Monthly Archives: February 2013

The High Priests Evangelize


Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking are members of the religion of Secular Humanism. I agreed with Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguilar, when he stated that “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. … Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” This is based on a series of minor court cases (see references below) by various secularist and humanist groups suing to gain tax-exempt status for their organizations. This goal was finally achieved in 1961, which Justice Scalia properly referenced.

But it is a little surprising to hear scientists openly express their true beliefs. It’s amazing to see them reveal themselves as practitioners of a religion, and evangelists seeking converts to that religion.

As referenced in our book Conflict of the Ages, Part One: The Scientific History of Origins, Michael Ruse, Canadian professor of philosophy and zoology, cited Dr. Duane Gish, a PhD. in Biochemistry from Berkeley. Ruse said,

“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. [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

This statement by Michael Ruse explains that evolution for a secularist is more than a mere tenet of his religion. It is an integral part. Evolution is his expression of faith, and the secularist must become an apologist for Evolution, an evangelist for his religion. It makes very clear the true position of Richard Dawkins when he says,

“Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

As the Great High Priest of the Life Sciences, Dawkins takes the position of all High Priests. Yes, “Evolution is a religion.” (Ruse) and my religion “is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.” He willingly accepts the job of every High Priest, to convince, and if necessary force, people to follow his beliefs. An earlier High Priest, Carl Sagan, felt free to express it in even more religious terms.

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation of a distant memory, as if we were falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

In practice, the position of Richard Dawkins is identical to Stephen Hawking, the Secular Humanist Great High Priest of Physics. Stephen Hawking in his work A Brief History of Time, does not use the word religion, though he describes it. He says, “We still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.” He also said in A Briefer History of Time (chapter 8) “I put a lot of effort into writing A Briefer History of Time at a time when I was critically ill with Pneumonia because I think that it’s important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.” He also claims in A Brief History of Time “our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”

In the words of Satan in the Garden, “You will be like gods.”

Edwards v. Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987 “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. …” Id., at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961)); 1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). “Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” 1 id., at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-312 — E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith).

The following excerpt from Chapter Nine of our book Antidisestablishmentarianism presents a chronology of secularists seeking tax-exempt status through the courts in America.

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 1956  The Fellowship of Humanity described itself as a non-theistic group but filed for tax-exempt status, which was granted on the basis that they held weekly Sunday meetings and met other criteria applied to religious groups. The Fellowship of Humanity case referred only to the term humanism. Justice Black apparently added the term secular when referring to the case in Torcaso v Watkins to distinguish the group from such beliefs as Christian Humanism.

Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 1957 The Washington Ethical Society honors ethical living but does not require a supernatural origin for ethics. It considers itself nontheistic and was granted tax-exempt status as a religious organization on appeal. This case is considered to have established generic Secular Humanism as a religion.

In the cases of both the Fellowship of Humanity and the Washington Ethical Society, the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions. These organizations applied for and accepted tax-exempt status on this basis. “If it walks like a duck … ”

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961. Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote (emphasis added),”Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 1956.

Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961.

Here are the other sources cited in this blog:

“Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion” Ruse, M., How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 May 13, 2000.

(The article quotes Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada. The “sic” is because Duane Gish is a PhD in Biochemistry and properly referred to as “Dr.,” not “Mr.”) From Answers in Genesis website

Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution, Ch. 1, Free Press, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2009.

Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, NY, 1980.


Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Basics Of Reality


Words mean things. “This is a green fence,” can be parsed, the adjective “green” and the noun “fence” can be made more precise, but the basic meaning of words is clear. I once had a business trip to plant where everyone spoke French. They found the one man who knew a little English. Between my knowledge of a little French and his knowledge of a little English, we completed our transaction. The old I Love Lucy show has a classic skit of a trip to Italy and the difficulty of a language (in that case several languages) barrier. No matter how difficult, language barriers can be overcome because words have meaning.

While some people believe that all reality is nothing but an illusion, for the rest of us, the material universe exists. We use words to describe it. The simple existence of the world is consistent with our experience. As John opens 1 John “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” Reality either came into existence at some point in time or it is eternal. We describe this material existence with words.

Entropy says that all mass/energy transformations either conserve existing mass/energy at the level before the transformation or make the mass/energy less useable (a downward transformation as to the total available mass/energy). There has never been an observed exception to entropy.

