Verse Of The Day

Support Our Dear Friend And Brother Nelson Domingues

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Probing Questions for Evolutionists

When I first saw this video last year I thought to myself how simple yet probing these questions were. Shouldn't there be more evidence for these claims in which the evolutionists are making? Just a thought.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Fighting Evolution...

I just wanted to share this article with all of my friends and anyone faced with a situation where they are not sure what to do regarding the teaching of evolution in schools. Most people are just uninformed of the options and legal rights they have regarding the teaching of creation science and the "theory" of evolution in schools. It is very informative but only a fraction of the rights you have regarding this topic. There is much more information on the topic and I would like to strongly urge anyone interested in it to visit www.creationscienceevangelism and check out the video under the download tab "Lies in the textbooks" There are also a number of resources mentioned in the video for you to call with any questions that you may have. Try to keep your kids informed. My step son and I talk about the bible a lot and he is very familiar for a 10 year old what evolution teaches. He has many many questions fluttering around in his head. He is also very interested in apologetics as he and his friend (also 10) have ongoing debates and talks about Dinosaurs, Fossils and Strata Layers etc... You will be surprised to know that Dinosaurs did not live millions and millions of years ago. This is what is grounded in your head. Did you know that they have found human foot prints in Dinosaur foot prints? Why don't they include that information in your science text books? Why are human bones found near Dinosaur bones? Did you also know that unfosslized Dinosaur bones have been found with blood cells still fresh and easily visible under the microscope? This poses a huge threat to evolution and Dinosaurs being millions of years old. Enjoy the article. I will post more in the near future on Dinosaurs and where God mentions them in scripture and what happened to them. Thanks all. Comments are always welcomed.



Most thinking people will agree that the theory of evolution is dangerous and should have no place in the classroom. What should we do to counter and combat this false teaching that is permeating and ruining our society via our tax-supported institutions?

Understand the Importance of the Conflict

The theory of evolution, which is taught as a fact in our public school textbooks, tax-supported parks, museums, and public television programs, is actually not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief. I have dedicated my life to helping people learn the truth needed to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. Evolution as it is being taught is dangerous for several reasons.

At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matt. 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites—one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.
Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" Is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes. Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don’t test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.
Government should not sponsor religion. Teaching the theory of evolution as fact in tax-supported schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why should all taxpayers support one religion over all others in our schools? Efforts must be made on all fronts to inform people that evolution is only a religion and that tax-supported institutions should not teach it as fact.

Live for God!

All our efforts to stem the tide of moral decay in our land are futile unless God leads and supports our cause. The most important thing anyone can do to help fix the problem is to obey 2 Chronicles. 7:14 — "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Pray for Wisdom

Most importantly, ask God to give you wisdom (James. 1:5) and direction about what He would have you do in His service. Jesus told us that we are to be the "salt of the earth." Salt preserves from corruption. One of our jobs is to preserve this world from corruption; if we do not preserve, we are worthless (see Matt. 5:13).


Win Souls!

God called us to win souls, not causes. The great commission (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:l5, and Acts 1:8) commands us to preach, baptize, and teach people what Jesus taught His disciples. While there is nothing wrong with working for a cause (1 Sam. 17:29), Christians’ strong tendency is to major on minors and minor on majors; we need to keep priorities in order. The battle raging for the minds of men is a battle between God and the Devil. The people who (knowingly or unknowingly) are working for the Devil are not the real enemy. There is a tendency among Christians to not keep the sin separate from the sinner. However, we can still use the advice given by Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him your friend." When dealing with evolutionists, our job is to love them and to keep a sweet spirit while trying to influence them to be saved. As we win people to Christ they will begin to have their mind renewed and will see that God’s Word is true. Our best offensive weapon is soulwinning—converted evolutionists make great creationists! Most of the active creation scientists are former evolutionists. If we obey Christ and "preach the gospel to every creature," we will see great results.

To spread the Word, to edify the believers, or to evangelize the lost, order or copy extra sets of my tapes to loan, give as gifts, or to donate to libraries at schools, churches, or even the public library. These tapes are regularly updated to improve quality and to add new research and artwork.

Don’t Get Discouraged!

"Be not weary in well doing" (2 Thessalonians. 3:13). "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse" (2 Tim. 3:13). "The battle is the Lord’s" (1 Sam. 17:47). Our job is to be faithful until the Lord takes us out of this world. When the events of this world start to get you discouraged, read Psalm 2. The Devil may have his plans, but God in Heaven will laugh! Though I have worked for several years to get the textbooks changed in my home town, all that I have done so far is to keep the subject before the people. I have had no visible effect on the textbooks. It is our job to do right; God will take it from there.

Become Informed

Often people are motivated to do something, but they don’t have the knowledge of the subject to be effective. Many good books have been written to help people learn the truth about creation and evolution. A list of some of these books is included in the annotated bibliography of this notebook. Also important is to become informed about the "New World Order" and the persecution that will come to Christians in America unless the Lord returns soon.
Gary Frye, 809 Oriole Lane, Concord, North Carolina 28025, (704) 782-5273, New Age information or seminar.


Know your rights.

We need more godly politicians, school board members, etc. to get involved in the political aspect of our great Republic while still possible. Students and parents involved in public schools need to know that they have many rights. Here are two good books on the subject which will be a great help to parents and students in learning what one can and cannot do for the Lord in his or her public school.

Students Legal Rights on the Public School Campus by J. W. Brinkley.
Available ($9.95) www.creationscienceevangelism.com or Roever Communications, P.O. Box 136130, Fort Worth, Texas 76136, (817) 238-2005.

Your Rights in the Public Schools by John W. Whitehead. Available ($1.25) from www.creationscienceevangelism.com or from Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, Va. 22906-7482, (804) 978-3888.


Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools by Duane T. Gish. Available ($5) from www.creationscienceevangelism.com or from Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, Calif. 92021

Call me (Dr. Kent Hovind) for help. It is my privilege to travel and speak (over 700 times each year) in public and private schools, university debates, churches, camps, and radio and television talk shows on the subjects of creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. It is my studied opinion that the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. The facts from the Bible and science are clear; the entire universe was created by an all-wise Creator only a few thousand years ago. The original creation was perfect and very different than it is today. In the original creation, plants and animals lived longer and grew much bigger than they do today (see Gen. 1:6-7; 5; 6:4, and my Creation Seminar Videotape 1). In my seminars I present many scientific evidences that the world is not "millions of years old." Most people are excited to learn that dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden, have always lived with man, were on the ark with Noah, and a few may still be alive today in some parts of the world! (See Creation Seminar videotape 2.)

Students often call me for advice on how to handle various situations at school where they are being forced to learn things contrary to their beliefs on creation. Please feel free to call or write if I can be of any help.

Please understand, when I talk about evolution I am not referring to simple variations that occur in any species. Dogs produce a variety of puppies, but never will dogs produce hamster or pine tree offspring! Creationists do not argue that all dogs, wolves, and foxes may have had a common ancestor, nor do they argue that natural selection occurs. These would both be true whether plants and animals were created or evolved. However, real evolution, as presented in the textbooks, teaches that dogs share a common ancestor with pine trees! While anyone is certainly welcome to believe what he wants to believe, no intelligent person can say evolution is real science, because evolution is not observable, testable, or demonstrable. My argument is not with science, but with evolution being improperly incorporated into science where it has no place.

