Dangerous Christians Discarding Scripture

This blog is all about signs highlighting troubles in these last days.

Many Christians become uncomfortable when you start telling them truths such as the 1.5 billion death toll of murder by abortion or that Islam is, according to its own sources, a religion of terror.

They seem to think that because God is loving, he won’t allow their entire culture to sink into a quagmire of destruction. History and scripture say otherwise.

One of the ways to solve the inconvenient problem of truth is to either twist it or abandon it entirely, something theology schools often seem intent on doing very effectively as this recent story reveals:

A Wheaton College professor announced on Facebook Thursday night that she will be wearing a hijab (Muslim head scarf) throughout her celebration of the Advent as a way of showing solidarity with Muslims.
Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the Wheaton, Illinois, evangelical higher education institution, explained on her Facebook page that she will be wearing a hijab to work, class, and church. She also vows to wear the hijab during her trip to Chicago and even when she goes on an airplane to return to her hometown for Christmas.

“I don’t love my Muslim neighbor because s/he is American. I love my Muslim neighbor because s/he deserves love by virtue of her/his human dignity,” Hawkins wrote. “I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind — a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.”

Hawkins, who has been on the Wheaton faculty since 2007, further asserted that not only are Muslims her neighbors but they also “worship the same God.”

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God,” Hawkins stated. “But as I tell my students, theoretical solidarity is not solidarity at all. Thus, beginning tonight, my solidarity has become embodied solidarity.”

“As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church,” she added.

Hawkins did not respond to requests from The Christian Post for comments by press time.

The Wheaton College professor further explained that she hopes she is not the only non-Muslim woman wearing a hijab this holiday season, as she desires to start a movement of women showing their solidarity for Muslims.

“I invite all women into the narrative that is embodied, hijab-wearing solidarity with our Muslim sisters — for whatever reason. A large scale movement of Women in Solidarity with Hijabs is my Christmas ‪#‎wish‬ this year,” Hawkins continued. “Perhaps you are a Muslim who does not wear the veil normally. Perhaps you are an atheist or agnostic who finds religion silly or inexplicable. Perhaps you are a Catholic or Protestant Christian like me. Perhaps you already cover your head as part of your religious worship, but not a hijab.”

Hawkins turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), where she has a friend on staff, for advice on whether it would be offensive to Muslims if a non-Muslim wears a hijab.

“I asked whether a non-Muslim wearing the hijab was haram (forbidden), patronizing, or otherwise offensive to Muslims. I was assured by my friends at CAIR-Chicago that they welcomed the gesture,” she explained. “So please do not fear joining this embodied narrative of actual as opposed to theoretical unity; human solidarity as opposed to mere nationalistic, sentimentality.”

In a generation in desperate need of people to stand up and speak truth, we have “theology” teachers laying down and becoming absolutely useless.

The reality is that Hawkins has far more in common with atheistic humanists, given her trust in unobserved molecules-to-man evolution and her naive support of Islam, a religion that has killed more Christians than even humanism.

Ken Ham makes some important commentary about this growing trend:

As reported in the Christian Post with the headline “Wheaton College Prof. to Wear Hijab During Advent to Show Solidarity With Muslims,” an associate professor at a once-theologically conservative Christian school, Wheaton College, stated the following on her Facebook page:

As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church.

She also stated, “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

Now, Christians and Muslims certainly do not “worship the same God.” The God of the Bible is not the same as that of the Quran (Koran).

As AiG speaker/writer Bodie Hodge states,

Religious books, such as Islam’s Koran, Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, and Hinduism’s Vedas, contradict the Bible; and so they cannot be Scripture. For example, the Koran in two chapters (Sura 4:171 and 23:91) says God had no son, but the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (Matthew 26:63–64).

In another article on the AiG website we point out,

Like the Bible, the Quran teaches that people are descendants of Adam and Eve and are imperfect sinners. However, the Quran also teaches that their god, Allah, inspired sin in humankind (Quran 4:88; 7:16–18; 9:51; 14:4; 16:93; 35:8; 57:22; 74:31; 91:7–9). Muslims believe that humans are sinners because Allah has willed it. They have no understanding similar to the Bible’s teaching that humans, not God, caused sin through rebellion against God (Romans 5:12, 5:18–19).

