Conclusion

(Part 6) Some hope to avoid the contradiction by asserting that naturalism rules only within the realm of science, and that there is a separate realm called "religion" in which theism can flourish. The problem with this arrangement, as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact. What is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief. Theists who accommodate with scientific naturalism therefore may never affirm that their God is real in the same sense that evolution is real. This rule is essential to the entire mindset that produced Darwinism in the first place. If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and selection if that is what He wanted to do, but He could also create by some means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection. Direct evidence that these mechanisms have substantial creative power is not to be found in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available.

Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see when it is stated at an abstract level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who advocate the compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in my experience always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They have good reason to be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. To Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is not evolution at all. To repeat, this understanding goes to the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole lot more than that.

Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.

We are now in a position to answer the question with which this lecture began. What is Darwinism? Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework for explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. As such evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably have been God's chosen method of creation.

In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism. In the game of "Jeopardy", let us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the question? The question is: "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism. What we need to do instead is to challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true.


(*Copied Source)

Truth

(Part 5) Truth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that "truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a dynamic concept. Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now. Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.

This way of understanding things persists even when scientific naturalists employ religious-sounding language. For example, the physicist Stephen Hawking ended his famous book A Brief History of Time with the prediction that man might one day "know the mind of God." This phrasing cause some friends of mine to form the mistaken impression that he had some attraction to theistic religion. In context Hawking was not referring to a supernatural eternal being, however, but to the possibility that scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances.

The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question whether the Darwinian theory is true. They will gladly concede that the theory is incomplete, and that further research into the mechanisms of evolution is needed. At any given point in time, however, the reigning theory of naturalistic evolution represents the state of scientific knowledge about how we came into existence. Scientific knowledge is by definition the closest approximation of absolute truth available to us. To ask whether this knowledge is true is therefore to miss the point, and to betray a misunderstanding of "how science works."

So far I have described the metaphysical categories by which scientific naturalists have excluded the topic of God from rational discussion, and thus ensured that Darwinism's fully naturalistic creation story is effectively true by definition. There is no need to explain why atheists find this system of thought control congenial. What is a little more difficult to understand, at least at first, is the strong support Darwinism continues to receive in the Christian academic world. Attempts to investigate the credibility of the Darwinist evolution story are regarded with little enthusiasm by many leading Christian professors of science and philosophy, even at institutions which are generally regarded as conservative in theology. Given that Darwinism is inherently naturalistic and therefore antagonistic to the idea that God had anything to do with the history of life, and that it plays the central role in ensuring agnostic domination of the intellectual culture, one might have supposed that Christian intellectuals (along with religious Jews) would be eager to find its weak spots.

Instead, the prevailing view among Christian professors has been that Darwinism-or "evolution," as they tend to call it-is unbeatable, and that it can be interpreted to be consistent with Christian belief. And in fact Darwinism is unbeatable as long as one accepts the thought categories of scientific naturalism that I have been describing. The problem is that those same thought categories make Christian theism, or any other theism, absolutely untenable. If science has exclusive authority to tell us how life was created, and if science is committed to naturalism, and if science never discards a paradigm until it is presented with an acceptable naturalistic alternative, then Darwinism's position is impregnable within science. The same reasoning that makes Darwinism inevitable, however, also bans God from taking any action within the history of the Cosmos, which means that it makes theism illusory. Theistic naturalism is self-contradictory.

(*Copied Source)

Science (continued)

(Part 4) The continuing survival of Darwinist orthodoxy illustrates Thomas Kuhn's famous point that the accumulation of anomalies never in itself falsifies a paradigm, because "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself." This practice may be appropriate as a way of carrying on the professional enterprise called science, but it can be grossly misleading when it is imposed upon persons who are asking questions other than the ones scientific naturalists want to ask. Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job. To evaluate that response, I need to know whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power attributed to it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists have nothing better to offer. The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.

I am not suggesting that scientists have to change their rules about retaining and discarding paradigms. All I want them to do is to be candid about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all. What they insist upon doing, however, is to present Darwinian evolution to the public as a fact that every rational person is expected to accept. If there are reasonable grounds to doubt the theory such dogmatism is ridiculous, whether or not the doubters have a better theory to propose.

To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media. The Darwinists do not see themselves that way, of course. On the contrary, they often feel aggrieved when creationists (in either the broad or narrow sense) ask to have their own arguments heard in public and fairly considered. To insist that schoolchildren be taught that Darwinian evolution is a fact is in their minds merely to protect the integrity of science education; to present the other side of the case would be to allow fanatics to force their opinions on others. Even college professors have been forbidden to express their doubts about Darwinian evolution in the classroom, and it seems to be widely believed that the Constitution not only permits but actually requires such restrictions on academic freedom. To explain this bizarre situation, we must define our fourth term: religion.

