Is It Ignorance

This is going to be a very long article as it will deal with the article on what Oklahoma is trying to do and that means that specifics about the theory of evolution need to be dealt with. it also means dealing with the views of the supporters of evolution as well. The information addressed will be taken from the following website

but no special divisions will be made to differentiate between the points. In other words, I will bold each point taken from the article but will not credit multiple sources. You will see those if you go to the link and read the article.

I will try to post a link and quote to support some of my comments to show that I am not making up comments although some of my comments may refer to historically held views and I am not sure if I can find the right credible links to support the point mentioned.

One of the advantages of being older is that one gets to see the changes in the evolutionary theory and know what ideas they once held as true but no longer admit to being part of the theory. One example of course is the origin of life but I will get into that later.

Last Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee considered HB 1674 — a House bill that would prevent teachers in science classes from penalizing students who contest evolutionary principles with untestable, faith-based claims.

It is an interesting Bill and I would think that if science teachers were truly scientific they would allow their students to make challenges to the evolutionary theory simply because the majority of evolutionary claims are faith-based and untestable. Case in point:

The fossilized animal, an arthropod called a fuxhianhuiid, has primitive limbs under its head, as well as the earliest example of a nervous system that extended past the head. The primitive creature may have used the limbs to push food into its mouth as it crept across the seafloor (

That claim is untestable and faith-based as there is no way for the scientists to verify one thing they claim about that fossil–even its age. If evolutionists are going to call non-evolutionary ideas ‘untestable’ and ‘faith based’ then to avoid the double standard, the evolutionist must label their identical work as ignorance as well.

I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. “A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”

Many secular academics (evolutionary ones as well) demand academic freedom from Christian universities and schools. In other words, they want to think, write and say what they want regardless of the ideological position of the school or institution they are employed by. Yet if believers make that request from secular institutions, they are denied and the cries of opposition can be heard loud and clear.

If the evolutionist wants academic freedom for their ideas, then they must allow it for those people who disagree with their theory of evolution. If they don’t then we see censorship being done, we see exclusion of data and we see fear on the part of the evolutionist.

If their theory is true, then the evolutionist would have nothing to be afraid of with the presentation of alternatives to their ideas. As it stands, we know they squash and mock every attempt to do just that. In essence, they are forcing their ideas down people’s throats under the guise of ‘being scientific’ by disallowing dissent and debate. They are afraid and for good reason–their theory is not true.

They have to learn it in order to look at the weaknesses.” The sheer ignorance in that statement is hard to believe. I’m sure that it is followed in logic by, “Evolution is just a theory…”

It seems that ignorance is being used to fight supposed ignorance. In his book, The Art Of War, Shin Tzu wrote the following:

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. (ch. 3

Thus the Oklahoma representative is correct in his thinking. A believer needs to know his ‘enemy’ (the theory of evolution) in order to find its weaknesses. If you discuss with those who oppose people who believe alternatives to the evolutionary theory and challenge it, you will soon see that the charges they hurl at their opponents actually apply to them.

To simply dismiss creation as religious ideology and without pointing out its weaknesses or why it is wrong only demonstrates the ignorance on the part of the evolutionist. Or to simply disallow supernatural data or religious ideas of origins based upon the mantra ‘those are not science’ displays an unwillingness to have an open and scientific mind and know their ‘enemy’.

It also demonstrates an irrational mindset that origins could only come via scientific endeavors and solutions.  They have no proof that they are correct and they can not present anything that shows the Biblical creation to be false. They do not know their enemy but it would be wise for the believer to learn the evolutionary theory with God’s help so they can see why it is false.

 There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. There is such an important distinction between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’

The mistake in this idea by the author of the article is that ‘belief’ is used by scientists as well and it is based upon little knowledge. Returning to the story of the supposed 500-year-old fossil, you will see the words ‘may have’ in there (those and similar words are used so frequently by evolutionary scientists), such words indicate ‘belief’ not knowledge as they do not know.

Yes believers in Jesus use faith in accepting Genesis 1 as factual and true but that is because we were not there to see it take place. BUT such faith or belief is not done without some knowledge. Believers do compare and investigate all sides of the origins issue before making a decision, we have knowledge of alternatives and find them wanting.

Belief is not done blindly as we see the failures of the alternatives to produce and verify plausible alternatives. The advantage the Bible has is that both God and Jesus say to use faith. They do not say use evidence and a question no alternative to creation supporter has yet to answer is: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to use science over their word?

There is no verse granting that position and when presented to those alternative supporters they do all sorts of tap dancing to get away from dealing with the implications of that question. Our knowledge of God and Jesus tells us to use our belief. Our knowledge of the alternatives also tells us to use our belief because those alternatives can’t use any other form to support their ideas.