This is consistent with the statement “In the beginning God created.” In six days God input and organized the mass and energy of the universe. Then God rested, that is, ceased inputting and organizing mass and energy. Later, God told Moses what He did and Moses recorded it in writing.

Today, the vast majority of mankind chooses to believe that this record is not true. They claim that their belief in deep time is based on evidence. But the evidence available to us today must be interpreted. We observe the surface of the sun, interpret that data and make assumptions about how the interior and core of the sun operate. These can be valid scientific theories, as long as we accept the limitation of being unable to verify our theories with observations.

These limitations apply to everything dealing with the past. In the recent past, we have written records to support the observable data. The recent past can be as recent as the assassination of JFK, or it can be the eruption of Mount Vesuvius burying Pompeii in A.D. 79. But without written records, we depart from science and rely entirely on interpretations of what we can observe today.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time. A God Who can speak the universe into existence can also place the photons of light across billions of light years in an instant of time.

Radometric samples are accurately handled and honestly evaluated in laboratories all over the world. But using the result of accurate laboratory information to arrive at a deep time date is a leap of faith. It is simply impossible to know either the original condition of the sample or the conditions prior to any witnesses who wrote down their observations. Since we know nothing of the condition of the original sample or what has happened to the sample since then, the laboratory results can only give us the oldest possible date in a range of dates. The interpreter also believes that nothing ever had any affect on the sample. A true scientific interpretation of the data would say that the age of the sample could be anywhere within a range beginning just before the sample was tested up to the oldest possible date.

Any date relying on counting existing material, such as the salt content of the ocean, varves, the number of craters on the moon or the layers in a glacier all require assuming deep time to be true to return a value using deep time. There is no observable evidence possible to scientifically prove that present processes formed the salt in the sea, the position of the continents, the number of craters on the moon, the formation of glaciers or any other current process.

The Grand Canyon was formed by an upthrust (uplift). Once we recognize that catastrophes, even local ones, formed the world we know and see today, we must state scientifically that the present is not the key to the past.

Using language in the normal way we use language, the only evidence of deep time is a religious leap of faith. If you believe in deep time, it is because you choose to. Not only is there no evidence of deep time, because we cannot send observers back in time (not even with the Hubble telescope), evidence is not possible.

“Unbelievable” is the proper response if you do not believe. Because it is completely belief.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Review of The Mummy Returns

Objectionable elements: 1. Veneration of false gods and magic spells related to the false religion. 2. Promotion of reincarnation as true. 3. Violence, including the mummy sucking the life out of people. 3. Cursing in English and probably in foreign languages. Scantily-clad women, including a lengthy “chick fight” in bikinis. 4. The “Medji,” Arabs fighting the evil mummy Imhotep and the Army of Anubis talk about destiny and being a “warrior for god.” 5. Visions and memories from past lives guide people. 6. Three people are resurrected from the dead simply by chanting a spell from a magic book.

So why watch it? It shows a married couple, adventurer Rick O’Connell and his Egyptologist wife Evelyn, very much IN love, not sniping at each other, not in any way dysfunctional, using playful persuasion on each other but never running each other down to others. In fact, everyone they encounter helps them because of their determination to do right without hesitation.

Alex, O’Connell, their eight year old son, acts like a “smart-aleck” on the surface, but he loves and respects his parents, responds to their teaching, and compliments them. Rick rescues him from the “Bracelet of Anubis Curse” by fighting off a horde of warriors and pygmies and running through the jungle to reach the pyramid by dawn. As they lie safe in the shadow of the pyramid at last, the exhausted Rick gasps, “It’s not easy being a dad.” Alex says, “Yeah, but you do it real good,” and falls into his arms. Alex knows how to bring his mother back because he paid attention and learned ancient Egyptian from her.

Ardeth Bey, the leader of the Medji, goes along with the O’Connells to find out where the battleground with the Army of Anubis will be. When his messenger falcon is shot down, he starts to leave to tell the Medji army where to come, but Rick stops him. “I need you to help me find my son.” Ardeth pauses. “First I will help you,” he agrees.

