutionary biology (as quoted by evolutionist naturalist William Provine who is a world famous evolutionary professor at Cornell University):

1. No gods or purposive forces
2. No life after death
3. No ultimate foundation for ethics
4. No ultimate meaning in life
5. No free will (determinism)

(Interesting sidenote: Provine does not believe in prisons)

In contrast to the evolutionary worldview, Biblical Christianity says that:

1. You are created in the image of God
2. You will live eternally in heaven or he'll
3. All morality comes from God and is written on our consciences
4. You exist for the purpose of glorifying God and enjoying Him for ever
5. Your decisions have consequences in this life and the next

We are talking about the most important subject in the universe here and that is the ultimate message of evolution. If I am wrong then I am wasting my life and if you are wrong then you will be judged by the God Who made everything including yourself. He knows everything you have ever done, ever said, and ever thought. The God Who made your eyes sees everything.

I am going to admit one thing to you about the Bible. There is one big problem in the Bible. It happened when God spoke to Moses:

The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:6b-7a)

God is kind and loving, slow to anger, and rich in mercy. But he cannot let the guilty go free. No good judge lets criminals go free. And God's righteousness demands that he must punish you for every single sin you have ever committed. Every time you have broken His Law. Here is the greatest problem in the Bible. How can God show you His great mercy and kindness and love and still be a righteous judge at the same time. There was only one way and that is why He is the only way. God became a man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and lived a perfect sinless life fulfilling every law that you have ever broken so that He could be our representative. He then went to the cross and died a horrific death and more than that, suffered under the wrath of God that is meant for sinners like you . . . and me. From now on, every time you see a cross on a church building remember this: That God treated Jesus Christ as if he lived your life, so that He could treat you as if you lived His life! That way God can demonstrate His great mercy and kindness to you without leaving the guilty unpunished. And if you love science and like to deal with facts here is the greatest fact of history - that Jesus rose from the dead proving that God was satisfied with His payment in the place of sinners.

So who are you going to believe? Those who tell you that everything came from nothing, everything is random and meaningless, there is no right and wrong, and death is the end. Or are you going to believe the guy who says that everything is a creation of God, the whole universe is an amazingly designed operating system, everything has purpose and consequences, that you know right from wrong and you do what's wrong anyway, that each and everyone of us will stand before Almighty God - alone - and answer to Him for every thought, word, and deed in our lives and that God in His great love sent a Savior to rescue us from the wrath to come.

Do you really have enough faith to believe in the religion of evolution. The Bible tells me the reason why people reject the One true God of the Bible - and like evolution it has nothing to do with science. Jesus said it best:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:16-20)

God calls on you to repent and believe the Gospel. My evolutionary friend, this is not about science, this is about morality. What is the sin that you love so much that you will not repent and believe the Gospel? Turn to God, put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, for He is kind and merciful to those who humble themselves and repent of their rebellion and false religion.

Go Back To Part 11
Go Back To Part 1

Questions For Evolutionists - Evolution Debate (Part 11)

What follows is some of the questions I had prepared to ask my evolutionary opponent in my recent debate.

Are you familiar with the word "genome"? For those of you who are unfamiliar, genome is the word biologists use to describe the entire genetic code in a living thing. It is what is found encoded in it's DNA. For evolution to be true it requires genetic mutations that cause genome information to increase. Let me be specific here, I am not talking about an increase in the chances of survival because that can come through a loss of information.

Question 1: Has there ever been a genetic mutation observed where it has increased the genome information?

The world's most famous evolutionist got asked this question and this is what he had to say . . .



Question 2: How can DNA develop through evolutionary processes?



Question 3: Where did life come from?

Once again, here is Dawkins' "scientific speculations" on the subject during an interview with Ben Stein . . .

Unfortunately this video cannot be embedded onto my blog but it can be viewed here and is well worth the watch for its comedic elements alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FTyZ732lQ

Question 4: "Haeckel's Embryos"


Do you recognize this picture? Perhaps you have seen it in one of your modern scientific text books. Can you tell me if it is a drawing or a picture? Do you know why it is a drawing? Because this is a completely fraudulent attempt to show fabricated similarities between a wide variety of living things at the embryonic stage. It is a fraud that was exposed over 100 years ago. Haeckel even confessed to it. My question is why is this fake picture still allowed in scientific text books?

Michael K Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology at Leiden University said:

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't ... These are fakes.' (Michael Richardson, in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. )

Question 5: How can something as complex as an eye evolve?

For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In the same way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then the eye will dry up and go blind within a few hours. How could an eye evolve when it requires all 40 parts to be working or it cannot function?

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Do you know who said that?

Charles Darwin (From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY "Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication).

The only difficult part in preparing questions for my opponent were which ones to leave out considering there are so many. Evolution is a theory about as watertight as my screen door!