It takes a lot of belief to accept evolution as true. There is so much evolutionists  cannot verify that belief and faith are the very essence of their alternative–not knowledge. They have little knowledge of their claims thus to attack those who hold to belief is really attacking themselves.

Now the following few points come from the black box titled Evolution and has a host of sentences starting with ‘It does not mean…’

It does not mean Random

Yes it does as both the evolutionary process and the supposed natural selection system possess no property that would allow it to ‘guide’ life. They possess no intelligence, no foresight, no desires, nothing that is needed when acting as a guide. If anyone has ever worked on an assembly line they would know that the line itself may be ‘guiding’ the product from start to finish but the line itself is merely following orders from a higher intelligent being.

Evolution and natural selection, in their basic forms, are mere assembly lines with no ability to know what is useful, what is defective, what is to be retained or tossed out. They just follow orders and those orders must come from some superior intelligent being who was capable of designing the processes themselves.

Assembly lines do not pick up an existing piece of metal then ‘guide’ it into becoming a car. The assembly lines themselves have no concept of what a car is and no knowledge of how to guide the process and produce it. The assembly lines need to be operated by outside forces to work thus for the evolutionary theory to be true and to work, it needs an intelligent life form to design and operate it.

There is no other way for evolution to work. But according to secular evolutionists, the processes of evolution and natural selection designed and operate themselves while randomly picking a life form to attach to and guide it to complexity. Of course, that process is all random because neither processes have instructions on how to guide life and if they do then they have magically appeared somehow.

It does not mean to improve

If it does not improve then what good is it? How could it take a supposed one-celled common ancestor and guide it into complexity if it is not meant to improve. Obviously it does mean to improve or we would not be here.

What is the purpose of the process if it supposed to add nothing to the product it is producing? According to secular evolutionists, there is no other force in life so where would the ideas of improvement come from? it is quite obvious that the human form is an improvement over the one-celled molecule so we have to conclude that the evolutionary process did mean to improve.

Their denial makes no sense.

It does not mean morphing in a lifetime

This denial is just an escape route for evolutionists. It relieves them of the responsibility to provide real-time evidence that their theory is correct. They claim changes take millions of years so we will never see the evolutionary process in action.

So we are back to faith and belief and not knowledge for the evolutionist. If they cannot provide evidence for their theory, and they are the ones who demand physical evidence, then their theory is not true. The evolutionist attacks creationists because of the supposed lack of physical evidence to support the supernatural work of God BUT we are not required to produce evidence because God said to use FAITH.

The evolutionist is the one demanding physical evidence yet they cannot produce it for their own claims. They go to experiments that only show God’s genetic design at work and claim it is evolutionary but they cannot provide any evidence that it really is evolution at work.

What the above denial does is say that the evolutionist cannot put up but relies on a double standard to avoid realizing their theory is false. Since they cannot verify one claim they make, and that includes showing that the evolutionary and natural selection processes are actually responsible for the claimed changes, then the evolutionist has no theory for it has no physical evidence.

Also, with no historical documentation to compare their work against, their is nothing stopping them from making it all up and that is exactly what they are doing–they are making it all up simply because they do not believe the Bible.

It does not mean Abiogenesis

That is correct. The evolutionist has backed off of claims about the origin of life itself because they could not prove their ideas true. They used to make claims about the origin of life but once they found out it was impossible for their theory, they changed their theory and their tune. Here is what they say now:

Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life: ancient fossils, radiometric dating, the phylogenetics and chemistry of modern organisms, and even experiments. However, since new evidence is constantly being discovered, hypotheses about how life originated may change or be modified. It’s important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory. ( &

In other words, they have no clue, do not know and take wild guesses. If you watched the film Exposed, you would have seen one scientist claim crystals brought life to earth. Why is not answered and evolutionists cannot answer the ‘why’ question. Creationists can.

Evolutionists still need to prove the origin of the supposed process of evolution and natural selection and ow they attached themselves to a life form before they can claim they exist and are responsible for the supposed development of life. They lack so much as they do not know the original conditions of the earth at the time they claim life started and if they make claims that they do–they can’t verify them.

No evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life because it can’t.

It does not mean the origin of the universe

This one is a given and it can’t. But the evolutionist simply creates a second major problem for themselves. First, they can’t deal with the origins of life and now they can’t deal with the origin of the planets and the universe. That makes it a very weak theory and one where people would question believing it for it offers them nothing. Creation offers the God who is so powerful that He speaks and it comes into existence.

Creation offers something constructive to the world, someone powerful enough to help them overcome their problems. If that is ignorance then someone has the wrong definition of the word.

