Homosexuality Will Always Be Sin

It seems the sports world in America is all afire right now by the confession of a basketball player who plays for a storied team. You can read the story at the following link


keep in mind it is a yahoo link and may not be active for a long time, so here is the player’s name and you can search for the different articles about his announcement:  longtime NBA center Jason Collins.

Why do those who claim to be homosexual need to make such public announcements?  For decades the members of the homosexual community have been  complaining about the violence they endure because of their sexual preference. Their argument against homosexuality as a choice is, ‘why would we choose a lifestyle that brings us so much abuse, hatred, discrimination and violent attacks, and so on?’

So if their lifestyle is so terrible why do these people have this compelling need to tell the whole world about their choice?  They might as well strap a target on their backs  and go into the woods during duck hunting season. They are pointing the arrow right at themselves and saying–‘here I am come get me.’

Here are some things that homosexuality is NOT:

It is NOT…1. …news. No one cares about your sexual preference except for you, your mate, and your parents, possibly other relatives. the world doesn’t care and doesn’t want to know about it.

2. … brave or courageous. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and it is not going away. Any person ‘coming out ‘ is not the first person to declare themselves as gay. This has been taken place for millenia and everyone is used to the idea that some people refuse to be straight.

3. …a badge of honor. There is nothing to be gained by making such announcements. World peace does not hinge upon the idea that each nation needs a certain allotment of homosexuals in their population to stop wars or conflicts. You are not going to get a medal for declaring oneself a queer.

4. …something to be proud of. Homosexuality contributes nothing positive to society or a homosexual’s life. declaring oneself as a gay is not like winning the various marathons, the Stanley Cup, the Presidency. It is a declaration that one is practicing sin and that is nothing to be proud of.

5. …becoming one with one’s lover. Sorry but to be one with a mate two people cannot have the same apparatus on their bodies. It just doesn’t work and the two are not producing what God intended–a joining together as one body and reproducing another human being out of love. Homosexuals can’t reproduce nor can they join together emotionally, romantically, and physically. Doesn’t matter how hard they try to justify their attempts with other ideas, the two remain two separate people and have no hope of becoming one with each other.

What homosexuality is:

Homosexuality is… 1. … an abomination to God. Why is that? Because it is throwing God’s creative gift to mankind back into his face and saying it is not good enough. it is saying God’s way is wrong and that God was wrong for not allowing sexual alternatives.

2. …sin. No matter how many people ‘come out’, no matter if the whole world turns homosexual, no matter if a person alters every translation of the Bible to make homosexuality okay it still remains sin.

God has said what is or isn’t sin and he is not going to be swayed by the homosexual’s argument to the contrary. Yes, you can alter those passages of scripture which speak against homosexuality but God didn’t make those changes thus homosexuality remains a sin.

Billy Graham could stand in the pulpit and declare homosexuality is good but guess what? Homosexuality remains a sin and not good. Why? Because Billy Graham is not God and he does not have the power nor authority to alter what God has declared sin.

3. …abnormal. Yes, it doesn’t matter if lesbians and male homosexuals love each other and live committed lives to each other. Homosexuality still isn’t normal. it is not what God created in the beginning, it is not what he blessed and it is not what he gave the command, to fill the earth to. Those honors belong to the heterosexual couple.

The heterosexual couple is the normal and no matter how accepted into society the homosexual union becomes, it is still not normal.

4. …bad for civilization. Sodom and Gomorrah need to be highlighted here as Jesus said those cities stand as an example and lesson for all generations. Yes, people try to provide all sorts of reasons for those cities destruction but homosexuality was still rampant and part of the reason why they were destroyed.

Think about it. There were not even 10 righteous people in those towns which means that the people of those cities were doing all sorts of evil, probably on the level of the pre-flood society, and homosexuality was practiced in those cities.

God destroys evil. He hates it and he has declared homosexuality evil and sin thus any society calling that preference good is calling sin and evil good and that is a mistake. People should take a hard look at the punishment meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah and change their ways–rejecting evil and repenting from it, turning to Jesus and  embracing his ways.

Nothing good comes from homosexuality but destruction follows it like a dog following a scent. Instead of going with secular society and calling evil good, separate yourselves from evil doers and call sin what it is–sin. Let the world know what is God’s right and wrong and let them make a choice but do not follow the crowd into sin.

God said, ‘he who is not for me is against me’ and those who support homosexuality are not for God at all.

Jesus said ‘let your light shine…’ but it can’t shine if you follow and accept the secular world and its ideas. There is no light to shine in that case.

Coming out is not a big deal. It is not brave because the world supports it. A person is brave if they ‘come out’ for Jesus and stop following the crowd.

The Big Bang Theory- Conclusion

The final chapter of this look at the Big Bang theory has arrived.

In summary, we have made a first attempt at explaining the answers that science has revealed about our universe. Our understanding of the Big Bang, the first atoms and the age of the universe is obviously incomplete.

Science hasn’t revealed anything. According to the article  everything astronomers know is long on speculation and short on anything factual or true. The one thing about having a human model constructed is that if the model doesn’t work, there is no restriction on changing it.