Go On To Part 12
Go Back To Part 10
Go Back To Part 1

The Anti-Biblical Teachings Of Biologos

Biologos is a relative newcomer to the "battle for the beginning". They are an organization devoted to the oxymoronic notion of "theistic evolution". Their professed goal is to harmonize science with Scripture but their track record is one of continually contorting Scripture to try and fit it into the prevailing evolutionary paradigm. This has become a very disturbing development in recent times, most notably because of Biologos' ability to gain acceptance with Christian leaders who cherish "academic respectability". Ken Ham from Answers In Genesis recently gave this lecture exposing Biologos for what they are:

Newsflash! - Evolution Debate (Part 10)

Religious evolutionary fanatics like Kristoffer Haldrup insist that there is absolutely no evidence for the global flood of Noah. Not a single scrap of evidence. The following article here (published just two days ago) is another great example (in the long line of examples) of why evolutionary scientists say there is no evidence . . . because they start with the presupposition that there is no evidence and that their theory must be right - therefore they impose their theory on the evidence and come up with their own set of fabricated facts.

Is it just possible that this recent discovery of a massive whale graveyard high up and a long way from the ocean could be evidence for the ocean once covering this piece of desert? Is it just possible that the mass of perfectly preserved skeletons (including two adult whales with a juvenile between them) in a small area points to a sudden cataclysmic event? Why aren't they surprised to find that these whales which are "millions of years old" are mainly identical to the whales we find in the water today? Why do they consider the possibility of lagoons high up in the desert, and tsunamis that washed a massive number of whales into one spot on a hill in the desert but not even mention the possibility of a cataclysmic global flood like the Bible says? Answer these questions and then maybe you will have the answer to the question as to why religious evolutionary fanatics desperately cling to their assertions that there is "no evidence for a global flood". Because this discovery screams a ton of consistency with a global flood (my comments in italics).

GIANT WHALE GRAVEYARD FOUND IN CHILEAN DESERT!
Posted on November 21, 2011 at 12:35pm by Liz Klimas

SANTIAGO, Chile (The Blaze/AP) — More than 2 million years ago, scores of whales congregating off the Pacific Coast of South America mysteriously met their end. Today, they have emerged again atop a desert hill more than a kilometer (half a mile) from the surf, where researchers have begun to unearth one of the world’s best-preserved graveyards of prehistoric whales.

A paleontologist from the museum prepares a whale fossil at the site where many prehistoric whale fossils were discovered in the Atacama desert near Copiapo, Chile. But how did they get there? That’s the question paleontologists are trying to figure out.

Yes, it's a difficult question, when you are committed to denying the obvious!

Maybe they became disoriented and beached themselves. Maybe they were trapped in a lagoon by a landslide or a storm. Maybe they died there over a period of a few millennia. Somehow they ended up right next to one another, many just meters (yards) apart, entombed as the shallow sea floor was driven upward by geological forces and transformed into the driest place on the planet.

Yes, these are all well thought out scientific theories when you consider how difficult it is to think with your head shoved in that desert sand.

Chilean scientists together with researchers from the Smithsonian Institution are studying how these whales, many of the them the size of buses, wound up in the same corner of the Atacama Desert. “That’s the top question,” said Mario Suarez, director of the Paleontological Museum in the nearby town of Caldera, about 700 kilometers (440 miles) north of Santiago, the Chilean capital.

Pick me, pick me! I can answer that question and save you a whole lot of money in research grants in the process.

Experts say other groups of prehistoric whales have been found together in Peru and Egypt, but the Chilean fossils stand out for their staggering number and beautifully preserved bones. More than 75 whales have been discovered so far — including more than 20 perfectly intact skeletons.

They provide a snapshot of sea life at the time, and even include what might have been a family group: two adult whales with a juvenile between them.

“I think they died more or less at the same time,” said Nicholas Pyenson, curator of fossil marine mammals at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Pyenson and Suarez are jointly leading the research.

How much are they paying you Nicholas to come up with these brilliant observations?

As for why such a great number perished in the same place, Pyenson said: “There are many ways that whales could die, and we’re still testing all those different hypotheses.”

Except the obvious hypothesis where all the evidence points to.

The scientists have yet to publish their findings about the fossil bed and the extensive remains, which began to emerge in June last year during a highway-widening project that is now on hold.

So far, the fossils have been found in a roadside strip the length of two football fields — about 240 meters (260 yards) long and 20 meters (yards) wide.

Pyenson said the spot was once a “lagoon-like environment” and that the whales probably died between 2 million and 7 million years ago.

Yes, no evidence of a global flood but he is absolutely certain that that this piece of desert was once a lagoon. A lagoon with whales just like you find today - not! He even has the technology to date this lagoon to 4.5 million years plus or minus 2.5 million years. Great accuracy there - NOT!

Most of the fossils are baleen whales that measured about 8 meters (25 feet) long, Pyenson said.