Influence your Area

Everyone has a circle of people they can influence. At activities such as birthday parties, neighborhood Bible classes, Sunday school class parties, etc., you can show creation videos, have a creation speaker, or play games that teach the truth about dinosaurs and creation. You can also help private or home schools with your time, energy, and money.
Use the media (secular or Christian). A great way to reach people with the truth is to have your local radio or TV station contact me for an interview or call-in talk show on creation, evolution, dinosaurs, or the teaching in public schools. Secular stations are often glad to get a controversial guest such as I. I do radio interviews by phone from my house.

Local access cable TV stations are usually willing to air my videotapes.
Write letters to the editor. Most local newspapers have a Letters to the Editor section. I have found this to be a great way to reach many people in an area as each time I have written a letter to the editor, there has been a great response. Nearly all of my letters to the editor are reproduced in this notebook. Some are responses to other articles or letters and, of course, need to be considered in context with the original article; but please feel free to use any of my information to construct a letter to your local paper.

Help teachers and school board members do right. Most teachers, principals, board members, etc., involved in the public school system are sincere, dedicated professionals who want what is best for students. Often they face enormous pressure from small but vocal groups making them feel they are in the battle alone. Informed Christians can help by attending school board meetings, giving good creationist literature to these people, inviting them to creation lectures. Donate good books about creation science to your school’s library.

Learn the real (radical) agenda of the National Education Association (NEA), encourage public school teachers that you know to get out of the NEA and join alternative teachers unions.
Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Alton, Illinois, (618) 462-5415

Christian Educators Assn. Int., P.O. Box 41300, Pasadena, Cal. 91114, (818) 798-1124
Keystone Teacher’s Association, 640 Billet Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055, (717) 697-0509 or (717) 432-1727

Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU), 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Va. 22160, (703) 321-8519

Review the textbook selections. Of the fifty American states, twenty-two have a state textbook-selection committee, a group of people who look at the books available from all publishers for a given subject and then select five or six that they "approve." The list is then given to the local selection committee in each county. The county textbook selection committee will normally display the books for a few weeks, giving parents a chance to review them. After the committee decides which book to recommend, the school board votes to purchase that book for use in the county schools. Often the books are selected on a rotating basis, with a different subject being chosen each year. In the states without a state-level committee, each county, or district, or teacher may choose their own textbooks.

Any person in the county may review the books and make comments at the school board meeting. I would suggest that informed Christians in each county get involved in the textbook selection process. The input of the Gablers in Texas will save lots of work for anyone wanting to get involved. Their organization reviews each new textbook as it comes out, sending a copy of their review to any who request one. The Gablers are fine Christian people and have worked on a donation basis for over thirty years.

The GablersEducational Research AnalystsP.O. Box 7518, Longview, Texas, 75607-7518(903) 753-5993

Sophia and Isabella Still Need Prayer and a Miracle

Things were not looking good for the Israelites as they exited Egypt only
to come up against the Red Sea. Then God intervened and what must've have
seemed like an insurmountable obstacle was instantly overcome.

Things are not looking good for little Isabella and Sophia. Please pray
with Dan and Jaime that God would again intervene and overcome what
presently seems like an insurmountable obstacle.

Last Monday the diagnosis had been removed from the girls. This morning,
the ultrasound revealed that they are not only back in the syndrome but in
stage IV (stage V is death). There is fluid all over Isabella's brain and
heart the pressure from which is causing her heart to beat irregularly.

By God's grace, Isabella has already survived some equally "hopeless"
situations. For those of you who remember, she was, at one point, pretty
much wrapped in "saran wrap" as there was no fluid in her
sac...miraculously (and against all medical understanding), the necessary
fluid began to accumulate around her. This is only one story. As many of
you know, there have been many ways that God has visibly had His
sustaining hands on these girls--much to the doctors astonishment.

God is no less able to save these babies now that they are in Stage IV as
when they were in Stage I. Please intercede on their behalf praying in
faith that God would Glorify His Great Name by saving these little ones.

Jaime and Dan are overwhelmed by the prayer response and they are so very
grateful.

A key verse of Jaime's throughout has been:

"With man this is impossible,
but not with God;
all things are possible with God"
-- Mark 10:27

Jaime did mention that even in the midst of the confusion and
disappointment of this mornings news, God provided encouragement through a
specific answer to prayer. Leading up to this ultrasound, Jaime was
praying that the girls would've grown, and that Sophia would be at 1.2
pounds and Isabella at 1.5 pounds. These were precisely their weights. It
was as though God was saying "I heard you, I'm still here and I'm still at
work"... Let us not give up hope.

Jaime and Dan are flying out to Philadelphia this evening, with the
potentially life-saving surgery scheduled for tomorrow morning. Please
pray that the babies would remain healthy until then and that the surgery
would be successful—"astonishingly" so.

-----------Updated Email From Jaime -------------

Dear Friends,

I just came back from the doctors where I found out that our twins are
back into their syndrome. This time they are at Stage IV (Stage I
being the earliest stage, Stage V is death). They are showing signs
of demise. Sophia has fluid around her heart and brain, and as a
result her heart is no longer pumping effectively. Dan and I are
flying out to Philadelphia tonight to meet with fetal surgeons at the
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia tomorrow morning. They would like
to perform surgery as soon as possible as they feel Sophia is
critical.

Please pray both babies would stay alive until surgery, and that the
surgery would be a success. Dan and I have been here before, where we
are being told they won't make it through the night - only this time
they are much more critical.

This morning I specifically felt the need to pray "I will accept
whatever you have for me today" which is something I have been praying
since this all began. Dan and I accept this situation knowing that
God sees everything and knows everything. We trust Him. We believe
He is a good God whatever the outcome for our girls. Today we rest in
Him and humbly bring our pleas for our girls before Him once again.

Thank you for your ongoing prayers to Him who is faithful.

Trusting in Him,
Jaime Buraga



Liz and I have forwarded this to everyone we know, please continue to burden your hearts for them. They are great friends of ours and were there for us the entire time Everly was in the hospital.

Thank you


Joe

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Intellectual Arrogance




Wow.....



Joe

Does Teaching Evolution as Fact Harm Anyone?

"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!"

The above quote comes from a young man who was a self-proclaimed Social Darwinist who took it upon himself to end the lives of at least eight people at Jokela High School near Helsinki, Finland

This is just one of many many examples today of how evolutionary thinking can effect one's way of how he/she lives their lives.

Our prayers go out to all those who lost loved ones in this incident and many other incidents that aren't even making headline news due to their frequent occurrences.

Read the rest of the article at the link below:

Finland School Shootings: The Sad Evolution Connection
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/08/finland-fruits-of-humanism

Sunday, November 11, 2007

And They Call This Science?



And they call this Science? The first 30 seconds or so of this video is the best!!!

I also like how he tells the camera to cut and then doesn't even answer the question originally asked. He expounds on something completely different. Answer the question Mr. Dawkins.

Are there any examples of increases in information in the genome?