God’s word has restrictions. We are not to add or subtract anything from the Bible and there is good reason for that. If we add or subtract passages of scripture, the Bible ceases to be God’s word and of no use to mankind. We would be reading  man’s words and that wouldn’t help anyone at all.

Humans can change the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution all they want to for all they are doing is changing human words and ideas not God’s. Nothing will change with those alterations because both theories contain nothing from God in them so they really have nothing to offer mankind no matter how many changes they make.

Both theories are designed to deceive humans and have them take their eyes of God and put them on sinful science.

Since its conception, the theory of the Big Bang has been constantly challenged.

It has been and is being challenged because the supporters of the theory have no facts or real evidence to back them up. We have seen how the authors of the article continuously state that what is known is pure speculation so why accept something or listen to it if there is no truth in the idea?

There is no substance to the theory because the astronomers claim to have a 14 billion year gap and if anyone has studied archaeology, they know that archaeologists struggle with getting complete information with a few thousand years gap. How much is missing from the big Bang due to the supposed length of the passage of time?

How can astronomers hope to obtain even one shred of possible evidence, after it has been exposed to the risks that come with existing in outer space? They can’t point to other planets, stars or galaxies for too much data is missing from those objects. The astronomers wouldn’t even be able to say at what stage of the supposed process they are looking at. Oh they can claim they found the stage but their claims can’t be verified.

So yes, the Big Bang theory needs to be challenged because it takes more faith to accept and believe that than it does Genesis 1.

In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.

The discovery of such components of space doesn’t mean the universe came into existence via the Big Bang theory. Such discoveries do not exclude God from creating as he said. Again, there is no way to verify that they helium is primordial or how it got to such remote regions.

Somehow the authors have given factual status to their speculation without proving any aspect of the supposed process the Big Bang was supposed to have followed. They find the existence of a gas and viola their theory is now more than speculation. Yet they do not show how that discovery actually is connected to their theory or if it was formed by the supposed catastrophe.

Too much evidence and verification is missing.

Astronomers using Hubble have found the element boron in extremely ancient stars.

Two things. First, the astronomers cannot prove that those stars are actually ancient and second, the presence of boron means nothing but they will make people think it means something.

They postulate that its presence could be either a remnant of energetic events at the birth of galaxies or it could indicate that boron is even older, dating back to the Big Bang itself.

See.  Speculation at its best trying to con people into thinking they have found evidence. They have done no such thing as the presence of boron doesn’t prove the Big Bang took place. There are far too many other reasons that can explain its existence in those stars.

If the latter is true, scientists will be forced once again to modify their theory for the birth of the universe and events immediately afterward because, according to the present theory, such a heavy and complex atom could not have existed.

This is why believers are not supposed to listen to or follow secular science. hat the secularist claims is truth is subjective and can change to a new truth at any time. That new truth could also change at any time and on it goes. Secular science has no answers for the believer and it certainly doesn’t have the truth- for if it did, they would not need to keep changing their theory every time they discover something new.

Believers do not have to change Genesis 1 every time there is a new discovery simply because the new discovery fits right in with that passage of scripture. God created all things thus we are not surprised to find gases in stars or the remote regions of the universe.

That fact gives believers peace of mind and we do not have to compose speculative theories to explain it all. God did it for us in Genesis 1.

In this manner we can see that the research will never be truly complete.

if it is never complete and it is supported by pure speculation then what good is the research or theory? The theory doesn’t explain anything nor answer one question about the existence of the universe for it doesn’t have the truth and it keeps changing the answers.

That is simply not good and makes the theory a waste of time and money.

Our hunger for knowledge will never be satiated. So to answer the question, what now, is an impossibility. The path we take from here will only be determined by our own discoveries and questions. We are engaged in a never-ending cycle of questions and answers where one will inevitably lead to the other.

But if they attribute the discoveries to the wrong source then they are obtaining the wrong information and not obtaining any answers at all. The book of Genesis is full of answers and once we accept and believe them, then our questions cease and we can concentrate on other areas of life.

I have come to believe that many people are blinded by the words, ‘expert’, ‘science’, ‘scientist’, ‘astronomer’, ‘geologist’ and so on. For the believer, it is not if they are an expert or not, a scientist or not, etc., we must first check the person’s spiritual status and compare their words with God’s. If they are unbelievers and deny the bible then we know that they do not have the truth nor any answers

It is not their great achievements in obtaining high levels of education or do lots of publishing or research, for without God they are blind and being deceived. Status is not the criteria for the believer–the spiritual nature of the scientist, astronomer and so on, is.

God has laid it all out and given us the criteria to use to protect ourselves from false teachers and unbelieving experts. It is up to us to put those criteria into practice so we do not fall away or be led astray from the truth of God’s word.

Yes we can study the stars and the universe and learn how they function but we are not allowed to attribute their existence and content to anything other than God. God is the only source for the existence of all things and as you can see, the alternatives do not have anything but sand to build upon.

The Big Bang Theory-4

Now we come to the authors brief discussion on the age of the universe.

1. If the universe is indeed finite, how long has it been in existence?

Without a beginning marker it is impossible to determine the age of anything. Back in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century there were many articles on different people who did not have any record of when they were born. No one knew how old those people were. Why? because they had no beginning marker or birth year to accurately gauge their age.

