If you love science, then you have an obligation to seek the truth. If not, you are no better than a Christian who seeks prostitutes - you live contrary to your learning, and that has to hurt.
I am a Christian, and my motivation for this page is my love for truth in science. Does truth have any meaning? Is truth important? Believe it or not, the response to these questions is dependent on who is answering. But regardless of all the viewpoints, there might be on the subject of truth; truth has to be absolute. With all the ideas on the subject matter, some question whether truth is important or not. Out of an emotional heart, a response that is not valid based on one's insights might be an answer. But ultimately, we have science and an insatiable hunger for truth, and this is why humanity can never stop searching for answers.
Interestingly, the more we leave behind Biblical morality, the truth loses its grip on society. Here we can include those who sit in the pews or preach from the pulpit and not just the average citizen or trained scientist. We may not agree with some aspects of Biblical morality. We may not agree with those who preach or attend church or with the trained professional, but with a conscience void of what the Bible teaches on morality, there seems to be a gap - in the unfilled necessity we search for elsewhere.
Let's consider this. Are the sciences and biblical endeavors opposed to one another? No, they are not. The Bible is an ancient document. We use forensic science to examine evidence of past events. Science is never deprecated to the Bible neither is the Bible deprecated to science. On the contrary, archaeologists have used the Bible to help find artifacts, and science, even mathematics - ELS Bible Code, has proven the Bible true.
Purpose in Design - Intelligence - or Random Mutations?
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.
Science should never be prejudice in its research and findings. It should not be regulated by large lobbying groups who persuade its discoveries or from searching and presenting the truth in institutions where research is conducted under the scientific method. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States at present. Instead, sociopolitical pressures seem to dictate what it presents as opposed to what the evidence is revealing.
A quote from a famous scientist is seen below for all to read. The search for truth is what makes science the finest art, in my opinion.
The Great Physicist Richard Feynman
.... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. . . .
In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So, you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.
I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
DEFEATING DARWINISM by Opening Minds: Phillip E. Johnson, pp 46-47: ISBN 0-8308-1360-8
Phillip E. Johnson is a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago.
Phillip was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court
and taught law for more than thirty years at the University of California at Berkeley,
where he is the Jefferson Peyser Emeritus Professor of Law.
Phillip E. Johnson goes on to explain:
On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence and to following that evidence wherever it leads. That is why science had to he free of the Bible, because the Bible was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider.
On the other hand, science also means "applied materialist philosophy." Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly materialist explanations of every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist.
pp 80
Later, Johnson states,
Darwinism is sustained not by an impartial interpretation of the evidence but by a dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of evidence.
pp 83
Here Phillip E. Johnson is telling us that there is evidence that contradicts Darwinian Evolution.
Let us look at the difference between Empirical Science and Materialist Philosophy.
Empirical Science is based on facts that are observable and certain. Looking at the words of Richard Feynman, we can see we have sincerity and truth as prominent virtues in science discovery. Now, this is not to say that materialist philosophical ideology is based on false assumptions, though it may very well be, and has no virtue. The concept of material philosophy is that it is uncertain. There are areas of science that have not found answers to questions we ponder so, we must speculate - philosophize in order to reason some form of answer.
Nevertheless, it must be "material." That is to say, it cannot be based on a religious concept. It is not based just on ideas but on physical tools such as the sciences provide for investigation... "material" as opposed to mythology or religion if you wish. The "idea" must arise from reality and not philosophy in and of itself excluded from the material, then; our philosophical concept can be developed on what empirical science has proven.
Thus; the argument starts, science is built on reality, and religious thought is based on mythological concepts with moral implications of varying sorts.
Men given to mythological beliefs are viewed as prejudiced toward concepts like Darwinism Evolution since the Bible states God created the heavens and the Earth, while Darwinism is based on scientific proof - supposedly - as Darwin himself stated that science must provide evidence for his philosophical ideas of evolution.
However, there are questions rising from 'Empirical Science':
Is Darwinian evolution based on science or the wishful-philosophical constructs of man?
Scientific discovery is pointing in a direction of very precise and definite design in the study of biology as well as the universe.
Are our educational systems hiding evidence that points away from Darwinian theory? Are Darwinian concepts presented in textbooks that train a youngster to accept macroevolution without any question? Are school textbooks presenting farces as science facts and concepts found faulty several decades ago as being true within our schools till this day?
Is evolution becoming a mythos of sorts - a modern day idol or religion - that technological man must sacrifice reason and nobility in order to remain faithfully true in the support of Darwinian concepts?
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all argument,
which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
Edmund Spenser: recognized as one of the premier craftsmen of nascent Modern English verse and is often considered one of the greatest poets in the English language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Spenser
One thing all of us must do is to seek the truth. That is the whole purpose of science! If we attempt to bend truth into an idol of one sort or another, we create a mythical concept based on our wishes. Secularists claim the Bible writers have produced a book of myths. But as we will see, the Bible is not the invention of humanity. From my personal experiences, we seem to grasp some idea that fits our paradigm. We want to fit into the crowd. People want to be accepted, and this is normal. We don't want to be thought of as the "exception" to the rule. This emotional response applies to all humanity, I have to say, regardless of our ideas and beliefs. But how do we then conclude what is truth? How do we decern? What is the paradigm that we have learned, and what does our community believe we have a part of?
Pontius Pilate; 26 AD
What is Truth?
The Gospel of John
John 19:8-11
37 Therefore Pilate said to Him(Jesus), "Then You are a king?"
Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king.
For this I have been born, and
for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth.
Everyone being of the truth hears My voice."
38 Pilate says to Him, "What is truth?"
Jesus of Nazareth: The Son of God
---------------------------------------- BLB
One of the most powerful rulers in history, Pontius Pilate (The governor of Judaea), asked Jesus of Nazareth (The Branch) this question.
Jesus (Yeshua) was on trial. Yeshua was brought before Pontius Pilate, who was known for his brutality. He would send men, women, and children to their death without flinching. He ruled Judea for a decade which was unheard of. Most governors died of a disease, were murdered by political rivals, or left the position within three years.
Jesus did not consider Himself under the control of Pontius Pilate. On the contrary, when Pilate asked Jesus several questions, Jesus gave no response. Pilate was astounded! Jesus was about to face the most torturous death a criminal could face. Crucifixion is a death sentence and a scourging that preceded resulted in being beaten by a whip designed to break bones and rip a person's flesh. This beating resulted in the death of the accused in and of itself. The scourging kept many of the condemned from facing crucifixion.
The questioning in the Roman court was in place so the accused could present a case for themselves. Pilate could not believe that anyone would not have anything to say. Jesus remained silent. We see Pilate seemingly seeking to defend Jesus in the Gospel narrative. Let us read the account recorded by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and ministry:
Pilate has just heard that Jesus claimed Himself to be the Son of God:
The Gospel of John
John 19:8-11
8 Therefore when Pilate heard this word, he was even more afraid.
9 And he went into the Praetorium again, and he says to Jesus, "Where are You from?"
But Jesus did not give him an answer.
10 Therefore Pilate says to Him, "Do You not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?"
11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over Me, if it were not given to you from above. Because of this, the one having delivered Me up to you has greater sin."
-------------
John 14:6
Jesus answered,
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me
Let us take a quick look at the universe and see any evidence of purposeful - meaningful design.
First, let us start with the idea that has been stated erroneously many times over in academia. Thus, influencing the culture and view of our day. That notion says the science and the Bible are at an end with one another.
Galileo made significant scientific discoveries. It is also believed that the church hindered Galileo due to its mid-evil concepts of the solar system. But these concepts were also part of the scientific communities belief.
The academia of the day taught as science what the church had accepted as valid by the scientific community. Therefore, the church held as being a genuine concept was the same thing the scientific community believed. Thus, the church held to its ideas due to what the science community had taught.
The central belief of this early community states that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and the stars and other planets revolve around the Earth. Many people are unaware that this placed the Earth in an undesirable location. The central area is the lowest point and the worst spot for God's most important creation - humanity from the day's religious and philosophical/scientific point of view. Being at the center of the solar system placed the Earth in the worst position philosophically. The suggestion is the church wanted to increase the importance of the Earth's place within the solar system by saying that the world was the 'center'; this was not the case.
Secular academia of our day states this backward. It portrays the concept of 'center' as the most desirable, which was not true during Galileo's day. It's a mistake due to the culture of our day have a false statement repeated, making the center a place of significance.
A further look into the matter shows that scientists opposed Galileo's concept of how the solar system worked, and they prompted the church to investigate Galileo's claims. Thus, the scientific community started the inquisition.
The story of Galileo's treatment at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church is often used to fuel the conflicting view of science and religion. Historical research shows that this view is flawed. Galileo was no atheist. He believed in Scripture before he faced the Inquisition, and he believed in Scripture afterward. Galileo's "crime" was that he challenged the then reigning Aristotelian scientific paradigm, that a fixed and unmoving Earth was at the center of the universe. This view, be it noted, was held both by the pagan philosophers of Galileo's day and by the churchmen who felt that it fit with their interpretation of Scripture." They were all in error. Ironically, it was Galileo, a believer in Scripture, who correctly challenged the then reigning scientific paradigm in the name of science.
Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (p. 111). Kindle Edition.
Looking further into the matter, we see a much closer relationship between the Bible and the scientific community.
Nachmonides: A Jewish sage of the 13th. century
Nachmonides: A prominent philosopher.
An outstanding Talmudist, his work in this field still enjoys the highest esteem among students of the Talmud. As a halachic authority,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachmanides
Nachmonides made a fantastic discovery that our modern science has only recently discovered.
Using the Torah (The first five Books of Moses within the Old Testament section of the Bible), a pen, paper, and few other resources came to the same conclusion scientist have using atomic accelerators costing billions of our tax dollars! We live in a ten-dimensional universe, four of which are directly discernible and the other six too finite for our study.
Dr. Chuck Missler | koinonia house
It appears that many millions of dollars have been spent on atomic accelerators only to learn what Nachmonides concluded from his study of the text of Genesis!
Nachmonides 13th Century sage:
There are ten dimensions. Only four are knowable.
Commentary on Genesis, 1263
Physicist 20th Century Scientist:
There are ten dimensions. Only four are directly measurable (three spacial plus time).
Six are "curled" into less than 10-33 cm, thus inferable by direct means.
Particle Physicist, 2021
https://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1044/print/
From the quote below, we can see that not all scientists agree with what students are traditionally taught in the classroom. Once again, this shows the religious" vigor regarding the Darwinian paradigm. There are never any discussions contradicting Darwinian evolution in the universities. Any opposing view to the paradigm is never a discussion nor is allowed.
Can any scientist with a PhD believe in the idea of a literal six-day creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say "Yes!" Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind.
Scientists tell us that the universe all started with a Big Bang. But what most people do not realize is that there had to be something before this "Big Bang," and whatever else might be implied needs a "cause" as well. So, according to the scientists, the only solution is there had to be a cause independent of time and space for one simple reason - time and space did not exist prior to their creation. And, I would say, creation is the right word to use when looking at what "caused" the universe to come into being.
Some scientists argue string theory in trying to rid the universe of a creator, but this does not work. It only brings one back to the old question - "What came first? - The chicken or the egg?" Some have stated that a chicken is an egg's way of creating another egg, and this is what scientists do when they attempt to remove the Creator from the universe.
One can see humanity philosophizing God in and out of existence while all the scientific evidence shouts that there is a Grand Designer. Imagine humanity as the egg in our scenario below in Robin E. Collins's discussion. Man tries to rid the chicken's (his creator) existence and substantiate his own in the same process. He uses circular reasoning in looking at the age of things and wonders why there are so many errors in the dating methods of our day. Science must not curtail itself into an incubating egg but must develop without hindrance with reason and discovery. The prejudices against God and Christian world views must not hinder science in its presentation of what science finds, even if the evidence refutes Darwinism.
Looking at the universe as a whole, ΑRobin E. Collins creates an analogy of life under a dome suited with precisely set dials, which control the conditions of the entire universe.
Quoted from Lee Strobel's book "The Case for a Creator": pp 121-135
Robin E. Collins:
"Okay." he replied. "Set aside the issue of how the biosphere got there in the first place. Let's say when you found it, there were twelve dials that controlled the conditions inside the dome. Each dial had an incredibly huge range of possible settings. When you departed, you let the dials at random and as a result no life was possible in the biosphere.
"Then you come back a year later. When you look at the dials you're amazed to find that each one of them has been carefully calibrated to just the right setting so that life is flourishing in the dome. Twelve dials, twelve different factors - all optimally set for life.
"Do you know what the headline would be in the newspaper the next day? It would say:
EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE EXIST.
We would take that as proof that an intelligent being had landed and set those dials precisely where they needed to be for life.
"... I'm saying that the dials for the fundamental properties of the universe have been set like that. In fact, the precision is far greater. This would be totally unexpected under the theory that random chance was responsible. However, it's not unexpected at all under the hypothesis that there is a Grand Designer."
Further on Collins brings into consideration the biosphere in our analogy.
"You'd conclude that this biosphere was not there by accident. Volcanoes didn't erupt and spew out the right compounds that just happened to assemble themselves into the biosphere. Some intelligent being had intentionally and carefully designed and prepared it to support living creatures. And that's an analogy for our universe.
"Over the past thirty years or so scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist.
The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics."
"When scientists talk about the fine-tuning of the universe," Collins said, "they're generally referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can't comprehend the precision of some of them. The result is a universe that has just the right conditions to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance - as Paul Davies said, 'the impression of design is overwhelming.''
Let's continue with author Lee Strobel's observations:
Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist, has expressed amazement at the way the cosmological constant - the energy density of empty space - is "remarkably well adjusted in our favor." The constant, which is part of Einstein's equation for General Relativity, could have had any value, positive or negative, "but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large," Weinberg said.
When asked about this "dial" (one of several dozen actually), Collins states ...,
"...the unexpected, counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant "is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today."
"...Well. there's no way we can really comprehend it - he said. "The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. That's inconceivably precise."
In order to envision what Collins is saying here, picture a dial on an old analog radio where the volume dial has ten lines representing each level as an indicator helping you remember what level of sound you might want to play your music.
This dial has "10" lines - a "1" followed by one zero, our dial for the cosmological constant needs to have a "1" followed by fifty-three zeroes or hundred million billion billion billion billion billion lines on our radio for one "dial" - one "factor" of many such dials all precisely set to accommodate life.
Collins continues:
"... Put it this way," he said. "Let's say you were way out in space and were going to throw a dart at random toward the Earth. It would be like successfully hitting a bull's eye that's one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter. That's less than the size of one solitary atom.
"I'll tell you what," Collins said. "in my opinion, if the cosmological constant were the only example of fine-tuning, and if there were no natural explanation for it, then this would be sufficient by itself to strongly establish design."
Lee Strobel interjects;
I had to agree. The way I saw it, if the universe were put on trial for a charge of having been designed, and the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant were the only evidence introduced by the prosecution, I would have to vote "guilty" - assuming there was no hidden naturalistic explanation. Statistically, this would be a far stronger case than even the DNA evidence that is used to establish guilt in many criminal trials today.
Collins continued. "Now, think about adding together the evidence for just the two factors I've discussed so far - the cosmological constant arid the force of gravity," he said. "This would create an unimaginably stronger case. When you combine the two, the fine-tuning would be to a precision of one part in a hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That would be the equivalent of one atom in the entire known universe!"
Collins is stating here that having just two dials set properly in our analogy is equivalent to being able to pick one atom out of all atoms the universe is composed of at random and picking the right one on the first try.
William Lane Craig states,
Δ "Certainly there have been earlier ages when the culture was more sympathetic toward Christianity." he said. "But I think it's indisputable that there has never been a time in history when the hard evidence of science was more confirmatory of belief in God than today.""What's important to understand, Lee, is how reversed the situation is from, say, a hundred years ago," Craig continued. "Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly opposite.
It is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicably way eternal after all. So, the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian stand confidently within biblical truth. knowing it's in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. It's the atheist who feels very uncomfortable and marginalized today."
ΔWilliam Lane Craig, PHD, THD: A member of nine professional societies including; the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Association.
ΑRobin E. Collins graduated with degrees in mathematics and physics at Washington State University with a GPA of 3.93. He went on to earn a doctorate in physics at the University of Texas in Austin and majored in philosophy as well.
During Darwin's era, cells were considered blobs of Jello-like matter, and they seemed to magically appear, for instance, in old beer. Discovering life and its origin during Darwin's time was like explaining that geese came from barnacles simply because he observed geese resting on rocks that were covered by barnacles and presumed the geese came forth from the barnacles. Hence we have the evolution of barnacle geese as monks observed during this simple time.
This might sound delightfully comical, but modern scientific men have stated basically the same in hopes of sustaining a failing concept - Darwinian evolution. This theory is called "punctuated equilibrium" and was invented by a German scientist seeking to preserve his faith in Darwinian evolution. Its invention is due to the fossil record being completely void of evidence for the support of evolution.
If creatures seem to appear from nowhere in the fossil record as they do (fossil evidence) by countless numbers, and if there are no fossils anywhere on Earth showing forms of creatures changing from one species into another among the millions of fossils found, does this not point to creation? Creation states all life came into being within a short period of time. This is what the fossil record has shown us. No life in the strata, then suddenly, countless millions of fossils everywhere in the next layer.
Phillip E. Johnson's states,
"...biologist cannot find any Darwinian link"
Karl Popper; A leading Philosopher, Rejects Evolution:
"....one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences"
....Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization. DVD # 7 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs
Basically, punctuated equilibrium states that a new species pops out of a parent fully formed. Believing geese come from barnacles is not really that far off in comparison to what this scientist was proposing. And why was such a ridiculous concept proposed in the first place? Because there is no fossil record of the transitions, Darwin stated must be found in order for his theory to have any credibility. And Darwin stated this because, during his endeavors, he did not find any support for macroevolution which he supposed would be true.
Unfortunately, some scientists do lie. In order to keep public support for research and grants, some discoveries are made that never really existed in the first place. Since our educational institutions sponsor the outright lies themselves within their textbooks, scientists are prone to using the tools of science to support a concept that has no basis in science whatsoever.
On most occasions, scientists do not lie. A few lies told by unprincipled individuals have set in motion a cultist-like blind belief within our society. The textbooks themselves contain outright lies to promote Darwinism. Most individuals, including scientists, are victims of indoctrination from early grade school on through higher education.