Suppose that a skeptic argues that evidence for biological creation by natural selection is obviously lacking, and that in the circumstances we ought to give serious consideration to the possibility that the development of life required some input from a pre-existing, purposeful creator. To scientific naturalists this suggestion is "creationist" and therefore unacceptable in principle, because it invokes an entity unknown to science. What is worse, it suggests the possibility that this creator may have communicated in some way with humans. In that case there could be real prophets-persons with a genuine knowledge of God who are neither frauds nor dreamers. Such persons could conceivably be dangerous rivals for the scientists as cultural authorities.

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that "evolution is a fact," and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

(*Copied Source)

Science

(Part 3) We have already seen that Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the limitations of science into limitations upon reality, in the interest of maximizing the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is, of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study airplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who want to be able to explain everything-and "theories of everything" are now openly anticipated in the scientific literature- this is an intolerable possibility.

The second feature of scientific naturalism that is important for our purpose is its set of rules governing the criticism and replacement of a paradigm. A paradigm is a general theory, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, which has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community. The paradigm unifies the various specialties that make up the research community, and guides research in all of them. Thus, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and paleontologists all see their research as aimed at filling out the details of the Darwinian paradigm. If molecular biologists see a pattern of apparently neutral mutations, which have no apparent effect on an organism's fitness, they must find a way to reconcile their findings with the paradigm's requirement that natural selection guides evolution. This they can do by postulating a sufficient quantity of invisible adaptive mutations, which are deemed to be accumulated by natural selection. Similarly, if paleontologists see new fossil species appearing suddenly in the fossil record, and remaining basically unchanged thereafter, they must perform whatever contortions are necessary to force this recalcitrant evidence into a model of incremental change through the accumulation of micromutations.

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not." Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of "the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works." This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the "lunatic fringe" of paleontologists who reported that "they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other." Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of "stamp collector."

As many philosophers of science have observed, the research community does not abandon a paradigm in the absence of a suitable replacement. This means that negative criticism of Darwinism, however devastating it may appear to be, is essentially irrelevant to the professional researchers. The critic may point out, for example, that the evidence that natural selection has any creative power is somewhere between weak and non-existent. That is perfectly true, but to Darwinists the more important point is this: If natural selection did not do the creating, what did? "God" is obviously unacceptable, because such a being is unknown to science. "We don't know" is equally unacceptable, because to admit ignorance would be to leave science adrift without a guiding principle. To put the problem in the most practical terms: it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework.

The paradigm rule explains why Gould's acknowledgment that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead" had no significant effect on the Darwinist faithful, or even on Gould himself. Gould made that statement in a paper predicting the emergence of a new general theory of evolution, one based on the macromutational speculations of the Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. When the new theory did not arrive as anticipated, the alternatives were either to stick with Ernst Mayr's version of neo-Darwinism, or to concede that biologists do not after all know of a naturalistic mechanism that can produce biological complexity. That was no choice at all. Gould had to beat a hasty retreat back to classical Darwinism to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemies of scientific naturalism, including those disgusting creationists.

(*Copied Source)

Creationism

(Part 2) Creationism, which means simply a belief in creation. In Darwinist usage, which dominates not only the popular and profession scientific literature but also the media, a creationist is a person who takes the creation account in the Book of Genesis to be true in an very literal sense. It is a major theme of Darwinist propaganda that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are young-earth creationists of this sort, who are always portrayed as rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a religious prejudice. The implication is that citizens of modern society are faced with a choice that is really no choice at all. Either they reject science altogether and retreat to a pre-modern worldview, or they believe everything the Darwinists tell them.

In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a creator, who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. If God brought about our existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. Is creation in that broad sense consistent with evolution?

The answer is absolutely not, when "evolution" is understood in the Darwinian sense. To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature-by God, for example. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. From this philosophical standpoint it follows deductively that from the beginning no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.

A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. To back up their claim that this appearance of intelligent design is an illusion, Darwinists need to provide some complexity- building force that is mindless and purposeless. Natural selection is by far the most plausible candidate.

If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn't arrive, or "developmental constraints" closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened.

Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and selection "the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a purposeless, materialistic designing force substitutes for the "watchmaker" deity of natural theology. The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence.

(Copied Source)

Atheistic Naturalism

(Part 1) To start this quest we must lay the ground and get things defined to understand each point.