Archaeopteryx




In an ongoing debate with a friend from work and after much discussion on creation vs evolution, I finally asked my friend to please give me his best evidence for evolution. He took a deep breath and said............... "Archaeopteryx" I laughed only because this is the second time he has attempted to use this "unique bird" to prove his dying theory.


At home I also asked my 9 year old son to bring his science book home because I wanted to see what the book was teaching him. Sure enough amongst all of the "millions and millions" teaching was found a small section on Archaeopteryx. It said that Archaeopteryx was proof for evolution. I know that there are many other text books that show this as well. I found it rather perturbing that there would be something in my sons text book that has been disproved for years now. This is deliberately teaching a lie in the text book to our kids! This is extremely unacceptable. There are many other states who have laws that their text books will be "factual" and "up to date" on their teachings. But these lies in the text books will be discussed more in a future blog.

Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a bird.

Evolutionist Alan Feduccia stated: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that” (as quoted in Morell, 1993, 259:764
Archaeopteryx had all the brain features of a bird equipped for flight. And though it had claws on it's wings, so do 12 birds today. The Swan, Hoatzin and Ibis just to name a few. And though it had teeth in it's beak this doesn't make it proof it was a reptile at one point. A humming bird has teeth in it's beak as well. Some mammals/reptiles have teeth and some don't. Some fish have teeth and some don't. This doesn't prove Archaeopteryx was reptilian at any point. Birds and reptiles are very different in many many aspects. They have different lung systems, different reproductive systems, different body coverings, different circulatory systems, and different brain structures as well. There are hundreds and thousands of differences between birds and reptiles!

"The evolutionary origin of bird is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." W. E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London

Here are two articles I printed out and then underlined and highlighted many points and gave to my friend at work. He wrote a few things on it but for the most part, he didn't respond to it but left it alone. As Lee Strobel says "We have truth on our side, lets play that card!" I thank the Lord that creationists don't have to run around and spend most of their lives trying to prove so hard that creation happened. We don't have to go and pin peppered moth's to tree's and collect bones and fossils from miles apart of each other and say that it's a missing link. How poorly we would be portraying God to the world if we attempted to build a foundation on lies about creation? God left so much overwhelming evidence that he created it. Most evolutionist have to produce false, fake, poor and downright inaccurate data to desperately attempt to prove the evolutionary theory. This is a sad state of events in my opinion.

Enjoy the articles.



Article 1

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax Update—National Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a forgery.1 Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to dismiss it as a forgery.

However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”2
Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.
Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split.

Since that book, more recent evidence has even further devastated the hoax theory:
The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique
avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds.

Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.5 Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying.6 Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.
Answers in Genesis will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a disclaimer, because it is the truth which shall set you free (cf. John 8:32), not error.

Article 2

Archaeopteryx

Creation scientists and speakers have a wealth of documentation to support their claim that the general nature of the fossil record is hostile to evolution but supports the predictions of the creation model. All higher kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and without transition. Are we misrepresenting evolution to insist on transitional forms? How many should we expect? If we examine the mutation/selection theory, which is the mechanism of evolution held by the overwhelming majority today, we see that each change is slow and gradual, involving the accumulation of a vast number of ‘micromutations’ or ‘point mutations’. We see then, that the number of transitional forms involved in the transformation of, say, fish to amphibian over hundreds of millions of years are incredibly vast—so much so that we would not expect to be able to recognize end forms and transitional forms separately—there would be an almost imperceptible ‘oozing’ of one kind into another. Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ‘successive approximation’ has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ‘end forms’ to have more chance of fossilization than the ‘intermediates’. Sampling errors (which includes the ‘poverty of the record’ argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps.

What do most evolutionists offer in the place of the millions upon millions of transitional forms between higher kinds predicted by their model? The answer is usually ONE transitional form—Archaeopteryx. You see, by making the prediction of NO transitional forms versus BILLIONS of such forms, creationists are really ‘laying it on the line’. All the evolutionist has to do is produce one indisputable transitional form between the higher kinds to seriously challenge the creation model. Others are occasionally mentioned, such as Seymouria, but these are not seriously considered as links by informed evolutionists (although many still do) for the simple reason that their supposed descendants appear ‘earlier’ in the fossil record than these ‘transitional forms’! However, Archaeopteryx is usually proudly mentioned as a classical example of a transitional form (without of course mentioning that it is essentially the only example).

Let’s take a close look at this remarkable ancient creature. The first specimen was found in Upper Jurassic limestone in Bavaria in 1861, missing only the right foot, the lower jaw and a few cervical vertebrae. The second specimen was found ten miles away in 1877. There have been two more finds since, very fragmentary, but all our knowledge is based on these first two.
Archaeopteryx had many features which caused most investigators to class it immediately as a bird, Aves. The feathers were identical in structure and arrangement to those of modern birds, a highly complex arrangement. It also had a birdlike posture, perching feet, a long sinuous neck holding its head high and a beaklike structure. However, it had many features not typical of modern birds and more typical of the class Reptilia. The most obvious two are the long, drooping tail and the teeth it possessed. Modern birds do not have teeth. However, extinct birds such as Icthyornis and Hesperornis, which were unquestionably 100% birds, also had teeth. Closer examination reveals many other features which Archaeopteryx shared in common with reptiles. For example, the skull has many ‘reptilian’ features including lack of the posterior domelike expansion typical of birds otherwise.

Other such features are listed beiow and most may be visualised by a comparison diagram between Archaeopteryx and the modern pigeon. [Editor’s note: original publication had accompanying illustrations that could not be reproduced for the Web site.]


  • The cervical vertebrae lacked the heterocoelaus centra peculiar to birds.

  • The trunk vertebrae were not fused together as in birds.

  • The weight of most birds is supported by a solid synsacrum. Archaeopteryx had a tail which functioned to counterbalance his weight and the weight of his abdominal viscera was supported by a belly wall stiffened with gastralia, thin slivers of bone.

  • The ribs were not connected by uncinate processes nor anchored into the sternum, as in birds.

  • The pelvic bones were much smaller than most birds and did not extend nearly so far along the vertebral column. However, they had the avian backward twist of the pubes below the ischia.

  • It had claws at the ends of the three digits. There are three living birds today which have claws in either the adult or juvenile form. Archaeopteryx seems to have been able to crawl agilely through the trees as well as making short flights. That it was not a powerful flier may be inferred from the small area of origin which it had for flight muscles.

  • The hand and wrist were not in the form of an inflexible blade.

  • It had 3 independent metatarsals, rather than one as birds do.

  • The fibula was equal in length to the tibia, as in reptiles, but not birds.
In summary, it may be said that Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. It seems to have been suited to a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees, and those features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.The evolutionist Lecomte du Mouy recognizes this. In the book ‘Human Destiny’ (N.Y. 1947) he writes:

‘…we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.’

Furthermore, Archaeopteryx stands alone, uniquely himself with no fossil between himself and either birds or reptiles. The evolutionist Barbara Stahl, in her book ‘Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution’ (McGraw-Hill 1941) writes:

‘Since Archaeopteryx occupies an isolated position in the fossil record, it is impossible to tell whether the animal gave rise to more advanced fliers…’ (This section of her book was reviewed by Prof. Alfred Romer.)