In a book titled "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe (A molecular biologist), we find what was once viewed as simple living cells are now known to be more complex than the space shuttle.
The concept of random probabilities creating mechanisms of life is far beyond material philosophy and contradicts scientific discovery outright. To insist on a cell coming into existence due to random probabilities, as evolution must state, is no more different than believing geese come from barnacles in light of modern science.
We see the 'idea of macroevolution' being challenged by empirical science. The textbooks obscure the division between macro and microevolution. This is the fabrication of Darwinian evolution - macroevolution. Darwinian evolution is obscure and mythical. There is no evidence to support it - no material evidence.
Macro covers the spectrum, which is to state that evolution is the cause for all life forms evolving from simpler - singular varieties from the single cell itself into all the various forms we see today. Sound reasonable and doable. But the evidence speaks another story. Unfortunately, we have 'faked evidence' in an attempt to support macroevolution.
Micro suggests minor changes within a particular species, such as red and white roses, donkeys, mules, and horses, and various sizes of a bird's beak, to name a few.
Before the scientific method became complex with a better understanding, the only way macroevolution could be deduced from material philosophy - what Darwin expected to be, empirical science. Darwin hoped to find transitional forms - fossils showing physical evidence of one creature becoming another. He frowned at the idea that there were none. He wrote that the fossil record must show these transitional forms and speculated during this early era that the fossil record would do so through future discovery, or his theory would not stand on empirical science.
During Darwin's time, the concept of macroevolution was what seemed to be "material philosophy" - finch beak length, turtles of varying color, and so on; was based on what Darwin would hope to be - "empirical science."
Today, there are no transitional forms to be found anywhere. You will read of hoaxes below and what science later found to be mistaken. We have material philosophy without substance. No empirical evidence but wishful, faithful - "religious" adherence to macroevolutionary concepts that are not replicated in nature anywhere on Earth. But you can take your children or let the local school take them on a tour of a local museum of natural or (unnatural) history. The only place on Earth where you will see a transition form! So, they can be brainwashed just like you were.
It seems that empirical science is turning the tables on Darwinism. To believe in macroevolution in the lack of evidence for its account and in the face of the evidence that says, "It's simply impossible," brings the Darwinist to the point of fervent-theistic adherence. But why? Why do we cling to ideas we believe are true even if they are challenged? It would seem belief - believing in and of itself has a power of its own. We settle our hearts on things we deem as true and any 'atheistic' attack on our belief, whether it be Darwinism, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other concept which we believe is true, becomes something we store in our memory as valid which seem to become a part of who we are and it would seem that attack is upon us and not just our ideas.
Somehow it becomes personal.
We cannot give in to the idea that Darwinism is not true even if we really become 'religious' in our philosophy. It might be due to clinging to what was given to you as factual. We don't want to believe good professors, teachers, and professionals expressed ideas that are not valid as being true. This is natural and good, and we ourselves should not want to express ideas that we know are false as being true as well. But when even our instructors have been deceived themselves, where would that leave us?
You see, this is the whole point. Sharing ideas that are not true in academia will produce a culture that believes concepts that are false as being true. Also, we have the concept of another explanation for all life on Earth, and that is God. That brings a moral facet to all that is. So, Darwinism becomes an alternative to avoid the only other logical explanation - "In the beginning, God!" Why do people want to avoid God? One early proponent of evolution said believing in God interferes with our sexual desires. Well, the Bible is not against sex. As a matter of fact, it is pro-sex but only in its constituted venue. Well, that is a big motivation to believe in Darwinism if it should relieve any concept of a God who requires moral standards from His creation.
One thought to ponder: Believing in a God who requires morals from His creation might produce academia that requiems truth in the classroom. Any professor who shows evidence of dinosaurs living with humans or any geological find that would suggest an earlier age of the Earth is treated as a heretic. Why is that?
The scientist who finally comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is impossible will tell you aliens from another world are responsible for life here on Earth. But that leaves the same question we all ask unanswered. Where does life come from, and why are we here? It does not answer the question but
sets the same question on a cosmic level. The Bible states humanity will naturally seek solutions elsewhere when it comes to finding and believing God and the Bible. This is due to the fall spoken of in Geneses.
While there is a big argument over all this, let's not oppose each side with such great force. I believed strongly in Darwinian evolution. I always and still do love science. When I heard people speaking against evolution, I thought they must have never attended school. Perhaps they grew up in a cave. I literally said that to myself.
It has been said that man needs a God. After looking at both Darwinist and Theologian, I would say this is true. The only difference is that Darwinist must create fabrications to support their theology which we have proof of further below. Those who trust in the Bible have found scientific evidence that confirms the prophecies, localities, and historical figures as being accurately described. The Bible is considered the most accurate work of antiquity. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven we have an accurate copy to this day. The testimony of its writers has been proven trustworthy by psychological and legalistic examination. Archaeology proves over and over again the accuracy of its contents. And, of course, we find overwhelming evidence in nature itself. Nothing states more clearly that God created all the life forms we see than the life forms themselves! Scientists can tell you that the complexity of life is far more than random probabilities can create. And that sophistication starts before there can be a single cell in existence.
Here is the statement of a Theist - a religious concept - since there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false. It is just an idea that scientists hold on to religiously since they have no choice - no other explanation.
Four and a half billion years ago, the young planet Earth was a mass of cosmic dust and particles. It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began.
NOVA: The Miracle of Life:
http://www.beginningoftime.com/
Here is a statement within the Bible in the book of Geneses.
Genesis 1:1-3 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. 2 The Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was* on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
---------------------------------------- KJV
Though we can say the same thing concerning the testability of the statement's factual account, the first five books of the Bible have an inherent mathematical property that statisticians say cannot be there by accident - neither by primitive man's design. The National Department of Defense has confirmed the results found by one of the foremost minds in quantum physics, Eliyahu Rips. The mathematics journal "Statistical Science" reported the findings due to the extraordinary implications of this discovery - and how outstanding this discovery is! The Bible claims itself to be God-breathed. That is, men, penned out the words of the Bible under the Holy Spirit's influence.
This mathematical principle would be one indication among many others that the statements just read in the Bible are facts. There can be no other explanation for these complicated codes existing in a text over 2,000 years old. Some scholars have suggested that it would take millions of supercomputers millions of years to generate a straightforward modest example.
Scientists have suggested if we can find life outside of our planet Earth, we may be consoled by the fact that we are not alone.
What an incredible scientific-philosophical realization this is. Scientific, due to receiver dishes that are the size of buildings waiting for some "nonrandom" sequential signal to fall upon them. We are waiting to hear a hello from another civilization. Can it be we are asking God a question and waiting for a response? Philosophical, because we may be consoled in some way by some other intelligent life form.
Do you have to look to space to find sequentially organized signals to prove there is intelligent life? All we have to do is look at our DNA. The patterns of intelligent design are everywhere the eye looks. But do we want to find God as the grand designer? Do we want an explanation that excludes God? Those receiving dishes just discussed cannot compare to the human ear. The ear is billions of times more sophisticated in its design, yet we cannot hear nor can we see the truth while it stares us in the face.
Has man failed to console himself? Can man assure himself effectively and live in peace? Can science bring humanity peace? Can there be an inner need in humanity that keeps us seeking answers? Will, there be a message for these giant ears (the receiving dishes) to hear as they wait for a whisper of hope in the dark depths of our universe - a nonrandom event - the conclusion being we are not alone?
Decades have passed, and millions of random signals generated by the universe have revealed no other form of communication as science fails in this respect. Thus, man is disappointed as he seeks an answer outside of God's infinite love for humanity.
But lo and behold, as this web page is under revision, UFOs are making mainstream media news right here in the United States. And large church organizations are waiting for the first contact with nonhuman intelligent life to take place. I'm afraid I have to disagree with them. I believe when we are in contact with 'alien' life, it will be a deception. Just as the secular world awaits to greet some alien intelligent life form, so are large denominational churches. Sadly, I believe it will be a deception when this does occur. And what are scientists saying? Some physicists are saying a posthuman created the universe. How was this conclusion developed? The study of the human brain suggests that using 100% of the brain can result in a being who could create the universe. What does the Bible say? It says man is created in the image of God. And the Bible promises that God will restore humanity to a higher state of being where this might be possible.
Yet, here, within our own bodies, is a DNA codec that would fill the Grand Canyon with books 78 times over with "nonrandom" - intelligently sequenced code. The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. Unlike our alphabet in the English language using 26 letters, the DNA alphabet is far more complex in number alone.
A message that our scientists do not have the capacity within their computers to maintain is within each man, woman, and child that ever lived. And every single person has their own 78 exceptional - "Grand Canyon full of books" depiction of what God had intended for every being on Earth. For anyone to argue that random selectivity created the DNA code is absurd. Yet, a brief signal upon our giant receiving dishes would be miraculous. Scientists do not see the implications of the DNA code. Life itself is of God. This code is a sure sign of a designer. There can be no doubt.
Man points his intellect away from God and finds himself blind and empty of truth. Man's endeavor to exclude God was true thousands of years ago, and it is true today within our age of scientific inquiry.
I am a Christian, and I am genuinely fond of science. My love for science is why I was taken aback on discovering that scientists are willing to lie outright or hide evidence. We can suspect they did this to keep grant money coming in and appease philosophical concepts held that do not have any bases in science but satisfy a philosophical - religious need.
Some say we are to keep religion out of science. However, most of the sciences are a product of men who believe in a literal God. They believed in God and had a desire for scientific discovery. Today, we have Darwinists keeping scientific reason out of science and the classroom to keep this idea afloat, but it has no place outside of microevolution.
Many top-line scientists today are refuting the evolutionary theory. It's like keeping a religious idea - a wishful - a personal adherence to macroevolutionary concepts of Darwinism and Neo Darwinism afloat. Many scientists say there has to be a creator since the evidence of design is everywhere science inquires.
I am a Christian, and I am genuinely fond of science. My love for science is why I was taken aback to discover that scientists are willing to lie outright or hide evidence. We can suspect they did this to keep grant money coming in and appease philosophical concepts held that do not have any bases in science but satisfy a philosophical - religious need.
And in all honesty, as I do my research, I can see how this idea - that we are all here due to some cosmic dice roll - leaves us open to the question is there any real purpose in life. Are we and all life part of some cosmic accident of varying probabilities (Darwinian evolution)? Perhaps this is why we search the universe with giant ears and giant eyes of all sorts exploring and hoping to find intelligent life elsewhere. Why do we have slogans like 'Mother Nature,' 'the cosmic flow,' and the 'flow of life' when we describe the course of nature in science programs? We personify a nonentity because we genuinely cannot believe that just some big roll of the dice is the causing agent of all life and the laws of nature. We are not here by chance.
Dr. R.C Sproul:
"Chance cannot create life."
There is comfort for humanity in believing in the God of the Bible. That we do not just disappear into oblivion after we die. That even nature will be 'restored' and that death itself is not natural or part of what we call today a 'life cycle.' God designs life to be eternal from the beginning. The Bible promises that God will restore the animal kingdom to a state of being before the fall of Adam and Eve as well.
The Apostle Paul (Rabbi Shaul) states,
Romans 8 18-21
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. ---------------------------------------- BSB
I do feel a moral obligation to do what I do here. If you love science and/or the God of the Bible, you have a responsibility to seek the truth.
If not, you are no better off than a Christian who seeks prostitutes - you live contrary to your learning, and that has to hurt in some way.
If not, then you cannot be a Christian or a scientist. Without a moral code, neither the religious nor the scientists can present the truth, and this is why a moral code is necessary. You are either true or false. You either speak the truth, lie, or are in ignorance.
The Bible states humanity is helpless. The fundamental belief of Christianity is that we cannot save ourselves; therefore, we need the creator to keep us. And this is precisely what Jesus has accomplished for those who accept His sacrifice - Himself. By accepting Jesus as Savior, we receive the Spirit of God then transforms us literally into a new creation giving us the ability to live in Heaven. God has to save man because he cannot save himself. Man can easily disillusion himself and remain blind without too much effort, as we see with man's appeal for the disillusion of materialistic philosophies that are supposed to uphold truth but deny it totally in the face of all the contradictory evidence.
Looking at humanity from a biblical perspective: Men would rather believe a lie blindly and say the lie is true than repent of their ways and accept the fact that they are untrue in light of God's word and ask for forgiveness. Ask Christ to redeem them from eternal separation from God to live in an eternal state in Heaven and peace. The Bible tells us this explicitly.
Some believe that life found elsewhere besides Earth would disprove the Bible or prove macroevolution - Darwinian evolution. Some believe macroevolution would disprove the Bible. But this would not be the case in either instance. I hope we do find life elsewhere, and I hope we find benevolent-intelligent life out there.
Some believe when Christians fail in their morality takes away the credibility of the Bible. But this is false when we look at what the Bible says. So, the Bible must be vied for what it says and not what people imagine would and would not validate it. The concept that there might be life outside of Earth does not conclude there is no Creator God. The fact that Christians fail, even prominent Christians, does not disprove the Bible but proves the Bible text even further.
What is scary is that there are men in the Christian faith claiming that intelligent life outside of Earth might guide us to a better knowledge of our Bible. This discussion reminds me of the end-time scenario within the Bible. But, of course, these false claims coincide with the erroneous ideas of macroevolution.
Some scientists have suggested that a Post Human created the universe. They cannot believe in Darwinism. So, someone or some 'thing' had to 'create' all that there is.
Some unique discoveries within the research of our DNA have found that the diversion (microevolution) - the changes occurring over set periods started 6,000 years ago. This fantastic discovery synchronizes what the Bible presents in its timeline for humanity's existence. And that the population we have today is in proportion to what it should be if you take the growth of population starting after Noah's Flood. And note, the Ark that Noah built was to preserve the genome of humanity and specific animal life. The flood that covered the whole Earth did not occur to drown sinful people. One Bible scholar suggested that "if sin brings a flood, we better go get our life jackets." There was an alteration in the genome that needed correction, and once again, this is why Jesus tells us we must be born again and made into a new creation.
If you would like to read about how and why the human genome was altered, click on the link titled Transhuman here or on the menu.
If you ever wondered about Noah, Noah's Ark, and the animals on the ark, see the video here.
Noah's Ark: The Statistics
The video here starts much earlier than the link's position. You can start watching the video from its beginning if you wish.
Noah, the Truth is Bigger than you Thought
Noah's Ark:
Mitochondrial DNA is exactly alike in all humans.
All humans have descended from only one women. She lived a mere 6,000 years ago. This is what Bible scholars say is the time from the re-creation of Earth and the start of the life and fauna we find in it today
Mitochondrial DNA:
This scientific discovery's implication is showing that God's purpose is evident within the Bible - and if so, then all life on Earth is created by Him, and so is the universe itself - since this is what the Bible states. Thus, men wrote under the influence of the Spirit's conviction. Here is proof of the inherent characteristics within the Bible's design in its literature and prophetic announcements, which is mind-boggling and proven true under test with the latest scientific methods available to forensic science.
Theologians have been saying then men wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which scripture states clearly within itself, for well over two thousand years.
Rabbi Shaul
2 Tim 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
---------------------------------------- KJV
Therefore, there is a God and a Creator, which is what science has been telling us all along as well - regardless of how blind men of science choose to be when they adhere to a false theistic concept called Darwinism (macroevolution).
To read on the Bible's incredible design, read about the ELS Bible Code.
Jesus of Nazareth
Rev 2:11 11"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death."' ---------------------------------------- KJV
How much pain and suffering do we go through when a loved one is lost? While death seems to be a part of life, death is not meant to be a part of life at all. For the time being, we have the certainty of death. For there to be a second death, there has to be a first one. And yes, there is life after death.
Jesus spoke of his death and mission to His disciples when He said, "If I do not go, the other will not come" (paraphrase). He speaks of His death and sacrifices for humankind which brings each individual the Comforter - the Holy Spirit, to assure humanity of God's love and faithful word. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the Comforter because this is what the Holy Spirit does within the believer. Jesus spoke on another occasion mentioning He would not leave us alone. Once again, prophesied the purpose of His crucifixion and the Comforter. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, one suffers the second death. This second death is the separation from God one experiences after leaving the body. By accepting Jesus as Savior, we escape the second death and receive the Comforter.
What has kept Christianity going? The Holy Spirit and not man's will or ability. This much is certain! We fail miserably as Christians under our knowledge, but within each believer is the indwelling of God's Spirit, which makes the difference between Heaven and Hell. And, - "Yes," they are both real. Hell was never created for humanity.
Christ's resurrection is what the Bible calls the "First Fruits." To spend eternity with the maker of this universe in tranquility, one must accept Christ's
Accomplishments. A simple Prayer is all it takes when it comes from the Heart.
Below are quoted words of Stephen C. Meyer, PHD: Cambridge University of England: Focus of study;
history of molecular biology
history of physics
evolutionary theory
"... scientific evidence actually supports theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism."
"Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence.... The major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction ... Science, done right, points toward God."
If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologist now agree. Then this implies a cause that transcends the universe.
If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicist are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine tuned them.
If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggest intelligent design.
"Those are just three examples," he concluded, "and that's just the beginning."
Lee Strobel "The Case for a Creator" pp 74, 77
We have seen empirical science finding evidence for the Bible's supernatural design, and further below empirical science disproves Darwinism.
Man has to live under his beliefs and stand upon them. Our beliefs will be our ceiling and the ground we walk on. We would not venture, of course, or go higher without a paradigm shift. If we do not present evidence that contradicts our belief if it is present, then we deceive ourselves and all we encounter. If we just lie outright, then we live in ambiguity - there is no ceiling and no floor. If our ideas are not under what is called scientific reasoning, they cannot be without hindrances if we wish to call our work science.
Evolution is taught to preschoolers in textbooks designed to teach them how to read. Why on Earth teach children evolutionary theory? It is a bit strange. Simple math, reading, and phonics would normally be the course. It is a manifesto of what is expected to be ingrained into the minds of every human being within our educational system. Though there is no evidence for macroevolution (the concept of higher life forms evolving from lower forms), we are programmed to believe in an ideology as if it were a dogmatic religious concept one must believe in. This in indoctrination.
Dr. Michael Ruse tells us:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.
Evolution is promulgated as an ideology,
a secular religion
a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.
"I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- This raises the literalist [Creationist] are absolutely right."