I am not attempting to plagiarize, but to highlight and advertise the points made. I originally saw it in a Christian Research "Journal" and subsequently found it online *, I thought there would be quite a bit of typing. The brilliant work here is solely Phillip E. Johnson who is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.

First, Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various types of complex living organisms already are in existence. When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader question-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to this second question is that the creative force that produced complex plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces variations in flowers, insects, and domestic animals before our very eyes. In the words of Ernst Mayr, the dean of living Darwinists, "transpacific evolution [i.e., macroevolution] is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species." Neo-Darwinian evolution in this broad sense is a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr's successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be "effectively dead." Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary, it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as unchallengeable fact. How does it happen that so many scientists and intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific fact?

The answer to that question lies in the definition of five key terms. The terms are creationism, evolution, science, religion, and truth. Once we understand how these words are used in evolutionary discourse, the continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need no longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by "overwhelming evidence."

CRI adds: "The debate between creationism and Darwinism is often depicted as a dispute between naive biblical literalists, who ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and scientifically enlightened intellectuals. But this is a caricature that serves the purpose of helping to perpetuate a world view hostile to Christian faith: atheistic naturalism."

(*Copied Source)

New post series! coming soon

Get used to this picture because I will use it for my new series of posts. There was a true epiphany moment last night reading an article, I will have to do more thinking and figure out how I will present it but I believe I have found the primer that exposes evolution. Be patient though allow me to take the time to do my homework within my schedule.

What got my juices flowing with the epiphany is during a real great conversation.

Earlier Pvblivs brilliantly said "We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't, it's inconclusive." I have looked at the claims of "easily falsifiable if wrong." Every time it is a case where they determined something would not happen (independent of large-scale evolution) and then decreed it was a potential falsifier."

Now I wish to explore those thought and expound on it. Sometimes you can just feel when people are on to something and that's the feeling I experienced when Pvblivs said his points. I also added three books to the DA bookstore from a man that has great insight to the subject named Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson agrees with Pvblivs' observations also. I am excited and rejuvenated and look forward to discussing it further. If I lay it all out in one post it would be ginormous, so I may have to do it in steps and stack the case. Let me plead the case in it's entirety before an onslaught of counter points because I may address it when all the posts are complete. Plus, I need that time to create it instead of discussing things in the comments.

The things I found, so far, are from Johnson and CRI so most of what I present will be shamelessly borrowed from those sources since the research on the subject has already been completed. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. I am not trying to write a book or take credit for anything. I want to get atheists to understand they are absolutely wrong. I am trying to make a case to expose evolution in this forum. This is my intention.

Tell everyone you know! When you see my mug prepare to be enlightened!

What's the Purpose of Evil?

I cannot even answer if evil is eliminated will there be free will in Heaven? I know we won't want to leave and/or be tempted to leave.

We can appreciate God's goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness.

The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate His love, and how else could He show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on His everlasting holiness; He endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, He suffers it, the imposition it is on His purity to display His wrath to the fullest extent, to put Himself on everlasting display.

Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To glorify God and enjoy Him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that's it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.

God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7

We wouldn't know how God is righteous as He is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it. If it hadn't of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn't know He's loving, as He is, if it hadn't been for sin, we wouldn't know He's holy, if it weren't for judgment.

How holy is God? So holy that He must send out of His presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, He did all of this in order that He might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify Him for all that He is. (paraphrased from Todd Friel)

bit.ly/whyevil

Logic says the Bible is Supernatural

Why you ask? Because a wicked man wouldn't write such a book, a wicked man wouldn't think of themselves as wicked and wretched. Lofty self abasement thoughts, such as the ones in the Bible, wouldn't prevail in a wicked man. A good man wouldn't write it because it would of been a lie. No one would go through such lengths with such a cohesive prophetically accurate book.

Mathematically it would be impossible to have such a book last this many years, over this many languages, way before there was even a method to copy in mass, of such writings. A book that accurately gets it right throughout the years, proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and last over 2000 years altering this many lives and still is relevant to this hour. A book that makes sense still to this hour. A book that has come true to this hour. A Book that has changed me to this hour. His will is perfect.

I obtained permission from Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D to use this, which he wrote:

THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGINS OF THE WORD OF GOD

Chafer (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947) deals at length with the fact that the Bible had supernatural origins. I have condensed his thoughts into what is presented in this appendix. He presents 15 topics.

1. THE BOOK OF GOD: The book of God asserts this fact for itself many times over. The question some raise is whether it was written by a man or revealed by God and recorded by man. The structure and message of the book demand a divine author.

