It can be difficult to wade through search results to find quality answers to questions about God and the Bible. Use this Google Custom Search engine to find the answers you’re looking for from over 15 million pages on websites specifically selected for their trustworthiness on Christian topics.
President Obama wasted no time in advancing his radical agenda to ramp up the slaughter of millions of innocent children. During his first week in office, he lifted a ban called the “Global Gag Rule” or the “Mexico City Policy” that prevented federal funding for international organizations which provide or promote abortions. Under other laws, the money isn’t supposed to go toward funding the actual abortion, but it’s hard to say what kind of U.S. oversight there is for such internationally run groups. He signed the memorandum the day after the 36th anniversary of the over-reaching Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme court to legalize abortion, which resulted in over 50 million “legal” murders since 1973. Showing a total lack of respect for his opponents, Obama did this soon after thousands of pro-life activists gathered in Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life right down the street. Could he not at least wait until they’d made it home to throw their peaceful petitions back in their face?
This move particularly affects minorities since “family planning” or “population planning” organizations like Planned Parenthood are known to target minority populations. This is a hold-over from the pioneers of the eugenics movement, begun by people such as: Marie Stopes (Founder of the Eugenics Society), Charles Galton Darwin (yes, he’s related to that Darwin), Julian Huxley (a famous evolutionist) and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). All of these were members of the Eugenics Society, now known as the Galton Institute, which still has a number of pro-eugenics writings listed in their publications directory. This institute may be eligible for federal funds now that the ban is lifted.
Eugenics is a black spot in American history. It is the “self direction of human evolution,” as seen in this logo:
Eugenics is the practical application of Darwinism, which brought in the idea that some races were “lower” than others and that the “higher” races could be improved by eliminating the less-fit ones. In Germany, it led to the Holocaust. Here in America, it led to forced sterilization of thousands of minorities, mainly blacks. The eugenics movement survives today in the abortion clinics which are disproportionately in inner-city, minority-dominated areas and groups like the Galton Institute which helps fund “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.”
Just a few days before Obama’s order, this nation celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr.’s civil rights achievements. His niece, Dr. Alveda King, is on record saying:
“What’s different today from the days of lynching is that the people wearing doctors’ coats are now far more successful at eliminating the Black population than the Klan ever dreamed.”
In other words, our first black president might have just done more to hurt blacks than the joint efforts of white racists throughout American history.
Some Christians out there will still say we ought to pray for him and end the bickering because he’s our President and we should follow him. To them I say: “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). To his credit, Obama has issued a few executive orders I expect to do some good, but these acts are totally overshadowed by the evil that continues in the American Holocaust.
I will pray for him. I will pray he repents of his evil deeds and ends the genocide of those nameless faces who could not scream for help.
You know you’re apostate when…
You quote Star Wars as your prayer for the new Commander and Chief of the United States.
“I say to you as my son who is here today, my 14-year-old son – he probably would not quote scripture. He probably would use Star Trek (sic) instead, and so I say, ‘May the force be with you.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/20/pastor-to-obama-may-the-force-be-with-you
Is he serious? Did a so-called Christian pastor just give a New-Age send off (The Force definitely isn’t the Holy Spirit of the Bible) to the President-elect in the face of looming national crisis? Is there no outcry? People, wake up. If our leaders lead this nation into error – we will be destroyed (Isaiah 9:16). In case you don’t know, this is exactly what is being planned for this nation as predicted in the Book of Revelation almost 2,000 years ago!
We’ve turned our churches into standing jokes. They have spiraled down so far that your average church-going American thinks that the building he attends is what should be called the “church.” Most people think our meeting houses are places you only go to host marriages, funerals, and Presidential pre-parties like the above mentioned travesty. How can we be the light to the world (Matthew 5:14) if we no longer have light? If you are among born again believers, you are the church (Colossians 1:24). You are to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). You are to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). You are to sow seed and reap a harvest (John 4:36-37). You are to put on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-20) and be soldiers for Christ (2 Timothy 2:3).
Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us of our national sin in turning from your pure words (Psalm 12:6-7). Forgive us for heaping upon ourselves teachers after our own lusts (2 Timothy 4:3). Forgive us for pursuing profane and vain babblings (2 Timothy 2:16). Forgive us for equating the Holy Ghost with a pantheistic idol such as “The Force” from a man-made fairy tale (Star Wars).