It was all guess-work and that fact applies to determining the age of the universe. Oh, scientists and astronomers can do all the calculating they want but that doesn’t mean their calculations or theories are correct, let alone accurate.

The same idea applies to businesses. many corporations or small businesses have little pieces of information tacked onto their advertising–established 1888 or 1910 and so on. We know how old they are because we have a beginning marker to start the calculations. Yet many businesses do not provide that information in their advertising thus we have no clue how old they are.

To determine age, we need a birth year and one does not come with the universe thus astronomers are left to guess and assume. Their calculations will be off because they are missing data. I do not care what dating system is in existence or being used today to mark the ages of the universe or live on this planet, missing data means that the age is subjective to the whims and unbelief of those dating those objects.

Astronomers and scientists have no right to declare how old something is when they do not know and are only using assumption in their guess-work.

2. By applying the common physical equation of distance over velocity equaling time, which again uses Hubbles observations, a fairly accurate approximation can be made.

This actually does not work for it is based only on assumption. One cannot determine age by speed or distance, it is just impossible. If a galaxy is twice as far from one point as another all it means is that it is traveling faster and it doesn’t make it older.

The problem with this equation is that it needs a fixed starting point to measure accurately and since the Big Bang theory does not know exactly where that exploding initial point was located, it is impossible to determine the length of time a galaxy has traveled. If one galaxy is light years ahead of the Milky Way, it doesn’t mean that the leading galaxy is older by that many light years, for one has to take into account the travels and time used by the Milky Way as it moves throughout the universe.

In other words, the leading galaxy and the Milky Way have used up the same amount of time in their travels for part of the gap between them and to ignore that would mean the astronomer is not using all the data necessary to determine length of time each has been in existence.

Plus with no known and fixed starting point, it is impossible to calculate anything with that equation. You can’t use the present location of the Milky Way for that wasn’t the starting point of both galaxies. The actual distance and time traveled by the different galaxies is unknowable and can only be a product of assumption or guesswork.

The equation just does not work and the astronomers are providing people with a false age.

3. An unsuccessful first attempt was made to find these distances through trigonometry. Scientists were able to calculate the diameter of the Earths orbit around the sun which was augmented through the calculation of the Suns motion through our own galaxy. Unfortunately, this calculation could not be used alone to determine the enormous distance between our galaxy and those which would enable us to estimate the age of the universe because of the significant errors involved.

If they are trying to use trigonometry then they are using the wrong objects. An astronomer can’t use the earth and the sun to make their measurements because they are tracking galaxies. They would have to use the Milky Way with another fixed point in space but there are no fixed points in space thus trigonometry will not work.

Even the sun and earth move and are traveling with the moving galaxy thus it is not fixed either meaning that the calculations would be off and it is no wonder it was a failed attempt. Trigonometry demands the use of fixed points not moving ones.

4. The next step was an understanding of the pulsation of stars… With this knowledge, scientists assumed that stars in our galaxy that blinked at the same rate as stars in distant galaxies must have the same intensity. Using trigonometry, they were able to calculate the distance to the star in our galaxy. Therefore, the distance of the distant star could be calculated by studying the difference in their intensities much like determining the distance of two cars in the night

First, the ‘pulsation of stars’ has nothing to do with the age of the universe. A case could be made for the age of the stars but such motion means nothing to the age of the universe. The universe could have been in existence long before the stars came to being thus the measurement is moot and determines nothing.

Second, the astronomers returned to a tool that does not work and used it again. Their thinking is off because you can’t determine the actual distance between two moving cars because that distance is always changing. You can provide an estimate but that is about all. Again, distance has nothing to do with age.

The idea of using ‘intensity’ of stars as a marker fails because it has nothing to do with age either. It only has to do with the mechanics that produce that intensity.  There is no way to measure how long that intensity has been at that same level nor how long it took to get to that level. The astronomers are looking in the wrong places for their supposed answers.

5. Assuming the two cars headights had the same intensity, it would be possible to infer that the car whose headlights appeared dimmer was farther away from the observer than the other car whose headlights would seem brighter.

Their example fails because it ignores the mitigating factors that play a role in the intensity of the headlights. One set of lights may be dimmer, not due to distance but a fault battery, a faulty alternator, a faulty wiring system or even bad bulbs. Intensity is not exact enough to provide the data needed to determine distance and age.

6. By studying the sizes of galaxy cluster that are near to us, scientists can gain an idea of what the sizes of other clusters might be. Consequently, a prediction can be made about their distance from the Milky Way much in the same way the distance of stars was learned.

Prediction is a guess and if they got it right it only means that they got lucky not that their calculations or assumptions are correct. Of course, predictions comes from fortune-telling, a pseudo-science, which means that secularists will use anything to justify their rejection of the truth and support their alternative ideas.

Just because a prediction comes true doesn’t mean that the astronomer or scientist has the correct source for the result. predictions do not exclude many sources from producing the same results, they just mean that the scientist guessed the right way and attribute the results to their favored and accepted source.