Rick and Ardeth Bey wade in to the Mummy’s pack of bad guys to rescue Alex. Evie and her brother Jonathan give them covering fire from a ridge. Evie says, “Jonathan, that’s my husband and my son down there. Make me proud.” Jonathan, normally a drunken, cheating thief, says, “Today’s that day, Evie.” For them, he does things that terrify him and does them well.

Rick says he only cares about his family. Even though he goes after Imhotep to avenge Evie’s murder, he knows he has to defeat both Imhotep and the Scorpion King to set things right, to “save the world.” When the time comes, he does not hesitate to give his all.

Near the end, both Rick and Imhotep are hanging off a chasm being “dragged alive into Hell.” Evie and Ank-sun-amun, Imhotep’s resurrected lover, anxiously watch as hands come up over the edge. Imhotep, right hand, left hand. Rick, right hand, left hand. Closeup on that left hand, and Rick’s wedding ring.

Evie stares into his eyes and he says, “No! Evie! Get out of here!” She runs in as the place is falling down on top of them and pulls him out. Imhotep calls out to his supposed eternal love to help him, and she says, “Nai!” (No, I presume) and runs away, only to be devoured by scarabs while Imhotep, tears in his eyes, lets go and willingly falls into the abyss.

Izzy, a grimy, disreputable dirigible pilot, rescues them as the pyramid and the whole oasis of Ahm Sher get sucked down into nothingness. Izzy has complained and questioned Rick through his whole time in the movie, but in the end he risks everything to save that family.

Image from:

Leave a comment

Filed under Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Three More Christian Book Reviews

“It’s Not About What You Think It’s About” The Difference Between Night and Day by Melissa Turner Lee

I have read one other vampire book, and only one, Dracula, by Bram Stoker. I didn’t know this was a vampire book when I started it, but before you dismiss this as a shabby Christian Twilight knockoff, you should know that it’s not really about being a vampire. It’s more about the old saying, “Did God abandon you, or did you abandon God?”
Nathaniel’s been struggling for years in darkness, and, in a sense, the book is a modern allegory of trust and patience toward God. Lilly has both, even though she doesn’t even know a father’s love. She knows God loves her in very strange and difficult circumstances. She struggles in darkness, too, but she also helps others come out into the light.
Even though Nathaniel believes he is a monster, he still practices godly character and conduct. How the two of them handle their love is nothing like any worldly vampire treatment could comprehend. The cheeseburger analogy is really so cute.
I didn’t care for the sudden change in point of view, introducing Lilly’s first person accounts, so far into the book. I also didn’t think the explanation of Nathaniel’s true nature was very believable. But otherwise the story was well-written. The gradual unveiling of the strangeness of their natures was handled well. The commitment to Christ that trumped every difficulty was believable.

“Where Will the Real Journey Take You?” Unclouded Day by William Woodall

Part allegory, part coming of age, part spiritual awakening, this book is about a teenage boy living with an alcoholic mother and a fragile younger brother. Even his mother is quick to tell him the truth that the solution Brian thinks he has found to his sad and sometimes terrifying life is the wrong one. Will his little brother pay the price for his short-sightedness, his simple plan to “make everything better”?

When his easy fixes begin to crumble to ashes Brian is forced to examine his own motives and what is really important to him. An elderly stranger and a desperate, outcast new friend push him to search for the real power to make the world a better place.

What is the source of healing, of restoration, of hope? Is it in magic and ancient legends or is it closer to home, from a different source, far from “the center of the world”? The physical quest and the spiritual one are intertwined all along the way.

This is the first book by Joana James that I have read that really gives insight into the island of Saint Lucia in the Caribbean where she lives and the lifestyles of its people. I enjoyed her descriptions of the beautiful locations there, Sulfur Springs and the beaches. She also describes a serious storm, and that parallels the stormy relationship of Daynia and Richard.

This book is primarily about fidelity, which is what Shakespeare’s Romeo was known for. He found the right girl and stuck to her to the bitter end. Daynia thinks she has found the perfect man. She thinks she’s doing everything she can to make him happy and let him know she loves him. But keep in mind that they both have a history of broken relationships, and they just might not have learned the lessons from those sad and bitter times that they should have just yet.