The evolutionist A.J. Marshall writing in ‘Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds’ (Academic Press 1960 p.1) states that:
‘The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.’

All of this is surely enough to establish that this bird is not a transitional form. Yet the above has been known for years, and still many evolutionists present it as a striking example of a transitional form. There has been a new discovery which surely demolishes the last hope in this direction. A bird which is unquestionabiy a true bird has been found which dates (by the evolutionists’ own methods) at some 60 million years older than Archaeopteryx. This was announced in ‘Science-News’ (Vol. 112, Sep. 1977 p.198) The find was assessed as above by Dr. James Jensen of Brighan Young University. The article also quotes Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:
‘…we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’ As Gish has said in another context, children cannot be older than their parents!

I will restate simply the reasons why Archaeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form.

  • It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups but shows no true transitional structure such as a part-scale, part-feather.

  • There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.

  • True birds have been found which are assigned by evolutionists to an earlier time than Archaeopteryx.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Proven by Scripture that God did not use millions and millions of years

I would highly recommend, and in fact, strongly urge anyone with an theistic evolutionary view on the creation account who is truly committed to seeking out the truth of what God said he did rather than what man says he did, to check out at least the first 35-40 minutes of this video. Though it is well worth it to watch the entire thing. Watch it in segments if you don't have the time... I usually download these to my PDA and listen in my car on the way to work or at night before falling asleep... Scripture is very "plain" and "clear" on the matter.

God did it in six literal 24 hr days not millions - Since theistic evolutionist's think that to God a day "is" a thousand years instead of what the bible actually says which is "like" a thousand years to God, referring to the fact that our father is outside of time.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

Otherwise this would mean that all Christians are not saved yet because Jesus said "on the third day he was to be raised to life"
We would still have a thousand years to go then and we would all still be in our sin and not justified because there was no sacrifice "once for all" on our account.

And he says his "process" in creating Adam; He was "of the dust of the earth" not a result of evolution.
1 Corinthians 15:47

I'm not sure where this implies that god had Adam evolve through death and mutation.


http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/downloads.php
Click on the link above and click "Garden of Eden" and select one of the three qualities you want. I hope God reveals his truth to you.

It is very important as Christians to thoroughly examine the scriptures EVERY DAY.

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I ask you to "examine" the scriptures and see if what we are saying is true, never take my word for it obviously. Paul said "test everything" (1 Thessalonians 5:21) that is to say, hold it up to the word of God, does it contradict what he says or does it fall in line? The bible is our final authority, it is the love letter in which we are to gauge our decisions in life. It is a way to tap into the mind of God. That's why he gave us this life's manual. So I ask you to match up your theory with what God says and see if they are compatible or not. I think you will find that evolution is the exact opposite of how God our father said he did it.

Thanks for checking out my blog, I look forward to reading your comments.


Joe

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Theistic Evolution? Future Shock?

But, what about the future? This is an area that is not often addressed in the creation/evolution dialogue, but it poses some pretty sticky problems for the theistic evolutionist who wishes to be consistent in his interpretation of Scripture. Following are a few passages and ideas which need to be addressed:

1 Corinthians 15:51–53. If God needed millions of years to ‘create’ our first human bodies, which were already ravaged by disease and death, how will He be able to give us new, incorruptible bodies ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ when Christ returns?

Acts 3:21 refers to a future time when everything will be restored. For the theistic evolutionist (or the closely related ‘long-age creationist’) this should logically mean a restoration back to billions of years of death and suffering. The Bible in fact indicates that all things will be restored to a situation in which death (the ‘last enemy’—1 Corinthians 15:26) shall be no more. Why? Because there will be ‘no more curse’ (Revelation 22:3).

Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:13–14. These passages refer to a future time of cataclysmic changes in the heavens. Stars falling from the sky, and the heavens rolling up, do not sound like slow processes needing millions of years. Long-agers insist that it had to take 15 billion years for the light from the most distant objects to reach us here on earth. Obviously, it will not take 15 billion years for the heavens to ‘roll together as a scroll.’ So perhaps we’ve not yet fully understood the mechanics of starlight and time, and that 15 billion year figure needs several zeros lopped off.

2 Peter 3:6–12 also poses a number of ‘future’ problems for theistic evolutionists. We know that the waters of the biblical Flood increased for at least 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Clearly, these Flood days must have been literal, 24-hour periods (though undoubtedly they seemed longer to Noah et al!)

So, the first problem is this: How long will the future destruction of the heavens and earth by fire last? Millions of years? Do you believe that this refers to the theory that the universe will slowly contract under its own gravity (the ‘big crunch’) until a new big bang occurs? Verse 10 says ‘the heavens shall pass away with a great noise.’ Once again, that sounds rather sudden and final. The ‘heavens’ here means the visible universe.

Then there’s verse eight, ‘One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.’ If each ‘day’ of Genesis chapter one lasted millions of years, and the ‘day’ here is literally a thousand years long, all language loses its meaning! Obviously, the best way to understand this verse is in the context of God’s patience. It has nothing to do with the actual length of biblical days, but stresses that God is outside of time. A day is not equal to a thousand years—it is (to God) like a thousand years—and vice versa, a thousand years is like one day to God.

2 Peter 3:13. Now we turn to the ‘new heavens and a new earth.’ If God needed billions of years to create the first heavens and earth, how long will it take to make new ones? What will believers who have been saved and have received new bodies be doing all that time? Hopefully not listening to harp music! Are you impressed by a God who needs zillions of years to get the job done?

Finally, there is at least one more problem. If God used evolution in the past, will He still use it in the future? When he re-creates the bodies of the redeemed through evolutionary processes, will we look like those almond-eyed, spindly-legged creatures of the movies and TV? Let’s hope not!

We must be consistent when we ‘interpret’ the Scriptures. If God created everything in six days in the past, as a plain reading of the Genesis account would demand, He’ll have no problem re-creating it all quickly in the future, as a plain reading of the passages cited above would imply. If He created Adam in a fraction of a day, and Eve out of Adam, He’ll have no problem granting new bodies ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ in the future. If death entered the world on a specific day in the past, it can be abolished within a day in the future.

When it comes to origins, ‘Father God plus Mother Nature’ equals an illegitimate child—theistic evolution. There are many aspects of God’s Word which make it clear that you can’t have it both ways.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/theistic_evolution.asp

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Saved by grace ... and evolution?

Can we be saved by grace and evolution?

excerpt -

"because evolution IS COMPATIBLE with God"

Which “god” are you referring to here? The God of the Bible, who says what He did in Genesis, which disagrees with molecules-to-man evolution. A god of a millions-of-years-old earth is a god of death, not the God of life and God of love that Scripture teaches. Applying attributes of such a false god to the God of the Bible demeans the character and nature of God. It would also mean that an all-good, all-powerful, truthful God deceived Israelites and Christians, who loved and trusted Him for thousands of years, all the while waiting for atheists to “interpret” Genesis properly for us.
I understand that you, like most of us at AiG have been taught evolution, whether in public schools or the media. But holding it in such high regard over the Word of God is not good theology. The false belief system of evolution that has been promoted for 150 years has subtly crept into many Christians’ thinking, and it is time to get back to God’s Word and not be deceived. God's Word is sufficient. In the past 150 years, many once-Christian universities become atheistic upon the acceptance of evolution; public schools have become atheistic upon acceptance of evolution with prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Bible removed from the classroom; nations that were largely Christian have become largely atheistic upon acceptance of evolution (England for example); evolution was a driving force in the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and other mass murderers. After such a history what would possibly make someone think that evolution provides a foundation to lead people to Christ?