In other word, mutations are not a product of the supposed evolutionary process because predictions do not eliminate God’s creative work under the influence of sin and corruption from being the source of that mutation. Yes, scientists attribute the mutation to their accepted and favored theory, evolution, but that mutation does not prove the process of evolution exists or was responsible for the result.

It is only an attributing not evidence. Astronomers attribute distance, velocity etc., to age but in reality they can’t prove their theory of the age of the universe true for the markers they use have nothing to do with calculating real age.

You can’t use two moving objects to determine the age of the third object simply because the existence of the three are not connected. To find the age of the moving planets one would have to go back in time to see the birth of the first moving planet, then calculate the time between that and the birth of the second planet.

While doing that, the universe was already in existence thus the birth of the planets cannot determine the age of the universe. Those events have nothing to do with the birth of the universe or when it took place. They are independent events.

Astronomers can’t go back that far because the galaxies the universe and the planets were in existence long before they were born and they have no tools to travel back in time to make those observations or measurements.

God is the only one who knows when He created the universe and the galaxies. He is the only one who knows where he put them and how far they have travelled and he isn’t talking because the age of the universe, the distance of the galaxies are not the lessons he wants his creation to learn from space.

One of the lessons is that God is more powerful than anything else and we can have confidence in him when things get rough. It is not what or how but WHO that is important.

The Big Bang Theory-3

Now to the third installment of this look at the Big Bang Theory. The third division of the article is titled The First Atoms.

1. Now that an attempt has been made to grapple with the theory of the Big Bang…

The word ‘grapple’ in this use by the authors indicates a struggle between all ideas pertaining to origins yet we see no mention of any other option in this article. It is assumed that the Big Bang is the only way origins took place and no grappling of evidence, facts or opposing ideas takes place.

The whole article simply takes the Big bang theory as actual fact even though the authors continuously mention that the ideas surrounding this theory are all founded upon speculation.

2. the next logical question to ask would be what happened afterward

This question assumes that the evidence for the Big Bang would survive 14 Billion years of space activities. If the universe is expanding wouldn’t the evidence travel along with that expansion and make it far more difficult to piece together?

3. In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe

How do they know it was a complete vacuum? What evidence do they have to prove this idea true? Where is the evidence that clearly demonstrates this evolution? Astronomers saying it is so is not evidence but merely conjecture.

4. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup.

Please produce the credible physical evidence to support this conclusion. How do they know it was a soup-like entity? What made this soup and how was it made? 14 billion years is a long time ago, how can they verify this idea? What real evidence remains to support this theory?

5. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural.

And here we have the confession–they do not know. Yet they talk like they have the truth and fact. They have neither but base their ideas on pure guesswork not science, evidence or rational thinking.

6. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today.

Here is the crux of the issue. They observe what is present today and since the reject the truth must construct a theory to explain how all things came to be. They can’t do that of course because they cannot demonstrate how their theory actually would work and rely upon their expert status and scientific knowledge to fool the common person.

Astronomers, like evolutionary scientists, are working backwards. They are looking at what exists and then try to create their own idea how it all came to be but the evidence we have doesn’t support their theories. They can twist the evidence to say what it wants them to say as they know very few people can refute them and those people protesting can be dragged through the mud in an attempt to ruin their credibility ruining their protests.

People who reject the truth have no rules hindering them from sinning against others in order to get their way. The astronomers and evolutionary scientists reject the truth so they must come up with some sort of alternative and it was once said, and I forget the source at this time, ‘that it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the idea the alternative is, it will be accepted because it has nothing to do with God and the Bible’.

The secularist cannot explain how things came to be because things came to be in a different method than they accept.

7. Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist.

The authors have stated continuously that their ideas were all conjectural so why should we believe them here? They obviously do not know what took place and merely waste everyone’s time with their antics of speculation. Notice no evidence was provided by the authors to support their words.

8. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

How do they know that other particles were dominated and suppressed? Where did this process of creation come into existence and how did it know to affect these particles? Plus where did ‘decay’ enter into existence? Why does it exist? What purpose does it have? If it existed prior to the Big Bang why did the Big Bang take place? Wouldn’t the decay hinder such a catastrophe by removing volatile particles from the mix?

The declared existence of properties do not make sense under the ideas presented by secularists. There is no reason for their existence and no reason they would act in the manner the astronomers declare.

9. As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

The modern-day existence of particles does not mean that existence of everything took place as the astronomers claim. You will notice again, no reference link to any credible evidence to support their idea and no real-time observation is used to support this thinking.

Supposedly, this process took place billions of years ago so how do the astronomers know it happened this way? The process ended long before any scientific experiments or observation could take place. The astronomer cannot point to other galaxies or planets as history in progress because 1. those galaxies and planets are fully formed and show no progress in action and 2. they can’t measure or show any progress taking place in the manner they claim.

There is no evidence for this idea.

10. After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin

Real evidence please. There is no way for the astronomer to know this or that it took place it all. Absolutely impossible.

11. While it is true that much of this information is speculative, as the universe ages we are able to become increasingly confident in our knowledge of its history. By studying the way in which the universe exists today it is possible to learn a great deal about its past

Again the confession but with a disclaimer. They can study the present condition of the universe but that condition does not speak clearly on how things came into existence. For example, you can study the aging house and see how it was possibly built but without observation of the real process you cannot know how the house came into existence.