The researchers also discovered a sperm whale skeleton and remains of a now-extinct dolphin that had two walrus-like tusks and previously had only turned up in Peru, he said.

“We’re very excited about that,” Pyenson said in a telephone interview. “It is a very bizarre animal.”

Other unusual creatures found elsewhere in the fossil-rich Atacama Desert include an extinct aquatic sloth and a seabird with a 5-meter (17-foot) wingspan, bigger than a condor’s.

Erich Fitzgerald, a vertebrate paleontologist at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia, emailed that the latest find is very significant.

“The fossils are exceptionally well preserved and quite complete — a rare combination in paleontology and one that will likely shed light on many facets of the … ecology and evolution of these extinct species,” Fitzgerald said.

There he goes again imposing his evolutionary presupposition onto the evidence. Great empirical science there Enrich!

He said it’s possible “these fossilized remains may have accumulated over a relatively long period of time.”

Here is that great scientific consensus that shows us how much certainty these scientists have with their theory. One guy says it happened at the same time, the other says it may have happened over a long period of time.

Hans Thewissen, an expert on early whales, agreed. Another scenario, he said, is that the whales might have gathered in a lagoon and then an earthquake or storm could have closed off the outlet to the ocean.

Yes, scientists deal with hard empirical facts, not fanciful theories!

“Subsequently the lagoon dries up and the whales die,” said Thewissen, a professor of anatomy at Northeast Ohio Medical University. He said the accumulation of so many complete skeletons is “a very unusual situation.”

“If this were a lagoon that dried up, you might see signs that ocean water evaporated,” such as crystallized salt and gypsum in the rock, said Thewissen, who is not involved in the research. “On the other hand, if a giant wave or storm flung the whales onto shore, it would also have pushed the ocean floor around, and you would see scour marks in the rocks.”

Dating fossils is complicated, experts said, and it will be very hard to distinguish dates precisely enough to determine whether the whales all died simultaneously.

It is very complicated when they have no idea how to do it.

The researchers have been told to finish their onsite studies so that fossils can be moved out of the path of the widened Pan American Highway, or Route 5, which is Chile’s main north-south road.

Many of the fossils have been transported in plaster coverings to the museum in Caldera. Researchers from Chile’s National Museum of Natural History are also studying the fossils.

Pyenson and his team are working quickly under tents to document the intact skeletons. With funding from the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian team is using sophisticated photography and laser scanners to capture 3D images of the whales that can later be used to make life-sized models of them.

At least they have entire skeletons to base their models on rather than the massive amount of guesswork involved in creating a life sized "Nebraska Man" from a pig tooth.

Suarez, the paleontologist, had long known about the whale bones just north of Caldera – they could be seen jutting out of the sandstone ridge alongside the highway at the spot known as Cerro Ballena, or Whale Hill. When the road work began last year, the construction company asked him to monitor the job to avoid destroying fossils.

“In the first week, about six or seven whales appeared,” Suarez said. “We realized that it was a truly extraordinary site.”

The Chilean government has declared the site a protected zone, and Pyenson said he hopes a museum will be built to showcase the intact skeletons where they lie, in the same way fossils are displayed at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah and Colorado.

Suarez thinks there are probably fossils of hundreds of whales waiting to be uncovered – enough to keep him working at this one spot for the rest of his life.

“We have a unique opportunity to develop a great scientific project and make a great contribution to science,” he said.

Great contribution to science fiction more like it!

Ok Kristoffer, you can now write in and have a cry about how dumb and unscientific I am.

Go On To Part 11
Go Back To Part 9
Go Back To Part 1

Objection 3 - Evolution Debate (Part 9)

As we progress through my major three objections against modern evolutionary theory I know that I camped on Objection 2 (no transitional forms and an abundance of fakes) for quite a while. I did this for two main reasons. Firstly, the history of fossil evidence, lack of transitional forms, the endless procession of fakes and frauds, and the bizarre "scientific speculations" on the future, is so ridiculous and runs so deep. Secondly, because of the constant crying of Kristoffer Haldrup who carries the double burden of having a brain the size of a planet and being a bishop in his evolutionary religion. The mountain heap of mock-worthy evidence is so huge that I could continue ad infinitum but let's move on to objection 3 today. As we go through the issue of dating rocks don't worry if some of the technical terms go over your head. Bear with me because I think the big picture in this is simple to grasp. I must thank the dedicated scientists at Answers In Genesis for much of the following material.

Objection 3: Scientists don't really know how old things are!

Geologists can’t use just any old rock for dating. They must find rocks that have the following parent radioisotopes to date rocks: uranium-238, uranium-235, potassium-40, rubidium-87, and samarium-147. These parent radioisotopes change into the corresponding daughter isotopes lead-206, lead-207, argon-40, strontium-87, and neodymium-143 isotopes, respectively. Thus geologists refer to uranium-lead (two versions), potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, or samarium-neodymium dates for rocks. Note that the carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) method is not used to date rocks because most rocks do not contain carbon (more about that later).


Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.

For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years (S. A. Austin, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 (1996): 335–343).

Basalt rocks from the Grand Canyon were tested and aged at about 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years (A. A. Snelling, “Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research; Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 393–524; D. B. DeYoung, “Radioisotope Dating Case Studies” in Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 123–139).

Assumption 2: No Contamination
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks. Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years! (A. A. Snelling, “The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285–303; Ref. 4, 2005).

It is also interesting to note that large traces of Carbon 14 are found in diamonds that are "billions of years old". The reason they don't use carbon dating on rocks is because carbon decays so quickly compared to uranium half life. So there should be no Carbon 14 atoms in diamonds . . . unless they are only thousands of years old.

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate
Geologists have assumed that these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years based on their stability over the 100 years that they have observed it. This uniformity is unproven, speculative, and in stark contrast to catastrophic global flood we see in the biblical account. It is also in conflict with other parts of evolutionary theory such as the "Big Bang" theory and the "cambrian explosion".

Evolution is Speculation and guess work! It is built upon naturalism which requires observation but cannot observe the big bang, the start of life, or the mutations it needs to be true. It assumes uniformity but has no explanation for it. It has no explanation for morality. It has no explanation for how a bang can happen without something to go bang!

Science cannot prove it's own assumptions:

1. The universe is real and nature is knowable.
2. All nature is subject to the same laws and therefore we can predict its behavior.
3. Measurable causes underlie all observable effects. (no explanation for first cause)
4. The simplest explanation is the accepted one.

The fact is that Theology is also based upon presuppositions and therefore there is a faith basis for both theology and science.

Christians have the foundation for science because it is only the Bible that affirms the presuppositions of science to be true. Hence, the scientific method was actually an historical outgrowth of the biblical worldview.

Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

Evolution's "Best" Evidence For Denying The Obvious!

The notes from my recent evolution debate have upset a scientist (or "science expert") called Kristoffer Haldrup. Kristoffer is adamant that evolutionary theory is a scientific fact even though the missing link is still missing. But Kristoffer insists that transitional forms have been found and pointed to "Whale Evolution" as irrefutable proof. Kristoffer said:

VERY many examples of transitional forms [are] known. Transitional forms that are not only known from a sometimes spotty fossil record, but transitional forms that are completely in line with what we have nowadays learned from genetics about the evolution of existing species such as horses, humans and whales . . . And if I should pick just one transitional form, then Ambulocetus is kind of a nice one - something like a small whale with legs, legs well adapted for swimming. This very nicely illustrates how even transitional forms are superbly well adapted to the niche they occupy, like penguins are today . . . There is a plethora of transitional forms, all species or subspecies in their own right and all well adapted to their particular ecological niche.

So now Kristoffer demands that I check out the scientifically verifiable fact of "whale evolution". Behold the science of Whale evolution:

Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence from Philip Cunningham on Vimeo.

I guess when you can't find a transitional form you have to invent one! How many more "missing links" are they going to trot out before they give up?

Kristoffer tried to put his best construction on the video by pointing out that:

the video actually does manage to underscore why paleontology/evolution is indeed an emprical science. Darwin put forth a theory - bears were the ancestors of whales - with an implicit prediction that intermediate fossils of such a transition should show up. None did, on the contrary, so the theory had to be discarded and was thrown on the midden heap. Later, based on clues from fossil skulls, a theory was proposed that the whale ancestors were more like a now-extinct class of predators called mesonychids, the hyena-like beasties of the video I guess. Alas, new evidence again showed up, this time from genetics, and the theory had to discarded as it was in conflict with the best available evidence. The genetic data predicted (a key feature of empirical science, in addition to falsifiablity like in the two preceding examples) that there should exist an ancestral species with traits similar to the ancestral species of hippos, and now THIS prediction actually held true. Rhodocetus and Pakicetus were found in the Afghan/Pakistani deserts, confirming the general theory of common ancestry with hippos or, more precisely, the artiodactyls. However, as the video shows, there was still room for refinement as early predictions about the anatomy of Rhodocetus were falsified (no flippers) and the theory was corrected to reflect the new evidence. And so it goes, theories are put forth, and as time passes they are either falsified, corrected or confirmed as they are held against evidence old and new. And through this arduous, slow process new knowledge is gradually formed.

Here's some new knowledge I derive from that "arduous, slow process" - maybe the whole theory is wrong! What Kristoffer just said there is long winded scientific code for "we have never found anything that proves our theory so we have to keep trying to find the evidence or invent some". Why won't they even consider the possibility that their theory is wrong? Perhaps zoologist D. M. S. Watson gave the real reason when he said that:

the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible (D. M. S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124 (August 10, 1929), 233)

What we find on earth today is what the Bible has always taught. Life reproducing after its own kind. Cats giving birth to cats. Dogs giving birth to dogs. Humans giving birth to humans. And phony scientific theories giving birth to new phony scientific theories!