The wind whistles loud and clear
It’s howling hell for me to hear
“You can move with me or against me
But you can never move without me”
The wind only whispers some days
Echoing Hell’s hounds that just blew away
It has the power to shatter the glass walls
That make me feel safe in the halls
‘Tis a force to be reckoned with, I know
And I reckon we’re comparable foes
For as long as I have the strength to stand
I will surely have the upper hand
My fight with the wind will forever be
When forever ends, the victor is me
I wrote this on a cold night at the Air Force academy. I had just come from walking across the terrazzo. It’s always windy up there. When I was going to sleep I could hear the wind whistling and howling in the railing above my room. It was louder than ever before. This poem, however, represents much more than a lack of sleep from an annoying noise.
The wind generally represents the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) who is the one pushing ever-changing winds of false doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). It is an outside influence that you have no control over. Imagine yourself standing alone in an open field on a windy day. You are intent on standing firm where you are, not to be swayed by the wind. You have principles and faith that you must defend. Everyone has some sort of safety net or defense structure to help them stand firm in such situations, but that can only go so far.
Your defense mechanisms won’t always protect you. Just when you feel safe, the collective winds can shatter your ‘glass wall’ defenses. People can band together and rise up in efforts to blow over your moral foundation. One alone is as feeble as a molecule of air; many of them put together can be overwhelming. After that, the only thing left is your will, aided by the Holy Spirit, to stand on principle and faith alone.
As long as you have the personal fortitude to continue standing, you have won the battle. Once you are firmly grounded in your convictions, no amount of force will break you. Think of it as a candle in the dark: the light (good) can overpower vast expanses of darkness (evil). It seems to be battling the darkness. As long as it burns, the candle illuminates everything if even just a little.
The same is true for your soul standing in eternity. The phrase ‘when forever ends’ is just a literal device to say that if you stand up in principle for eternity, you win! You may sway now and then with all that’s against you, but you still remain standing. What is your foundation? Is it God’s words found in the Bible, or is it man’s thoughts and opinions? When the outside world changes, will you always ‘go with the flow’, or will you go the narrow way? When the ‘flow’ is righteous, will it be a wind at your back or a hindrance to your goals? Think about it.
I keep coming across the idea that belief in evolution doesn’t matter to Christians because (supposedly) evolution is “science,” and Genesis is a religious “myth.” People then say that science and religion answer different questions. Religion answers “why” and science answers “how.” So, what does it matter if God used evolution to create us or whether it was by divine fiat?
This whole idea goes back a long way, but was popularized by an evolutionary biologist (and noted Marxist) named Stephen Jay Gould. He called it Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA. This is an attempt to separate science and religion as being totally different entities and two different ways of discovering truth. Religion deals with spiritual truths while science deals with natural truths.
If that’s the case, then there should be no conflict whatsoever between science and religion, right? Not so fast. When it comes to creation and evolution, there’s quite a conflict. When we talk about origins, science and religion fully overlap and thus the NOMA idea doesn’t apply. Both means of discovering the truth arrive at fundamentally different answers with regards to where everything comes from. Science is trying to tell us that the creation of everything is due to natural causes. Religion tells us that “God created.”
You see, it does us no good to wonder why God created us, or what His purpose for us is if we don’t even believe he created us in the first place. Furthermore, knowing how he created us tells us a lot about God’s nature. Evolution, at its core, is entirely purposeless and directionless. Its foundational concepts include random variations preserved through selection (death). Notice the word “random”. If God used evolution to create us, what does that say about our purpose? What does it say about death? If we’re mere accidents on an evolutionary tree, then we’re not created in God’s image according to His will. If death is part of the creative process of God, then it was not a punishment for Adam’s sin. Religion and “science” (if evolution can even be classified as science) are in a great deal of conflict with the biblical description of God.
Christians see Jesus as the Son of God. On several occasions, Jesus referenced parts of Genesis in defense of his teachings. In particular, he used the creation story to defend marriage between one man and one woman, saying that the two are one flesh and man shall “cleave unto his wife.” Furthermore, Matthew and Luke include Adam in Jesus’ direct lineage. But, if evolution is true, then Adam and Eve didn’t exist. So, what does that mean about Jesus’ statements on marriage? Which people in the Bible’s genealogies are real if the first ones aren’t? How arrogant are we as humans to say that we know the history of life on Earth better than the Son of God?
As I will show in other articles, we have every reason to scoff at man-made myths about swirling balls of gases that formed stars, then planets, then goo, and eventually …you. The Bible is an important book of history that starts at the very beginning, as written by an eyewitness. In the story of creation, this eyewitness is God Himself, who spoke to the first man and inspired the writers of the Bible. It is this witness which gives us observations which we can begin with in conducting scientific investigations to discover more about our wondrous habitation.