Man could not set out to write a book of this size. He would not have the ideas of it, nor would man be able to produce the detail and precision of it. It presents God as THE God. It presents God as having a plan. It presents God only as deserving glory. It presents God as the absolute authority.

The unregenerate man could not subdue his own pride to produce such a God, nor could he exalt his talents to a level capable of producing such a book.

2. THE BIBLE AND MONOTHEISM: The Bible presents monotheism - one God, not many. Mankind has always had many gods, be they wood, clay, gold or silver. Idolatry is in every civilization to some extent. The Bible presents a one-God religion. How could man devise such a thought as one God in a world of many gods?

3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: The doctrine of the Trinity is so complex yet so simple as to demand a divine origin for the Bible. The Trinity is three persons in one God. Stated it is simple yet the explanation has evaded man since the subject was undertaken for study. We cannot explain the how of the Trinity only the fact of it.

The work each member of the Trinity is involved in is also very complicated - the Fatherhood of God, or the perfections of Christ. Man cannot adequately explain these things so how could he devise them?

4. CREATION: The creation is the beginning of the content of Scripture. This creation is presented as fact and is described in Scripture. Man's explanation of the beginning of the world is tied up in evolution. Even with the best product evolution could produce, that person could not have produced the Biblical account. Evolution is shot through with problems and gaps. Man could not devise a creation as perfectly presented in Scripture.

5. SIN: Sin is presented in Scripture. Forty authors, are in complete agreement on sin and its existence. Man could not devise such a thing as sin from his own mind. Sin is a divine statement and idea not a man made doctrine.

6. THE CURE OF EVIL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE: The Bible's cure for sin is so divine as to demand divine authorship.

Man would not devise a plan of salvation because without Scripture he doesn't know he needs it. Even if man knew he needed salvation he could not dream up a plan whereby all could be saved apart from works or vanity.

Man could not devise a plan of salvation where the one redeeming would gain all the glory. Man could not come up with such a beautiful plan aside from having it revealed to him by God.

7. THE EXTENT OF BIBLE REVELATION: The extent of the Bible demands a divine author. It reaches minutely into eternity past as well as eternity future. Human authors aside from revelation could not make up such detail nor such broad perimeters.

8. THE ETHICS OF THE BIBLE: The ethics that the Bible produces have never even been hinted at in man's religions. Purity and holiness of life are the divine standard while in most of man's we find debasement and immorality.

The Bible presents man as an utter failure and unable to help himself. Man in his vanity even today has trouble comprehending such things, much less making them up.

Only a divine author could take a moral system such as Judaism and lay it aside for another system so different yet presenting the same morality as Christianity. Man could not come up with such a moral standard based on the teachings of a book without revelation from God.

9. THE CONTINUITY OF THE BIBLE: The continuity of Scripture declares a divine editor and revealer - 66 books, 40 authors and hundreds of years of history. The authors are separated by time, space and education. They come from all walks of life and most of them never met one another, yet they came together to form one central story of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

He is shown as pre-incarnate. He is shown in prophecy as coming. He is shown as here in His first advent. He is shown as coming again in the future.

One man could produce a work with continuity but this combination of authors and times has to be divinely assembled. Man could not produce such a work.

10. PROPHECY AND ITS FULFILLMENT: Prophecy along with its fulfillment is proof that the Bible is of divine origin. Man can think and project what might happen in the future based on knowledge, history and common sense, but man cannot accurately predict specific occurrences and have those occurrences come to pass. The Scripture is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled and which will yet be fulfilled.

11. TYPES WITH THEIR ANTITYPES: The types of the Old Testament and the antitypes of the New Testament are of such splendor that they must have divine origin. The fact that the type was set to words by a person other than the one setting down the antitype, and this being done hundreds of years apart, shows divine origin. This would require divine intervention!

12. THE BIBLE AS LITERATURE: The Bible is considered great literature even by the unsaved. If a man had been setting these great words down, he most surely would have left some personal opinions and pronouns to let the reader know that it was he that had written the work.

The truths are not from the men but from their God so that they left no opinion of their own or personal pronouns to lay claim to any of the truths.

Many of the church fathers have been prolific writers, however, none of these have even touched the clarity and preciseness of Scripture, nor have they touched the literary quality of the Word.

13. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE: Science is in constant revision. The world was flat - remember - and now it is round. The scientific world is always redoing and redefining to fit the exposed facts. The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining.

Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days.