Read the entire article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/21/feedback-theistic-evolution

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Did God Use Evolution To Bring About His Creation?

I have incorporated some great articles that I have read in the past because I think they shed some great light on recent subjects between evolution and creation and theistic evolution. They are from AiG (Answers In Genesis) a leading authority in the case for the truth in Gods word. Enjoy and Feel free to post any comments

‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’ (Operation: Refuting Compromise (ORC))
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0204lead.asp

Why wouldn’t God use evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/1223.asp

Did the Creator use Evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/evolution.asp

What’s the problem with theistic evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0520.asp


I would love to hear some feedback on the subject if anyone else is interested. Im sure other's would like to hear your comments. Thanks again.

Joe

Pedro's Orginal Post - Joe's Reply

Pedro's original post:
Pedro said...

Joe, I disagree with many of your arguments whole heartily. I honestly don’t want to get into it any deeper because I feel that it wouldn’t be a productive conversation. Nonetheless, I want to respond to a select few things you said. Joe Said: "Again, this contradicts God's word and who He is. You’re saying that he didn't do it the way He says he did."No, I am not disagreeing with what God said. God never told anyone in Genesis what His processes were... he just said "Let there be..." There are certainly a lot of processes that could have taken place after those words were said. The actual processes of His creation were not disclosed in Genesis. Science has discovered some very interesting things that shed some light on this subject. I can hear your arguments already... No, I don't put my faith in science, but I know that God allows mankind to discover many things through science that up until recently only God had knowledge of.Joe Said "They also believe that God still controls these processes and that evolution is still proceeding. These teachings are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God has completed His creation (Genesis 2:1-2)." ... "Are you saying that God did a poor job the first time? hmm...."I don’t disagree with God’s word. God’s creation was life itself and the evolutionary functionality encoded into its design. He did complete it in instituting this design and it is a very impressive design indeed... one that evolves.Joe Said "You want to argue evolution and it's process but you don't want to argue how the first organism got there to evolve in the first place?"There is no argument there either... God created the first organism... he created all living things through his processes. God has his methods and we humans will never fully understand them all, but God does allow us to understand some of them.Joe Said "Simply stated, as people of God, to say that God used both creation and then evolution to bring about his work, is to say God lied when he stated in Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He made it very clear from the very first sentence that He did it all.” What is the big deal about evolution? Geez, you act like it a mortal sin. It does not make God any less powerful if he chose to do it that way. Could God have created a creation that evolves? Sure, God could have done it any way he wanted too. What is clear to me is that the story of creation did not define every fine detail about His actual processes. This leaves much open to discovery.Joe Said "2 Peter 3:8 The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ"Even though this verse was talking about the 2nd Coming of Jesus, its concept of God’s time is the Truth... or are you saying it is a lie? (I would not normally put it this way, but I wanted to illustrate how your extreme methods of reasoning feel when it’s directed towards you. Just as you probably find it a bit offense that I would suggest this about you, I find it rather offensive when you suggest that I would intentionally make God out to be a liar. I know your intentions were not to suggest that God lies and I would appreciate it if you would give me that common courtesy as well. There is no need to be so extreme in one’s arguments.)Joe Said "Be careful Pedro, when you believe in something that you cannot see..."I believe in many things I don’t see. So do you. Do you believe in electrons? Do you believe in gravity? Much of this modern world is based on things you can’t see and things you don’t fully understand. Does it make them any less real?Joe Said "Creation and evolution is not a battle between religion and science, it is a battle of "our" religion against "their" religion. A battle of two world views."Some people use science to say there is no god. Some people interpret the Bible to say there is no truth in science. Some people see God’s hand in Science and see it harmony with His Word. From the stand point of Creation, I am pretty clear where you stand on this subject now and I am sure its pretty clear where I stand. There is not much of a point in us arguing about it anymore. When it’s all said and done, what you believe about creation and what I believe are not going to define our salvation nor block us from it. We can just leave it at that and be happy to have understood two view points on this subject. Thanks again for sharing your views through this blog Joe.


Joe's Reply:
It would seem by certain parts of your email that I have offended you by what I said. It sort of reminds me when Paul was preaching to the Galatians in chapter 4 and said "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Not implying at all that we have become enemies obviously, but by the fact that he somehow offended them. I would ask, have I offended you for telling you the truth? Pedro you have terribly compromised God's word to better fit your "theory" of evolution. You have believed your biology and astronomy teachers rather than believe God himself.

You argue that God never explained the processes that he used to bring about his creation, you say he says "Let there be.........". Yes you are right, but allow me to finish those lines you quote that God spoke long ago. "Let there be......... and then there was" and "let there be.........and it was so..." and in conclusion with what he created for that "day" he says And there was evening, and there was morning—the ____ day. Did it say those days are a thousand years? You didn't post my entire quote when you quoted me on that. Again, that scriptures shows you that God is outside of time! Could you please show me from scripture where it implies, or where god said he used evolution and millions and millions of years? If you are correct, you should be able to tell me where God says or implies this. My bible says God is not a god of confusion but a God of clarity (1st Cor 14:33 NASB). He has made his creation very clear in his historical account in scripture because he didn't want you to make the mistake that he made it all, and without millions of years or evolution.

The bible says: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." God is referring to the trinity when he says "us". We are created in Gods "image" not through evolution and from a monkey. You side with evolution which says that man evolved as a result of those fish. Which one is it? if you side with evolution, then yes YOU ARE CALLING GOD A LIAR because he says he did it one way, and you are telling God he's wrong and the he used evolution to do it. I always think it's funny when people try to tell God how he created something when he told us how he created it already. One of you is wrong Pedro and my money is on you if I had to choose between you and God. Again he says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. How plain does it have to be? Where does it say he used evolution and millions of years? Please show me so that I can understand where your coming from. God told man this: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Evolution says you came from primordial soup then evolved over millions of years and then eventually became a monkey and then a highly sophisticated piece of human machinery. But God said man and animals were made on day six and then gave man dominion to rule over all the animals that evolution says we came from. Who is right? Why does it upset you when I tell the evolutionary thinker he is calling God a liar?

