Cultural Deceptions

New Direction

2011-01-17T13:17:00.000-08:00

Well it's been a long time since I've written anything on the Cultural Deceptions blog - I suppose the last two years have been some of the craziest, busiest, but also best of my life. I got my license, my first car, started college, began work in an actual professional career, and have seen God's blessing in my life in ways I never imagined. It pains me that beginning college classes has forced blogging to the back burner for now, but at the same time, perhaps I am more prepared for critical writing and argumentation now that my education is really heating up.

I see I have a number of followers, and we passed the 4,000 hit mark a while back. Obviously there is still a need for truth in our confusing culture. And while this blog might be a small and insignificant source of truth, I feel the need to continue. Please read "Carrying Concealed," an argument I have taken up recently, and which I was able to devote and entire semester to perfecting.

I believe "Carrying Concealed" is a fair heads-up to the direction I am going to be taking this blog. I no longer feel the need to write further on the Creation-Evolution debate, in part because I have grown tired of it. You could read the dozens of posts I hammered out years back, as well as a thousand more I could write over the next year and still not see the truth. My advice is this: if you still doubt, get off your computer and go on a walk. Better yet, visit a state park or watch a sunset. Then try to replicate the beauty you see. If, like me, your attempts are less than this supposed random world full of accidents, give some credit to the fact that our world is beautiful, and must have a designer.

With the recent events in our government, I feel the need to write on legal and political issues. From now on, this blog is a politically dangerous place. I'm tired of people who won't say it like it is. So I'm going to share my ideas, and I invite you to share yours. I'll probably get called a racist or a bigot, or whatever. Who cares? So this is just a heads up. Political writings are on their way. Until then, keep searching for truth "as for hidden treasure."

Carrying Concealed

2011-01-17T13:08:00.000-08:00

October 16, 1991 is a day that will live on in Dr. Suzanne Gratia’s mind for decades to come. Gratia was eating lunch with her elderly parents at Luby’s Café in Copperas Cove, Texas. Suddenly their meal was interrupted by a loud crash from the front of the building. At first it appeared the pickup truck, driven by George Hennard, had crashed through the front window of the café by accident. When Hennard jumped out of his truck and began systematically executing customers with his Glock-19 handgun, Gratia realized the crash was no accident. Not long before, she had made the decision to leave her .38 Smith & Wesson handgun in her car, as carrying it into a public place would have been illegal. It is a choice she will forever regret. Her father and mother, as well as twenty one others, would never step foot outside the café again (Gun ownership, 1992). Gratia was a normal American citizen who led a normal life in a normal part of town. However, in an instant she was forced into a life-or-death situation in which she could not rely on any external entity to protect herself or the ones she loved. It is in light of circumstances like these that people realize the importance of being able to defend themselves and others with lethal force. For Suzanne Gratia, this would have meant carrying a concealed handgun.

According to North Dakota Century Code (2001) “A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby.” In recent years, state lawmakers have instituted permit systems which regulate the type of people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons. While only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) currently prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns completely, not every state is on the same level in their concealed carry permit system. Currently thirty seven states have “Shall Issue” laws, which are defined by legislative analysts Cleary and Shapiro (1999) as “licensing systems — often referred to as presumptive right-to-carry laws [which] require authorities to provide a license to any applicant who meets specified criteria” (p. 1). Among the more restrictive policies are the “May Issue” or “discretionary permit” laws. Employed by eight US states, these laws are defined by the same source as “systems [which] allow legal authorities to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to citizens who establish a compelling need for doing so” (p. 1). Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, on the other hand, allow citizens to carry without a permit.

Because of the life-and-death nature of concealed handgun policy, the topic has become very emotionally charged. Proponents of gun control claim that gun ownership negatively affects communities and should therefore be outlawed. The UNICEF (2001) believes that the idea that firearms protect people and are thus necessary tools is a “destructive message.” Others claim that guns are a necessary part of our daily life in a world full of people who would like to kill us. The NRA-ILA (2008) said, “Self-defense is a fundamental right. The constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense” (para. 1). Ever since Florida passed its famous Shall Issue law in 1987, a landslide of states have adopted similar programs. The number of states with these laws has gone from eight to thirty seven. Despite this progress, and correlating reductions in violent crime, many US citizens still live in states where their right to carry is infringed. While anti-gun rhetoric continues to surface in the American culture, carrying a concealed weapon for use in self defense is a constitutionally sound practice under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (1791) which states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Therefore, because concealed carry’s protection under the Second Amendment, its ability to reduce violent crime, and its usefulness in self defense, every state government in the United States should institute its own Shall Issue legislation.

While policy makers often focus their attention primarily on the positive or negative effects of concealed handguns to determine their legality, it is important to not lose track of the constitutional principles the United States was built on. The Second Amendment was crafted to guarantee the independence and freedom through gun ownership and gun carrying. However, the purpose of the Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate because of the specific wording it uses; particularly the mentioning of state militias. According to Jacobs (2002) gun control supporters have based their argument on the first clause of the Second Amendment, which they believe supports their claim that state governments need only guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to members of an organized militia. Furthermore, because state militias have been dismantled with the creation of the National Guard, some argue that the second amendment is not relevant to our modern nation. Despite the controversy, much can be learned about intentions behind the Second Amendment by examining similar legal writings of the same time period.

There are several important documents crafted near the time of the Second Amendment which express the political climate of the time in clearer words. One writing is the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788) which stated, “congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” Also insightful is the Vermont Constitution (1777) claiming “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.” Because both of these writings were crafted within fourteen years of the Second Amendment, they represent quite accurately the political climate which gave birth to the Second Amendment. Halbrook (2010) a celebrated Supreme Court attorney at law with over thirty years of experience, took a new approach to the issue. He examined the legal actions of lawmakers who sought to give African Americans the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the Civil War. He concluded that the Second Amendment has been historically recognized by the American government as pertaining to an individual right. Despite the questionable wording of the Second Amendment, equivalent writings of the time reflect the idea that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, not a collective right limited to state militias.

Though the Constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership and carrying to United States citizens, concealing a lethal weapon is a type of “bearing arms” which is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. It follows that an extensive analysis of concealed carry’s effect on violent crime should decide whether or not it is a reasonable type of gun-bearing and should thus be considered part of the second amendment rights. One way to examine concealed carry’s effect on crime is to compare the crime rates of states and cities that have passed “shall issue” laws and those that have not. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010) records that in 2008, 503.8 out of every 100,000 residents of California (a May Issue sate) were victims of violent crime. In the same year, California’s “Shall Issue” neighbor, Arizona, had a violent crime rate of 447.0 out of 100,000. Considering Arizona’s immense problems with numerous drug cartels and gangs in recent years, this is a significant accomplishment. In 1998, Lott, a senior research scientist with a long-time interest in the gun rights debate, published one of the most complete and well known pieces of research regarding this subject. In “More Guns Less Crime,” Lott claimed that increases in concealed carry permits cause reductions in violent crime. In one example, he used Florida’s murder rate between 1978 and 1988 to demonstrate how increases in concealed carry permits after the 1983 adoption of a Shall Issue law decreased crime levels significantly. Of this trend, Lott said, “the available evidence indicates that the murder rate began to drop when the law was adopted, and the size of the drop corresponded with the number of concealed handgun permits outstanding” (p. 107). In numerous cases all over the USA, the adoptions of Shall Issue law and increases in concealed carry have served to decrease crime.

Since Lott’s bold claim, many supporters of gun control have sought to discredit his research. However, even the most skeptical reviews of Lott’s data, such as one study done by Marvell and Kovandzic (2003), are only able to claim that increases in permits did not cause any significant change in violent crime when controlling for other factors. In fact, the National Center for Policy Analysis (2010) said, “despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott's simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime” (para. 2). The idea that concealed carry increases violence in our society has been disproven by research. Instead, it seems that concealed carry reduces violent crime and should therefore be considered a reasonable practice.

Not only do concealed weapons serve as crime deterrent, but they are also essential tools for self defense. Stories from all over the United States show this to be true, as evidenced by two stories posted by the NRA-ILA, (2010). Rob Pierce, a resident of Pennsylvania, found himself at gunpoint while walking to a restaurant. His two captors forced him into a dark ally, and were preparing to kill him when Pierce, a licensed firearm owner, drew his concealed .357 revolver, shooting one of the thugs. Both criminals quickly escaped the scene and are now behind bars. Jason Moore, from the state of Washington, arrived home one night to find two men in his house. He drew his legally carried .45 pistol and shot one of the men, who was armed. He then held both criminals captive until police arrived. These two stories, as well as thousands of others on the NRA-ILA website testify to the widespread use of concealed handguns in self defense. In fact, many experts, such as Kleck, (1997) estimate that guns are used more than 2.5 million times a year in self defense. The staggering extent to which guns are used by citizens to protect themselves, their families, and friends from violence has secured guns an irreplaceable role in self defense.

Although handguns have been proven to be useful in self defense, many members of society favor non-lethal forms of self defense, such as stun guns, chemical sprays, and Tasers. Indeed, some may argue that, with these modern alternatives, guns are no longer necessary for safety, and should be eliminated and replaced. However, these devices offer far less stopping power and are completely useless in some situations. Stun guns are non-lethal devices which immobilize an attacker using tremendous voltage at low amperage (Abbot, 2006). However, as pointed out by Abbot, an accomplished self defense expert, “The biggest downside to a stun gun is that you must be close enough to your attacker to touch him. This will mean, consequently, that he will be close enough to reach out and grab you as well” (para. 4). An attacker with a knife or gun would pose a serious problem to someone equipped only with a stun gun. Although they can be used from a greater distance, chemical sprays are only effective in certain situations. Abbot warns that attackers can avoid the irritating spray, and that even when aimed correctly, a breeze can force the spray back into the face of the user. Perhaps the most effective non-lethal defense mechanism is the Taser. These devices work in much the same way as a stun gun, but instead of requiring direct contact with the attacker, they fire electrical probes at the attacker from a distance. However, the leading brand, Taser International (2010) gives its Tasers an effective range of only fifteen feet. Additionally, Tasers can only fire one shot before they must be reloaded. If the defender misses the first shot, or is attacked my multiple people, the Taser offers little hope of survival. Although these three devices have their places in self defense, they cannot be relied upon in extreme situations and therefore cannot replace handguns.

Not everyone embraces the idea of concealed handguns becoming a norm in the United States. It is a common fear among gun control proponents that giving more citizens the right to carry arms will cause common every-day disputes to turn deadly (Kovandzic, Marvell, & Vieraitis, 2005). Liberal journalists often scare the public by painting a grim picture of guns in the American society. According to Nagourney (2003) of the New York Times, “People with guns in their homes are almost twice as likely to be killed by guns as people who do not keep them at home” (para. 1). It is understandable that casual readers could be alarmed by this statistic. However, these fears would be ungrounded, since people who choose to keep guns often do so because they live in a dangerous area. These people are not killed by their decision to own firearms, but by the pre-existing conditions under which they chose to buy them. Nagourney goes on to say, “…people with guns are 16 times as likely to commit suicide using guns” (para. 2). At first, it seems that this statistic should also cast a negative light on guns. The fact is that gun owners and non-gun owners alike commit suicide. The availability of guns does not cause suicide, but is simply the means of choice for people who have already made the decision to take their own lives. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2010) reported that out of 1,858,018 licenses issued between October 1, 1987 and September 13, 2010, only 168 (less than one hundredth of one percent) have been revoked because of a crime committed by the permit holder involving a firearm. Although some people who obtain concealed weapons permits will use their handguns with ill intent, the vast majority of citizens who carry a concealed handgun just want to live in peace and safety, and for this, they need not be feared.

Yet another objection to shall issue legislation is the idea that more people carrying guns will mean more accidental injuries and deaths related to firearms. The Children’s Defense Fund (2009) found that one hundred and fifty four young people age one through twenty died from gun accidents in 2006. The organization claims that “the daily news is a grim reminder of the devastating impact caused by our deadly romance with guns and violence” (p. 1). Although shall issue laws would in theory put more guns in the hands of citizens, Reynolds and Burnett (2003), both lead researchers at the National Center for Policy Analysis, report that between 1982 and 2002, twenty two states adopted right to carry laws. During this same amount of time, they reported, the number of privately owned guns doubled, and accidental firearms deaths decreased. Though Kovandzic and Marvell (2003) are doubtful that concealed carry has any effect on crime, they recognize that many citizens who live where concealed carry is restricted still carry handguns illegally. One benefit of Shall Issue laws is that they “eliminate arbitrary decisions on gun permit applications and encourage gun safety training” (para. 56). People who fear for their lives are not likely to refrain from carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon simply because it is illegal. Making concealed carry permits an individual right, while requiring safety training for permit holders has in fact helped make America safer.

Concealed carry should be allowed and welcomed by all state governments. It is protected under the constitution, valuable to states by its effect on crime, and essential to individuals seeking to defend themselves. If the state governments of Alabama, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin fail to pass Shall Issue legislation, or if current Shall Issue states allow their laws to be overturned, the consequences could be sever. Violent, armed criminals who frequent these places are given a tremendous advantage over their victims, who have been forced to use inferior weapons in their defense. Their only hope is to trust their lives to an overworked police force which seems to always be minutes away when seconds count. This future must not become a reality. Just ask Suzanne Gratia. One might expect her to blame gun activists for the tragic death of her parents. Instead Gratia (1991) said “I blame [the death of my parents on] those legislators who deny me the right to defend myself” (Gun ownership, 1992, p. 13).

References

Abbot, B. (2006). Be prepared – the pros and cons of non-lethal self-defense weapons. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://thephantomwriters.com/free_content/db/a/be-prepared-for-self-defense.shtml.

Children’s Defense Fund. (2009). Protect children, not guns 2009 (pamphlet). Washington, DC: Children’s

Defense Fund. This pamphlet gives statistical information regarding children shot, wounded, and killed by guns in the United States and calls for tighter gun control to help solve the issue. The CDF is a non-profit child-advocacy program designed to give children the best opportunities to succeed in life. They have been working to promote local, state, and federal pro-child policies for over thirty five years.

Cleary, J. & Shapiro, E. (1999). The effects of “shall issue” concealed-carry licensing laws: A literature

review. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf. This Information brief reviews studies on the effecs of “shall issue” laws and offers working definitions of both “shall issue” and “may issue” laws. Cleary and Shapiro are legislative analysists at the Minnesota House of Representatives Department of Research with twenty, and thirteen years of experience, respectively.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States: By state, 2008. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html. This report gives statistical information on violent crime levels in all fifty states during 2008. Since 1908, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been the nation’s foremost authority in crime and criminal behavior.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Department of Licensing. (2010).

Concealed weapon/firearm summary report. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html. This fact sheet reports on the number of Florida residents who have applied for Concealed Carry permits, those who hold them, and those who’s licenses have been revoked. The FDACS is a government agency responsible for issuing all licenses and permits in Florida. Their facts are official state records.

Halbrook, S. P. (2010). Heller, the second amendment, and reconstruction: Protecting all freemen or

only militiamen? Santa Clara Law Review, 5, 1073-1094. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/heller_2nd_amendment.pdf. This article clarifies the purpose of the Second Amendment as an amendment guaranteeing the right of all US citizens to bear arms. Halbrook is a renowned attorney at law, a Professor of Philosophy at George Masson University, and an author. He acquired his J.D. in 1978, as well as a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a B.S. in Business. He has prevailed in four supreme court cases, as well as a multitude of federal and state-level cases.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002, December 15). Right to bear arms decision would improve gun control. USA Today.

Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-12-15-jacobs_x.htm. This article discusses the ongoing debate between gun control and gun rights activists and calls for the supreme court to define the second amendment as pertaining to an individual right. Jacobs is the Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University Law School. He is also the author of “Can Gun Control Work?”

Kleck, G. (1997). Guns and Self Defense. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html. In this article, Kleck discusses the importance of private gun ownership in America, showing that defensive gun use is common, and that gun ownership has an important role in deterring potential crime. Kleck is a Professor at the School of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Florida. He is well known for his expertise in the gun rights debate, and has Authored several books, including Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.

Kovandzic, T. V., & Marvell, T. B. (2003). Right to carry concealed handguns and violent crime: Crime

control through gun control? Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), 363-396. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article reports on Marvell and Kovandzic’s research on Florida’s 1983 RTC law. It concludes that the law’s effect on crime was not significant when controlling for other factors. Dr. Kovandzic is a faculty member in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences (previously, Social Sciences) at UT-Dallas. He teaches courses on research methods, statistics, gun control, extent and measurement of crime, and crime patterns. His primary areas of research interest are gun control, crime policy, and deterrence/incapacitation. Thomas B. Marvell is an attorney-sociologist and is director of Justec Research in Williamsburg, VA.

Kovandzic, T. V., Marvell, T. B., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2005) The impact of "shall-issue" concealed handgun

laws on violent crime rates: Evidence from panel data for large urban cities. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 292-323. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article addresses concerns by gun control proponents that shall issue laws will cause an increase of violence. It studies violent crime rates in all large US cities over the course of twenty years and concludes that shall issue laws have no effect on violent crime. Vieraitis is a professor at the University of Texas. She holds a Ph.D. in criminology and a BA. in Psychology.

Lott, J. R. (1998). More guns less crime: Understanding gun control laws. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press. This book documents Lott’s research on the effects of concealed carry on crime rates across the nation using mathematical regression models. John Lott is an American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He holds a Ph.D. in economics, and has published over 90 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. He is best known for his role in the gun-rights debate, and has written five books including Freedomnomics, and The Bias Against Guns.

Nagourney, E. (2003, May 27). Vital signs: Cause and effect; linking guns and gun violence. New York

Times. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/health/vital-signs-cause-and-effect-linking-guns-and-gun-violence.html

New Hampshire Ratification Document. (1788). Provision XII. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html. In this document New Hampshire officially accepts the United States Constitution, thereby enacting it across the nation. It also propose twelve alterations to the constitution, one of which declared that the government should never take arms away from the citizens.

North Dakota Century Code. (2001). Chapter 62.1-04; Concealed Weapons. Retrieved November 3, 2010

from http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t621c04.pdf. This state code gives legal definitions of concealed weapons, provides information on where they are allowed to be carried, and lists penalties for non-compliance.

NRA-ILA. (2008). Right-to-carry summery. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=239. This article summarizes the NRA’s beliefs about concealed carry laws and their effects on crime. With nearly 4 million members, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is a conservative organization dedicated to preserving the second amendment rights of all Americans. Their lawyers lobby for the rights of US citizens in all fifty state legislatures as well as congress.

NRA-ILA. (2010) The armed citizen. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/Default.aspx. This online collection of real-life stories from thousands of law-abiding citizens who have used guns in self defense testifies to the importance of gun ownership in the American society.

Reynolds, M. & Burnett, S. (2003). No smoking guns: How to answer objections to right-to-carry laws. In

Cothran, H. (Ed.) Gun control: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 116-117). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. This article addresses five key objections to concealed carry, including the idea that concealed carry will cause more accidental gun deaths. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. Burnett is the lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis' E-Team with a longtime interest in the gun control debate.