14. THE BIBLE AND TEMPORAL POWER: The Bible is not dependent upon political power, or clout to get its job done. The believer can do the work of the Lord with or without the help of the governmental powers.

Man naturally, when he wants something done, will try any means to achieve his end. They often use political power, or strings with politicians, to achieve their goal.

If man had written the Bible he would not have been able to come up with the idea that man could do the work of the Lord relying on the heart and mind of others rather than political power.

15. THE BIBLE'S ENDURING FRESHNESS: The constant new blessing a person gains from the Word even when he has read, and read, and read a portion there is always something more to be gleaned from its content. No other literature can make this claim to freshness and vitality.

Chafer and Dr. Derickson knows the truth about the Bible. The list collectively speaks the apparent realization the Bible is purely supernatural. When we look deep inside ourselves we see the truth. The awe and majesty of the Bible is very real from the day you pick it up to the day you put it down as read. It will change you forever, or to be more accurate it changed me forever. It is the single greatest literary work of all time forever, we cannot give this credit to 40 men between a thousand year span, it must be to God. We all know deep in our soul logically, the Bible is the Word of God.


bit.ly/Biblelogic

tinyurl.com/LogicBible

Carnivores are Secret Vegans?

According to the Bible before there was sin and death all Animals and Humans were herbivores.

Genesis 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Recently an atheist said to me:

Many modern animals, as well as many ancient ones, have mouths and digestive systems which are not only completely incapable of making use of [vegetation], but are specifically designed* to kill prey and digest meat.

You are making wild assumptions very prevalent to the modern mindset. You aren't the first I have heard this from. Just because an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it eats meat, it just means it has sharp teeth. In fact you need sharp teeth to eat certain vegetables.


Look how sharp the teeth are of the Panda and they eat bamboo.


How about this savage animal that flies around and ferociously rips into...fruit, called the fruit bat. Yet it's classified as a ‘carnivore’?


The polar bear is the most carnivorous North American bear and has a digestive system that screams for seal. In the wild, polar bears live an average of 15 to 18 years, in captivity though, they may live as high as 40. In captivity their diet consists of some read meat but also Lettuce, Apples, Oranges, Broccoli, Sweet Potato's, Celery, Tomatoes, Grapes, Watermelon, Rock melon, Barley, Cracked Corn, Cod Liver Oil, Carrots. And they digest all of it quite well.

Now this is an intelligent and witty atheist. This man can grasp the concepts of reality quite well, but it's the presuppositions that he holds so closely that get's his mind stuck when the evidence is in front of him. So the misconceptions and wild assumption is the problem and is what's happening these days. The evidence MUST fit their tiny little evolution box no matter what data pores out of the sides and onto the lab floor. At least at the end of the day they have their little box with big teeth.

*Thanks to Skulls Unlimited for their pictures of the skulls.

It's OK to be Gay?

Some people tell me it's OK to be gay. Especially in California. Many people talk to me about my judgmental attitude and how I need to be more accepting of others. I have been told that a real Christian would never judge a homosexual because God made them that way.

There are many misconceptions of my viewpoint as I have been asked "Who are you to decide what happens to someone's personal life." As a Christian I am not deciding I am pleading. Here are some of the things I have said in the past.

Montage of discussions:

God's Word says that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, an abomination, fornication, vile affections, and a great sin against Him. He states any sexual act outside of marriage is adultery for anyone gay or strait. The Bible is clear that sex is to be between man and woman within marriage.

You're Just Homophobic!

Acts like that are just another branch on the sin tree. Some people do drugs, some drink heavily, some rape, some lie, some steal. It is all sin and we are in Judgement of God's Law. For the record, I am in the business of Advertising and Design and there are a fair amount of gay people in my field. I have placed ads in gay magazines and my wife and I have had intimate sit down dinners with gay people. I also have witnessed to them, there are plenty of other sins to talk about then the obvious. Some have been receptive, some not, it all depends on the individual.

God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy. Changing societies do not dictate God's standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination. Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not "go with the flow."(All About God)

A woman has the "right" to an abortion. Homosexuals have the "right" to their lifestyle. Everyone has the "right" to "do" anything that "feels right."

Were it not for the authority of God over our lives as Creator and Owner of all things (Isaiah 45:5-12), man would have "total" choice freedom. Where do our "standards" come from? If from the statistical norms or the popular vote of society, then a woman has indeed made a "right" choice. If, however, authority over man rests in the Creator of man in the "image of God," then that woman made a "wrong" choice. Ultimately, all the issues of life begin with our conscious "choice" about who "God" really is (Romans 1:18-25).

That was Old Testament!