The Quran’s teachings regarding salvation are inconsistent. On the one hand, the Quran teaches that salvation is based on purification by good deeds (Quran 7:6–9). A Muslim can become righteous through prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and living according to the Quran. Yet the Quran also teaches that Allah has predetermined every person’s destiny, and one’s righteous acts may or may not affect Allah’s decision (Quran 57:22). It teaches that everyone, both the righteous and the unrighteous, will be led into hell by Allah, before the righteous will enter heaven (Quran 19:67–72). Therefore no Muslim can know his or her eternal destiny in this life. Even Muhammad himself was unsure of his salvation (Quran 31:34; 46:9).

The Quran actually states that people are descendants of Adam and Eve. Yet this associate professor from Wheaton College denies this, and so exhibits a gross inconsistency. She states the following in giving an evolutionary view of history:

I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind—a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.

So she actually contradicts the Quran when she uses an evolutionary view of history as part of her reasoning to display a solidarity with Muslims.

Over the years, we’ve been warning the church that so many Christian colleges have been compromising God’s Word in Genesis—and we’ve been warning that such compromise will eventually lead to apostasy. This is exactly what we are seeing in this example from a Wheaton College professor.

In a way, a similar kind of compromise happened in Jeremiah’s day. Jeremiah warned the people and the leader (the king) to believe God’s Word. When God had Jeremiah write down the warnings to the people, we read,

Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning on the hearth before him. And it happened, when Jehudi had read three or four columns, that the king cut it with the scribe’s knife and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor did they tear their garments, the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words. (Jeremiah 36:22–24)

So many Christian college professors have been tearing out God’s Word and, in a sense, “burning” it. They started tearing out the account of the creation in six days, then the account of the Flood, and now the account of the creation of a literal Adam and Eve. They have also been tearing out the Bible’s doctrine of marriage. I submit that they have taken God’s Word and “cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.” “Yet they were not afraid,” just like in Jeremiah’s day. But they should be very afraid:

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)

One day these Christian colleges, their professors, presidents, and boards will give an account before the Lord for their actions—which are leading generations astray.

In 2011, we published the book Already Compromised that detailed the research on the state of Christian colleges in this nation and what they believe. That book, along with two others, Already Gone and Ready to Return, are the most definitive works on the state of Christianity in America (reflecting the Western world). The research for each book was conducted by renowned researcher Britt Beemer from America’s Research Group. All three books are now available as a special pack titled Ready for Reformation. I urge you to obtain a set and understand what is happening to the church when it comes to compromise with the Bible, and how it is having a devastating impact on generations.

“Times of trouble” is exactly how you describe Christians going AWOL from the gospel about Jesus Christ and the coming kingdom of God and instead centring their lives on catastrophic ignorance and reality-defying idiocy.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/wheaton-college-prof-to-wear-hijab-during-advent-to-show-solidarity-with-muslims-152329/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/12/15/christian-colleges-burn-gods-word/

Naturalistic Evolution: Faith-Based Religion

We live in a world at ideological war.

There are thousands of religions but they all really break down into about five categories.

Evolution puts its foot down on one side of the scales, unbalancing itself to claim that all that exists is the observable, physical world and natural means of creation.

Christianity makes the claim that creation is comprised of the unseen spiritual realm (note: not corporeal or non-physical) and the observable natural realm and there is a necessary but presently diminished interaction between the two.

There is a whole lot of evidence to be found but how you interpret it determines what religion you adopt.

Consider some of the evidence against naturalistic evolution in Michael Snyder’s excellent article:

For someone that is supposedly so “brilliant”, Stephen Hawking really doesn’t have a clue. In a recent interview with Spain’s El Mundo, Hawking publicly declared that God doesn’t exist, that he is an atheist, and that science provides a better explanation of where the universe came from than the Bible does. While I certainly respect much of the great work that Hawking has done throughout the years, I don’t think that he has thought through these issues very clearly. As you will see below, it takes a ridiculous amount of blind faith to believe that the theory of evolution is true, and the cold, hard evidence clearly points to a Creator. Unfortunately, to be a respected member of the scientific establishment today one must fully embrace an evolutionary model for the origin of life, and at this point Stephen Hawking has left no doubt as to where he stands.

Somehow most of us have become convinced that it is not “intellectual” to believe that God created all things. And a big reason for this is due to the public pronouncements of big name scientists such as Hawking. The following excerpt comes from an article that was posted on cnet.com, and I was very disappointed when I first read this…

He gave an interview to Spain’s El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

I’m not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in “A Brief History of Time” that a unifying theory of science would help mankind “know the mind of God.”

Hawking now explained: “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
He added: “Religion believes in miracles, but these aren’t compatible with science.”