It does not mean amoral

Actually it does because the processes of evolution and natural selection possess no morality, no right or wrong, no goodness and so on. They possess nothing nor can they originate or pick it up somewhere along the way for they possess no cognitive powers to even contemplate such ideas or that they would be needed.

Some scientists have claimed that our idea of morality, social order and right & wrong came from apes:

Our oldest primate ancestors probably maintained social order the same way that most primates today maintain social order: through force exercised by dominant males…Behavioral and social evolution, in contrast, doesn’t leave behind that sort of evidence and so can’t be studied so well.

Instead, we end up with a lot of conjecture (

There are several problems with this and other ideas about the source of morality in human civilization. First, who says the supposed primates got it correct and that some other supposed ancestor had it wrong? Second, Do those animals actually grasp what they are doing and can define their behavior as moral?

Then if it changed with each different dominate male then are not the human evolutionist transferring their ideas onto animal behavior? basically, evolutionists cannot find an alternative source for morality thus they have to impose the human definition onto animal actions.

The main problem is that these ideas of evolutionary morality remove God’s ultimate standard for right and wrong, for morality and societal structure and replacing those with man-made regulations that are subjective depending upon who is in power at any point in history.

What this means is that the Allies could not declare Hitler’s or Mussolini’s idea of morality nor condemn them for their actions because both the former and latter ideas were of human origin and equal. There would not be a higher standard to judge which form of right and wrong or morality was correct and which one was wrong.

In other words, there would be no real right or wrong or moral behavior because those would be defined by who had the power to declare what was right, moral or not. Morality would be a human construct and not a divine one and one that was subject to change to fit the whims of the people at the time.

It does not address theological claims

Yes it does. as soon as you say the Bible is wrong, that God did not create everything as He said, then you have addressed theological claims. This point makes no sense at all and it is absurd to think that evolution does not address anything to do with the Bible.

Evolution means change over time

This what they claim bit their definition is too broad and includes anything and everything and that is just absurd. Not every change is evolutionary. This broad definition just relieves the evolutionist from producing real evidence of evolutionary work. No longer tied to being specific, when the evolutionist comes across a difficult problem their theory can’t support, they can hide in the broadness of the definition and turn to an easier problem.

If evolution were true, then they would not have to hide behind such non-definitive ideas. It is also laziness at work on the part of the evolutionary scientist.

If you deny that things change over time then you deny reality

No, you are actually acknowledging reality. god is the same yesterday, today and forever, if God changed then we have no God, no salvation and no hope. The truth also does not change, if it did, we would have no truth. This fact is what destroys the evolutionary theory.

The evolutionary support says that science changes thus it is good but in reality every change tells the world that the scientific community has no truth and no hope of finding it. It is in search of the truth. What was true for the evolutionary theory 100 years ago, 60 years ago and even 30 years ago is not longer considered the truth so how can anyone have confidence in that theory?

What it claims to be true at one time is replaced by another claim of truth and all that does is produce confusion and that is not of God. Evolutionists reject the truth of the Bible and they are left desperately trying to fill the void they created by that rejection and they can’t do it. For all they come up with is subjective human ideas that are easily replaced.

Jesus called it building in the sand and that is exactly what the evolutionist is doing. The creationist is building upon the rock and are not ignorant.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain the  facts and connect the data

What facts? We do not need a human theory to explain anything, we have the truth in Genesis 1. ” In the beginning God created…” There is no need to explain that fact it is self-explanatory. The theory of evolution ‘attempts’ to explain the human invention of how origins took place but that is about it.  Their supposed data is all built upon conjecture, assumption and wishful thinking and without hope of verification or physical evidence. Any evidence they say they have does not exclude God from the picture.

It does exclude their own theory because fossils do not show a timeline nor evolution in action. That part has to be read into the fossil by the evolutionist. Fossils do not provide one shred of evidence for the evolutionary process, its existence or the existence of the idea of natural selection. They are just animals or plants frozen in one brief moment of time and nothing more. Everything is inputed by the scientist, (influenced by their beliefs or non-beliefs) looking at the fossils.

If you think you can do better become a scientist and show us

Such a ridiculous challenge as not everyone can become a scientist and we do not need science to tell us about origins. Origins is in the theological realm not the scientific one and the later is an interloper, going where it does not belong and promoting itself as the authority when it has no right to say one thing about origins.

Origin did not come about via the scientific natural way but by God’s divine supernatural power and science has designed itself to omit such data thus it is looking for the wrong answers, down the wrong paths and in the wrong places.