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals. 

1 Timothy 1:10 "and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"

Scripture calls it "abusers of themselves with mankind," and for them that "defile themselves with mankind"

Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

You cannot possibly look outside the Bible to find some other meanings for these. These are New Testament verses not Old.

In contrast to the modern rush to make homosexuality an approved life style, it is noteworthy that the Apostle Paul classifies homosexuals right along with murderers and pimps.

Remember Jesus' own words in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." God is about righteous and justice not 'just' peace and harmony.

Loveless Homophobic "Christians"

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.

A person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity ... . This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. The Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6–7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

No harm between consenting adults!

There is plenty of data that says the contrary.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced on November 26, 2003, that AIDS infections increased 17% among homosexuals and bisexuals. There was a 7% increase in AIDS infections among non-homosexuals. (I will add non-homosexual fornicators)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that cases among homosexual and bisexual men jumped 17% over the last three years. "Thirty eight of them tested positive for HIV-1 antibodies, almost all of them homosexuals (37 cases)"

U.S. National Institutes of Health said 325 homosexual and bisexual men have been recruited for tests. STD clinical history and examination: previous STD 59.7%, current urethral secretion 6.1%, genital ulcers 5.9%, genital/anal warts 7.4%. Sexual practices: Average number of sexual partners in the previous 6 months: 11, anal coitus 37.2%, condom use in the previous month 50.8%, circumcision 16.8%, rectal douches 43.3%. STD's laboratory markers: T. pallidum 34.9%; HIV 18.8%, H. simplex 10.9%, HBsAg 5.0%, C. trachomatis 4.3%, N. gonorrhoeae 2.8%. Consistent risk factors for HIV/STD were number of sexual partners (more than 10 in previous 6 months) and story of imprisonment.

National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC), more than half of AIDS cases in the U.S. are located in the 15 largest cities. Alarmingly, the NYAC data showed that more than 10% of young homosexual men in major cities were already infected with AIDS.

According to Gay.com, researchers in San Francisco found that the customary places for homosexual men to find sex partners were the Internet (33%), bars (21%), bathhouses (13%), sex clubs (13%), and adult bookstores (6%).

Gay parents are just as good at parenting

Not so. "The young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Forty percent spent time living with their grandparents (compared to 10 percent of the rest); 19 percent spent time living on their own before age 18 (compared to 4 percent among everyone else). In fact, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood." ~Mark Regnerus (Study)

Is that good fruit to you? A good tree will bear a good fruit. Consider if people would just follow the Bible's instruction, what kind of world we would live in. Men and woman that have followed the Bible and waited until marriage have no worry of STD's at all.

We are not set out to enact the will of God or anything like that. I would like to see people get to Heaven and avoid the inevitable punishment

I believe it's not OK to be gay. I love you too much allow such sinful behavior. I want to see you in Heaven. Please repent!

There are Homosexual Christians So, it's OK to be gay

I disagree. Romans 6:15-16 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

You are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

As most of my viewpoints the following are also from a witnessing perspective, but I enjoy and agree with the approach that is taken from Ray and Kurt talking to Homosexuals.

bit.ly/Oktobegay

Evolution Exposed! Evolution or Creation Model?

It appears that there are actually many variations within the two Models of Evolution or Creation.

Some people say that it's OK to believe in evolution and the sister theory of millions of years, while still being a Christian. I touched on this a little with a post that I had a while back called the Great Debate. I totally disagree, but that is what some appear to believe. Out of various viewpoints and theories, the ones that matter are the theories that have unbiased evidence. How is that always possible while theorizing about our origins? Residual and circumstantial evidence can be evaluated into different models.

Take for example, theory of plate tectonics. A story could be presented that the earth evolved slowly over billions of years without evidence.



A completely different model explains the event that may have happened an entirely different way with perceived evidence:

But we may never know in this life, no one was there. Well, One was there. No one on earth can verify with repeatable experiments that are acceptable, like science requires.

We could all scramble for hundreds of years on these subjects and not get anywhere when, one day, the truth hits us right in the face. We then find out that the Creation model was correct all along and we are all thrusted into Judgment by our Creator. At that time it will be too late. The amount of evidence you may have or the amount of experiments you have going at the time will not matter. If we are personally judged for breaking the Ten Commandments (God's Law) then we will all be held accountable...



Here is more of Ray talking about Evolution on a radio program.

Ellen Johnson?