The astronomer wants people to believe and accept that the universe came into being by a random explosion/catastrophe and then somehow put itself together even though it contained no knowledge of how to do that, had no tools to use or intelligence to guide those tools  nor had any plan to follow.

That is irrational and illogical as that would be like saying the aging house put itself together without tools, without knowledge, without intelligent thinking and without a plan. It just formed itself and that just does not make sense. Nor does it make sense when that concept is applied to the universe.

12. Much effort has gone into understanding the formation and number of baryons present today. Through finding answers to these modern questions, it is possible to trace their role in the universe back to the Big Bang. Subsequently, by studying the formation of simple atoms in the laboratory we can make some educated guesses as to how they formed originally. Only through further research and discovery will it be possible to completely understand the creation of the universe and its first atomic structures, however, maybe we will never know for sure.

What research? The number of ‘baryons’ do not tell how they work or how they came into existence nor what role it played in formation of the universe. It is just a number. Also researching history means that the history researched had to actually take place and the astronomers cannot prove that their idea is the true event.

To find the truth research needs to be done on the actual event and the astronomer can’t reproduce their ideas and see them in action in order to study the process and see if they got it right. They can only speculate and speculation is not truth nor is it factual, it is only a guess.

The Big Bang Theory-2

To start the 2nd chapter in the series on the Big Bang Theory, we turn to the section simply titled The Big Bang by the authors. The link to that section is found in part one of the series and all quotes will be taken from that article.

1. One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

They did get part of it right. The universe did have a beginning, it is not infinite and Rev. 21:1 confirm this:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away

Now people may have a problem with the answer to the question, ‘How was the universe created’ simply because their exposure to the supernatural is nill. They cannot grasp the supernatural at work because they have only been taught the secular science’s view of natural solutions.

True believers know how it was created, God spoke and it was. Hebrews 11:3 confirms this act but we cannot provide any scientific evidence to support that act because God did not create via secular science’s ways or to please secular scientists. He created in a manner to demonstrate who he is and to show how powerful he is.

To demand scientific evidence when all information says to use faith is unrealistic because everyone knows that there is no scientific evidence for the act of creation. One has to use faith and believe God over sinful, secular man. The demand for scientific evidence by the unbeliever is just a ruse as they really do not want to believe in God and his creative work, they just need an excuse to keep on not believing.

2. About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe

To be sarcastic, and I am not usually that way, that must have been something of an explosion to have its blast still affecting the universe 14,000,000,000 years later.  Most explosive affects, the power of the blast, only last for a few seconds not for 1 day let alone for billions of years.

i do not think any rational or logical thinking person would consider that idea to be scientific as it is illogical and irrational to think that the effects of one blast could last that long. But to be fair not every scientist thinks it was an explosion. Most call it a ‘catastrophe’ because they do not know what took place in the beginning.

There is no possible way for them to verify one thing they claim about their idea of the creation of the universe. it i not like these ‘catastrophes’ are happening every day where they can be observed and measured. Then to be clear, there has been no observation of this ‘catastrophe’ at any point in time thus their theory is mere speculation and their supposed evidence worthless.

3. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

That quote is quite self-explanatory and the last sentence applies to the first as well. They have no idea where this matter and energy was prior to their supposed ‘catastrophe’. They can’t prove it nor provide any evidence to show that they are correct in assuming that all matter and energy was centralized and contained at one point.

Their theory here raises two important questions: 1. Where did this matter and energy come from? Did it always exist or was it created?, 2. If it was created, who put there at that one point? Where is that one point in space?

The only reason these questions exist is because the speculation and theories do not provide one true answer and keep producing more problems and unsolved riddles. Genesis 1 answers those questions, matter and energy were created by God and did not always exist nor were they contained at one point in where ever land.

I use the words ‘where ever land’ because the Big Bang supporters cannot explain what entity held that one point in place until it exploded. Where was that one point located because all we see is the universe around us and nothing else.

4. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

This makes no sense because all explosions in all of history have produced nothing like they describe. So how is it that the one event they so desperately need to originate all things act like no other explosion or catastrophe in history?

It can’t but the secularists are at a loss to fill the void they created have gone to the irrational and illogical to come up with an explanation to replace Genesis 1. In other words, they have to contradict themselves to make their theory work. The secularist preaches that science is rational and logical but their explanations and theories deny that claim

5. The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction

Here is the problem with Hubble’s ‘discovery’. He is measuring the movements of the inhabitants of the container then applying those movements to the container itself. That doesn’t work for it is like measuring all the moving cars in, for example, America and then claiming that the boundaries of America are expanding.

That is illogical once again. Hubble did not measure the actual boundaries of the universe thus he really didn’t measure the universe at all. He and all other astronomers have no idea of the boundaries of the universe from their supposed beginning to their actual place right now.

There is no way for them to claim that the universe is expanding because they have never seen it expand not have any way to measure any expansion. It is not like there are signs out in outer space indicating each movement of the universe’s boundaries. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the expansion of the universe theory and moving galaxies are only evidence of galaxy motion, nothing else.