Evolution is a religion.
This was true of evolution in the beginning, and
is true of evolution today.
"...Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson
tells us that we now have an "alternative mythology" to defeat traditional religion."
Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph www.omnlology.com/ How Evolution Became Religion.
Children are indoctrinated into an ideology that has no scientific reasoning or facts to support it. In fact, all the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Nonetheless, if you are old enough to start reading, you are old enough to be indoctrinated.
Let us look at what indoctrination does to an individual.
Listen carefully to the show scene on the link below from Sid Roth's TV program. I suggest you hear this speaker twice in order to take in what is being said. Especially if you have attended (most of us have since grade school on up) school and were taught that Darwinian evolution is true.
Bruce Malone.
Consider the above dialog in the discussion of physics concerning the universe. Sid Roth uses the analogy in the video here as he tosses the pieces of a puzzle out onto the studio floor. He indicates that all these pieces would have to come together on their own without any outside intelligent effects. This is what Darwinian evolution teaches us. Only it is much - much more complicated than a puzzle coming together, though the analogy is a good one. The puzzle would need to be made up of billions (1,000,000,000s) of pieces, and each piece needs to be millions of times greater in complication - the pieces would need to have microscopic 'key' fittings, and each one must be unique! Let this thought sink into your conscience. Reread the above paragraph and let it sink in.
Even if you are a born-again believer, you still were indoctrinated since childhood to believe in what is scientifically impossible. The renewing of your mind, speaking Biblically, takes time in this area whether you are a Christian or not.
This takes time, study, and reinterpreting your world. The reinterpreting part comes in the form of just letting all this information "sink in" into your way of thinking. After many hours of diligent work and study. Why? Because our minds have literally been molded figuratively and physically (There is a scientific study on brain structure and growth from childhood is shaped by thoughts learned.) to believe in something that is not to be questioned by anyone, period. Thus you must believe in Darwinian evolution without regard to any evidence for or against it. I say for it as well since there is proof of microevolution as being true while there is substantial evidence against Darwinian evolution (macroevolution).
The more educated you are, the worse it gets. Having a PHD only makes it worse, not better, unless you can be fair and deduce outside of the 'box' (step out of yourself) of how you were raised to think and believe. Then, after seeing this show on the link above at least once, read about my journey and study the misleading ideology of Darwinism and the farces being promoted as scientific truth in museums, textbooks, and our educational system throughout the rest of this page, you might be in a position to question the theory of evolution. That is to say, you will still be quite upset. Especially if you love science as I do. The educational system itself is duped and was designed to give you a false concept - philosophy - as to the reason you and I are here. You can not be objective toward Darwinian thought within an educational system without risking your job as a teacher or being ridiculed as a student. To put it directly - to give you the notion that there is no Creator.
This indoctrination into Darwinian philosophy was conducted over many years of your young life and is implanted deeply into your thinking process whether you can see this or not. This is the purpose of indoctrination. You do not understand your own thoughts on a matter as to where they come from and these are deep-rooted - strong ideas that make up the underlying foundational structure of your philosophy (thoughts). It happens in the process of maturing from a child to adult.
You will say you can remember and therefore do know where you ideas come from. But how quickly would you allow these ideas to be challenged if at all? How 'open minded' are you in questioning your ideas? Will you allow that or not? Do you write off people who question traditional Darwinian thought just not to be moved from a comfort zone. It does not matter if you call yourself an atheist, a believer of one religion or another or somewhere in between.
There is good reason you do not challenge these ideas by the way. That is because you were raised to believe them as true.
Do you see the point?
It is as if someone tells you 2 + 2 = 7: You know this is wrong, but what if you were raised to believe that 2 + 2 = 7 and someone one day says you are wrong!!! You would argue that the equation equals 7.
This is how we have been indoctrinated into believing that macroevolution is true. This includes professors teaching the topic in universities around the world.
Now math is straight forward and since you have been taught correctly regarding math you may jest at the idea. But this again is the point. We jest comically at the notion that Darwinian evolution may not being true. But we do not have any data readily available to draw any other conclusion. As a matter of fact, any empirical science that contradicts macroevolution is kept far from any museum, textbook, and universities.
As an analogy let us look at how we vote. Here in the U.S.A. most people who vote for a politician will not take the time to search out the person who they are considering to vote for. They go with a party, an agenda, a perspective, but never really see what the person might do or not based on good research on the potential candidate. I would say that applies to most voters. A governing politician will rule in their office of service and you can only hope for the best. I would say most of us vote with our fingers crossed behind our backs hoping our decision is the right one. So, the point here is that we do not really look into matters as we should. We just accept what we are told by fliers and the local news. Many people just want to vote for the person they believe will win. They may not have any real reason to vote and voting for a loss means they lost. So, they vote for who they believe might win.
We cannot have science this way. Science must always reveal truth.
If you say you believe the Bible, you cannot question for a moment what the Book of Genesis states. God states His creation as being 'good'. This means it was complete. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, you do not believe in what the Bible is telling us. If you hesitate for a moment, when the question is asked, it is due to the indoctrination you experienced as a child in the area of origins. I have to say I believed the Bible and believed in Darwinian evolution until I realized first that there had been frauds presented as factual in academia and I had been misled, which in itself was very difficult to deal with. If you feel your stomach turning at the notion that not all we were told in science class was true, I know the feeling exactly!
The Bible tells us there is something missing in our lives and it says that something is God. It tells us how to find God and says God is our maker and point of origin. The Bible tells us this is so with the entire universe.
Let me point this out clearly point by point if you call yourself a Bible believer and believe in Darwinian evolution as to how wrong you are to believe both without ever realizing it.
Darwin said that life improves upon itself through trial and error without any intelligent order of design. It is just probabilities. Any direct influence otherwise would speak of an intelligent designer - God. Also, life became more complex and ordered by accidental probabilities.
Darwinian thought says the less advantageous forms died due to the struggle for survival, the strong survive and the weak die.
This process will eventually change an animal into another completely different creature
The Bible says that God created everything and that it was good.
Meaning: there was no death.
There was no sin.
There was no improvements brought about by the struggle for survival.
There was no struggle.
There was NO DEATH.
NO Evolution of the species.
There was no death at the creation till after the fall. Things did not get better but instead they got worse, much - much worse.
DO YOU SEE THE POINT? DARWINIAN THOUGHT SAYS LIFE BECAME MORE COMPLEX AND BECAME BETTER THROUGH DEATH:
THE BIBLE SAYS THERE WAS NO DEATH TILL SIN ENTERED THE WORLD AND THINGS GOT WORSE NOT BETTER. NOTE THE DIFFERENCE. THEY ARE IN COMPLETE CONTRADICTION TO ONE ANOTHER.
If you are a Christian, do not say God used man's philosophy (Darwinian evolution) to make life on Earth as we see it today or at any other time if you claim to be a Bible believer. Things are not improving but getting worse unless medicine (intelligence and work for a purpose) is done to change that.
So, as a Bible believer, or science lover you evidently cannot say you believe in macroevolution (Darwinian evolution). What we do have are small changes within the life forms we see. That is normal and is seen everywhere. But to say we are the product of mass mutations which improved over time all based on philosophy and probabilities is insane. It flies in the face of science. When will the schools, museums, and text books stop showing us farces, false assumptions proved wrong decades ago? How many more children will be lied to and indoctrinated as you and I were?
Speaking for myself, I was raised a Catholic and was told by my mother when I was a child that God created the world and all that is in it. Nevertheless, within the same educational system of faith came the concept of evolution that stated we evolved from some kind of microscopic cell. This developed a dual reality as to what might be true and what might not. In one realm, you had a Father in Heaven who loved you. This Father had a Son who showed Himself to us two thousand years ago whose name is Jesus. He died for us because He loved us. Now, we can call each other brothers and sisters under the banner of this Father and Son. There are moral codes we must follow and are instructed to do so.
In the other realm, we did not have a Father in heaven not alone a Son of a Father. People came into existence due to some unknown forces of nature. It all started in some puddle of obscurity and as I grew older, the moral compass I was given seemed to become obscure as well. We were not brothers and sisters but competitors for survival. The most suited for survival would pass their genes to their offspring. The less fit would die off.
It seemed you could believe in God even though science and reason was pointing to another philosophy or truth. Others said, the Bible was written by ancient people who were not so sophisticated. Men of simple understanding need to create a god because there was a lack of scientific enlightenment; therefore, religion is a creation of men designed to help him cope. At least this is what was being presented through the era I was raised in.
Looking at macroevolution, we see just that taking place. We see sophisticated twenty first century man making a god in his own image as he attempts to discus his own origin and the origin of life. But we all do this to some extent. The traditional religious and the atheist alike. The Bible under study gives us another picture all together.
As a child in my day, we had God, Christmas - Jesus birthday, and we had science class. I grew very fond of science and had become disenchanted about God. Especially when everything in our society was pointing to the reality of the world I was growing up in - the real world and all its people who were now under the philosophy of a mud puddle existence and striding off the pathway of the moral compass that was presented as truth at one time. The truth is what everyone else believes to be true, and if you do not follow in the examples around you, you were excommunicated - not cool in the vernacular of the day.
We are told the dogma of Christians was the great evil and armed with scientific - unbiased reasoning, we can move forward into the light of philosophical enlightenment. Logic and nature with its unbiased premises is to suffice for humanity. The biases of religion are to be left out of the reasoning process when it comes to purity of science.
That is until you find out you have been lied to
Let us ask ourselves these questions.
"Is science really pure when it is regulated by biased men and agendas?
Are there large lobbying groups forcing research and science to a halt in its quest for truth each time a question is raised on the validity of Darwinism?
Will I be able to see the fabric of obscurity woven into my reality through the 'educational process'?
Will I question what I have believed to be true and have been taught as being true all of my life?
Are these ideas found to be not true within our textbooks, museums, and zoos removed from display?"
Are there concepts of evolutionary theory which have been proven false being promoted as factual within our textbooks and museums?
Will I allow myself to see what is fraudulent, or
must I agree with Darwinian evolution with a zealous conviction?"
You will find that concepts long proven false by science are still being upheld as factual. This is due to outright bias and to what I call the "brain washing effect" - due to lies being told to young children - who we all were at one time, the literal indoctrination of people into an ideology, which mimics cultic practices in persuasion and belief.
If you realize that one or two of the questions above are loaded, you are correct, but this is what you faced as a child as you were learning evolution. You have to answer the test questions based on evolution being a fact when there is a staggering amount of evidence that tells else wise. You were shown diagrams, as we all were in school, of concepts on evolutionary theory as being scientific and factual while, indeed, these concepts were proven false and outright frauds decades if not centuries earlier.
The images shown to children are used to invoke "imagination and curiosity letting the farces grow into the child's thinking pattern. The children accept what is told to them as being factual because they do not have a base of knowledge to invoke any questioning of the material. This would be called learning in the normal sense but since lies are mainstay of the course, it is really indoctrination into a concept which science says is false.
So, naturally, what we face as children in school is a biased indoctrination into a belief system and the questions are designed to do this very thing.
When communist want to condition people, they do not teach them politics, they teach evolution for this very purpose. DVD # 5 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs
"Stars and Stripes" 1969 Rules found by Allied forces in Dusseidorf, Germany 1919
So, is there a God or is everything about evolution that we are taught true? Were the people of ancient times less sophisticated than we are? Was God created to explain the unknowable of the time and as a way to control society as some have suggested, or was evolution created to control populations as we just read in the Communist Manifesto?
Is religion the cause of all or most wars in our world? Are the words of Jesus to cause pain and suffering? On the other hand, is this due to humanity's fallen nature - the drifting off of the Bible's moral compass responsible for the pain of this world?
Is it possible for Life, to come into being from inanimate matter, and is Darwinian evolution making for a more robust genetic pool of humanity as time marches on - are we becoming more fit due to natural selection?
I will try to answer these questions on this page as well on the "Me Too" link on this site.
Is Evolution an Unbiased Scientific Concept? Are there Dangers Hidden within Darwinian Theory?
Let us look at the inherent characteristics of evolutionary theory that are not favorable for the human race's existence.
First, the title of the "Famed" book, "The Origin of Species" is a partiality of what Darwin had in mind. The complete title was
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"
The title speaks of the political correctness involved when men look upon others as being less - as being a lower form of humanity - people who are lower on the 'scales of evolution' as it has been phrased. The "or" in the title is really bothersome. I guess you can have "either," "and," or "or" depending on your personal preferences and prejudice.
The aborigines of Australia were exterminated based on Darwinian philosophical concepts.
The preservation of the aborigines must have been one of a difficult order for evolution to perform since these tribal people, herded like animals, were shot and killed like cows in a slaughterhouse. Some of their bones are stored in museums to show off the lesser species of humanity and support Darwin's Theory as being true.
We see the survival of the fittest taking place here - there is no doubt. Their stone tools could not stand up against rifle fire.
One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more so than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man.
People who follow the fabricated concept of evolution have promoted prejudices and genocide based on Darwin's theory. They were not contrary to Darwinism beliefs but in accord with this false theory. If there is a higher order of beings, then there is the lesser and this is exactly what evolution teaches.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin "Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" pp 134
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X79kDtFCGcC&pg
"In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles."
Article: From Darwin to Hitler: Ideas Have Consequences
Look at the contrast the reader finds in God's words noted by Jeremiah in the Bible below and the words of Charles Darwin!
Jeremiah 31:3-4
3 The Lord has appeared of old to me saying:"Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with loving kindness I have drawn you.4 Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt, ---------------------------------------- NKJV
Perhaps these are some of Darwin's "lesser beings"?
Jesus of Nazareth
Matthew 25: 35-36; 38-40
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you (they asked Jesus)?39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'40 "The King will reply,'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
---------------------------------------- NIV
Jesus considers the "least of these" to be His brothers and sisters. He did not see them as "lower" on some imagined evolutionary scale.
Reading the rest of scripture in Matthew reveals that those who do not enter Heaven are those who did not help the less fortunate. To put it Biblically, tyrants are overcome by their own devices and are snared by the very work of their hands, while those who are the "less evolved" on Darwin's evolutionary scale are depicted as the ones whom God loves and tends to.
Evolution teaches the less fortunate are weak and will have to succumb to the stronger. This is not an exaggeration. You may be an evolutionist and help the meek, feed the poor and so forth, however, the fundamental teaching of evolution suggest and demands the lesser die and be replaced by the stronger - more robust.
Does judging the less fortunate, the foreigner, the Negro, and Mongoloid as well as other cultures, which might not be as industrial as the west, as being lower on the scales of evolution cause problems in our society? Are there people who too whole-heartily agree with the notion of evolving species see reason to take advantage and even murder the so-called lesser "evolved" people for the sake of their own twisted ideologies and plunder?
Ann Coulter
"As Darwinism gained currency, humanity did sink into greater degradation and brutalization than any since written records of human history began. A generation later, the world would witness the rise of the eugenics movement; racial hygiene societies; the first genocide in recorded history; Nazi Germany; Stalinist gulag... But Hitler and Marx were not citing Louisa May Alcott's Little Woman for support. They were citing Darwin..."
There is a correlation here, and Darwinism definitely states this is part of our natural world. This notion does not stop with those who may not be as "industrious or 'evolved'" - but any group of people who are under the scrutiny of a twisted mind which thinks itself as being highly "evolved" or better than others. This is degrading and disastrous in regards to how those who are deemed as less view themselves and the 'other' so called better off classes. It creates a division even if none is sought.
But how does feeling as if you are less than other individuals or groups cause problems in society? If you feel you are deemed as less or believe you really are, you may take it upon yourself to use violence to gain a better position. You may not take advantage of opportunities simply based on your notions of what your abilities are or limit yourself as to what your potential can be.
The family tree of the human race needs to be "trimmed," it would seem, by those who consider themselves highly evolved by Darwin's philosophy. This has led to the death of countless millions. At least twelve million people were killed during WWII. This is just one war. The Jewish race has suffered the most from the genocide of WWII.
What ideas could have been prevalent at the time when Darwin was making his observations? Let's look at Darwin's statement again below.
Charles Darwin:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin "Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" pp 134
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X79kDtFCGcC&pg
There were supremacist in Darwin's day who could take advantage 'immorally' of others standing on what was supposed as scientific reason.
By evolution, the weak and less robust must die. If the weak continue to live, they might dilute the genetic pool of humanity. This sounds absurd I am sure and I hope all who read these words agree. We would hope that no one in our day and age could have such a philosophy, and that human life is cherished and each individual is considered unique and special.
I extend this courtesy to the unborn as well since the diagrams (Haeckel's Drawings) depicting the human embryo as going through evolutionary stages are a complete fraud. This was the first faked evidence that evolved specifically for support of Darwinism. Since there was no evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, Natural selection, natures way - Man's way; really nature had nothing to do with it, fabricated a lie for the evolutionist. Ernest Haeckel, a German scientist, had created these faked drawings for this very purpose. And you can find these fake drawings in textbooks instructing children till this very day. It serves the purpose of indoctrination. Haeckel's Drawings were proven faked by a court of law in the United States over 100 years ago. They were not mistakes but outright faked diagrams. You can read what Stephen C. Meyer, a PHD from Cambridge University, has to say on Haeckel's Drawings further below.
These atrocities mentioned here, the shedding of innocent blood, will not be allowed to go on unchecked. When the Day The Lord arrives as we read in the Bible. But please note if you have had an abortion, you can ask God to forgive you. As the psalmist has told us, God's mercy endures forever. The Messiah (Christ) will come again to the Earth to rule for His 1,000 year reign as the King of Peace - The King of Jerusalem:
Jesus the Messiah: The King of the Universe - Maker of Heaven and Earth states through the pen of Isaiah;
Isaiah 2:4
4 Then He will judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer take up the sword against nation, nor train anymore for war.
---------------------------------------- BSB
Stephen C. Meyer, PHD: Cambridge University comments regarding Haeckel's drawings:
"....They were first exposed in the late 1860s, when his colleagues accused him of fraud."
"...It's worse than that!," he declared. "They are still being used, even in upper-division textbooks on evolutionary biology."
"...Gould said textbook writer's should be ashamed of the way drawings had been mindlessly recycled for over a century. At least, he was honest enough to call it what it was: 'the academic equivalent of murder'"
"Haeckel cherry-picked his examples," Wells explained. "...He stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closest to fitting his idea - then he went further by faking the similarities."