Science has no business entering the issue of origins as that is beyond its scope and purpose. It is also trying to change what took place in the past to justify its interference. Science cannot verify one thing it claims about origins, it has nothing to offer on this issue thus even a blind squirrel could do better than science here.

If the last couple of hundred years have demonstrated anything to humankind it is this: belief will always lose to knowledge. Speculative superstitions will always prove less effective than actual knowledge.

The problem found here is that this supposed superior knowledge has to be proven to be true first. Not all knowledge is truthful or honest thus such generalizations are just immature and nonsensical.

No true belief has lost to knowledge yet but false knowledge as lost to true belief countless times. There has not been one scientific or archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible false–NOT 1! Claims have been made, based upon those discoveries, that the Bible has been shown to be false but upon further investigation and review, those claims were thwarted and defeated.

The only people using ‘speculative superstition’ are the evolutionists as they cannot verify one claim they make about the evolutionary process or natural selection. NOT 1! Neither exist. Many anti=creationists like to use the term magic for God’s creative work ut the only magic used is used by evolutionists.

They cannot produce the supposed original ancestor, the original environmental conditions, one historical claimed transition, they cannot show the evolutionary tree in action and on it goes. They are using magic and pseudo-science to make their theory seem factual.

But apparently, in Oklahoma, God is a sky ignoramus trying to make sure that he can pull people backwards several hundred years and make sure they remain in ignorance and stupidity.

This is just another ignorant and ridiculous statement made by he author of that article. As I pointed out earlier, there is no verse in the Bible that gives permission for people to use science over God’s word. God did not say processes ‘developed’ all things, God did not say an explosion in space started it all. He said, “I CREATED…” and that is what we are left to choose between.

The truth or the lie. God is truth and does not lie thus evolution had no part in origins, nor did the Big Bang.  But the chose is not between ignorance and knowledge, the choice is between truth and lies. The Bible tells us that the devil is the father of lies and since Darwin and those before him who rejected God and went with an evolutionary idea; they, then, are not of God and did not speak the truth but lied. That makes them of the devil.

God said HE created and we have to choose by faith between the lies of the devil and the true words of God. Those that go with evolution, choose wrong. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2:1 that

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

Evolution and natural selection do not exist and never were a part of origins. What God did in 7 days made everything complete. That means what the evolutionary scientist in genetic experiments are not seeing evolution at work but God’s genetic design, under the corruptive influences of sin, interacting with the chemicals He created in the beginning. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

This means that there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution. This means that there is no such thing as natural selection. it also means that science has nothing to do with origins because God use supernatural power not imaginary natural processes.

God isn’t pulling people back a couple of hundred years, He is trying to pull people back to the truth.

If they “believe” it: it’s true!

No, they believe it BECAUSE it is true. Evolution is not true, it is a lie and comes from unbelievers. The Bible tells us not to follow the ungodly or the unbeliever thus believers need to stop following those who claim evolution is true because they are NOT of God even if they claim to be Christian (exceptions would be those who are new believers who do not know any better)

The author of the article likes to mock creationists but he is the one who has chosen ignorance not knowledge. Knowledge tells us that if God is not correct in Genesis one then He is not correct in John 3:16-17 and in Revelation.

One theory accounts for the data over a variety of different disciplines, and can be used to make accurate predictions. The other begins with a conclusion and randomly selects ‘data’ to support its already made conclusions.

This quote is full of false parameters. God doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible to use a theory to explain it all nor are we to make predictions. Both are non-biblical acts and have no place in the issue of origins or anything biblical.

True believers do not need a theory or a model to explain how everything came to be, that work was already done with the writing of the first book of the Bible.

Genesis 1 does not start with a conclusion, it starts with a revelation of what God did. He, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and other spiritual beings were the only ones present at the beginning, thus revelation, not a conclusion was needed to inform us of what took place.

We do not have to randomly select data, we go with the truth but the only people randomly selecting data are the evolutionist as they toss out or alter anything that shows they are wrong and that their theory doesn’t work. The evolutionist only tells the world the predictions that work but they forget to divulge the number of predictions that do not work whereby they create an illusion that their theory works.

No, those who side with God and the Bible are not being ignorant, are not choosing ignorance nor are promoting ignorance. Instead, they are choosing knowledge and rejecting the ignorance of evolution.

Believing and teaching creation is not ignorance, it is believing and teaching the truth and that is biblical. We are not to be ‘scientific’ in our work or beliefs but were are to be truthful and biblical.

Why No Big Press Releases…

…when biblical scholars die? This is a lament often heard from J. West over at his website as he is jealous of the attention afforded celebrities when they pass on. He usually complains long and hard about the ‘depravity’ of America because they idolize movie, t.v. and singing stars yet give little notice when his favorite theologian dies.