Gun ownership has new champion: Killeen massacre survivor – Suzanne Gratia; Killeen, Texas. (1992,

June). Shooting Industry, 6, 12-13. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v37/ai_12634747/?tag=content;col1

Taser International, Inc. (2010). Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.itaser.com/product_tour.html

UNICEF. (2001). No guns, please; we are children (pamphlet). New York: UNICEF Division of

Communication. This pamphlet explains the negative cultural impact of guns and their influences on children around the world. The UNICEF is an international organization which works in 190 countries to promote children’s rights. They use their tremendous influence to pressure policymakers and leaders to protect children and give them a better future.

United States Constitution, (1791). Amendment II. This amendment to the United States constitution

guarantees the right of Americans to legally possess firearms.

Vermont Constitution, (1777). Part 1, Article XV. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp. This article from the Constitution of Vermont guarantees the right of its citizens to possess firearms for their own protection, and that of the state.

Homosexuality

2009-12-05T20:47:00.000-08:00

Intolerance, or Love?
Christians are so often called intolerant. In a culture that has accepted the muddled postmodern idea of ethics, to condemn any belief or behavior can be hazardous, and is now reserved for the select few who refuse to act like they do not know the truth. I want you to be one of them. As you probably know, the controversy over gay and lesbian rights has now infiltrated the Church, and the ELCA Lutheran Church is now saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. But the Bible says something very different:

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:25-27).

The Bible is the Truth

Both the old and new testament give us the same message: homosexuality is indecent, a perversion, unnatural, even detestable. Clearly, this is not the politically correct ideology popular today. There is today, and will continue to be for perhaps as long as the world exists, much question as to the correct interpretation of these and similar texts. The fact is, nothing is impossible to justify. You may argue about the interpretation of the Bible as long as you wish. I simply do not care. Anyone who reads the Bible to find truth will be convinced that God is against homosexual behavior. But anyone who decides what “truth” is convenient for him/her, will only try to twist the words of God into their own beliefs when reading the Bible. If the Bible says that Homosexuality is wrong, and one of the primary beliefs of Christianity is the Divine inspiration of the Bible, how are Christians to blame for intolerance?

The Reason for Homosexuality
Some argue that God created homosexuals the way they are. But Romans 1:25 tells us the very reason for Homosexuality. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts”. What is the truth of God? Homosexuality is wrong. And the Lie? Homosexuality is natural. We have been plagued with Homosexual lust as a society because we are exchanging God’s truth for a lie.

A Christian’s Response
If God does not tolerate homosexuality, then how should Christians respond? God says there is a “due penalty for [homosexual] perversion”. As Christians, then the best thing we can do is to warn gay and lesbian people of the consequences of their behavior, and help them overcome their condition. This is not done out of hatred or “intolerance” but out of love. There are those, of course, who look down on homosexuals. This is entirely wrong, and very much outside the will of God. Christians should love the homosexual, but hate the perversion, just as Jesus would have. But while we love the gay/lesbian person, we cannot simply back down, or be silent about the moral authority of the Bible. God has given us the truth, and he has given us the power to love people a way the world cannot explain, so let’s use it!

Abortion

2009-10-13T07:48:00.000-07:00

Criteria for Life
Abortion is a tricky subject to argue about, because people who have no problem with it often can twist words to meet their agenda, For example, They can say a fetus is only alive when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Anyone who has taken a basic Biology course should know the four criteria of life to be, 1: The organism must contain DNA. 2: The organism must be able to sense changes in its Internal or External Enviroment and respond to those changes. 3: The organism must have a system of breaking down proteins to create energy. 4: The organism must be able to reproduce. These criterion say nothing about surviving outside of the womb. Are fish any less alive because they can't survive outside of water? Or are We any less alive because we can't survive without Oxygen to breathe?

Self-Centered Culture
The basic problem, however, has less to do with their logic about what constitutes life, and more to do with their attitude towards life itself. We live in a culture that is often times very self-centered. The people who advocate abortion think that it is more important for people to satisfy their own selfish desires than to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others, like Jesus did. The fundamental problem is that a lot of people in our society choose to turn away from God, who is the source of Love, and seek their own pleasure and their own will instead of His. This was what Adam did in the garden, and it's what you and I do every time that we sin. When a whole culture turns its back on God and seeks its own selfish desires, it starts to do things like promote abortion. Our culture thinks that it is OK for a woman to kill her child if the woman thinks that it will make her life easier.

Ancient Man

2009-08-23T19:14:00.000-07:00

Where Did Cavemen Originate?
Cavemen have been the ever popular target of scientists, (not to mention cartoonists and advertisers) for decades. The Idea of simpleminded, brutish, cave dwellers, (who wield wooden clubs, grunt constantly and pick insects out of each other’s dreads) is so popular that I doubt many people even consider how we got such an idea of ancient mankind. Cavemen did exist, but the idea that they, and other ancient civilizations were anything less than fully human is a deception spread by evolutionists.

Archeology
When archeologists dig down and find an ancient city, they expect it to be simpler than modern cities. And when they find a city below this ancient city, they expect it to be even simpler, (following me Ok?). But as archeologists discover more and more of humanity’s past, they are discovering that this is often not the case. The ancient Mayans were masters of astronomy and mathematics. They had the solar year calculated to be 365.2420 days long. Only just recently have we discovered it to be .0002 days longer than this. In Mesopotamia, a ceramic jar, dating back to 2500 B.C. contained a device that, when filled with grape juice, produced an electric current of 1.5 volts. The ancient Phoenicians visited West Virginia, and left inscriptions on giant stones, as far back as 3000 years ago. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, evolutionists call these findings “mysteries”. But are they? You see, if we are to believe that Mankind has evolved, we should see a gradual increase in technology in all of earth’s cultures, throughout the years. This is because man’s achievements would have always been limited by his mental capacity. But the only way to explain the mysteries of archeology is to admit that man was not limited by his mental capacity at any point in known history.

Limitations of Advancement
Obviously not all cultures were equally advanced, but this is not because of mental limitations, but factors such as quality of life, the availability of food and water, natural resources, perverted religion, and the population of people pursuing advancement, have been shown to keep innovations in a standstill. Take for instance, the middle ages. During the middle ages, quality of life was at rock bottom. People were more concerned with staying alive than inventing the electric toaster. Also, corrupt religious officials kept Galileo from his research. And the scarcities of food and water in some regions of Africa have (kept tribesmen, who have the potential to be just as drop dead brilliant as me, I’m joking of course) from advancing to higher technology for hundreds of years. What about the cultures that did succeed in advancing to amassing heights? One word, extinction. Like the Romans, (who by the end of their empire, had paved roads, international mail, and advanced government) other empires disappeared, and their inventions with them.

The Modern Technology Boom
So what about today? Does the 21st century mess this idea up? Japan is already developing the 4th generation of cell phones, and computers that used to take up an entire room can now fit into your pocket. Believe it or not, I believe that all this, (and more) could have been achieved by mankind in the first hundred years after creation. We have no reason to believe that it did, but it could have. The reason technology has blown through the roof in present times is because of global communication. It weren’t for global communication mankind would not have been able to work together and share ideas. And because of global communication, extinction is no longer a problem, (unless all humans die simultaneously, which I think we would all agree, would be a problem). In the end, there is no historical evidence of any mental evolution of the human race. Even in the days when people lived in caves, mankind was created in the image of God, and shows every evidence of being just as intelligent as modern man.

Evolution: Winning a Defensive Battle

2009-07-16T10:09:00.000-07:00

Things have Changed...
Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-Darwinism
The first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibrium
The latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!
It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

DNA

2009-07-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

The Explanation At Last
I have noticed, in some of our posts, that DNA has been mentioned in connection with evolution, (or against it,) but hasn't been properly explained yet. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid found in the cells of all living organisms and some viruses. This Nucleic acid acts as a storage device containing the codes to life, or the amino acids to create life with. DNA is composed of strings made of sugars and phosphates wrapped around each other with 'rungs' of units called nucleotides, creating a shape known as a double helix. The double helix runs in long strands wrapped tightly around itself in a linear unit called a chromosome. There are four different types of nucleotides, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. These are grouped into two sets, Adenine and Guanine, and Cytosine and Thymine. Thes are the only possible pairs of nucleotides. So Adenine can't pair with Thymine, and Cytosine doesn't mathc up with Guanine. These pairs then are arranged in various orders determining your eye, hair, or skin color. When somthing evolves, it's a mutation in the DNA itself that causes the creature to have different characteristics. Mutations can be caused by ultraviolet light, radiation, some viruses, or by the organism itself in cellular process such as hyper mutation. I won't go into those processes now, but it is an incredibly complex subject that I will post about later. I have barely scratched the surface here, but you can already see DNA is too complex to have been created by random chance. The first cell created by random chance would have to create its own DNA and proteins, get the cellular sturcture built, and it would have to get it right the first time. If it got it wrong the cell would quickly die. If there is no creator, nobody cna see it die and say something like, "Will maybe if I build it this way it will work better." And these cells can't evolve and make themselves better because they die before the second generation can even be born. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for something to evolve, not two generations. This is all proof that life was carefully designed and created just a carefully.

Laws That Defy Evolution

2009-07-11T15:19:00.000-07:00

Prepare to Defend Your Faith!
Evolution is often thought to be beyond question, and many believe it to be a scientific fact that evolution did produce all life on earth. It might surprise you know that there are multiple scientific laws that fly in the face of macro evolution. As you defend your faith, it will be helpful to know these laws, and to explain them to the opposition. Because in order to be a viable theory, evolution should be consistent with well established laws, and as you will read in this post, it is not.

Biogenesis
In the middle ages, scientists observed that rats and flies were found in the greatest intensity around piles of decaying garbage. Given this fact, they proposed that garbage produced rats and flies! This idea was taken for a fact for hundreds of years. You may have heard of it, its called Spontaneous Generation. Eventually a man named Louis Pasteur rid science of this idiocy, and the Law of Biogenesis was formed. This law says that life only comes from life. Nowhere in known history has this law been broken, which makes sense, considering the complexity of even a single cell. With Macro Evolution, we have regressed back to the middle ages. Only what once was a pile of garbage is now a warm pond, or volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea. The problem is that even in ideal conditions, the odds of forming a single protein, (one of hundreds necessary to life), are so ridiculous, they could never happen given hundreds of trillions of years, let alone a wimpy 6 billion! There is no scientific appeal to Spontaneous Generation beyond the desire to remove God from science, and society.

The First Law of Thermodynamics
It is a proven fact that in any isolated system, energy cannot be created, or destroyed. Imagine a marble rolling up and down the sides of a bowl. At the top of the bowl the marble possesses a certain amount of potential energy, (or potential motion). Gravity acts on the marble and causes it to roll down the side of the bowl. At this point, the marble is losing its potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy, (energy in motion). But once the ball starts rolling up the opposite side of the bowl, it starts losing its speed, (kinetic energy) and gaining potential energy for its next run. Now, you may have caught a problem with this picture. Anyone knows that a marble rolling around in a bowl will eventually stop. This, however, does not mean that energy has been lost. Instead, friction between both the marble and the bowl, and the marble and the air, has taken the marble’s energy and transformed it into heat. So, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we see that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. So, contrary to evolution, the universe could not have been created by a natural process. We know that time, and energy, and matter could not have existed forever, and we also know that natural processes, (like the big bang) cannot create these things, so we are left with one option; to recognize God as the creator of our universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As I mentioned above, the energy in any system is never created or destroyed, but changes form. It turns out that there is a trend in the way that energy changes form. And this is addressed by our next law. The Second law of thermodynamics says that all potential energy in the universe is slowly changing into non-recoverable, heat energy. So, although we are not losing energy, the useful energy we have is changing into useless heat by processes like friction, and nuclear fusion. Think about it this way. Our petroleum deposits, (which have the potential to cause kinetic energy) are rapidly diminishing, and as we burn this fuel, our engines produce heat, and motion. Even the motion our cars produce is eventually stopped by friction, and this friction produces heat. This heat radiates into space, and is useless. This poses a huge threat to macro evolution’s timeline. Because the older the universe becomes, the more useless heat energy it accumulates, and the less useful energy, (like fuels, or motion) it has left. Our universe shows very little useless energy, and fuel, and motion everywhere. This proves that the universe had a beginning, and shows that that beginning was too recent to defeat the odds of Spontaneous Generation.

They Point to a Creator
As I look back on this post, it becomes apparent how interconnected these laws are. If Macro Evolution were viable, it would be just as interconnected with other corresponding laws. Instead, our scientific laws show how ridiculous the hypothesis of Macro Evolution is, and they point unquestionably, to a supernatural creator.

Socialism

2009-07-04T09:45:00.000-07:00

Our Nation is in Danger
Politics is a dangerous subject that I never intended this blog to discuss. However, I feel that our nation is currently headed toward destruction, and in order to turn around, the people of America need to speak out, and take action.

Consequences of Socialism
Obama has been a socialist from the moment he entered the race for president. America didn’t see the danger until it was too late, and now we are stuck with the consequences of America’s choice. These consequences will include nationalized healthcare, government ownership of GM, Banks, and other large companies, Cap and Trade, and more to come. These might not sound all that bad to you, so I will explain why I call them consequences.

Nationalized Healthcare
First, nationalized healthcare is a socialistic ideal that makes healthcare extremely inexpensive, or even free. However, since the government must pay the hospitals, the government also controls who can get help, and to what extent. This makes it hard for older people to receive special treatment, since the government will choose to help younger people who have more life ahead of them. Nationalized healthcare in Europe has resulted in overcrowded hospitals, since it costs relatively nothing to get a checkup, or get a prescription for a sore throat. So, the minor ailments often are over treated, and people who really need help wait days before they can get attention. I heard a story about a woman who got in a car accident, and waited three days in a stretcher in the halls of a hospital in London before anyone even looked at her. Nationalized healthcare costs the government billions of dollars that they don’t have, and forces citizens to pay high taxes so that other people can get treatment that they could otherwise do without.

Corporate Government
Government ownership of large companies increases the power, and role of the government, by making us dependant on their products. Now that the government controls GM, they will undoubtedly start to limit the size, carbon footprint, and power of cars that we buy. This will no doubt sound appealing to the environmentalists, but mankind only produces less than one percent of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and we are already an exceptionally clean nation. Earths water and air are cleaner now than they have been in decades. More fuel efficient cars come at the expense of comfort, and safety. And if these companies get into debt, it will be our taxes that bail them out.

Tax on Life
"Cap and trade" is a bill that Obama is trying to pass gives the government control over what we can buy and sell. If this bill passes, your house will have to pass government mandated appraisals, (to make sure your house is “Green”) before you are allowed to sell it. Industries will be taxed heavily for every bit of pollution they create, and will pass this expense on to their customers. No one will be exempt from this rise in living expenses, and it is questionable whether or not future generations will be able to support themselves.

Hidden Motivation?
Does Obama really think all these changes will help? His solutions to our problems only create new, worse problems. If you doubt this, don’t take my word for it, do your own research. Obama’s nation that he is creating is not a nation that will last. He is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have on quick fixes. Don’t think I am trying to be offensive, but I don’t think Obama is dumb enough to think he is helping America. If you notice, there is a trend in his bills; they all give him more power. Is Obama a power hungry lunatic? I am not accusing him, but I don’t think it is an impossibility. I think we need to be careful how much power we are giving to our president, because if we wait too long to take action, it might be too late. This is the fourth of July, and I am proud to be an American. Our nation is the most beautiful, powerful, and free nation on the face of the world and I want my kids to grow up as free as I am.

Micro Vs. Macro Evolution

2009-07-02T08:31:00.000-07:00

Totally Different Things
There are two different types of evolution, one is micro evolution, the other, macro evolution. They both rely on the fact that creatures have the ability to change. This change can hinder them, or help them become better suited for their environment. The main difference between the two types of evolution is the way that the change takes place, and the amount of change that is able to take place.

Micro Evolution
According to this theory, changes are caused by existing DNA being combined in different ways as a result of cross breeding. This allows plants and animals to adapt each generation to fit their environment as it changes. Of course, these changes are limited, although creatures are able to develop certain characteristics, they will never have the information in their DNA to turn into a different type of creature. The offspring of two dogs will always be a dog since there was no information contributed concerning another creature. The few, and not so common, changes that are not pre-programed into the DNA of a creature are mutations, there have never been any that have caused a gain of information.

Macro Evolution
This hypothesis relies on beneficial mutations, which, over time change a creature into a more advanced type of creature. Although there are examples of mutations, they have never caused a increase in information, and without more complicated genes, a creature would never evolve into a more complicated animal. Instead, almost all mutations, (with the exception of frame shifts) cause a loss of information, any significant losses are almost always deadly. One of my favorite books sums up mutations perfectly. It shows a cartoon of a man, sitting back in his arm chair, chucking rocks at his TV and saying something like, “maybe this next rock will mutate this analog TV into a wide-screen, HD TV”. We all know how ridiculous this is. But if you think a TV is a delicate, complex piece of equipment, try studying the DNA for a day or so. What are the usual outcomes of mutations? Experiments done on fruit flies exposed to radiation over the course of many generations have yielded fruit flies with wrinkled wings, no wings, blind eyes, and other hindrances that would work against natural selection. Out of all the fruit flies, not one was found with a mutation that made it more fit to survive in any way, or make it classified as a different species.

My Conspiracy Theory
Many people get confused over the two different types of evolution. Evolution scientists often take advantage of people because of this. They will find an excellent example of micro evolution, and then tell you that it is the type of evolution that could over time transform a creature into a different type of creature. The truth is, It's not! Micro evolution is outward change; it never produces new DNA, it just combines DNA in different ways. Macro evolution is upward change; it depends on mutations having the ability to produce new, and better DNA. But no matter how far outward you go, you will never go up. in fact, the only vertical change that has been proven to happen is downward change, because mutations can cause a loss of information. We see this in dog breeding, we now have dogs like the poodle who are so different, they are virtually a different type of animal all together. this is not evidence for macro evolution, but rather against it, the poodle has lost information through destructive mutations throughout its genealogy that have rendered it less able to survive, (I knew there was something wrong with those animals). The funny thing is, scientists should know all this stuff. why would they then tell us that we are observing small amounts of macro evolution when they know we are only observing micro evolution? Its because they are pushing an agenda; that science can explain everything without the need of supernatural intervention. And these agendas are what make scientists overlook the problems in their theory, and make evolution into a "blind faith" oriented religion.

Morality

2009-06-13T10:25:00.000-07:00

The Reality of the Law
When was the last time you argued with someone? Most likely it was not too long ago. People argue over all sorts of things, all the time. But regardless of the subject of the argument, one aspect is always the same. Because in order to argue, we must make reference to some sort of moral, or ethical code. We know that an ethical code exists, but how do we explain it? I recently read called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, and in it he made the point that we cannot logically explain this phenomenon by natural means. His book inspired me to write this post.

Moral Similarity
One point C.S. Lewis made, was that every culture on earth has had some sort of ethical code. And these ethical codes are all basically the same. C.S. Lewis says, “…but for the present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.” The point is, although moral codes are created by the people of a given culture, totally isolated cultures always reference the same concepts of unselfishness, justice, keeping your word, generosity, ect. This similarity must somehow be explained, and the only reasonable explanation is that there is some sort of universal standard, and each culture reflects the ideas of this ethical standard, (although with differing degrees of accuracy).