"...Biologists know that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages."
Lee Strobel "The Case for a Creator" pp 48-50
Lee Strobel asks these questions of Stephen C. Meyer, PHD: Cambridge University.
Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 - May 20, 2002) was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, had supposedly shown that embryos from various animals were identical to each other in their earliest stages.
Today, however, biologists recognize that
Haeckel faked his drawings to support his theory that embryos in essence reenact their species' evolutionary history as they develop
.
British embryologist Michael Richardson, along with an international team of experts, conducted a 1997 study comparing Haeckel's drawings with actual embryos. His conclusion?
Haeckel's work "looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology"
In spite of repeated discrediting, however, Haeckel's ideas and drawings still appear in many recent textbooks and are presented as fact.by Bill Jahns http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism_drawings.htm
...the charts and textbooks continue to promote this missing link despite what we already know.
This is the same case as Ernst Haeckel's fake drawings of the various embryos of different organisms to show that they all have the same ancestor. The problem?
The errors were exposed in the 1880s and 90s over and over. Yet, the textbooks even in 1990 (and some even today) carry the same drawings as proof of evolution!http://www.squidoo.com/evolution-problems
Data manufactured:
"...Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities."
"Haeckel's German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!
Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realized that the recapitulation theory is false.
Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizes like the late Carl Sagan"
http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered
How can we settle our hearts regarding truth, and the untrue (a lie)?
We just discussed an issue where a scientist presented evidence forged and manipulated to create a perception
that is completely false - a complete lie. And why? Specifically to influence you to think and believe in something. I'm sure it's something he wishes to be true or even believes to be true. I think we can agree on that.
But he's generating a lie and telling you this is what he found. This is a man is a scientist.
Remember the text quoting the great scientist regarding on how science has to be unbiased in his research and findings.
Now, where do you stand?
How do you feel when you realize you have been lied to regarding something so orthodox as scientific discovery and knowledge?
Where do you cast your lot?
Do you disagree with the idea of the lie?
Will you start now to dig a little deeper?
Will you allow yourself the space in your conscience to actually search for truth?
Or, if this makes you feel so uncomfortable, you would rather cast your lot with those who believe the lie - lie to yourself and others - to stand correct with the crowed?
I say this because the lie is still being taught today in our educational systems as truth.
Ernest Haeckel forgery has not gone away; though a court of law has discovered this to be a complete farce along with the professional witnesses giving their account on the issue.
So, where do you stand?
I was so upset I must say myself. As a lover of science and truth to understand and see that we have been lied to by those we esteem to be the caretaker's of truth and scientific discovery.
I have to say when I decided I need to go through the process of finding out where we were lied to - what areas in the sciences specifically, how often we were lied to, and on what issues we were lied to about, it turned out to be a strenuous endeavor. It was like coming out of an cultic idea that you had been indoctrinated to believe as true. I felt as if I needed to go to a place where they treat people who have been abused within a cult and in need of some psychological adjustment.
I advise you not to throw in the towel. I've done some research. We just looked at an issue that was resolved in an American court over a hundred years ago. And the courts and the professional witnesses give testimony to this fact discussed here.
That fact states we are we have been lied to. And that this lie is in continually being promoted today throughout our educational institutions.
This is empirical scientific data giving evidence to a fact that there are inscrutable individuals who will not stop at any means to promote what they believe should be promoted as to as opposed to scientific facts.
Let us look at another example of how Darwinism ideology is protected as if it were a secret society's religion:
Now, the Bible speaks of the age of creation as if it were a recreation. I'm not speaking of the various ideas of a Gap Theory in Genesis, but the words in the Bible within the book of Genesis seem to speak in terms of God creating within a created form that existed prior. That is why all these theories and their variants exist. Now I am not championing one idea or another but we cannot simply just write off that their might have been another world here before humanity was created. The link to an article below is brief but I suggest watching Dr. Missler's DVDs or YouTube videos on Genesis.
Here is a brief article by Dr. Chuck Missler from Koinonia House just below the quoted text:
"...the waw , "and," in Genesis 1:2 usually implies a time delay. 5 Here it can be construed as an adversative conjunction, implying a reversal as well as a delay. https://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/262/
The 6,000 years of creation spoken of as a time line from the book of Genesis onward fits with many conclusive scientific findings.
Regarding Noah's flood. A worldwide flood is in direct opposition to the Uniformitarian theory where macroevolution finds some imaginary footing. Uniformitarianism is a concept that states everything we see in the universe and nature here on Earth is due to eons of time and natural processes. If this sounds so plausible to you do not forget you and I, along with just about everyone else in the west, was weaned on these ideas before we could read and wright ... Remember the cereal box teaching children to read with the statement, Millions of years ago there were dinosaurs? my paraphrase.
Why do we have such great ages to all there is? Because without this imagined and manmade philosophy, we cannot use our imaginations to create the "imagined" Darwinian theory. Remember: you "imagine something being real" - regarding your belief system, before it becomes a reality for you. So, indoctrination through repetition and imagination is important to Darwinian (Macro) evolution's ideology because there is no empirical science to support it. This is why people get so burned up when someone states Darwinian evolution is not true. We have been indoctrinated into believing it.
When Emmanuel Villakoski (A secular scientist) first came out with his book , "Worlds in Collision" which was first published by McMillan.
The professors were so angry that this book was published because it showed the impossibility of Uniformitarianism, "Worlds in Collision" totally disproves Uniformitarianism.
Before people had full copies of the book, people were writing rebuttals not even knowing for sure what he said. I am not generalizing, but a lot of scientists are dishonest. When their pet theory is destroyed, they will lie, connive and do as much as possible to ensure that their theory stays alive and this pet theory is that man exists by an evolutionary process.
The thing about Emmanuel Villakoski is that he doesn't even really believe that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, there are parts of the Bible that he completely rejects.
He's not a Christian; he's a Jewish scientist, but he looks at the Bible as a history book, and he takes the things that happened or that the Bible declares happens. Emmanuel Villakoski has written a new book, "Earth in Upheaval". In this book he tells about the bones of whales that have been found four hundred and forty feet above sea level north of Lake Ontario. A skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont more than five hundred feet above sea level and still another in Montreal, Quebec area about six hundred feet above sea level.
Taken from a study in Genesis by Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.
So, we have a concentrated systematic non scientific method working to hide evidences - empirical scientific evidences - from the public in order to support an imagined theory which has no empirical science behind it. macroevolution has never happened.
Later in Germany, a man called Hitler would find scientific reasoning in his extermination of the Jews. Hitler considered Jews the least evolved of the human race.
We see here the true meaning of how the environment influences the creatures that are in its habitat. From the lies being espoused as truth by scientist to Hitler's concepts reflecting Darwinism, the true meaning of evolution was maturing into a beast with dreadful tendencies and features.
Hitler's regime went as far as to use the hair from its dead victims for pillow fill.
They skinned the corpses of thousands of bodies and used the skin of the lessor evolved people to create
the fabric of lamp shades. He found good use for the "un-favored races" - the so called less evolved.
The Britannica Encyclopedia:
Buchenwald gained infamy for many reasons. The camp was run with rigid discipline, and from 1939 to 1945 Ilse Koch-the "Witch of Buchenwald" and wife of the SS commandant Karl Otto Koch-was notoriously sadistic. Prisoners were ordered to be killed on a whim, and Ilse Koch reputedly had a penchant for the flayed skin of her victims, which she had made into household objects such as book covers and lampshades. Although there were no gas chambers, hundreds perished each month from disease, malnutrition, exhaustion, beatings, and executions. The bulk of the prisoners were starved and worked to the point of death in nearby stone quarries. Camp records indicate that throughout its existence some 240,000 prisoners from at least 30 countries were confined at Buchenwald. At least 10,000 were shipped to extermination camps, and some 43,000 people died at the camp.
I say this coldly, but if evolution were really true, it should not bother you at all, and perhaps
you would have clothing composed of human parts. Why have any moral standards if there is no creator who expects His creation to obey rules?
Having any Moral Stance has to originate in a Biblical View of Creation.
Evolution cannot teach us Morals.
Just as a side note as this page is being updated (05/2021), today it is being said that aborted babies bring in huge sums of cash as their body parts are sold. The abortion industry in and of itself is a multi-billion dollar business. Perhaps there are other incentives in the abortion clinic than women's rights and health. I cannot help but to think of a child being torn apart while it is alive within its mother's womb. Doctors have used surgical tools that look like large cooking tongs to twist a living child to pieces while the fetus (baby) squirms to escape with its life. Doesn't the unborn child have a right to live? Can we not be more accountable with our sexual activities as to not kill innocent children? Hitler would have no problem with the idea of abortion and sadly today neither do we in the twenty first century. Especially when you have been manipulated psychologically to believe it is your right to murder your own children. We become zealous in our "right" to what we have deemed to believe is proper and moral.
Dr. Michael L. Brown
Some Inconvenient Truths about Abortion in America:
A recent article by Ben Zeistloft in the Daily Wire began with these deeply troubling words: "Abortion is the leading cause of death in America." The article was titled, "5 Disturbing Findings from Planned Parenthood's Annual Report...,
"By custom-ordering late-term aborted baby body parts for sale from Planned Parenthood partners like ABR, the FDA is directly complicit in these abortions and implies that these kids are worth more to the U.S. government dead than alive," Daleidan reportedly said in a statement.
Dr. David DeWitt taught a class on "Research Ethics" at a state university. These students were PHD candidates and medical doctors. He talked with his students about animals and people and how they are used in research. A student who is from an evolutionary belief system states;
Creation.com
"I would like to say that humans should be treated differently,
but I do not have a framework (A belief system in place) or a bases for why
they should."
https://creation.com/dr-david-dewitt
The evolutionary model puts animals and people in the same genetic mold and
some races are more favored than others.
The Bible states
do not kill,
do not hate,
do not lie,
do not steal,
love your neighbor,
Love your enemy,
do good to those who spitefully use you
Jesus the Messiah teaches us
Matt 5:21-22
21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,* and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother,' Raca!'
shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says,'You fool!' shall be in
danger of hell fire.
---------------------------------------- NKJV
Luke 6:31-34
31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even
sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
For even sinners do the same.
34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is
that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.
---------------------------------------- NKJV
Luke 6:37
37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be
condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
---------------------------------------- NKJV
"Kill or be killed" "Survival of the Fittest" is the
motto of Darwinian Evolution. So, this is how we supposedly have come
about - by killing to survive. And if we kill our neighbor, it's just
evolution taking its course while we evolve into better beings passing along a set of genes that are more superior.
A friend of Dr. David DeWitt came from China to the United States. Later she
became a Christian and had become excited about the Chinese word for "ship"
(large boat) which is composed of characters that mean "vessel and eight
people." It does not make sense that eight people would need a ship until you
know of the story of Noah's flood. This women was reading the story of Noah when
she had come to the realization that there were 8 people in the Noah's large
boat.
Dr. David DeWitt states, "The ancient Chinese people had the knowledge of God
with them but it had been lost."
Scholars believe Job was from the
China - he was from the "East." as the Book of Job tells us within the Bible.
With Darwinian thought reigning supreme in our culture and a system of
indoctrination into this belief system being enforced within the educational
institutions, one will find students ridiculing others as less than themselves
and worthy of death. Sounds outrageous but this actually did take placd.
The Columbine High School shootings are an example and
there have been several attempts to recreate this tragedy in other schools.
It is easy to argue that the mind of crazed students cannot be blamed on
evolution. I would argue this issue since Christianity, which is undermined by
the ideology of evolution, teaches students values vastly different than the
"survival of the fittest" motto.
Rachel Scott, one of the victims at Columbine, went about being a roll model of
the good Samaritan. She spent time with handicapped students and befriended all
who would allow her to do so. She exemplified what a Christian should be. Most
startling is that this young girl was shot after responding to the murderer, who
had a gun pointed at her head at point blank range, with a resounding "Yes" to
the question "do you believe in God."
One student, Rachel, followed the precepts of her faith, while the other complied with
his. You may argue that this circumstance is rare and extreme, but the
underlying philosophy of Darwinian evolution only agreed with this disturbed child's views.
Although Hitler disagreed with "traditional religion," as he called it, he was
deeply entrenched into cultic practices. One could actually be baptized
into Nazism.
By propaganda and deception: Hitler presenting himself as a Christian. It
would be comical if not so tragic - a photo of Hitler with a cross
appearing above his head while leaving a church was circulated to win
support during his early years.
In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical
anthropologist:
"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he
has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory
of evolution."
"The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution." pp 28.
The students who went on their murderous rampage at Columbine High School chose Hitler's birthday for their
occasion. One of the boys quoted some concepts of evolutionary theory regarding
one of the students he planned to kill- a lessor being in his view we might suppose. Another wore a shirt with the statement,
"Natural Selection," printed upon it. Unfortunately, his twisted mind only found
what our society classifies as science for his premise.
Might have the premise been, "Thou shall not kill," made a difference in this
child's upbringing? Could the idea of a loving father who would die in his place
soften his pain and ultimate tragedy? Perhaps so. Rachel
believed this premise and she was willing do die for her belief. Evolution would
classify her as the weakest link. But I think you would agree she was the stronger.
God speaks to us of His love through the pen of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:3 3 The Lord appeared to us in the past,
saying:"I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with loving-kindness.---------------------------------------- NIV
Let us look at another Christian who lived her life in accordance with
Christianity's teachings. Corrie Ten Boom was a women living in
Amsterdam just before the Nazi invasion. She saw the Nazis rounding up Jews.
Her Christian instincts prompted Corrie to protect them. Eventually she was
found out as she was betrayed by one of her own countrymen.
Corrie and her sister were taken away to a concentration camp where they faced
dire circumstances. Let's look at Corrie's own words.
Corrie Ten Boom
"Our entire possessions consisted of a tin plate, a tin pot, and a wooden spoon
- virtually nothing else, not even a hair pin, wash cloth, sewing kit or
anything else... In very short time I was covered from head to toe with large,
festering wounds that were caused by filth, dog bites ...."
Quoted from 'Out of the Whirlwind' by Mark A.
Tabb. pp 182: Quoting from Carole C. Carlson, Corrie Ten Boom, Her Life,
Her Faith: A Biography 107-108
Corrie tells us if any of the women collapsed due to the harsh conditions, they
were beaten with clubs and sent off to be killed. Personally hearing stories of
how she ministered comfort to the Jewish women in this camp at risk of her own
life speaks to us of God's love for all of us and how He sent His son to die in
our place on a cross.
Corrie wanted to live out her life in accordance with scripture. Not just
because it is a nice philosophy, but because she knew Who God is due to His love
dwelling within a person who has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. This
is something the boys who went on a killing spree at Columbine did
not understand. Even if they had - on a surface level - the understanding of what
true Christianity teaches, they might have not carried out their horrific
deeds. But it takes more than a surface understanding of Christianity to follow
Christ. Much more. To put yourself on a cross as Corrie did requires a true
relationship with God. Once one experiences this love, they cannot deny it.
Corrie found her dead sister by wading through piles of corpses in a
shower room.
Corrie was confronted by the person who betrayed her and her sister, which led
to the sister's death, and had forgiven him his betrayal. This is done with
Christ indwelling the believer. This type of thing is not accomplished by good a
philosophy!
We know having a banner that says 'Christian' is no guarantee that one will
behave in any like manner. But we know from scripture Christ took all this upon
Himself. He forgives sin by taking it upon Himself. The Bible tells us He became sin who knew no
sin and died the penalty of death for our sake as we accept Him as the (our)
Sacrificial Lamb.
The whole Jewish Sociopolitical law was created to point to the Messiah and to preserve the DNA of the Seed of the Women spoken of within Genesis. Jesus says we must be born again and then we are a New Creation. Incorruptible Seed.
While Nazis found resolve in their behavior in evolutionary theory, Corrie
tells of her resolve in the Bible while she and her sister sat in a Nazi
concentration camp.
Corrie Ten Boom
"As the rest of the world grew stranger, one thing grew increasingly clear.
And that was the reason the two of us were here ...
... Our Bible was an ever-widening circle of of help and hope ...
... The blacker the night around us grew, the brighter and
truer and more beautiful burned the Word of God."
Quoted from 'Out of the Whirlwind' by Mark A.
Tabb. pp 183: Quoting, The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom with John
and Elizabeth Sherrill 179.
This is the testimony of those who know Christ as their Lord and Savior. In the
midst of all the insanity of Hitler's regime, there is peace in the world's
worst nightmare. How does this take place? It is through Christ - through
Messiah.
Jesus says in John's Gospel,
John 14:27 27 Peace I leave with you; my
peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.
Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.---------------------------------------- NIV
If evolution teaches survival of the fittest, why did Corrie do what she did?
Why were the Nazis charged with war crimes if they were just following a natural
biological function? Evolution does not supply an answer because it cannot.
Our philosophical beliefs on abortion are based on Darwinism. Falsified
schematics of what takes place in a mother's womb are in view as prominent scientific evidence that a fetus is an animal as it evolves into a human during the pregnancy period. These lies presented as support for evolution have been disproved, but the Supreme Court of the United States came to a major court battle's decision on this drawing decades after they were known to be false and proven as such in the courts. Let us ask ourselves in what way does the idea of macroevolution help support the idea of abortion - killing a baby while it is within the mother's womb. What the lawyers must have pondered and known that the Supreme court would agree to or at least imagined so, is that if a fetus / human embryo is just an animal, it would lessen the concept - the moral issue of killing a human. See, I would think the lawyers would argue, it is just an animal in development ... it is not human!
Scientist's at times lie to the public outright by claiming the concept presented as a scientific fact that has no factual base at all. This is not science but the persuasion of beliefs and ideologies. Something I do when I talk about my faith as a Christian without the lying part.
I am not making an argument against or for abortion here. I want to show people that the highest court system of the most powerful nation on Earth based a major decision on false evidence and has betrayed the public trust in doing so.
Are the courts to be blamed? Is it science that is at fault in lying to the public? Or, is this the result of an ideology that has such a blind following like a cultic phenomenon that no questions can be asked simply due to the brain-washing effect and indoctrination of people starting at the kindergarten level.
If the Supreme Court judges of the United States can be fooled,
what chances do little children have?
What chance does a child who is manipulated first to believe in Darwinism and then follow along and be led to feel that killing their baby is just like killing a 'lessor' animal?
What chances does a baby have to survive when we have been programmed to murder our children?