He often notes the theologians passing by putting a blurb on his website, this one is more mild than usual, , and though not this time, he rants and raves about the lack of proper respect for these men and ladies.

But there are many reasons for this disparity. In the next few lines I would like to point those out via a minor comparison.

1st, Most people in the world have at least heard of the late celebrity while very few academics have heard of the theologian.

2nd, the celebrity’s work is seen and heard by millions of people around the world whereas the theologian’s is limited to a very small group of arrogant people who think they own the Bible.

3rd, the late celebrities also have been known for their charitable work, touching the lives of many different people. Some with greater numbers than others. The theologian’s charitable work is not known, if it is done at all.

4th, The celebrity entertains and brings joy to the lives of many people of all ages, and all economic groups whereas the theologian doesn’t bring anything to anyone but his theories and then only to a small group of academically minded people

5th, the celebrity has some sort of religious belief but their work doesn’t alter what the Bible says, nor does it say God lied or try to change Christianity. They practice their beliefs and try to let others do the same in peace, though they may disagree with many of the true Christian beliefs so do theologians and scholars.

The theologian usually claims that God lied, was incapable of writing His own deeds so people could understand it, often try to change God’s word and Christianity. They want their idea of religious faith NOT God’s.

6th. The celebrity is simply a sinner, seeking to find peace in their lives and searching for answers all the while bringing something to his or her fans. The theologian usually is a false teacher who leads people away from the truth and brings no peace and no answers to the hurting people.

These are but a few reasons why theologians, scholars, academics get little press when they die. No one knows them, no one has heard about them and they contribute nothing constructive to the world. They often write lofty treatises using words and sentence structures far beyond the comprehension of the common person thus their message is often lost in their haste to sound important.

The celebrity may not be a perfect person, they may not do theology the way J. West wants it done, or they may simply denounce Christianity but they do contribute something constructive to society. For a few brief moments, they allow the struggling, the sad, the rich and so on, a diversion from their problems and help keep things in perspective.

The one similarity that most celebrities and most theologians shares is that neither are of God. They do not know Jesus as their Savior and they will not find eternal life when they die and that is sad. It doesn’t matter who gets the publicity when they die, that is nothing. What matters is –are they going to be in heaven with Jesus?

It doesn’t matter how many volumes a theologian or scholar writes or edits, nor does it matter how many movies a person has starred in or how many concerts they have given. The reality is if they haven’t repented and accepted Jesus then they are all going to receive God’s punishment.

The Bible tells us what is done for God will last and that is what we should be focusing on, not who hears about which death. Theologians and scholars are not greater than the paupers of Rio or the homeless of Washington, D.C. They will not get a free pass on God’s requirement for salvation anymore than anyone else will. It would be wise to them if they put down their arrogance and seek God while He may be found.

They are not above God just as every celebrity isn’t and their ideas of morality, truth right and wrong are not greater than God’s. They are in no position to judge Him, His Word or His standards. If they are false teachers then they will go to hell just like every celebrity who rejects Jesus and His way.

Yes many theologians claim to be believers, many quote God and expound upon his word. Some even sound like they are truly Christian but a close look at their beliefs and words tell a different story and believers need to be wary. No one should be idolized, whether they be a star or a scholar, because they are not God.

The press should go to Jesus because true Christians serve Him not themselves.

Same-Sex Marriage Revisited

The news came out the other day that the Obama administration was going to support the fight for the legalization of this type of union:

The Obama administration has taken another important step in its advocacy of same-sex marriage, weighing in on an important case to be heard in the US Supreme Court next month.

The essence of the administration’s argument is that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the US Constitution in defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman – specifically Section 3 of DOMA, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages in the granting of federal benefits including Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, insurance benefits for government employees, and filing joint tax returns

In their haste, the same-sex marriage supporters have ignored some important arguments against their quest and here are a few of them:

First, The Constitution of America (by the word ‘Constitution’ I am including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence) does say that ‘all men are created equal’ but it does not say that all men receive the same benefits that society has to offer. A dog catcher is equal to the heart surgeon but no one in their right minds would pay the dog catcher a heart surgeon’s salary or vice versa.

Yes, they have equality but they do not have the same benefits. Thus though the homosexual is created equal with the heterosexual, the homosexual does not get to enjoy the same benefits that the heterosexual does. The homosexual has rejected the normal lifestyle, which includes marriage and child-rearing, by opting to pursue its perversion which means that they have chosen to reject those benefits that come with that normal lifestyle.

Their chosen path makes or offers NO provision for such benefits and there is no constitutional amendment or right that allows for their pursuit of those benefits that come with a normal lifestyle.