The former leader and president of American Atheists, Ellen Johnson, talks about some jaw dropping statistics about how atheists vote and what they vote for. Johnson is the successor of the most hated woman in America. Now, I fully understand that not "all" of you hold her views but like Richard Dawkins, she is the voice for American Atheism and is trying to get all of you to drink the kool-aid. Of course in 'light' of this Public Relations nightmare the organization immediately placed on their website "American Atheists has positions open for Editor and President" as to 'save face' from the public outcry. So how did she get to the top then?


Is this really who you want to go down in history as being associated with? "No of course not, no way, we aren't like that at all." Let me shoot it strait here, let's use some logic because I actually love you. You don't become president of anything without expressing your opinion. An organization would appoint someone president who can best represent their viewpoint, a president has to have a mouth on them. I know I have been one. You have to be able to sell your ideas. So please don't give me the "we aren't like that" speech. A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and Ms. Johnson was the weakest link of a Walmart $3 dollar necklace.

Why professing Christians would break such a sacred Covenant with God to follow the likes of Johnson and Dawkins is so beyond my comprehension. Then, only later to find that the leaders are flakes. Remember you can't put Jesus on to make your flight more comfortable. You do it because you are so very grateful for being saved from death. Your loyalty would be a lot less shallow.

Any other company would fail with a president like Ms. Johnson. If you were to get rid of a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, the company would suffer a great deal or fold completely. Without Ray Comfort there would be no Living Waters or Way of the Master. Atheists tried to make Ray a laughing stock by quote mining his soda/banana presentation. To some now, he is labeled "banana man." But we still love him and his ministries because of the good fruit (banana) we see. On a side note, did anyone else notice that it was atheists that broke the quote-mining rule by editing his soda/banana parody. Don't you all even complain about Ray quote mining? Am I the only one that sees the total outright hypocrisy here? Do any of you have any morals? Does Ms. Johnson have any morals? Can you see a pattern here?

You would pick this lady or Richard Dawkins over Jesus? Really? No, really?

Carl Packman wrote recently a news article about Richard Dawkins creepy viewpoint of The Genius of Charles Darwin. Packman points out "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion" Packman also observed "It's not very long before Professor Dawkins cuts to the chase and explains how utterly irrational and dangerous spiritual beliefs can be (indeed it was an amusing undertaking to see how long it was until Dawkins plunged his dagger once more into faith)."

Like Dawkins, Ms. Johnson is the spokesperson for all of you like it or not. What I don't understand though and I often wonder, doesn't anyone see through these people? Don't you see the push of their own Dogma of atheism as a religion. Please don't answer that, it was rhetorical. I just don't get you all.

Don't you think the charades and damage has been done already? Let me take a wild guess, when that day comes when it's Judgement Day each and every one of you will say, in reference to being an atheist, "No of course not, no way, we aren't like that at all." It's time right now to Repent and trust in Jesus our Lord and our only Savior. We will never fail with Him as our President like Ms. Johnson and Richard Dawkins has failed all of you. Do it today!

The Atheist Starter Kit!

Ray Comfort has once again simply and eloquently pegged and nailed the professing atheist. I need to just post it in it's entirety. Thanks Ray, you are hilarious! Glory to Jesus for our friend Ray. I sure do love that man:

If you are a beginner atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn.

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God. (Atheist Central)

Enacting God's Will

I believe we are doing a disservice to mankind by enacting God's will on anyone. God gave us free will to choose to love Him. Why should we force things on people? For their own good?

Throughout History people that believe to be enacting God's will have failed to do just that.

Hitler believed he was enacting God's will during The Holocaust.

A leader of the false religion of Mormonism called LDS Church named Brigham Young thought he was enacting God's will when he ordered the killings of 120 men, women and children in what is now known as the Mountain Meadows massacre. On a side note, there is a great movie called September Dawn that I highly recommend if you want to understand the false and tragic thinking of the Mormons. Chills went down my spine when they were screaming "Blood Atonement" over and over again.

Many believe the Crusades was a huge stain on our history when the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) murdered many, but they were a direct response to Islam's attacks on the innocent people believing they, the Muslims, were enacting their god's will.

Another fine example is Andrea Yates (raised Roman Catholic), who lived an hour away from me at the time, decided to drown all five of her children. She claimed "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

We can plainly see the pattern of people acting as God. People that are not of God, love, try to enact the will of God. This horrible misunderstanding of Scripture is what delivers them to the devil. God is God, we are not. God knows all and we do not. If a person blows up a abortion clinic they are doing the devil's work, not God's. If some joker is claiming to heal people of spinal bifida he is of the devil.