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (Atheist Astrophysicist - Sir Fred Hoyle).

There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be no intermediate forms, but there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict (David Berlinsky).

Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record (Time Magazine 7 Nov 1977)

The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing. (GK Chesterton)

More Of Objection 2 - Evolution Debate (Part 8)

Objection 2 for the recent debate involved the complete absence of any transitional forms in the fossil record. And no Kristoffer, variation within a species does not qualify, nor does reconstructing a caveman from a pigs tooth. For evolution to be true you need to have transitional forms at the macro level ie dinosaurs transitioning to birds and apes transitioning to men. But the problems go further than that and we will today take a look at some "scientific" transitional forms that will occur in the future.

Several years ago Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron insulted the intelligence of the "scientific community" with their own fictitious transitional forms.



Perhaps it was foolish of Ray and Kirk to insult everybody's intelligence when modern science could do a vastly superior job . . . of insulting everybody's intelligence. If you sometimes wonder where your tax money goes, I can tell you about one place. The Future is Wild is a website demonstrating the evolutionary speculations of a group of highly recognized and accredited scientists (including people from places like Harvard and the Natural History Museum). This is how they present themselves:

From the beginning we wanted The Future is Wild to be about more than simply guesswork, so we recruited 16 scientists from top institutions around the world to provide the scientific basis for the project.

They're experts in fields such as geology, climatology and biology, and together they painstakingly projected where evolution and planetary events might take the Earth 5 million, 100 million and 200 million years from now.

So how did they do it?:

Building a vision of the planet aeons from now isn't straightforward, even when you involve some of the world's best scientists. But nature does work to certain rules which we can use to make predictions . . . using this data our biologists can project what plants and creatures might evolve and how they might behave - to create the living, breathing worlds of The Future Is Wild.

Everything you'll see is based on the best available science. No event or animal is outside the realms of possibility. It could all happen - so get ready for the voyage of a million lifetimes!

Note: They say "the best available science" without actually telling us what it is. Yeah, trust me I wear a white coat with a pocket protector - believe everything I say!!! They go on to say:

Every animal and plant in The Future is Wild could really exist. Our science team devised each one as a viable, living organism. Their place in the environment, their life cycle and their place in the food chain are all authentic.

The mathematics of their sizes and shapes and the technology of their movements were all calculated. It’s not surprising that our scientists talk about them as if they really existed!

Yes they were calculated but we're not going to tell you how we did that. Great science guys! But this is not science fiction - no way!

Populating the future world with new creatures wasn't blind guesswork or science fiction. There's a whole series of rules of how life evolves that we can test by looking back at the past. All we had to do was apply the same rules to the future and then add a little imagination!

Oh, add a little "imagination" . . . very scientific. Forget Ray and Kirk's crocoduck. These futuristic transitional forms are a legitimate contribution from the "scientific community". Things like the Mega Squid:


Here is the Megasquid FACT FILE:

Time zone: 200 million years

Type: Land-living cephalopod or squid

Size: 4m tall, weighs 8 tonnes

Ancestor: Deep sea squid

Lives: In the Northern Forest

Eats: Fruit, leaves, small animals including squibbons

Eaten by: Nothing

Behaviour: The megasquid is king of the forest. Since it has no enemies, it can live for up to 50 years. An invertebrate, meaning it has no backbone or skeleton, it has strong muscles in its 8 thick legs. These need to be strong enough to support such a large body. It has a strange walking style. Moving at no more than a human walking pace it shuffles forwards a few legs at a time. As it marches through the forest it makes aloud bellowing to let other creatures know that this is its territory.

Feeding: Because they are not warm-blooded endothermic animals like mammals, they need far less food. They are not fussy eaters, feasting on anything in its path, including leaves, shoots and other animals which it grabs from the trees with its long grasping tentacles.

Breeding: Not known.

Wow! At least they had the humility to admit that they did not know how this big Megasquid would make baby land dwelling Megasquids. So this branch of science does have limits after all! What else did they come up with? I'll leave you with just a couple more: How about a flying fish with a lion's jaw and a 120 ton turtle . . . and it's all "scientific":




Now my intelligence is way more insulted. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron should have left it to the experts after all!

Go On To Part 9
Go Back To Part 7
Go Back To Part 1

Objection 2 Continued - Evolution Debate (Part 7)

There are many problems with evolution - more than I can fit in one blog post. Last weeks post pointed out the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. But I also thought it worth mentioning some questionable practice of the "scientific method" when it comes to examining the future. What follows is a real newspaper article:


This recent offering from the "scientists" made major headlines in the UK's Guardian newspaper. The article goes on to say:

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".

In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.

Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.

Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.

The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.

To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans. Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.