I think the first half of the story is realistic but it seems to be heavy on the “troubles” aspects of the relationship. By contrast, there’s very little detail about what both Daynia and Richard did to make things right. Even so, this story gives such important insight into the mindset of both men and women in the modern world of relationships. I have no doubt it will help many navigate the waters from a Christian perspective.

Leave a comment

Filed under Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Christian Book Reviews — At Least a Little Romance in every One!

“Faith and Victory Require Searching with Heart and Sword”

This review is from: The Weapons of Warfare (The Center Circle Chronicles) by Steve Biddison

What does Landru need to free his world from his conquering foe? Where can he look for allies when those he depended on shake his trust to its core? Will a journey to the Great Pyramid and Stonhenge give him the teacher he needs to understand his faith? Who will fight with him when the only army he has left is trapped on another world, in another time?
The Center Circle continues to promote division rather than unity in the second installment, but Landru and Brenna grow in understanding and maturity. The Weapons of Warfare are only part of what Landru has to search for, and Biddison’s success in this book is more in teaching readers how to deal with limitations than in tidily resolving all the problems. Not everything that was lost is found. Not everything that was broken is fixed. But the hope he gives as things begin to come together keeps the reader going.
There are no tidy resolutions, but that’s what Book Three is for, I think. In the meantime, just as our faith grows and our battles go on, the Center Circle characters show us glimpses of hope that we. too, can find victory through faith.

“Knock You Off Your Feet Events!”
This review is from: VOICES (The David Chance Series) (Kindle Edition)
I love the setup of this story. I want to imagine that there’s a government agency that takes an interest in where people get guidance and direction from. Agent Collins is my favorite character. He reminds me of Agent Phil Coulson in the Avengers. Such an ordinary guy with an extraordinary job. He needs to sort out the differences between the messages of David Chance and the voices of Jonathan Blake. He needs to know who to listen to, who’s helpful and who’s harmful. He wants to deal with fact, even as he talks about extraterrestrials.
David Chance learns some stunning lessons about who to trust and who really cares for him. Jonathan Blake learns the hard way that a special gift might not be a good gift, and there are lessons about trust for him too. The food box is absolutely priceless! Both of the books in this series have these knock you off your feet events that you won’t want to miss.

“Not Just a Chick Lit Romance”

This review is from: Nadia’s Hope by Lisa Buffaloe
I especially loved that this story included the point of view of the male main character, David. It showed so clearly how secrets, however painful and innocently-kept, can really cause misunderstandings. I loved Ellie, too, and her lifetime of adventures. The secondary characters really rounded out the story.

“Learning a Father’s Lesson from Thousands of Miles Away”

This review is from: Lord’s Love (Cottonwood) by Sophie Dawson

The choice St John Lytton’s father gives him seems like a lose-lose situation. Even when he thinks he’s found an easy path with old acquaintances, he learns his father’s got a deeper plan. Culture shock doesn’t stop him from trying to have a little fun. But that’s when he begins to understand the seriousness of his situation. Will he risk losing his livelihood, home and heritage? And is it possible he still doesn’t understand what his father really wants from him? Could it be the beautiful girl he first pursued for fun is trying to teach him the same lesson? And if he doesn’t get it this time, will anything he’s planned or tried to accomplish really matter?

Leave a comment

Filed under Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Verifiable Evidence

red cliff

Secularists, when asked for evidence to support their position, reply with comments that show they neither read the article in question, nor do they understand the issues being discussed. Instead they reply with mockery, insults and ridicule. Their comments are usually off-topic.

They constantly ask, “What evidence would you accept?” like verifiable evidence is a matter of opinion. They also frequently ask, “What are your qualifications for saying that?” Perhaps they believe that truth and verifiable evidence changes depending on your degree, certification or some other way you meet their approval.

However, there are a few exceptions. Out of hundreds, perhaps thousands of Secular Humanist comments on the facebook page “Creationism,” I have seen a few attempts to present actual evidence.

First, I wish to thank Secular Humanist James Dickson for defining the Humanist position so clearly in two brief paragraphs. He opens by saying, “When I was walking home from work, I noticed people putting salt on their walkways. I know that salt will create a reaction that will melt the ice. I know this for a fact. I, however, could not see a reaction taking place with my eyes. We would be able to measure the reaction with the proper equipment, but just with my eves, I couldn’t notice a difference.”