Personal Decision?
There are instances, in which a given culture’s ethical standards do seem to be different, and even seem to go against what we would consider to be good. C.S. Lewis pointed out that if a certain culture allows some sort of “immoral” behavior that we consider wrong, we instantly seem to conclude that their morality is inferior, and wrong. But how can anything be wrong, if there is no right. For instance, a football player cannot make a foul unless the teams agree on what should be considered fair, and unfair. There will be some of you who will no doubt say that there are no universal morals. But I cannot believe that you actually believe this. You see, as much as you may say that Hitler’s moral standards were just as noble as ours, you don’t mean it, your conscience knows that it is impossible to excuse the killing of innocent people. Is it possible that Hitler knew it was wrong too? Of course! When was the last time you did something even though you knew it was wrong? We do it all the time. Obviously, there is more to morality than a personal decision.

Universal Contract?
Now that we know that all of mankind is effected by the same belief of an ethical standard, the next question is, “what could possibly cause this strange phenomenon”. Some say that morality is universal because “Good” is anything that benefits mankind, whereas “Bad” is anything that harms, or causes pain or suffering. At first this makes sense; killing someone, or taking their money is obviously bad, but rescuing someone, or giving them food and shelter is considered good. Both of these are judged based on how they affect humanity. This is all well and good, but believe it or not, this does not explain morality. You see, benefiting society is a good way to describe moral law, but it is not the reason for the law. If benefiting society is why we have moral laws, then why do we feel obligated to benefit society? Think for an instant, if you could re-create moral law for yourself. If no-one, (not even God, for those of you who are Christians) would condemn you for anything, would you honestly choose to do everything that didn’t come naturally to you? Now there would be some sense in making everyone else do these things that didn’t come naturally, for your own welfare, but if it were all for your welfare, (most people think it is) then why would you feel bad when you cheated someone? Is it just because you broke a universal “niceness” contract? But if this contract is only for your wellness, the only reason to feel bad would be fear that someone else would break the contract and harm you back. This selfish reasoning would be totally acceptable if the universal contract theory was correct, but even this selfishness is looked down on. And I don’t know about you, but when I do something wrong, I feel more than fear, I feel guilt. If morality really is a contract between all of mankind, it seems that our minds refuse to believe this, and instead our conscience is constantly bombarding us with feelings of remorse, and guilt, over offenses that we cannot seem to make ourselves stop doing.

A Better Explanation
Following the reasoning that morality is more than a personal decision, and more than a contract between all of mankind, what is a better explanation? I propose that mankind was not the author of ethical standards. Instead, the morality of our diverse cultures reflect a greater standard set by God himself. When you think about it, who else would have the authority to do this, than the one who created us? We were made in the image of God, and he made many of our aspects reflect himself. This is why we have a conscience. However our sinful nature tells us that we have been distorted from out original image. Our two sides; the sinful nature, and our conscience, are fighting against each other, causing the guilt and remorse over issues we cannot change. We are a badly distorted reflection of God, but we still know what we ought to be like. God wants us to be unselfish, not only to benefit each other, but to glorify him. He also wants us to refrain from behavior that harms ourselves, (such as drunkenness, sexual immorality, and addiction) because these things harm our relationship with God. This is my explanation for morality, I personally think it fits the evidence, and reasoning, the best. If you have one that you think better, please comment on this post.

Jesus Christ
Our situation seems hopeless. The Bible says that God punishes sin with eternal suffering in Hell. And unless we are perfectly sinless, we will never enter heaven. But God has provided a way out. Jesus Christ paid the death penalty for our sin. All we need to do is confess our sin, ask God to forgive us, and believe in Jesus as our personal savior. If you are not sure if you are going to heaven when you die, please consider what I have told you. Your life on earth could be over in an instant, and this could be your last chance to let Christ save you from the punishment your sins deserve.

Intelligent Design in Schools

2009-06-03T20:07:00.000-07:00

Don’t Get the Wrong Impression
Most people are under the impression that Intelligent design is nothing more than Christianity under a new name. And everyone knows that Christianity is no more than a delusional religion about God, for emotionally crippled people who would rather feel good, than get real and be rational. With this perspective it is no wonder intelligent design is not allowed in schools. Why would people want to harm their children’s intellect over some irrational belief in God? People tend to get rather defensive when people like me talk about intelligent design in schools, but what I want to do is clarify exactly what intelligent design is, and how I want it taught in schools.

Presuppositions
Intelligent design is not a religion, it is a scientific hypothesis. The reason most people associate it with religion is because, in order to be valid, me must assume that God exists. But is it not equally religious to assume that God does not exist? The point is, both Intelligent Design, and Macro Evolution are based on presuppositions. But this alone does not make either of them less credible. Every day, we must assume, for instance, that matter exists, and that what we see is not a delusion. We must presuppose that language and numbers are adequate to explain our universe. And we must also presuppose whether or not the existence of God is possible. Both presuppositions are equally viable by themselves. You cannot prove if God exists, or does not exist. What we can do however, is see which presupposition seems to fit the scientific evidence the best. For instance, although we cannot prove that matter exists, we can observe the consistency of physical laws, and can realize that the best explanation for this consistency is not illusions, but physical substance, governed by mathematical laws. In the same way, intelligent design is a theory that starts with the presupposition that God could exist. If you observe the universe with an open mind, I think you will find that this is the most reasonable presupposition.

Observation
As you already know, the hypothesis of intelligent design starts with a presupposition. The next step is observation, and our primary observation is the complexity of the universe. I don’t have time to go into detail about the hundreds of complex things that make up our universe. Life for instance, is so complex that we cannot even begin to understand the complex chemical reactions and processes that make it work. But the point is, these things are so complex, that we must find some way to explain this complexity. Our second observation are the geological features that indicate a huge catastrophic event. And a third observation would be the Age of the earth, (which 80% of tests show to be under 10,000 years). The most popular Hypothesis is that macro evolution caused the complexity by a roundabout way involving very gradual change and natural processes. But in forming our hypothesis we take into account that macro evolution has failed in its attempt to explain the universe. And that leads us to the third step, hypothesis.

Hypothesis
Our scientific hypothesis is that a supernatural force intervened with nature, and caused the complexity and organization we see in the universe today. Also, we believe that a worldwide flood caused the geological formations that we observe. This explains the complexity and beauty of our universe, as well as why the earth tests to be young, while showing geological features that would take millions of years to form normally. In fact, my personal hypothesis, as well as many other creationists, and because these events fit so perfectly with the Bible, is that the Biblical creation story, as well as the flood story, and all other stories, are legitimate, and should be taken seriously, just like any other history book. So the next step is to ask the question, “is there any evidence to support this idea”. Since both the creation event, and the flood cannot be repeated, we must rely on a method in which we predict what evidence these events would leave behind, and then go out, and see if the evidence is there.
Theory
I don’t have nearly enough time to go into all the predictions that intelligent design makes, or explain all the ways that the evidence supports these predictions. That is a topic for another post. The reality is, there is no evidence out there that can’t be explained with Intelligent Design, and in fact, a huge amount of evidence supports it. And an even larger amount of evidence shows that macro evolution is so close to impossible, that it is not even worth consideration. Once again, the rest of the posts on this blog will discuss this in greater detail. Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, but it is questionable whether or not macro evolution still is. Science has changed so much from when Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, and his theory is simply being torn apart. So why is Intelligent Design treated with such scorn in the scientific community? I think it’s because in our present culture, most people have the presupposition that God does not exist, and there is a bad “blind faith” stereotype for people who think God does exist. If you get rid of the stereotype, and give the existence of God a chance in your mind, Intelligent Design suddenly makes sense. But because most scientists are stuck with the idea that so called, “religion” is not for scientists, they don’t give it a chance. And of course, the general public believes whatever scientists say without question.

What is Being Taught?
Today students are taught macro evolution as if it were fact. When students question evolution they are often ridiculed by classmates and teachers alike. Here’s the story of a 4th grader who stood up under this persecution. “Apparently at lunch some of the kids started trying to make him believe evolution (note that this is a 4th grade class) by teasing him about believing creation. His science teacher also joined in this by trying to “prove” evolution and by e-mailing some random biology professor to tell him this. From what I gathered, the teacher at one point told him that, from all the information she had provided him, he “has to believe” evolution. Now for the good news: The kid stood strong on the Word of God. He didn’t compromise and didn’t flinch under the persecution.” This kid was obviously too young to be able to defend his position. This is an example of a teacher taking advantage of a student by superior knowledge and vocabulary. In these situations, students are forced to believe what their teachers tell them unquestioningly. Evolutionary textbooks are full of out of date information, and often go just deep enough into subjects to make them seem like evidence for evolution without discussing the glaring problems with the hypothesis. One example would be the chart that shows horse evolution. this chart arranges the horses from smallest to largest, but bypasses the fact that the horses are found together in the same rock strata, and show no indications of gradual change except in size.What

Should Be Taught?
Intelligent design is more than valid enough to be taught in schools. I have no problem with macro evolution being taught in schools. But it should be taught as the failing theory it is, not like a law. I think it should be taught alongside creation as the naturalistic hypothesis Vs. the supernatural hypothesis, that way students can compare the two side by side, and see which one is really backed by the evidence. Teachers and curriculums should not take sides like they do now, and should recognize the scientific validity of intelligent design. Another problem that needs to be corrected is the out of date, or false information found in text books. I don’t want to teach “religion” in a public school, all I want is for a scientific theory, (and one that I believe is more valid than the evolutionary theory), to be studied in schools as at least an equal to evolution. Ultimately, if schools would give intelligent design a thought, I think everyone would see how well it fits the evidence, and how science makes so much more sense when it’s put into perspective with a supernatural creator. Until our schools allow both theories to be taught honestly for what they are, we are actually violating the true meaning of the first amendment. By this I mean that the state is endorsing one religious idea, (that God does not exist) while preventing discussion of Intelligent Design, (which is no more religious than macro evolution) in schools, by supporting, or denying the validity of the theory that is based on its respective faith assumption. The purpose of the first amendment was never meant to keep “faith assumptions”, (or what is more commonly called religion, or church) out of the government, it was designed to keep the government from controlling, or endorsing one over another. And this is exactly what I see happening all over America.

Jesus Freaks

2009-05-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

Persecution is Happening
Our culture has accepted the idea that religious persecution has been getting less and less common since way back in the early A.D.’s around Nero’s reign. Everyone is familiar with the coliseum and the holocaust, but few realize the extent of persecution going on today. There are 52 nations in which it is illegal to be a Christian, or to gather together to pray and teach. In fact, there is much more persecution done to Christians now than ever before. Here is the story of

More Love to Thee
North Korea. 1950’s
For years, Pastor Kim and 27 of his flock of Korean saints had lived in hand dug tunnels beneath the earth. Then, as communists were building a road, they discovered the Christians living under ground. The officials brought them out before a crowd of 30,000 in the village of Gok San for public trial and execution. They were told, “Deny Christ or you will die.” But they refused. At this point the head communist officer ordered four children from the group sized and had them prepared for hanging. With ropes tied around their small necks, the officer again commanded the parents to deny Christ. Not one of the believers would deny their faith. They told the children, “We will see you soon in heaven.” The children died quietly. The officer then called for a steam roller to be brought in. He forced the Christians to lie on the ground in its path. As its engine revved, they were given one last chance to recant their faith in Jesus. Again they refused. As the steam roller began to inch forward, the Christians began to sing a song they had often sung together. As their bones and bodies were crushed under the pressure of the massive rollers, their lips uttered the words:

“More love to thee, O Christ, more love to thee. Thee alone I seek, more love to thee. Let sorrow do it’s work, more love to thee. Then shall my latest breath whisper Thy praise. This be the parting cry my heart shall raise; More love, O Christ, to thee.”

The execution was reported in the North Korean press as an act of suppressing superstition.
(Reference: “Jesus Freaks” by DC Talk & Voice of the Martyrs pp. 125.)

A Testimony to Christ
These people were Jesus freaks. Ordinary people who experienced something so powerful, and so life changing, that they were able to stand up against communists, and die a terrible death with peace and even joy. Throughout history, persecutors have been amazed by the love and joy of Christians even in such horrific circumstances. This is a testimony to something greater than human strength, not a mental disorder, not a false hope of eternal life, but the power of God in someone’s life. Christian persecution is alive and well. This particular story was from the 1950’s but I assure you nothing has changed since then. Click on the link below for more information on recent occurrences.
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51

Our Constitutional Rights

2009-05-08T14:24:00.000-07:00

Freedom of Speech
On March 20th 2009 Pastor Walter Hoye was imprisoned in a California jail in a cell filled with 29 other prisoners. He was sentenced to 30 days in prison for speaking at an abortion clinic. Walter began his ministry in 2006 because of the sky high abortion rates among African-Americans. Once a week, he would stand quietly outside the “Family Planning Specialists” clinic with a sign that read, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help” when people approached the clinic he would ask if he could talk to them about alternatives and give them pamphlets describing available help. His quiet approach was peaceful and calm; nothing aggressive or threatening. It began to get ugly when pro-abortion “escorts” began arriving in groups surrounding Walter and blocking his path. They held up sheets of cardboard to block his sign and shouted down his quiet plea for life.

City Ordinance
When Walter still persisted, clinic managers got the city council to institute a ordinance that made it illegal to approach within eight feet of anyone approaching the clinic within 100 feet of the building, (funny, they were fine with “escorts” surrounding people and shouting in their ears). Hoye said “This law in extremely unconstitutional, it allows abortion clinics to decide which U.S. citizens are allowed to retain their constitutional right of free speech.” Hoye continued his work, and was charged with “unlawful approaches to women” and “force, threat of force, or physical obstruction” to those seeking to enter the clinic. Even after security camera tapes proved the testimony of his prosecutors false, and even after clinic escorts admitted that Walter was always cordial and never obstructed anyone’s path or used threats or force, the jury refused to admit he was innocent. They gave him the choice of two years in jail, or a stay away order that would involve giving up his constitutional rights. Refusing the stay away order, Walter eventually received a short 30 day sentence.

Follow the Money
I don’t care how long his sentence was, Walter Hoye was doing nothing wrong. His presence was inconvenient to the multi-million dollar baby killing industry. They claim to stick up for a mother’s freedom of choice, but how am I supposed to believe this when they disregard the constitution and imprison people for trying to save lives? Wake up people! They aren’t concerned about helping people plan their families; they are making a lot of money, and making sexual immorality cheap. This story is not an isolated incident, it is happening more and more commonly and it isn’t just abortionists who are taking away our freedom of speech. It is understandable that abortion clinics don’t want anyone physically assaulting their clients, for that matter, it is extremely constitutional to defend citizens from danger and abuse. But our government cannot be allowed to control what we say. Our government applies to actions only, not opinions or speach. We have a right to free speech in America. And if this freedom is revoked, the government, the abortion clinics, NASA, and public schools can tell us whatever they want, and we can’t question it. This is communism, and we already have our foot in the door.

Genetics

2009-04-26T19:27:00.000-07:00

False Claims
Genetics is perhaps the field with the closest tie to evolutionary science. In Darwin’s time, scientists had no idea what DNA was, or how traits were passed down from parent to offspring. Darwin called this phenomenon, “inheritance”. Since the discovery of Genetics, evolutionary scientists have tried desperately to prove that macro evolution can take place through mutations to the genetic code. I’m not trying to discredit their work, I think they have made some incredible discoveries. However, they constantly claim that their discoveries are proving intelligent design to be wrong, and instead, showing that macro evolution can, (and is) happening. This post shows how what they are saying is false.

Define “Beneficial”
First of all, we will determine what macro evolution requires in order to work. Some would say “beneficial mutations” are all that would be needed. This is only true if you define “beneficial” correctly. If you define beneficial as giving an organism a capability it never had before, your statement would be false. If you defined beneficial as adding new DNA to the genetic code, you would also be wrong. And if you defined it as making a creature more fit to survive in its present conditions, you would also be wrong. What would really be required for macro evolution would be mutations that cause brand new DNA to be formed, resulting in increased complexity, and a function or feature that would ensure the survival of the mutated creature. This is kind of a combination of all three incorrect statements, and although we have observed some types of beneficial mutations, we have never observed one that would truly drive evolution forward.

Bacteria
The primary way evolutionary scientists have been trying to prove evolution through genetics is through mutations in bacteria. This is because bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes, and colonies of bacteria can number in the billions, increasing the likelihood of one bacteria evolving a mutation. Because of this, in a few years we can observe mutations that would take millions of years in other animals. Because of the popularity of bacteria, (and for lack of sufficient time) I will concentrate this post on falsehoods about the evolution of bacteria. There are actually some technical complications with this method because of the way bacteria are more prone to mutations and such, but assuming that bacteria evolution is the same as macroscopic evolution, (evolution of larger animals), we still do not see the type of beneficial mutations needed to drive evolution. And it is doubtful that we ever will.

The Nylon Eater
One of the most popular so called example of a beneficial mutation comes from a bacteria in Japan that has developed the ability to feed on nylon waste. This “Nylon Bug” is the product of a frame shift, a drastic type of mutation that can change a huge section of DNA with the addition or subtraction of just one nucleotide. Here’s how it works, the ability to metabolize nylon comes from a new enzyme that the mutated DNA tells the nylon bug to produce. This enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzyme, but never the less, it gives the bacterium a new ability. The DNA that represents this enzyme is divided into sections of three nucleotides. Each three nucleotides (called “codons”) represent one type of amino acid in the enzyme. Like this, GCT TTA TAC CGT… You get the point. Now a frame shift happens when a single enzyme is inserted into one of these codons, and pushes a nucleotide into the next codon. For instance, if I inserted a “T” into the beginning of my last example, it would become, TGC TTT ATA CCG T. as you can see, this is a huge difference, and this is why evolutionists are so excited. They do admit that almost all frame shifts result in nonsensical random DNA codons that are very harmful, and for this I give them credit. But I would like to point out some disappointing facts about this type of mutation that evolutionary devotees don’t ever mention. First, although they claim that this is evidence that mutations can create new DNA, all the DNA except a few random nucleotides used to create the nylon bug was already there in the first place. The DNA was just arranged differently. As a result, information was not added to the bacteria, the information only changed form. The “new” information was just hiding under a different arrangement the whole time. As a result, scientists correctly speculate that this mutation could have occurred several times in the past, but since nylon did not exist before 1935, the mutation would have been fatal if it had occurred. But in order to evolve, creatures would need to evolve huge amounts of new DNA, it would not work to simply rearrange old DNA. Second, this mutation is actually not beneficial to the bacteria. The new nylon metabolizing enzyme gives the bacteria a new “economic niche” but if the “niche” is not reliable, it causes no advantage. In the case of the nylon bug, its new found ability replaces the ability to metabolize carbohydrates, so now it can only digest nylon, which is a manmade substance. And as I stated above, this new enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of its predecessor. So really, this mutation is more harmful than helpful, and does not produce a more complex bacteria.

Pathogens
Pathogenic Bacteria are also used to combat intelligent design and push forward the evolutionary agenda. Pathogenic bacteria are the types that make you sick. In fact, any bacterium that lives by being harmful to other creatures is a pathogen. In case you were wondering, most bacteria are beneficial; it is only a relative few that are pathogenic. These few get quite a lot of attention, because no one wants another pandemic. And because news about bacteria evolving resistance to certain antibiotics is so common, it is a common myth that these bacteria are showing beneficial mutations in action. But these mutations have always been caused by a loss of information; this is not macro evolution, but bacteria that become more and more simple, harmful, and dependent on their hosts. This also explains why pathogens exist from the Christian perspective. God made the earth perfect, so we believe that pathogens were not in God’s original creation, instead they are a result of the same mutations we see today gradually “devolving” God’s original beneficial bacteria into pathogenic bacteria. Instead of seeing increasing complexity in bacteria, (which we would most definitely observe if evolution happened), we see that mutations from God’s original plan produce harmful, crippled, and disgusting bacteria that would, (at the rate they are generating) be much more common, and might have killed all living creatures by now if they truly did evolve.