I leave you with this thought from Romans 1:20-25:
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.”
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
– Robert Jastrow
Everyone has moments in their life when they ponder their existence. Occasionaly it’s simply a question of ancestry; many times it involves the origins of life on Earth and the universe itself. I’m no exception to this. I was given a basic concept of how our existence might have come to be throughout my public school education. Teachers explained that a big bang quickly dispersed gases and such throughout the universe very quickly. Then, things cooled and slowed down; galaxies, stars, and planets formed. On Earth, there must have been a pre-biotic soup of complex chemicals that formed the earliest simple cells. The rest of the story is documented in the fossil record and the subsequent evolution of these simple cells eventually produced all life we see today. Of course, all of this must have happened over billions of years. It all seemed logical and well-supported; I thought all that was left was to figure out the steps involved in going from our evolutionary beginnings to the present day.
Imagine my utter shock when I learned that the basic premises for all of this were based on mere speculation or flawed evidence and that there was another explanation staring me right in the face my whole life. The answer was in Genesis. I had heard about creation scientists who believe everything was created in six days as described in the Bible and that Earth is merely a few thousand years old. In the face of what we’ve been taught and led to believe our whole lives, this seems preposterous at first glance.
Much of the criticism stems from a perception that all creationists do is try to show the impossibility of evolution and that they say such things because they simply don’t understand how it works or they stubbornly refuse to abandon their faith despite scientific knowledge or reason. After over a year of obsessive investigation I’ve uncovered a network of qualified PhDs in all disciplines that have done serious research, written volumes of technical papers and produced informative videos showing how the Biblical model makes better sense of scientific observations. This investigation is what led me to reject my faith in evolution and put my faith instead in our Creator. I couldn’t come close to covering the details which led me to this realization, but I’ll try to cover the basics.
First, let me clarify some things about science and religion. Religion is a worldview. Your beliefs and moral practices are based on that view. Science is a way to test a hypothesis. In science, you make predictions based on logic or mathematics that are testable and (preferably) falsifiable. Then, you interpret the results to see if they fit in to an overall theory, which is sometimes predicated on assumptions which are shaped by one’s worldview or the reigning paradigm.
There are thousands of different religions, but on the question of origins they fall neatly into two categories: naturalist and creationist. The former is a belief that everything that’s in the universe is self-existent and was shaped exclusively by natural processes. The latter is a belief that the universe was created by a supernatural being that is eternal and exists outside of what we know as space and time. The difference is especially obvious concerning the origins of life on Earth.
By their very nature, scientific experiments must operate independently of any religious bias. It involves the careful observation of facts to see if a prediction makes sense. If the results falsify the theory or fail to adequately support it, it’s time for a new theory. As I have seen lately, the evidence used to support evolution as a basis of origins simply doesn’t hold up. It’s past time to abandon it as an explanation of origins. However, the only alternative is to believe in special creation. That’s simply too hard to swallow for a lot of people who are reluctant to give up beliefs held their whole lives.
Before getting into the details, you might be wondering why such a discussion of evidence is important. Why spend so much time and effort disproving evolution if it is possible that God used evolutionary processes to create the world? Couldn’t Genesis be interpreted as a day being comparable to a geological age? Should we “limit” God by having a narrow view of origins? There are many ways to interpret the six days as described in Genesis, but all of them result in compromising key doctrines and scripture as a whole, as I will show.
The word “day” in our language can be used to describe the 12 or so hours that we can see the sun, it can be a full 24-hour day, or it can be sometime in the past (i.e. “Back in my day…”). In the Hebrew language (the language of the Old Testament), when that word is combined with words like “evening” and “morning” or when it’s given a number in front like “first”, “second”, and so on, it always means a 24-hour day. Every single one of the verses in Genesis that describe the creation says “and the evening and the morning were the (insert # here) day”.
The Bible is filled with references to God’s six-day work of creation. The fourth commandment in Exodus 20:11 spells this out clearly and Jesus used the history found in Genesis to explain his teachings in Matthew 11:23, Matthew 12:39, Matthew 19:4-6, Matthew 22:31-32, Matthew 23:35… and that’s just in one book! If you think most of the creation story is metaphor or merely poetic, think about the genealogies from Adam all the way down to Jesus Christ as detailed in Genesis 5, Matthew 1, and Luke 3. Then ask yourself, “Where do the metaphors end and the where does reality begin?”