Second, we need a litmus test to judge the merits of granting the homosexual community (HC) the right to marry their same-sex partner. I use the word ‘partner’ because the word ‘mate’ does not hold up here.

I suggest 3 criteria to use to examine the HC’s desire to marry:

A. Does same-sex marriage meet the historical rule of ‘becoming one’ with their partner? Upon examination we see that those involved in same-sex unions just do not meet this criteria. Instead, they are just two halves from the same side and they are still missing the vital ingredients that come with marrying someone from the opposite side of the fence.

There is no union here, there is no ability to become 1 whole or complete unit. Something will always be missing.

B. Would same-sex unions contribute to society as a whole? No. If you put 100 heterosexual couples on one secluded island, 100 male same-sex unions on another, and 100 female same-sex unions on a third, and they are far enough apart that they cannot contact or flee to the other islands; then you checked back in about 10-50 years, which one would have made a significant contribution to society in order that it would survive?

Obviously, the heterosexual island would be the clear winner. Now many of the HC side would argue that reproduction is not a requisite for marriage but they would be wrong. Such arguments show the selfishness of the HC as they do not care about society as a whole or if it survives. They just want to practice their perversion.

C. Does love play a part in the HC’s desire to gain the right to marriage? They claim that they are loving couples and they want to spend their lives together, etc. BUT when you examine their arguments, it is not about loving couples being able to marry and freely love each other.

Underneath it all it is about money. Their arguments are about receiving the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. They are not about loving their partners, it is all about greed and what money they can obtain for themselves.

So I would disagree with the idea that their pursuit of same-sex marriage is about love. In fact, I think that argument is a smoke screen to hide their true motives; it is all about money and when it becomes about money love is tossed out the window very quickly. If it was about love then they would not be targeting the receipt of benefits, they would find ways to take care of their partners without forcing their views on others or receiving benefits.

When it is all said and done, the reality is that same-sex marriage does not qualify for inclusion into the institution of marriage. There is nothing noble about it or the conduct of the HC in their pursuit of this inclusion. In fact, the HC has shown that they will usurp the democratic process, the will of the people and that they are willing to abuse the legal system to get their way.

By ‘abuse’ I include the fact that they will seek out like-minded judges to rubber stamp their agenda and by-pass honesty, ethics, objectivity means to come to a fair and just decision. The HC does not care that the majority of people do not want same-sex marriage instituted, in fact they care very little about anything at all except getting their spoiled way.

They do not care that their desire will ruin society and bring destruction upon it. They do not care that their perversion is sin. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it and that tells the rest of us that they do not deserve the right to marry. They do not have the right attitude or motives.

I need to point out one thing

Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history,” the House brief says (from the link above)

If you do not want same-sex marriage legalized, you are going into a very difficult fight and if you are going to fight you will have a battle on your hands. You can’t give up at the slightest sign of defeat. The HC is ready to do battle and they have the money to finance a long war, they are committed to winning which means their opponents must be equally financed and equally committed.

Though the opponents of the HC demand for marriage rights have one force on their side that the homosexuals do not. They have God. Prayer is the first place to start. Pray for the supreme court justices that they will stand against this selfish demand, prayer for the Obama administration that they will see the error of their ways, pray that the congress will find the courage to fight against the HC demand for same-sex marriage.

Then ask God to help you write letters to all the above stating your opposition clearly, intelligently, and wisely. Rants will not work nor will unreasoned arguments. Then continue to follow God’s leading to fight this scourge because same-sex marriage brings nothing constructive to civilization.

The thing is, you can’t lie there and do nothing.

Evolution’s Impossible Problems

In reading the following website several problems came to mind that evolutionists cannot overcome.

#1. They cannot verify one claim they make: Oh, they can go to fruit flies and see different changes but those do not verify their claims. Fruit flies have nothing to do with transitional species or the so-called missing links. They cannot verify that the evolutionary process worked as scientists claim.

All the changes scientists see in fruit flies (or some other popular species used to ‘prove’ the evolutionary theory true) is God’s genetic design at work and how it interacts with other chemicals. The evolutionary scientist has no ancient manuscript that details the evolutionary process thus they do not have anything historical to compare their notes with to see if they got it right.

#2. They cannot observe one so-called missing link transition:  The scientific principle of observation is set aside for the evolutionary theory. That is because they can’t do it for their claims. They think that doing some unrelated test on different animals is proving their claims correct. They aren’t. That is using the dreaded ‘faith’ factor.

What they are doing is saying “Since we observe these unrelated changes here, these claimed changes must have taken place” and that is absurd. Predictions do not help as too many of them fail (which we do not hear about) and do not come close to addressing so-called missing link transitions.