Since astronomers do not know the original positions of the single original point before the ‘catastrophe’ and they do not know the original position of the earth or any galaxy before and after they were formed then they cannot say who moved at what speed to their present location.

They cannot measure the distance because there is no marker to measure from. For all astronomers know, the galaxies and earth have  been in the same position since God created all things. Since we do not know their starting positions, we cannot say that the galaxies have moved at all.

6. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.

This is pure speculation and since it is not coming from the original location of the one point that supposedly started it all the scientists cannot attribute it to the Big Bang Theory. As you can read, the noise comes from all over which tells us that there really was no one physical origination point for it if did, then the sound could be traced to that location.

Logically that would be the solution and astronomers then could prove their theory true but since it doesn’t, they can’t. The presence of the noise is not evidence of a big bang for there is no way for the astronomers to confirm that idea.

7. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation. These fluctuations in the universe provided a more detailed description of the first moments after the Big Bang

First, calculations are not evidence nor are they indicators of what truly happened. They may be indicators of an idea of origins took place they way they claim but the astronomer has to first prove that origins took place they way they said it did and they cannot do that.

All the calculations in the world will not prove they got the alternative origin method correct. They need their alternative to be true so they can prove their calculations correct.

Second, 14,000,000,000 years is a long time for supposed evidence to remain intact. Archaeologists have a difficult time finding physical evidence intact after a few short thousand years or two (give or take a few thousand years) so why do astronomers think they have intact evidence after such an enormous amount of time?

How can they be sure they are recording original evidence that has not been altered by the passage of time and the potentially corrupting influences found in outer space? Why do they assume they have virgin evidence that has not aged or been distorted in some manner?

It is a mighty assumption they are using in their calculations and work. Think about it.

Third, how can they know that after 14,000,000,000 years they can still ‘see’ the first moments after the Big Bang? Archaeologists can’t do it with their discoveries at Pompeii, so why do astronomers think they can see astronomical history from so long ago? They can’t but secularists do not let such minute details interfere in their work creating a human alternative to a divine act.

8. The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial

In other words, they are saying ‘we do not have the truth nor any answers but we will keep changing the theory as we see fit’. The observations they are making cannot be attributed to the Big Bang simply because they have no idea their idea actually took place. They could easily be misreading what they are observing and true believers know that they are.

Just because they may be scientists and supposed experts on the universe doesn’t mean they are right.  A person’s employment and experience do not determine what is true or correct. Truth is truth no matter what position in life a person holds and how much knowledge they have. The trick is to find the truth and one needs the help of the Holy Spirit to do that.

The Big Bang Theory-1

This is the beginning of a series on the The Big Bang Theory as presented by Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein and can be found at this link:


I am not sure how long this series will be but it will follow the divisions those authors have made in their paper and pick those points that are important to discuss.  To do the obvious, this article starts at the Introduction, and as usual, the highlighted points will be quoted and they will all be taken from the link above.

this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind’s quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself.

Coming from a believer’s perspective this curiosity would not be that important, for we know our place in the scheme of things because we accept and understand the Bible. Of course, believers can have curiosity as to how the universe works. There is nothing hindering that exploration but we know our and the universe’s place.

We are all here because God wanted us here and that is an important lesson to all. No matter who you are, how ignored, forgotten, abused, bullied, isolated and so on, you are, you are still wanted by someone.  Even those christians who are pushed aside for the more popular, accepted, ‘spiritual’ people of the church are wanted by someone and that someone is God.

Yet, if you dismiss Genesis 1 then your curiosity is being short-changed because it is not being given all the data, or even the correct information, to search out answers. Your curiosity is then misguided and sent in the wrong direction looking for answers in the wrong places.

Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: 1. How did our universe begin? 2. How old is our universe? 3. How did matter come to exist? 4. Obviously, these are not simple questions and 5. throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation. {Numbers added by me for clarity}

To answer those questions, 1. Genesis 1 tells us how the universe began but if people reject that explanation then they are left with a vast void to fill and no truthful information to fill it. 2. we do not know because God did not tell us and scientists will never find out using their methods because key data is missing from their calculations. Without an actual fixed point in time to work from, there is nothing the scientists can do but guess.

3. This is answered by Genesis 1 as well but since secularists have removed God as the source, anything and everything could be the answer. It doesn’t matter for once you remove the true response you are free to plug anything you want to fill the void. 4. No these are not complex questions they only become difficult because people ignore or dismiss the truth and are searching for some alternative which they will never e able to prove correct.

5. This point reminds me of the person who is desperately looking for their glasses and they scurrying around the house in a frantic search looking everywhere for them. They do not even consider the simplest answer because it is too obvious and simple. They only stop because someone else looks at them and remarks, ‘They are on your head.’

Well to all those scientists running around the world looking for the answers to their questions.’Stop, because the answers are found in the Bible.’ Yes their ideas are mere speculation because not one answer they provide to fill the void, after rejecting Genesis 1, can be verified. Nor can they produce any evidence to support their speculation for any physical pieces they use are subject to speculation. They cannot even prove their evidence is actually evidence for their speculations.

Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses.