The Geological Column

2009-04-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

Does it support, or defy evolution?
Evolution is firmly rooted in the fossil record. One of the greatest triumphs of early evolutionists was to dig down through rock layers and find that the fossils got simpler and simpler as you got lower and lower. This, coupled with geological gradualism, indicated a gradual ascent of complexity needed to prove evolution happened. But this is not the only evidence left in the fossil record. In this post I will cover five different arias of the fossil record that pose huge problems with the hypothesis of macro evolution, and instead show evidence for the biblical record of a worldwide flood. But first I want to give another explanation for the simple to complex arrangement of fossils in rock layers using the world-wide flood model instead of evolution.

Survival of the Fastest
What would happen if you flooded a hilly square mile of the earth filled with clams, elephants, fish, goats, chickens, alligators, horses, worms, cows, plants, and humans, in 100 feet of water, and waited until every living thing sunk to the ground? Suppose further that every 2 hours anything that was at the bottom of the flood would be covered in sediment. What would you find in these layers? Logically, the first creatures you would find would be the worms, plant, sand clams, followed by more plants, and some unsuspecting fish that got caught in the sediment. Next might be alligators, then chickens, cows, goats, elephants, horses, and eventually humans. This would occur because the smarter and faster animals would find higher ground and survive the longest, while the more “simple” or slow animals, or the animals that live at lowest altitudes, (such as fish) would be the first to die and be covered in sediment. Trees and other plants would naturally float, but eventually get water logged and sink to the bottom throughout the flood. This is what I like to call “Survival of the Fastest”, and it happens often in more localized catastrophes. So the orientation of the fossils; from “simplest” to most “complex” is not conclusive proof for either the hypothesis of macro evolution, or the hypothesis of intelligent design. Unlike leading evolutionist would like you to believe, it can be explained either way

The Geological Column part 2

2009-04-03T20:11:00.000-07:00

Fossil Graveyards
One aspect of the fossil record that is difficult for geological gradualism to explain are the hundreds of fossil graveyards found across the earth. Fossil graveyards are layers of rock that contain thousands of fossils, sometimes fossils of animals from completely different climates, all together in a jumbled up heap. This is exactly what creationists expect to find, because we believe in a worldwide flood that would have caused currents to pick up dead animals in massive amounts, then set them down and cover them with sediments. Evolutionists however, would have to believe that animals from all over the world gathered together and then somehow got covered instantly in a local flood, or landslide, or something like that. But overall the hardest fact to explain would be animals from completely different climates, which as we know, could not live together, being found in one place.

The Geological Column part 3

2009-04-03T20:10:00.000-07:00

Unchanged Species
Fossils also give evidence that the species of animals alive today have not changed since their ancestors were frozen in time when they were fossilized. For example, ants found in fossilized tree sap, (called amber), are exactly the same as their relatives that are still alive today. So, given this evidence, it would seem like either the fossils were not formed long enough ago for evolution to have changed certain species, or not even a hint of macro evolution occurred in these species for millions of years. Of course, in some cases we do find creatures that are not alive today. This is not often interpreted as evidence for evolution, even by devout evolutionists, because most extinct species are considered mosaic animals. Mosaic means that the animals are too different from each other to show a transition like we would expect from evolution. So, instead of saying that the animals are the ancestors of modern species, they are widely accepted to simply be extinct, isolated species. This is neither evidence for creation, nor evolution, because both would expect species to eventually go extinct. I will grant that a few fossils have been found from animals that can be fitted into an evolutionary lineage. Evolutionists take this as conclusive evidence for their hypothesis. But I would like to use an analogy to explain the faultiness of this mindset.

“The Evolution of Cars”
Let’s say I wanted to prove that cars evolved. To do this I decided to walk out to the local junkyard, and dig around for a few hours. Let’s say I pull out a wagon wheel, and figuring it is as simple an ancestor as I can find, I decide that the wagon wheel is a distant relative of modern cars. Moving along, I find a rubber tire, followed by a horseless carriage, then a model T, a family car, a SUV, and finally a shiny red sports car. I would have made a pretty convincing case to the public if they didn’t know that cars can’t reproduce. The problem is that when I went to the junkyard, I was already convinced that cars evolved. Instead, if I went to the junkyard with an open mind, I might have arrived at the right conclusion; that each vehicle was designed individually, but the same basic designs, (such as the wheel) were used multiple times by the designer because they worked well. In the end, if we knew that macro evolution is a scientific probability, then interpreting the supposed links we see today as evidence for macro evolution would be plausible, just like if cars could reproduce, the hypothesis I mentioned above would be plausible. However, because of the extreme improbability of macro evolution, I think intelligent design is a much more valid way to interpret these “links”.

The Geological Column part 4

2009-04-03T20:08:00.000-07:00

Missing Links
Of course the most famous problem evolutionists have encountered in fossils is the extreme lack of links between supposed ancestors, and their modern offspring. Evolution scientists have claimed to find quite a few ape-men that they claimed was conclusive proof for macro evolution. The problem is every one of these supposed links have been proved to be a true man, a true ape, or a hoax. In one case, the supposed missing link was nothing more than a pig tooth! The genealogy of the modern horse is said to be the most complete and impressive set of links that scientists have found to date. In textbooks the four supposed ancestors of the horse are show in a convincing pattern; from smallest to largest. But there is a catch; you see although they transition smoothly from smallest to largest, the rest of their anatomy is not at all a smooth transition. Instead, the number of ribs, for instance, varies from 15 to 19 with no discernible pattern. The number of toes also ranges from three to none in no discernible pattern. It seems like scientists are more concerned with making their research convincing to the gullible public than they are with accuracy and consistency. You know, we do see animals that can be sorted and categorized to look like they evolved. But if macro evolution was true, we should expect millions of fossils showing very gradual change, instead we see large gaps in the evolutionary tree that have no excuse not to be filled.

Punctuated Equilibrium
Scientists have tried to come up with excuses though, because the latest model of macro evolution, (punctuated equilibrium), claims to virtually eliminate the need for transitionary forms. The ironic thing is that this idea is based on a complete lack of evidence. Scientists must believe punctuated equilibrium to be true because it is the only way to preserve their theory. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution takes place very rapidly, but with long periods of waiting in between. This would allow minimum transitionary species and generations of fully formed species to leave fossils in between. Scientists are still speculating on what could cause such periodic, and rapid change. Sunspots, Radiation, Chemicals, no one knows for sure, but one thing is similar in all cases, they expect hazardous conditions to improve life. They reason that even though the majority of mutations would kill the creatures, a few would survive and come away with beneficial mutations. This is all pure speculation, and is in my mind way harder to believe then creation.

The Geological Column part 5

2009-04-03T20:07:00.000-07:00

Preservation
Fossils all around the world and in every rock layer indicate that they were buried by massive amounts of water. For instance; jelly fish have no hard features, this makes them almost impossible to fossilize. The fact that we have found jelly fish in anywhere is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. If a jelly fish dies on a beach, or floats around lifeless in the ocean, it will decompose in a matter of days! The best way to explain fossilized jelly fish is that they were buried almost instantly in a huge flood. Also, scientists have found soft dinosaur flesh preserved in glaciers this too is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. How long do you think flesh could be preserved in ice? 10,000 years maybe, but even a million years is a hundred times longer than that! Even the shear number of fossils found all over the world indicates one huge cataclysmic event, not millions of years of geological gradualism. In addition, we have found soft dinosaur flesh, along with mammoths, and even fruit trees in glaciers. This indicates that dinosaurs were alive not too long ago, (as opposed to millions of years ago).

The Geological Column part 6

2009-04-03T20:04:00.000-07:00

Timeline Issues
Fossils also interfere with the evolutionary timeline taught in schools. Take for example the coelacanth this fish was previously thought to be extinct since about 70 million years ago. But in 1938 fishermen pulled one in of the coast Madagascar, and since then over 30 specimens have been found. So how did scientists figure out that the coelacanth went extinct 70 million years ago? Well, coelacanth fossils are found in abundance in rock layers supposedly older than 70 million years, but not in the rock layers above. Since we know that coelacanths are still alive, we must assume that coelacanths avoided being fossilized for 70 million years. Considering the multitude of fossils found in lower layers, the odds of this feat are ridiculous. Another timeline issue is that of the genealogy of the horse. Although textbooks make it clear that this genealogy is conclusive evidence for evolution, the fossils of the different horses are not found in the correct order in the geological column. Instead, the supposedly more primitive horse relatives are often found above, or in the same layer as the more “modern” horse. In fact, in some places, the fossils of horse-like animals are found in reverse order.

Man and Dinosaur
Fossils also show man and dinosaur lived at the same time. Footprints of dinosaurs walking in the same mud as man, and even human footprints inside dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in rock. I was recently at a museum in Texas where hundreds of dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in soft stone. Our tour guide was telling us about how the dinosaurs that left these fossils died millions of years before people. When my brother Noah asked about the human footprints found beside dinosaurs in other places, our tour guide responded, “Well, they THINK they have found human footprints, but you can believe whatever you want”. Of course, she never questioned the fact that the fossil footprints at her museum were genuine. The reason she was hesitant to believe the human footprints were real was that it went against macro evolution, not because the footprints were overly suspect. In one case, I know that extensive testing was done on one human footprint, found in the same sedimentary rock as a dinosaur. Scientists tested the density of the rock, and found that the depression was made by pressure identical to what a human foot would do in mud, and could not be achieved by carving tools.

Prepared for Persecution

2009-03-18T16:20:00.000-07:00

This is a Problem!
I found this story on the AIG website and thought it was a great example of how Christian's rights are being neglected in schools. This isn't just a freak thing, it happens all the time. In fact, I'm just going to be blunt and say that Christians are persecuted by peers an teachers more often than others. This can't be excused by saying that the teacher was being religiously neutral by being atheist or agnostic, because even the most devout scientist base their lives on faith assumptions. I'm not saying that people of different faith are never persecuted, or that it's always Christians getting picked on. But the persecution of Christians is an especially big problem that needs to be addressed.

Prepared for Persecution
by Kelsey H., Class of 2008
On the first day of my college philosophy class, the students in the class introduced themselves. Along with telling our names, we had to tell where we were from and the most important thing we have learned in our lives. When everyone finished, our professor told us her name and what was important to her. She ended by saying, “If any of you are Christians, don’t plan on being one when this class is done.” My jaw dropped when I heard this; I wasn’t quite sure what I was getting into. I reminded myself that this was a class I needed for my major, so I had to stick with it.
Throughout the year, we talked about all the different religions; it seemed like every day Christianity got thrown into the discussion. There was never anything positive that was said about Christianity. My professor said that the Bible is a cute little story but has no real meaning.
. . . At the end of the semester we had a final project. We had to give a ten-minute presentation and write a four-page paper on our presentation, and these two things were worth 50% of our final grade. I decided to write my paper/presentation on the “Seven C’s of History” by Answers in Genesis. The “Seven C’s of History” is a brief history of the Bible and includes Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, and Consummation.
The big day came and I had spent hours working on my presentation and paper with my dad. I was the first one to present that day and had everyone’s attention the whole time, which was very unusual. Normally kids are texting or doing other homework. When I was done, I thought I had done well, especially since I had everyone’s attention; but little did I know what was in store for me. For the next forty minutes of class, my professor picked apart my presentation and was furious. She yelled at me for saying that on the last day God will judge all the people and there will be a separation between the believers and the unbelievers. She thought those were my words and didn’t understand that that is what the Bible tells us. She also thought that it was too harsh. She went through every “C” and found something about it to pick apart. I wasn’t even able to stand up for myself or for Christianity, because there was no break in her anger.
I found this class period interesting because two weeks before, I stayed after class talking with her and two other students; and she had told us that it was wrong of us to think that Christians get persecuted. Rather, we (Christians) are the ones persecuting others.
After the class, all the students handed me their evaluation forms. When I went through them, I noticed that I received high marks, and all A’s from the class, except two which gave me B’s. I had one girl come up to me after class and tell me that she was sorry for how the class went and that our professor went overboard. I told her it was okay, and thanks. She then asked me, “What do you mean it was okay?” I told her, “I’m a Christian, and I’m going to get persecuted for standing up for what I believe in (Matthew 5:10–12).” She shook her head, and said, “Wow, I can’t believe you found something positive to take out of this last class.” Hearing her say that really showed me that I did do something right, and even though I had many people against me, I know that God was with me and proud of me, and He was the only one I cared about.
When we got our final grades, I received a “No Grade” on my presentation and paper. My professor said that she was too heartbroken to give me a grade, because I obviously didn’t do any of the readings or take anything from this class. I emailed her and told her that just because I don’t believe everything that was taught in this class, doesn’t mean I didn’t learn anything. I did, in fact, learn a huge lesson, and that was to stand up for what I believe in, even if I’m the only one.
I don’t think I have ever dug as deeply into my Bible as I did this past semester. I found so many verses telling me that this would happen, and that there is a reward for those who share God’s Word. Some of the verses I read numerous times were, Matthew 5:10–12, Matthew 28:18–20, Mark 13:13, and John 3:16. Although I didn’t learn the lessons my professor wanted me to, I learned an even bigger lesson that I will carry with me for the rest of my life.
As I look back on this event, I’m thankful for the Christian home and high school that helped prepare me for this. It is great to have role models to look back on as I face new situations in my life.

Is God Scientific?

2009-03-16T19:47:00.000-07:00

Beyond Nature
“It is obvious we cannot examine God in a test tube or test him by the usual scientific methodology. Furthermore, we can say with equal emphasis that it is not possible to prove napoleon by the scientific method. The reason lies in the nature of history itself, and the limitations of the scientific method. In order for something to be proved by the scientific method, it must be repeatable…” (Know Why You Believe by Paul E. Little) You know, so many people today classify God as something totally separate from science. In a way, his supernatural nature defies science. But is this really a reason to question his existence? Science has limitations, it can only relate to measurable, repeatable, material things. God is none of these things. But if God really does exist, why wouldn’t we put science into perspective with God? Perhaps God himself isn’t provable by science, (He isn’t exactly from our universe, or confined by it’s laws) but since he created our universe, he would have drastic effects on all branches of science.

Cause and Effect
A good example of this comes from the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect basically says that nothing ever (EVER) happens without a cause. This applies to everything in our universe, and even our universe itself. Ok, so let’s say you fall off a cliff. (This seams to be my favorite illustration… ok, I’m not very creative) let’s say the cause of this effect was a brake failure. The brake failure is a cause, but also an effect of a clumsy mechanic. The mechanics clumsiness is the effect of staying awake till 4:00 in the morning three nights in a row. And the Cause of this… Let’s just say that this could go on for days! Eventually you would have to arrive at something called an “Uncaused Cause”. Now, In our universe, an uncaused cause is a scientific impossibility. Never the less, we know that there was one somewhere down the line. So how do scientists explain this uncaused cause? There are only three ways to explain this. (1) The uncaused cause was not from our universe, or confined by its laws. This is the general definition of “God” don’t you think? (2) the law of cause and effect is false, (this goes against reasoning, and hundreds of years of science). (3) Time has existed forever, thus eliminating the need for an uncaused cause. But there are several problems with explanation #3, which point to an uncaused cause.

Time
Imagine a timeline pointing in two directions
< --------O------- >
the present time is marked by the “O”. Time spans in each direction infinitely. Here’s the problem, If time has existed infinitely, how did we ever arrive at the present time? Let me explain. Lets say you went back in time to the beginning of eternity. When would you arrive? The answer of course is never. But what if you started an eternity ago and headed toward our present time. When would you get there? Never. This strongly suggests that it is impossible for time to exist infinitely. Even Stephen Hawking said, "Time itself must have had a beginning". So this disproves the idea that no un-caused cause was needed due to infinite time. In fact, Time in itself is evidence for a God. We cannot create, reverse, stop, or destroy time in any way. Only an infinite power could have set in motion such a unique and almost unexplainable dimension.

Fibonacci Numbers
Another evidence for God is found in every corner of the universe. Fibonacci numbers are found in spiraling galaxies, flowers, the human hand, musical notes, tree trunks, sea shells, and thousands of other natural designs. Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers starting at zero, and then one, and adding the last two numbers of the sequence to get the next. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144… So what is so special about these numbers? They happen to be very beautiful when incorporated into design. In fact, artists use them in a variety of ways to create stunningly beautiful masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. So are Fibonacci numbers just chance? And why do we have such a strange attraction to them? The best explanation would be that the ultimate artist who created our universe liked the way they looked, and used them multiple times throughout his creation. This isn’t rocket science, but it makes sense.

Personal Challenge
Although we cannot prove scientifically that God exists, or prove that he created our universe, God fills in an empty hole in science that makes everything make sense. To anyone who scoffs at people who believe in God, and think we need to directly prove that there is a God before our schools can teach intelligent design, I want to challenge you to commit to your own expectations and prove scientifically that there is not a God. Just because something can’t be seen, repeated, or tested in a laboratory, does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Setting a High Standard

2009-03-15T18:27:00.000-07:00

Combating Low Expectations
In the forward to “Do Hard Things” by Alex and Brett Harris, Chuck Norris says, “Today we live in a culture that promotes comfort, not challenges. Every thing is about finding ways to escape hardship, avoid pain, and dodge duty. ... Today, our culture expects very little from teens - not much more than staying in school and doing a few chores.” As a teenager, I find this statement to be true for my generation. We, as teens, tend to meet the expectations set before us, and no more. If the expectations are set high, we rise to the occasion. However, if they are set low, unfortunately, we stoop to the standard. I want to change the mindset of teens from the idea that we only need to do what is required and nothing more, into one that says that we can and should rise far above the standard. If teens got this, we would realize our God-given potential and make an impact on the world.

One example to illustrate the idea that teens will rise up to meet the expectations set before them is an experience I had in my scout troop. The meals our patrols used to plan and cook were simplistic and disgusting. We cooked things like hot dogs for every meal. However, when we instituted patrol cooking competitions, we started to cook better and better. We went from “shake-n-bake” pancakes, to chocolate-cherry cobblers and breakfast burritos. The rise in expectations forced us to improve our planning and cooking abilities; and now we actually look forward to the delicious food.

Another example of how high expectations can spur a person on to success can be seen in Charles F. Kettering. He was an American engineer who invented the electric starter. He is quoted as saying, “High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.” This is shown through his achievement of the inventing of the electric starter. He set a high goal, and he met it. As a result our lives are made simpler.

Some people believe conversely. They say that high expectations set a child up for failure, while low expectations foster a sense of success. They believe that experiencing failure leads to low self esteem. I found a web site that presented suggestions as to the appropriate chore levels for all ages. In the section “11 years and older”, one of the suggestions was for the kid to “clean room with direction”. This site also said, “One kid may be fully ready to handle sorting the laundry at 13 while another kid will still be putting red clothes with the whites at 16, wondering why the clothes keep coming out tinted pink.” Zach Hunter started a campaign in 7th grade to free slaves around the world. Through his “Loose Change to Loosen Chains” (LC2LC) he has raised money to end modern day slavery. Zach Hunter is just one example of what a teen is capable of and how our culture expects far to little from us teens.