In the end, Hawking can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he should at least be honest about the fact that he is making a faith choice as well.

You see, the truth is that the theory of evolution is not backed up by hard science. I will go into this much more below. In fact, when you choose to “believe” in evolution, you are doing so in spite of the evidence.

So why would anyone do this?

Why would anyone believe something as ridiculous as the theory of evolution

Well, in my experience most people believe exactly what they want to believe. And what Stephen Hawking apparently wants to believe is that there is no God and that our existence is some sort of great cosmic accident.

Recently someone asked Coach Dave Daubenmire if he “believed” in evolution, and after reflecting on that question for a while he wrote an entire article in which he shared his thoughts on the matter. The following excerpt is the part that I enjoyed the most…
Why did he ask me if I “believed” in evolution? I thought evolution was, ahem, settled science. Science, I had always been taught, was based on the scientific method and the veracity of the topic was no longer in doubt. Examples began to rumble through my head.
Why has no one ever asked me if I “believed” in gravity? Do you “believe” in darkness? Does one “believe” in grass? Do you “believe” in the wind? Does one “believe” in fire?” Of course not. Seeing is believing, they tell us. Fire proves itself. So does gravity, and wind, and grass. If macro-evolution is true, why did my friend ask me if I “believed” in it?

We are taught that it takes faith to “believe” in God, or angels, or your spouse. But the truth is; faith is required in order to ‘believe” anything. Christianity is a religion that requires faith to believe. So are Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, and Santa Claus.
But evolution and climate change are religions as well. Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief system regarding the origins of the species. Global warming is a faith-based system regarding the ebb and flow of the climate. Macro-evolution and climate change are far less fact-based than a belief in Jesus.

But these days, many prominent religious leaders are caving in to the immense pressure from the scientific community to accept the theory of evolution. For example, Pope Francis has made headlines all over the globe for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The following are some of the Pope’s statements that have appeared in newspapers worldwide…
-“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”
-“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”
-“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
In 2015, most people consider the Pope to be the number one representative of the Christian faith on the entire planet, and so it is quite alarming that he is making statements such as these.
Other prominent members of the Catholic clergy are making even stronger statements.
For instance, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that a belief in young earth creationism is “almost blasphemous theology”…
As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.
“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”
Really?
I simply do not understand how anyone can look at the evidence and come to that sort of conclusion.
Just look at our DNA. It is a self-replicating information system that utilizes a code that is so incredibly complex that we are only just now starting to understand it a little bit. The amount of information that would be contained in just one pinhead of DNA would completely fill a stack of books that could stretch from our planet to the moon about 500 times.
So where did such a complex and remarkably efficient information system come from?

DNA is both a code and a language, and the truth is that codes and languages don’t just pop into existence out of nothing. There is always an intellect behind every code and every language.

So where did DNA come from, and who designed it?

This is just one of the exceedingly important questions that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

For those that are interested in learning more, I would like to share a list of 44 points about the creation vs. evolution debate that I included in a previous article. Unless you have really looked into these things on your own, you may have never encountered some of these points before. The next time that someone tries to convince you that evolution isn’t just a fairy tale for adults, share this list with them…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no detectable radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from non-life, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/stephen-hawking-im-an-atheist-and-science-offers-a-more-convincing-explanation-for-the-origin-of-life

Leon Trotsky: The Product Of Darwinian Evolution And Marxism

Jesus spoke about a good tree producing good fruit and Masterchef often mentions using the best ingredients to create the best dishes.

What do you get from the bad tree and from combining bad ingredients?

Barry Woolley provides us with the answers:

Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) was the organizer, propagandist, and military leader of the communist seizure of power in Russia following the revolution of 1917. He was communist dictator Lenin’s heir apparent, until Stalin usurped this position. Intolerant, tactless and impatient, Trotsky had an unbounded faith in Marxism, which was reinforced by his uncritical acceptance of Darwinism.

His fanatical faith in these ideologies and his angry intolerance of enemies saw him use the Red Army to crush the enemies of the newly formed Soviet state in the Russian Civil War of 1918–20. He instituted the militarization of civilian labour and the confiscation of food from peasants. He crushed the Ukrainian Army of Insurgent Peasants; and its anarchist guerrilla leader, Nestor Makhno (1889–1934), who had been his ally against the White Russians, was badly wounded but managed to flee the country with his family. Trotsky brutally suppressed the Soviet sailors at Kronstadt,1 and committed other acts of violence with ease, ‘because of his absolute conviction that they served the purposes of the proletariat and its permanent revolution’.2

After the end of the Russian Civil War, Trotsky’s boundless energies were channelled into handling administrative details and carrying out such pet projects as the leadership of the Society of the Godless, which was responsible for the spread of the Soviets’ antitheistic propaganda. He was an ardent atheist and advocated an “atheistic substitute” for religion; this involved the use of the theatre for antireligious propaganda, and Communistic rituals of ‘red’ baptisms, ‘red’ weddings, ‘red’ Easters, etc.3 He persecuted Christians, desecrated church property, and hated all middle-class morality.