Now, here’s the bigger issue: death. Unless death came as a result of sin (Romans 5:12), then it existed before God declared everything “very good.” For old-earth advocates, this means death carried on for millions of years before that declaration. Yet, every sane human being intrinsically knows that there is nothing “good” about death. The existence of such suffering and evil is often used as an argument against the existence of a loving God. Only the young-earth view that death (physical and spiritual) came through original sin sees it as an enemy in this world – an imposter that Jesus Christ conquers.
We mere humans have no business telling God how he must have gone about creating our world. He told us already! There’s no need for re-interpretation – no need for compromise. Let me show you why so many credible scientists (and theologians) see no conflict between scientific evidence and a young Earth.
Take it from the beginning: how did a primordial soup of chemicals form the first cell? In Darwin’s day, they thought cells were a blob with a dark spot in the middle. It wasn’t much of a stretch at that time to hypothesize that the first cells might have come about by unguided chemical interactions. Now we know that even the simplest cell has at least as many complex systems as a space shuttle, making this argument far less convincing. But even complex things like crystal formations can be seen forming all over the place in nature, so complexity by itself is not enough to prove that something is the result of an intentional mind.
One way to empirically asses whether something is the result of deliberate design is through a concept that Michael Behe calls “irreducible complexity.” Consider his example of this using a mousetrap. A mousetrap has several parts. If you take any of the parts away, it ceases to have any useful function. Darwinian evolution would require that mousetrap to have formed step-by step, keeping the parts that helped and rejecting the parts that were useless (natural selection). An irreducibly complex system is one in which no parts are useful (therefore gaining a survival advantage) until all the respective parts are in place and functioning properly. Evolutionists have no good answer for this problem when it comes to the origin of life and many of the systems we see in biological organisms.
For the sake of argument, suppose that first cell could have formed naturally and survived. Now, it has to manage a way to reproduce. It also has to modify genetic code to form entire organisms and produce the diversity we see today. Unfortunately, scientists have not yet found anything in nature that can increase the information content DNA and retain it for generations. The main argument is that this happens through mutation, but many fail to realize that this usually destroys parts of the code rather than producing it.
At this point, an evolutionist might chime in by saying that I’m ignoring the fact that we see evolution happening today with things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. We see new species all the time, and living things evolve to adapt to their environment extremely well. Creationists have no beef with this because that’s a form of evolution which takes place through mechanisms we can observe and test – mechanisms which have never been observed to make something new (morphological novelty). A dog can beget different dogs, a bird can beget different-looking birds (like Darwin’s finches), but can an ape-like creature beget some transition to a human? There are limits to evolution and adaptation.
An evolutionst might also point out that fossils are observational evidence that creatures have changed throughout the eons. You have probably visited a museum with a display of the “ascent of man” with clay replicas of fossils that show the transition from apes to humans. What you don’t know is that many of those transitional forms are either hoaxes that are still presented as proof or the fossil was nothing more than that of a tooth or small fragments of a skull. Fossils displayed as complete skeletons are usually a “Frankenstein” collection of other fossils found at different sites. Darwin himself said that if his theory were to be true, there must be thousands of these transitional forms. Millions of fossils later, we still see very little in the way of potential transitional forms. Even if you arranged enough complete fossils in a certain order to show the transition, this still requires interpretation which is open to argument and preconceived biases.
What about the age of the earth? Doesn’t carbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) show us beyond any real doubt that the earth is billions of years old? No, it doesn’t. The first problem is that radiometric dating assumes uniformitarianism; that is, it assumes decay rates (and other necessary values) have always been constant. A group of researchers with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has found remarkable evidence that several radioactive elements decayed much faster at some point in the past. They have also used other means of dating elements (such as helium diffusion rates through zircon) to determine the true age of the earth. Do you know what they found? That the data show the earth is between 4,000 and 10,000 years old! What’s worse – fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old should have no measurable C-14 left in them. C-14 has been found and measured in fossils found all over the earth. This error can’t always be explained by C-14 contamination because excessive amounts have been found in diamonds which are not prone to an influx of outside carbon. For more on the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) project, see ICR’s web site.
One might wonder how so many fossils and sedimentary layers could have formed in a short time period; doesn’t that take millions of years? The truth is that in lab experiments (by secular scientists) we see that fossils can form in a matter of hours under the right conditions, and in a matter of a few years under conditions commonly found in nature. Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) has an impressive collection of fossilized pickles, hats, and even a fossilized cowboy boot with his leg still in it. It doesn’t take all that long to form a fossil or the rock layer which has preserved it.