The main thing I’m getting at here is that the ridiculously low expectations set for us teens need to be defeated. They must be defied. If my generation doesn’t, we will become a bunch of lazy adults who don’t do anything with excellence. The point I’m making is not that we, teens, are lazy bums; it is that if we don’t start showing the world what we are capable of, we will never get practice at doing anything great. I say that regardless of age setting low expectations sets one up for failure, because the low expectations are not a realistic example of the demands of real life.

Works Cited

Harris, Alex and Brett Harris. Do Hard Things. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books,
2008.

McNulty, Joanne. “Age Appropriate Chores for Kids.” freeprintablebehaviorcharts.com.
2007

ThinkExist.com Quotations. “Charles F. Kettering quotes”. ThinkExist.com Quotations
Online 1 Feb. 2009.

The Evolutionary Worldview

2009-02-22T11:35:00.000-08:00

Everyone Has One
Everyone has a religion of some sort that they follow. You may doubt this because when you think of religion you think of Angels and harps, or misled old people at a tent revival shouting “hallelujah!” But that’s not what I’m talking about. In fact, religion is a tricky word to use because of the way people view it. Maybe “Worldview” is a better word. A religion (or worldview) is a set of primary assumptions about our world. Worldviews can go hand in hand with science, as people try to prove their assumptions right. And the Assumptions of your Worldview will decide how you live your life. Based on what I have just said, you may still be wondering how evolution fits into all this.

It starts with assumptions…
The primary assumption in evolution is that there is no God. Now here’s the interesting part, from this one assumption we can use a solid line of reasoning to figure out what evolutionists think about a number of worldview questions. From the assumption that there is no God we can conclude that we must have come about by some natural process. And if we came about by natural processes, we must be accidents, and if we are accidents, there is no one to tell us what to do. And finally, if there is no one to tell us what to do, who cares what we do? So, from the primary assumption that there is no God, we have found the evolutionary view of ethics; “there is no right and wrong”. In the same way we can conclude that, after death we rot (that’s all), mankind is blameless, the meaning of life is to have fun, and evil and suffering are natural, you can’t blame those who inflict it because they have no set of ethics to follow.

It is Testable by Science…
To most, Evolution means science,and nothing else. Actually, evolution is an attempt to prove scientifically that the evolutionary worldview is true. Think about it, what are scientists who develop elaborate evolutionary charts, and search endlessly for missing links trying to prove? They are trying to prove that our world did not need to have a supernatural creator, (God). If you read the posts on this blog with an open mind, I don’t think you can come to the conclusion that science supports evolution. Rather, our world shows evidence of design by a loving, wonderful, creative, superpower. So evolution really isn’t about science, because if you started with science you wouldn’t arrive at the evolutionary worldview. But if you start at the Worldview of evolution, you would be forced to believe in the supposed science behind it.

It Decides How You Live…
No matter what you say, blindly believing in evolution will have a huge affect on how you live your life. And you know what? I think we see evidence of this everywhere we look. For generations, kids all over the world have been taught evolution in schools as a scientific fact, and have been forced to accept the Worldview that follows. This is why we need to let America’s kids hear both sides of the case in our schools. If we let them hear both evolution, and intelligent design, we won’t be forcing anything on them. They will be free to believe whichever worldview they think is most supported by science. But as it is, we are forcing “religion” on them in the form of “science”. Do you realize how destructive this has been? A blog series that I have been publishing lately called, “Evolutionary Concepts” explains some of the catastrophes that have resulted from the worldview of evolution. In short, I want you to realize that even evolutionists who claim faith and reason are incompatible, have based their entire lives, and risked eternal suffering, on the blind faith that there is no God. They have blinded themselves to the overwhelming evidence for a creator, and instead prefer to view themselves as worthless accidents.

Click here to read my personal worldview.
http://culturaldeceptions.blogspot.com/search/label/Elijah%27s%20World%20View

Separation of Church and State

2009-02-12T15:13:00.000-08:00

Jefferson’s Letter
This topic one of the most misunderstood topics in America today, so be prepared to hear this in a way you may have never heard it before. Today, separation of church and state is an argument that is used by the ACLU to outlaw Christian idea’s and symbols from anything associated with government. The actual phrase was coined from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The story goes like this; the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that in their state, religious rights were not recognized as “Inalienable Rights” but as “Privileges” granted by the government. In response, Jefferson wrote a letter that basically says that he thinks government should have as little to do with enforcing religion as possible. Here is what he said.

…"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”…

Did you catch that? Sure the phrase is in there, “wall of separation between church and state”. But what about the context? It says that legislature should make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That’s exactly what the ACLU is trying to do. It appears that those who use this phrase are severely taking it out of context to fit their anti-Christian agenda.

The First Amendment
Anyone who has heard the phrase “separation of church and state” will have probably heard of the first amendment of the constitution, (even if they didn't know what it was). In fact, most people associate separation of church and state directly with the first amendment.

“The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When I read this, my suspicions were confirmed. Separation of church and state, as it has become today, is unconstitutional. By writing the first amendment, our founding fathers weren’t making our government religiously neutral, (which is in fact, an impossible task) they were making sure that the government didn’t control our religion. As Jefferson’s letter says, “legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

“Offending Someone”
Today the ACLU is pressuring our government to reach further than actions. Already it is illegal to pray in schools, wear Christian T-shirts in schools, display the Ten Commandments in courthouses and soon, “in God we trust” may be removed from our currency. Why? Because it might “offend someone”. For this same reason I’ve heard that a library is Colorado is refusing to fly our nation’s flag! Strangely enough, the same people who are pushing Christianity out of our country, (with separation of church and state), have no problem with Muslim prayers, songs about Hanukkah, and homosexual awareness days in schools. I heard that a school near where I live was actually studying the Muslim “steps to heaven” or something like that. I have nothing against Muslims, (except the extremists who want to kill me), but it cannot be right to Give them the freedoms that Christians are loosing. The American constitution supports freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So anyone who is offended by the ten commandments needs to, (pardon the expression) suck it up and deal with it. Nowhere will freedom ever be complete while offending someone is considered a crime.

Freaks of Evolution Part 6

2009-02-01T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Tasmanian Wolf

This incredible example of convergent evolution has been extinct since around 1936. Despite its name, the Tasmanian wolf isn’t a dog at all. It is actually a marsupial! That’s right; It has a pouch, and is closely “related” to the kangaroo. Some people say it hopped like one on occasion, but this is un-confirmed. So how in the world did a dog get a pouch? Or otherwise, how did a kangaroo evolve into a perfect dog impersonator? Scientists are still puzzled. They claim that the similarity is the result of marsupials filling in the vacant position of dogs (who weren’t around yet) in the Australian eco-system.

Problem
Unfortunately, there are any number of designs for animals that I’m sure could have roughly the same effect as a canine on an eco-system. Not only that, every eco-system is different, making it even less possible that natural selection could have fine-tuned a perfect dog look-alike. So really we have to rely on blind chance to magically create two extremely similar species with different DNA and internal anatomy. I don’t think so. Another case of convergent evolution, and another stike against to the entire hypothesis of evolution.

Evolutionary Concepts Part 2

2009-01-24T10:27:00.000-08:00

Abortion
I’ve actually heard the phrase “human animal” on T.V. This is perhaps the most appalling effect that macro-evolution has had on our culture. Even though science clearly contradicts macro-evolution, most people stubbornly argue that we did indeed evolve from apes. Why is there such an appeal in this belief? Well, I have two theories, either macro-evolutionist are jealous of the ape’s looks, or they want the freedom from morality that animals have. Our culture is so full of murder, theft, and sexual immorality that we have actually ceased to be ashamed of our disgusting sin, and we now look for a way to excuse it as “ok” or “normal”. And evolution has offered a perfect excuse.

The sanctity of Human Life
By far the most drastic way that the “human animal” idea has affected our culture is our view of the value of human life. As a Christian, I believe that we were created in the image of God, which makes us different from the animals. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Clearly, God values every human life. But in our culture, that is not the case. Our hospitals now kill over 132,000 innocent human lives every year. Abortion is the American holocaust. And what’s worse, the doctors who perform abortions often will tell their patients that all they are doing is removing a “lump of tissue”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What are we really Killing?
Abortion stops beating hearts, in fact if most of the babies that have been aborted were born premature, they would still need special life support systems, but they would be under the full protection of the law. Aborted babies can also feel pain, they have fingerprints, and the ability to grow up to have a normal life even if born premature. So it’s really not a question of whether or not it’s a person. It’s just a matter of if the baby is born, or unborn. What’s the difference? Further demonstrating the inconsistency of our laws, did you know that if someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with DOUBLE homicide! But the doctors would say that this same baby was just a lump of tissue.

Abortion is murder
I had no idea how bad it has gotten until I saw a pro-life bumper sticker that said something like, “3000 Americans have been killed by terrorists since 1990, 4000 Americans have been killed by abortionists since yesterday.” If we ever get through this American holocaust, historians will no doubt wonder how we could have been so barbaric! This country needs to make a fast U-turn, and start valuing every human life as a gift from God.

Evolution Today

2009-01-13T17:00:00.000-08:00

A lot has changed in 200 years...
Do you realize how far the study of science has come in the last century? It was only 105 years ago, that flight was discovered by the Write brothers. The first controlled nuclear chain reaction was 66 years ago. The first time a man walked on the moon was only 39 years ago! If our understanding of science has changed so much in the past century, why should we still believe, unquestioningly, in the ideas of a man born 200 years ago? Much less in a man with no scientific notability except a bachelors degree in medicine! I hope you’re surprised to find that most people do. In fact, much of our tax money is used to support his ideas, and make students question the existence of God in our public schools. Of course, I’m talking about macro evolution.

A quote you won't hear in class
Charles Darwin seemed to realize that as science advanced, his ideas might be proven wrong. He even said, “What is true in my book will survive, and that which is error will be blown away as chaff.” So, has evolution been confirmed over the years, or “blown away”. I hope that by the time you are done reading this website, you will be better informed in the truth. Evolution cannot compete with modern science. The only reason that people think evolution is viable is that everyone else does, and if they question evolution they will be ridiculed and called a "Creationist". Here is one example of a way that modern science has brought problems in Charles Darwin’s Ideas to light. Also, read the other posts on this website, to get an even better idea of the types of problems evolution now faces.

Structural Homology
As Charles Darwin studied different species, he discovered a trend in the skeletal structure of vastly different creatures. For instance, if you would examine the bones in the forearm of a bat, porpoise, bird, and human, you would find that they are quite similar. They all have a Humerus in their upper arm, and two bones, (one called a radius, the other an ulna) in its lower arm. And, like the human hand, they have carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges in the hand. In fact, with the exception of the bird, they all have five digits! Of course, the bones have each been adapted to suit each creatures needs, for instance, (a bats digits are longer than its lower arm). Darwin saw this, and decided it was clear evidence that all these creatures all came from the same ancestor. In his day, this was a valid observation. However, back in Darwin’s time, no one knew how traits were passed from parent, to offspring. Genetics is a fairly new field.

What they wish we never learned
So what’s the problem? Well, now that we know how DNA works, we can look at the chromosomes that contain the DNA that tells an animal what types of bones to grow. If structural homology is the result of common ancestry, then the DNA that tells these creatures what types of bones to make should also be similar. However, no two DNA strands resemble each other at all! Impossible? Yes, unless you’re talking about intelligent design. The only one who could build similar structures out of completely different DNA sequences is God. After all, He wrote the genetic code. I personally think he used the same forearm design multiple times because it worked well. As to the genetic side of structural homology, I think god used totally different DNA sequences so that no one could discredit him for his awesome creation.

Micro, Not Macro
This is just one example of how multiple branches of science contradict macro evolution. There are so many out there I will never be able to write about all of them. You know, I don’t think Charles Darwin was that bad of a guy. He was a careful researcher, and he realized that his ideas were not all going to be scientifically valid forever. If scientists today were as open minded as Charles Darwin, I guarantee, we would be hearing a very different message in our public schools. Although Darwin's work with micro evolution contributed greatly to the science of biology, he took his ideas too far, and tried to explain all of life with macro evolution. I think Darwin has a place in the classroom for his work with micro evolution and natural selection, but lets be fair and say macro evolution is being taught like a law, when in reality it is flawed, and is less scientifically noteworthy than intelligent design.

The ACLU

2009-01-11T11:25:00.000-08:00

Define “Liberties”
I recently read a tract titled “The ACLU vs. America”. What I read was so disturbing that I decided to write this post to inform you what measures are being done by the ACLU to destroy the freedoms of Americans. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a multimillion dollar corporation that “defends” our civil liberties, (at least, the liberties they think should be defended) by pressuring authorities and filing huge lawsuits to anyone who opposes their practice. Let’s take a close look at the “liberties” that the ACLU defends to get an idea of what they stand for.

The ACLU vs. Prayer
In 1963 the ACLU outlawed prayer and the devotional reading of scripture in public schools in Pennsylvania. Since then they have banned graduation invocations, pregame voluntary prayer, and even moments of silence, from schools nationwide. Not only have the ACLU targeted our public schools, but in one case in Louisiana, they actually “demanded jail time for any politician who prayed in a manner they disapproved of”. In South Carolina and Virginia they threatened those who used “Jesus’ name” in prayer with lawsuit. Although against Christians praying, in Virginia the ACLU filed suit demanding that a wiccan witch be allowed to pray during a town meeting. They also work to prevent Christians from sharing the gospel in Public places.

The ACLU vs. Family
The ACLU has also tried, (and failed) to force Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scout leaders. “Since the ACLU’s founding in 1920 its leaders have sought to redefine marriage and the family in a relentless campaign to separate sexual activity from morality and responsibility”. The ACLU is currently fighting for same-sex “marriage” in states coast to coast. The ACLU also stands for the degrading of human life from conception until death, and defends the distribution of childhood pornography.

The ACLU vs. God
It’s easy to make excuses to do what we want to do. We could sell murder as a “civil liberty” since we have the right to be happy and do what we want. But the truth is, we are not free to do whatever we want to do. Christians believe that God decides what is right, and what is wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that the ACLU doesn’t understand this. Maybe it’s because we stand up for absolute morals that they attack us so consistently. In my family the ACLU will always be the “Anti-Christian Lunatics Union”. When you give a liberty, you often have to take one. When you give people the liberty to not hear Christian ideas in school, you take away a Christian’s liberty to talk about those ideas. The ACLU is not fighting injustice, they are fighting God. and this is why they can’t win.

Freaks of Evolution Part 5

2009-01-10T19:03:00.000-08:00

The Bombardier Beetle

This is one of my favorite examples of the falsehood of evolution. The bombardier beetle has a defense system that is somewhat like a cross between tear gas and an M-14! It stores enzymes in one body chamber, and hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones (some rather harmless compounds), in another body chamber. When the bombardier beetle feels threatened, it mixes these enzymes with the other compounds (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), inside it's body. The resulting spray of benzoquinones from the end of the abdomen, explodes at an amazing 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The mixture is pumped through twin rotating rear nozzles that resemble a B-17's gun turret!

Since these chemicals are so explosive when mixed, they must be kept completely separate, or the beetle would explode. That is why there are two bodily chambers that store them separately. If these chemicals were combined upon formation, they most certainly would explode. These chemicals are mixed, right before the exit from the firing chamber, in such a way that they will not explode inside the beetle, scientists still do not understand how this is accomplished. However, this makes the mixture useless against predators. That's why there is another chemical factory that produces the catalyst necessary to start the explosion. This requires an asbestos-lined firing chamber. The explosion is then directed toward the offender with such precision that it requires a very complex nervous system and a brain that is able to make quick decisions to be able to tell what is an enemy and what is not. Furthermore, the explosion is let out like a machine gun, in lots of little blasts instead of one large one. This is to avoid the thrust through the air required by Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If we were to consider the possibility of the bombardier beetle having evolved, we would run into the problem of the irreducibly complex defense system that this beetle possesses. In order for this complex system to have evolved, every part of this defense system must have evolved at exactly the same time. The beetle must have all parts of its defense system present and fully functional or the bug would blow up! If the individual parts did not evolve simultaneously, predators would be quite surprised to see their prey explode before their eyes! This is yet another example of "irreducible complexity". This is so complex that scientists still cannot explain how, in a step-by-step method, this incredible machine works. I think that anybody could look at the bombardier beetle and see that it points to God's intelligent design. I am always amazed at the wonders of God's creation. Especially when I look at the bombardier beetle!

Evolutioary Concepts Part1

2009-01-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

Racism
Racism has probably been the most tragic idea in all of history. Millions of Africans were taken from their homes to live their entire lives working themselves to death. Australian aborigines were hunted down and killed in masses for sport, (not to mention sold to zoos). And Millions of Jews were executed during the holocaust all for nothing but the Heritage they were born into. Racism seems to have become a popular subject after the 2008 elections. Despite popular opinion, I think Racism played in Obama’s favor during the elections. Some people tried so hard to be “anti-racist” that they turned out to be bigger racists than anybody. Needless to say, racism is a mess. And it all started with a man called Charles Darwin.

The “Favored Races”
Everyone who has taken a high school biology class will have heard of the book, “The Origen of Species” by Darwin. What you will not hear is the rest of the books name. The books full name is “The Origen of Species and The preservation of the Favored Races”. Charles Darwin was a racist. After all, if humans really evolved from apes, how do we know that we are not still evolving? Darwin believed that some races of humans were closer to monkeys than others, and that therefore, certain races must be better than others! This was what gave a man named Adolf Hitler a really bad idea. Hitler thought that by killing certain races like the Jews, he could drive evolution forward and create a new race of superior humans.

Genetics
Since Darwin’s time, we have learned a great deal more about genetics. We now know that the differences between races are so small, that they couldn’t make any human less human than another. Skin color is the result of a skin pigment called melanin. Different types of eyes are caused by whether or not you have a fatty clump above your eye. God created the differences we see in the races around the world. No race is a genetic mistake. In fact, the reason God created different skin tones was to enable people to adapt to their environment. Large amounts of melanin help deflect excess sunlight, making dark-skinned people thrive at the equator. And small amounts of melanin help northern people to absorb as much sun as possible.

Draw the Line
Let’s face it, if evolution is right, is what Hitler did wrong? Your immediate answer will be “yes” of course, but where do you draw the line? Hitler thought his killing was justifiable by the fact that those he was killing weren’t as fit to live as he. So would it be ok to kill ape-men? Would it be ok for ape-men to kill ape-men? Most people believe that murder is wrong, (with the exception of our friends at Planned Parenthood). But is murder really murder if those you kill aren’t on the same evolutional level as you are? We kill animals all the time, (I hunt deer), and have no problem with it. If you believe in evolution, you have to be able to draw a line somewhere.

Freaks of Evolution Part 4

2008-12-15T06:26:00.000-08:00

The Squid
The squid is an example of what is called “convergent evolution”. Although the squid is not at all similar to humans, (at least, most humans) the squid’s eye is almost exactly like our own. Humans have some of the best eyesight in the world. For an incredible wonder of optical engineering like the human eye to evolve once by random chance is so close to impossible that it is not worth mentioning. But to assume that the human eye evolved seperatly in both human and squid really pushes it over the edge.