Trotsky advocated permanent worldwide revolution4 and called for the communist seizure of power in Germany and other countries where he thought conditions were ripe for such violent actions.

How could it have come about that Trotsky, the son of a rich Jewish land-owner,5 became so vehemently prejudiced against his father’s class and against religion? It had a lot to do with his college failure and his sexual sin.

At the age of 17, Trotsky dropped out of college to join a revolutionary commune. The only Marxist member of this group was a woman, some six years his senior, named Alexandra Lvovna Sokolovskaya. At first, he was ferociously antagonistic to both Alexandra and her Marxist views, so much so that at a New Year’s Eve party in 1896 he proposed a toast with the words, “A curse on all Marxists, and on all those who want to bring hardness and dryness into all life’s relationships!”6

However, he then began an affair with her, which caused him to reconsider her Marxism. After the commune’s activities landed its members in the Tsar’s prisons,7 Trotsky had ample time to develop his ideologies.

In prison in Odessa, Trotsky read Darwin’s Origin of Species and his Autobiography. Years later he wrote, “Darwin destroyed the last of my ideological prejudices. … In the Odessa prison I felt something like hard scientific ground under my feet. Facts began to establish themselves in a certain system. The idea of evolution and determinism—that is, the idea of a gradual development conditioned by the character of the material world—took possession of me completely.

Trotsky advocated permanent worldwide revolution and called for the communist seizure of power in Germany and other countries.

“Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read … that he had preserved his belief in God.8 I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.”9

The details would be filled in later, but in the age of great scientists like James Clerk Maxwell and Louis Pasteur, who were Christian creationists, Trotsky took up the faith of Marx and Darwin. The conversion experience was genuine and thorough. Its legacy would be written in the torrents of blood that flowed under his hand.

In 1940, Trotsky, while living in exile in Mexico, was assassinated on the orders of Josef Stalin, another who was converted to an atheistic view of life through reading Darwin. Stalin was perhaps history’s greatest mass murderer. He and Trotsky acted in a way that was quite consistent with their presuppositions: if no one made me, no one owns me, and there is no absolute right or wrong. In such an evolution-based worldview, there is nothing intrinsically ‘wrong’ with murdering people, even millions of them.

http://creation.com/darwin-trotsky-connection

Germany Was Groomed For The Holocaust By Evolution And Social Darwinism

Many in the West argue that murdering children through abortion is “a woman’s right”. Ask school aged children and you will find a large proportion are totally accepting of this excuse and some will admantly defend this heinous crime as morally sound.

Our society did not always believe this and so we need to understand how it is that we have come to willingly participate in the murder of approximately one fifth of the entire living human race  in the last century (yes, about one and a half billion people dead!)

Likewise, we should understand that Germany didn’t up and decide to gas millions of Jews and other undesirables on a whim – they were prepared by a century of philosophical indoctrination.

The doctrine in question is Darwinian evolution – the unproven idea that all life came from one form of life – and it’s logical social implication was that not all animals are equal: namely, white animals are superior.

This led the German nation under the leadership of avid naturalist Adolf Hitler down the road of eugenics – the improvement of humanity and the removal of the undesirable – which involved the murder of children, the disabled, and anyone who didn’t make the classification of “superior”, including but not limited to the Jews.

So while Martin Luther and others had given the Germans religious reasoning to dislike the Jews (through a false understanding of the bible – keep in mind Jesus is a Jew and therefore not so big on promoting anitsemetism), it was naturalism, evolution, social Darwinism, and eugenics that offered “scientific” reasoning for the extermination of the “sub-human” Jews.

The recent video from Creation Ministries International explores this process and its consequences:

Evolution: Always Learning And Never Able To Arrive At The Knowledge Of The Truth

The theory of evolution has consumed our culture because people do not want to acknowledge God.

A world where there is nobody to answer to suits the individualist, self absorbed pursuits of the West and it is a convenient excuse that I once held dearly myself.