Pedro, please take this section of scripture I'm going to paste below and make it clear to me so that "I may have understanding" of how God used evolution and millions of years to bring about his creation. Please show me where my interpretation of God's already interpreted word is wrong:


1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [
b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Emphasis mine)

Please tell me, especially in that last sentence, where you get the interpretation that God used millions of years and evolution to bring forth Adam and Eve? The truth is that Evolution is the exact opposite of creation, they cannot exist together. Evolution says Dinosaurs turned into birds the bible says God made the birds on day five and he made the reptiles on day six evolution says reptiles came first and then the birds. I don't understand??? Everything about evolution is backwards when compared to the bible!!! Who should we listen to? God or your evolutionists? I'm with Peter in Acts when he said "We must obey God rather than men!"
And then you say you can hear my arguments........"I don't put my faith in Science" Your right I don't put my faith in science. I have nothing against science at all. I love science. What I'm telling you is real science confirms god's word. They do not contradict each other as most people believe. Evolution is not real science. Molecules to man theory is a fantasy, pure speculation for the evolutionist who doesn't want to be held accountable to God.
Pedro said: "I don’t disagree with God’s word. God’s creation was life itself and the evolutionary functionality encoded into its design. He did complete it in instituting this design and it is a very impressive design indeed... one that evolves."
I don't understand why you keep saying that your not disagreeing with God's word. Yes you are. He did not say he did it this way. Please tell me again where in scripture it says or implies that he used the evolutionary hypothesis to "make" or "create"?
You say God created the first organism. God says he created Adam a full grown, walking and talking man. Who is right? You or God? Since you agree with his word, you would have to say God, right? Then why do you keep saying he used evolution when God did not say he used it but told us he created Adam and Eve?

Pedro said: What is the big deal about evolution? Geez, you act like it's a mortal sin. It does not make God any less powerful if he chose to do it that way. Could God have created a creation that evolves? Sure, God could have done it any way he wanted too. What is clear to me is that the story of creation did not define every fine detail about His actual processes. This leaves much open to discovery.


What is the big deal about evolution? The big deal is that it's a lie and God never used it, never said he used it, told us plainly how he created (when he said Has not my hand made all these things?). It was created by his hand and power not evolution. God hates the lie therefore, he hates evolution. God said he hates "a lying tongue" and "a false witness who pours out lies" (Proverbs 6:17 & 19) And as far as discovery goes, we are still waiting to "discover" the missing link, the transitional fossil that shows any ounce of credible, indisputable evidence of one species transforming into a completely different species. It doesn't exist!!!

As for the paragraph you wrote to me asking "are you calling God a liar". You say there is no need to be extreme in my arguments. On the contrary, because of the evil of evolution and the potential danger in it, it is my obligation to correct you. Please, I urge you when you get the chance to watch the video "The Dangers of Evolution" If you really want to see the effects of it and how it has caused world wars and school shootings etc.... I strongly urge you to watch the video when you can, I guarantee you won't ever ask "what's the big deal with evolution?" again. What if one day a cop came to your door and told you that kids at school shot your daughter because she believed in God? How would you feel to learn that the one boy who after shooting everyone and turned the gun on himself, was wearing a t-shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it? And lets say they found a video of the boys before they plotted this whole school shooting and the video talked about various things like black people - and one of the boys said (referring to a black athlete in his school that he planned on shooting, and later did) "that boy doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him" This was the case in the Columbine shooting. Watch the video. http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/downloads.php

Pedro said: "There is not much of a point in us arguing about it anymore. When it’s all said and done, what you believe about creation and what I believe are not going to define our salvation nor block us from it. We can just leave it at that and be happy to have understood two view points on this subject. "

I hear you man, but what I believe is what God said, what you believe is not from God's word, it is your interpretation and speculation and that which your teachers taught you most likely. God didn't say it, that's why I can't understand and have a hard time believing why you would take these views, especially as a Christian. However I may disagree, it is respectively and I thank you also for allowing these postings so that other's can see these views. I would like to point you to some great resources however before your mind is made up on these matters. Do with them what you would like.

This article is really exactly on this subject (read it when you get the chance) I could of honestly just pasted it for you and it would address the theistic evolutionary viewpoint but I wanted to reply personally. ( I will be posting this article in a future blog shortly)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/creation.asp

Videos: you can download these to your pda if you want and pop some headphones in and listen while your doing dishes or something.
http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/downloads.php

also check out the links posted on the right on my main blog page.

And when you get a chance maybe you can see this written debate against Dr. Kent Hovind and
Hugh Ross - Hugh Ross believes what you believe only more in depth. Check out the arguments between the two and see what they say on the subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Ross_Hovind_Analysis.asp


Thanks Pedro,

your brother,

Joe

Thursday, November 1, 2007

More Evidence Of The Flood

Thirty-Year Secret Leads to Evidence of Worldwide Flood



Creation Science Evangelism, November 01, 2007


(Click the link after the article to view the Fox News video)


In 1978, a couple of guys searching for fossils and arrowheads stumbled upon a treasure of bones sticking out of a creek bed near Waco, Texas. It was later discovered that what they found was a family of Columbian mammoths, along with camels, saber-toothed tigers, and a variety of animals yet to be uncovered.For thirty years it’s been questioned what brought this variety of animals so close together in one site. Today, paleontologists suggest the herd was in the midst of disaster -- “trapped by flood waters and entombed by a mudslide.” They say the placement of the bones show that adults were trying to “lift juveniles up out of the muck when the wall around them collapsed.” Creationists call this even more evidence for God’s Word and the Flood in the days of Noah.Skeptics have long scoffed at the idea of a worldwide Flood, suggesting it was merely a local one. God’s Word, however, is clear, stating that “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.”If the Bible is correct about a Flood which covered everything, then evidences like these should be found. This recent discovery is just more proof that Noah’s Flood exceeded his “known land,” even beyond Waco, Texas.We can argue many more proofs for a worldwide Flood. Check out our Debate #7 on The Genesis Flood, to see Dr. Hovind engage a preacher-turned-atheist on this very subject. As you watch, you’ll find that the evidence for God’s Word is compelling.


In Reply to Pedro

I agree. It is very time consuming as I already debate a number of people at work and various others I encounter. Mostly, it is a guy at work who I have conversations and debates with, some via verbal interaction and some IM & email. To be honest I do not wish to get into "long winded" debates simply because I do not have the time to do so. but I think every view posted is extremely important so I will do my best to reply and post my thoughts to comments and not push them to the side. I think what I will do if I have the time is, (if your two or three postings ahead of me) is to sum up your emails and have one rebuttal or email in reply to them. I just want to state that when I debate I do so that the truth would be exposed and my overall intentions are to be "a fisher of men". In so I mean to bring men to Christ. God has given me the opportunity with this blog to be used as my pulpit and I thank him for that, so I must be sure that I'm keeping things in perspective (Matthew 25:21) with the responsibility God has given me and not use it for my own purposes (to win arguments and so receive victory for myself)

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" Paul said (1st Cor 10:31)
I'm simply stating that when I debate I don't debate just for the fun of debating (Dominic has stated to me months ago that he loves debating and that's why he engages me often) I told him that's fine, but I debate so that, in hopes, we find the truth. If at any time I feel I go in circles with him, I don't continue "arguing" with him:

Jesus said: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

My bible puts it well when it says (in my notes) Teaching should be given in accordance with the spiritual capacity of the learners. and in 1st Cor 2 it says: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. So you see I don't go more than I should with individuals because then, as Solomon says "it's meaningless, a chasing after the wind"

And now that the intro is over, here's my posting: :)

Pedro said: My Response: Naturally, I agree that when I say “I believe”, those beliefs do not supersede the Word of God as written in the Bible. It is kind of silly to even suggest that could have been the case, but I guess if you are dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, you do have to make that distinction