Once again, the question must be asked as to exactly what kind of "science" are these people practicing? And why do these people discount the possibility of a Creator when they have a creation, but readily warn about an impending alien invasion even though no aliens have, as yet, been discovered. Although I must admit that the jury is still out concerning the claims of a Wal-mart employee who still maintains that he is a real Jedi Knight who attended Obi Wan's academy on Tatooine. For the doubters he decided to show a few of his moves:



Did you feel the Force?

While the newspaper article does not represent the entire scientific community, it is a stern reminder that the phrase "scientists say" is often a propoganda smokescreen that persuades the man in the street. Empirical science is measurable, testable, repeatable, and observable but the realm of "historical science" and "speculative science" is often nothing more than science fiction. As Christians, we have something far more reliable - a text that has never been proven wrong authored by a Sovereign God Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

Next week I will unveil some futuristic transitional forms that scientists have been able to "calculate" based on what they "already know". It may well be the funniest post to ever feature on this blog so stay tuned . . .

Go On To Part 8
Go Back To Part 6
Go Back To Part 1

Just Added - Creation And Change

Professor Doug Kelly's outstanding exegetical work on Genesis 1 and 2 has now been added to the resource directory. This is the book that persuaded RC Sproul to change camps from an old earth view to the correct view.

CREATION AND CHANGE
Doug Kelly
Category: Creation/Evolution
Click Here To Order
In this book Professor Douglas Kelly persuasively argues for a literal interpretation of the seven day account of creation found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. He assesses both the biblical details and the scientific data to show that there is a convincing case for this understanding and how it is scientifically viable. How are Christians to develop their thinking on origins? Where do we start? “The Bible is God's revelation of his Word to us and includes all we need to know concerning his will for our lives. Notice how God chose to begin this all important book. He initiated his whole revelation with a description of creation, demonstrating that it is not only primal in the historical sense, but primary for the understanding of other doctrines as well” (p.16). This emphasis pervades the book: Douglas Kelly sets out to expound, teach and discuss the text of Genesis 1:1 – 2:4 regarding it as foundational for Christians.

Objection 2 - Evolution Debate (Part 6)

Objection 2: The Missing Link Is Still Missing

Here's a quote:

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory

Do you know who said that?

(Darwin, Origin of the Species 1859, p. 292).

Let's take a look at the most famous missing link discoveries:

Neanderthals
These turned out to be just plain people, some of whom suffered from bone diseases. In proper attire, they would attract no particular attention today.

Piltdown Man
(Eoanthropus dawsoni) was a deliberate (but not very clever) hoax palmed off as “proof of evolution” to students for more than two generations. It turned out to be a bit of ape jaw and human skull artificially aged. In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery.


Nebraska Man
(Hesperopithecus) was reconstructed, family and all, from a tooth — a tooth that later was found to belong to an extinct pig! Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct genus of peccary called Prosthennops, and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.

Ramapithecus
A partial jawbone, consisting of two parts, was discovered by G.E. Lewis in India in the 1930s. Based on these two jaw bone fragments, claimed to be 14 million years old, evolutionists reconstructed Ramapithecus’s family and supposed natural habitat (at side). For fifty years, the fossil was portrayed as an ancestor of Man but following the results of a 1981 anatomical comparison with a baboon skeleton, evolutionists were forced to quietly set it aside.

The dethroning of Ramapithecus — from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982 — is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins. (Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86)

Lucy
This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with. The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps. In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man.

The Archaeoraptor Fossil
This was introduced in 1999 and hailed as the missing evolutionary link between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. It was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer. Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News November 20, 2002


Now remember that true empirical science is measurable testable repeatable and observable. What we have seen here is the result of wild and wishful speculation - pathetic attempts at removing God from the equation. Next week we will look at some of the absolutely laughable modern claims in the name of "science".

Go On To Part 7
Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

Objection 1 - Evolution Debate (Part 5)

It is ironic that Darwin's book is called Origin of the Species when evolution has no explanation for how life started. It is interesting that the actual title for Darwin's book is:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin himself said that:

There is really no probability that the "races" would be equal. In fact, the whole notion runs counter to all evolutionary theory and to the whole science of biology.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man , 2nd ed, 1874 p178)

Darwin's doctrines of racial superiority and eugenics had a major influence on Hitler. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape".

Darwin didn't only believe that white people were more highly evolved. He thought that men were more highly evolved than women. In his autobiography he described a future wife as an:

object to be beloved and played with – better than a dog anyhow. (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1958, pp. 232–233)

Charles Darwin's education was not in science. He quit medical school and studied theology . . . just so you know. But his title "Origins of the Species" is ironic because Darwin and Evolution provide no natural explanation for how things began or how life started.

Objection 1: No natural explanation For Origins

[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle . . . (Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist , The Edge Of Infinity 1995).

Evolutionists are open to a miracle coming from nothing. That is not only unscientific, it is also a very strange religion. I don't have enough faith to believe that. Let me ask you – is it more logical to believe that everything is Created by nothing or by a God?