#3. The evolutionary scientist cannot replicate one so-called missing link transition: This is another vital scientific principle given a leave of absence when evolutionary scientists realize they cannot produce one shred of evidence to support their claims. They cannot repeat one supposed transition and if they could it would not be according to their random process they say took place.

It would be done in a laboratory under pristine and non-original conditions, with the aid of an outside intelligent being guiding the process and introducing the ingredients needed to produce the transition, thus even if they could replicate a transition it would still not be according to their theory’s stated process and it would not be a true replication.

These are not the only problems that evolutionists can’t overcome. There is still the matter of the supposed common ancestor. Evolutionary scientists may claim they have found it (which they haven’t so far), but they cannot observe, replicate or verify that claim.

The same with the original conditions. Evolutionists may say they know the original conditions but the 3 problems still exist and are insurmountable for them. There is no record of what the original conditions were thus they are free to say anything they want to but they would not be able to show they are correct

That brings us to an important factor. Without any historical or ancient record, the evolutionist is free to make up anything they want and claim it is the evolutionary way. There is nothing in human records, save for the Bible, to say and show how wrong they really are.

They will make up excuses that the ancients were not smart enough to determine their own origins but if they were smart enough to construct buildings modern humans can’t and they were smart enough to know about astronomy, computers, and so on, then they were smart enough to know about their origins and almost every ancient society has a creation tale not an evolutionary one.

That tells us that the Bible is correct because creation is at the heart of every society not evolution.  Nothing about evolution is true. There are no micro or macro processes, there are no transitions and there are not billions of years to existence.

If you want to know the original conditions that existed at the time when God created Adam, look outside. They haven’t changed, except for becoming more polluted, over the course of history. If you want to know the common ancestor look to Genesis 1-5 and read about Adam and Eve. Then Genesis 6-9 and read about Noah.

Nothing scientists have come up with have altered or changed that record. Too many people are afraid of science as if the unbelievers permeating its different research fields will find some smoking gun and destroy Christianity and the Biblical record. It and they won’t because it boils down to true and false teaching.

The Bible tells us that the unbelievers of the world are deceived and that they hate Christ thus any words from them that contradict the Bible come from deceived lips or minds. Their teaching are not true and not one scientific research field can determine what took place in the beginning. Only God can and He has told us in the Bible.

There is nothing to be afraid of when dealing with science. It is run by unbelievers (and that includes progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists) who reject the truth or are too afraid to tell it for whatever reason they have. They do not have the truth and are doing everything they can to create an alternative to the biblical record. They can’t do it because the alternatives do not fit with reality or the truth.

You need to remember that evolutionists do not use fact or real evidence to make their claims. They use assumption, conjecture, speculation and wishful thinking. They cannot solve the impossible problems.

The Invisible War

It is an Oscar nominated film touching upon a very sensitive subject for some, horrifying for others. You can read about it here and I do not know how long the yahoo link will work

We started to do additional research, and were amazed to find how many men and women had been sexually assaulted … over half a million over the last generation,” says Dick. “And then we were equally surprised at how covered up it had been.”

What amazes me is not the number of sexual assaults, who they are made against or that the military covered them up but that people who reject biblical teaching and Christ expect biblical behavior from those who rejected biblical teaching and Christ.

As a believer I know that sin happens and it is not going to go away and I am not surprised that the military is a place where sin is practiced. Given the reputation of many military men over the past 100 years or so, and how their exploits are encouraged as some sort of ‘coming of age’, ‘badge of honor’ achievement or excused as ‘boys will be boys’ and knowing what the Bible says about how people ‘love darkness rather than light’ how can anyone be surprised?

It is also no shock that the American  military would cover up such incidents. It is a volunteer organization now and enlistment would go down if the bad news got out. The military does not want to scare people away.

What does surprise me is that the people in charge continue to try to solve these problems without Christ’s help. They also expect that men and women imprisoned by their lusts, temptations and encouragement to do evil can change simply by ordering them to change while providing them with no biblical foundation upon which to build their change.

Jesus spoke of ‘building upon the sand’ and this is what the military is doing. They have removed the rock and told their soldiers to build their change upon a faulty foundation, one that couldn’t withstand a blow from a 10-year-old boy.

If the military wants to reduce these criminal acts then they need to bring Christ and biblical teaching into the military. I say reduced because even Christian men are not perfect nor are Christian women and they do succumb to temptation just like non-believers do.

If they want biblical behavior from their soldiers, then the military needs to be biblical and that starts with accepting Christ as one’s savior. You cannot expect Christian attitudes and behavior from those who do not know Christ nor follow him. Nor can you expect soldiers to accept and follow Christ if the officers reject him and his teachings.

Cutting down on temptation would help. Integration doesn’t always work. Mixing men and women into the same unit is only asking for trouble. Putting them in constant contact via different duties is also fueling the fires but this is only a stop-gap measure as one cannot expect moral behavior from people when God’s standard of  morality is dismissed.

Orders and more laws are not going to solve the problem, only Christ can do that.


I am a bit under the weather so I will be brief and do not know how consistent I will be in posting the next few days but I wanted to address the latest article in BAR and you can find it here:

In the little piece offered at that link we find these words

So where is Sodom, according to the Biblical geography of Genesis 13? Sodom and its sister cities are located in the large oval-shaped, fertile plain just north of the Dead Sea called simply ha-kikkar, or “the Disk” (Genesis 13, verse 13). In Biblical geography, this well-watered disk-shaped plain, said to have been located east of the highland towns of Bethel and Ai, was an area “like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” where Lot moved his family after his quarrel with Abraham (Genesis 13, verse 10). It is also the place where the Biblical writers set their dramatic tale of Sodom’s wickedness and destruction (Genesis 19).**

This is just not so. Genesis 13 does not locate Sodom north of the Dead Sea and the Plain of Jordan is not limited to Dr. Collins’ self-made restrictions. {Of course, Dr. Collins has to impose his own restrictions to ensure his theory works} This is what Genesis 13 has to say:

10 Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: 12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. 13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord. (NIV 1984)

At no time does the chapter locate Sodom north of the Dead Sea and to say so is pure bad eisegesis . If one looks closely at the passage, and I point this out as Dr. Collins has insisted in the past that a strict reading of the passage is needed, we find that it does not mention Lot crossing the Jordan River.

Tel El-Hamman is on the nation of Jordan’s side of the river and without that detail being mentioned, there is no biblical support for Sodom being North of the Dead Sea. Most of Dr. Collin’s arguments (and his supporter’s) are based in faulty reasoning not scripture. A lot has to be read into the passages about Sodom to make Tell El-Hamman work as the site of Sodom.

I also need to point out that the words, ‘set out’ do not mean ‘stayed in’ thus room is left in the passage for Lot to veer southerly towards Sodom and avoid crossing the swift flowing Jordan river. he also avoids the loss of livestock and life by not crossing the river where Dr. Collins would have him cross.

Across Tall el-Hammam, archaeologists found widespread evidence of an intense conflagration that left the Middle Bronze Age city in ruins. They found scorched foundations and floors buried under nearly 3 feet of dark grey ash, as well as dozens of pottery sherds covered with a frothy, “melted” surface; the glassy appearance indicates that they were briefly exposed to temperatures well in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the approximate heat of volcanic magma. Such evidence suggests the city and its environs were catastrophically destroyed in a sudden and extreme conflagration**

What Dr. Collins fails to realize is that there are many sites and cities that were burned in the ancient world and discovering cities burned does not make them Sodom or the cities of the plain. He needs more evidence than that and he does not have it.

Dr. Bryant Wood has thoroughly gone through the evidence for the southern location of Sodom and has written about it:

You will need to scroll down to the subsection titled ‘The Evidence’ to see for yourself what has been found in the Southern locations. It is far more convincing than anything Dr. Collins offers up.

From what I have read over at the Tell El-Hamman website, Dr. Collins and his group have failed to find one skeleton remains with burn marks. They should find those within the city walls with ease as there was no one left to bury them after God finished with them. The southern location has several such skeletal remains.

One of the arguments Dr. Collins or one of his supporters have used in defense of their location, {this was done on the now removed forum at BAS} was why would people build cities in such a desolate area that the southerly location now displays.

The answer is, the southern location was not always desolate. It was a rich and fertile land and Dr. Bryant’s article above provides the evidence for that. The area remains desolate because, as Peter said:

if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (2 peter 2:6 NIV 1984)

God left an example for people to learn from. An example does no one any good if it is buried under thousands of years of occupation and forgotten. This is what Dr. Collins and his supporters fail to realize. God had a purpose for leaving the area desolate and people need to learn from the mistakes of those who came before them.

Sodom is not found at Tell El-Hamman no matter what supposed evidence Dr. Collins and his supporters drag out to justify their mis-leading the people. God’s purpose trumps human declarations and we see God sending a warning and letting it remain so people can repent and change their ways before it is too late.

Sadly, people like Dr. Collins do not listen and go running off in another direction while leading as many people behind them as they can. Dr. Collins is completely wrong with his declarations and conclusions about Sodom and he is too stubborn and arrogant to admit it.