Evolving an Eye
The eye is a hard feature to explain with evolution because so many different things have to be working perfectly before it can do its owner any good at all. Evolution depends on random mutations causing creatures to gain advantages over their competitors. This ensures that they would be the most likely to live, and pass on their mutations to their offspring. But what is the advantage of having an eye that can’t see yet? It would take generations upon generations, (according to evolutionists) to build up enough beneficial mutations to create a working eye. And all these generations would have no advantage to ensure their survival.

Perfecting an Eye
Now suppose you already had a functioning eye, (like the supposed ancestor of the squid would have had). What would it take to mutate this primitive eye into an eye resembling a human? Well, according to macro evolutionists, it would be like throwing the most complex, expensive camera off a cliff, running to the bottom, and finding that your camera has mutated into a better camera. Even a simple eye is more complex than any camera. And mutations are like throwing something off a cliff, extremely destructive! As I said above, every part of the eye must be working perfectly for the eye to function. This includes the Iris, Pupil, Dilator and Sphincter muscles, Lacrimal gland, Lacrimal sac, Eye muscles, Cornea, Lens, Conjunctiva, Retina Choroid, Sclera, Ciliary body, Vitreous humor, Macula Lutea, Fovea, Optic nerve, And rods and cones. A slight mutation to any of these could cause the entire eye to fail. Now assuming you threw two completely different cameras off a cliff. Even if they both mutated into a better camera you would never expect them to turn into the same type of camera would you? But according to macro evolutionists that is exactly what happened with the squid and human.

Carbon 14

2008-12-12T16:34:00.000-08:00

A Useful Mistake
Macro Evolutionists are very fond of throwing around large numbers. When they find a fossil, they often run tests on it to try to find it’s age. One of the most popular tests among macro evolutionists is carbon 14 dating, (along with Potassium Argon, and Uranium Lead). Carbon 14 is an unstable element. This means that, once created, it will start to break down into what is called its “daughter element”. Since carbon 14 is found basically everywhere, and is decaying at a known rate, scientists assume they can determine the age of a fossil by guessing how much carbon 14 the animal contained when fossilized, and measuring the amount it contains now. At first, this seems like a viable way to measure age, but let’s look further into the implications and see what we find…

Half Life
As I said above, carbon 14 is decaying at a know rate. This rate is called a “half life”. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of any amount of an element to break down into its daughter element. The half life of carbon 14 happens to be around 5,730 years. So, if you locked 12 ounces of carbon 14 in a air-tight case, and came back in 5,730 years, only about 6 ounces would remain. Just to clarify, the case must be airtight, or else more carbon 14 could seep in and contaminate the experiment. Back to the point, if you came back in another 5,730 years, only 3 ounces would remain. In this way, the amount would continue to be cut in half until virtually none was left. Now imagine you left the case full of carbon 14 alone for a few million years. so little carbon 14 would be left by then that it would be impossible to measure accurately. Wait a second! Haven’t scientists been using carbon 14 to tell us the ages of supposed “million year old” fossils? Yes they have. Are you beginning to see the problem? In fact, if an object is presumed to be over 50,000 years, most C14 labs won’t bother with it. Why? Because the reading would be meaningless. Only objects less than 3,000 years old can be dated with reasonable accuracy

Assumptions
The information you just read would probably make a few macro evolutionists pretty red in the cheeks. They have been tossing around “millions of years” for so long that they no longer even think twice about the scientific authority that they are abusing. Worse yet, carbon 14 dating of any kind must start with some pretty questionable fundamental assumptions.

1. The saturation of carbon 14 in our atmosphere has always been the same. We know this isn’t true because C14 has been forming faster than it has been decaying.

2. Carbon 14 is formed in the same amount all over the world. Since C14 is formed in the earth’s upper atmosphere as the result of cosmic radiation (and since the sun hits some parts of the earth harder than others), this is possible, but not likely.

3. the amount of carbon 14 found in specimens is the same worldwide. Organisms get their C14 from sources like the air they breathe, the water they swim in, and the food they eat. With this many factors, it is not possible for all creatures to have exactly the same amount of C14.

4. Ancient specimens have not been contaminated by new C14. As I said earlier, if a case full of C14 is not airtight, new C14 will contaminate it. The rocks surrounding fossils provide an airtight barrier so that no new C14 is gained, but contaminations are possible during testing.

5. Normal radioactive decay is the only way C14 is lost. We know that heat causes specimens to lose C14 faster than normal, so fossils in volcanic rock often date to be millions of years older than they are. Since lots of fossils are found in volcanic rock, and there are other things that interfere with C14 decay, this assumption is all but false.

With so many assumptions in C14 dating, there is really no room for error. When I realized how many things could go wrong with C14 dating, I thought it was a wonder they even used it at all!

Results
The problems with C14 dating have had serious consequences. Living mollusks have tested to be 2,300 years old. Mortar from an 800 year old castle tested to be 7,370 years old. Fresh seal skins dated to be 1,300 years old. So why use C14? I think macro evolutionists are fond of the way C14 tends to make things appear older. The mistakes of C14 dating have turned out to be useful to scientists who want the public to believe in millions of years. It turns out that evolutionists don’t know all the dates they would like us to believe they do. It’s all just a show.

Noah's Ark

2008-12-09T15:42:00.000-08:00

Fact or Fairy Tale?
Noah’s Ark has been the laughing stock of the scientific community, (or at least, they call themselves “scientific”) for decades. But in light of modern research, The Bible’s account of the Ark is no longer a fairy tale. Unfortunately, I don’t think enough Christians know this. Answers is Genesis has written extensively about Noah’s Ark, so I will be using a lot of their info for my own post. This post will contain information on the Capacity, Constructability, and Survivability of the ark.

Capacity
Before Modern Genetics, I suppose scientists had a reason to question the Bible’s account. You see, back then scientists didn’t fully understand how species can naturally change through time. Sounds like evolution doesn’t it? Well, it is, Micro Evolution is change within certain limits, And we see it happening all the time. Its Macro evolution that is the problem. Back to the point, since scientists didn’t understand genetics, they thought there must have been two of every species of animal on the Ark. And they knew there was no way any type of boat could fit all those animals. For this reason, they reasoned, the Ark story must have been a strange campfire story invented by savages. However, we now know that only two of each TYPE of animal was needed on the ark. From two ancestor dogs, it is possible to derive all the diverse dogs we see today. In fact, we now know that no more than 35,000 animals were needed on the ark. Try that compared to millions! Also, most of the animal’s aboard the ark were very small, not at all what the children's ark depicts. Even large animals like elephants could have been carried as juveniles. Of course, 35,000 is still a big number. However, the ark was a big boat! It was at least 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high, a mid-sized cargo ship by today’s standards. Capable of carrying twice that amount of animals! This leaves plenty of room for food, fresh water, and even other people.

Constructability
It seems ridiculous to think that Noah, with only his three sons, could have built such a monstrous boat. But the Bible never says that Noah and his sons built the ark alone! I never really thought of this until I read an article on Noah’s ark on the Answers in Genesis website. Noah could have hired tons of skilled laborers and engineers. Think of the types of building loans you could take out if you never had to pay them back! Evil laugh….. Just kidding, I’m sure Noah was an honest man, and even if he never hired any help, he had years to complete his vessel. Many would argue that technology in Noah’s days was insufficient to create such a huge vessel. But this is an “evolutionary concept” as Answers in Genesis says, “Even accounting for the possible loss of technology due to the Flood, early post-Flood civilizations display all the engineering know-how necessary for a project like Noah’s Ark. People sawing and drilling wood in Noah’s day, only a few centuries before the Egyptians were sawing and drilling granite, is very reasonable”! Not only could Noah have had the technology to build the ark, he could have maintained it very well too. Automatic grain dispensers, Waste disposal mechanisms, and other mechanisms wouldn’t necessarily make life on the ark enjoyable, but livable.

Survivability
When modern engineers first analyzed the proportions of the biblical ark, they were surprised to find they were not unlike a modern cargo ship! For Years, Creationists have depicted the ark as a rectangular cube. This design helps analyze capacity, and illustrate size. In wave pool tests, the rectangular ark showed a balance of stability, comfort, and hull-strength. However, the bible never says the ark was a rectangle. The bible only gives us length, width, and height. But God more likely than not gave Noah much more detailed instructions than this. Although the proportions of the biblical ark are near optimal (able to withstand 98ft waves!) researchers have created designs that would have made the ark even more stable, without contradicting scripture. Structures that catch the wind and current could have been built to keep the ark facing the waves. This would ensure that the ark wouldn’t broach, (turn sideways in the waves and roll over). In the end there is no reason to believe the ark could not have survived the flood. With the limited information given in the Bible we know that the Ark’s proportions were good, but we don’t have to assume the ark was a floating box. Modern ships are described all the time in dimensions of length, width, and height without implying a box-shaped hull. So yes, the Ark could, (and obviously did) survive the flood.

My World View 1

2008-11-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

Introduction
A world view is a set of principles and beliefs that shape the way we think, act, and live. A world
view will answer questions like, “What is the cause of evil and suffering?” or, “What happens to man after death? Needless to say, the way you answer these questions will also govern your ultimate purpose in life. For this reason, I have written out my personal world view to finalize and organize all of what I believe. My world view will be contained in the answers to seven basic questions. Our first question will explain my beliefs about God. In this essay I will not discuss in detail the proof I have for the existence of a God. However, I am able to say that all I will say in this essay is supported by both science, And the Bible.

My World View 2

2008-11-06T15:57:00.002-08:00

What is God Like?
God is a supernatural being who is both personal, and infinite. The personal nature of God affirms that he is not a mere “force” or a Supernatural “mind”. Instead, he is a God capable of anger, love, regret, compassion, and every emotion known to man. God is not far off and untouchable, but a God who is interested in the lives of his creation, and who wants a personal relationship with us. God’s infinite nature assures us that God had no beginning, and will have no end. This means he required no creator, but was the creator of all things. God’s infinite nature extends also to his love, wisdom, perfection, and power. With God as our building block we can begin to enquire as to the nature of his creation.

My World View 3

2008-11-06T15:57:00.001-08:00

What is the Nature of the Universe?
The universe was created by God. It consists of two parts; a portion visible two man, and a portion invisible to man. The visible portion is our material universe. This portion, in which we live, is confined by time, matter, and energy. God created this portion of his creation to be a temporary home for mankind. Our eternal home is in the “invisible” portion of the universe. By “invisible” I mean that it cannot be seen by those living in the visible universe. This portion of the universe is not confined by time. 2 Peter 3:8 says “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”. God also created Mankind, whose nature will be our next topic.

My World View 4

2008-11-06T15:56:00.002-08:00

What is the Nature of Man?
Man was created in the image of god, his creator. God created mankind to glorify him, and to be the object of his love. However, man has fallen into sin, which prevents us from fulfilling our full purpose, and separates us from God. When the Bible says, “So God created man is his own image”, (Gen 1:27) it refers not to our physical likeness to God, but to the fact that we were created to be “personal”. We also were created with an eternal soul, and the ability to make independent choices. Mankind was originally perfect, and blameless. We made the independent choice to rebel from god’s authority, and are now in danger of eternal punishment after death. We have also inherited a “sinful nature” that causes us to be unable to keep from sinning to some extent. Man’s very nature is sinful, not by God’s doing, but our own rebellion. Now that we have touched the subject of sin, it becomes necessary to define what exactly sin is.

My World View 5

2008-11-06T15:56:00.001-08:00

What is the Basis of Morality and Ethics?
God is the basis for morality and ethics, and the ultimate judge of humanity. To understand right from wrong, we must look no further than the Bible, which is God’s revelation to us. There are several reasons that I believe God determines right from wrong. Among these, the Bible is by far the most important. Psalm 19:7 says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making the wise simple”. God’s law has been clearly revealed to us throughout the Bible. Among the most straight-forward, and well known revelations are the Ten Commandments, which lay out a grid of basic rules, filled in richly throughout the rest of the Bible. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the only man ever to live a perfect life. Christians are then called to follow Christ’s example. Sin, defined, is anything apart from the perfection of God. Of course, no one, other than Jesus, has achieved perfection, which leads us to the cause of evil, and suffering.

My World View 6

2008-11-06T15:55:00.002-08:00

What is the Cause of Evil and Suffering?
Evil and suffering are the consequences of man’s rebellion from God since man’s first sin in the Garden of Eden. Many people today wonder how a kind and loving God could allow all the suffering in the world today. The answer to their question is actually found in the nature of man. God created man with the ability to choose to do either right, or wrong. He did this out of love, because he didn’t want to force us to obey him. This would have made us virtual robots, unable to make independent choices, or to honor God with our obedience. Suffering, then, is caused by the independent choices of fallen mankind. Evil is also the result of man’s independent choices. Evil entered the world though man’s sin in the Garden of Eden. The Bible teaches that Satan, (a fallen angel), is the main force of evil on earth. Satan is the tempter of humanity, who constantly tries to separate us from God. God did not create evil, evil is the absence of God, and the rejection of his law. God will Judge each person for their sin. And after death, God will punish those who have caused others to suffer. This is one subject of our next question.

My World View 7

2008-11-06T15:55:00.001-08:00

What Happens to Man After Death?
After Death, mankind will enter the “invisible” universe, and receive either reward, or punishment based on their life on earth. Within the invisible universe, are two places, Heaven, and Hell. To enter Heaven, the bible teaches that one must be completely without sin. The only way we can achieve this is through faith in Jesus Christ, who blots out our sins through his death on the cross. Thus, Heaven is not something we can earn, or deserve, but a gift from God. Hell, on the other hand, is the punishment for sin. The Bible teaches, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23. Because all have sinned, it is impossible to avoid hell without the grace of God. God doesn’t want us to suffer in hell, but because he is a just God, he must allow the wicked to be punished. So, why didn’t God just create heaven, and put us in heaven with him? Why have humanity live in a temporary universe first? God has an intricate plan for humanity, which will be explained in our next question.

My World View 8

2008-11-06T15:54:00.000-08:00

What is the Meaning of History?
After the passing of this visible world, history will continue on in a timeless eternity. History is a meaningful journey that god is using to bring mankind to himself. This world we live on is temporary. At the appointed time, our universe will be destroyed in a final judgment. Though temporary, the history of our universe is meaningful because of two main reasons. First, throughout history, God has been able to show his unconditional love and mercy. Second, our short stay on earth allows us the choice to love God back, or reject him. Love will be rewarded in heaven, and rejection punished at the end of the world, and in eternity in hell. In the end, history’s greatest meaning, and mankind’s greatest calling, is to love, and glorify our creator.

My World View 9

2008-11-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

My Greatest Calling
My world view has not only changed the way I look at life, but the way I live my life. Life on this earth is short, and eternity is very long. Because I know this, I can live my life in a way that will count for all eternity. This is my greatest calling; to glorify my creator, and to lead others to glorify him as well.

Freaks of Evolution Part 3

2008-10-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

The Giraffe
Giraffes are just one of the many creatures that are an obvious threat to the Theory of Evolution. Through this article, I will challenge the Evolutionary theory by exposing one of the threats that the followers of this theory like to avoid discussing.

A very large and strong heart is needed to pump the necessary blood up the neck of an 18-foot bull giraffe, against gravity. Therefore, the giraffe has been designed with a heart that can be as long as two and a half feet! However, this creates a problem. The giraffe has to bend down to drink water. When he does this, the enormous amount of blood pressure generated by the heart, now pumping with gravity, would rush into the brain causing it to explode!

The Creator is smart enough to not let this happen. When the bull bends over, there are valves in the arteries within the neck, which immediately start to close! This reduces the pressure going to the brain, but this is still not enough to prevent explosion of the cranial blood vessels. So, the giraffe is equipped with another set of blood vessels! These are called, the rete mirabile, which essentially acts as a sponge to hold the extra blood!

There is still another problem. Suppose a lion approaches, and instinctively the giraffe lifts its head up and begins to run! However, due to a lack of blood-flow to the brain, he passes out! This doesn't happen though, the valves in the neck open, and the rete mirbile slowly lets the blood into the brain, allowing the giraffe to run away with out passing out, or becoming giraffe steak!

This incredibly designed system is so complex that scientists still do not fully understand it! This is just one example of the "irreducible complexity" of creation! Without any one of these complex systems, the giraffe would not be able to survive! This means that if Evolution really was true, then all of these parts would of had to evolve at exactly the same time! Or.... you could believe that an intelligent, all knowing, Creator-God, designed the giraffe and all of its complex systems!

The Odds of a Protein

2008-10-27T07:43:00.000-07:00

The Building Block
Proteins are some of most important molecules on the globe. No living thing can function without them. They are the basic building block for every cell structure, and they are a essential component of the chemical reactions that make life possible. Proteins are made of a long string of amino acids. If one of these amino acids was out of place or missing, the protein would be completely useless. Evolution depends on the formation of life from non-living matter. Evolution scientists estimate it would have taken at least 250 proteins to perform even the most basic life functions. To get an idea of how impossible this is, we will study the odds of one protein.

Ribonuclease
To make it as easy on the hypothesis of evolution, we will assume that the solution that will randomly form our protein only has the 17 different types of amino acids we need to form the very simplest protein in the world,the protein Ribonuclease. The protein of Ribonuclease has 124 amino acids. The chances of "random selection" choosing the correct amino acid to begin the protein with are 1 in 17. Not at all unlikely. However, getting the first and second amino acid correct is much less likely. To figure out the likelihood of this, we multiply 1 in 17 times 1 in 17 or, 1 in 289. The chances of getting three in a row are 1 in 17 X 1 in 17 X 1 in 17, or 1 in 4,913. The chances of all of 124 of the amino acids in the entire protein falling into the correct order by random chance is 1 in 10 with 152 zeros trailing after it. That’s a BIG number. Now, let’s say random chance could “create” a different string of amino acids every minute, (an incredible feat in a laboratory). It would take you roughly (2x10 with 145 zeros) years to produce every possible combination. That is, of course, if you never created the same combination twice.

Further Implications
Now realize that this is ONLY ONE of the 250 proteins even evolutionists admit must have been present from the beginning of the first life form’s existence! Not to mention the 200,000 some different types of proteins found in the human body alone. It’s also THE SIMPLEST PROTEIN, made in THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION for the protein to be formed in. we also assume that it would take only A FRACTION of the time it would usually take to form a new string of amino acids. 2X10 with 145 zeros is a tiny fraction of the time it would take life to spontaneously form. And our planet couldn’t even have provided a stable environment for thirty million years!

Just Lucky?
Remember the odds of the random formation of Ribonuclease? They are 1 in 10 with 152 zeroes. We all know those odds are extremely improbable. But It turns out when mathematicians finds odds of 1 in 10 with 50 zeroes or more, they won’t even think twice. They consider those odds absolutely impossible and not worth consideration. We weren’t just lucky. We were created.

Total Predestination

2008-10-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

Predestination in the Bible
You may or may not be familiar with the term, “predestination”. So, before I get started I’ll explain. Romans 8:29-30 says, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.” Two main views have developed to explain this passage and define predestination.