Continued next week . . .

Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

Support For The Biblical View Of Creation - Evolution Debate (Part 4)

There are many arguments I could use for the existance of God.

Ontological Argument – That there has to be a supreme being in the universe.

Cosmological Argument – That the law of cause and effect still requires a first cause or “unmoved mover” as many philosophers said.

Teleological Argument – This is the argument that I prefer to use. That if the world is designed then it must have a designer. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics disproves Evolution because it says that all systems decay over time left to themselves and yet evolution requires that more and more order would come from chaos through time and chance.

God has revealed Himself to us in three ways.

The first of these is the teleological argument. Take a look at where we are sitting. Was anybody here when this building was being built? Did anybody meet the builder? No – but we know this is a building that had a builder because we can see design in the building.

Take a look outside and you will see creation. We did not see it being Created and we might not have met the Creator but we know that a Creation must have a Creator. Don't you see the design? The earth is the perfect distance from the sun to support life. The earth is on the perfect angle to produce seasons and these seasons allow us to grow food that provides fuel for our bodies.

Many scientists are abandoning Darwinistic evolution since the discovery of DNA which is an amazing sophistacated human genetic code that is impossible to explain by time and chance.



In fact there is a massive list of top scientists at major and prestigious universities all around the world that are either rejecting or seriously questioning evolutionary theory which can be read here. There could even be more if not for the fact that professors and scientists who hold to a biblical creation view or reject Darwin's theory often get "blacklisted" as pointed out in the movie Expelled:



The Bible tells us:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

The Second Way God Has Revealed Himself is through the human conscience. The bible teaches us that God has written his moral law on our human hearts. We know right from wrong. We know it is wrong to lie, and steal, and murder. But our nature is constantly against our morality. We desire to do things that we know is wrong. I did not grow up in a Christian home and I found this to be the strongest revelation. Why was I so angry when I heard about paedophiles when no one ever taught me that it was wrong. And why did I keep doing things that I know are wrong. I could see the design in creation. And my conscience told me that I was in trouble with this Creator.

Right now I want to do a test with you to see if your conscience is working. Have you ever told a lie? What do you call people who tell lies? Did you know that the Bible teaches that all liars will end up in hell! That may seem ridiculous but maybe this will help you understand.

If I lie to my daughter she can do nothing to me. If I lie to my wife I'll be sleeping on the sofa. If I lie to my boss he can fire me. And if I lie to the government they can throw me in jail. The higher the authority we sin against - the greater the consequences. What if God is an infinite and perfect authority??? Then our crimes against Him would be infinite. This is why there is a hell. Not only because of our sin but also because of God's perfect righteousness. If you ask the question how can a loving God send people to hell you are asking the wrong question. We should be asking how can anyone be saved from hell? And I will answer that question later.

Have you ever stolen something? What do you call someone who steals? Have you ever misused or blasphemed God's Name? That would make you a blasphemer. How about sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman? Jesus took that a step further and said even a sexual thought makes you guilty of adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28) – have you ever done that? If you answered yes to the four conscience questions I asked then you are a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, and an adulterer, and you have to face God on judgment day! How will you do? If your conscience is working then you will know that you are in big trouble. And that is just four of the ten commandments – there are six more! I will say more about this later.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:15-16)

The Third Way God Has Revealed Himself is in the Bible. This is when the atheist and the evolutionist try to laugh. But have you ever read the Bible? Are you open minded to the biggest selling book in history? It is true that the Bible is not a science text book and I am glad about that because science text books are full of errors. The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. In fact, the Bible has been right about many things when science was wrong.

Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured.”
The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars (“host of heaven” is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.

Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): “He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth.”
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: “It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me...there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures...” (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of “the New World”).

The Proof of Prophecy

One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

Most Reliable Document of Antiquity

The Bible is also the most reliable document of antiquity (prior to the printing press). Let's compare it with the most famous and reliable documents.

Josephus Jewish War is the main historical source for first century history. They have 9 manuscripts and the earliest manuscripts are 400 years after the original.

Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome. We have 3 manuscripts the earliest being more than 800 years after the time of the original.

Seutonius wrote Lives of the Caesars. We have nearly 100 manuscripts the earliest being more than 900 years later.

Homers Iliad has 643 manuscripts the earliest being 500 years later.

The New Testament of the Bible has over 24000 full or partial manuscripts with the earliest being at the time of writing (earliest full manuscript 200 years later; earliest partial manuscripts are Rylands p52 which is dated 30 years after autograph and possibly 7q5 which is from the actual time of writing).