Geology can bee seen two ways: layers formed by sediments that were laid down and shuffled around over millions of years, or the strata were formed and features were carved by a massive worldwide flood (ring any bells?). The Grand Canyon is a favorite subject among creation junkies such as myself. I was always told it was formed by the Colorado River over millions of years. Did you know the highest point on the canyon’s ridge is several thousand feet higher than where the river enters? Rivers don’t flow uphill. You might explain that away by assuming that tectonic shifts rose the edge over time. In fact, there is evidence of uplift, but the angles at which the layers are bent indicates that the sediment had not hardened into rock yet. Also, if you look at a satellite photo, you’ll see that certain eroded features were made pointing in the opposite direction of the river flow.
Now for the universe: physicists generally explain that the Big Bang or something like it is a reasonable, naturalistic explanation of how our universe began. The main evidence for it is expansion of the universe and the cosmic background radiation. There’s another proposal by physicist Russell Humphrys, Ph.D, called White Hole Cosmology which explains this evidence much more fully while showing it could all take place within the biblical time scale.
The best way to understand the concept of a white hole is to compare it to a black hole. Just as everything sinks inward beyond the event horizon of a black hole, so does everything expand outward beyond the event horizon of a white hole. When Einstein’s General Relativity theory is applied to this concept, we can explain the problem of stars being billions of years old and millions of light-years away while only 6,000 years have passed. Time is very different when you include massive speeds and gravitational forces in terms of Einstein’s relativity.
That’s only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, it’s only the snowman on top of the tip of the iceberg. There are still many, many questions to be answered. I questioned this a lot at first, but in searching deeper I’m thoroughly convinced of all of it. If you require more explanation, more proof, there are a few web sites you can start with on our links page or use our custom search tool: a Google engine which finds results from a group of creation-focused sites selected by the editors at soulliberty.com.
I would hope that the amazing discoveries and scientific experiments carried out by creationists would get roaring applause the world over, especially from Christians. They’ve taken what we already know about many fields of science and have moved the research a step further to test assumptions through experimentation. They’ve scientifically shown that we can trust Bible and that faith and reason are not in any way opposed. Then, why aren’t they getting peace prizes and a wealth of funding to carry on their research?
A fundamental tenet of the scientific community is never to invoke supernatural explanations. That’s a reasonable assumption when examining ongoing processes, but it presupposes that such a supernatural being could never exist or interact with our world. When a creationist comes forward with experimental validation of a young earth, they are ridiculed and labeled as religious fundamentalists who don’t understand science. I don’t think it’s necessary to point out examples from history, but humans have seen a lot of great scientists come and go that were ridiculed in their time for their “radical” notions. American society is based on freedom and tolerance, but that doesn’t really apply when it comes to religion in academia.
Most scientific research is funded by government grants or universities. Under the guise of religious tolerance, neither the US government nor major universities will fund research that is clearly aimed at promoting one religious concept over another. As a case-in-point, a creationist that works at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History got a paper on Intelligent Design published in a secular scientific journal. That caused frenzy at the Smithsonian and sparked quite a lot of name-calling and bluffing. It was presented in documentary form in Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” (For the record, Intelligent Design is quite different from biblical creationism. ID simply holds that life is designed, is not interested in who did it or when, and refuses to use the Bible as evidence.) Creationist researchers are funded by private donations, eliminating the restrictions on academic freedom found at leading research institutions.
Evolutionists claim creationists have no authority because they haven’t been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. They actually have, but the papers used to support a young earth or refute evolutionary hypotheses can only get published in peer-reviewed creationist journals. No one who questions evolution, no matter their qualifications or validity of their argument, is allowed by secular publishers. Most of the creationists who have published their work earned Ph.Ds from the top schools in the world. Many of them didn’t turn to creationism until long after they graduated. Still, the anti-Christian bias trumps truth in our fallen world.
What’s simple is true: you did not get here by some chance event that formed life from rain and lightning on rocks or in the sea billions of years ago. You are a direct descendant of Adam, the divine and special creation of God. It happened exactly as He described through the penmen of the Bible and is confirmed by the teachings of Jesus with no need for re-interpretation or revision. Don’t just take my word for it. Look into it yourself. Read the Bible and the findings of those who have devoted their lives to studying the science behind it. Find the answers you want in as little or as much detail as needed to thoroughly convince you. I pray you’ll find your way.