And

Only the Word of God is the Truth and the reader must interpret the Word of God for themselves to form their own beliefs. (emphasis mine)

I would like to add this excerpt taken from one of my favorite informative sites regarding the "interpreting of Scripture" to make it very clear - AiG
A basic principle of Scriptural interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture—that is why we are confident in what we teach about Genesis—it is consistent with the rest of Scripture (unlike all the attempts at compromised ‘interpretations’—

I'm glad you state this, I think this is very important and I want any reader coming upon this post to understand that you believe this. However in making that statement you are majorly contradicting, compromising and saying God is a liar because what he says in his word is not true (which we will see with your other arguments, namely that God could of used Evolution) In another email I sent you I asked you if these were truly your beliefs (all the arguments you presented of Evolution etc...) and you stated that they were. I was confused because in your opening statement to an email you said this:

Evolution or Creation? Do we really have to subscribe to one line of thinking or the other as Christians? Could it be... could it just be that both are right? We will certainly never know for sure, but I think so. (emphasis mine)

I cannot express how much this is a contradictory in terms. I assume that you are professing to be a christian by this statement and want any reader stumbling upon this as well to know that. I praise God for that, Hallelujah because that makes us brothers destined to be heirs with Christ one day, I have no doubt about that nor am I questioning that (because I know you personally). But I believe then as you are my brother I must help you to understand God's ways and more importantly his word. To this (your question, could it just be that both are right?) I would reply the way Jesus replied to the Sadducee's when they asked him a certain question in Matthew 22. He said "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God"

It would seem from the statement you made and the rest of that posting/reply and your obvious arguments against the watch maker theory that you are an advocate and defender of Evolution. In other words you would be labeled as what's called an Theistic Evolutionist (that God used millions of years and the evolutionary process to bring about his creation)

Again, this contradicts God's word and who He is. Your saying that he didn't do it the way He says he did. Therefore, that makes him a liar, and if he is a liar then he is not God, why would anyone want to follow Him then?

In a great article given on AiG by Monty White, Ph.D. he states this clearly.
Many theistic evolutionists (such as Prof. Wood) compromise their interpretation of Genesis and believe in millions of years in which evolution has supposedly occurred, with God controlling the processes. They also believe that God still controls these processes and that evolution is still proceeding. These teachings are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God has completed His creation (Genesis 2:1-2).
If you accept the idea of evolution, you have to accept the evolutionary dogma that the human species is just part of the evolution of life, nothing special and certainly not the end-product.
Yet the Bible teaches that human beings are special. God created the first human pair in His image and likeness. Adam and Eve were created by God- Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam's side. God did not cause them to evolve from some ape-like creature. We are not related to animals. There is not a hint of evolution in what the Bible teaches about our origins.


The true evolutionist would argue with me that I am not arguing about the evolutionary process but now I am arguing Abiogenesis. Evolutionist say that we (creationist) often make the misconception that as they are defending macro-evolution (the process of one species evolving into a completely different species over millions and millions of years) they are not and do not wish to talk about Abiogenesis (the studying of how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth) I think this is ridiculous. You want to argue evolution and it's process but you don't want to argue how the first organism got there to evolve in the first place?

Moving on..... Simply stated, as people of God, to say that God used both creation and then evolution to bring about his work, is to say God lied when he stated in Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He made it very clear from the very first sentence that He did it all. The answer is "no" both cannot be right. Either one is right and the other is wrong.

I need to add that if you are suggesting (based off of your email) that the entire creation account is one big parable, I would have to point you to the obvious. What part of Genesis, especially in the very first verse and on to the next few chapters would give you the impression that He was speaking in a parable or not speaking literally? It is very clear when Jesus is speaking in a parable or telling an allegoric story (hence the disciples asking why he was speaking in parables) Plus it was prophesied that he would speak in parables, He was fulfilling prophecy!!! (Matt 13:35) The creation account is Gods literal telling of what he did. It is "plain" reading and "plainly" laid out for us. Why are we such a stubborn people who try to pervert and distort the word of God? Furthermore, why in Romans 8:19-22 does Paul not tell us when referring to the creation of the world that this was just a parable? He speaks of it in many other epistles as well. So does the author of Hebrews and so on throughout the new testament. No one explains it away to be just a parable. They take it literally and believe it as God said it.


We should be careful when teaching such things without studying what the word of God says on the matter first. Scripture says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the "creation" of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

He says men are without excuse. They have no excuse for not giving glory to God because he is all over his creation. Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. (Isaiah 66:2) My bible notes put it well when it says "No one-not even one who has not heard of the Bible or of Christ-has an excuse for not honoring God, because the whole created world reveals him"

But for the one's who don't give him credit or glory and try to use a humanistic or post modernistic argument to account for what we all see today, I answer them with yet again, God's word "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:21-23)
I have heard many biblical scholars put it this way, and I must agree "They became stupid or dumb on purpose".

If you believe in God then you believe His word. You believe Him when he says He created the stars (Genesis 1:16; Job 26:13; Psalm 8:3; Psalm 33:6; Psalm 136:7; Psalm 136:9; Amos 5:8 (New International Version) and has them all named (Psalm 147:4)

You believe Him when he says He Created Heaven and our planet (Gen 1:1)

You believe Him when he says He has every hair on your head numbered (Matt 10:30) and that he has your name written in the palm of his hand (Isaiah 49:16)

I can go on and on and on with this. The point is you cannot believe in one part of God's word and not believe others. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

and

"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

and

"All Scripture is God-breathed (this includes Genesis) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (emphasis mine)

So to say God used evolution is against what God said Himself. There are many more scriptures that support the fact that God did not use evolution in any part of the process of His creation. He doesn't say it, nor does he even remotely hint it.

Pedro said: When God said in Genesis that he created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, did he literally mean 7 human days as we know it? God was pretty clear that his time does not equal our time. He said "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This is the classical example from most evolutionists.

So if this is a simple case of how to "interpret" the six day creation acct, and to answer the "Pedro said" statement above, allow me to use this to clarify:
The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as
2 Peter 3:8, '... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...'. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, '... and a thousand years as one day'. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word 'day' already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.


What does 'day' mean?

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.*
Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom's meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.


To read the article in it's entirety:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp


Moving on...........

Pedro said: If you read enough of the New Testament, it becomes very clear, very quickly that Jesus love to speak to people via parables (a.k.a Stories)................................What does this mean? What Jesus is getting at is that he speaks via story telling so that only his true followers and believers will understand the moral of the story.

Why would Jesus teach something that only a selected few are to understand? One of the many reasons Jesus spoke in parables was because he was speaking to stubborn people, hence the saying "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them"

another reason, as a commentator puts it so well is: The enemies of Jesus were always waiting for him to say something on account of which they might accuse and persecute him (Luke 11:53-54). By speaking in parables, Jesus was making it very hard for them to use his words against him. He could hardly be arrested for telling homely stories!

Jesus did not only use parables in his ministry, He taught many things and we can clearly see this at times such as after being tempted in the desert he began to teach in Matt chapter 4. In Matt chapter 5 he teaches the Beatitudes, to be salt and light, the fulfilment of the law and so on. He did not preach or teach these in parables and everyone understood that...