The select Few
Total predestination is the view that God has chosen only a select group of people to receive salvation. This view interprets Romans 8:29-30 very literally, (which is a good thing). Look at Romans again, the whole passage is a string of events, God “foreknew”, then “predestined” then “called”, “justified”, and finally “glorified”. What got me is the “called” part. Predestination comes before being called, so it seems like God doesn’t call everyone to himself. But wait a second, to be justified; (forgiven of your sins) you must be called. And we all know that salvation, (glorification) is impossible without forgiveness. So in the end, it seems like God doesn’t give many people a chance to accept his forgiveness, and receive salvation. Although this view is as strait forward as they come, I believe it is a total misunderstanding, and a huge contradiction to the rest of the bible. The Bible says over and over again that our God is a God of love. First Timothy 2:3-4 says, “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”. How could a God of love, who wants everyone to be saved, create this world knowing that by doing so, he was condemning thousands to hell? And why would he limit his kingdom to a select few when such a high price was paid for our ransom?
What’s a better explanation?
The view I believe to be true is called predestination. It is the view that God extends salvation to everyone. However, out of his divine wisdom, God foreknows who will end up in heaven. Think about it, God knows your decisions before you make them, that doesn’t mean he forces you to make certain decisions, you make them, he foreknows them. So, at the end of your life, God knows if you will have decided to accept his gift of salvation, or reject it. This is what meant by “Foreknew” is. Being predestined, then, means that before you were born, god knew Whether or not you would be saved. In other words, god “pre-knew” your destination! The next step is being called. God wants everyone to be saved, and therefore, extends his invitation to everyone. However, to those predestined for heaven, he extends a special, personal calling. And the greatest calling in each of our lives is to tell others about God. In this way, God is able to extend his invitation to people all over the globe.

An Excuse to be Apathetic
Needless to say, your view of Predestination has severe implications on your life. it determines your view on the nature of God, and determines how you live your faith out every day. But most importantly, your view of predestination will determine how you regard witnessing. Every three seconds a death occurs on earth, how many of those souls do you think end up in heaven? One out of ten? One out of fifty? Less? I don’t know, but the scary thing is, if you believe in total predestination, there’s nothing you can do about it. And even worse, God doesn’t care. This gives many Christians an excuse to be apathetic, and to “feel good” even as they watch thousands of souls cast into an eternity of suffering. The truth is, we can do something in all those lives! In fact, god’s primary way to invite people to his kingdom is through us. And picture this, when you help someone to find Christ, God already knew you would! So, that person is already predestined for heaven. Again, I can’t stress this enough, that person was not going to heaven until God reached out his invitation through you. God knows your deeds before you make them, but it’s your decision to make them. Let’s not be apathetic Christians. We have some serious work to do!

Freaks of Evolution Part 2

2008-10-17T06:52:00.000-07:00

The platypus
The platypus is probably the most famous and popular evolution-defying creature on the planet. In fact, when explorers first brought stories and skins of these amazing animals, the scientists of the day refused to believe they were real! They thought the explorers must have sown together a few different animals as a joke. Obviously, this is a case of convergent evolution. convergent evolution is when a similar characteristic supposedly evolves in two separate animals. The platypus has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, and lays eggs like a reptile.
To have all these features combined into one animal defies all attempts to explain its evolution. Other special features include an electro-sensors built into its bill, super fine fur (900 hairs per mm), and flaps of skin that protect its eyes and ears when diving. Clearly, the platypus is the result of a creative designer, not random chance. It continues to frustrate those poor souls in charge of putting it on an evolutionary family tree!

Freaks of Evolution Part 1

2008-10-15T06:28:00.000-07:00

Who you calling a freak?
Ok, first let me get one thing strait, freaks of evolution aren’t demented biology professors. Freaks of evolution, as I will call them, are strange, and highly unlikely things that evolution is supposed to have done. Kind of like a freak of nature, savey? Of course, the whole idea of pond scum, lightning bolts, and destructive mutations randomly creating any form of life is impossible. But believe it or not, the situation gets worse than that. When it gets worse, it becomes a freak of evolution.

Convergent Evolution
Our first freak began way back when scientists found the need to establish an evolutionary family tree. To do this, they tried to fit every known species back to back in a chart showing their gradual evolution. Of course, the absence of smooth transitions between different types of animals, was what first inspired the phrase, “missing link”, by Darwin’s own admission, missing links are an incredible setback to the entire hypothesis of evolution. Another huge setback, Convergent evolution, has also plagued evolutionary scientists. Convergent evolution is when a similar trait evolves multiple times, in totally separate types of animals. It’s like a tornado causing the random assembly of two 747 jumbo jets instead of one! Whereas evolution is impossible, convergent evolution is double, triple, or even quadruple impossible.

Flight
By far my favorite case of convergent evolution is flight. Think about it, there are actually FOUR separate phylums of animals that have the ability to fly. Birds, Insects, Bats (mammals), and extinct flying reptiles. To an evolutionist, this means that the engineering miracle of flight, (taking humans hundreds of years to develop), randomly happened upon four different creatures, and all of them survived thousands of years of transitional life, before finally gaining all the necessary equipment, and taking to the skies.

How hard is Flight?
As I said above, the ancestors of flying creatures would have had to survive thousands of years while developing flight. For birds, Mammals, and reptiles, I imagine this was especially hard. What happens, for instance, when an eagle loses its ability to fly? It becomes easy prey for hungry predators. Natural selection is a real thing, but in this, and many other cases, it would hinder evolution, not drive it forward. Also, think how hard it was for human engineers to develop flight. As my science book would say “The processes involved are far beyond the scope of this coarse”, there is no way I could explain every design that humans have copied from flying animals. However, here are a few examples.

First, as any fifth grader knows, the shape bird’s wing’s created an aria of high and low pressure, which is what enables them to fly. The Write brother’s success, (as the success of every plane since) was all due to copying this design.

Also, as flight developed, planes got faster and faster, and began experiencing turbulence. Planes would literally shake to pieces during take-offs and landings. Once again, flight engineers turned to the bird. They discovered a little feather that was extended in front of the wing each time the bird took off or landed. Not knowing what this feather did, they closely copied the design and turbulence problems were solved. Years later, with the aid of a super computer, scientists found that the physics behind this simple feather were, once again, “Beyond the scope of this coarse”.

Our final example once again comes from the bird. As airplanes advanced, the material needed to build a plane became stronger and stronger. But, as the material got stronger, the plane got heavier. There was a need for a light material that was still extremely strong. Hollow tubes were used, but they were often not strong enough. So, engineers imitated bird bones, creating tubes with many air pockets, each separated by thin sheets of metal. This structure proved many times stronger, and only slightly heavier.

Common Creator
There are many other examples of convergent evolution that I hope to write about. Each case drives home the fact that evolution is not the explanation for this universe. Convergent evolution is more than just a “freak thing”, or a lucky accident. Convergent evolution screams a testimony to our common creator, not common ancestor.

How Global Was the Flood?

2008-09-25T18:55:00.000-07:00

The Bibles Account
Genesis 7: 20-22 says, “The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Everything that lived on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” This account makes it abundantly clear that Noah’s flood was no local cloudburst. The mountains were covered in twenty feet of water. This means that there was no dry ground across the entire face of the earth. Also, every land dwelling animal and all the birds were killed. How could a local flood kill animals 4000 miles away? Many Christians now believe that the flood was only local to Noah’s neighborhood. But, I must be harsh and say, can you be a Christian and not believe your bible? The bible is the foundation of our faith. We can’t choose to ignore parts of it because of its inconvenience. But if you don’t believe the bible is true, here are two reasons you too should believe in a worldwide flood.

Flood stories
In his book, “Dinosaurs by Design”, Ph.D. Duane Gish states that there are “more than 270 flood stories and historic records found in many parts of the world”. Gish gives examples of flood stories from cultures as diverse as the ancient Babylonians, Toltec people, Chinese, and Hawaiians. Some of these stories are detailed enough to tell of Noah, his three sons, and the animals that were all saved from death in a boat. The since Noah and his Family were the sole survivors of the flood, every culture on earth would have inherited their own rendition of the flood story. Thousands of years of campfire stories would have distorted the exact details in most cases. In the end, these flood accounts are great proof for a worldwide flood. After all, what are the odds of 270 story tellers from all over the earth, create such similar accounts from out of nowhere.

The impact
Evidence for the worldwide flood also comes from examining the geological features of the earth. A flood of the proportions described in Genesis would have impacted the earth in a very noticeable way. Here are 2 different ways geology supports the global flood.

1: Plate Tectonics.
Scientists have found evidence that the continents are slowly drifting away from each other on giant sections of the earth’s crust. In fact, the continents used to form one single continent. Evolutionary scientists assume that the continents have been drifting at essentially the same speed since they began millions of years ago. But, since the earth could not possibly be that old, (See “The Young Earth” parts 1-6), another explanation is needed. A catastrophe like the flood could have easily created imbalance in the earth’s crust, breaking up the continents, pushing them around, and setting it in the motion we see today. This would have taken a very short time, as opposed to millions of years.

2: Fossil Graveyards.
Scientists have found numerous piles of jumbled up fossilized bones all over the world. These “graveyards” many times contain animals that are never found together today. Graveyards contain the remains of so many, and such diverse animals, that they pose a real threat to those who do not believe in a worldwide flood. You see, if fossils were formed over millions of years, as one layer of rock slowly formed on top of another, how do you explain fossil graveyards? You must assume that thousands of diverse animals from all over the world, came together, died, and were fossilized for no apparent reason. But if you believe in a worldwide flood, everything starts to make sense. Imagine powerful, muddy currents swirling around under water, picking up thousands of creatures not lucky enough to be on the ark. Eventually the currents would set them all down in very close proximity, and soon, they would be covered with mud. Go out to any river and you will see that the currents, in many places, create formations, and even piles of dead plant matter much like we would expect, (Although in a slightly smaller scale), from a worldwide flood.

Why a Local Flood?
So why do some Christians reject the idea of a worldwide flood? I think it's because we try to hard to fit in to our modern culture. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t have to dress in overalls and polka dots just to look weird so we don’t fit in. But sometimes, we need to put our foot down. Christians have slowly accepted the ideas like the local flood, the gap theory, and even macro-evolution, just so we don’t have to seem to “Judgmental” in this post-modern culture. Christians should love people, but hate lies. Why is the Issue of the flood so important? It’s a matter of biblical authority, if we Christians claim one part of the bible is wrong, how do we expect others to take the rest of it seriously?

What Killed the Dinosaurs?

2008-09-21T07:28:00.000-07:00

The Ice Age
As I said in an earlier post, I believe dinosaurs might still be alive today. And I firmly believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. But of course, if dinosaurs lived today in the numbers they used to, there would be no doubt that they were still alive. Something must have killed off the bulk of their population. Ever popular among evolutionists, is the idea that comets struck the earth and caused an ice age that killed the dinosaurs. It makes sense because if the earth is millions of years old, chances are we would have collided with a giant chunk of rock at some point. Although I know there was an ice age, (caused by the flood, not comets), there are a few other extinction theories that I think might have all contributed.

The Water Canopy
My favorite theory up to date is that most dinosaurs couldn’t survive in their new environment after the flood destroyed what was left of the perfect earth. Genesis 1:7-8 says, “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. He called the expanse “sky” and there was evening and there was morning the second day.” Later, in Noah’s flood this canopy of water above the sky fell, and probably caused a majority of the flooding. It’s kind of strange to think of an actual canopy of liquid water floating around around the earth. But this canopy could have been ice crystals, or water vapor like that of Saturn’s moon Titan, and Venus. Scientists have found that the canopy of water suspended in our upper atmosphere would make life on earth really interesting!

The Perfect Earth
Before the flood moss grew two or three feet high, dragonflies would have had wingspans of almost three feet, and reeds that grow six feet tall today would have grown up to fifty feet tall! Why all this growth? Well, with all that water up in the air, atmospheric pressure would greatly increase, harmful rays from outer space would be all but eliminated, and the earth would be a warm, tropical paradise. In fact, the full results could be. Longer life spans, minimal disease, rapid healing, greater stamina and endurance, and some plants and animals like fish and reptiles could keep growing as long as they live.

Lung Trouble
By examining fossils, scientists have found that dinosaurs had relatively small lungs and nostrils for their size. In fact, they might not have been able to breathe in our modern atmosphere. But before the flood, the extra atmospheric pressure would have made even the smallest lungs very efficient. Also, since dinosaurs used to grow as long as they live, maybe they weren’t able to in the new earth. Without the benefits of being huge like they used to, they might not have been able to compete with other animals fighting for survival.

Hunting
Some people have suggested that dinosaurs were killed out by humans. This might explain all the stories about dragons and dragon slayers. After all, if you had a big, smelly, toothy reptilian monster in your backyard you would want it dead as quickly as possible too. So, why believe some dinosaurs are alive when most are extinct? Well, maybe some dinosaurs (especially the smaller ones), were better equipped to survive in the new world. Perhaps the dinosaurs in less populated areas thrived until humans arrived. I don’t think we will ever know for certain, but educated guesses never hurt. When combined, I think an ice age, suffocation, and hunting was probably the demise of most dinosaurs.

Life From Another Planet?

2008-09-19T18:20:00.000-07:00

Strange Lights
About a month ago I watched a TV show about two UFO sightings over a city in Arizona. Two sequences of strange lights hovered in a V formation over the city, and then vanished. A few years ago I might have been excited to hear about a UFO story like this. But I have recently found a few reasons to doubt that stories like this mean anything. For instance, if there really are aliens cruising around our planet, why haven’t they ever tried to communicate with us? And if they want their work to be a secret how could they be dumb enough to fly strait over a populated area like a city? But even more important are the spiritual implications of life on another planet.

Question#1
If God created two or three planets, how exactly did it work when our planet fell into sin? Did the inhabitance of the other planets become sinful because of our sin? This doesn’t seem fair at all. Or were the other planets un-effected by our sin? But didn’t the whole universe fall into sin when the first humans sinned? Regardless, if there are aliens, we know they must have fallen into sin at some point. But now we must ask another question.

Question#2
How did God plan on forgiving more than one planet? Did Jesus visit multiple planets and die for the sins of each one? Isn’t one death enough to forgive the entire universe? Or did Jesus just visit our planet and expect the others to somehow figure out that they were saved?

What do you think?
To be honest, I don’t know the answers to these questions. It seems like no matter which way you look at it Christianity gets really confusing when you believe in extra-terrestrials. I don’t think it’s a big deal whether you believe there are aliens or not but I just thought these questions might be helpful in forming your opinion. By the way, it ended up those strange lights were military flares dropped during a training exercise from a air force base near the city.

Post Modernism vs. Christianity

2008-09-16T16:36:00.000-07:00

Sorry, You Can’t Be Both!
Did you know that only nine percent of born again Christian teens think there are moral absolutes? This view is called post modernism, and unlike it’s predecessor; Evolution, (or “modernism”) this is not a battle fought with science. The danger of post modernism is that people are allowed to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. That way, everybody's free to do anything they want and no-one is able to judge them for it. This idea also means that there are “many paths to heaven”. So, the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Atheists are all correct in their beliefs, and are all going to heaven. According to the Bible, that’s not the way it works.

One Way; Jesus
The Bible teaches that no one comes to the father, (goes to heaven) except through Jesus Christ. But if truth is relative, (that is, no one can be wrong in their beliefs) how do you explain Christians? We believe that there is a moral absolute; god. And Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. This totally contradicts post modernism. But, are we right? Well, according to post modernism, we can’t be wrong, so we must be right! But if you say we are wrong you must assume there is some sort of moral absolute out there.

where Are the Dinosaurs?

2008-08-19T06:17:00.000-07:00

Extinct or Alive?
Most people these days would be quick to tell you that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and are now extinct. This idea has been popularized by scientists who believe unquestioningly in the hypothesis of macro evolution. And no wonder, if a live dinosaur was found today, the hypothesis of evolution would have yet another serious problem.

The Geological Colum
Geologists have looked at rock strata from all over the world and came up with a chart called the “Geological Colum”. You’re probably familiar with the concept. Different types of fossils are found at different levels in the rock strata. And they are shown on the chart next to the layer of rock they are found in. since many scientists believe stubbornly that the rock layers were formed over millions of years, and since all dinosaur fossils are found deep down in the lower strata, the geological column claims that dinosaurs lived from about 245,000,000 years ago to 144,000,000 years ago. So here’s the problem. If dinosaur fossils stopped showing up 144,000,000 years ago, and dinosaurs are alive today, where did they disappear to for the years in between? In other words, how did dinosaurs manage to not drop a single fossil for 144,000,000 years?

The Razorback
So, the big question is; are there any dinosaurs alive today? I recently met a really cool old man at a family reunion. He told me and my dad about an encounter he had with a large reptile in the 1930’s. as a young man, he was spending the night at a cottage on the west shore of lake Huron in Michigan. He heard a chirping, croaking type noise that he said was sort of like a cricket. He walked outside to investigate. The sound was coming from inside an old broken down ford truck. When he popped open the hood a large reptile crawled out. From what he described I estimate it was between 2½ to 4ft long. It had a razor back, (a large, fleshy sail on the top of its back) and teeth sticking out from its lower jaw, it probably had teeth on its upper jaw, but none were visible. It also had three clawed toes on each foot. He wanted to kill it, but could not penetrate its tough body. It also had two hard, vent-like plates on top of its head that it sucked air through and puffed it’s self up to look big. When it did this, its sail became ridged and stiff. He eventually found a soft spot below its head on its neck. He stabbed it and it immediately deflated “like a balloon”. Fearing people would think he was crazy; he buried it and has kept it quiet all these years. He said he knows where he buried it and has consulted a couple of educated people about what type of dinosaur it was.

Other Stories
Now I know what you’re thinking; oh sure Elijah, he’s just a crazy old man and you should know better than to believe something as illogical as that. It’s interesting how popular significantly less believable UFO stories are among the scientific community. Why do stories like this seem so unbelievable? Because we have been brought up thinking that we know that dinosaurs are extinct. But this isn’t the only story about an encounter with dinosaurs. There have been several reports of plesiosaur-like animals in a swamp in Africa. Stories of giant flying reptiles. And numerous reports of sea monsters that fit the description of swimming dinosaurs. But even if they're extinct, cave drawings and fossilized foot prints indicate that dinosaurs walked right alongside man. Either man lived longer ago than traditionally thought, or dinosaurs didn’t live all that long ago.

Million Year Creation

2008-07-25T10:50:00.000-07:00

The Compromise
This idea has become very popular during recent times. People have started questioning how long it really took God to create the universe. So, instead of the original six days, they’ve come up with the view that each day of creation was really a very long period of time. I call it the million year creation. It’s kind of a compromise between creation and evolution. After all, we must somehow explain the overwhelming evidence we see out there that supports evolution and millions of years, right? Wrong! Hopefully after reading my blog you will begin to understand how ridiculous the entire hypothesis of evolution is. So why is it so appealing to jam an error ridden, unproven, hypothesis like evolution, into the inerrant word of God? (To see how the Bible does on a real scientific test, go to “Labels” and click on “The Bible”). When you are better informed, it’s not.

What’s a Yom?
If you’re still not convinced, we are going to take a look at what the bible means when it says “day”. Some would argue that Hebrew, (the original language of the Old Testament) is not clear in regards to certain periods of time. Thus, what we translate to be a day could really be an hour, a week, or a million years. But the Bible makes it quite clear. The Hebrew word used in the original New Testament is the word “Yom” and it rarely means anything but a literal, 24 hour day. To clear up matters, the bible says “And there was evening, and there was morning- the 1st (2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th ) Day”. Whenever the word Yom is used with the word evening or morning, it ALWAYS means a literal, 24 hour day. So we really can’t afford to compromise. Either you must believe the bible is wrong, or that evolution is wrong.