So what we need to take from this is the fact there is only one God and we are to worship Him. Any deviation and the results are horrific. Once we start reasoning ourselves we stop letting God be in charge. Let God do God's work, as we can plainly see, He is much better at it then man is. The key is that everything that is contrary to God comes from the enemy of our souls.

Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

Evolution Exposed! Part Trois

This is the week of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA. A great deal of peer review papers will be presented (40+) dealing with the debunking of evolution. One in particular will be quite interesting called: Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity. "The occurrence of successful hybridization closely fits the creationist model, as opposed to the evolutionist model." An article that gives a sneak peek here and also a backup article that agrees.

Basically a line has been drawn in the sand. "It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.

This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes." (ICR)

Some scientists claim we're living through the Holocene period, the sixth extinction our planet has faced since existence. Each of the previous extinction events wiped out the most dominant life forms and as much as 95 percent of all life.

Worldwide, in the IUCN's (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2004 Red List of endangered, a total of 15,503 species were listed as threatened. Keep in mind just over 38,000 species were examined out of the 1.5 million species that the IUCN considers "described species." Thus, only 2.5% of all known species were evaluated by the IUCN.

Of the counted and according to various estimates by scientists, every day 35-150 species of life become extinct. These are observable and testable.

Now let's compare this figure to the number of observable species evolving. Let's be fair and gather all the data. According to ICR: "In all recorded history, extending back nearly five thousand years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind."

The article goes on to say: "Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything eventually dies, so far as all historical observations go, but nothing has ever evolved into higher complexity." Which was the point I was making before in the post Why Disease and Suffering? I said "As a result, we live in an imperfect world, with the effects of sin running through it. We see that the universe is running down." (emphasis added)

Good resources:

Genetics, Science Against Evolution
CreationWiki: Genetics
Genetics: no friend of evolution
GENETICS AND GENESIS
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

Evolution Exposed! Part Deux

"If you make up a story that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't make it any truer!" —RICHARD DAWKINS



tinyurl.com/peerreviewflaw

Apparently Louisiana agrees and passed the first antievolution "academic freedom" law called Louisiana Science Education Act recently. There is something very wrong with evolutionary logic.

If evolution was true then the DNA instruction would have to "increase" and that is just not evident in nature.

VERY IMPORTANT! Evolution is about an increase of instructions in the DNA.

The processes we observe tend to decrease the instructions in the DNA. It's the opposite of evolution. Natural selection actually reduces DNA instruction, adaptation loses instruction. It's the opposite of evolution. It's not logical.

Mutations are a lose of instruction also. Some of the instructions get's lost and a mutation occurs. It's the opposite of evolution.

Poodles have so many mutations that causes so many problems for them. How can you possibly think that a Wolf evolved into a poodle? A more accurate description would be to call it devolve? By the lose of instruction you see mutations to go from a good stock of a wolf to a putrid horribly deformed, mutated, disease prone poodle, the problems are apparent. OK so I don't like poodles, move on.

Mutations are beneficial at times because it helps the species survive like that Heike Crab, because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had. It helped magnify the mutation. If a face on a crab can be considered a mutation. Lets say an insect loses it's wings on a very windy island the mutation is beneficial to keep the insect grounded and it reproduces a lot and magnifies the mutation. The mutation was originally a lose of instruction not a gain.

Mutations and natural selection is going in the wrong direction then evolution. There is nothing being added.

There are various mutations of DNA, for example, Point Mutation, Frame-shift mutation, Deletion, Insertion, Inversion, DNA expression mutation. For this discussion I want to talk about Insertion mutation which is what evolution is claiming happens.

Evolution: to evolve, to gain new instructions, right?

Only with an insertion mutation, it generally results in a nonfunctional protein. Even worse, If I understand correctly, also an insertion mutation often creates a frame shift mutation and can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein. So again how is evolution is evident in science?

Here is something that I know you all will enjoy, it states the case quite well. I choose Ray and Kirk because I know how most of you feel about the two and I am emulating God. 1 Corinthians 1:27





We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.

A response to an Atheist

The atheist said:

"I think what [he] was trying to say was that the court was just trying to help atheists out, even though most people don't recognize it as a religion.

We certainly don't.

No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.

It's not even a worldview as atheists have all sorts of viewpoints on social, economic and other issues.

We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."

My response was close to:

We certainly don't. (recognize atheism as a religion.)

No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.

We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."

Who are you trying to convince, me or you? You even have two separate holidays!

Now I sent these pictures and links, in jest, to show the hypocrisy of what is being said. I stretched the meanings of some pictures to make a point here. If they can't see how things are being viewed, how can I convince atheists of their error?