See the article below
"The Extinction of Defective Stocks"
"I have loved You with an Everlasting Love!"
Jeremiah 22:3 3
This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and
do not shed innocent blood in this place.
---------------------------------------- NIV
Are you influenced, as a woman - or agree as a man - that what is in your womb during pregnancy is just some lump of flesh or a frog, fish, or pig as is illustrated to students?
Is it your "right" that people want you to believe in? Can there be other motives behind abortion that Darwinism has played such a large role in and has people so fervent and fighting? There have been over 50,000,000 (50 million) abortions in the United States.
In the 1960s, the concept of the "thing" in your womb being some kind of animal
was pronounced over all the media of the day as factual and the reason for the
Supreme Court's Decision. And as noted earlier, every student sees the faulty images created by Ernest haeckel are still being used to this day of May 30th, 2021.
There are alternatives to having an abortion. You may want to
seek and counseling from Christian organizations if you are troubled about an abortion.
First and foremost God loves you and you always can ask God to forgive you.
I do not want to criticize scientists so harshly. We all want to believe
in what we have come to know as being true. Honestly, there have been people under the Christian banner that acted outrageously throughout history. These individuals were in contrast to what the Bible teaches. Those who followed Darwinism do not disagree with what this concept teaches. On the contrary, the dictators of this world use Darwinian thought to justify their carnage.
Darwin's ideology purposed the extermination of the lesser - "evolved people" - by default naturalistic laws that man and nature cannot resist. And this is a thought that should frighten everyone: murderous dictators, can envision themselves following nature's path and not have any remorse in their actions. They can pacify their conscience with Darwin's laws of the "Survival of the Fittest". But perhaps we should not forget that the rest of us lesser evolved individuals my also deem other people as "less than" such is the case with abortion. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, has been linked to eugenics and racism according to USA Today.
Kristan Hawkins; Opinion contributor
"...Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. ... In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for
"the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks
- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
There is a monument in Elberton Georgia with statements about how our world needs to be run. Dr. Kent Hovind calls them the 10 commandments of our era. They are carved in stone in 12 languages. The first one states the Earth's population should be "maintained" to no more than five hundred million. This is less than one-fifteenth the Earth's current population. I wonder how this number can be managed?
There have been those in the past that did not see the idea of the "survival of
the fittest" as being absurd. Evolution became the skeleton for the meat and
tissue of some of the world's greatest atrocities of known history. The root,
whose fruit is slavery and genocide, can be discovered in evolution's tree of
life. It is the foundation for murder and it gives death, and those who
encourage it, a foundation to stand on and salute while they carry out their
endeavors.
Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and
sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the carnage
of Hitler's Germany. His hatred of Christ and Christianity led to the mass
murder of multiplied millions worldwide. Karl Marx so revered Darwin that his
desire was to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to him.
"The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution." pp 28.
Man now has scientific reason for destroying others. It is part of natural selection
since man himself is a product of chances - his actions are not held accountable
to a God of morals. While one of the Ten Commandments states,
"Thou shalt not kill."
Evolution demands the survival of the fittest. This is natural, so accept it even if the fittest are armed with rifles and the lesser have stone tools. The so-called highly evolved men became no more than rabid animals forced to fight in a pit of false ideologies killing without conscience and without any need for survival. Literally, by Darwin's philosophy, man is no more than some kind of animal. But not only that; under Darwinian philosophy man, has a "moral" obligation to kill the week so that a finer race may not be polluted. Besides, reducing the population ensures that all life on Earth will be better off.
There was a time when men feared God, even if they did not believe too strongly whether there was one or not. In a nation where Judaeo-Christian beliefs are strong, there is a moral code to live by. And we can say to "live by not killing each other". The foundation was there for a moral right and wrong. This moral preset - truth, regardless of how rebellious people may be in following God's moral code, always made humanity aware - the conscience of God's truth and law.
So I would argue against the idea of primitive men making up the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible to explain natural phenomena.
The god men make is one where there is no moral code and sin's appetite is left unrestricted. Hence, we kill babies in the womb for sexual conveniences and of course to exercise our rights.
We wage war and genocide taking the resources of others from right under their feet. Then we place their bones in museums and illustrate them as a class of lessor being - apemen of our day.
This is the god man makes.
In Darwin's theory, the preset is, "There is no God," you are a product of chance - you can decide what is right and what is wrong to the extent of genocide according to the documented history of our past.
To be continued
It has been said that the complexity of a single cell drafts all the networks of
electrical wiring, pipes, roads, traffic lights, telecommunications, and all
that goes into making New York City due to the DNA within a living organism.
Noting that DNA is coded information that gives specific instructions on how to build proteins, one must consider how the instructions were written out. Coded information speaks of intelligent design. And this is what DNA contains - coded information that forms the building blocks of living organisms.
Anything that is alive must be given its life. It cannot create itself. We must set aside the idea of 'chance' creating life! Chance cannot create nor give life. Chance is a mathematical term and cannot create. We use the "term" in place of "God" Whom can create and is called the Creator.
But let us look into what mathematics has to say about Darwinian thought and its blind randomness.
We see the cell's existence cannot be attributed to randomness as the probabilities surpass a number that would allow for this to happen. Statisticians tell us that any number of chances up to and exceeding 1050, though the number exists, would never happen in reality. That number is depicted as 10 followed by 50 zeros.
Sir Fred Hoyle created a hypothetical 'simple' cell to demonstrate what odds are involved in a single cell organism to come into being by blind random chances. His cell is far simpler than a real one due to the complexity of an actual living cell is far too complex to numerate. He found his hypothetical cell would need 1 in 1057,800 chances for its existence to be. This is too great a number for us to comprehend.
One billion is 10 to the 9th power or 109 which is a 1 followed by 9 zeros.
The power of 57,800 is a 1 followed by 57,800 zeros! If we need 9 zeros for a billion which is too great a number to fathom as it is, what constitutes a 1 followed by 57,800?
How many atoms are there in the universe? One estimate is 1080 or a 1 followed by 80 zeros.
A school teacher asked her students how long would it take a person to count to 1 million 106 (1,000,000). The answer is 12-twenty four hour days. That is 288 hours of counting.
To count to 1 billion,109 (1,000,000,000) it would take you 32 Years or 280,506 hours.
I placed these illustrations to help our minds come to grips with the idea of how completely impossible it is for blind probabilities to place a single cell organism upon the Earth that is much simpler than any real living single cell being.
Now one must suppose besides having all things in order for a cell to be, where did its life come from? When did all the parts fit together just right so that our first living being on Earth came into existence?
So, we see at the starting point, in our simple cell, a complexity far too great to attribute a random probability to life's start where Darwinian thought says it began by "accident" - blind probabilities.
Sir Fred Hoyle was an English astronomer and mathematician noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters.
The human body contains 6 x 1013 cells
(600,000,000,000,000 = 600 trillion cells). If you were to stretch out the human
DNA, it would be 1.2 x 1014 meters (4.6 light days,
which is 73,923,840,000 miles. That is over 73.9 billion miles or
119,232,000,000, [119.232 billion].) kilometers long.
Each DNA chain is composed of links that are so small one of the most powerful
microscopes ever invented is needed in order to see one. The links are precisely
matched individually as to connect only to the proper matching individual link.
This holds true for each link for the entire length (73.9 billion miles) of the
chain.
If the data within the DNA of a human being were printed into books, it would
fill the Grand Canyon from beginning to end - top to bottom - 78 times over!
How are your random chances working out today? Do you believe mathematical probabilities
stands a "chance" in producing a human being as the proponents of evolution must
state.
Let us look at an expert's opinion on how complicated it is for statement
consisting of a few words to be produced by random chances.
Please note: This scenario is many more times complex than what is about to be
presented to you below. Although a simplified problem is presented for us, it
staggers anyone's imagination to concede the figures given. After we look at the
example, I will explain why it is infinitely more difficult to produce our
simple four-word sentence illustrated below.
Dr. James Coppadge, an expert in the science of
statistical probability, states the complications in producing the sentence
The theory of evolution,"
by chance (by mathematical probability) is so complex in and of itself that it
can never happen.
The phrase "The theory of evolution," contains 23 ordered letters and spaces.
Thus, we need to randomly pick in an ordered sequence twenty-three specific
objects out of a set of twenty-six letters of the alphabet and one "space." That
means for the first letter "t" in our phase there is a 1 in 27 chance of drawing
it. Same with all the other letters in our phrase - each has a 1 in 27 chance of
being drawn at any given time.
Now, since we need the letters and the spaces to come in a sequential order, we must multiply their separate probabilities. There are twenty-three letters and spaces to pick, and each has an individual
probability of 1 in 27, we must multiply 27 by itself 23 times (i.e. 2723).
This means we would expect to succeed in spelling our phrase by chance only one
in over eight hundred million trillion trillion trillion draws.
In several other words .., it would take "eight hundred thousand x
thousand x million x million x million x million x million x million"
tries to get our sentence - The theory of evolution - correct!
If you were to use a super computer to draw 1,000,000,000 (one billion)
tries per second, it would take 26 times 100 trillion years
(26,000,000,000,000,000 years) to produce one correctly spelled out phrase
(composed of four-words). (Dr. Coppadge does not take into consideration
capitalization or punctuation.)
Taken from the "Notes" section of Hank Hanegraaff's book, "The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution." pp 187.
Now, let us look at why the probability is far beyond this figure in producing
our sentence.
Our example by Dr. Coppadge does not take into effect that the typewriter, a way
to manufacture the print and the printing materials, ink and paper, are all
already there. Neither is the amount of energy required to do the work to
produce our sentence considered and how it is focused specifically at the task
at hand.
If all the apparatus were in place - the typewriter (one that never brakes down
and types randomly by automation - this requires intelligence), tons of printing
paper, and tons of ink that inexhaustibly feeds the typewriter automatically, we
have a setup for our hypothetical example. Coppadge does not consider upper case
letters or punctuation for simplicity sake. The point is made well enough as is.
The most important aspect is still of consideration. The DNA is a living
mechanism. The coded (lettered) instructions are upon living material. How much
more complex is this living material when compared to our paper? Again, how
complicated is our "ink" being itself a living entity that is programmed, and
again the typewriter is composed of more code itself as it has intelligence to
produce a code in its sequential and perfect order over what is an inconceivable
amount of "pages" as well as not to type illegal letters?
Please remember, our example was for a one four-word sentence composed of 23
letters. The code of the human DNA, as mentioned previously, would fill the
Grand Canyon for its entirety - 78 times with books! What probability would be
needed to come up with the proper sequence of an innumerable amount of coded
pages based on the properties just considered?
These complications prove how inconceivable it is for probability being
responsible for our creation.
Life cannot exist due to a random role of the dice.
There has to be a Creator - an Intelligent Designer.
DNA, the code itself, is a separate entity than the "ink" in our example. This
code is a specific set of instructions. These instructions have to be written
before the entity is formed. It is basically the instructions specifying what
the entity is to be. Just as if a writer composes a book based on what the
author wants to tell others, the DNA has forethought and intelligence.
The Reductionist suggests that life evolved from a single gene and grew into
forms that are more complicated. (This contradicts the law of "cause and effect"
and entropy - both are universal laws of thermodynamics.) Basically, the idea of
gene selection states that the first genes became more diversified by natural
selection and continued 'uphill' till cells evolved and cells became
multi-celled creatures. Once you realize how complex a single gene is, not alone
the complexity of a single cell, it all sounds more like science fiction, and the
idea would make an excellent science fiction theme.
Even if it were possible for genes to magically appear from primordial soup, someone had to write the instructions specifying what the gene itself would contain and additional instructions based on intelligence would have to be added in order for our gene to start on its journey.
Random selection cannot produce specific instructions. If it were to do so as some have supposed to their readers, it would be due to the intelligence doing the selecting not blind randomness. Even if you want to add an intelligent selector, randomness is what evolution is based on, you cannot create a new form - a new species of creature unless you really want to go into some sci-fi adventure based on fiction and not science.
To imagine the gene as if it could do things like dictate its survival, what
type of form it should have, and then create the ability to reproduce is beyond
any scientific reasoning. Try to imagine a machine mechanic choosing tools and
dies to create a specific item in a shop where all the tools have been created
along with the shop - would not this suggest an intelligent designer? However,
we must give our mechanic the ability to produce a machine that can create life
and that life must be able to reproduce itself and fend off hostility, and our
mechanic has to have all of these abilities as well, or the whole mechanism will
come to a halt. Scientist use this reasoning and forget themselves they are
describing intelligent design and so do their readers. This is why scientist and
the common people are misled into thinking evolution is possible. macroevolution is not possible. Micro
evolution is. (See the link below.)
Dr. Kent Hovind suggest we do not call microevolution - "evolution" due to the
confusion this title creates. I agree with Mr. Hovind and believe this is why
scientist and students are misled. Micro is a minimal change such as different
types of the same species as we see in different types of dogs, cats, mice and people.
If a DNA mutates (a mutation), the creature is more susceptible to disease.
There is no such thing as a healthy mutation that adapts to its environment and
continues mutating into a NEW species. It never has existed and will not ever.
There is such a thing as microevolution5
(a slight variation in one species such turtles being of similar species but a
different color. some species of horse may be swifter, larger, and so on), but
never has an animal change from one species into another due to mutation
regardless of how many years you allocate to the process in order to validate
the idea.
This would require "new information" - new coded instructions to the extent
that would "CREATE" a new species. This is impossible. A random selection, the
so-called process of evolution, does not create new species. Life itself cannot exist by any random formulation given to us by so called science not alone a mutation as true science has shown us which I have quoted above.
It has been said, "if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, we
have a fairy tail. If you kiss a frog and wait a billion years for it to turn
into a man, we have Evolutionary Theory (science)."
Dr. James Kennedy
Let's take a look at one of the components of blood. Hemoglobin. We have some
idea of how complex the DNA code is from the discussion above, but what kind of
probabilities are there in the making of hemoglobin?
Hemoglobin is composed of approximately 20 amino acids which are in succession
and repeated several times each in a special sequence in order for it not to be
poisonous. The total successive number is 574 amino acids 'long.' Glycine is
used 36 times for instance. The total number for our 20 some odd number of amino
acids is 574. What are the chances that something could go wrong?. The use of
each amino acid must be in a proper position in our chemical composition of
hemoglobin and the use of each one must be the correct number of times. This is
called 'specificity' and there is a mathematical formula that tells us how
precise the manufacturing of hemoglobin, in our example, has to be.
Earlier we seen numbers like 2723, which equals an
impossible number to grasp - over eight hundred million trillion trillion
trillion. What is the number of things that can go wrong in the making of
hemoglobin? The number is 10650.
In other words, out of 10650, you have '1' (11)
chance in getting a proper sequence without dying. It is a matter of life and
death. It is done correctly, for those of us that are here, 10650
times for each molecule of hemoglobin.
I think you should thank God because you would not stand a 'chance!'
There is a number that mathematicians use regarding probabilities. Any number
requiring 1050 is absurd or impossible in
statistical occurrences by random chance. (Borel's Law.)
Just to give some perspective on these numbers, if you accept the multi-billion
year age of the Earth, there are 1018 seconds in the
history of the universe.
Other examples:
Atoms in the galaxy 1066
Subatomic particles in the galaxy 1080
The point being made here is that 'life' is by deliberate design and not
randomness. Science does not allow such numbers to work out by chance. It is by
intelligent design that mankind exist. We only looked at one variable out of so
many that goes into making a human being. We also left out the complications of
the DNA manufacturing process that is not left to randomness as well. Just to
arrive at our amino acids is an impossibility when it comes to statistics!
See further evidence on God's existence in the design of living organisms in the eight minute discussion below.
One question about life that we may all have, "is there more?" Is there more
than being born, living, and then eventually dying? Are we the product of random
chances that created a one cell animal, and the product of a continual 'lucky
roll of the dice' that spawned into mankind? Science states this is impossible.
So, is there more to the love I have felt, the anger, the joy and sadness than a
mixture of enzymes and chemicals that were mixed together by random chances? Can
all life on Earth be a lucky role of the dice? What do you believe?
Or did mother nature pick and chose (as she is depicted by scientific
documentaries to do) and play the role of an intelligent designer,
while some scientist say it's evolution and not a "designer" that is responsible
for life on Earth.
Did mother nature have me in "mind"?
A Noble Prize winning scientist have stated that not even a single living cell can
come into being. This is completely absurd and impossible, not alone a complex
entity with billions of cells.
Within the living cell are complex inter activities -
machinery designed by coded instruction of the DNA - that rival any of man's
achievements in science. Now imagine how could all of the natural world's living
entities interact with other living organisms perfectly in synchronization. How
could anyone believe that this was designed by unaided - random mathematical
probability? This cannot be the case.
Can mathematical probability create "life"
and "determine" its "survival?"
Let me give you one example of a relationship between a bug so small you could
hardly see it, a moth's ear, and a bat. The insect lives in the ear of a moth.
Bats use sonar to detect pray and keep from running into the walls of caves.
The moth has a special ability to detect bat sonar and automatically dives down
escaping death when a bat gets too close. The insects seem to "know" this and do not live in both
of the moth's ears giving the moth a better chance of survival, which in turn
guarantees the insect's survival as well. These insects live out their lives in
one ear on each moth. Needless to say, scientists have said evolution has done
this in their misguided observation.
Science says not even one cell in the bug could appear on its own not alone the
bug. Now consider how complex the moth must be compared to the bug that is so
small it could live in the moth's ear, and, once again, the bat and its ability
to use sonar. Was the sonar developed due to mathematical chances and the
surrounding environment? How did the moth learn to adapt to the bat's sonar? How
many times - 'chances' of bat sonar bouncing of the moth occur before the moth grew
wise and installed anti sonar weaponry? When did mother nature say enough is
enough and give the moth the ability to survive? How did mother nature come to a
conclusion - as she is animated in nature documentaries, or what mathematical
probability is needed so only bugs that would not completely deafen the moth
survive. Was there a coded instruction in the DNA that eventually survived in
uneaten bugs that dictated the bugs survival? Could there have been a gene in
the moth that says, "let's live out our lives in one ear of this fat juicy moth
so she can get away from the bat's sonar?" This is all absurd. Believing the DNA
code existed by probability is completely ridiculous.