While evolution – the idea that all life originated from one organism – has become sacred ground where ne’er a foot may tread, it has been corroding many under-publicised cracks for centuries.

Even when these gapping holes are reported, they are forced through the naturalist lens as some great mystery that continues to evade understanding:

A community of lizards from the Caribbean, preserved for 20 million years in amber, have been found to be identical to their modern cousins, say researchers.

This suggests the different niches inhabited by the lizards have – incredibly – changed little over the past 20 million-year, report the team, in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life,” says the study’s lead author Dr Emma Sherratt of the University of New England in Australia.

Sherratt says amber fossils are usually just a hollow impression, but the new fossils of anolis lizards from the island of Hispaniola, provide phenomenal detail – including the colour of the lizard, what it was last doing, and whether its eyes were open or shut.

“Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads,” she adds.

“You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

Another impressive aspect to the study is the large number of amber fossils analysed.

While previous research has mostly looked at individual specimens, this study involved 38 lizards fossils from various locations on Hispaniola.

Obtain from museums and private collections – one was even a pendant in a necklace – the community of fossils represent the largest group of vertebrates encased in amber.

“Nothing like this has ever been described before,” says Sherratt.

Evolutionary models

There are over 400 species of anolis lizards spread across the islands of the Caribbean, with each species adapting to a specific ecological niche.

Earlier DNA studies indicated anolis lizards began colonising the Caribbean about 40 million years ago, quickly diversifying into different niches such as the forest canopy, tree branches, main trucks, leaf litter on the forest floor, or grasslands.

As different groups began occupying different niches, their body shapes, leg length, and the little scales on their toe pads that help them climb like geckos, changed accordingly to suit each niche.

Using x-ray microcomputer tomography to produce three dimensional reconstructions of the fossils inside their amber cocoons, the researchers showed that the diversity of lizards that resulted 20 million years ago is the same seen today.

“Given we see the same range of morphological features this means the community of lizards has remained unchanged all this time,” says Sherratt.

Steady niches

Sherratt says it is “very striking” that the lizards don’t seem to have changed at all during this long period, during, over which all the main animal types evolved.

“Evidence of anolis lizards living unchanged in different niches for 20 million years, indicates these niches have been stable for that period of time,” she says.

“That’s quite surprising because these lizards have gone to other islands and over to the Florida mainland where they seem to evolve very rapidly. So it’s not that they don’t have the propensity to change, it’s just that the structure of the environment has been stable enough that they haven’t needed to change in 20 million years.”

Available evidence suggests that ecological communities change rapidly over the short term, says Sherratt.

However, she says, the findings are among the first to look at long term stability of ecological communities, and show that niches and the communities they support can remain stable over millions of years.

This article reads like an exercise in irony – see how many nods and winks they can pack into its brief duration:

“identical to their modern cousins”

“This suggests the different niches inhabited by the lizards have – incredibly – changed little over the past 20 million-year (sic)”

“You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

“the researchers showed that the diversity of lizards that resulted 20 million years ago is the same seen today.”

“Given we see the same range of morphological features this means the community of lizards has remained unchanged all this time,”

Sherratt says it is “very striking” that the lizards don’t seem to have changed at all during this long period, during, over which all the main animal types evolved.

“That’s quite surprising because these lizards have gone to other islands and over to the Florida mainland where they seem to evolve very rapidly.”

“Available evidence suggests that ecological communities change rapidly over the short term, says Sherratt.”

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck!

“Oh, but niches and communities can stay the same over millions of years,” they tell us. They do throw in “incredibly” though, as in “that’s really unexpected.”

I’m all in favour of the unexpected but sometimes, Occam’s Razor just needs to be embraced.

Scripture has long declared that there are those who are:

“always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”             ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

So perhaps the underlying assumptions of evolution are wrong?!

20 million years doesn’t really compare to the 66 million the coelacanth has supposedly remained virtually unchanged. These aren’t the only examples that put a dent in the theory either but there’s always an additionally complex theory to cover the leak – even for the blood discovered in dinosaur bones.

The battle line is drawn and anyone who refuses to twist the biblical scriptures must acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is simply incompatible with the biblical record of history, which is what this all boils down to: competing worldviews

Since God is the only available record-keeper and record-revealer, being from everlasting to everlasting, I will continue to trust him and when the irrefutable evidence surfaces, as it so often does, I will praise him for being faithful and true.

I encourage you to do likewise.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/07/28/4279562.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
http://www.icr.org/article/2032