It is this Bible through which God has given His fullest revelation of Himself to us. It is this Bible that tells us that God created the world about 6000 years ago in six 24 hour days. It is this Bible that tells of God creating Adam and Eve the first people, their fall into sin, and their sin being passed onto every other human being. It is this Bible that tells us that God appeared as a man – The Lord Jesus Christ – to keep the laws that we have broken and suffer the punishment that we deserve. It is this Bible that tells of the resurrection of this Jesus Christ proving Who He said He was. It is this Bible that calls on all men everywhere to repent of their sinful rebellion and trust in Jesus Christ because He has fixed a day when He will judge all men in perfect righteousness. It is this Bible that says that the reason why people refuse to believe it is because men love darkness and hate the light and will not come to the light because this light will expose their evil deeds.

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

The Big Questions - Evolution Debate (Part 3)

Where do I come from?

We go to the very first verse in the Bible to get the answer

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

God created the world around 6000 years ago over 6 days. He took six days to fill and shape the earth with land, seas, animals, and, of course, man.

Verses 26 and 27 tell us:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

Jesus taught this scientific fact in the New Testament:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' (Mark 10:6)

The Christian world view teaches that man was created by Almighty God in His image. That man has always been man since the creation of the world.

Why am I here?

Christianity teaches that you are not an accident but have been created with a purpose. To live a life that brings glory to God and to enter into eternal life with Him in the next life.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.... Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:31)

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)

Where am I going?

It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27b)

The reason for this judgment is that we are all going to live for eternity in either heaven or hell.

Heaven is described in the Bible:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:3-4)

Hell is also described as a place where people will:

drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night (Revelation 14:10a,11a).

My opponent's answers to these questions were similar to those in the video below, though dressed in "nicer clothes". William Provine (the man in the video) is a world-famous evolutionary professor at Cornell University who featured in the movie "Expelled". Using my gift of the best possible construction I would have to say that Provine is an honest evolutionist:



Provine's comments are even more chilling in the light of the fact that he has a very serious illness! Lord please open his eyes . . .

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Opening Remarks - Evolution Debate (Part 2)

I have been asked by a lot of people in the last few weeks on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific) about my recent debate over creation vs evolution with Lars Viggers who is a college biology teacher in Denmark. What I intend to do over the coming weeks is post the entirety of my presentation for three reasons. Firstly because I did not get to present much of my research due to an inexperienced moderator (not that I am experienced either) who deviated a long way from the originally planned structure of the debate. Secondly because I believe the real facts surrounding the debate are very edifying for all true Christians. And thirdly because I believe there is a lot of very useful information for the Christian layman to use when contending for the Christian faith/worldview in our everyday secular lives.

Later on, I will also give my verdict on Lars' arguments that he brought to the debating table. I realize that this blog is not exclusively read by Christians and that some readers may question my objectivity. To those people I would say hey, all I can do is give my opinion (and yes, none of us are unbiased, I just happen to have a strong bias for the truth) and you can do with that what you will. To those who would object to my not posting Lars' presentation, there is a reason for that. Lars did not really come to the debate with any serious written presentation. Otherwise I would love to post Lars' arguments because most of them ultimately turned out to either support my worldview or expose evolutionary theory as a religion with no real scientific basis. With that said, today we start with my opening remarks:

First and foremost I ask you, the audience, for patience with me because I do find it difficult to discuss technical things in the Danish language. I may ask for help sometimes tonight and I hope you will understand that it will be to help me explain some things that are too advanced for my limited Danish.

My name is Cameron and I am a preacher and missionary who works in a factory. I am married to a beautiful Danish wife and we have three children. My main work in Denmark is in preaching and teaching the Bible. I have never been in a debate before and I am not coming here tonight to try and win a fight because there is a good chance that Lars is much smarter than me. There is also the slight chance that he may be a little better at Danish than me.

But I am here tonight because I think it is about time that the THEORY of evolution stopped being taught as a fact and I think everyone here deserves the opportunity to hear the facts that the Danish education system hides from you.

If you are here tonight to hear a debate between religion and science then you can forget it. The Danish schools don't want religion taught in their schools and yet that is exactly what you get with evolution! It is a religion with no scientific proof at all. True empirical science is observable, testable, repeatable, and measurable. That is why we have the LAW of gravity because it is observable, testable, repeatable, and measureable. Evolution is none of these things – nobody has seen a monkey turn into a man, tested it, repeated it, or measured it. It is a bigger fairytale than anything ever written by your very own Hans Christian Andersen. My opponent tonight is a man of great faith, because I personally don't have enough faith to believe that nothing created everything.

And Lars, please don't think that evidence of monkeys turning into different types of monkeys is evidence. That is just variation within a species. What you need to do to prove your case tonight is show proof of monkeys becoming humans. Species to species change – evolutionists need to prove this!

I am hopeful that my lack of experience in debate and my lack of formal education will only help to show that the true scientific evidence is very simple and very clear:

1. That “Darwin's theory of evolution” is still called a theory because it has no proof.
2. That the “missing link” is still called the “missing link” because no one has ever found it.
3. And that “creation” is still called “creation” because it has a Creator!

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1