The Historical Bible

2008-07-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

Introduction
“The historical bible and Jesus Christ are the two cornerstones of the Christian worldview. If the bible is not history or if Jesus Christ is not “God with us” Christianity crumbles. To shatter Christian doctrine and the Christian world view, one need only shatter it’s historical underpinnings…” David A. Nobel (Understanding the Times).

A Test of Integrity
I read this great quote in a book called “Surprised by Faith” by Dr. don Bierle. In his book, Dr. Bierle lays out evidence that the bible is not only able to be trusted, but is actually the most accurate historical document of its time. How do you judge the accuracy of a document? Scientists ask three questions. First, does the document contradict it’s self? Second, does it contradict other historical documents that are known to be accurate? Third, is the document consistent with archaeological finds? In my new series “The historical Bible” we will look at each of these points in order to conduct a modern test of the Bible’s reliability. I think you’ll be surprised what we find.

The Historical Bible

2008-07-20T06:59:00.000-07:00

Does it Contradict It’s self?
If you haven’t been told the Bible contradicts it’s self, you will. In his book, “Self-Contradictions of the Bible” Henry Burr claimed that the Bible contradicts it’s self at least 144 times. Obviously the Bible couldn’t be reliable if it’s authors were that confused! However, Henry Burr seems to be more pre occupied with his impressive number than the facts behind these supposed contradictions. Let’s look at two of the “contradictions” Henry Burr found.

Two Josephs?
In the New Testament there are two genealogies of Christ. One in Matthew chapter 1, and another in Luke chapter 3. At first glance, the two genealogies seem to contradict each other. They don’t even agree on Joseph’s father! Actually, they are two totally different genealogies. Matthew traced Joseph’s genealogy. And Luke traced Mary’s. on Mary’s genealogy Luke simply replaced the name “Mary” with her husband’s name “Joseph”. It was a culture thing. The two genealogies that seem to contradict each other end up complimenting each other, giving us both Joseph, AND Mary’s family line.

Heard, not Understood
Another supposed contradiction is found in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Saul is confronted by God while traveling to Damascus with his men to persecute Christians. Although the bible is clear enough on Saul’s experience, there seems to be some confusion over what happened to Saul’s men. Acts 9:7 says “The men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” However, Acts 22:9 says “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” Once again, it appears we have a contradiction on our hands. Did Saul’s men hear a voice or not? The answer is found in the original language of the bible. For both passages the Greek word Akouo is used and translated as the English verb “to hear”. But in Acts 22:9 the word is constructed differently. Translated more correctly, Acts 22:9 should say something like “but they understood not the voice of him that spake to me.”

If you actually give the Bible half a chance, and study up on the original language and culture of the Bible you will find that supposed contradictions like these are the very simple and strait forward. despite what you might hear from Bible critics, the Bible passes this test easily. but since some people can make something out of nothing, that's not what the public is hearing.

The Historical Bible

2008-07-20T06:56:00.000-07:00

Does it contradict other historical documents?
This next test is one of two external tests. It is the hardest test is the hardest to conduct on the Bible. The book “Explaining Creation with General Science” by Dr. Jay L. Wile gives us four reasons.

1 The Bible covers a long period of time.
2 Many parts of the Old Testament report on events that happened so long ago that they cannot be compared to any other works of history.
3 The focus of the bible is very narrow, so many contemporary historians don’t comment on Bible related events.
4 The Bible’s accounts were very controversial at the time it was written. So the opinions of both Christian historians and anti-Christian historians influenced their writings way too much.

With reasons like these it’s no wonder most historians consider archeological data the main external test for the Bible.

Disappointed?
Remember our original question? “Does it contradict other historical documents that are known to be accurate?”. So what’s the answer? It doesn’t, the only works it contradicts cannot be considered accurate since the writings were often swayed by the opinions of the authors. So no news is good news. The Bible passes this test with flying colors.

The Historical Bible

2008-07-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

Is it confirmed by Archeology?
This is the last, (and in my opinion) the most import test. And, as you will find, the Bible scores high on this test as well. In his book “Surprised By Faith” (p 38) Dr. Don Bierly says, “Perhaps it is safe to say that because of modern archeology, more is known today about first century New Testament background than anyone has known about it since the third century. With so much Data available today, it is no longer difficult to test the New Testament’s claim to history”. Here are a few of the finds that Dr. Bierly listed in his book as positive proof for the Bible’s integrity.

Pontius Pilate
The New Testament Pontius Pilate is the governor of Judea during the time of Christ’s crucifixion. Two historians, as well as a two by three foot cornerstone found at the ancient site of Caesarea Maritima. The stone had an inscription that read “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius.

James, Brother of Jesus
Time magazine called it “most important discovery in the history of New Testament archeology”. It was an ossuary, (bone box) found in Jerusalem in 2002. The inscription on it reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. This is really exciting because the New Testament identifies a man named James as the brother of Jesus (the son of Jesus’ earthly father). James was martyred in A.D. 62. Expert examinations of the writing style of the inscription, and tests on the limestone of the box confirm that it is from that time period.

Crucifixion with Nails
Critics have long questioned the accuracy of the bible relating to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The gospels claim that Jesus was nailed to a wooden cross (as opposed to tying him on with ropes). And that he was crucified in Palestine (there were doubts that this mode of execution was used in Palestine). Critics say that the writers of the gospels must have embellished their stories with “unhistorical details”. A recent publication says differently. It appears the bones of the only crucifixion victim ever found were unearthed near Jerusalem. The 24 to 28 year-old man still has a five inch long nail imbedded in his foot bones! Also, the calf bones of the victim were “Brutally fractured… clearly produced by a single hard blow.” This corresponds perfectly with the gospel of John. “The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.”

Dr Bierly goes on to list several more such archeological finds. Such overwhelming evidence is not hard to interpret. Once again, the bible gets an A plus on this test.

Missing Links Part 4

2008-07-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

Southern Ape
Australopithecus is one of the most well known and longstanding links on the familiar “ape to man” evolutionary chart. Quite a few skulls have been found and given the name Australopithecus, (which means “Southern ape”). As the name implies, these skulls are distinctly ape. One would wonder why they are included as a link between ape and man. The answer is simple, one of the Australopithecus skulls found by Dr. Louis Leakey in 1959 was found buried in close proximity to a few tiny chunks of rock. Evolutionists call them tools. If you were to look at the pictures of the “find” you would notice that the supposed tools are chips of rock about the size of an acorn. But most people don’t look far enough into the evidence behind this “link” to Question its viability.

Modern Tool Users
Even if these pitiful chips of rocks were used as tools it would not prove anything. I can think of two examples of modern animals that use tools off the top of my head. First, the little bird who drops rocks on nuts to crack them open. And also the chimps that use long strait twigs to remove and eat termites in much the same way as an ant-eater. We don’t consider these modern animals any more human than the next.

Professional Doubts
Australopithecus is obviously an extinct ape, not at all a relative of modern man. In fact, Louise’s son, Richard Leakey has removed Australopithecus from the evolutionary lineage of man in his book called “Origins”. If Louise’s own son, who is every bit as much a confirmed evolutionist as his father, doubts his father’s find, there must be something wrong with it.

Missing Links Part 3

2008-07-03T09:42:00.000-07:00

Lucy
December 1976 National Geographic featured what they thought was a major discovery unearthed in Ethiopia. “Lucy” was a collection of bone fragments found by Donald Johanson, a young American graduate of the University of California. This discovery became very popular among the scientific community as a key “ape like” ancestor of modern man. In fact, so “apelike” that it is actually a chimpanzee. What was all the excitement about? Well, this chimp was believed to walk upright. This beliefe was based on the interpretation of a certain critical knee joint.

The Problem
After a university lecture is Kansas, Tom Willis, a well informed creationist asked Johanson publicly where he found the critical knee fragment. The answer, a mile and a half away from the other bone fragments in strata 200 feet deeper. Next Tom Willis asked why Johanson would include a fossil fragment so widely separated from the main find? Johanson thinks “anatomical similarity” is all the justification needed.

How embarrassing!
No wonder this information hasn’t been made public. And to think this is one of the most well known links out there. If only the public knew all the hidden facts evolutionists won’t let them hear. This is one of hundreds and it already proves you can’t trust scientists like Donald Johanson.

Time and Eternity

2008-06-28T08:36:00.000-07:00

Eternity
Its unimaginable, in comprehensible, and for many people, mythical. The idea that something can have no beginning or will have no end sounds impossible. Christians are sometimes ridiculed by people saying, “prove your eternal God”. But is there an alternative? Time, matter, space, can’t create themselves. We must assume that either they have always been here, or some supernatural force has always been here. If you believe in the natural explanation for eternity, you must believe that eternity is simply an immeasurable amount of time which has marched on unstopped since um… infinity ago. But if you believe in the supernatural, eternity doesn’t have to be made of time, I believe, weird as it sounds, that eternity is a different realm. Its always happening, and since it requires no time, it requires no beginning or end. Here’s why I believe this.

Logic Affirmed
First off, there are some problems with the naturalistic view of eternity. One is called Entropy. It’s a scientific law. You see, as time marches on certain things happen, new things get old and break down, living things age and were out, and orderly things become disordered. Given an infinite amount of time, entropy could obviously do an infinite amount of damage to anything. This alone destroys naturalistic eternity. But this next problem puts the nails in the coffin. If eternity is made out of time, then picture yourself on a timeline.
< -----------------O----------------- >.
The present time is represented by an O. now pretend you are going to travel back in time to the beginning of infinity. When would you get there? Never. In the same way, if you started out an eternity ago, when would you arrive at the present time? Never. Do you see the problem? I know it’s a little deep, but think about it.

Scripture Affirmed
My second reason is that scripture tells us, “With the lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”, 2nd Peter 3:8. This doesn’t make sense by time’s standards. So in the end, eternity poses a real problem to people who don’t believe in the supernatural. It’s important to remember that my view of eternity is unproven. It isn’t a scientific law, or even a theory. I don’t have all the answers about eternity. Some things only God can explain. But just the same, if you are ever asked to prove your eternal god, just ask them to prove how time could be eternal.

The Ozone Layer

2008-06-25T07:20:00.000-07:00

No such thing
Did you know that there is no such thing as a Ozone layer? More specifically, there is no layer of solid Ozone anywhere in our atmosphere. However, the greatest concentration of Ozone is found from 6 miles to 25 miles up in the stratosphere. Even in its greatest concentration, there are only 10 ppm Ozone, (ppm means parts per million). So how can such a tiny amount of Ozone protect a planet from ultraviolet radiation? Well it can’t, and it doesn’t. you see, we have another molecule to thank for that. It’s called Oxygen, (O2), and unlike Ozone (O3) there’s plenty of it.

How it works
O2 is a molecule of oxygen formed by the joining of two Oxygen atoms. Ozone (which I will refer to as O3 when talking about molecular science) is formed by the joining of three oxygen atoms. Both of these molecules stop ultraviolet radiation the same way. When ultraviolet radiation strikes a molecule, the energy is absorbed into the molecule. But the molecule can’t handle this huge amount of energy. So, the oxygen atoms are forced to separate. In the case of O2, these separated oxygen atoms are highly reactive and quickly join up with each other, often forming a new ozone molecule.

Consequences
Ozone does stop a small percentage of the ultraviolet radiation entering our atmosphere, but many have claimed that it is solely responsible for keeping us alive. The consequences of this deception have been great. It is believed that chloride contained in CFC’s is causing a hole in the “Ozone layer”. The banning of all CFC’s has cost billions of dollars. And get this, there are other ways that nature destroys ozone with chlorine. For instance, volcanic mount Erebus in Antarctica has released 1,000 tons of chloride every day for 20 years. so why are people worried about the puny amount of chloride industries used to produce? I really don’t know.

Global Warming

2008-06-23T16:08:00.000-07:00

Maybe its not Such a Problem...
With so much talk about global warming today, I think most people would be surprised to find that it is not actually that much of an issue. In fact, after reading about it in my science book, I don’t think that we need to worry about it. Global warming is an idea based on sound scientific reasoning. But the situation is a little more complex than most people relies.

How it Works
Certain gasses that we call, “Greenhouse Gasses” absorb energy from the sun as it enters our planet. This energy is converted into heat. Without these gasses much of this energy would reflect back into space. Without greenhouse gasses earth would be too cold for life.
Scientist are afraid that too many man-made greenhouse gasses would trap to much heat and cause the earth to warm up, throwing delicate eco-systems off balance. Carbon dioxide is the number one man made greenhouse gas. And since 1900 the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has steadily risen from around 292 ppm, to around 350 ppm. This seems alarming, until you figure out that “ppm” means Parts Per Million. So, even though the amount of CO2 has risen, it is still a very small amount.

How it Doesn't Work
Since the amount of CO2 has risen steadily, one would assume the temperature should be rising steadily two. However, the average temperature of the earth dose not correspond to the amount of CO2 at all. If we were to look at a graph, the average temp of the earth has followed a very shaky pattern, warm a few years, cold a few years. So, why dose CO2 not have much of an effect on the earth’s temperature? Well, CO2 isn’t the only man made gas. Many other gasses we produce actually reflect energy back into outer space. This could be what counteracts the effect of CO2, keeping the temperature balanced. This, plus the fact that human activity only accounts for 3% of all the CO2 formation in our atmosphere tells me that all this frantic talk of global warming is really just a deception.

Stewardship
Only 17% of Atmospheric scientists, (the ones who know what they’re talking about) think that global warming is a problem. 53% think it’s not, and 30% think there’s not enough information for us to determine that yet. I don’t think there is anything wrong with taking care of our planet. God has commanded humans to be stewards of his creation. But when we start de-emphasizing things like the millions of starving people around the world so that we can spend money making industries cleaner than they need to be, something is wrong.

Missing Links Part 2

2008-06-04T10:08:00.000-07:00

The Piltdown Discovery
In 1912 Arthur Woodward, director of the Natural History Museum of London announced an important discovery. Doctor Charles Dawson had unearthed an ape like Jawbone and a human skull cap from a gravel pit near Piltdown England. Dawson had the Scientific community convinced that now they finally had a solid link between apes and humans. He called his discovery “Dawn Man” but it became known as Piltdown man. Without so much as a thorough chemical analysis done on the skull, this find was taught as an indisputable missing link between man and ape. Around 500 academic dissertations were written on “Piltdown man” and an imaginative bust of a primitive, blank faced ape man appeared in museums all over the world.

The Hoax is Exposed
41 years later, in 1953 proper tests were done by real scientists and they found that the teeth had been filed to fit into the jawbone, and the skull had been stained to make it look old! It was as complete fake! But by now, it was too late. The public had gotten so used to the idea that science had proven the ape man theory that they never went back. Now the only way we Christians can win the battle is to re-train the way people think about intelligent design. For way to long it's been associated with "religion" and treated like a joke. But science is on our side, and we need to get the word out.

Missing Links Part 1

2008-06-02T08:49:00.000-07:00

Nebraska Tooth
In 1922 professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, a confirmed evolutionist and head of the Museum of Natural History, found a tooth in his home state of Nebraska. He claimed it was an early ape man. Dental Experts from the museum of Natural History examined it and concluded that it was from a creature more similar to man than an ape. They assumed that it was a missing link and it quickly became known as “Nebraska Man”.

Wait a second, man? I thought it was just a tooth. “Nebraska tooth” would work for me, but no! a full two page spread was drawn in the Illustrated London News, and distributed worldwide. The picture showed a rather stupid looking ape man with a club in hand, and his mate, in the back ground, an assortment of animals roaming around in a rocky terrain, sprinkled with dead trees and long grass. I doubt that the general public really knew what kind of fossil evidence stood behind this missing link.

Six years later in 1928, a mistake was found. It seems that the tooth wasn’t from an early man, it was from an extinct pig! Oops, just goes to show you what can happen when you base your information on assumptions. Pigs are often dissected instead of humans because their anatomy is very similar to that of a human. But Professor Osborn was looking for evidence for evolution, not a pig tooth, so he jumped to conclusions. This is not true science, scientists should not let their personal ideas affect their studies. I think many evolutionary scientists do.

The Young Earth part 1

2008-05-24T17:40:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Why is the age of the earth so important? Evolution depends on the earth being millions of years old. Evolutionists say that the only reason why we don’t see evolution around us is because it happens to slowly to observe. If someone were to prove that the earth was young it would destroy macro evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Guess what? They have, more that 80% of the ways we measure the age of the earth tell us that the earth is young! I am going to write about a few of the ways we measure the earth in a short series.
P.S. My information comes from a book called Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. I recomend it to anyone who wants to know more about Creation vs. Evolution.

The Young Earth part 2

2008-05-24T17:38:00.000-07:00

The sun is shrinking
Scientists have been watching for over a hundred years. They have found that the sun is shrinking about four hundredths of a percent per century. That is two feet an hour. Now, if you believe that the sun is only 6,000 years old there is no real problem. But, if you believe that the sun is 250,000 years old or older, life would have been impossible. In fact, thirty million years ago the suns surface would have been touching the earth!

Ref: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (p. 59)

The Young Earth part 3

2008-05-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

Over Population
If man has been on earth for a million years like evolutionists believe, why is population explosion only recently become an issue? How big would the population be now if man has been on earth for a million years? Let’s say that the average family throughout all of mankind’s existence has 2.5 kids. The average today is 3.6 children. The population would increase 1/2 % per year. If this went on for a million years there would have been 25,000 generations, (at forty years each), the present population would be represented by the number 10, with 2,100 zeros after it. Obviously that’s impossible, if you filled the entire universe with tiny electrons you could only pack in the number 10 with 130 zeros after it! Even if a million years of man living on earth could somehow produce only the present population, how many people would have lived and died? 3,000 billion people! But if there were that many people who lived on earth, where are all the bones and artifacts?

Ref: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (p. 55)

The Young Earth part 4

2008-05-24T17:32:00.000-07:00

Helium Saturation
We use helium to make balloons float in the air, and to make blimps fly. Why? Because it is extremely light. In fact, it is so light that it is all floating into the outer reaches of our atmosphere. If the earth is billions of years old, our atmosphere should be thick with helium. One source of this helium is the decay of uranium, we can measure the helium produced by the decay of uranium, and figure out how much helium is lost into space and come up with a fairly close estimate of the amount of time it would take for the present amount of helium to accumulate in our atmosphere. According to experts, the earth’s age could not be more than 15,000 years by this dating method.

Ref: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (p. 57)

The Young Earth part 5

2008-05-24T17:29:00.000-07:00

Silt Problems
The Mississippi river transports an enormous amount of silt downstream and dumps it into the ocean. This forms a river delta. This silt is accumulating at a known rate in the Gulf of Mexico. Even evolutionary scientists a century ago knew that the river delta would now extend to Africa if it had been accumulating for millions of years. so, how long would it take for the current amount of silt to accumulate? Close to 5,000 years. This fits perfectly with Christianity because we believe that a global flood occurred around 5,000 years ago that totally changed the face of the earth. It does not fit with evolution.

Ref: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (p. 53)

The Young Earth part 6

2008-05-24T17:24:00.000-07:00

Niagara Falls
Because the rim of Niagara falls was wearing away at a measurable rate, (before the erosion was stabilized in modern times). Geologists estimate that it has taken about 5,000 years for the falls to erode from their original precipice. Once again, this fits the worldwide flood that we believe happened 5,000 years ago.

Ref: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (p. 53)