Twice he says, “I know.” How do we know this common piece of knowledge? Someone with “the proper equipment,” to use James Dickson’s words, examined, measured and published the results of placing salt on an icy sidewalk. People like James, myself and the rest of you reading this article believe those test results. We have faith in the “proper equipment” and we trust the people publishing the results of their measurements of the reactions. That is exactly the way the words believe, faith and trust are used in the Bible. Those words mean examine and verify evidence, then accept the results of that examination.

James Dickson then continues. “We can’t see evolution over just one generation. It takes eons. It takes a LOT of time for evolution to occur. Why then, do creationists insist that we should be able to see great changes in a few generations?”

[ James has said we misquoted him in this statement. Here is the correction he asked us to include. “Why do creationists ask to see great changes over SHORT spans of time when they take eons?” You cut out ” over SHORT spans of time when they take eons?” This is very important information!]

I, as a Creationist, have often written similar statements and said that this is what secularists believe. I am always called a liar, because this is such obvious circular reasoning. “Why then, do creationists insist that we should be able to see great changes…?” means “Why do you insist on verifiable evidence?”

In this statement James Dickson is first accepting evolution on faith. He then says that evolution “takes a LOT of time” so of course there is no evidence.

Second, Ecotropic Recombinant Viruses, ERVs, or retroviruses, were presented as proof of evolution. ERVs exist today. They can be examined. However, when I asked how that is a proof of evolution, an article was linked to which “proved” that ERVs are responsible for mammals developing placentas. The article contained many observations of the way ERVs act and react in modern laboratories.

The article had no record of anyone observing anything like a placenta developing from nonplacental tissue. When I brought that key point up, the comments were all along the line that placental evolution occurred millions of years ago. They say that the current evidence proves that ERVs are the mechanism by which placental development must have happened.

Once again, this is circular reasoning, not evidence. Accept evolution as a fact, then believe that EVRs are the mechanisms that caused at least some part of evolution.

I am not this writing to question any of the laboratory work done on EVRs. But neither is any of the research done on EVRs any kind of verifiable evidence of what happened millions of years ago. The current lab work on EVRs demonstrates without question what can be done now, in a laboratory, directed by a human intelligence. There is no verifiable evidence of what an EVR could have done millions of years ago by random chance.

The scientific fact of a placenta today has no scientific connection to EVRs millions of years in the past.

But both of these points collapse if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Evolution requires time, a great deal of time, millions of years. As James Dickson said, “It takes a LOT of time for evolution to occur.” Creationist Science agrees with this statement completely.

So I was very pleased when Jake Benicio Lorenzo attempted to defend the concept of deep time. These earlier points are moot without deep time. He said, “”There are many processes which are simply more than 6,000 years.”

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

“It takes a photon a minimum 17,000-50,000,000 years to reach the surface of the sun once it is released, and our sun is a comparatively small star compared to others that have been discovered which are much greater in size and density.”

When Olaf Roemer made “the first true measurement of the speed of light” in 1676, he did not know the actual distance from the earth to Jupiter. He measured the time discrepancy between the disappearance and reappearance of Jovian moons behind Jupiter when the earth was close to Jupiter and when the earth was maximum distance from Jupiter.

This measurement is not perfect. It is, however, considered very good, exceptional for the equipment and information available to Olaf Roemer. Even before this, men were measuring the diameter of the sun. They concluded that the sun was losing mass (shrinking) at a rate of .01 percent per year, on average. They used the same type of equipment and had access to the same information as Olaf Roemer.

Based on centuries of measurements of the diameter of the sun, Lord Kelvin worked with Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz to develop the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction theory for the power of the sun. This theory would have the sun too hot for life on earth a mere 50,000 years ago. The current orbit of the earth would have been inside the sun about a million years ago.

The point is that humans have no instruments inside the sun. We have no way of knowing for certain how the sun is powered internally. So the statement that “It takes a photon a minimum 17,000-50,000,000 years to reach the surface of the sun once it is released” is belief, not science.