This is what the evolutionist tell us in different words, and I am sure they do
not realize. It seems to flow so smoothly and naturally that you can visualize
this taking place. This is why good scientist with good intentions tell us
evolution is a fact. This is why textbooks are written in such a way to indoctrinate you and
train you to use your imagination when it comes to Darwinian evolution.
It just seems to make sense until you take into account how complex this really is. If you are trained in the complexities involved, a separate science altogether, you cannot believe that this is the
case.
6 "Biologists are simply naive when they
talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not
testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict
with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their
discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
7 "Scientists who go about teaching that
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling
may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota
of fact."
6 Professor Whitten (Professor of
Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.
7 Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist,
Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes,
3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page.
I hope no one is discouraged from their pursuit of the Sciences by this
discourse. We need more scientists in every endeavor imaginable. I want to point
out how easily people, regardless of their level of education, can follow a
belief system that is not true without realizing how far they have gone into the
belief or how foolish the idea is. Since microevolution is true, one can very
easily believe the misguided concepts of evolution (and out right lies in some
instances).
The surrounding "environment(s)" only make things worse for evolution. The fact
that living entities have symbiotic relationships with the world around them,
coexistence, proves that evolution is false. Instead, the public have been
brainwashed into thinking that math is our creator and designer. When we add
variables of complexity in the interactivity of the other living beings you need
more faith to believe in evolution than in God - much more faith indeed.
Evolution: A Theistic Ideology with no Scientific Base?
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations
to fit in with it."
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A
physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
Darwinian Evolution is more of a religion today in our modern understanding of
science than a theory. We are seeing scientist create false elaborations
claiming they are making discoveries. This is a crime outright. You would think
that the museums of natural history would take down the false displays, but they do not.
As we have seen with Ernest Haeckel's images, forgeries and elaborations, which do not exist
in nature, are presented to the public as science facts.
Evolution has a cultic following - a type of religion of the humanist.
Science disproves Darwinian - macroevolution. There is a battle
for how society views the world and it's the religion of our governing society
today that runs the educational systems and keeps society under this belief. This
is why truth is in exclusion at our universities today. Public education in
America is teaching students a theistic ideology that is false - a cult. This
cult makes the public a mental hostage.
A good analogy of the problem Darwinism has created is evidenced by looking at a
time in history when men believed the Earth was flat. Scientist and common
people argued for a flat world. It would seem to be true because this is
what everyone grew up believing and was told to be true. Anyone in our common
era would laugh at the argument but this was the case. One could imagine a
scientist and his colleagues arguing the matter, and teachers loosing their
positions for telling their students the Earth were round.
If you find yourself asking the question, "How can a person say such a thing
in regards to Darwinian evolution not being true, then try to envision yourself for argument's sake, as the school teacher arguing for a flat world. That might really shake your evolutionary tree but scientists are telling us the tree of evolution really needs to be turned upside down because this is what is found in the geological column.
Evolution is science and religion is a fabrication of man so we are told.
That man has evolved to his present state, we can examine the natural world and see for
ourselves with logic and deduction the truth underlying the unexplainable
aspects of our world, and concepts that have no scientific bases can be
dismissed from the processes of our inquire."
Will you look at evidence that claims evolution is a fabrication in light of the
modern advances of science? Would you be brave enough to face a world that
believes evolution is factual even if you start to realize it is false? Can you
feel an uneasy tension in your stomach as you conceptualize the aspect of
disbelieving what you have learned and accepted as being fact?
These are the implications one must face before ever making a decision to look
at the evidence. The decision is subliminally made in some instances due to
ridicule and offense one may face light of the commonly accepted belief. Some
would have to deal with students, coworker and an employer who follow Darwinism
if they were to make their new belief known to others.
There most likely be consequences to making this decision.
"The argument is not for what is true or false, but what one believes is true or
false and what others may say or think of an individual who has a concept that
is not kosher in humanistic philosophy."
Even if what is conceptually true is established to be false, it is held as
being true because the mind of the believer has committed 'their self' to the
idea. Evolution is an idea and not a scientifically proven concept. There is no
evidence for Darwinism. In the contrary, there is evidence that refutes
Darwinism throughout the world and the universe itself. However, anyone,
Christian and atheist alike, will find perceiving evolution as false will have
to fight with what their mind has been programmed to believe and fear what
others might think of them as well.
How would you feel if you loved science, had studied independently in addition to a normal schooling schedule, had a deep hunger for logical reasoning, truth, and found that there are scientists with greater educational accomplishments than you who were lying to you and everyone in the scientific community as well as to the general public? You would be shocked and taken back! You would have to question whether such statements could ever be true. As I mentioned earlier, coming across the idea that what we have been told, what we believe as individuals and as a society is false and not true is bewildering. It would be like leaving a cult. A paradigm shift in how we view the world and reality as well as ourselves and those who inform us would have to take place. A change from within ourselves first before we can ever reconcile what is factual and what is not. A very difficult task to undertake indeed, but this is what is required when trained men of science are unprofessional and dishonest. Or we can say when morality, in general, does not matter in a society we have deception and not truth.
This is what people go through when they come out of a cult. They need to be gently dealt with by people who are trained in cult extraction due to being told such and such is true without any regard to true scientific research. It is one thing to have some speculation; quite another to disregard contrary evidence completely. There is a big difference between indoctrination and scientific research and what is true and what is false. I mention this to prove to you that it is much easier to accept the idea that has been presented to us as true once we as individuals and as a society have come to believe it as true. We cannot ever question these ideas because it would be absurd to do so. Besides, we may believe the information is coming from universities where fairness in expression and ideas are prominent and the search for truth is unbiased. How nice that would be, and how nice it would be when it comes to simple things like lying outright is never done.
I know as I write this we can apply this to any religious endeavor and study. One thing I will mention again is that being a Bible believer does not mean you never fail. Just the opposite is true. We believe in Christ (Messiah) due to our failure to be able to appease God as we see in the Bible. You might think I am not being fair because of a conflict of interest, but I do not have a conflict of interest if I wish to present truth and truth alone, which the Bible has asked me to do. With that said I cannot lie to you and say the Bible permits me to do so because I cannot appease God anyway and Jesus (Yashua) will forgive me. That would be contrary to what is written within the New Testament.
The Bible has been put to the test as I have mentioned earlier. There is empirical scientific evidence implicating the Bible has sophistication in its literary form which is far beyond our technology to this very day using the most advanced supercomputers (Exascale). For instance, we have in chronological order the names of individuals who are significant to the doctrines we hold as true as New Testament believers within the Old testament hidden within a mathematical code. The story being told where we find this is very significant to Believers and correlates an NT doctrine. The lives of the individuals mentioned in the story outright hidden in code portray an NT belief including the interactions - lives - of the individuals we read of portraying a "play" of what is to take place in the future. The names in code have a meaning which also creates the NT doctrine. All these written hundreds of years before the hidden names in code are born and mentioned in scripture once again mentioned in chronological order. This is not coincidental! This is just one example and one code.
As we can see, there is more to follow the concept of evolution than science itself. Fairness in the teaching of the origin of life does not tolerate intelligent design because that would point to God, while the design is plain to see everywhere you look in nature.
Since there is intelligent purposeful design everywhere science looks, scientists are telling us that life was purposed on Earth from an extraterrestrial source.
One mathematician stated the fact that there are pure mathematical properties we can observe in our world and the universe - speaks in and of itself that there had to be a master mathematician. Design is everywhere you look in our Cosmos.
A Holy Grail
Evolution is holy ground for some scientists and only those who are robed in the doctrine of the faith can enter into the temple of reason and discussion while others are considered to be infidels. If a teacher expresses sound scientific reasoning to a student which may interfere with the doctrine of evolution, that individual is warned of the pending doom due to leaving the faith or is excommunicated from the university or high school immediately.
Those who need an explain away God when it comes to the
question, "where does life come from," based on their biases and not on science will not stop lying and deceiving themselves and others as well. I keep using the word' lying' because scientists know that there is no such thing as the ape-men and ape-women we see.
Lucy is depicted as a fashion model with a finger upon her cheek as if she is having a thought, and the back leg is extended as if walking forwardly the way a model extends her leg to portray her beauty. Lucy was a knuckle walker and had a fist that could knock out a boxer. She did not walk around like a fashion model! She walked on all fours. The find itself is filled with controversy. But instead, all we hear of is how significant the find is to the scientific community. Whenever you see an ape-man/woman monster in a textbook or museum, you will note the white eyes in the artistic rendition. No one has ever found human-white eyes in a fossil! Remember that when you look at these monsters that do not exist in nature.
Can you see a need for a moral code? Isn't there supposed to be one in the fine art of science?
Please do not miss-understand the intention here. I know science is important and we need good scientists and doctors in every field of science! I love science myself and would never want to downgrade it or its importance to humanity. Being lied to by those you entrust is bothersome - especially by those in the field of
science and education.
Those who are trained as scientist should not hide facts or destroy them when
the facts disagree with a theory. Neither should the pursuit of science be
placed under the opaque lens of evolution and forced to convert - "evolve" into
what is to be expected as oppose to true discovery.
I was taken back for several months when the thought of scientists lying to the
public was first brought to my mind. I was really shocked as a person fond of
science. It was a kind of holy grail (the search for
truth through logical deductions and honest representation) of humanity
for me and I have to say it still is, but I know man is bent by the evil of this
world due to the fallen nature of humanity.
Lying is due to the fall and is inherent in all humans whether you are
Christian, Atheist, or of any other theistic belief. We seem to really be sheep
especially in the light of how easily we can all be deceived as we are by
Darwinian Evolution.
We are shown drawings of what is supposed to be a human-like creature that is a transitional form of early humanity as apes gradually became human while the only fossil evidence found for this creature was a tooth.
This is "Nebraska Man," we are told. Not only is the elaboration completely false, (nothing else was found but the tooth, and even if primitive tools were found along with a real tooth - whatever that might be, it still would be a fancied imagined tale,) the tooth was not even close to being human. It was a pig's tooth.
So, from a pig's tooth, we have a community of fake ape-men and women living in Nebraska.
This is what our tax dollars are paying for and we are forced in the United States of America to tell our children this is science and factual. The law requires that evolution is science and that this is what ought to be taught in school and not bias religious ideologies as some have stated.
You have to wonder where the bias is and why it is there in the first place.
Allow me brake down the above story of Nebraska Man into a list (create an elaboration based on facts) so it is easier to see how bias and personal desires become the looking glass some scientist see the world through as opposed holding to what they find in nature to the public's eye.
A pigs tooth is found.
A lie is conjured stating that it is a human tooth.
A community of ape-man with their unsung wives is imagined as being in existence due to the found tooth.
Artist are hired to portray ape-man and ape-women as living in Nebraska with "life like" figures.
Museums purposely keep the false displays decades after the facts are reviled and the truth is known while millions of viewers continually gaze in awe at the half ape - half human figures.
Textbooks continue to elaborate, create fictional tales to aid - "brain wash" the children's imagination by visualization.
The discovery is brought to the attention of the public, "Nebraska Man (Why no mention of Nebraska Woman?) - The American missing link is found."
This discovery has a ring of patriotism as well since these make believe creatures are Nebraskan.
You and your children are brainwashed by these lies into believing that humanity ascended from the ape.
The youth become adults and are completely indoctrinated .
Our teachers, doctors, scientist, and parents "educate" the next generation.
Now those young minds mature into adulthood and teach students including their very own children these false concepts of origin.
The evolutionary cycle of Lies continues to evolve from generation to generation.
As science evolves every area of science must be brought under the scrutiny of the Lie.
The Lie is supreme over all science and the first commandment is given!
"Thou shalt not undermine the Lie with truth."
Laws are passed to make sure the Cult of Lies continues to be taught.
Any other scientific evidence that does not support the Lie is disregarded.
Laws are passed stating that no scientific data that contradicts the Lie can be shown to students.
Amen
Apes probably do not lie unless devious scientist train them in some way to do so.
Piltdown Man 1912:
Another relic of Darwinian evolution. A creature that never existed. It took the "noble" scientist 40 years of hiding the supposed evidence from the prying eyes of investigation before the fraud would be exposed to the public. It is amazing that this is not hidden from the public even till this day. Haeckel's drawings are still used to deceive the public in academia though they were found to be fraudulent in a court of law here in the States. The hoax began in 1912 and it wasn't till 1953 that the public was made aware of it. But I'm sure as always the hoaxes are not expressed in academia for what they are once the truth is known. They taught Piltdown man as one of the missing links in man's evolution for four decades. But the hoax I am sure received far less mention in all arenas of media and education.
So, what was this supposed evidence? The scientist said they had found a piece of jaw, two molar teeth and a canine toot, and a piece of skull. From these imagined fragments the Illustrated London News ran this article as it was deceived as well:
The Illustrated London News 28th Dec. 1912, pp. 4-5.
"A Discovery of Supreme Importance to All Interested in the History of the Human Race,"
"The confident interpretation states that he is 500,000 to 1,000,000 years old.
"no possible doubt but that they represent, ... a man who must be regarded as affording us a link with our remote ancestors, the apes."
Let me add here a news flash.
"A Complete Fraud and Lie brought to you by the World of Science."
The Natural History Museum of London had these supposed bones and when scientists wanted to examine the bones, the museum offered plastered cast of the "bones" That does not sound reasonable. Could the museum been disingenuous as well? The "HOAX" involved Leading British Scientist.
So, what is it that makes this photo so interesting? Let us once again examine the fake evidence. We have a piece of skull, three teeth, and a piece of a jawbone. From that we have an elaboration of a full bodied creature. This creature is depicted as being half man and half animal. He also has a tool in his hand though no tools were faked into existence by the scientist. What do we know about the evidence? it is all fake. Four decades of academia brain washing, indoctrinating the public including the future scientists into a cult.
This is how cults work ladies and gentlemen, not those entrusted as scientists whom you would expect some character and nobility when it comes to truth.
It seems man needs religion and has to have a hope in finding answers to questions. Humanity seems to have an unquenchable thirst for answers and as we can see from our discussion that science is more like a religion built on personal wishes and personal ideas rather than the evidences found in nature.
I have created an elaboration on facts so your mind can realize how cults work and how powerful they are in transforming your belief system and that of the entire world.
It would probably take years of undoing the damage of lies that academia have portrayed on the public.
I have to say it is the fear of the true God - the God of the Bible that men
need to create an imaginary god called evolution. It has been stated the man
creates god out of fear and ignorance, But as you are seeing, this is what
evolution is. It is to replace a God who demands morals and who hold us
accountable. The god man creates is the one of his own choosing and Darwinian evolution is the religion of science.
It is there to replace the God we find in the Bible. I am so glad I do not have to have a blind faith as
we must do within the Darwinian paradigm. The faith we have as Christians is based in truth as it has proven true to the test of time
and the scrutiny of skeptics and searchers of truth for thousands of years.
One need not fear the God of the Bible. Christian know this God to be so loving
that He gave His only Son to die for your sins so that you do
not have to worry about spending eternity in hell due to your natural
weaknesses. God knows we fail daily. We cannot earn God's acceptance due to the fall. But we are accepted if we accept God. God has deemed that we must accept His only begotten Son. I thought before hand I could never do that. One day I just accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and the internal love I experience is something I could never reject or deny.
Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs
James Hutton 1727 - 1796:
James Hutton stated the Earth to be older then what people believed, moreover,
he concluded the Earth's age to be millions of years old. He has been called the
father of modern geology. His book, "The Theory of the Earth" expounded
on an old Earth concept.
During the seventeen hundreds, most people believed the Bible or were strongly
influenced by Christianity. People believed the world was six thousand years
old. This was the common teaching of the day.
There were several revolutions going on during this era as well, which did not
favor some biblical teaching due to statements found in the Bible such as,
"honor the king."(1 Peter 2:17)
People interpreted this as being an obstacle to their objectives. This era was
known as "The Age of Anti-Monarchy."
The Age of
Anti-Monarchy
American Revolution: 1776
Polish Revolution 1831
French Revolution 1789
Italian Revolution 1848
Spanish Revolution 1823
German Revolution 1848
James Hutton suggested the concept of uniformitarianism. This idea suggest
(presumes) that the present conditions on Earth always existed as they are
perceived currently and erosion takes place slowly. This laid the groundwork for
the idea of "gradual change," a concept that came to bear on Darwinian Evolution
(1859).
Mark R. Rushdoony
Even by the rationalism that receives its justification in evolution, origins of matter and life cannot be subject to the empirical method. It is history, and is no longer observable, measurable, or reputable.
Views of origins are dependent on faith, and one's position speaks much as to one's religious tenants. Each faith will seek to exclude the other, for the fates are mutually exclusive.
The Mythology of Science: Mark R. Rushdoony, p: 3 ISBN 1-879998-26-2
Another individual, "Charles Lyell" came along and wrote a book called, "The
Principles of Geology."
Charles Lyell stated he wanted to "free the sciences from Moses." He also had a
hatred for the Bible and his writing indicated his bias. Lyell is mostly
accountable for the invention of the geological column.
The column is divided and given names, age, and an index fossil.
Remember, Lyell's mission was to divert people from viewing nature in light of
the Bible text. His hostility toward Christianity is shown in the book he
published as well as letters he wrote to colleagues.
Lyell created these columns based on his prejudice toward the concept of a God
created world. Further along on this page you will read comments by scientist
who question the columns existence.
Lyell's column is imaginary. Yet, it is taught to students today as factual. To
further the folly of lies, ages were determined for each layer in the column by
Lyell before there were any of the following dating methods.
Carbon dating
Potassium Argon dating
Rubidium strontium
Lead 206
Lead 208
Uranium 235
Uranium 238
Mark R. Rushdoony
The culmination of processes in control by scientific man of various aspects and phases of processes so that evolution is to be guided and controlled, life is to be created, minds invented as tools of the new gods, human minds shaped and directed by the gods of science from chemistry, and society itself made into a great machine in which man, economics, education, sexual reproduction and all else are made subservient to predestination by scientific controls.
The Mythology of Science: Mark R. Rushdoony, p: ISBN 1-879998-26-2
Thus, there was no scientific method for knowing what age the fossils were. Without any scientific reasoning whatsoever backing up Charles Lylle's ideas proves that the layers were never dated correctly if there ever has been such a possibility to do so in the first place. The promotion of an old Earth is due to religious biases and political agendas.