Pedro said: "Fact is, God has not changed his methods" Sure he does, he changes his methods all the time. Jesus healed many men who were blind. With one demon possessed man who was def and blind he just healed him (Matt 12:22) With the blind man from Bethsaida, Jesus spit on his eyes (hahahaha) Yet another man, Bartimaeus, scripture says "Immediately he received his sight" (NIV)


To say that God doesn't change his methods is to say that God doesn't change his mind. If that's the case then why does God say this in 2nd Chronicles: Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD's wrath did not come upon them during the days of Hezekiah. Even though it clearly said that God's wrath was on him. God was set on getting Hezekiah. The real fact is, is that God changes his methods all the time because he is God and we are not and he can do so (But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases - Job 23:13)... There are countless scriptures to show that God doesn't stick to one method of doing something.... I realize this is a reduntant argument but wanted to address it anyway.

Pedro said: "I believe that God instituted evolution itself and used it as his method of creation. I believe that God created that first spark of life and guided it patiently and deliberately towards the creation of not just humans but all living things. How breathe taking!"

This contradicts what you said above when you said: My Response: Naturally, I agree that when I say “I believe”, those beliefs do not supersede the Word of God as written in the Bible. It is kind of silly to even suggest that could have been the case, but I guess if you are dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, you do have to make that distinction" And "Only the Word of God is the Truth and the reader must interpret the Word of God for themselves to form their own beliefs."

Pedro said: "I just don’t understand why many Christian’s are so intent on disproving evolution" Because evolution, this grand fairy tale for adults, the greatest lie ever told and this astronomical improbability tries to take my God, Creator and Savior out of the picture. I will not and cannot stand for it. I praise God that I don't have to actually defend Him or the Word nor does God need me to. Charles Spurgeon said it this way "Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion! Unchain it and it will defend itself.

Pedro said: "when if we really think about it, evolution itself is the most miraculous creation of all creations" Now you sound as though you have accepted this notion of evolution as fact. Yet you cannot provide evidence of any species turning into another species. Fossils cannot tell you anything about evolution. How can you tell from a fossil that the animal even had offspring? And how can you tell then if it did, that it mutated? Fossils tell you one thing, it's dead now. Be careful Pedro, when you believe in something that you cannot see, that means you have faith in it, making it your own religion. Creation and evolution is not a battle between religion and science, it is a battle of "our" religion against "their" religion. A battle of two world views.

Pedro said: "The fact that God chooses to create a creation that dynamically evolves and self-improves over time in a direction that he sees fit is extraordinary." Question for you. When God was finished with all of his creating on the sixth day it said "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" If everything was "very good" (no mutations, no disease, no sickness, for death by sin had not entered the world yet) then why do we need to "dynamically evolve and/or self improve" ? Are you saying that God did a poor job the first time? hmm....

Pedro said: "The evidence of evolution is all around us. There is no denying that God created the tendency of living things to evolve. One of the best examples of this evolution at work is the domestic Dog. Only a couple hundred years ago, there were only a hand-full of Dog breeds (which stemmed from the wild wolf). Since then dogs have been selectively breed by humans into hundreds of varied breeds of all shapes and sizes. Everything from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; from white to black, and every color in between; from long fur to short, from straight fur to curly. ... and all this from dogs that looked much like the wild Wolf. This evolution of dogs is fact and there is no denying it."

Pedro, let us use common sense and common logic shall we ?(that which God gave us both)There is no doubt that we see "variations" of dogs today which we know came from other "dog like" animals from interbreeding different "kinds" of dogs and so on. No one in their right mind would dispute that.


And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. (emphasis mine) He did not say "according to their species"


This is your proof for evolution? Dogs mate with dogs and we get different kinds of dogs? Notice after all the breeding and years that have gone by, the outcome is still a dog like animal? (four legs and a tail etc.) According to the evolutionary process, at some point through natural selection and "beneficial mutations" we should have a completely different species of animal that is not a dog as though genetic code decided it was going to make up new code. Tell me can you produce Chinese books with the English alphabet? If not, then how can we get the Black Bear from your dogs, or the Elephant? This would otherwise be known as "micro evolution" (the dogs)which I still think to be a poor choice of words but nonetheless I will use it. What we are referring to is your "macro evolution" (Whale from Grizzle Bear). I think the illustration below shows the absurdity of what your "theory" states: "Click on the Picture"

The cartoon says this for those who can't make out the words, from left to right each picture given it's respective number: 1.Yes, after millions of years of evolving what was once a "single-celled" organism somehow developed lungs (and legs!) and hopped out onto Dry Land. 2. This first "lone" amphibian found a Mate (how so darn lucky something else of opposite sex evolved also at the same time and rate), and over time evolved into many other creatures, such as the giraffe.... 3. The Polar Bear... 4. And even our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln! 5. Other amphibians, meanwhile, inexplicably kept reproducing more amphibians.

Do you see how ridiculous this notion is? Not only did they have to evolve but they had to "by chance" hope that a female evolved also with the opposite reproductive organs to mate and reproduce, why??? they had no need to reproduce. when did they decide they needed to? Man I could go on with this........... We will save this for another post.

moving on..........

Pedro said: "Evolution is clearly evident in all living things. God allowed Scientists like Darwin to discover it" Please don't even get me started on Darwin. You make statements like this and don't even know what your talking about. I will just include but a few statements about Darwin. (again I will expose him and his theory more in a future post) these are but a fraction of facts about Darwin, his theory and his book.

Some facts about Charles Darwin:

  • His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in Nov 1859. the full title, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of man-kind.
  • 1831 Graduated from the University of Cambridge with a degree in Theology
  • Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
  • It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horse back travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.
  • His theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England. (http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html)
  • In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with it's ridiculous arguments.
  • Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract", and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
  • When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "let us take an imaginary example" Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "as we have already demonstrated previously." elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
  • He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (Charles Darwin Origin of the Species, 1860,p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed. Vol. 11)

I could seriously go on and write a small book about Darwin. I supposed you are right, God did use Darwin but it was not for a discovery, it was a display of his foolishness, in not giving the Creator credit for his creation. What an insult to the Father. The creation trying so hard to discredit his creator, why would he think God would even allow it, as though he could even do so anyway.

So now I must close. I realize that I have spent a considerable amount of time on this particular email but I feel that it was import to clarify much. If anyone would like to comment or respond, feel absolutely free. Pedro is family (my wife's cousin) and a great friend of mine. We are both replying to each other(and having other personal conversations) in good o'l productive arguing. I highly respect him as I do Dominic (who may very well be reading this post as well)

I believe (by the word of God) that we are all extremely unique and different and special to God. You are one in a million and yet you are God's. He knows you by name and you were "fearfully and wonderfully" made by him. You did not happen by chancy or by random selection. The reason why you might seem common to a monkey is because you share a common designer. We all know the lug nuts from a Chevy can fit on a Pontiac, so we will see some similarities in his creation, this does not "prove" evolution occurred. And he did not make you by accident either. He chose the name Pedro before Adam and Even even set foot in the Garden. He knows the future he has planned for you, you are of great worth to him. I implore you, don't exchange lies for his truth.

Your brother,

Joe

-Man of God