His next point was craters on moon. (Note that the writer used hyphens as bullet points)

“-When we look at craters on the moon and other bodies in the solar system, we find many craters. Debris are constantly bombarding the moon, however the impact craters that we observe are generally due to more substantial impacts. The newest crater (named Giordano Bruno) is thought to have hit the moon in 1178 AD which was observed by an estimated 5 people – this eyewitness account coincides with the results of independent tests. Many craters have craters within them and those craters often have more craters within them. This helps us to determine how old some of these craters are, and the estimates go way beyond 6,000. Even if you are skeptical about the testing processes, it is difficult to explain how our moon, peppered in many craters could only be 6,000 years old.””

This is very believable. That is, if there was no change in the rate of crater formation on the moon for millions of years. That is an act of faith, not science. It is physically possible for almost every single crater on the moon to have been put there on the same day. Not likely, but possible. Once again, this is not science. The scientific, verifiable fact is that we have no idea when most of the moon’s craters were formed.

The last evidence offered by Jake Benicio Lorenzo is fossil evidence on different continents.

“-When we look at certain fossils, we find that they are present on different continents. This is most reasonably explained by continental drift, which is known to take a lot longer than 6,000 years. The following image shows examples of this:”

Once again, a superficial look at the evidence might cause someone to come to the conclusion that the earth is “a lot [more] than 6,000 years old.” The fossils are very real. They are very good evidence that there was only one continent sometime before the fossils were embedded. And there are far more fossils which can be presented as evidence.

The problem is “continental drift, which is known to take a lot longer than 6,000 years.” Yes, there was once only one continent. And yes the continents split apart. But scientifically, there is no evidence that the continents “drifted” apart. That “assumes” the continents have always moved at the same, or similar, rate of speed as they are moving now. That is not science. That is faith.

In a paper which does not support creation-science, “Not Continental Drift but Plate Tectonics,” this statement is made. “Plate tectonics enjoys nearly universally acceptance, and Wegener’s continental drift is recognized as a perceptive but fatally flawed forerunner of the modern theory.” The position supported here is that plate tectonics, a comparatively rapid movement of the continents, is true, and Continental Drift is not. The paper can be found at:

It is possible that plate tectonics caused continents to move apart very rapidly, perhaps in less than one year. It is also possible that this is not the way the continents moved. But the scientific evidence does not support the statement than continental drift is known to take more than 6,000 years. People may choose to believe that, but the evidence does not support their beliefs.

Everything that I have seen presented as evidence of deep time by secularists falls into the same pattern. First, observe some current phenomenon, such as the number of craters on the moon, the amount of salt in the oceans, the movement of the continents or the Grand Canyon. Second, carefully observe how the phenomenon is acting now or in the near past. Third, assume both deep time and uniformitarianism. Apply deep time and uniformitarianism to the current phenomenon. Fourth, claim that the current rate of the phenomenon is proof of deep time and uniformitarianism.

I used the Grand Canyon as an example because even though creationists and the National Geologic Society disagree over the amount of time it took to form the Grand Canyon, we agree on the method. The physical evidence proves that the Grand Canyon was formed by an upthrust. The National Parks Service has two monuments explaining how this happened, one in Flagstaff, AZ and the other at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon at the national park. On these signs it explains that the “Kaibab Uplift” took place “at least” 75 million years ago. Even though the physical evidence forces them to admit that the Grand Canyon was formed by a catastrophe, they still use uniformitarian beliefs to date the catastrophe. Since the physical evidence demands that the Grand Canyon was formed through a catastrophe, that catastrophe which formed the Grand Canyon could just as easily have taken place less than 5,000 years ago.

Nothing offered as evidence of an earth more than 6,000 years old stands up to true scientific scrutiny. And without millions of years, evolution is not possible.

Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods and other books about archaeological sites he has personally explored and studied in his search for facts about ancient times, is certainly no creationist. Yet he said, “The further back you go, the more that the history that’s taught in the schools and universities begins to look like some kind of fairy tale.”


Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

How Can I Become A Christian? Part Eight: It’s Your Choice

bluse lake

Jesus did not rebuke Nicodemus or turn him away. Jesus continued, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

To understand this, we need to understand a little of what Nicodemus already knew. In both Greek and Hebrew, Spirit, breath and wind are the same word. The meaning and the translation all depend on the context. Sometimes, as in this chapter, the word can mean all three things at the same time. If this seems confusing, this three-fold meaning is first used in Genesis Chapter One, verse two: “And the Spirit (wind, breath) of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The Spirit of God is life.