Carbon dating was invented in 1949
Carbon dating is used five or six times on one specimen in some instances to produce a number that matches the geological column's indication of age. In other words, numbers conformed are to an ideological concept, "an old Earth" that has no bases in scientific methods or facts.
DVD # 7 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs
A group of scientist wanted to come up with a formula to see when the Earth
would reach a state of equilibrium concerning carbon 14 (14C)
- when the amount of 14C forming and the amount of
14C decaying would become equal. They estimated it would take 30,000 -
years to accomplish this and by their estimates of an old Earth this happened
millions of years ago.
However, scientist found that 14C is forming faster
by as much as 37% than what they estimate the decay rate to be.
This proves scientifically the Earth to be younger than 30,000 - years
old.
What would be your conclusion if you believe the world to be millions of years old, having an education in the traditional views, then finding out there are competent scientists who say the Earth is very young compared to your teaching? Would you be the "odd fellow out" in society for even suggesting that the Earth may not be as old as some say? What if you were an educator concluding that the world is young? How would you feel and react to the textbooks speaking of an old Earth? Would you be reprimanded for your view? Would your ideas be tolerated if you should speak them out?
Dr. Missler discuses the Science behind a Young Earth
If our modern dating methods do not work, how can you tell the Earth's age?
Do you go back to the time when science depended on speculation and agree with
Charles Lyell? Would you point out the concept of an old Earth as incorrect and say this proves the Earth has to be younger than 30,000-years. Or, would you block out the data from your memory and religiously hold to an old Earth theology?
Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster then it is decaying.
R.E. Tailor et al., "Major revision in the Pleistocene
Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass
Spectrometer,"American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140
The geological column was a complete deception. It does not exist. There was
no scientific method available to date fossils, layers, rocks or anything else
for that matter. It was invented by a man who had a religious bias and today it is called science!
The geological column was the product of bias and prejudice and not science. Not only were the "old Earth" philosophies empty of science, the science developed in more recent times, which are in use to indicate the age of an item, is riddled with flaws. Scientists pick a number to suit the need at the particular instance,
which has to conform to a theory. A "religion"? Darwinian Evolution. So, scientists validate the research as being correct once figures arrive, which consolidate their ideas then disregard all other results that disagree with the bias imposed by Darwinian philosophy.
One has to understand here that:
Theories are supposed to be upheld by evidence.
You do not disregard evidence in order to keep a theory alive.
You do not create false evidences to uphold faltering theories.
You do not lie to the public and educate people to believe in an idea that is false unless you want them to have an ideology you prefer.
Darwinian Evolution: An ideology within academia rooted in deception, lies and the apostilization of
students/society into a cult.
Half of all carbon dating results are disregarded simply because they
contradict a theory.
Biases toward the idea of "a created world" have turned honest scientific inquiry into a fifty percent gamble. The odds stacked against any truth and free scientific discovery. Any scientific discoveries pointing away from Darwinism will never be reported in academia or any media publication.
Has that thought struck you yet? Can you imagine what you have been told as a child - that there was such a thing as Darwinian evolution- and are now finding out it was a complete lie. The "idea" that the Earth's age is millions of years old is a biased - philosophical concept, created by a man who had a bias against creation/intelligent design—the old-age Earth concept faltering under cosmological studies as well.
"The Unexamined Life is not worth Living."
"Socrates was condemned on the basis of his thought and teaching.In his "The Apology of Socrates," Plato recounts him mounting a spirited defense of his virtue before the jury but calmly accepting their verdict. It was in court that Socrates allegedly uttered the now-famous phrase, "the unexamined life is not worth living."
....On his last day, Plato says, he "appeared both happy in manner and words as he died nobly and without fear." He drank the cup of brewed hemlock his executioner handed him, walked around until his legs grew numb and then lay down, surrounded by his friends, and waited for the poison to reach his heart"
Sadly, there is another poison that we are all made to drink. It's not a mixture that you can find in a jar, but instead, it is a concept that has no bases in reality and plagues our minds. How valid are Socrates' words to this day? How meaningless does life become in the mixture of a primordial soup that never existed nor could ever harbor any life? What decisions do societies conceive in a world with no meaning? Is this why science is searching the heavens for "life"? We want to find the rhyme and reason for our existence. Darwin has given none. Yet nature declares that there is intelligent design. The Bible tells us, "The Heavens declare the glory of God."
The scientists tell us a post-human created the universe. They know there must be a "creator". No scientist can avoid the design issue. Everything they see and touch with their experiments speaks of design.
If you are a professor teaching the topic, what would you think? Whether you care for what the Bible has to say or not, you certainly do not want to introduce any lies to your students. And I would think you do not want to hold back evidence that contradicts any theory. Nevertheless, what can you possibly do? You do not necessarily need to teach Judaeo-Christian beliefs. But you would have to agree with Darwinism, or it may cost you your job and career as an educator.
The numbers indicate the age of the layers within the column result from the imaginary processes of an embittered mind against a Biblical view, which Charles Lylle stated in writing.
Truth has no place when bigotry and dishonesty are fossilized into the thinking process of educated men. Thus, we can estimate having an education does not necessarily mean moral grooming of one's character.
And we can say that macroevolution does not do much grooming of one's character either. For anyone to produce moral behavior, one must stand on Holy ground, as it were. Macroevolution does not produce
moral character, nor does it induce it. Just the opposite (The Selfish Gene). So, while one can argue that they can produce good deeds and genuine love without being a Bible believer, they invoke Biblical principles, not Darwinian ideology.
The Bible teaches us that one must be born again to become a new creation. Jesus tells us His followers are not of this world.
Jesus is considered the Second Adam according to Rabbi Shaul, who wrote most of the New Testament. What convincing evidence can we speak of regarding this rabbi? Well, before His conversion, the Bible tells us he was the biggest threat to the early church. It is estimated thousands of Christians were executed by the Apostle Paul (Rabbi Shaul) before his miraculous conversion.
https://biblehub.com/bsb/acts/9.htm
We do find layers in the Earth, but the idea that the column indicates animals lived in one layer simultaneously and not in any of the others is nonsense. Scientists find human remains in layers dated (supposedly) hundreds of millions of years before man arrived on Earth. Animals that died tens of millions of years ago, which have developed into other creatures through natural selection, are found still alive today! This suggests that the Darwinian evolutionary process is not working if one were to believe in such fabrication in the first place. If an animal turns into another creature as the macroevolutionary process suggests, then there cannot be relics of the creature's previous 'type' still alive today.
Dr. Kent Hovind states
"The only place you will find the geological column is in the textbooks. It
really does not exist in the natural world. Trilobites are considered "good"
index fossils. If you find one in a layer, that layer should be 500 to 600
million years old. The only problem is that a fossilized human footprint has a
trilobite imprinted below it. The person wearing a shoe stepped on one and the
whole impression fossilized. According to secular reasoning, people did not
start wearing shoes until ten thousand years ago."
Reader's Digest, "Mysteries of the Unexplained" pp 38
So, we find evidence in the fossil record that tells us our dating methods are wrong. How can a trilobite be found under a modern shoe? The whole idea of the column as an indication of Earth ages and the periods that creatures live in has no place in the evidence presented.
"....trilobites serve as excellent index fossils, enabling geologists to date the age of the rocks in which they are found."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
"Trilobites are a group of extinct marine arthropods that first appeared around 521 million years ago, shortly after the beginning of the Cambrian period, living through the majority of the Palaeozoic Era, for nearly 300 million years. They died out at the end of the Permian, 251 million years ago,"
https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/what-were-trilobites
Directly above, we find a report online and educational material everywhere that students digest as they progress through their schooling.
The students are indoctrinated into believing science and Earth history as accurate, while the truth is we have scientific proof that our dating methods lead to a false system.
Below is a scientist telling us that the find just discussed above, "...trilobites serve as excellent index fossils" is not valid. Therefore, using the geological column as a dating method is a fallacy.
"I have here something that pretty much destroys the entire geological column. I don't know if you can see this or not, but it has been studied by three laboratories around the world and it's been tested and found valid."
"....The man was digging for trilobites, and these are trilobites here and here embedded [pointing]. This is a brick mold of a trilobite footprint [laughter] of a human footprint with a trilobite in it. The man stepped on a living trilobite, [thus burying] him in the mud. This particular strata is dated Cambrian, supposedly 500 million years extinct before man arrived on the face of the Earth. The interesting thing about this photograph is that there is also heel marks, which would indicate that they were made by modern man."
Trilobites are still alive today and are found in various locations on Earth.
Regarding the geological column, A 1939 textbook states, "Unfortunately, no such
column exist."
Earth Science pp 326:
Trilobite eyes have the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature
Lisa Sawver: Science News Feb 1974 pp 72
The eyes of early trilobites ... have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity...
Stephen J. Gould: Natural History Feb 1984 pp 23
Stephen J. Gould is a famous evolutionist who is not a religious
Christian or religious Jew.
How can one of the earliest life forms have the most sophisticated eye lenses? Early life forms are supposed to be primitive and not complex. Complexity speaks of design - purposeful design. Finding complexity in early life forms contradicts the concept of natural selection on the Darwinian level and species evolving into higher life forms. We know today that what Darwin considered simple is very complex. Everything natural is far more complicated than anything humanity has devised. That complexity starts before we have a single cell.
Scientists use "index fossils" to tell how old the layers are in the geological column and use the column to suggest the age of the fossils. Can you see the fault in circular reasoning? Add the fact that index fossils that have been used to date the strata as being millions of years old are still alive today.
Strata are dated by the fossils, then the fossils are dated by the strata.
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of
rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks."
[J.E. Rourke, The American Journal of Science 1976,
276:51]. {Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD on Creation: "Lies in the Textbooks"}
I hope this did not get by you. Let us go over what we have discussed here.
There was no scientific method available to give us an age at the time of the geological column's invention.
The propagator of the geological column was bigoted and had personal motives, as one can tell from his book and letters to colleagues.
The political correctness during the era when the geological column came into existence has prerequisite people away from the Bible's world view, so the old Earth concept was promoted.
The numbers for the given "time" within each column were created out of a bigoted imagination - no scientific method was available.
Therefore, dating of the geological column is a complete farce with no bases in science.
The column does not even exist as some scientists are suggesting.
Even if the column existed, the method scientist are using is based on circular reasoning - not science.
Index fossils tell us the date of the non-existing column.
The non-existing column tells us the age of fossils.
Fossils of creatures that date the column being hundreds of millions of years old are alive today.
Radioactive dating would not even be possible if some imagined numbers were not first given to the testers, which coincide with the imagined evolutionary tree of species.
"Radioactive dating would not be possible if the geological column had not been
erected first"
[O'Rourke, J.E. "Pragmatism verses Materialism in
Stratigraphy," The American Journal of Science Vol 276 pp 54: January 1976,]
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}
Niles Eldredge, one of the most famous evolutionist alive today states,
"Paleontologist cannot operate this way. There is no simple way to look at a
fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes
from. And this posses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their
fossils, how then can we turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary
change through time in the fossil record?"
Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of
Darwinism Evolution and the Theory of . New York Simon
and Shaster: 1985 pp 52.
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and
Answers"}
The lower leg of a mammoth was dated as being 15,380 years old while its skin
was dated as being 21,300 years old.
Harold E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural
History, Sept, 1949, p 300, {Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}
Which number do you think is correct? If one of them is wrong, the other should be correct. How do we know any "one" of the numbers given is correct? There is no real way to tell. Assuming that the lower number is correct, the difference is 5,920 years. That is 2.6 times off the mark. If the greater number is correct, we are off 3.6 times off. These are serious mistakes when it comes to math. The layperson may not see this right away. Imagine saying 2 times 5 = 26
or 36, for that matter. The scale of this mistake on this ratio.
Remember this test in on the same specimen.
Below are a few more errors Dr. Hovind points out to help convince you that what you have believed to be scientific facts are fraudulent tales.
In 1963 a living mollusk was tested and found to be 2,300 hundred years
old.
If a carbon 14 dating matches the given theory, we put the data in the main text; if not, we put the finding in a footnote. If it contradicts the Darwinian theory of evolution, we disregard the results.
They pick and choose numbers that fit the imaginary column dated by Charles Lyell and his biases. This bias becomes the culture's bias. As the culture becomes enamored with ideas, whether they are called religion or science, society rejects all else that contradicts the predominant view.
In 1971, a freshly killed seal was found to be 1,300 years old.
In 1984, a living snail is dated as being 27,000 years old.
A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronological Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the
most advanced techniques to date human fossils.
Last spring he was reevaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s
by testing sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an
ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000
years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher
kept making the same startling find:
the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possible no more than 27,000
years - a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans.
This article is saying that there is a mistake somewhere. There is more than one mistake here.
The "erectus" creature was never dated properly.
It may not have ever had any relation to mankind.
The creature was living along with modern humans which it supposedly evolved into.
The advanced techniques are failing miserably as did the older ones.
How many mistakes have there been with whatever testing method used before?
Half of the dates calculated using carbon 14 are rejected. How do they know the "half" disregarded are incorrect? How do they know the "half" kept are valid?
Half of all test results are thrown away. Can there be something wrong with this method?
The next time you see a newspaper article proposing some find of antiquity regarding the age of the Earth, will you question its validity? Of course, the paper will be reporting the scientist's find, but can you trust what is said?
It is either heads or tails when it comes to 14C
dating. Evolution is the theory, therefore; heads evolution wins; tails evolution wins due to the biases in the science. They get rid of all of the other evidence that does not support the theory.
Let us look at how Carbon 14 (14C) Dating works.
These notes directly below were taken from Mike Riddle's DVD "Dating Fossils and
Rocks." Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author
Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope. It decays into Nitrogen 14. The amount of time
it take for half a volume measure of 14C to turn
into 14N is considered a "half life." That length
of time is 5,730 years.
Only organic material can be tested with the 14C
dating method. Living organism ingest 14C until
they stop living. Thus, the decay and none replenishing of
14C gives us with an idea of the time an organism died. So, after 5,730
years, half the 14C is gone from our specimen.
Two half lifes will give us half of a half which is a quarter of the original
14C level.
14C is constantly being reproduced in our
atmosphere, so, it is always being replenished. This insures us that we have a
certain measure of 14C in our atmosphere we can
work with. 14C is ingested by plants and animals
as they breath air, drink water, and eat food.
Rocks cannot be dated with the 14C method.
Equilibrium: How The Carbon 14 Clock Works in Dating Organic Matter:
The longer a specimen lies around, the more 14C
decays and we find less in the test sample. After 60,000 years, all of the
14C should be gone. So, after 60k, we can no longer use
14C testing.
There are two items we need to know in order to use 14C
testing.
1: the amount of 14C in the specimen at death
2: the rate of removal of 14C ... this is the
half life
We use Carbon 12 which is stable - 12 protons and 12 neutrons.
12C does not change - does not decay
We must assume that the ratio of 12C to
14C has stayed the same throughout history in order for us to use the
14C as a dating method. The ratio is 'one' 12C
atom to 'one trillion' 14C in the atmosphere, so as
long as a specimen is alive, it will maintain this ratio. Once a thing dies,
plant or animal, The ingesting stops and the 14C
continues to decay while the stable 12C remains at
the same quantity.
The differential in the ratio of 12C and
14C gives us an idea of the age of a specimen as the half life of
14C is known.
Since 14C is decaying constantly, it has to be
replenished. Remember 14C is not stable and tends
to decay to 14N. It has to be replenished at a rate
that will equal the rate of its decay or our ratio will not be 1 to
1,000,000,000,000, (1012) the replenishing
and decay rates must reach an equilibrium.
That is to say how long will it take for 14C to
build in the atmosphere to a point where it remains constant. Starting with no
14C in the atmosphere in a young Earth, it has been estimated it would
take 30,000 years for the decay and formation of 14C
to become equal.
But the fact is, the 12C is out of sync with
14C - there is no equilibrium. 14C is being
created at a great percentage faster than it is decaying. Thus our 1 to 1012
is not a valid ratio. We have no way of knowing how old any creature or plant is
due to this discrepancy as far as carbon 14 dating goes.
The founder of 14C dating, Libby Willard, just
chalked it up as a mistake in his calculations and left it out of the equation
completely. This is a bias move. Science must remain unbiased or it is not
science but manipulation of the public and its funds as we pay for the research
with our tax dollars.
As we can see from the slides above, several factors affect Carbon 14 levels.
These factors fluctuate throughout the Earth's history leaving only speculation
to the the ratio of
12C to 14C in the
specimens that are tested.
An illustration should help here. Let us say you walked into a room where there
are several candles burning. Each one is at a different height but all are made
of the same material and are exactly the same. The only observation you can make
is that they are at various heights and all immediate factors are similar.
They are different heights so you know they were lit at different times (similar
to specimens dying at different periods in history). after calculating the burn
rate by observation, you can determine a time when each candle was lit. But, if
each candle is a different length to start with (specimens dying at various
periods) and each encased in its own air supply exposing the candles to
different levels of oxygen (different environmental conditions), you could not
determine the time each one was lit unless you knew all the other conditions
first and had some previous calculations for these measurements.
This is what happened to our 14C method. The
environmental conditions changed and we do not have any method for determining
these changes or how they affected the production rate of
14C.
People are so conditioned into believing that evolution is true they cannot see
the scientific evidence. Do you still doubt that evolution might not be a valid
theory? If you doubt what you are reading, please research where people are not
afraid to speak out. Not believing in evolution is akin to blasphemy in
religious circles due to the blind following and conditioning we have all
received in our process of getting an education.
The amount of Carbon 12 buried within the Earth is around 100 times what is
presently found in our biosphere. The ratio goes from 1 to 1012
to as high or perhaps higher than 1 to 31 x 1012.
That equals to a 3200% differential!
These discrepancies will give the illusion of a much older specimen than what
the age of the specimen actually is.
We know that the assumption that the biospheric inventory of
14C has remained constant is NOT TRUE
Elisabeth K. Ralf and Henry M. Michael
"Twenty Five Years of RadioCarbon Dating,"
American Scientist, Sep/Oct 1974 Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author
We know that it takes approximately 60,000 years for 14C
to decay to a level of non detection. Thus, any specimen that does not contain
14C should be older than 60,000 years. Coal is made of carbon so it is a
non organic specimen we can use 14C dating methods
on. it is presumed on old age Earth theories that coal takes millions of years
to form. We are finding coal with detectable amounts of 14C.
Fossil wood specimens were estimated to be 200 million years old still contain
14C. Nothing over 60 thousand plus years should contain
14C. That wood cannot be that old.
Why was this wood presumed to be so old in the first place? Whatever else was
dated within the area of the fossil wood must not be dated correctly either. We
are being mislead and told outright lies in order to support Darwinian
evolutionary theory and keep funding of these projects in order.
Newer advanced techniques are placing human fossils in a much earlier position
in history. As a matter of fact the findings below are putting these human
remains within the Biblical model.
In a "Nature" magazine article, we read about the dating of volcanic ash being
approximately 230 million years old. The dating method is Potassium Argon. This
method, according to theory, should be excellent for dating volcanic ash due to
the "clock" being reset by the intense heat of the volcanic activity. Thus, when
this ash forms, it is effectively at zero age on the time scale. The only
problem is that human remains were found in the ash and according to evolution,
humans could not have been alive 230 million years ago. Can there be something
wrong with the dating method? Is the evolutionary theory in question here? Can
we save both theory and method by stacking the cards in favor of both? Sure we
can, and this is what is done over and over again to salvage a false theory and
method that fail continually.
Nature: April 18, 1970, p 226
The remains looked, and more than probably are, human - not ape-man -
"bluff beings" that are fudged into existence by artist. This was not a
burial but a body that died in ash way to old to hold such remains according to
the geological column.
After the startling find, scientist decided they needed a new number. So, they
took more samples and came up with a winning ticket of 2.5 to 0.5 million years
old.
This number helps keep the false theory of an old Earth and the evolutionary
process alive in our modern day. However, I am afraid one day we will read of
the demise of false scientific practices and philosophies. This shows the whole
concept of animals living in certain periods and evolving into others as being a
farce. There is no doubt that different animals lived at different times on
Earth but the concept of evolution has no scientific bases outside of the
faltering scientific methods that are in use to prop the faltering concept.
Math and physics is real science. When you use these tools to support a false
concept, you have miss calculations and failure after failure.
These sciences are real, but they are being used to beat a dead dog "evolution"
back to life. Evolution is the missing link in the fossil record. You can look
all you want, you will never find it there.
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily that erupted in 1964 AD, was dated using potassium
argon dating methods was found to be 700,000 years old.
Mt. Etna's 1972 eruption gave an age of 350,000 years.
Impact # 307, January 1999, ICR.org
A lava flow from a Hawaiian volcano that erupted in 1801 AD was dated to be
1,600,000 years old.
Funkhouser and Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, July 15,
1968, p 4601.
The Mt. Saint Helen eruptions of 1980 was tested and given 5 dates ranging from
350,000 to 2,800,000 years old.
Impact # 307, January 1999, ICR.org
Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (A.D. 1959) was dated using potassium argon
dating methods which gave an age of 8,500,000 years old.
Impact #37, January 1999
The hypothesis of potassium argon dating, as Dr. Kent Hovind points out, is
"Tests on samples of known age do not work"
And
"Samples of unknown age are assumed to work once a number comes up that fits the
assumptions."
A zinc and silver vessel was found in solid rock that was dated to be
600,000,000 years old. This date precedes man by hundreds of millions of years
according to the dating methods used.
Reader's Digest, "Mysteries of the Unexplained" pp 46
A hammer was found in 1934 at New London Texas. It was embedded in rock and
surrounded by seashells. The seashells were dated to be 400,000,000 years old.
Carl Baugh Museum
Not only is the dating off, but the technology of the material is far advanced
in comparison to what a construction worker can find in a local hardware store
in this day and age. A notch was cut into the hammer with a file back in 1934.
The area cut has not rusted to this date. It is a type of stainless steal.
Scientist speculate the material of the hammer was constructed under a magnetic
field several times more powerful than the Earth's present one.
The Lobed finned fish is another index fossil. It is said to date the strata
from 325 to 410 millions years ago and it is pointed out to students that one
can see the lobed fins turning into limbs. This species is prominent in creating
the illusion of fish going from water to land and becoming the first land
creatures.
The only problem with this lie is that these fish are still alive today. The
imagined concept that is perpetuated as truth is nothing but an outright lie.
There is no scientific evidence that this ever happened. Even if the fish were
extinct, one could argue the point made here very effectively.
Anglers are catching the lobed finned fish today. Someone should tell them they
are eating their great ancestor.
What does this do to those who put their faith in the geologic column? Since the
fish is still alive today, the following has to be true.
Since any concept of the fishes demise is completely
removed, the fish cannot date the geologic column. The fish could be found on
your dinner plate, therefore; it cannot date the strata.
Neither can the strata date the era of any creature found
within it since this was considered an index fossil.
The era of creatures supposed to have lived within the time
frame imagined before this fish was caught alive has removed any idea of
creatures evolving into higher life forms. Natural selection is not working in
Darwinian thought - macroevolution.
No evidence has ever been found of any transitional forms
anywhere on Earth for the past hundreds of years. That is to say, there are no
fossils showing how this fish turned into another creature. The only place you
will find this concept is within the textbooks of our educational systems. It
does not exist in the natural world.
The story of this fish climbing on land and turning into the
first land creature is a fairy tale and not science.
Children are thought at an early age - indoctrinated - to
believe that a fish climbed on land and grew legs. They are shown photos, as you
were, that draw upon the imagination to create a mythical creature. No evidence
of this exist. Empirical evidence exists showing that this never happened
by Darwinian Theory.
The long lobbed fin fish is still alive today.
Let us continue to demonstrate what empirical evidence this 'living fossil,'
(Whenever you hear the words 'living fossil,' remember what you are about to
read.) presents to science, the educational system, and to any person mature
enough to come to their own conclusions and not sit by as a helpless child being
indoctrinated into philosophical ideas that contradict empirical science!
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
This evidence takes apart the geological column's concept
and reliability. It was considered and 'index fossil,' which makes it important
indeed.
The fish could not develop legs unless it were programmed on
the DNA level in the first place from the start. This means no evolving took
place.
Finding coelacanth alive means this type, long lobed fish,
has never climbed on land, grew legs, and became a land creature.
Each time you see a text book that illustrates a coelacanth
transforming into a land creature in any classroom, museum, or library, you are
looking at a serious problem in our scientific community to present truth.
The last statement you just read means our educational
systems are not there to tell you the truth when it comes to origins but what
someone has decided what truth is. Can you explain this to your children or is
it just fine to teach them what you have been programmed to believe?
Our educational systems are dedicated to ideas that are
presented as science facts to students while contradicting all the evidences and
empirical data.
Scientists also understand the complications of gills turning into lungs ...
another magical feat that evolves through indoctrination and brain washing but
has no bases in science.
Scientist have stated the language of the cuttlefish, a shell-less mollusk, is
advanced beyond that of human beings. Mollusks are considered lower than fish on
the evolutionary scale. The cuttlefish communicates by varying its color
patterns in rapid succession. If fish are lower than man and mollusk lower than
fish, how does this mollusk has such a sophisticated capability?
Science is bending into whatever shape evolutionary philosophy determines as to
direct one away from the Bible and its teaching specifically. You have to go
back as to why the concept of 'no God' is so appealing and a God who demands
morality is so unappealing.
"[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Sir Julian Huxley http://thinkexist.com/quotes/sir_julian_huxley/
Julian Huxley British biologist (1887 - 1975)
A grandson of T.H. Huxley, Julian Huxley was born in London and graduated in zoology from Oxford University in 1909. He did research on sponges (Porifera) at the Naples Zoological Station (1909â€"10) before taking up the post of lecturer in biology at Oxford (1910-12). From 1912 until 1916 he worked at the Rice Institute, Houston, Texas, where he met the famous American geneticist Hermann Muller...
T.H. Huxley, ("Darwin's Bulldog")
He was one of the earliest and strongest supporters of Darwinism; his 1860 debate with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce gained widespread attention. In the 1860s Huxley did valuable work in paleontology and classification, especially classification of birds. Later in life he turned to theology; he is said to have coined the word agnostic to describe his views
Viewing man as the sole agent of further evolutionary advance on this planet, he caused considerable controversy by advocating the deliberate physical and mental improvement of the human race through eugenics...
EUGENICS (Nazi Human Experimentation): WIKIPEDIA FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA
Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime in its concentration camps mainly in the early 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust. Prisoners, mostly Jews, were coerced into participating: they did not willingly volunteer and there was never informed consent. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such can be considered as examples of medical torture. At Auschwitz and other camps, under the direction of Dr. Eduard Wirths, selected inmates were subjected to various hazardous experiments which were supposedly designed to help German military personnel in combat situations, develop new weapons, aid in the recovery of military personnel that had been injured, and to advance the racial ideology backed by the Third Reich.[1] Dr. Aribert Heim conducted similar medical experiments at Mauthausen. Carl Vaernet is known to have conducted experiments on homosexual prisoners in attempts to cure homosexuality. After the war, these crimes were tried at what became known as the Doctors' Trial, and revulsion at the abuses perpetrated led to the development of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.
There is no scientific reasoning in any of the examples given, only emotionally
biased ones. This is what the driving force of Charles Lyell's effort in
promoting the geological column and uniformitarianism. He is quoted that his
wishes were to 'rid the sciences of Moses.'
Though the farce of the geological column should immediately open your eyes to
these speculations, the truth must be repeated over and over again. Because of
the brainwashing every student has to endure in our educational institutions,
the truth needs to be expounded upon so it can be perceived. The idea that
science has fallen under the jurisdiction of philosophical/religious ownership
is frightening when the ideology contradicts the evidences.
Now please understand this. There are credible sciences built around the
sophisticated radio carbon dating methods, but they do not work. They cannot
because the methods used are built upon lies. There is nothing to find except a
theory that is false and scientist who were thought at a young age that it is
all true.
Darwinian Evolution is a modern day alchemy and excuse for man's conscience when
it comes to his existence and behavior.
Scientist are on a wild goose chase blindly following philosophical concepts of
an old Earth, and animals evolving into other creatures - while they should be
using their abilities to do real research for the insurmountable problems facing
mankind today.
So, we have complete science curriculum teaching true science based on what true
science cannot achieve. That is - to verify a lie. You cannot make a lie true
with sophistication. You need to start all over again. We have our higher math
and physics but we are pointing in the wrong direction.
This is what indoctrination into a cultic - philosophical concept will due. It
blinds its parishioners and regardless of their intelligence, they cannot see
where the fault lies.
You can preach on the complications of radioactive methods in dating specimens
of one sort or another, but your results will always be flawed and you will pick
a number that suits what we are all suppose to believe. The science and the
method is real, but the whole doctrine of the age of the Earth based on a
geological column is false. Sorry to undermine your faith but the age of
enlightenment is here.
This geologist states that the geological column does not exist.
Eighty to eighty five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3
geological periods appearing in "correct" consecutive order. It becomes an
overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the
evolutionary - uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were
geological periods.
Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, "The Essential
Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geological Column" CRSQ Vol. 18
No. 1 June 1981, pp 46-71.
Can the layers of fossils suggest there was a calamity, (catastrophism) and all
these creatures died around the same time and were laid down by water currents -
something the Bible calls the flood?
Remember that uniformitarianism is the teaching that the Earth's structures were
gradually formed and depleted due to natural causes slowly - not considering
calamity like a flood or meteor strike.
Also, remember ...
the whole concept of an old Earth was started during a
time when it was politically correct to envision,
it was promoted by a biased individual who wanted to
influence others with his education and used his intellect to mislead the
public,
there was absolutely no way of conceiving the Earths age
scientifically (no radio decay method) at the time this farce was being promoted
by this individual.
Now, a fellow comes along and is greatly influenced by the concept of an old
Earth - its promotion due to a 'politically correct view,' a geological column
that science still had no way of verifying, and a biased author - Charles Lyell.
That person name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin lived in a very primitive
scientific era. Many of the ideas Darwin conceived are just assumptions. Those
assumptions are proved incorrect in this day by the scientific method and
empirical evidences.
To be continued
There is a concept called "irreducible form." This relates to the simplest state
an object can be in without it breaking down and be of no use. A mouse trap
would be a simple example. If one part is missing of the trap, its function
fails. Scientist have fond parts of microscopic life that are of irreducible
form. One of them is the Flagellum Motor.
You can watch a 58 minute video discussion below on the Flagellum. One thing that should be brought to mind, if one part of the
Flagellum is missing, it will not function. This means it could not evolve. This
is what irreducible complexity tells us. It has to be there in its completed
from or it has no function. This is evidence of creation and evidence that says
evolution is incorrect.
When considering the DNA and the recent discoveries concerning the DNA Structure, Creation is the only explanation.
Here is a 58 minute discussion: 00:58:18.000
Here is a 14 minute discussion: 00:14:55.000
Scientist who study the DNA say attempting to imagine one cell evolving and all
its complexities has to render one completely exasperated. It cannot be done.
There has to be a" designer!"
Good men of science tell us of evolution because they were taught it since early
childhood. Our minds will tell what we have come to believe is true even if it
is not. Only with science can man reason truth but when the corrupt state of man
is in the reasoning, our observations and beliefs will be misguided.
During Darwin's days, there was not enough data to tell us evolution was not
true. Nonetheless, there were scientist that would not accept the theory in
Darwin's time and in this day and age, there are more and more scientist
abandoning the concept. I have to say that evolution appeals to man's
sinfulness. It is much easier to put away a God who expects us to be moral than
for men to reason themselves wrong.
The next time you watch a program on natural history please pay attention and
see how the narrator creates an elaboration of what may have happened and hear
how they speak as if "this is the way it did happen." It's as if a fairy tale
had come true and now they need to convince us of what they want us to believe.
Remember, fossils do not elaborate and if evolution is true, the Earth should be
filled with fossils of transitional forms. A transitional form is a form of an
animal as it is evolving from one form to another. If nature had to pick and
chose as scientist tell us, (once again giving nature some intelligent designer
abilities) than the mistakes that mother nature made should be everywhere in the
fossil record.
The only transitional forms in existence are the faked ones!
This is a science fact!
We read in the book of Jeremiah ...
Jeremiah 29:11-13 11 For I know the thoughts that I think
toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of
evil, to give you a future and a hope.12 Then you will call upon Me and go and
pray to Me, and I will listen to you.13 And you will seek Me and find Me,
when you search for Me with all your heart. ---------------------------------------- NKJV
Within the Book of Romans we find...
Romans 8:15-16 15 For you did not receive the spirit of
bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by
whom we cry out,"Abba, Father."16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with
our spirit that we are children of God, ---------------------------------------- NKJV
and in first John.
1 John 3:1 1 Behold what manner of love the Father
has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!
Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.; ---------------------------------------- NKJV
These are words to trust and live by. They are recorded for us to let us know
that we are loved. Scientists scour the universe looking for intelligent life.
Some of them have said that if there is life out there, we can be comforted that
we are not alone.
It is a sad thing to realize how foolish we can really be. The preceding verse
speak of so much love and the Bible's incredible design shows us a loving Father
does exist, yet men seek life elsewhere. They are listening to the faintest hint
of life with dishes as large as buildings. I giant ear pointed to the heavens.
All one has to do is to look to the scriptures to find out man does not have to
be alone. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the comforter, and He said He would not
leave us alone when He would go. He also said if He would not leave, the other
would not come referring to the Holy Spirit and His crucifixion.
Evolution is contrary to the law of entropy - one of the fundamental laws of the
universe.
Imagine your desk after a few days or weeks of use. It becomes a complete mess.
Evolution says your desk can become organized, neat, and clean all on its own.
In other words, instead of organization being the result of random chances,
which is what evolution teaches, disorganization should be the result.
Imagine the sitcom "I dream of Genie" where the genie twitches her nose and the
house she lives in becomes neat and clean, you whish you can perform this feat
yourself at times I am sure.
Evolutionist claim that random chances - mathematics - does the same thing as
our genie; therefore, making evolution an intelligent designer of sorts -- but
the equation is not proper till we remove the genie, she would be playing the
role of an intelligent designer and evolution says we cannot have any
'intelligentsia' in design. So, the genie has to go. Now, the non - living
material coming into proper order in our living room is to simple a task when
compared to one living cell coming into being.
A comparison has been made to show what impossible - mathematical probabilities
would be needed in order for a single cell of life to come into
being (Think of the one cell in the microscopic body we discussed above.). This
would equate to a hurricane passing over a garbage dump and assembling a 747
jumbo jet airliner and have the plane fly off -- fully operational.
Statistics say this can never happen.
Here is another illustration to help bring home the point. Imagine New York City
- coming into existence by all the things this city is made of - flying about
randomly, colliding, and forming the entire city with its subways, buses,
buildings, and all else that makes up this city. If you believe that this can
happen due to math, then you can have your imagined single cell coming into
being.
But this does not and cannot ever explain how life comes about. There is no
explanation we posses - no human understanding that can tell us how life
starts. Math - probabilities or chances do not create life.
Scientist know today that life cannot come into being in the imagined primordial
soup in the classic experiment - neither were the complete results of this test
brought into light at the time of its promotion due to a bias in favor of
evolutionary theory.
Dr. Kent Hovind illustrates in his Creation Seminar DVDs that
this was a farce. The only thing I can liken the scientist who did this
experiment to would be a person selling snake oil as medicine in the old west.
We know today that the Earth's ancient atmosphere was not what the experimenters
thought it to be at their time due the lack of the better technology and recent
discoveries of our day. Neither was known at that time the complexities within a
living cell.
One scientist has said; if you take a living cell(s), crush it and place it into
a closed perfect - environment and wait to see if any new life comes about (this
far exceeds the conditions of the primordial soup in benefiting life), you would
have to live beyond any imaginary scope of time due to that no new life would
ever come into being.
I would say that there definitely is more to being a human than random events
and chemicals in some imaginary circumstances that one has to make up if he
believes in evolution as the cause for the specifically designed examples that
are infinitely more complex than any man made machinery.
I don't believe that there are many of us who (regardless of what their
religious or non religious beliefs may be) think that their existence -- their
essence, emotions, thoughts, and all their experiences are just the net worth of
what their physical bodies contain due to random chances - a role of the dice.
I truly believe that there is much more to us than science can put a finger on,
and knowing we are loved and experiencing that love is the most
important aspect of what a human being needs.
Here is a one hour and twenty minutes.discussion (01:20:24.00) showing why evolution directly violates
several scientific principles. The speaker is Tray Smith and I think you will enjoy his presentation.
|
|
|
Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author