In other words ‘we will go with our speculations over anything true. Even if we can’t prove them true.’ Theories mean nothing until they can be verified and the secularist has no hope in verifying one thing they say in the Big Bang Theory.

True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.

Of course they will continue to run into questions because their theories do not provide any real and firm answers. Their theories create questions because the hypothesis do not explain anything. Take for example the answer to Ben Stein’s question posed to one evolutionist in the movie expelled. The respondent said, life came to earth via crystals but he produced no evidence that was so so of course many questions will arise. How did life attach itself to the crystals? Why did the crystals come to this planet only? Where did the crystals come from? and on they go.

When you are dealing with false solutions questions will never be answered but when you deal with the truth, questions are permanently solved.

Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being.

This is understandable and will be taken into account. Although, even with a broader platform false answers will still not solve one question.

It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly.

People call this the strength of science. The media calls it ‘flip-flopping’. True believers in Jesus call it the blind leading the blind. If science doesn’t have the truth yet calls it the truth then it lied and it is not a field that people should be following or idolizing.

You can never know when secular science has the truth because they keep changing what they call the truth. No one can have confidence in science because it can’t determine what the correct answer really is.

This ever-changing declaration of truth only leads to confusion and as the Bible says, confusion is not of God thus the true believer does not follow secular science for it does not have the truth. Genesis 1 has the truth because it has not changed from the beginning. Adam knew the truth, Cain, Abel, Seth and their brothers and sisters knew the truth and Noah knew the truth and it hasn’t changed; even when people like Cain and others dismiss that truth and create false alternatives to it.

The truth is found in the Bible.

Some Comments

#1. Over at James McGrath’s site are a couple of items that need to be addressed. The first is found here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/04/the-meatball-argument.html

If the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist then why are the planets perfectly shaped like meatballs

Artifacts alone do not tell the story for physical objects are mute. They cannot attest to much without written materials to explain their existence and actual purpose. Someone might say that the planets are shaped like bowling balls or basketball thus the reason why we have the activities of bowling and basketball.

We know that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, or the great bowling ball super-power, for that matter, because they did not leave any written record of their existence nor tried to communicate to any human being over the vast amounts of time that has existed  since the beginning.

That communication would have to be verified by both ancient history and modern life. By that I mean that its words would have to have some physical evidence to show that what it says is true and that evidence would have to exist from the past to the present. its communication could not come from one sole source either for if it did we could charge the words with being fake as there is no way to corroborate its message.

For example, the Book of Mormon was the product of one man, Joseph Smith, who said he got it from the golden plates. Yet we cannot verify what Smith claimed to be on those plates because they were supposedly taken back to heaven No one can corroborate what Smith supposedly translated thus we can say the Book of Mormon is false and a fake.

There is also no historical evidence to verify one part of that book. Unlike the Bible,  where we have ancient manuscripts from different places to compare God’s word plus anyone can have access to those documents and see for themselves. The Bible also has cities, nations, wars, and other pieces of physical evidence in the right context, time period and location to verify its words.

Then we have 2,000 years of changed lives and miracles to point to that show that God’s word is true. We know there is no flying spaghetti monster because the shape of the planets are not enough to prove its existence. The same goes for any alternative to Biblical Christianity, they do not have the evidence or the written testimonies to shore up their claims.

#2. The next item up to talk about is found again at McGrath’s site and it is found in the comment section of the article discussing St. George: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/04/happy-st-georges-day.html

do not give up on your assault on young earthers. It is worth it, and it is an encouragement to those of us rub shoulders with them, and have to make excuses for them.

I do not know much about St. George and this was the second time I read about him today. Another mention of him is found over at West’s site as he praises Candida Moss for her ‘myth busting skills’. i also do not know much about Miss Moss but have heard she has found her purpose in busting stories and legends of the past.

Problem is, McGrath and Moss can’t verify their claims about the man. It is possible that their anti-creationist stand is blinding them to the truth and making their work dishonest but their work is responsible for the wrong attitude found in that quote above.

Why do OEC advocates feel that they have to make excuses for YEC people? Why are OEC supporters afraid of the truth? The Bible already tells us that the teaching of the cross is foolishness to those who believe so why pander to the unbeliever and accept their deception about origins and dismiss what God said he did?

We who truly believe will always look foolish to those who don’t so why change our message to fit the culturally accepted secular train of thought? If we are going to look foolish then we might as well look foolish telling the truth instead of compromising what God said in order to appear smart to those who don’t care about God.

The truth is, all God said about when he created was ‘in the beginning…’ and there is a reason for that. When is not important but WHO did it is. If you remove God’s word from the text and insert secular ideas then you are no longer preaching the truth or God’s word, you are teaching false ideas and have become a false teacher.

What is so good or smart about doing that? Why please humans who, as the Bible says, can only kill the body, yet anger God who can kill both the body and soul? Sounds to me that those who change from the truth and go with the OEC thinking or other alternative theories to Genesis 1 are the ones being foolish.

They are pleasing the wrong people.

#3. Again we turn to McGrath’s site for the next comment: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/04/153-fish-the-definitive-explanation.html

Today in my class on the Gospel of John we reached the final chapter. One detail in John 21 that has long puzzled commentators is the reference to 153 fish having been caught. Why so specific? Is there some symbolic significance to the number? If so, what is it?

For the believer there is an answer we can use when we come across or are questioned about difficult passages of scripture. That answer is ‘I don’t know’. As believers we are not bestowed the answer to every problem or explanation for every difficult passage immediately upon conversion.

There are things that we will not know and the best answer to give, instead of fumbling for some weird explanation is ‘I don’t know’.  It is better to say that than provide some untruthful answer because if the unbeliever finds out you lied, you possibly lose a soul. it is best to be honest at all times instead of trying to fake it.

That doesn’t mean that we do not take the time to find out what the correct answer or explanation is. God did say in Timothy to study, Jesus said we are to follow the Spirit of truth to the truth and these passages tell us that there is a lot for believers to learn. Complete knowledge isn’t given magically to a new Christian, we all have to learn from God, wiser and more mature believers and learn how to spot the truth over the error.

We have to grow up spiritually just like we do physically and mentally. Christians who refuse to grow up in all those areas are not going to make much of an impact for God or be of much use to his kingdom. Believers need to get out of the childish stage of spirituality because we are not in a game.

When you realize you do not know the correct answer or explanation to the queries made by unbelievers, simply say I don’t know but I will find out if I can. With honesty you keep the door open in the unbeliever’s heart to the gospel.

If the unbeliever doesn’t accept that response then they are being unrealistic in their expectations of believers. We do not know everything, even I don’t as I cannot give you an answer about why the number 153 was used in that passage right now, thus let’s not fake it or act like it. We deal in truth and real answers not lies and fakes.

#4 Jim west never fails to disappoint in providing examples of what not to do. His latest example is found at this link: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/more-proof-that-americas-gun-laws-are-stupid/

Now the first quote is what he has quoted from another source  and the second will be his own words:

Local and federal law enforcement officials either don’t know or aren’t yet saying how Tsarnaev and his brother, accused of bombing the Boston Marathon, obtained the guns they later used to kill a university police officer and critically injure a mass-transit officer. They didn’t apply for Massachusetts gun permits, as required by state law.

Be honest, does that make sense to anyone?  Anyone?  There’s something wrong with the minds of those who think it does, and that includes the people in Congress who write these idiotic laws (and the NRA which bribes or coerces them to do it).

Now to address the first quote, it seems that everyone but law enforcement and West know exactly where those boys got their weapons. They just didn’t obtain them legally. Yes it makes sense because people who are planning to do things illegally are not going to try to leave an obvious trail to their plans and securing materials needed to do the job.

They certainly are not going to obtain their weapons legally because that would just be dumb and such an action would provide law enforcement with evidence to convict them so West really misses the point here.

He says of those, in the second quote,  who think it makes sense that there is something mentally off with them  and calls the gun laws idiotic and stupid but why? What standard is West using to draw such conclusions? What makes his standard superior to other ones? Actually because West fails to see the other options available for people to secure weapons, he is making himself look like he is really describing his own mental abilities and not other people or laws.

This is something that the believer needs to be wary of doing. Sometimes if or when we attack others we are really describing ourselves to the world. West is really off the mark with his accusations because he is actually showing his ignorance on how laws work, how people think and act, and about the options available to criminals.

Believers really need to be careful about what they say and they do need to install a filter between their brains and their mouths in order to stop themselves from making themselves look stupid or idiotic. The Bible says, we can’t control our tongues but we can ask God for help in doing that and we should.

What we say lasts a lot longer and does more damage than we may realize, not only to the cause of Christ but to our own reputations and credibility. West thinks he has credibility and a good reputation and he may have a few people who blindly accept everything he says but in reality he isn’t as great as he thinks he is. His anti-christian behavior and words ruin anything he may contribute to the world of academics and life.

He claims to be a Christian but you would never know it by reading his materials and that is a big problem not only for him but for true believers. Unbelievers are not dumb. They know how to compare what Jesus said for his followers to do with the words and actions of those who claim to follow him and his teachings.

They may not understand everything about what Jesus taught or what believers act the way they do but they know enough to continue to resist the Gospel. People like West create a lot more work for true believers in winning unbelievers to Christ. True Christians really need to be careful in their commentary about others for you never know who may read or hear what you say and decide against Christ.

Now are Christians going to be perfect in everything they do or say? Of course not and do not place more stress upon yourselves about the above words. It happens to every believer and we just need to admit to the mistake, after we make sure we were wrong, and then make the proper, Christ-led correction.

We do not make correction simply because some believer or unbeliever doesn’t like what we are doing. We make the corrections when we know we actually did something wrong and God is saying make the change.

It is a tricky road to walk as we have to be concerned about the weaker brother but we cannot allow ourselves to become slaves to their immaturity either. Such conflicts provide great teaching moments if the believer follows the truth and not their own desires.

West is just wrong in his judging of others and laws for he is not perfect, he is not God and he is disobeying what Jesus taught which is why I can write these words about his actions. He is showing the world that he doesn’t follow Christ  but his own ideas and he is trying to implement his own ways not Jesus’ and that makes him wrong.