But in the Old Testament the Spirit of God indwelling a person seems to have been rare and temporary. Samson is a clear example of this. When the Spirit of God entered David, it had left Saul. At the same time, the Spirit of God talked to Samuel, but the Word of God never says that it indwelt Samuel. So this idea that Jesus was presenting that being born again of the Spirit was necessary for the kingdom of God was new. He was saying that more than one person could have the Spirit of God at the same time, and that the Spirit would remain in a person permanently.

Also, since the original creation was all water, water is the foundation of the material world. “It escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water.” (2 Peter 3:5)

So when Jesus told Nicodemus “unless one is born of water (material, of a woman) and the Spirit (breathe, wind) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” Nicodemus was amazed. Jesus calmly told him “Do not be amazed.” Jesus said concerning the wind (spirit, breathe) that “you do not know where it comes from and where it is going”. He meant, “There are natural things which you, Nicodemus, do not know.” You will never know everything. As “the teacher of Israel”, Jesus was showing Nicodemus some of his limits.

Nicodemus admitted his limits with the question, “How can these things be?” Nicodemus understood that Jesus meant that the Spirit of God would indwell many people at the same time. But he did not understand how this was possible.

Most people view Jesus’ reply as a put-down. “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” While it is possible that Jesus was saying that Nicodemus should have known these things, I understand this to mean that Jesus was revealing a mystery to Nicodemus because Nicodemus was ready to receive the mystery. In the Word of God, a mystery is something which can only be revealed by God and cannot be discovered by natural or scientific investigation. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15, “Behold I show you a mystery…”

Jesus then changed and spoke to Nicodemus not as an individual, but as the representative of all the teachers of the Law in Israel. “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.” Nicodemus would clearly understand that Jesus addressed him as a representative of the Pharisees, perhaps all Jews in leadership. But the plural when Jesus spoke of Himself was difficult to accept. “We speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.” It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Nicodemus mistook Jesus as referring to the disciples.

The first words of the Law say, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” the word Elohim, translated God, is in the plural but used in the singular. Hebrew has singular, duality and plural. Elohim is clearly plural, meaning three or more. Throughout the Old Testament the plural Elohim is used in the singular and translated into both Greek in the LXX (Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and English by the singular word God. The Church has invented the word Trinity attempt to grasp this concept. Jesus clearly said, “I and my father are one.”

Nicodemus began the conversation by calling Jesus “Rabbi,” a term which he viewed as one of great respect. Jesus revealed Himself to Nicodemus as God, since only God can be a single individual and plural at the same time and clearly states that the Jewish nation has rejected God. This was something very difficult for “the teacher of Israel” to accept.

But Jesus did not stop there. He continued, “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” The word is “if”; however, it means “since” to us. The force, not the literal translation, of this sentence is, “Since I told you earthly things and you do not believe, you will not believe when I tell you heavenly things (things which have not been revealed yet).” Another way of paraphrasing this sentence is, “Since I told you things you should easily understand, how will you understand the difficulties of how heaven really works?”

Jesus continues to reveal difficult information about heaven. Jesus says, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” This is an even clearer claim to be God. He says that He “descended from heaven.” But Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness was a clear statement of crucifixion. Jesus is also saying that He would return to heaven after being crucified. While the disciples might not have understood, “the teacher of Israel,” would know both the Old Testament and the Roman culture.

Jesus’ claim “that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life,” has much less shock value to us than it did to Nicodemus.

After informing Nicodemus that He will be crucified, Jesus then explains that He is laying down His life as a gift, a gift given by God. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Jesus then explains that laying down His life is necessary because we are all under the judgment of sin. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Jesus finishes with Nicodemus by explaining the true nature of Spiritual warfare. He was simply explaining the difference between Nicodemus’ attitude and that of the rest of the “teachers of Israel”.

“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

As quoted earlier, Nicodemus said, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” Nicodemus questioned Jesus’ purpose and nature, but he came to find out the truth. Those who loved evil did not come to Jesus but avoided him, or came only to try to trap or discredit Him. They didn’t stick around, because when they did, Jesus’ light exposed them for the hypocrites and evildoers that they were. Nicodemus, however, came to the light, listened to the truth, and became a follower.

Image from

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics